-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>
--[1]--
A truth-based response to:
"THE TALMUD: JUDAISM'S HOLIEST BOOK DOCUMENTED AND EXPOSED"
also known as
"TALMUD UNMASKED"
Examples of this document are available from the following racist and
anti-Semitic Web sites:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/talmud.htm
http://frontpage.inficad.com/~romanist/TalmudTruth.htm
http://www.hoffmaddddddddddn-info.com/talmudtruth.html
http://www.iahushua.com/JQ/talmud.html
http://www3.stormfront.org/jewish/talmud.html
http://abbc.com/islam/english/toread/talmud2.htm
http://www.thelordswork.com/Antichrist/TALMUD.htm
The document is also posted to various newsgroups by anti-Semites on a
regular basis.
CLAIM (1)
The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book. Its authority takes precedence
over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the
Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in
the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the
Torah (Old Testament)."
RESPONSE
That's not true. The Torah - the Five Books of Moses is Judaism's
"holiest" book, however it has two parts, a written part (which is what
Christians are familiar with) and an Oral part (which the early
Christians abandoned). The Oral part, or "Oral Law" is analogous to be a
body of jurispudence and procedures to accompany the written law and is
understood to have been handed down from Moses around the 1200's BCE. It
was expressly forbidden to write it down because it was thought that any
such attempt would be incomplete but after much debate, it became
apparent that the only way to preserve it would be to write it down and
this was done between 70CE and 200 CE in the form of the Mishna and the
supplementary Tosefta. Later the Gemara was added as additional material
and was written between 200CE and 500CE. Finally around 500 CE this and
other material were included in the encyclopedic Talmud consisting of
5,894 pages and there are many further works in addition to these as
well.
The point of saying this is that in the absence of any interpretation
via an oral tradition, it is difficult to understand what was meant. For
example, the classic "eye for an eye" quote (Exodus 21:24 and Leviticus
24:17-22) which Christians interpret literally has no such
interpretation in Judaism. No Jewish court has ever blinded or otherwise
inflicted physical injury as revenge or retribution. The phrase is
interpreted to mean what the perpetrator of a crime deserves, not what
he should get. Another example is that despite the existence of capital
punishment in the Hebrew Bible, Jewish courts rarely issued the death
penalty as extremely strict conditions were imposed on who was
considered valid witnesses and other requirements which were difficult
to meet in practice.
Other examples proving the existence of the Oral Law within the Bible
relate to the fact that many terms, procedures, rights and
responsibilites are assumed to be common knowledge within the text. A
common expression is "as I have commanded you" but it doesn't say
anywhere what the command was, except that it known from the Oral part
of the Bible.
The Talmud derives its authority from the Torah on which it is based..
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (2)
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also
be seen in the case of the Black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians have more
knowledge of the Old Testament than the Israelis.
RESPONSE
That's not true. In fact they have less knowledge of the Bible because
they lost the Oral Law somewhere in their past and thus did not have
complete knowledge of the Bible because the Oral Law is just as much a
part of the Bible as the Written Law. How for example would they be
expected to perform duties described in the written Bible described in
the form "as I have commanded you" where no where else in the written
Bible does it give what these instructions are? The instructions were
given in the Oral part of the Bible.
Also, it is clear from the Talmud that the Torah law takes precedence
over the Talmud: "When doubt arises in a Rabbinical law we are naturally
lenient; but where the law is Scriptural we are strict."
Pesahim, Soncino Edition, p. 42, footnote (2) David S. Maddison
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (3)
However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes Talmud,
of which they have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept.
29, 1992, p.4: "The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no
further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries
that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way." Because
they don't traffic in Talmudic traditions, the Black Ethiopians are
discriminated against and have been forbidden to perform marriages,
funerals and other services in the Israeli state.
