Was Moses a Pedophile?

[Juan_Bottom]

First, Moses is a fictional character who may or may not be based on a real person. But if the historical account of the Bible is more accurate than inaccurate, was the real Moses a pedophile?

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... 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.

That's Moses speaking in Numbers, ordering his men to keep the city's virgin girls for themselves. That in itself may not seem condemning enough, But other parts of the Bible also seem to look the other way during acts of Pedophilia.

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it ... And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.

No mention of age here, yet it's ok with God if you sell your daughter as a sex servant.

if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant ... If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed ... If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

The following is from the *Talmud:

Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4].
Sanhedrin 7/55B [132]

Does this imply that Moses was ordering his men to keep the 3year old "woman children" alive for themselves? Or was he saying that they should kill all the "woman children" older than 3 years and 1 day old?

R. Nahman bar Isaac said. "They made the decree that a gentile child should be deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15], so that an Israelite child should not hang around with him and commit pederasty [as he does]."
For said R. Zira, "I had much anguish with R. Assi, and R. Assi with R. Yohanan, and R. Yohanan with R. Yannai, and R. Yannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi [on this matter]: 'From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]'? And he said to me, 'On the day on which he is born.' But when I came to R. Hiyya, he said to me, 'From the age of nine years and one day.' And when I came and laid the matter before Rabbi, he said to me, 'Discard my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya, who declared, "From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]? From the age of nine years and one day."'
[37A] Since he is then suitable for having sexual relations, he also is deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [of Lev.15]."
Said Rabina, "Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety."
That is self-evident!
Abodah Zarah 36B-37A [133]

Boys can have sex by age 9 and girls by the age of 3 and a day.

So was Moses' and God's command oking pedophilia with girls older than 3 years and a day? Or were all girls older than 3 years and a day to be killed as well?



*The Talmud is a huge collection of doctrines and laws compiled and written before the 8th Century, A.D., by ancient Jewish teachers. The Talmud, which often cites the Old Testament, is the basic book of Jewish law.

[Night Strike]

1)

2) It's a choice of modern society for marriages to take place in the 20s or even 30s for most people in our society. Not in America's too far distant past, people were getting married in their young to mid teenage years. That has been the typical age almost throughout all parts of history. Remember, when your life expectancy is to live only into your 40s or 50s, then you have to start a family "young" in order to carry on your name.

3) All that to be said, simply because the Israelites considered the young to be innocent in many cases and that they should be spared does not magically indicate that they were used for sex. Just another pathetic attempt to take random passages out of context to make up a false point to discredit Christianity.

[The Bison King]

Well the tradition had to get started somewhere...

[Pirlo]

too difficult ancient language for me to understand









*shouting in the valley* "targetmannnnnn nnn nnnn nnn nnn nnn"

[strike wolf]

Quiet catholic priests might use this to justify their own deeds...

[Timminz]

Like NS said, it was a different time. Being a pedophile was normal.

[The Bison King]

Like NS said, it was a different time. Being a pedophile was normal.

It was even considered cool.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Wait, wrong religious figure.

[Dukasaur]

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it ... And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.

This was the normal modus operandi in the ancient world. Yes, it's the way the Jews waged war. It's also the way their arch-enemies the Assyrians waged war. And the Babylonians, and the Egyptians, and the Hittites, and later the Greeks and Romans. Not wonderful, that's for sure, but there's no reason to single out the Jews.

As for allegations of pedophilia, that's a two-step answer. First, in most of those cultures a person was considered an adult at puberty. So, by definition, it was not pedophilia to be ravishing a thirteen-year-old, although it may have violated other laws in some cases. As for the "taking" of pre-pubescents, that simply meant taking them home and adding them to the population of one's household slaves. A three-year-old slave captured as spoils of war would be no more likely to suffer any abuse than a three-year-old slave who was born in your house as the child of some other slave. I'm sure some were used for nauseating purposes, but probably no more than nowadays. Protecting the prepubescent is, I think, a basic instinct that is independent of culture.

[PLAYER57832]

First, Moses is a fictional character who may or may not be based on a real person. But if the historical account of the Bible is more accurate than inaccurate, was the real Moses a pedophile?

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... 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.

That's Moses speaking in Numbers, ordering his men to keep the city's virgin girls for themselves. That in itself may not seem condemning enough, But other parts of the Bible also seem to look the other way during acts of Pedophilia.

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it ... And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.

