-Caveat Lector-

from:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/exp.html
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/exp.html">Talmud</A>
-----


CLAIM (23)
Jews May Steal from Non-Jews Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object
lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed
also in Baba Kamma 113b).

RESPONSE (1)
Found objects do not have to be returned when they are lost under
circumstances that make the owner impossible to identify. This also
applies to objects lost by Jews in crowded areas --- as you would know
had you actually read the passage in question instead of pasting it in
from a National Socialist web site.
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Joseph Hertzlinger)
<65lb0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RESPONSE (2)
Jews may not steal from non-Jews. In the Tosefta Baba Kama (10:8) we are
taught: "It is more grievous to steal from a non-Jew than from a Jew
because of the desecration of G-d's name".

The passage at Baba Mezia 24a deals with a specific religious
commandment requiring Jews to collect lost items, such as stray animals,
care for them, declare them to be lost, and hold them until the loser
comes to identify and claim them. This rule is not universal; there are
times when the loser is deemed to have renounced his ownership of the
lost property and then the rule is 'finders-keepers'.

Jewish law requires Jews to be bound by the 'law of the land' in civil
and commercial matters. Where the law of the land requires the return of
lost objects, Jews are bound by that law as are all residents of that
land. However, in pagan cities the general rule was 'finders-keepers'
and the question discussed by this Talmudic passage is whether in towns
with a majority pagan population (where the general rule is
'finders-keepers') Jews are required to return lost objects to Jews, and
the answer is negative.

The statement made in Baba Mezia 24a is the following: "Come and listen
[these words introduce a statement which will be analyzed in detail] if
he finds a lost article in a place where the majority are Israelites, he
must announce [that he found a lost article and return it to its owner];
if the majority are Canaanites [and the general rule is
finders-keepers], he need not announce [that he found a lost article or
return it to its previous owner]".

This discussion is amplified in Baba Kama 113b where the discussion
concludes that even if there is no general religious obligation to
return lost objects to heathens in cases where 'finders-keepers' is the
law, nevertheless it is required in cases where failure to return lost
objects might lead to a profanation of G-d's name.

To end this discussion, note that the Meiri (about 700 years ago), a
famous Talmud commentator, wrote as follows in his comments on Baba Kama
113b:

"We find that it is forbidden to steal even from idol worshippers and
those who do not have any kind of legal system ..... but one is not
required to expend efforts to find and return their lost articles, and
in fact one who simply finds their lost articles is not required to
return them .... since return of lost articles is an act of
extraordinary kindness [in places where 'finders-keepers' is the rule]
and we are not required to show this extraordinary kindness to those who
live without laws, but in any event ... in the case of a lost article it
should be returned if there is any chance of desecration of G-d's name
by failing to do so .... but for all those who have any kind of legal
and religious system at all of any type even though their faith is far
from our own, they are not [referred to] in these laws, rather they are
in all respects as Jews for these matters, both as to lost articles, or
to mistakes and to all the other matters without exception."
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])





CLAIM (24)
Sanhedrin 76a . God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an
old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to
a Cuthean..."

RESPONSE (1)
Returning a lost article to a member of enemy nation is not such a great
idea.
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Joseph Hertzlinger)
<65lb0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RESPONSE (2)
The correct quote is "[one] who marries his [young] daughter to an old
man or who marries an [older woman] to his young son and one who returns
a lost object to a Cuthean ['idol worshipper' in the text of the Ein
Yaakov]; of such a person Scripture speaks (Deut. 28:18): 'thereby
adding the watered upon the thirsty'".

The first two cases discussed in this agadic statement refer to a
father's obligation to find a spouse for his child whose age is suitable
to that of the child. The third statement refers to the prohibition
against returning lost articles to pagans who earn their living by
oppressing others in lands where 'finders-keepers' is the general rule.
Note that even in this case there are times when lost articles are
returned to such people [see discussion under point [CLAIM 23] above].
The term 'thereby adding the watered upon the thirsty' has been
interpreted to mean increasing the amount of idol-worshipping in the
world, for an idol worshipper who lives in a society where the rule is
'finders-keepers' will offer a special thank sacrifice to his idols if a
lost object is returned to him.

