Talmud permits rape of three year old girls

[Miso]

The following passages are directly from the Soncino Babylonian Talmud by Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein on http://www.halakhah.com/. These passages permit adult males to have sex with three year old girls. I have given the links to each passage. How can the talmud approve of this?

1. Yebamoth 57b: A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation; if a levir cohabited with her, he has thereby acquired her[9]

[9]She is deemed to be his legal wife. 

http://www.halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_57.html#PARTb



2. Yebamoth 60a: There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.
                        
http://www.halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_60.html



3. Yebamoth 60b: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest,13  for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phinehas surely was with them. And the Rabbis?

http://www.halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_60.html#PARTb



4. Yebamoth 60b: Consequently21  it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit[22 ]

[22]I.e., one who had attained the age of three years and one day.

http://www.halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_60.html#PARTb



5. Sanhedrin 55b: A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.

http://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_55.html#PARTb



6. Kethuboth 11b: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this,6   it is as if one puts the finger into the eye.

http://www.halakhah.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_11.html#PARTb



7. Sanhedrin 54b footnote 26:  Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three.

http://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_54.html#PARTb



8. Sanhedrin 69a: A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabited with her, she becomes his.

http://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_69.html



9. Yebamoth 12b: From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under,16  or over this age17  must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.

http://www.halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_12.html#PARTb

[muman613]

What are you trying to say?

While it is true that a girl of 3 can be married to a man, she is not ready to have intimate relations. Only when the girl reaches the age of maturity, when she is 12 or 13, is it permitted for her to lay with the man.

While it is true that in the times of the Talmud, approximately 2000 years ago, it was permitted to do this. But today this is not permitted.

This topic has been discussed here many times.

What is the purpose of posting such things. Unfortunately what you write is the same kind of anti-Talmud anti-Semitic lies which Nazis use. I hope that the only reason you wrote this was because you did not understand why the Talmud wrote this.

If you would like to discuss individual statements, we can do that, as each of these has been explained fully. There is nothing sordid about this practice. In the times of the Talmud things were very different than today. People grew up a lot faster and had a lot of responsibility at a young age. Also the lifetime of people was shorter so people got married younger and had children earlier than today.

[muman613]

I also find that you call this rape... It is not considered Rape if there is a marriage. And the ability to marriage at the age of 3 was granted by the father of the girl. This basically comes from the Torah and it is why the Talmud rabbis ruled the way they did.

[muman613]

There are many issues which Sanhedrin 69 discusses, but the concept of marriage is only one... It mainly deals with when a person is considered an adult. It appears there is a discussion of when a boy can be considered a Rebellious Son {A mitzvah in the Torah which we have never been able to carry out}.

Here is the Daf Yomi {Daily Talmud Study} for Sanhed. 69.

http://www.dafyomi.co.il/sanhedrin/halachah/sn-hl-069.htm

SANHEDRIN 69
1) WHEN MAY WE ASSUME THAT ONE IS AN ADULT?

(a) Gemara

    1. 68b (Mishnah): A boy can become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh from the time he brings two hairs (after 13 years) until his beard fills out. This refers to the lower (i.e. pubic) beard, and not the upper one. Chachamim use a clean expression. A minor is exempt, for he is not yet obligated to guard Mitzvos.
    2. 69a (R. Kruspedai): A boy can become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh during only three months.
    3. Question (Mishnah): A boy can become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh from the time he brings two hairs until his beard fills out.
    4. Answer: He cannot become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh once his beard fills out, or after three months into his adulthood.
    5. Yevamos 33b (Mishnah): If two brothers were Mekadesh two sisters, and at the time of Chupah they switched wives, they are liable for Eshes Ish, Eshes Ach, Achos Ishto, and if they were Nidos, for Nidah.
    6. The Tana obligates for all Isurim that come at the same moment.
    7. (Rav Amram): If the girls were spurting Dam Nidah when the boys finished 13 years, all the boys' Isurim, including Nidah, come together. If the girls finished 12 years when they were spurting, all their Isurim come together.
    8. 80b (Beraisa): If a male did not bring two hairs within 20 years is a Seris, even if he brings hairs later. The Simanim are that he has no beard...
    9. Nidah 46a (Rava): A girl may not do Mi'un (retroactively annul a marriage mid'Rabanan) or Chalitzah after 12 full years.
    10. Rava is not in Safek whether she is an adult, for he taught that we need not check a girl above 12. She is Muchzhekes to be an adult.
    11. Normally, we assume that she is an adult. She may not do Chalitzah in a case when we see that she does not have hairs now. She may not do Mi'un, lest she brought hairs after 12 years, and they fell out.
    12. According to the opinion that is not concerned lest hairs fell out, we can say that we did not check her. Rava's Chazakah is for Mi'un (to forbid it). She may not do Chalitzah until we see hairs.
    13. (Rav Dimi of Neharde'a): The Halachah is, we are concerned lest hairs fell out (regarding Mi'un) only if she had Bi'ah after 12 years, for then it is a Safek mid'Oraisa). If not, she may do Mi'un (she is married only mid'Rabanan).
    14. 48b: Just like a man is established to be an adult only through the lower Siman, also a woman.
    15. Berachos 20a (Mishnah): Women, slaves and minors are exempt from Shema and Tefilin, and obligated in Tefilah, Mezuzah and Birkas ha'Mazon.
    16. Sukah 42a (Beraisa): If a minor knows how to guard his body, his father buys Tefilin for him.