RESPONSE
Because the Ethiopian Jews stopped following the Oral Law at some point
and came to rely on only the Written Law (Bible) they stopped practising
certain aspects of Judaism since they did not have the full knowledge
required. The Talmud itself did not change the practice of Judaism as is
claimed. All it did was codify the knowledge that already existed and
had been handed down since the time of Moses. It still would be handed
down orally, had it not been for people trying to murder all the Jews
over the centuries. If it wasn't for that, there would have been no need
to write it down in the first place.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (4)
Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik is regarded as one of the most influential
rabbis of the 20th century, the "unchallenged leader" of Orthodox
Judaism and the top international authority on halakha (Jewish religious
law). Soloveitchik was responsible for instructing and ordaining more
than 2,000 rabbis, "an entire generation" of Jewish leadership.
RESPONSE
So? What is your point?
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (5)
N.Y. Times religion reporter Ari Goldman described the basis of the
rabbis authority: "Soloveitchik came from a long line of distinguished
Talmudic scholars...Until his early 20s, he devoted himself almost
exclusively to the study of the Talmud...He came to Yeshiva University's
Elchanan Theological Seminary where he remained the pre-eminent teacher
in the Talmud...He held the title of Leib Merkin professor of
Talmud...sitting with his feet crossed in front of a table bearing an
open volume of the Talmud." (N.Y. Times, April 10, 1993, p. 38).
RESPONSE
So? What is your point?
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (6)
Nowhere does Goldman refer to Soloveitchiks knowledge of the Bible as
the basis for being one of the top world authorities on Jewish law. The
rabbis credentials are predicated upon his mastery of the Talmud. All
other studies are clearly secondary. Britains Jewish Chronicle of March
26, 1993 states that in religious school (yeshiva), Jews are "devoted to
the Talmud to the exclusion of everything else."
RESPONSE
So? What is your point?
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (7)
The Scribes claim the Talmud is partly a collection of traditions Moses
gave them in oral form. These had not yet been written down in Jesus
time. Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and
those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because it nullified
Biblical teachings.
RESPONSE
The Talmud does not nullify any Biblical teachings but clarifies them.
The Bible has two parts, the written part and the oral part. The oral
part is what is expounded upon in the Talmud. It is interesting that
Jesus is claimed to have condemned the Talmud since many of his
teachings and some of the "New Testament" are based directly on the Oral
Teachings.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (8)
The famous warning of Our Lord about the tradition that voids Scripture
(cf. Mark 7:13), which is regularly used against Catholicism by
Protestants, is actually a direct reference to the Talmud or more
properly, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which
existed in oral form during Christ*s lifetime, before being committed to
writing. All of Mark chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen,
represents Our Lord*s pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.
RESPONSE
[Answer in preparation.]
CLAIM (9)
Unfortunately, due to the abysmal ignorance of our day, the widespread
Christian notion is that the Old Testament is the supreme book of
Judaism. But this is not so. The Pharisees teach for doctrine the
commandments of rabbis, not God; the Talmudic commentary on the Bible is
their supreme law and not the Bible itself. That commentary does indeed,
as Jesus said, void the laws of God, not uphold them. As a reader of
Talmud (in the rabbinically authorized Soncino version) I know this to
be true.
RESPONSE
The Torah ("Old Testament") was given to Jews in two parts, the written
part which is commonly known to Christians, and also the Oral part,
which was codified in the Talmud. A proper understanding of the Torah
requires knowledge of both parts. Indeed, the written Torah itself
alludes to the presence of the Oral part.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (10)
There is a small Jewish sect which makes considerable effort to eschew
Talmud and adhere to the Old Testament alone. These are the Karaites, a
most hated and severely persecuted group within Judaism.
RESPONSE
It is not true that they are "hated and severely persecuted". The only
concern with Karaites is that they do not practice normative Judaism as
revealed in the Torah (like some other contemporary Jewish groups).