See the discussion under item [CLAIM 23] above for a more detailed
review of this entire subject.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])





CLAIM (25)
Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a
Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals
from a Gentile he may keep.

RESPONSE (1)
The case under consideration was about whether Jews must be compelled to
rescue gentiles.
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Joseph Hertzlinger)
<65lb0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RESPONSE (2)
Misquote. That's a theoretical point that is being raised and
subsequently rejected. Naturally, [the quote] "forgets" to mention the
latter part.
>From Usenet message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reimer Behrends)

RESPONSE (3)
(a) It hardly needs be said that the Talmud does not state that Jews may
rob or kill non-Jews. It may be appropriate to make a few general
comments about the Talmudic view of murder.

Taking the life of any human being is forbidden. The Talmud teaches that
this prohibition was first declared in Genesis and applies to all
mankind. Everyone, Jew and non-Jew alike, commits a grievous sin if he
takes the life of another human being. The Talmud teaches: "Therefore
Adam was created alone in the world [i.e. humanity started from a single
individual] to teach that whoever destroys one person, it is considered
as if he has destroyed an entire world, and whoever saves one person, it
is considered as if he has saved an entire world, and to establish peace
among all creatures so that no one will say 'my ancestor was greater
than your ancestor' ..." (TY Sanhedrin 22). A similar teaching regarding
the enormity of the crime of murder was learned by the sages from an
analysis of the biblical text describing the murder of Abel by Cain
(Gen. 4:10): "The blood of your brother cries out to Me ..". The word
'blood' can be understood as plural in the original Hebrew text and the
rabbis teach that the reference is to both "his [Abel's] blood and the
blood of his descendants". These Talmudic teachings have been largely
absorbed by all civilized nations.

It may be of interest to quote the words used by the ancient rabbinical
courts to caution witnesses before they testified concerning capital
offenses (the following quotation is based on the Rambam, Hilchot
Sanhedrin
12,3, who based his ruling on Talmudic teachings):

".. know that [in case of execution by false testimony] his blood and
the blood of his descendants to the end of all time [will be upon the
false testifier] ... that is why Adam was created a single person in the
world to teach that whoever destroys a single person from this world is
deemed to have destroyed an entire world ..... behold all people who
walk on this earth were created in the form of Adam .... the faces of
every one of them is different from that of his fellow man and therefore
each one can say 'the world was created on my account' ..."

While murder of any kind is strictly forbidden, the Talmudic passage
quoted above deals only with the issue of capital punishment. The
biblical system of capital punishment was not designed for social order
or social regulation in the modern sense. Even when rabbinical courts
held the power to impose capital punishment the rules surrounding such
punishment were so difficult to apply that there was essentially no
effective death penalty under Talmudic law. No capital punishment could
be imposed unless there were two witnesses who actually viewed the crime
and each other at the same time.

Furthermore the perpetrator had to be warned that he was about to commit
a capital offense (according to one opinion the warning had to state
which one of the four types of biblical execution would be performed).
The offender had to verbally acknowledge that he was going to commit the
offense with the intent of becoming liable for capital punishment, and
then immediately commit the act. If the offender merely acknowledged
that he knew about the death penalty he would not be liable to capital
punishment.

These and other restrictions on the use of the death penalty were
learned by the sages from an analysis of the biblical verses applicable
to capital punishment. Another restriction learned was that in case of
murder the victim had to be either a Jew or a Canaanite slave belonging
to a Jew and this point is raised tangentially in this passage of the
Talmud: "for bloodshed, a Cuthean to a Cuthean is liable [for capital
punishment], a Cuthean to an Israelite is liable [for capital
punishment], and an Israelite to a Cuthean is exempt [from biblical
capital punishment, but such an act is strictly prohibited and is
punished by Heaven - commentators].

