-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 (56)
Menahoth 43b-44a . A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer
every day: Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman or a
slave.
RESPONSE (1)
Gentiles, women and slaves were not obligated under Old Testament law
to follow *all* the laws of the Torah. This was a prayer of thanks for
having been commanded to follow all of the law.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
The version in the Talmud we have extant states is as follows:
'R. Meir used to state that a man is obligated to make these three
blessings each day: who made me an Israelite, who did not make me a
woman, who did not make me an ignorant person ...'
A comment on the page notes that in the versions of some scholars the
blessing 'who made me an Israelite' is replaced by 'who did not make me
a non-Jew' (in some versions this is reported as 'who did not make me an
idol-worshipper') and it would appear that this is the original version
formulated by the sages. The Talmud notes that the blessing 'who did not
make me an ignorant person' should be replaced by 'who did not make me a
slave'.
These three blessings are recited in the morning after recitation of a
number of blessings over the creation of the soul, the implanting of the
soul in our bodies, and the granting of wisdom to mankind. These
blessings acknowledge our creation as human beings and they are followed
by the three blessings we are considering, a blessing for not having
been created as Gentile, slave or woman. Both context and commentaries
make it clear that the order of these three latter blessings is
determined by the number of commandments that a person is required to
perform. Gentiles are bound by the seven Noachide commandments, slaves
(of Jews) and Jewish women by many more commandments and Jewish males by
even more commandments.
The term 'blessing' cannot be understood as a simple 'Thank you'. Jews
are required to bless G-d both for the good and the bad. A special
blessing is recited when one is informed of tragic news, for example,
and each night Jews make a blessing over the fall of night which in
ancient times (and perhaps today as well) was associated with fear and
insecurity.
In this case the blessings refer to our status as people obligated to
carry out more commandments. The following commentary found in prayer
books (Anaf Yosef quoting an earlier source ) explains why 'the sage s
formulated these blessings in a negative manner and not as 'who made me
a Jew', 'who made me a free man', 'who made me a man''. The commentary
explains that the sages determined that in some sense it would have been
better for man not to have been born into a body which inevitably is
drawn after sin, but to remain in a pure spiritual state. By making a
positive blessing 'who made me a Jew' one would indicate an improper
sense of satisfaction about his state for "it is clear that it would be
better for a man not to have been created at all, neither as a male, nor
a female, neither as a Jew nor as a gentile nor as a free man [but
rather it would be better if he had remained in his spiritual state].
However since [G-d] decreed [our creation] we must bless Him and praise
Him ... [in accordance with the ability He has given us to perform His
commandments]."
See [elsewhere in this document/web page] for more information on the
Talmudic attitude to non-Jews.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (57)
Shabbath 86a-86b . Because Jews are holy they do not have sex during the
day unless the house can be made dark. A Jewish scholar can have sex
during the day if he uses his garment like a tent to make it dark.
RESPONSE (1)
This relates to the sanctification of marriage and the requirement to
always be modest. Marital relations are considered an essential part of
Jewish married life and the husband must do his utmost to provide for
the needs of his wife. The requirement to do this in the dark ensures,
apart from modesty, that the physical appearance of the husband or wife
is unimportant and what matters is making the act itself holy and
satisfying for both people in order to improve the marital bond. The
leniency allowed for a scholar is because he is more likely to be aware
of these requirements. In any case, this leniency only applies to
scholars in extenuating circumstances.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
RESPONSE (2)
See note to item [CLAIM 42] above.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (58)
Tall Tales of a Roman Holocaust Here are two early "Holocaust" tales
from the Talmud: Gittin 57b . Claims that four billion Jews were killed
by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 58a claims that 16 million
Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by he Romans.
(Ancient demography indicates that there were not 16 million Jews in the
entire world at that time, much less 16 million Jewish children or four
billion Jews).
