Well poking a finger **into** the eye is quite a big deal actually, that's a sure way of permanently damaging the said eye https://pic8.co/sh/gvvy88.jpeg I'm not sure how this logic/narrative is supposed to work, theologically speaking. It's important because if you don't know what the possible counter arguments are, you'll get caught off guard like a noob eventually. Or the normies you forwarded it to, will get "rationalized" by the next rabbi behind your back >>An adult man who engaged in intercourse with minor girl less than three years old has done nothing Well he actually did something... Hence the parallel with the eye poking thing... So? What does that imply? How is this supposed to make sense then? There are degrees of eye poking? Is it an obviously false statement designed to lead the reader to some grey area? As in "alright it's a big deal but for the sake of the child let's not make it a drama of biblical proportions"? Or is it some "textbook case" for engaging in casuistry/pilpul as in "hello, this is looney rabbi speaking again, prove me wrong!"