This does not mean that there was no capital punishment in Talmudic
times, but such punishment was imposed by the king who acted within a
framework of values different from that of the sages of the Talmud. His
concern was revenge, order and deterrence, not the question of precise
interpretation of biblical verses which was the concern of the sages of
the Talmud. If the king did not use his prerogative to execute murderers
the rabbinical courts also had the power to impose non-biblical capital
punishment on murderers who were not liable to capital punishment
because of the various restrictions of the type discussed above, but
since these matters were dealt with on an ad hoc basis there is almost
no discussion of them in the Talmud.

It must be clear however that the prohibition against murder applies to
all people, Jew and non-Jew alike, and even applies to the wildest of
pagans. This prohibition predates the giving of the Torah and is one of
the Noahide commandments and is repeated in the biblical commandment not
to murder.

(b) 'What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep'. There is no such
statement on this page or anywhere else in the Talmud. In the framework
of discussion of the source verse for the prohibition against theft the
Talmud here notes that the verse which applies to Gentiles and forbids
them from stealing does not apply to Jews. Jews are forbidden from
stealing from Gentiles by other verses or by rabbinical ordinances. See
item [CLAIM 21] above where this passage is discussed in detail.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])





CLAIM (26)
Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God
has "exposed their money to Israel."

RESPONSE (1)
In the real world the discussion is about whether capital punishment may
be imposed --- not about whether it is forbidden.

Again, this only applies to nations which reject the laws of Noah.
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Joseph Hertzlinger)
<65lb0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RESPONSE (2)
Also, this particularly refers to Canaanites, not Gentiles in general.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

RESPONSE (3)
This Talmudic passage is part of the passage that was reviewed above in
item [CLAIM 22] concerning Canaanites who did not prevent their animals
from damaging others. The rabbinic ruling which did not allow them to
collect damages committed by animals applied only to pirate communities
which did not accept the seven Noachide laws. After explaining the
ruling the Talmudic discussion takes an agadic turn and seeks a
scriptural verse which might hint that such a ruling should be made in
the case of piratical nations which do not accept the Noachide laws. One
opinion refers to Habakuk 3:6 which may be read as follows:

"..[He] stood and [He] measured the Earth, He exposed the nations ....
He saw the seven Noahide commandments that they had accepted upon
themselves; since they did not keep them He stood and exposed their
property to Israel".

In the manner of the agada it is suggested that G-d measured the nations
and when He saw that some acted as pirates, He exposed their property,
and it is clear that the reference is only to uncivilized nations which
do not keep the seven Noahide commandments.

It may be noted that in the continuation of the discussion the Talmud
quotes the teaching that "... a Gentile who is engaged in the Torah [the
reference is to the seven Noachide commandments] has the status of the
High Priest".
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])





CLAIM (27)
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies
("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

RESPONSE (1)
This is one of the most obvious pieces of out-of-context blather it has
ever been my pleasure to refute. The context is evading a thief. Yes,
you are permitted to lie to a robber --- in particular a crooked tax
collector.

Further down the same page, it not only says that robbing gentiles is
prohibited, it even discusses the derivation of the prohibition.

Here, we have gone beyond going out of context and have entered the
realm of deliberate falsification.
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Joseph Hertzlinger)
<65lb0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RESPONSE (2)
Refers to whether a Jew may deceive a Roman tax collector, IIRC (note
that Romans were the occupying force at that time, literally playing the
role of the Sheriff of Nottingham).
>From Usenet message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reimer Behrends)

RESPONSE (3)
The passage discusses robbers (such as tax collectors who acted beyond
their legal authority) who have stolen property. The question that
arises is whether it is permitted to use subterfuge to circumvent their
thievery. In a long legal discussion, the entire thrust of which is that
any form of stealing from heathens is forbidden, the following statement
is brought forward for consideration: "we use subterfuges to circumvent
him [a heathen; this is one opinion] ... but Rabbi Akiva said that we
should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of
the Name". The Talmud continues and notes that Rabbi Akiva forbids
subterfuges not only on account of desecration of G-d's name, but also
because theft from a non-Jew is absolutely forbidden by biblical law.
The Talmud continues to explain that even the opinion which is rejected
does not condone outright theft which is absolutely forbidden according
to all opinions.