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (11)
To the Mishnah the rabbis later added the Gemara (rabbinical
commentaries). Together these comprise the Talmud. There are two
versions, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian
Talmud is regarded as the authoritative version: "The authority of the
Babylonian Talmud is also greater than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. In
cases of doubt the former is decisive." (R.C. Musaph-Andriesse, From
Torah to Kabbalah: A Basic Introduction to the Writings of Judaism, p.
40).
RESPONSE
This is essentially true. It doesn't hurt to tell the truth
occasionally, does it?
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (12)
This study is based on the Jewish-authorized, English translation of the
Babylonian Talmud: the Soncino edition. Every selection we cite is
documented directly from the text of the authoritative Soncino Talmud.
We have published herein the authenticated sayings of the Jewish Talmud.
Look them up for yourself. To verify the Talmud passages cited, refer to
the Soncino edition Talmud, which may be found in large university and
seminary libraries. The Soncino Talmud may also be purchased from book
dealers.
RESPONSE
Of course, as will be revealed in the following analysis of the posted
material, it is full of gross mistranslations, fabrications and out of
context "quotes". And of course, no translation will ever capture the
real flavour of what is being said. For proper study of the Talmud, an
excellent knowledge of Aramaic and Hebrew is required.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (13)
Translations: The translators of the Talmud sometimes translate the
Hebrew word goyim (Gentiles) under any number of terms such as heathen,
Cuthean, Egyptian, idolater etc. But these are actually references to
Gentiles (all non-Jews). See for example footnote 5 of the Soncino
edition Talmud: Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the
original goy... Christians are sometimes referred to by the code word
Min or Minim.
RESPONSE
Only Jewish Christians are referred to as minim or "heretics". Gentile
Christians are not.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (14)
It is the standard disinformation practice of the Pharisees to deny the
existence of the following Talmudic scriptures and to claim they are the
fabrications of "anti-Semites." This disinformation can only obtain
cachet among those too lazy to go to the English-language books of the
Talmud and look these passages up for themselves. Hebrew University
Professor emeritus Israel Shahak in his monumental 1994 work, "Jewish
History, Jewish Religion" (London:Pluto Press), has confirmed the malice
and racism contained in Talmud.
RESPONSE
Here we have the bizarre claim of the "Christian Identity" movement that
the modern day Jews are "Pharisees" and thus not "true" Jews of the
Bible... And Professor Shahak is well-known as a self-hating Jew and for
his vitriolic attacks against Judaism. He can hardly be cited as an
authoritative source on Jewish belief.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (15)
Like the courageous Prof. Shahak, we publish the following educational
material in the hope of liberating people, both Jewish and non-Jewish,
from the superstitions, hate-mongering and barbarities of Talmud. The
implementation of Talmudic philosophy has caused untold suffering
throughout history and now in occupied Palestine it is used as a
justification for the mass murder of Palestinian civilians.
RESPONSE
Professor Shahak is a self-hating Jew who will go to any lengths to
discredit his own religion. Unfortunately, his understanding of his own
religion is not valid or authentic and he is certainly not a theologian.
Also, rather than causing "untold suffering", the teachings of the
Talmud for much of the basis for the legal system and common law in most
civilised societies.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (16)
Some Teachings of the Talmud Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis
deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in
hell.
RESPONSE (1)
Interpreting the verse "Much study is weariness of the flesh" (Eccl
12:12), one Rabbi alone understands that anyone who *mocks* (which is
worse than disobeying) the Rabbi's statements would be boiled in
excrement. HIS UNDERSTANDING IS REJECTED BY THE TALMUD.
Avraham Hampel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
The correct quote is as follows:
"Whoever [rebelliously] breaches the words [legislative enactments] of
the Scribes [early legal authorities who had legislative power] is
liable for death [at the hands of Heaven]... whoever mocks the words of
the Wise is sentenced to [divine] punishment [in the afterlife] by
boiling excrement."
The Written Torah bids Jews to follow legislation enacted by the
Sanhedrin (council of sages). This legislation was designed to prevent
Jews from violating Written Torah laws and to organize life in a manner
befitting a holy people. Rebellion against this legislation was
naturally seen in an extremely negative light.