(b) Rishonim

    1. Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 2:15): If a boy above 13 did not bring a Siman below, and he brought all the Simanim above, he is a Safek adult. If he was not checked below, since he has Simanei Bagrus above, he is assumed to be an adult.

        i. Rebuttal (Ra'avad): There are no Simanei Bagrus in a boy. There are Simanei Seris, but they do not make him an adult until 20 years.
        ii. Magid Mishneh: I do not know the Rambam's source. Nidah 48b says that there is only one Siman in a man.
        iii. Lechem Mishneh: Nidah 48b equates men and women. For both, the upper Siman helps only if we do not know about the lower Siman.
        iv. Gra (CM 35:5): For a man, surely only the lower Siman helps, like it says in Sanhedrin (the lower beard, and not the upper one; a minor is exempt). It cannot refer to until the lower beard fills out, for we say that this is only three months; the upper beard takes much longer to come. Yevamos 80b connotes that the upper beard can come before lower hairs, but usually the lower comes first. This is why the Rambam says 'if he was not checked below.'

    2. Rosh (Berachos 3:13): Rashi explains that the Mishnah discusses a minor who reached the age of Chinuch. He is exempt from Tefilin for he does not know how to guard his body. R. Tam disagrees, for if a minor knows how to guard his body, his father buys Tefilin for him (Sukah 42a). This is the Shi'ur of Chinuch! Rather, the Mishnah exempts a minor who did not reach the age of Chinuch.
    3. Tosfos (20a DH DH u'Ketanim): The Seifa obligates in Tefilah, Mezuzah and Birkas ha'Mazon. This discusses a minor who reached the age of Chinuch, unlike the Reisha. Alternatively, it applies only to women and slaves.
    4. Question: Why are the Isurim Chal the moment the day begins? They are not adults until they bring hairs after 13. Hairs from before do not help!
    5. Answer #1 (Rashba 34a DH Hachi): We hold like Rav, who says that if a girl brings Simanei Bagrus on the day of Bagrus, we say that she brought them at the beginning of the day (Kidushin 79a). The same applies here.
    6. Answer #2 (Tosfos): Some texts say that the boys' Isurim come at once if the girls were spurting when they turned three years old, and the girls' Isurim come at once if they were spurting when they turned
    12. We need not say that they were born the same day, or that they were spurting the entire time. It suffices that they did not immerse in between.
    7. Answer #3 (Mishneh l'Melech Ishus 4:7 DH Shuv): Rashi holds like R. Tam and the Rosh (Nidah 6:2), that R. Yehudah says that during the Perek (the last day of her 12th year) is like after the Perek. (If hairs were found that day, the child becomes an adult immediately at night. The Mishneh l'Melech's text of the Rosh omitted 'and a day'. In our texts of the Rosh, 'and a day' is in brackets.)

(c) Poskim

    1. Shulchan Aruch (OC 37:3): If a minor knows to guard Tefilin in Taharah, his father must buy Tefilin for him to train him in the Mitzvah.
    2. Rema: Some say that this is only for a boy above 13 years. This is our custom. One should not deviate.