The Talmudic passage here is a well-known one which makes the point that
the "law of the land is the law", that is, the civil and commercial law
of the nations in which Jews reside is binding on them.

The conclusions to be drawn from this passage, as noted by the
commentator Meiri, some 700 years ago are as follows:

"We find that it is forbidden to steal even from idol worshippers and
those who do not have any kind of legal system and if a Jew is sold to
them [as a slave] it is forbidden for him to leave their service without
payment, and it is forbidden to refrain from repaying a loan received
from them but one is not required to expend efforts to find and return
their lost articles, and in fact one who simply finds their lost
articles is not required to return them .... since return of lost
articles is an act of extraordinary kindness [in places where
'finders-keepers' is the rule] and we are not required to show this
extraordinary kindness to those who live without laws, but in any event
... in the case of a lost article it should be returned if there is any
chance of desecration of G-d's name by failing to do so .... but for all
those who have any kind of legal and religious system at all of any type
even though their faith is far from our own, they are not [referred to]
in these laws, rather they are in all respects as Jews for these
matters, both as to lost articles, or to mistakes and to all the other
matters without exception."
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

RESPONSE (4)
This passage shares the same footnote as Baba Kamma 37b, discussed
above. What is at issue is the principle of legal recipricocity:

As Canaanites did not recognize the laws of social justice, they did not
impose any liablitity for damage done by cattle. They could consequently
not claim to be protected by a law they neither recognized nor
respected... In ancient Israel as in the modern state the legislation
regulating the protection of life and property of the stranger was... on
the basis of reciprocity. Where such reciprocity was not recognized, the
stranger could not claim to enjoy the same protection of the law as the
citizen. <Baba Kamma, p. 211, Footnote 6.>

David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

RESPONSE (5)
A footnote to the passage above refers to the previous footnote. In
other words, this is a case of legal non-reciprocity. That this passage
is directly related to the preceding one, is apparent from the full
citation:

Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can
justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say:
'This is _our_ law'; also if you can justify him by the laws of the
heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is _your_law';
but if this cannot be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him. This
is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt
to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. <Baba
Kamma, p. 664.>

Note that an opposing opinion is quoted in the very next sentence after
the one cited by Mr. Hoffman -- he could not have missed it! R. Akiba's
opinion, the one Mr. Hoffman does not see fit to mention, is the one
that is accepted as the rule. The reason given, "the sanctification of
the Name," means that a heathen must not be goaded into cursing against
God.

Neither does Mr. Hoffman see fit to mention the very narrow
circumstances in which R. Ishmael sees subterfuge as warranted.
Nevertheless, as R. Ishmael's opinion is not accepted, R. Ishmael
himself would be required to follow R. Akiba's rule. (The strict ad
herence of the talmudic rabbis to majority rule is even affirmed by
another of Mr. Hoffman's "citations" in this same article -- the story
of R. Akiba washing his hands before a meal when he had hardly enough
water to drink -- but I will not be getting around to discussing that
one in this post.)

This particular talmudic discussion continues a few lines down:

Is then the robbery of a heathen permissible? Has it not been taught
that R. Simeon stated that the following matter was expounded by R.
Akiba when he arrived from Zifirin: 'Whence can we learn that the
robbery of a heathen is forbidden? From the significant words: _After
that he is sold <I.e., an Israelite to a Canaanite. -- Footnote 9, p.
664> he may be redeemed again,_ <Lev. XXV, 48. -- Footnote 1, p. 665>
which implies that he could not withdraw and leave him [without paying
the redemption money]. <Baba Kamma, p. 664-5.>

That is, an Israelite may not be freed from servitude to a Gentile
without paying compensation to the Gentile.