It used to be that men or boys were often married to girls, but the marriages would not be consumated until the girl either reached mensus or a specific age. If you think about the strong prohibitions against having a women who had any kind of relations with another man, it made sense. Women back then were little more than chattel.. vessels to bear children and tend men. The passage is certainly distasteful by modern standards, but I am not sure that pedhophilia really was involved.

Also, I have been told that people generally died much, much younger than they do now. If a person is "ancient" at 30, it makes sense that a girl of 17 might be considered "old".

No mention of age here, yet it's ok with God if you sell your daughter as a sex servant.

if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant ... If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed ... If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

This is really a reference to marriage. Again, women were basically property. The important part here is that it says that a man cannot take a woman and simply cast her off when he is done. He has to give her a chance to go back to her father in some circumstances. If he takes another wife, he has to continue to care for the first wife as well. Ironically, these are actually positive requirements, improvements over the way women were treated in some other societies,earlier. Though, of course terrible by today's standards.

The following is from the *Talmud:

Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4].
Sanhedrin 7/55B [132]

Does this imply that Moses was ordering his men to keep the 3year old "woman children" alive for themselves? Or was he saying that they should kill all the "woman children" older than 3 years and 1 day old?

Neither. It says that a man who sleeps with someone who is someone else's wife is to be killed. The law is that once a man has laid with a woman, she is his wife, no matter her age. I am not clear on the "3 years and one day" bit. I know that in ancient texts, 3 was often used to mean "few", not necessarily 3 exactly (and 40 was "a great many"). Given the next sentence about mensus, it seems this might be such a general reference..t hat is simply saying that a girl "taken" is your wife, period. Then it goes on to say that if the husband was a priest, she is accorded the rights of being the wife of a priest
Essentially, it says that even if this girl is married very young, she is still married, is to be treated as married in all ways and no one else can take her as his wife. It also says that if another takes her, he and not she will be killed.

Again, not great by today's standards, but actually somewhat protective of the women involved.

R. Nahman bar Isaac said. "They made the decree that a gentile child should be deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15], so that an Israelite child should not hang around with him and commit pederasty [as he does]."
For said R. Zira, "I had much anguish with R. Assi, and R. Assi with R. Yohanan, and R. Yohanan with R. Yannai, and R. Yannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi [on this matter]: 'From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]'? And he said to me, 'On the day on which he is born.' But when I came to R. Hiyya, he said to me, 'From the age of nine years and one day.' And when I came and laid the matter before Rabbi, he said to me, 'Discard my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya, who declared, "From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]? From the age of nine years and one day."'

Although pedastry is referenced (had to look that one up! ), it really seems to be saying that Israeli children past a certain age should not hang around gentiles, because they already are "unclean". The debate seems to be over what the age is, and one rabbi says gentiles of any age are unclean and the other that those of age 9 and a day, because gentiles of that age were involved in pedastry. Almost he opposite of what you were saying. Also, I believe this refers to homosexual adult male/juvenile boy relations, which were common in the Greeks and rejected severely by the Jews.

[37A] Since he is then suitable for having sexual relations, he also is deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [of Lev.15]."

Again, basically "we cannot trust that any gentile child over the age of sexual relations is clean... so we assume they are unclean."

Said Rabina, "Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety."
That is self-evident!
Abodah Zarah 36B-37A [133]

Boys can have sex by age 9 and girls by the age of 3 and a day.

No. This here seems to be a reference to gentile girls and boys. They seem to be saying that since gentile girls can be having sex at age 3 and boys at age 9, children over that age shalle be assumed to be unclean.

So was Moses' and God's command oking pedophilia with girls older than 3 years and a day? Or were all girls older than 3 years and a day to be killed as well?

Not sure either was the case. As far as being killed... if they could not be sure that girls over the age of 3 in that town were virgins, perhaps. However, the first is a reference to an older society. The Talmud came later than the old Testaments and are likely a response to what was common in Greece at a certain point (though someone else can correct me on the dates.. it might even mean another society or more than one).

*The Talmud is a huge collection of doctrines and laws compiled and written before the 8th Century, A.D., by ancient Jewish teachers. The Talmud, which often cites the Old Testament, is the basic book of Jewish law.

[PLAYER57832]

1)
3) All that to be said, simply because the Israelites considered the young to be innocent in many cases and that they should be spared does not magically indicate that they were used for sex. Just another pathetic attempt to take random passages out of context to make up a false point to discredit Christianity.