        i. Eshel Avraham (4): If the boy is an adult, he himself is obligated! If he is poor, all of Yisrael (not only his father) are obligated to support him (and buy Tefilin for him)! We must say that he is 13, but did not bring two hairs. Until (he brings hairs or) he passes 35 years, his father is obligated to train him. Bach (DH Katan, based on Tosfos Berachos 20b) obligates also a minor; he must be at least 12, and learns and understands.
        ii. Beis Yosef (DH Kosav ha'Itur): Ba'al ha'Itur says that we discuss a boy past 13 years. He brought a proof. It does not suffice to override the simple reading of the Beraisa, which obligates a minor. All the Poskim discuss a minor Stam (without specifying 13 years).
        iii. Birkei Yosef (6): Tosfos, R. Yonah, the Rashba and the Rosh explicitly say that we discuss a minor past the age of Chinuch! Perhaps the Ba'al ha'Itur learns from Berachos 20a. It totally exempts minors from Tefilin, for the Seifa obligates in Tefilah, i.e. mid'Rabanan due to Chinuch. Tosfos answered this, but Ba'al ha'Itur explains simply. Therefore, Sukah 42a must discuss a boy above 13. Similarly, Rashi needed to say that 'a boy who knows how to spread his hands can Duchan' discusses a boy who brought two hairs, for a Mishnah says that minors do not Duchan.
        iv. Ha'arah 9: Hagahos Ish Matzli'ah says that Ba'al ha'Itur holds that Chinuch applies to an adult son in matters that he cannot do himself.
        v. Bi'ur Halachah (DH v'Yesh): Even though after 13 he is obligated letter of the law due to Chazakah d'Rava, his father's obligation of Chinuch is until we know that he brought two hairs. This is very difficult. When he reaches 13 years, his father blesses 'blessed is He Who exempted me (from punishment due to my son).' Some explain that now the father is exempt from Chinuch (Magen Avraham 225:5)! No one says that this is only if he brought hairs. Rather, for Chinuch mid'Rabanan, we rely on Chazakah d'Rava. The Eshel Avraham did not see part 2 of Ba'al ha'Itur (it was printed only later), in which he says that there was no enactment mid'Rabanan. Rather, mid'Oraisa a 13 year-old is obligated to wear Tefilin only if he can guard their Kedushah, even if he brought hairs. This is like Ba'al ha'Itur, but we hold like the other Poskim that this law applies only to a minor. However, the custom is to be stringent for minors not to wear Tefilin, like Ba'al ha'Itur.
        vi. R. Akiva Eiger (186:2): If one ate to satiation on the last day he was a minor, and blessed Birkas ha'Mazon before dark, and at night the food was still not digested, does he bless Birkas ha'Mazon. Or, does the Torah obligate only one who ate when he was an adult? This requires investigation.
        vii. Ohr l'Tziyon (1:36 DH v'Nir'eh): He asked about one who blessed before dark, for if not, surely he must bless now. If he is not liable mid'Oraisa, he is liable due to Chinuch, even though he is now an adult!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

"Talmud permits rape of three year old girls "

No, it doesn't.

[edu]

Not for the benefit of Miso who is waging a demagogic attack on the Talmud, but for the benefit of innocent bystanders, who may be swayed by his comments I make the following statement.
1] The Talmud does not always deal with the question of how should one act ideally. The Talmud often deals the question, what do we do when people acted in the way that they weren't supposed to have acted, what is the status of that individual? So for example, let's say  a Jewish baby girl, had relations with a gentile {something that no rabbi would obviously permit if he had the power to decide things}. Is she now permitted later in life to marry a descendant of Aharon {Aaron} or not? One view, which Miso brought above, holds that it depends on the age of the girl, when she had relations, with the Gentile. If she let's say was 2 at the time, she has the legal-halachic status of "virgin" according to one viewpoint.
2] The Talmud, Kiddushin 81b states that it is forbidden to marry one's daughter off as a young girl until she grows up and says, in so and so, I am interested in marrying.
The commentaries, do discuss that there were some emergency situations where it was permitted to marry a young girl. For example, in some Muslim countries the Muslims had a rule, that unmarried Jewish orphans could be forcefully converted to Islam. So to save Jewish orphans from Islam they would quickly marry off these orphans to Jewish men.
Another example, in a situation where the Talmud felt there was a high danger of a young girl becoming a prostitute or subject to other abuse, they in some situations allowed an orphan for example, to get married as the "lesser of evils".

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

2] The Talmud, Kiddushin 81b states that it is forbidden to marry one's daughter off as a young girl until she grows up and says, in so and so, I am interested in marrying. 

Wow, I did not know that.  Thanks for your reply.

This guy Miso is an obvious loon with an axe to grind, but you actually summed it up pretty well in a simple way without getting overly technical.  Kol Hakavod.   I agree with all that you wrote here.   Regarding the emergency situations, I have a friend who is a Kordi Jew (Kurdish) and his grandmothers married at age 13 in Iran because if they did not marry them off at that young age, the Muslims would have kidnapped them.   