As a result it is no wonder that the Talmud expresses itself in the
strongest terms against those who systematically and rebelliously
violate the rabbinical enactments promulgated by the ancient Sanhedrin.
On the other hand one who violates a Written Torah commandment usually
does so not as an act of rebellion but because he has succumbed to a
momentary sinful impulse.
Phrases such as 'is liable for death' are used to indicate a negative
attitude to a certain form of behavior and refer to a penalty imposed by
Heaven and not to punishment inflicted by a religious court. In fact
such expressions are not usually meant to be taken literally as implying
that Heaven will punish someone with early death for his sin. Some
commentators note that any unfortunate occurrence such as sickness or
poverty may be seen as implementation of a 'death' penalty by Heaven.
Also, the judgment of Heaven may be mitigated by factors such as
repentance.
Another example of the use of this type of phrase is found at Shabbat
114a where "R. Yochanan said that every scholar who has filth on his
cloak is liable for death", and there are many other similar examples.
It is important to emphasize that the such statements are in no way
meant to suggest implementation of a death penalty by a human court. (In
fact the death penalty was so rare in rabbinic times that the Talmud
states that "A Sanhedrin that gives a death penalty once in seven years
is called 'destructive'; Rabbi Eliezer ben Azaria said [that the
reference is to a Sanhedrin which gives a death sentence] once in
seventy years." (Makot 7a).)
Similarly the term 'boiling excrement' is another example of the
metaphorical style used by the Talmud to express disapproval of negative
behavior (I believe that in ancient times animal excrement was used for
industrial purposes and the term may not have quite the same connotation
it has nowadays).
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (17)
Moed Kattan 17a . If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city
where he is not known and do the evil there.
RESPONSE (1)
It never talks about a "Jew", and it never refers to him being
"tempted". It refers to a stage where a person has already been overcome
by his evil inclination, and the only question is whether he will sin
publicly, or privately in a place where he is not known. The latter is
the lesser of the two evils, as at least he does not become a bad
example for others to follow. The Gemarrah explained that someone who
acted this way died, and could not be buried near the righteous.
Obviously it is not recommending it, just attempting damage control.
Very wise, IMHO.
Avraham Hampel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
The correct translation should be: "R. Elayi says: 'if a man sees that
the evil urges is overcoming him he should go to a place where no one
knows him, dress in black, cover himself in black and do what his heart
wills and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public".
The commentators on the page immediately point out that the statement
means that in the process of leaving his town, entering a strange place,
dressing in black and covering himself in black, a person's evil urge
will be broken and he will have no desire to do evil; i.e., he may do as
his heart wills since his heart will no longer wish to do evil (several
commentators note that this interpretation is stated explicitly in a
parallel passage of agada in the Talmud Yerushalmi).
Other commentators point out that the statement does not refer to an
evil urge to commit a sin but rather the urge to behave improperly,
thereby desecrating G-d's name. When a Torah scholar acts in a manner
that is not becoming to one who has studied Torah (for example, when he
speaks with undue severity) he desecrates G-d's name because he is
expected to conform to a higher standard of behavior. According to these
commentators this
passage is directed at these scholars; if they feel the urge to act on
the level of the common person they should do so where they are not
known as Torah scholars and thus avoid the desecration of G-d's name.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (18)
Non-Jews are Not Human Baba Mezia 114a-114b. Only Jews are human ("Only
ye are designated men").
RESPONSE (1)
Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai alone makes the statement that non-Jews are not
considered in the laws of impurity - therefore a priest can touch a
non-Jewish corpse without being defiled. It nowhere states that non-Jews
are not human, or that only Jews are human.
Avraham Hampel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
Okay, here we have piece of misinformation number 1; a slick one,
because anyone who read this line would surely be outraged. But this has
nothing to do with designating anyone as "men."
