A translation of this religious lesson in Hebrew by this esteemed Rabbi:
The Talmud states: The early scholars said that homosexuality and bestiality are incomparable.
Because in the case of bestiality, it makes no difference how old the animal is (so, anyone who has sex with an animal must be punished).
But with homosexuality, there is a debate relating to the age of the male who is being raped.
According to one rabbinic argument, if the child is older than nine years and one day, then the rapist must be punished. But if the child is younger, then the rapist is not subject to punishment.
Why? Because just like for it to be considered sex, the person having sex needs to be older than nine years and one day, so too, for it to be considered an instance of rape, the victim needs to be at least nine years and one day.
By contrast, a different rabbinic argument contends that even if the child is under nine years and one day, the rapist still must be punished - however, if the child is younger than three years and one day, then the rapist should not be punished.
Why? Because the Bible states that males should not have sexual relations with each other as they do with women. And a woman is not considered having sex if she is younger than three years and one day. Therefore, having any form of sex with a child under the age of three and one day isn't really considered having sex, and therefore is not considered a sin. And therefore, the rapist should not be punished.
There is so much wrong with this.
The Talmud states: The early scholars said that homosexuality and bestiality are incomparable.
Because in the case of bestiality, it makes no difference how old the animal is (so, anyone who has sex with an animal must be punished).
But with homosexuality, there is a debate relating to the age of the male who is being raped.
According to one rabbinic argument, if the child is older than nine years and one day, then the rapist must be punished. But if the child is younger, then the rapist is not subject to punishment.
Why? Because just like for it to be considered sex, the person having sex needs to be older than nine years and one day, so too, for it to be considered an instance of rape, the victim needs to be at least nine years and one day.
By contrast, a different rabbinic argument contends that even if the child is under nine years and one day, the rapist still must be punished - however, if the child is younger than three years and one day, then the rapist should not be punished.
Why? Because the Bible states that males should not have sexual relations with each other as they do with women. And a woman is not considered having sex if she is younger than three years and one day. Therefore, having any form of sex with a child under the age of three and one day isn't really considered having sex, and therefore is not considered a sin. And therefore, the rapist should not be punished.
There is so much wrong with this.
RSS Feed