+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

IDF colonel-rabbi implies: Rape is permitted in war

Answering a question from a concerned reader regarding the Torah’s position on rape during war, Colonel Eyal Qarim of the Military Rabbinate wrote nine years ago – out of uniform – that ‘prohibitions against immorality’ are removed during war.

Is it permitted for a Jewish soldier to rape a gentile woman during wartime? This question – based on the biblical mitzvah of Eshet Yefat Toar (“a comely woman”) – was referred to nine years ago (Hebrew) by Rabbi Eyal Qarim. The questioning party seemed anxious and worried, and wanted to know whether the iron-age mitzvah (religious deed) is applicable to IDF soldiers today.

UPDATE: Following comments doubting whether rape was the issue of the Rabbi’s answer, I post here the question that he was asked:

Is it allowed in our days [sic] for an IDF soldier, for example, to rape girls during a fight, or is such a thing forbidden?

Rabbi Qarim answered thus:

“The wars of Israel […] are mitzvah wars, in which they differ from the rest of the wars the nations wage among themselves. Since, essentially, a war is not an individual matter, but rather nations wage war as a whole, there are cases in which the personality of the individual is “erased” for the benefit of the whole. And vice versa: sometimes you risk a large unit for the saving of an individual, when it is essential for purposes of morale. One of the important and critical values during war is maintaining the army’s fighting ability […]

As in war the prohibition against risking your life is broken for the benefit of others, so are the prohibitions against immorality and of kashrut. Wine touched by gentiles, consumption of which is prohibited in peacetime, is allowed at war, to maintain the good spirit of the warriors. Consumption of prohibited foods is permitted at war (and some say, even when kosher food is available), to maintain the fitness of the warriors, even though they are prohibited during peacetime. Just so, war removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations (gilui arayot in the original – YZG), and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge (yetzer ha’ra in the original  -YZG), under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.”

Wow. Herein lies a hornet’s nest. The first is that according to Qarim, the rape of female prisoners is not just permitted, it is also essential to war; the success of the whole at war relies on it. Even Genghis Khan, who (according to tradition) said that the best thing in the world is “to crush your enemies, to see them fall at your feet — to take their horses and goods and hear the lamentation of their women. That is best” – even he, who excelled at rape, did not see it as essential to warfare, just a satisfactory outcome. Stalin, likewise, dismissed complaints about rapes carried out massively by the Red Army by saying “a soldier has urges,” but he did not see it as an essential element of military life.

Qarim came up with a new military doctrine, which replaces Napoleon’s: an army marches on its phallus. According to this logic, perhaps the IDF should appoint to each unit not just a supply officer, but also a Comely Woman Officer (CWO), to make certain no soldier is left unsatisfied.

Another problem is that Qarim invokes here the usual apologetics of those who speak of “Jewish morality”: he claims war is a conflict between nations, not individuals, and that the individual has no importance at war. The raped woman is not a woman, is not a person, has no feelings and if she feels pain it is unimportant: she is not a woman or a person, just an individual of an enemy tribe whose misfortune was to be captured. Furthermore, Qarim says that rape during wartime is immoral if carried out by a rival tribe – but all Jewish wars are, by definition, mitzvah wars. If the rape of the defenseless is part and parcel of “Jewish morality,” it’s not hard to reach the conclusion it is inferior to all modern morality systems. It is also worth noting (Hebrew) that “Jewish morality” is a by-product of German blood and iron romanticism.

Yet a third problem is that, essentially, Qarim says there is nothing which may be prohibited in war, if it is done “for the success of the whole.” We know that the killing of armed combatants is permitted (this is, after all, the essence of war), and we now learn that, for His Blessed Name, the rape of women is also permitted. Then we must ask ourselves whether it is also permitted, for the sake of victory, to also kill unarmed people. Children, for instance, who we have good reason to think may seek one day vengeance for the death of their fathers and brothers and the torturing of their mothers and sisters. The notorious book “Torat Ha’Melekh” answered in the affirmative; it would be interesting to know what Qarim thinks, and whether there is anything he thinks a Jewish soldier ought not to do for victory.