Uh.. Nightstrike, read it again, the whole passage. They were not spared simply because they were young, they were to be spared because they were virgins and therefore could be "used" by the men. This would be considered marriage. However, as I stated, girls were often taken for marriage before they were actually "taken" (before consumation). It was considered a good way to ensure that the girl was properly trained (by the mother-in-law, to care for her son) and also a way the family could be absolutely sure she stayed a virgin.

Parts of the Old Testament are very grim, even graphic. Yet, it is our holy Bible. To deny parts because you dislike them is not OK, for any reason.

[john9blue]

so i heard that judging ancient civilizations by modern standards was a good way to look stupid.

[comic boy]

so i heard that judging ancient civilizations by modern standards was a good way to look stupid.

I agree , you will also concur of course that using certain ancient texts to determine modern standards may also be pretty stupid. The problem of course , as player has indicated and NS has shown , is that certain individuals and groups are hugely hypocritical in this respect.
Its pretty indefensible to champion a particular cause , for example that homosexuality is an abomination, citing the bible as evidence, whilst at the same time downplaying embarassing passages from the same book on the grounds of it being out of date.

[PLAYER57832]

so i heard that judging ancient civilizations by modern standards was a good way to look stupid.

Yes, but in this case there is a lot of misreading what was written and why.

For example, taken alone, the idea that a women rejected was to return to her father or, if another wife was taken, she was to be still given her clothes, etc.. might seem idiotic, but if you realize it is an alternative to simply killing her or abandoning her in ways that might mean she would have to be a prostitute or worse.. you see that it is a progression and sets the stage for future ideas.

The idea that young virgins might be considered "spoils of war" is repulsive, as is killing of everyone else, but when the alternative was to leave enemies alive who could return and destroy you.. it was necessary for that society. Given that this was the way everyone else acted, that no "Geneva" convention yet existed.. it took time for people to learn other ways of doing things.

[john9blue]

so i heard that judging ancient civilizations by modern standards was a good way to look stupid.

I agree , you will also concur of course that using certain ancient texts to determine modern standards may also be pretty stupid. The problem of course , as player has indicated and NS has shown , is that certain individuals and groups are hugely hypocritical in this respect.
Its pretty indefensible to champion a particular cause , for example that homosexuality is an abomination, citing the bible as evidence, whilst at the same time downplaying embarassing passages from the same book on the grounds of it being out of date.

i'm with you on this one, but most Christians aren't literalists about the old testament anyways, just a few fanatics.

[comic boy]

so i heard that judging ancient civilizations by modern standards was a good way to look stupid.

I agree , you will also concur of course that using certain ancient texts to determine modern standards may also be pretty stupid. The problem of course , as player has indicated and NS has shown , is that certain individuals and groups are hugely hypocritical in this respect.
Its pretty indefensible to champion a particular cause , for example that homosexuality is an abomination, citing the bible as evidence, whilst at the same time downplaying embarassing passages from the same book on the grounds of it being out of date.

i'm with you on this one, but most Christians aren't literalists about the old testament anyways, just a few fanatics.

Yes we are talking about a minority but they number far more than a few . Pentecostal and Evangelical churches are largely responsible for the increasing popularity of Christianity worldwide and they very much deal in (selective ) literal interpretation.

[PLAYER57832]

so i heard that judging ancient civilizations by modern standards was a good way to look stupid.

I agree , you will also concur of course that using certain ancient texts to determine modern standards may also be pretty stupid. The problem of course , as player has indicated and NS has shown , is that certain individuals and groups are hugely hypocritical in this respect.
Its pretty indefensible to champion a particular cause , for example that homosexuality is an abomination, citing the bible as evidence, whilst at the same time downplaying embarassing passages from the same book on the grounds of it being out of date.

i'm with you on this one, but most Christians aren't literalists about the old testament anyways, just a few fanatics.

Yes we are talking about a minority but they number far more than a few . Pentecostal and Evangelical churches are largely responsible for the increasing popularity of Christianity worldwide and they very much deal in (selective ) literal interpretation.

I disagree (to a point) with these 3 statements.

1. The problem with too many supposed "literalists" is that they don't truly take the whole Bible literally, the way it was written. Some passages are written in an ambiguous way or use terms that can be grossly misunderstood if one does not pay careful attention to the context. For example, "3" of something really meant "few". Similarly, "40 days" meant something like "a great many" and "hundreds and thousands" basically "more than one can count" or more than one can count readily". In days when absolute counting was not as necessary, when average people did not have calanders and might not really even know how to count more than a bit, it makes sense. Today... it does not.

