The word ילד would be insufficient. It does not include נער, or עלם, which would be the more likely scenario (not to mention עול, which would be unthinkable). זכר is the more obvious choice.
Comment on Now I finally get it
Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 month agoNo, I'd have expected them to say ילד if they only wanted to mean man with boy and not man with any form of male.
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Forester@pawb.social 1 month ago
You really are missing the forrest by staring at trees.
The key context between ish zachar and yéled is that an ish is of mental and sexual maturity, an ish is of sexual maturity and a yélid is neither.
So if a zachar is off limits for being too young it’s implied so is an yélid.
If you don’t understand the context of that I can’t help you.
Nikls94@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Okay let me get this straight for my own understanding:
In South Park, the Vatikans said “the bible states it’s not forbidden to fuck young boys” and the original Hebrew wording literally states that this is forbidden.
As in: “stoned shall not be the gay, but the one that gropes children”?
Forester@pawb.social 1 month ago
You realize SP is satire right?
Yes the original wording explicitly forbids adult men from fucking males that have not themselves reached full adulthood
The wording roughly would be man should not fuck teenager it is abhorrent
Nikls94@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I mostly see it as an exaggeration rather than satire.