The debate ends with an affirmation of R. Akiba's view. R. Bibi b.
Giddal, R. Simeon the pious, and R. Huna agree, "The robbery of a
heathen is prohibited...<Baba Kamma, p. 666.>" A footnote to this last
passage delivers the knockput punch:

...v. also Tosef. B.K. X,8 where it is stated that it is more criminal
to rob a Canaanite than to rob an Israelite... <Baba Kamma, p. 666,
Footnote 2.>

(The abbreviation, Tosef., stands for _Tosefta_, a commentary on the
Talmud, and B.K. stands for Baba Kamma.)

In spite of which, Mr. Hoffman has the audacity, the unmitigated gall,
and the _chutzpah_ to make up subtitles for his "citations" such as,
"Jews May Steal from Non-Jews" and "Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews!"

>From Usenet message http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=367956729
Harry Katz ([EMAIL PROTECTED])





CLAIM (28)
Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human Yebamoth 98a. All Gentile children are
animals.

RESPONSE (1)
False. It does not say this.

What is at issue in this passage is the status of the children of a
Gentile woman who converts to Judaism. Essentially, it finds a legal
loophole which makes it clear that her children will carry no stigma
from having had an uncircumcised father. The logic is similar to that in
the graveyard example above.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RESPONSE (2)
Such statements do not exist. On this page the Talmud considers whether
converts are considered relatives of their biological kin from the point
of view of enforcing upon them the strictures of Jewish law regarding
forbidden marriages. The Talmud quotes one lenient opinion (in the end
rejected) to the effect that these strictures should not apply to
converts because their blood relationship before marriage is not
considered to carry over to their new status as Jews. In the manner of
the agada this ruling was pinned on the verse in Ezekiel (23;20) "...
for their flesh is as the flesh of donkeys ..." referred to in item
[CLAIM 19a] above. Refer to the discussion under that heading for more
details on the use of this verse and the way it is applied to Jews as
well as to non-Jews.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])





CLAIM (29)
Abodah Zarah 36b . Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from
birth.

RESPONSE (1)
This is a misinterpretation. The source is a Mishnah in Nidda 31b. First
it is not speaking about gentiles but about Jews, second Niddah means
the menstruation cycle and not filth.

A gentile has no status of Niddah, however a female Jew who has had her
menstruation period has a certain type of status until the flow has
stopped and she has dipped in a natural pool of water - Mikveh. This
statement regards a Rabbinical decree categorizing all female Jewish
members of the Jewish sect of Cuthites (something like Saduccees) as
Niddah from birth, unless proved otherwise, as they did not keep the
laws of the Niddah properly so a collective decree had to be issued.
E.S.

RESPONSE (2)
First, Abodah Zarah means idolatry. It's not about non-Jews but refers
to the tainting effect of idolatrous conduct. And, of course, it's a
misquote again:

"The above text stated: `Behold Bali delcared that Abimi the Nabatean
said in the name of Rab: The bread, wine and oil of heathens and their
daughters are all included in the eighteen things?' What means `their
daughters'? - R. Nahman b. Isaac said: [The schools of Hillel and
Shammai] decreed that their daughters should be considered as in the
state of /niddah/ from their cradle; and Geneba said in the name of Rab:
With all the things against which they decreed the purpose was to
safeguard against idolatry."
>From Usenet message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reimer Behrends)

RESPONSE (3)
The word 'niddah' does not mean filth but is related to a period of
menstrual flow and the prohibition of intimate contact with women during
this period. According to Jewish law the term has more application to
Jewish women than to non-Jewish women but the Sages ruled that Gentile
women should be treated as if the state of niddah is applicable to them
as well. This ruling was meant to ensure that Jewish men would avoid
excessive contact with non-Jewish women.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])





CLAIM (30)
Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

RESPONSE (1)
The Sages suspected that the nations of Babylon and Rome were heavily
into bestiality, and the 20th century historians back them up.

