Sorry, you’re quite right; they did indeed use that word. My apologies for the misreading.
(Still, it’s a bit of a misleading translation on their part… women aren’t property in Jewish law, as I already said.)
> And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom.
Yes, I believe this is correct.
> But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me
I think the idea would be that ‘acquisition’ in this context is relevant for yevamot, but it is irrelevant if she is not his yevama.
> the scholars and the blog post strive to avoid discussing what is actually described here, it's hard for me to say … it seems you'll talk about anything except what this passage literally describes.
We are talking about what the passage literally describes: Rabba’s discussion of the consequences according to Jewish law when ‘one who fell from a roof … was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall’. But what it literally describes is absurd, so the blog post talks about the next most reasonable interpretation — that this is a hypothetical case, exactly like many others in the Talmud. As far as I can see, it is you who is trying to claim that this text is some sort of special attempt to let men have an excuse for rape in general, which it isn’t.
I feel the odd specificity of "his yevama" adds credence to AaronFriel's claim that this has its roots in a real case.
On the other hand, the story is so unbelievable that I am unable to imagine a circumstance in which this specific fabrication, and not some other, had any chance of being believed.
One possible resolution, perhaps, is that this has its roots in a real rape case where the "accident" was more plausible, but involved the accused already intentionally doing something he should not, so it was changed to falling off a roof in order to remove this side-issue.
> I feel the odd specificity of "his yevama" adds credence to AaronFriel's claim that this has its roots in a real case.
The Talmud brought two different hypothetical cases. One where she was his yevama, and one where she was not. That's because there are two different laws whereby it makes a difference if sexual intercourse is considered to have occurred or not. In fact, the main topic of the tractate is the yevama case, and the non-yevama case is brought by-the-by.
Summary of the laws of yevamot: If a man dies childless, his brother has an obligation to marry the widow, if they both consent. If they do not, a procedure called halitzah is performed instead. Until one or the other happens, the widow can't marry anyone else. If they do decide to marry, unlike regular marriage, there is no marriage ceremony - sexual intercourse is all that is needed to make them man and wife with all that entails. That's why it talks about "acquiring", but it's not in the sense of property rights (there are none!) - rather in the sense of being married (think about the English phrase "my wife").
Hope that clears it up. Now that Shabbat is over, the main bulk of those who learn the Talmud can join the conversation :)
(Still, it’s a bit of a misleading translation on their part… women aren’t property in Jewish law, as I already said.)
> And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom.
Yes, I believe this is correct.
> But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me
I think the idea would be that ‘acquisition’ in this context is relevant for yevamot, but it is irrelevant if she is not his yevama.
> the scholars and the blog post strive to avoid discussing what is actually described here, it's hard for me to say … it seems you'll talk about anything except what this passage literally describes.
We are talking about what the passage literally describes: Rabba’s discussion of the consequences according to Jewish law when ‘one who fell from a roof … was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall’. But what it literally describes is absurd, so the blog post talks about the next most reasonable interpretation — that this is a hypothetical case, exactly like many others in the Talmud. As far as I can see, it is you who is trying to claim that this text is some sort of special attempt to let men have an excuse for rape in general, which it isn’t.