But the real problem here is that Eyal Qarim is an IDF colonel (Aluf Mishneh), and is a senior officer in the Military Rabbinate, i.e. is in a senior position in the IDF religious edicts apparatus. I’ve sent the following questions to the IDF Spokesman:

  1. Is the rape of women during wartime agreeable to the IDF Ethics Code?
  2. If not, why does a prominent military rabbi promote it?
  3. If not, does the IDF intend to end the service of Col. Qarim, or bring charges against him?
  4. How does the IDF Spokesman intend to deal with the anticipated damage to its image in the international arena, resulting from Col. Qarim’s ruling?

Frankly, I did not expect an answer, but surprisingly enough an enraged officer from IDF Spokesman New Media Unit called me. His official response was that Qarim was not an officer in active service when he wrote that ruling, and furthermore that my question “disrespects the IDF, the State of Israel and the Jewish religion,” and hence his unit will no longer answer my questions.

I told him that, as an Israeli citizen, I considered Col. Qarim to be a ticking time bomb, which will blow up in the IDF’s face should a soldier rape an enemy woman: it would automatically be seen as official policy. I told him this happened in the past. He vehemently denied it, and wouldn’t listen.

I think that the fact that Qarim was on hiatus at the time – earlier he was the religious officer of a crack unit, Sayeret Matkal (commando unit) – is unimportant. What is important is that the Military Rabbinate chose to re-call an officer who wrote such a ruling to active service. Qarim was briefly considered a candidate for the position of the Chief Military Rabbi. This is the face of the IDF in 2012, and this is the face of the rabbis it chooses to employ. There are certainly more humane rabbis than Qarim; yet somehow these are not the rabbis who are promoted.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Anonymous

      Wow, there’s a lot of spin here. The rabbi says soldiers can “fraternize” with gentile women and have sex with them. There is nothing in his words about rape.

      Reply to Comment
      • Enara

        But the question she asked him was specifically about RAPE, not “fraternizing.” Why would he respond to a question about rape by talking about simply fraternizing?

        It’s called common sense.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Anonymous

      Nine years ago? Out of uniform?

      Nice spin, 972.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Nice spin, Hasbara troll. Did they lack for rabbis, that they had to recall this particular rabbi to service, and promote him?

      Reply to Comment
    4. Anonymous

      Yossi, nowhere in this article does he even say that it’s permissible to rape anybody. The word “rape” (or any variation thereof) appear in the quoted paragraph.

      If you asked any single officer, soldier or general of the IDF if it’s okay to for soldiers to rape Arabs, do you really think they would say “okay,” because this rabbi said so?

      The truth here is that 972 got a “gotcha” story and is spinning it like a carousel to get the readership’s blood boiling. But you don’t have to follow them.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Anonymous


      I didn’t realize you were the author. Excuse me. In that case, shame on you for spinning this story and trying to make a “gotcha” point. I can’t read Hebrew so maybe I’m wrong but in your English translation he doesn’t say “rape is permitted in war.” Why are you spinning? Do you just hate the IDF or something?

      Reply to Comment
      • Proud Hasbare Troll

        The fact that the author of this piece calls someone who challenges the article “hasbara troll” really tells you all you need to know about his motivations. Not surprising at all with this site.

        Reply to Comment
    6. Hasbara trool, the word rape (o’nes) appears twice in the question. Obviously the rabbi will not use the loaded term, and would use a euphemism. Nice attempt at spin.

      Reply to Comment
      • the other Bob

        Maybe. but, your interpretation that the rabbi condoned rape in war is an assumption on your part. I could just as easily interpret the rabbi to have meant that he’s not comfortable talking about rape and came as close as he could, talking about sexual relations. My point is that there is more than one interpretation. the fact that you won’t even concede the possibility proves you’re just a virulant anti-Semite bigot. You see only what you wish to see and what you wish to see are violent evil Jews. The fact that none of the crimes you’d like to believe the Israelis have committed have ever been proven, yet those same crimes are routinely committed by Arabs doesn’t deter you in the slightest. Interesting.