What is going on here is a method of analysis known as a "hekesh," or in
English a "linkage." The verse from the Bible says, "And I made my sheep
(those who follow my commandments) into sheep, my flock into Man." From
there, the Sages understand similar usages of the term "Man" to mean the
nation which follows the commandments - the Jewish People. The Tosafos
in Sanhedrin 59a, points out many times when Gentiles are indeed
referred to as "Man?"
[Edited response.] <5ptttd$335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Michael A. Torczyner)
RESPONSE (3)
This is a mistranslation of the term "adam". Also, the Talmud just has a
Rabbi quoting Ezekiel XXXIV, 31 in this place. Nothing is being said
about non-Jews not being human or only Jews being human.
>From Usenet message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reimer Behrends)
RESPONSE (4)
Apparently a deliberate mistranslation. The passage deals with the
technical rules of corpse-impurity which, according to the author of
this text, apply to Jews and not to gentiles. In this connection Ezekiel
34:31 is cited: "And ye My sheep [referring to Israel], the sheep of My
pasture, are _men [Hebrew: "adam"]_, and I am your God, saith the Lord
God." From a careful midrashic reading of this Biblical verse, Rabbi
Simeon ben Yohai deduced "Only "ye" [i.e., Israel, not other nations]
are designated "adam," in the sense that only Jewish corpses and graves
generate impurity according to Numbers 19:14: "This is the law: when a
_man ['adam']_ dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the
tent...shall be unclean seven days..." The passage is legal and
exegetical, not theological. If anything, it seems to put Jews on a
lower footing than non-Jews. Typically, the words "but beasts" were
added on by whoever put this list together. They do not appear in the
original.
>From Usenet message:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (5)
In Numbers 19:14 the Written Torah states that "If [a] man [person] dies
inside a tent ...." and the passage goes on to describe the laws of
ritual impurity caused by the corpse.
The sages considered whether this law applied to all men or only to
Jews. It might have been thought that the word 'man' or 'person' would
indicate a reference to both Jews and non-Jews. However the Oral
tradition made it clear that when the Torah uses the word 'man' or
'person' in connection with legal restrictions the reference is usually
to Jews and not to non-Jews who are not bound by Torah law.
The Talmudic passage states in connection with this matter: "'... My
sheep ... you are men' (Ez. 34:31); you [Jews] are called 'adam' [men],
and the idol worshippers are not called 'adam' [men]".
Commentators explain that the use of the word 'men' [adam] in this
passage is similar to the use of the word 'person' in modern national
law codes. When such a law code uses the term 'person' the reference is
not universal but is restricted to those persons who are bound by that
national law code.
Similarly in the case at hand the laws of ritual impurity apply only to
Jews and not to non-Jews. The passage should thus be understood as
follows:
"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that for the
purpose of legal enactments the term 'person' refers to Jews, who are
bound by the law, and does not refer to non-Jews who are not bound by
the law". It is interesting to note that the proof text is taken from
Ezekiel Chapter 34 in which Israel is compared to sheep.
Another interpretation given by commentators is that when the context is
negative (as in a discussion of ritual impurity caused by a corpse or
the commission of a sin) the word 'man' is used to refer to Jews only
(in this
way not bringing shame on the name 'Israel'), but when the context is
positive then the word includes all of mankind.
With this understanding the Talmudic passage should be understood as
follows:
"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that in a negative
context such as that of ritual impurity the word 'man' refers to Jews
only, and not to non-Jews".
This sentence appears three times in the Talmud; the reference in Baba
Mezia 114a is tangential and therefore the subject is not developed at
any length. An honest reader would follow the cross-references to the
other locations and note that in Kerithoth 6b the Talmud points out that
the application of this principle of interpretation is questionable in
any event.
Yevamot 61a is the third place in which this rule of interpretation is
mentioned and in this location the commentators on the page also point
out that this rule of interpretation has very limited use. They
specifically cross reference to the Talmudic statements in Avoda Zara 3a
and Sanhedrin 59a which compare non-Jews who engage in Torah study to
the High Priest.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (19)
Also see Kerithoth 6b under the sub-head, "Oil of Anointing"
RESPONSE
Kerithoth 6b is a rehash of the above point, whereby non-Jewish dead do
not impurify. Nowhere does it claim that they are not human.