In any case, it was this issue which the Talmud presented as the reason
for discouraging Jewish children playing with Babylonian or Roman
children they feared they would end up partners in their neighbors'
immorality.

[Edited RESPONSE .]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael A. Torczyner) <5ptttd$335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RESPONSE (2)
Misquote. That's from the Mishna again, which reads in full:

"One should not place cattle in heathens' inns, because they are
suspected of immoral practice with them."

Refers to certain Greek and Roman inns that indeed had such a reputation
(not undeservedly so). The Gemara goes on to explain this and cite a few
examples. The whole point under discussion is whether cattle placed in
such inns can be considered kosher. No general statement about the
sexual preferences of non-Jews is made.
>From Usenet message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reimer Behrends)

RESPONSE (3)
Tractate Avoda Zara (literally Tractate Idol Worship) deals with
relations with pagans and idol worshippers, particularly those who still
engaged in barbaric and immoral behavior. Such behavior is prohibited to
all people and Jews are not allowed to aid or facilitate such immoral
behavior.

In Avoda Zara 22a-22b there is a discussion concerning whether animals
could be left in the care of pagans for safekeeping in cases where there
was a suspicion that the pagans would engage in sexual relations with
such
animals. The text quotes several sages who witnessed such grossly
immoral behavior and the statement is made that 'they [such pagans]
prefer .. animals ... to their wives'. These sages ruled that it was
therefore forbidden to leave animals in the care of pagans.

The general conclusion of the Talmud is that despite such isolated cases
of sodomy there was no reason even to suspect that the pagans would
engage in such crudities.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])





CLAIM (31)
Abodah Zarah 67b . "The vessels of Gentiles, do they not impart a
worsened flavor to the food cooked in them?"

RESPONSE (1)
In this comment Rabbi Meir is speaking of the fact that if residual
flavour (e.g. from spices) is left in a cooking vessel and it is used
within 24 hours, then that flavour will be imparted into the food that
is next cooked in it. If left greater than 24 hours, then the flavour
will be worse as the food will have started to decompose. This point is
used to prove that even when a vessel is visibly clean, that foodstuff
is still absorbed in it. Gentiles have no need to keep kosher, and
therefore their vessels will not be kosher according to the above logic
(since the non-kosher flavour that is absorbed in them will be released
into the food). It has nothing whatever to do with the denigration of
gentiles - it is simply a recognition that Jews keep kosher and should
therefore use kosher vessels and that Gentiles have no need or
requirement to do so.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

RESPONSE (2)
Jewish law distinguishes between different types of foods; some are
permitted to Jews and some are not. The Talmud discusses the status of
permitted food which is cooked in a pot previously used for
non-permitted
food. The Talmud describes a legal construct known as 'imparting a worse
flavor' which is used to determine whether such food is permitted or
not. This phrase applies to a legal construct and does not mean that one
can actually detect a worse taste in the food. For example, the phrase
applies to pots in which food has been previously cooked if more than
one day has passed since the last use of these pots.

In Avoda Zara 67b the Talmud questions whether forbidden food which
'imparts a worse flavor' and is mixed with otherwise permitted food
causes the mixture to become forbidden. One sage who held that such
mixtures should be forbidden quotes Numbers 31:23 which relates how the
Jews were required to purify vessels of the Midianite idol worshippers
before using them. Since these vessels had not been used (in the view of
this sage) for more than a day after their capture whatever tastes had
been absorbed by them in the past only imparted a 'worse flavor' to new
food (in keeping with the halachic construct that vessels not used for a
day always impart a 'worse flavor'). As the Jews were commanded by the
Bible to purify these vessels he concluded that even in cases where a
'worse flavor' is imparted the mixture can become prohibited. The sage
did not state that Midianite food always imparts a 'worse taste'; rather
he stated that Midianite food that was old (as in vessels captured in
war) imparted a 'worse taste'. The exact same rule applies to food
cooked by Jews.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--[cont]--
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substanceónot soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to