        Reply to Comment
    7. Qula

      Not surprised. Invading IDF raped women in our village back in ’48.

      I understand that rape occurs in war.

      I don’t understand religious people advocating or justifying it.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Anonymous


      I would appreciate if you stopped calling me “hasbara troll” just because I disagree with you about this. Is this the kind of polite discourse that is accepted by 972? I have not seen other writers behave like this in other articles.

      “Obviously the rabbi will not use the loaded term, and would use a euphemism”

      So you admit he did not explicitly say IDF soldiers can rape, and your interpretation of his words is just that, an interpretation?

      Would you mind changing the headline and article to reflect this?

      Reply to Comment
    9. XYZ

      As someone who claims to have a religious educational background, you would certainly be aware of the “yefat to’ar” (woman captured in a battle) which is discussed openly in the Torah. As Anonymous pointed out, Rav Qarim doesn’t say rape is permitted, he does say the woman can be taken by the soldier under certain circumstances (“specific terms”). In any event ALL religions, in the original sources have all sorts of things that grate on modern sensibilities. The question is not what Rav Qarim says, the question is what is the policy of the IDF and the Rabbis who advise the religious soldiers in the IDF, and that is a policy AGAINST rape.
      If you recall, a Progressive professor at Hebrew University wrote a paper a few ago and said the reason that rape is pretty rare in the IDF is because the soldiers are supposedly “Racists”. So for you Progressives, we Jews can’t win…if we DO rape we are bad and if we DON’T rape we are also bad.

      Reply to Comment
      • Hank

        Any reason or excuse for refraining from rape is good enough. The person who might have been raped hardly cares why she (or he) was not raped.

        Reply to Comment
    10. Benji

      Anonymous can read, but he/she obviously has a hard time understanding what he/she reads … If that was so he/she would be able to understand that even though the rabbi in question didn’t use the word, he affirmatively replied to a question using the word rape… He was asked: “is it allowed to rape?” he answered “yes” … how hard is it to get that? only a dummy would actually ask the author of the article to change his title.

      Good article. I’d advise though to use another picture where we don’t see faces. I find it a little prejudicial (to the cute soldier) to have this picture showing him and the caption “is he allowed to rape” … Some people may misinterpret it, and see it as the picture of someone who believes he’s allowed to rape.

      Reply to Comment
      • In modern medieval Judaism we are not talking about a “master race” but a “master species” so the question of “rape” does not even apply. It is more a matter of permitting the IDF to engage in bestiality.

        “The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: ‘Let us differentiate.’ Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of ‘let us differentiate’ between totally different species.

        This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of all nations of the world. The entire creation exists only for the sake of the Jews.”

        Rabbi Menachem Schneerson

        Washington Report of Middle East Affairs, MARCH 2000, p. 105-106

        “The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse “whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses” is applied to them…

        Therefore, the concept of adultery does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality… ”

        Professor Israel Shahak

        Of course the good rabbi is being disingenuous. Christians share the same Old Testament – actually more faithful to the original Hebrew – and we know that the Levites, after resurrecting Moses, put these words in his mouth.

        “And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

        Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

        But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. ”

        Hence, the original “Torah” only permitted the rape of little girls – whose virginity would come back according to the Talmud.

        Reply to Comment
    11. aristeides

      “The wars of Israel […] are mitzvah wars, in which they differ from the rest of the wars the nations wage among themselves.”

      Wow! Exceptionalism raised to the raping point!

      Reply to Comment
    12. Anonymous

      Hey Benji,

      Looks like the editors of 972 agreed with me.

      Reply to Comment
    13. alessandra

      rabbi or not, is this article trying to say that Israeli army raped or is still raping Palestinian women?

      Reply to Comment
    14. Arthur

      It seems as if the context is being used to make this seem far worse than it is. The rabbi was questioned about the commandment of “a comely woman”, which makes a point of requiring that the woman be taken to the man’s home, shave her head and pare her nails (thereby making her less attractive), and that the man wait for a month (to see if his desires endure). Hardly an endorsement of rape in the field as this article seems to interpret it.