2. Along those lines, it is not just appropriate, but absolutely necessary, to take the historical context into account. Never is this more true than when discussing women and slaves. Reading the Old Testament alone, it seems pretty barbaric. By today's standards it absolutely is barbaric! However, when you realize that the Jewish rules represented a great improvement for the lot of both slaves and women...and see the beginnings of bringing humanity into present "mores".

At the same time, when you judge both today and the past "fairly".. that is, in the context of what people knew back then, etc, then many things about today's world are actually more harsh, not less. For example, we have great medical advances that relieve suffering. Yet, we face new choices as a result. Is it worse to know that your child died, just the same as the king's child..and that there was little either could do, or is it worse to know that your child died and a few pennies of medicine, withheld from you because you live in a poor area, a poor nation? Is it worse to know that some natural disaster or disease might take you at any moment, is a big threat or to know that the reason your child is ill is because some company did not consider it cost-effective or simply considered that they should produce their products and make money without really worrying about the damage the process might cause down the raod? (I am not trying to open up those debates here, just pointing out that things we consider positive have multiple consequences and too often we want to see only the parts we like. )

3. Roman Catholics did and continue to do far more to spread Christianity than any evangelical church ever did. The Evangelical movement is growing recently, but still does not have the numbers of the Roman Catholic Church or even (at last count) the most prominent single Protestant body .. The Lutherans. However, the mainline churches are seeing numbers shrink, at least in the west and the evangelical churches are growing, so the evangelicals might overtake the mainline church numbers.

[comic boy]

Player I perhaps did not make myself clear , the RC Church of course was responsible for the historical rise of Christianity but in recent years has seen its popularity slip even in staunch regions such as South America. By contrast Evangelical churches have seen staggering growth , most especially in Africa but also to a degree in Asia and the West.

[PLAYER57832]

Player I perhaps did not make myself clear , the RC Church of course was responsible for the historical rise of Christianity but in recent years has seen its popularity slip even in staunch regions such as South America. By contrast Evangelical churches have seen staggering growth , most especially in Africa but also to a degree in Asia and the West.

No, I understood what you were saying. Hwever, while those churches have
made significant gains, the Roman Catholic Church, even mainline Protestant bodies, are still more prominent, still have far more members. Those figures are a tad hard to assess because people may still belong to a "mainline church" officially, but listen to, even attend more evangelical services and programs.

On the other hand, many times an "evangelical" type preacher may come and cause a lot of "revival" or "conversions", but this increases activity within the mainline churches rather than moving people into evangelical bodies.

[comic boy]

Player I perhaps did not make myself clear , the RC Church of course was responsible for the historical rise of Christianity but in recent years has seen its popularity slip even in staunch regions such as South America. By contrast Evangelical churches have seen staggering growth , most especially in Africa but also to a degree in Asia and the West.

No, I understood what you were saying. Hwever, while those churches have
made significant gains, the Roman Catholic Church, even mainline Protestant bodies, are still more prominent, still have far more members. Those figures are a tad hard to assess because people may still belong to a "mainline church" officially, but listen to, even attend more evangelical services and programs.

On the other hand, many times an "evangelical" type preacher may come and cause a lot of "revival" or "conversions", but this increases activity within the mainline churches rather than moving people into evangelical bodies.

But I did not claim that Evangelical churches formed a majority , in fact in my initial response to John I clearly stated that they were a minority within Christianity . My point was that they were more than a 'few' and that their influence and numbers are steadily increasing.

[Army of GOD]

Wait, wrong religious figure.

8 year olds, dude.

[PLAYER57832]

Player I perhaps did not make myself clear , the RC Church of course was responsible for the historical rise of Christianity but in recent years has seen its popularity slip even in staunch regions such as South America. By contrast Evangelical churches have seen staggering growth , most especially in Africa but also to a degree in Asia and the West.

No, I understood what you were saying. Hwever, while those churches have
made significant gains, the Roman Catholic Church, even mainline Protestant bodies, are still more prominent, still have far more members. Those figures are a tad hard to assess because people may still belong to a "mainline church" officially, but listen to, even attend more evangelical services and programs.

On the other hand, many times an "evangelical" type preacher may come and cause a lot of "revival" or "conversions", but this increases activity within the mainline churches rather than moving people into evangelical bodies.

But I did not claim that Evangelical churches formed a majority , in fact in my initial response to John I clearly stated that they were a minority within Christianity . My point was that they were more than a 'few' and that their influence and numbers are steadily increasing.

OK, you are right, I did goof. You were correct.