Avraham Hampel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CLAIM (19a)
and Berakoth 58a in which Gentile women are designated animals
("she-asses").
RESPONSE (1)
Let's start off earlier up Berachot 58a. It says that anyone who sees a
non-Jewish wise man should bless G-d for giving His wisdom to all his
creatures (not just Jews). Anyone who sees a non-Jewish king should
bless G-d for giving His glory to all his creatures (not just Jews).
Someone should run to see a king, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. These
are not misinterpreted quotes by individual Rabbis, this is what Judaism
believes, as it was brought down in Jewish law and can be found in
almost any prayerbook.
Having said that, Berachot 58a also records one individual sage (Rabbi
Shila) referring to an ancient Egyptian woman as a she-ass. It does NOT
generalise to Gentile women in the least, and was probably a reaction to
the suffering the Jews had undergone at the hands of the ancient
Egyptians.
Avraham Hampel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Actually, what we have here is a quotation of a verse from Ezekiel. The
verse, if one looks at the citation refers to the Jews who followed
idolatry. It chastises them for their infidelity, comparing them to
people who chase lovers, and it calls those lovers, "Whose flesh is that
of donkeys, and their stream is that of horses." What that has to do
with calling Gentile women "she-asses?" Especially considering the
well-known fact that in the Bible, a "she-ass" is an "Aton" where the
verse uses the term "Chamor?"
[Edited response.] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael A. Torczyner)
<5ptttd$335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
Ditto. Keritoth 6b even goes a long way explaining the different
meanings of "adam" (namely man in general vs. man in the image of G-d)
and when to use which meaning, especially in matters of ritual impurity.
>From Usenet message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reimer Behrends)
RESPONSE (3)
The prophet Ezekiel (Ez. 23:20) says "... for their flesh is as the
flesh of donkeys ..." in reference to the nations surrounding Israel.
The prophet is castigating Judea for forming covenants with foreign
nations and metaphorically describes this process as Judea desiring
intimacy with donkeys.
The use of this designation by the prophet is consistent with biblical
poetic style. See, for example, Gen. 49:14 where Issachar is denoted a
"donkey"; or Gen. 49:17 where Dan is described as a "snake"; or Deut.
33:17 where Joseph is described as a "cow" etc.
The Talmud at Berakoth 58a relates how R. Shila had a Jew punished by
flogging for having illicit sexual relations with a non-Jew. The person
who was flogged used his influence with local imperial officials and
tried to have them execute R. Shila.
These officials asked R. Shila to explain why he had ordered the
flogging and he answered that the punishment had been meted out to
someone who had had relations with a donkey. The exchange ended with the
officials being so impressed with R. Shila that they extended R. Shila's
legal powers and granted him the right to impose capital punishment.
The person who had been flogged accused R. Shila of being a liar, to
which R. Shila answered by quoting Ezekiel; that is, he claimed that his
statement was true on the same metaphorical level as that used by the
prophet Ezekiel and therefore did not fall into the category of an
outright lie. (In our own day we might find a rough parallel if a
preacher were to accuse an errant member of his flock of lusting after
animal flesh.)
This verse from Ezekiel is found in a few other Talmudic discussions. It
is instructive to note that in Arakhin 19b the verse is applied to Jews
to indicate that the density of human flesh and bone is similar to that
of animal flesh and bone, and in Yevamot 98a the verse is taken to refer
to a legal position which is lenient to converts to Judaism (in the
sense that they are considered newborns, and not related to their former
family members for purposes of legal strictures regarding marriage
laws). Similarly in Berakhot 25b the Talmud specifically points out that
the verse does not refer to non-Jews.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (20)
Jews are Divine Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the
Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.