      “When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”

      Reply to Comment
    15. David

      Alessandra – seriously? the answer is a definite no. I think that what it’s trying to do is warn about having a person like Qarim serving in the IDF. As mentioned, this text was written when he was not in service, and represents a twisted view and a dark opinion. Mr. Qarim neglects to educate his readers about what’s -wrong- with war and instead meddles with petty stupid stuff.

      Reply to Comment
    16. Sigh. We used to hear so much about “purity of arms” that it made doubters sick. Now are we to hear of “purity of” — well, you know what’s ?? And are female soldiers allowed — by the good rabbi — to rape / fraternize with the enemy, too? FOR THE GOOD OF THE WAR EFFORT, OF COURSE!

      Of course!.

      ALSO : How can it be that EVERY war of Israel is automatically a “mitzvah war” ? Even a war of choice not responding to a danger?

      And how about rape/fraternizing (with Jewish zealots) when IDF is “forced” to attack Jewish zealots who are being removed by court order from outposts in OPTs?

      Reply to Comment
    17. “As Anonymous pointed out, Rav Qarim doesn’t say rape is permitted, he does say the woman can be taken by the soldier under certain circumstances (“specific terms”).”

      Rape is not permitted… except under special circumstances. So it IS permitted under those circumstance.

      The man was asked specifically about the applicability to the current day and situations at hand. **Nowhere** did he make the slightest effort to qualify his answer and say that the permission is not applicable today.

      Reply to Comment
    18. L Taylor

      Eventually the entire 972 website will just be a graphic of a Hassidic Jew in an IDF uniform bludgeoning a Palestinian child with a giant swastika.

      On an actual news website the picture of the Magavnik would probably have a caption saying that “the above picture has no connection to this article”. Unless, of course, Mr. Gurvitz saw the Magavnik rape the elderly Palestinian woman in the photo. Next time, put down the camera and help her!

      Reply to Comment
    19. Steve

      It seems like Yossi Gurvitz is doing what he’s done with his other articles and trying to make something about Israel seem worse than it really is.
      This article is a giant dishonest anti-Israel spin. The rabbis quotes don’t say anything about rape being OK.

      Reply to Comment
    20. Steve

      I bet the actual literal word “rape” (to have sex with a woman without her consent) wasn’t even really used in the question.

      Reply to Comment
    21. alessandra

      so this article to me is what I call in Italian “arrampicarsi sugli specchi”, to climb on a mirror or on a glass and doesn’t not tell me so much. but i’m just an ignorant and i’m not so prepared on the issue. good evening everybody

      Reply to Comment
    22. Igor

      Yossi, I’ve always thought that “gilui arayot” is translated as incest.

      Another interesting question is whether it is also permitted to rape enemy soldiers or animals (for the good of the army of course).

      And what about the Commandments? I assume, they all are cancelled in the time of war – it’s allowed to kill (of course), to steal (naturally), not observe shabbat (this one seems too much)…
      This ruling opens the way to many other questions.

      Reply to Comment
    23. Steve

      The quotes are 9 years old, translated badly, and taken out of context.

      Reply to Comment
    24. Igor

      @STEVE, the word “rape” (אונס) appears 3 times in the question.

      Reply to Comment
    25. Steve, this is the height of chutzpah. You don’t know enough Hebrew to identify the word for “rape” (אונס), and you have the temerity to speak of “bad translation”? And no, it is not taken out of context, this is vast majority of the reply.

      Reply to Comment
    26. Igor, “gilui arayot” has both a modern and archaic meaning. The modern meaning is indeed “incest”; the archaic one, used in rabbinical texts, is wider and denotes much of the sexual spheres. It is one of the third “die and refuse” taboos, and as such it prohibits, for instance, the rape of a Jew.

      Reply to Comment
    27. Rentsy

      This line is particularly off:

      “according to Qarim, the rape of female prisoners is not just permitted, it is also essential to war”

      That is simply not true. He is speaking of permission to have sex with a non-Jewish woman, written in the Torah, not an obligation or essential part of war.