I also misstated what I was saying. Basically, the Roman Catholic church has been a strong proponent of anti-homosexual bias, anti-abortion, etc. that long predates the new evangelical movement... and in those issue is still stronger. I won't get into the issues where evangelicals have the growing voice, but I think you can gander from other threads where I have posted

[Juan_Bottom]

3) All that to be said, simply because the Israelites considered the young to be innocent in many cases and that they should be spared does not magically indicate that they were used for sex. Just another pathetic attempt to take random passages out of context to make up a false point to discredit Christianity.

Nothing said here has been to discredit religion. Modern Christianity and Judaism are a mere reflection of their former selves.
That said, I find this conversation very interesting. The Old Testament does not give a specific age for the "Woman Children" that were to be kept alive for the Jews own purpose. HOWEVER the Talmud does... and it states quite specifically that a girl aged 3 years and 1 day is betrothed only through intercourse. And once that happens, she belongs to the man.
Now while the Talmud was written after Moses time, the laws that it is recording are from Moses' time. It seems that the Talmud is saying that Moses was ok with pedophilia of girls aged 3 years and 1 day or older. Even, that it was his command.

Naturally I agree with the argument that people had a shorter life expectancy and therefore sexual intercourse at a younger age was a normal consequence of that. But I do not agree that that argument is a logical one that we can apply to having sex with a 3 year old girl. I'd like to be able to argue that is pedophilia in any time. I should hope that having sex with someone before they've reached puberty would be the old definition of pedophilia. Dukeasuar said it best:

Protecting the prepubescent is, I think, a basic instinct that is independent of culture.

[BigBallinStalin]

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it ... And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.

This was the normal modus operandi in the ancient world. Yes, it's the way the Jews waged war. It's also the way their arch-enemies the Assyrians waged war. And the Babylonians, and the Egyptians, and the Hittites, and later the Greeks and Romans. Not wonderful, that's for sure, but there's no reason to single out the Jews.

As for allegations of pedophilia, that's a two-step answer. First, in most of those cultures a person was considered an adult at puberty. So, by definition, it was not pedophilia to be ravishing a thirteen-year-old, although it may have violated other laws in some cases. As for the "taking" of pre-pubescents, that simply meant taking them home and adding them to the population of one's household slaves. A three-year-old slave captured as spoils of war would be no more likely to suffer any abuse than a three-year-old slave who was born in your house as the child of some other slave. I'm sure some were used for nauseating purposes, but probably no more than nowadays. Protecting the prepubescent is, I think, a basic instinct that is independent of culture.

Excellent analysis, Dukasaur!

[PLAYER57832]

3) All that to be said, simply because the Israelites considered the young to be innocent in many cases and that they should be spared does not magically indicate that they were used for sex. Just another pathetic attempt to take random passages out of context to make up a false point to discredit Christianity.

Nothing said here has been to discredit religion. Modern Christianity and Judaism are a mere reflection of their former selves.
That said, I find this conversation very interesting. The Old Testament does not give a specific age for the "Woman Children" that were to be kept alive for the Jews own purpose. HOWEVER the Talmud does... and it states quite specifically that a girl aged 3 years and 1 day is betrothed only through intercourse. And once that happens, she belongs to the man.
Now while the Talmud was written after Moses time, the laws that it is recording are from Moses' time. It seems that the Talmud is saying that Moses was ok with pedophilia of girls aged 3 years and 1 day or older. Even, that it was his command.

Except, is that really what it says? My reading is that it is acknowledging the local habits, I believe particularly the greeks, that they began "taking" girls at age 3.

Also, as I noted, the term "3" really means few. Basically, what I understand it to be saying is several different things. First, the Israelites were to kill all the males (of any age) and all the women who might not be virgins. The rest they could "keep for themselves". They would be wives, whether there was intercourse or not. The distinction between a "slave" and a "wife" was minimal back then. Under Judaic law, if there was intercourse, the woman was a "wife".

The second part, about age seems to say that whatever age the girl is "taken", she is to be accorded the full rights of a wife and thus may not be "taken" by anyone else. However, my understanding is that this does not have to mean intercourse per se. If she is alone with a man not her relative, etc, then she can be considered to be "not necessarily a virgin" or simply "not a virgin".

At any rate, I am not saying pedophilia didn't happen. In fact, I am positive it did. I just don't believe that section of the Torah was specifically condoning it, more discussing the realities of what should happen "if".

Also, none of that really applies to Moses. The Torah was written long after Moses. His commandments are the basis for the Torah, but the Torah takes it much, much further.