RESPONSE (1)
Nowhere does it say that Jews are divine. In the opinion of one
individual Rabbi, Rabbi Hanina, not the Talmud, a non-Jew who hits a Jew
is worthy of death by the Hand of G-d - there is no room whatsoever for
a Jew to kill him. That is what is written in Sanhedrin 58b. A Jew who
hits a Jew, by comparison, is called wicked and excluded from Jewish
communal life until he apologises (eg. can't be counted in a Minyan
[Mininum size group of 10 men required for communal prayer.]) which is
likewise a form of spiritual death. Therefore there is no
discrimination.
[Edited RESPONSE.] Avraham Hampel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
Misquote. The text doesn't say that he must be killed but that he's
worthy of death -- an idiomatic phrase referring to death by the hand of
god (struck by lightning etc.). That's because by hitting a man (made in
the image of God) you are marring the image of God. The same is also
said of Jews who simply raise their hand against others, by the way.
Usenet message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reimer Behrends)
RESPONSE (3)
The correct translation is: "R. Chanina says 'an idol worshipper who
strikes a Jew is liable for death, as it says .... [a proof text from
Exodus 2:12] and if one strikes the jaws of a Jew it is as if he has
struck the jaws of the Shechina as it says in Proverbs ... [a proof text
from Proverbs 20:25 which is based on a play of words]'".
Commentators explain that the phrase 'liable for death' is not a
punishment that is carried out by a human court. It may also be noted
that in Jewish thought the term 'death' when referring to a 'death
penalty' carried out by Heaven may include sickness or poverty, not
necessarily untimely death, and in any event punishment may be mitigated
by factors such as repentance. See [CLAIM 16] above where this matter is
discussed with reference to another passage.
As far as hitting a Jew: Jews bear G-d's name in this world. One who
strikes a Jew because of hatred toward the Jewish people is striking at
those who brought G-d's word to all mankind. The term "Shechina" refers
to the human perception of G-d's presence in this world, and that
perception is one that is intimately related to the existence and
well-being of the Jewish people.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (21)
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a Gentile
("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
RESPONSE (1)
A Jew must certainly pay a Cuthean the wages owed him for work. But
because not paying is not the same as stealing, it is not actionable in
a Jewish court. That is what is written in Sanhedrin 57a. Worlds apart
from sanctioning robbery (and besides, one would expect the non-Jew to
be able to make a claim in a non-Jewish court.)
Avraham Hampel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
When I searched for the word "withholding" in the Talmud, I found that
the only other mention of withholding wages was in Baba Metzia 111b. In
Baba Metzia 111b, it specifically applies to Amalekites --- a nation we
are supposedly perpetually at war with. (In the real world, we haven't
been able to identify any Amalekites in centuries.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Joseph Hertzlinger)
<65lb0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (3)
It is certainly not "OK to cheat 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".
In Sanhedrin 57a the Talmud discusses the Noahide laws which are binding
on all non-Jews. It specifically examines the source of the prohibition
against holding back wages. Such practice is forbidden to everyone -
both Jew and non-Jew - but the biblical source of this prohibition is
different for Jews and non-Jews.
Jews are prohibited from holding back wages by specific verses in the
bible (Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:14) which impose this prohibition only on
Jews. These verses specifically prohibit Jews from holding back wages
from anyone, whether Jew or non-Jew (Rambam, positive commandment #200).
For non-Jews the biblical source for this prohibition is the verse
generally prohibiting non-Jews from stealing.
In this passage the Talmud examines the prohibition of withholding wages
with reference only to the scriptural passage prohibiting non-Jews from
such behavior. The proper translation of the passage is this:
"holding back wages - a Cuthean [who does this] to a Cuthean -
prohibited [by the verse prohibiting non-Jews from stealing]; a Jew to a
Cuthean - permitted [by this verse, but prohibited by other verses which
specifically prohibit a Jew from holding back wages].