[muman613]

Kiddushin 81b has some difficult to understand parts. Of course these can further be misunderstood, but let us try to understand them:

Here is the Gemera which edu mentions:

Kiddushin 81b:

.
.
.
A MAN MAY BE ALONE WITH HIS MOTHER. Rab Judah said in R. Assi's name: A man may be alone with his sister, and dwell with his mother and daughter [alone]. When he stated it in Samuel's presence, he said: One may not be alone with any person interdicted in the Torah, [and] even with an animal. We learnt: A MAN MAY BE ALONE WITH HIS MOTHER AND His DAUGHTER, AND HE MAY SLEEP WITH THEM IN IMMEDIATE BODILY CONTACT, — this refutes Samuel? — Samuel can answer you: And on your view, [how explain] what was taught:

‘[As regards] a sister, a mother-in-law, and all other forbidden relations of the Torah, one may be alone with them only when there are witnesses’, thus, only in the presence of witnesses, but not otherwise? But [you must say] it is [a controversy of] Tannaim. For it was taught: R. Meir said: Guard me from my daughter; R. Tarfon said: Guard me from my daughter-in-law. But a certain disciple scoffed at him. Said R. Abbahu on the authority of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, ‘It did not take
long19 before that disciple offended through his mother-in-law.’ ‘Even with an animal.’ Abaye cleared them from the whole field.20 R. Shesheth had them put on the other side of the bridge. R. Hanan of Nehardea visited R. Kahana at Pum Nehara.21 Seeing him sitting and studying while an animal stood before him, he said to him, ‘Do you not agree, "even with
an animal"?’ ‘I was thoughtless,’ he replied.22

Raba said: A man may be alone with two yebamoth,23 two co-wives, a woman and her mother-in-law, a woman and her mother-in-law's daughter, a woman and her husband's daughter,24 and with a woman and a child who knows the meaning of intercourse but will not yield herself thereto.25

WHEN THEY GROW UP, SHE MUST SLEEP IN HER GARMENT, etc. What is the age?26 Said R. Ada son of R. ‘Azza in R. Assi's name: For a girl, nine years and a day; for a boy, twelve years and a day. Others state: for a girl, twelve years and a day; for a boy, thirteen years and a day.27 And in both cases they must be, ‘breasts fashioned and thine hair was grown.’28 Rafram b. Papa said in R. Hisda's name: This was taught only of one [a girl] who is not shy of standing nude before him [her father]; but if she is shy of standing nude before him, it is forbidden [for them to sleep in bodily contact]. What is the reason? Temptation stirs29 her.30

R. Aha b. Abba31 visited R. Hisda, his son-in-law, and took his granddaughter and sat her on his lap. Said he to him, ‘Do you not know that she is betrothed?’ ‘Then you have violated Rab's [dictum].’ For Raba Judah said in Rab's name-others state, R. Eleazar [said] — One may not betroth his daughter while she is a minor, [but must wait] until she grows up and says: ‘I want So-and-so.’ ‘But you too have transgressed Samuel's [ruling], for Samuel said: One must not handle32 a woman. ‘I agree with Samuel's other [dictum],’ he retorted. For Samuel said,

This Gemera mainly deals with the idea of Yichud {Separation}

http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Yichud%20Prohibition%20-%20Part%201.htm

Introduction
It is quite challenging to abide by the Yichud restrictions.  This prohibition restricts a man and a woman from being secluded unless they are married or very close relatives.  Abiding by this Halacha is, however, an essential component in maintaining a Torah lifestyle and Kedushat Yisrael (the holiness of the Jewish People).  In this issue and the next, we will discuss the parameters of this prohibition and how we abide by this prohibition in the modern context.

The Source of the Prohibition

The Gemara (Kiddushin 80b) notes that the Torah (Devarim 13:7) hints at the prohibition for a man and a woman to be secluded unless they are married or very close relatives.  The Rishonim debate whether this is a Torah level or a rabbinic level prohibition.  For a list of these Rishonim, see the Encyclopedia Talmudit 23:634-635.  The Bait Shmuel (Even Haezer 22:1) cites this debate but does not decide which view is accepted.  The Aruch Hashulchan (E.H. 22:2), however, rules that it is a Torah level prohibition.  The Gemara (Sanhedrin 21b) that states that Yichud is a Torah level prohibition appears to clearly support this view (though one could argue that the Gemara means that there is a basis for this prohibition in the Torah).  Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor (Teshuvot Ein Yitzchak 1: E.H.8:4) notes, however, that even those Rishonim who believe that this prohibition is only rabbinic in nature agree that it is a very stringent prohibition, especially since this is a restriction that predates the time of David Hamelech and has a basis in the Torah.
The original Torah prohibition includes only a man’s seclusion with a woman defined as an “Erva” in the Torah, such as a married Jewish woman.  David Hamelech added the prohibition to engage in Yichud with an unmarried Jewish woman (Sanhedrin 21).  Later, Shammai and Hillel prohibited seclusion even with a non-Jewish woman (Avoda Zara 36b).  The Acharonim debate whether an unmarried woman who is a Nidda is included in the original prohibition or is part of the decree of King David (see Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 6:40:8:8 for a discussion of the issue).  The Aruch Hashulchan (E.H. 22:1) rules that that type of woman is included in the original prohibition.  The Mishna Berura (75:17) seems to agree.