      Furthermore, the mitzva of “eshet yafat to’ar” is not “to rape non-Jewish women,” the mitzva is a set of guidelines for a female captive to convert to Judaism.

      Why is that the case? That leads to another point. The laws of the Torah are not like secular law. Secular laws are intended to be high-minded guidelines, and it is known that some people will break them. The Torah is intended to be kept 100% by everyone. Therefore, since during wartime, men do indeed desire women, if this area of human living was left unregulated, rape would indeed occur. But instead, the Torah commands that she be taken prisoner, left alone, treated with respect, and then given the option of conversion. You have only to look at Africa to see cultures that do not have the Torah, and still go to war and rape women. Then you would see how the Torah is designed to practically and actually constrain the sexuality of men in wartime, and through its structure, actually prevent rape.

      Reply to Comment
    28. Devin

      Who are these people? It does not matter he is out of uniform, for gad sake he calls himself rabbi. This much violent, he gives order to IDF go ahead and rape wemon, just because they are in war. Wemon should stand up and forcefully defend their rights. I am so sorry to read some of these comments who accuse 972 and do not condemn the so call Rabbi.

      Reply to Comment
    29. Ben

      Wow. I didn’t think I could find an article that combined bad research, flat-out lying, and a “who the fuck are you to contradict my bad research and flat-out lying” attitude to this degree outside of either Mondoweiss or the Huffington Post. I’m impressed, Yossi!

      Reply to Comment
    30. Arieh Zimmerman

      Is the Rabbi prostituting himself and his religion?

      Reply to Comment
    31. Ben, fiat authority is not accepted here. Back your accusations of lying and/or shoddy research up or kindly STFU. Most obliged.

      Reply to Comment
    32. Rentsy – he’s saying that giving permission for rape is essential to preserve morale. Not that one MUST do so, but that one must be ALLOWED (under certain restrictions etc etc) to do so. And once again: He was specifically asked about applicability to current times. He utterly declined to say that there is none.

      Reply to Comment
    33. Ish Yehudi

      Mr. Gurvitz= this is a bit too far. I don’t want to go one by one on your points-
      but your assertion that the rabbi said satisfying sexual urges in rape is “essential to the war effort” and thus allowed is patently not what he said. To then go on an assert that Genghis Kahn and Stalin are in better moral stead than the IDF is ridiculous.
      The rabbis’ discussion of the klall trumping the yachid in war is explaining why an individuals spiritual life (their kashrut etc) may be exempted when fighting for the sake of the klall. The parsha of eshet y’fat toar… is another case entirely- one which as Rashi comments on the Torah there- is about dealing with the passions and physical temptations that can come about in battle.
      As your friend on Kedem wrote–
      “To be fair, for that era that was advanced morality. Nobody else prohibited any treatment of war captives at all. Woe to the conquered was the universal standard, and conquering kings gloried in the trampling of their enemies and rape of their women. The Torah said that even in war actions have consequences, and equaled the penalty of rape at war with that of rape of your neighbors daughter: You had to marry her, and you even had to give her a fortnight month to grieve for her lost family.” Meaning- the Torah is being honest about where people can fall to and trying to work from there.
      And to top it off, according to Kedems translation (because I can’t find the original hebrew for myself) the Rabbi closes by saying that this “was” the law! Meaning he clearly wasn’t saying what the IDF allows now (as our friends at large will surely walk away repeating) but that in ancient times, this was indeed the law.
      Your veneer of caring for the well-being of the state of israel in your impassioned warning to the IDF officer who responded to you is surely born out by the article you maliciously write to shame your people and your tradition. Why not think and write constructively? As you are well versed in the tradition, why not quote and live according to? the only way to fight darkness is with light… which maybe i’m failing at here too but thats’ me giving into my evil urge at battle…

      Reply to Comment
    34. AMIR.BK

      I do think there is some ‘misrepresntation’ here, Rabbi Qarim doesn’t flat out say ‘rape is essential during war’ he does say that ‘tolerating rape’ is indeed a neccesity. basically he says that a soldier that does evil things while waging war for israel is not a sinner and thus actually provides comprehensive approval for war crimes perpetrated by jewish soldiers.