It may be noted that there are other situations where Jews are forbidden
to do something by one verse and Gentiles are forbidden the same action
by a different verse.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (22)
Jews Have Superior Legal Status Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an
Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox
of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in
full."
RESPONSE (1)
The next page (38a) says that the context applies to nations which do
not recognize the laws of Noah in Genesis, chapter 9. In particular,
Canaanites did not recognize that there should be payment in such
situations. Such payments should only be made to members of goyim that
do have such laws.
I suspect that the passage in question was aimed at the Romans. In this
case, there is a clear difference between Judaism and the Sermon on the
Mount. Jesus quite clearly said that we should treat our enemies the
same way we treat our friends. When large numbers of people were
convinced of this, the result was to hand more power over to Rome than
before.
The Reformation reversed this a little.
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Joseph Hertzlinger)
<65lb0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
Let's quote that part in full (Soncino edition). The quote is the
Mishna, the Gemara has been *cough* "accidentally" omitted, I suspect.
"WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE HAS GORED AN OX BELONGING TO A
CANAANITE THERE IS NO LIABILITY etc. But I might here assert that you
are on the horns of a dilemma. If the implication of `his neighbour' has
to be insisted upon, then in the case of an ox of a Canaanite goring an
ox of an Israelite, should there also not be exemption? If [on the other
hand] the implication of `his neighbour' has not to be insisted upon,
why then even in the case of an Israelite goring an ox of an Canaanite,
should there not be liability? - R. Abbahu thereupon said: The Writ
says, /He stood and measured the earth; he beheld and drove asunder the
nations/, [2] God beheld the seven commandments which were accepted by
all the descendents of Noah, but since they did not observe them, He
rose up and declared them to be outside the protection of the civil law
of Israel [with reference to damage done to cattle by cattle]. [4]"
Footnotes from the Soncino edition:
"[2] Hab. III, 6."
"[4] The exemption from the protection of the civil law of Israel thus
referred only to the Canaanites and their like who had wilfully rejected
the elementary and basic principles of civilised humanity."
The paragraph introduces the principle of reciprocity. People who do not
obey the most basic laws of the country they live in forfeit their right
to make demands based on civil law themselves (doesn't extend to
criminal law).
>From Usenet message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reimer Behrends)
RESPONSE (3)
The commentaries on the page explain that the reference is to Canaanites
who do not observe the Noachide laws but act as pirates and are outside
the community of civilized nations. According to their laws no one is
liable for damage committed by his animals. Since they do not take the
minimal steps necessary to guard their own animals from doing damage to
others the sages ruled that they too should be bound by their own rules
in this particular instance.
The passage of the Bible that is discussed here is Exodus 21:35. The
following is a quote from the Torah Temima, a famous commentary
published about a century ago: "Behold, this law referring to the
exemption of payment [in this case] ..... has been used by anti-Semites
to attack our ancient literature ... and this vicious claim is raised by
the haters of Israel in generation after generation, and the wise men of
Israel in each generation have explained that the intent of our sages
was to idol worshippers of ancient times .... who are no longer found in
modern times .... the Talmud here explains this matter ... [it applies
to those] who do not keep the [seven Noachide commandments] but do the
exact opposite, that is, they do not have a legal system, they permit
murder and licentiousness, robbery ... etc. ... and all the modern
nations deny the rights of such wild people and expel them from the
civilized community .... and you will see that the Talmud itself makes
an exception from this rule to all nations which accept the Noachide
commandments which are the majority of the nations at this time [the
Torah Temima commentary was written about a century ago] and their
status is the same as that of Jews for these laws [and this matter is so
clear and obvious that] no further discussion is necessary."
Similar sentiments were expressed by the Meiri about 700 years ago; in
his commentary on this passage he pointed out that the law applied to
nations who did not care if their animals damaged the property of others
and did not apply to the nations of his time.
This discussion is continued below in item [CLAIM 36].
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
RESPONSE (4)
The footnote associated with this passage in the Soncino edition reads:
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])
--[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. Substance—not 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