      Reply to Comment
    35. AMIR.BK

      Jewish Man: The original hebrew is linked to on Yossi’s hebrew blog, it’s not such a huge undertaking to find it:
      in anyway, the Q&A clearly refers to the IDF in modernity and the good rabbi doesn’t bother to qualify his answer with the preconditions you think he did.

      Reply to Comment
    36. sh

      Elsewhere I read that Rabbi Krim says that in wartime combatants may also eat food forbidden to Jews and drink wine forbidden to Jews. What it all seems to boil down to is that wartime relieves Jewish fighters and resisters of all the responsibilities of being Jewish. No wonder Israel, whose wars by definition will always be mitzva ones, doesn’t want to give war up.
      I’ve been floundering around for decades trying to understand what I’m seeing here in relation to what I thought was Jewish and moral. This answers all my questions. Thanks, Yossi Gurvitz!

      Reply to Comment
    37. “And to top it off, according to Kedems translation (because I can’t find the original hebrew for myself) the Rabbi closes by saying that this “was” the law! Meaning he clearly wasn’t saying what the IDF allows now ”

      No, you read it wrong. I didn’t translate “The Torah once allowed”. It says “has allowed”. Past progressive. Allowed and still allows. Again, he was asked point blank: Does this apply to a current IDF soldier. He does not say no. Not even close.

      Reply to Comment
    38. Ben

      Well, he obviously lied about the word “rape” in both the original statement and what he thinks it was referring to (the most charitable view is that he decided “evil urge” could not have meant anything else because nothing else would fit into his linear analytical path on this particular piece), and as for the fuck-you attitude, the “hasabra trolls” bit highlights that a little bit, not least because 972 had to pump the breaks and qualify their original, much-Twittered, breaking-news headline.
      But thank you for being rude, and pointing out that fiat authority doesn’t exist on this site, even if most of the people who write here and many of their commenters don’t see it that way. Hope you’re willing to swallow your own medicine in this regard.

      Reply to Comment

      Yossi, is there a problem of Jewish soldiers raping non-Jewish women in Israel? An Israeli graduate student claimed that the absence of any history of rapes of Arab women by Israeli Jewish soldiers proves that the Jews are racists and oppressors, people who do not even regard Arab women as sexually desirable. You can never please the leftists can you?
      I also find it fascinating that in your list of historical attitudes toward rape, you don’t mention Muslims and their prophet. If you read Muslim scriptures, Mohammed and his followers engaged in precisely the kind of activity that we would today classify as rape. In fact, you can look up Muslim activist Salwa Al-Mutairi on Youtube who advocates sexual slavery of non-Muslim women (which amounts to repeated and systematic rape). But somehow, leftists feel at liberty to criticize any religion but Islam. Is it fear? Perhaps it’s just nihilism that makes you and the likes of you turn on your own cultures.
      Are you truly concerned about the possibility that this halachic ruling might cause someone to do something crazy? Maybe, just maybe your post is a continuation of your leftist Jihad against your own kind?

      Reply to Comment
    40. “Well, he obviously lied about the word “rape” in both the original statement and what he thinks it was referring to”

      No, not so. The original question mentions rape three times. The answer does not deny that the action referred to is rape, and the original torah section makes it clear that the woman’s preference is utterly immaterial. The original Torah even makes it clear that by “taking her as a wife” you were “abusing her” (עיניתיה).

      Poltergeist – no, there isn’t. In fact, rape is one of the few war crimes where Israel really does rank highly in the relative paucity thereof. However, such a ruling is still problematic. Used to be that we didn’t have 2 soldiers using a 9 year-old as a human shield and their entire unit failing to understand why they were (very lightly) punished for it, either.

      Reply to Comment
    41. ish yehudi

      AmirBK: in regard to the rabbis piece– yes i agree he did not address at all what applies to the IDF today- i’d imagine because he assumes its abhorrent and obviously a crime- as I’d interpret the IDFs response to Yossi Gurvitz query– raising the question that it could be allowed by the IDF is so clearly baiting. but you’re right, as most of the commentors on the original post decried- he should have categorically made it clear.
      Rechavia- the “it was allowed” quote is from Yossi’s english translation.. which in its context shows the rabbis was talking about the torah law then, not the IDF today. but the main point i want to make is just what is the purpose of these articles?
      Can Yossi Gurvitz explain to me his motivation in writing such a piece? I don’t know the details of R Karim’s career- i don’t know what else he said/did… but the insinuations in this article, are just too nasty and bombastic.
      It seems unrelated to what this site is supposed to be about, and just religion/israel bashing for the sake of a good find. If there had been a systematic result of rape, g-d forbid- by soldiers fine, but people more informed then me say there isnt.
      I suppose I’m asking for people to examine their motivations in publishing pieces in this etherworld…

      Reply to Comment
    42. Bill Pearlman

      I know Gurvitz is an extreme left wing guy but this is a reach into outer space. Is the IDF marching like the Roman legions through Ramallah. I find that hard to believe since if a Palestinian gets a hangnail I see it on the news.

      Reply to Comment
    43. Henry Weinstein

      @ SH
      I Love Your Comment!
      Wednesday, March 28, 1:24 pm
      Are you Iranian??!!
      So only war can remove the rabbinical prohibitions in order to maintain the fitness and good spirit of the Israeli soldiers, that is to say the majority of Israelis. In time of war, nothing is anymore prohibited, until victory!
      It’s a bit like the Aztecs, war for the fun, as a sacred game. Peace is so boring…
      Very Marquis de Sade serioulsy, the rabbinical theology on war:
      “Is this forbidden to rape in time of war, Rabbi”?
      “Not at all! God is Rape!! Go on, enjoy yourself, it’s war time”!!!
      So rape is allowed for male soldiers, but female soldiers ?? They have their own needs, no??
      I would have a few questions to ask about Sextoys, Colonel Rabbi Eyal Quarim or Krim.

      Reply to Comment
    44. ToivoS

      I don’t understand the controversy here. Haven’t a number of prominent rabbis declared the Palestinians the same Amaleks. That is as much an invitation to genocide as imaginable (but G-d doesn’t mention rape here, it is just required that all women and children be killed). This has to much worse than rape.

      Reply to Comment
    45. Bill Pearlman

      If Israel is exterminating the Palestinians they really suck at it. Maybe they need lessons from Hamas, Has in throw the other guy off the roof day. But then the real experts are the “krauts”

      Reply to Comment
    46. Mareli

      Fraternizing is a far cry from rape. Rape is a belligerent, hostile assault. Fraternizing is friendly and consensual. BIG difference.

      Reply to Comment
    47. Henry Weinstein

      @ Mareli
      “Fraternizing” during the war operations with women from the other side?? You mean “have sex” with women from the other side during war operations. Is this what Colonel Rabbi had in mind only? If it was the case, why he didn’t say explicitely what you say: Ok only for “friendly and consensual” sex?? Is it impossible to tell it in Hebrew?? Is it possible in time of war operations, a Love Story??
      Tell me.

      Reply to Comment
    48. AMIR.BK

      Hey baby, I know I just killed all your male relatives and razed your village to the ground but I’m sure we can have a nice chat, maybe a cup of coffee and see where it goes from there, Don’t worry, YHWH is totally cool with it.

      Reply to Comment
    49. Fraternizing is a far cry from rape. Rape is a belligerent, hostile assault. Fraternizing is friendly and consensual. BIG difference.

      Nice recovery. Please read the question the rabbi is answering. It explicitly uses “rape” several times. The good colonel, of course, does not consider this to be rape – God can’t order rape, as the mean bastard is supposed to be good – so he uses “fraternize” instead.

      Reply to Comment
      • Israel

        Gilui Arayos, a term which the Colonel used, means sex. That’s how the term is used throughout Talmudic literature. And he’s answering here in a rabbinic capacity. He also is referencing the Biblical concept of the woman captured in war, which means the same thing. There is no question that he is talking about rape.

        Reply to Comment
    50. Click here to load previous comments