RESPONSE (1)
No one has ever claimed that the Talmud is infallible or inspired. It
isn't that kind of "holy book". It contains human errors, just like
Supreme Court decisions do (see above). Obviously, this is one.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
These passages are part of agadic passages which are literary
flourishes. The exact quotes are as follows:
"The voice is the voice of Jacob, and the hands are the hands of Esau";
the [first] voice [in the passage is the voice of weeping of Jacob's
children and] refers to Hadrian Caesar who in Alexandria of Egypt killed
sixty multitudes upon sixty multitudes, twice as many as left Egypt [at
the time of the Exodus]; the [second] voice [of weeping] of Jacob refers
to Vespasian Caesar who in the city of Betar killed 400 multitudes, and
some say 4000 multitudes, and 'the hands are the hands of Esau' refers
to the wicked Empire [of Rome] which destroyed our House [i.e. the
temple] and burned our sanctuary and exiled us from our land; another
interpretation that can be attached to this verse is ...."
".... there were 400 synagogues in the great city of Betar and in each
one there were 400 teachers of children and each one taught 400 children
.... [and the enemy] wrapped them in their scrolls and set them on
fire".
It is clear we are dealing with literary flourishes and poetical forms
of expressing the magnitude and pain of a great tragedy and not with
evidence of a documentary nature based on painstaking research to which
we have become accustomed in modern times.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (59)
A Revealing Admission Abodah Zarah 70a . The question was asked of the
rabbi whether some wine stolen in Pumbeditha might be used or if it was
defiled, due to the fact that the thieves might have been Gentiles (a
Gentile touching wine would make the wine unclean). The rabbi says not
to worry, that the wine is permissible for Jewish use because the
majority of the thieves in Pumbeditha, the place where the wine was
stolen, are Jews
RESPONSE (1)
So the Talmud shows that the Jews know how to laugh at themselves.
Sorry, but that's a *good* thing.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
Wine touched by a Gentile is neither defiled nor unclean. However, it is
forbidden for a Jew to drink it. In medieval times the story was told of
an anti-Semite who accused the Jewish doctor of a king of secretly
hating the king. The anti-Semite asked the king to offer his doctor a
glass of wine and see the Jew's reaction. When the Jew declined to drink
the wine the king demanded an explanation. The doctor reportedly ordered
a bowl of water to be brought and washed the king's feet in it.
Afterward he drank the water and explained that the prohibition against
drinking wine was a religious law and had nothing to do with the wine
becoming 'unclean' or any feeling of animosity toward the king.
As far as the thieves of Pumbeditha, it is quite true that the majority
of thieves there were Jewish. The reason is that Pumbeditha was a town
which was almost entirely Jewish.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (60)
Pharisaic Rituals Erubin 21b (p. 150). "Rabbi Akiba said to him, "Give
me some water to wash my hands." "It will not suffice for drinking," the
other complained, "will it suffice for washing your hands?" "What can I
do? the former replied, "when for neglecting the words of the Rabbis one
deserves death? It is better that I myself should die than that I
transgress against the opinion of my colleagues."[This is the ritual
hand washing condemned by Jesus in Matthew 15: 1-9].
RESPONSE (1)
Just a note: Jesus does not condemn hand washing there. He just doesn't
regard it as binding. What he condemns is another item entirely - one
which, so far as I've been able to discover, is absent from the Talmud.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
Immediately following a passage which emphasizes the duty to follow
rabbinical legislation (see item [CLAIM 16] above), the Talmud relates
that R. Akiva was imprisoned by the Roman authorities at a very advanced
age. He was allowed only a small amount of water each day. One day the
guard spilled out half the water. The person who brought the water to R.
Akiva explained what had happened and then R. Akiva asked that he be
given enough water to wash his hands before eating bread. R. Akiva did
not eat until he received the water. Commentators point out that by
Jewish law R. Akiva was exempt from the obligation of washing before
eating bread but he decided to be strict with himself. R. Akiva's
decision to be strict with himself must be understood in the context of
the attempt by the Roman authorities at that particular time to stamp
out Torah Judaism by murdering the sages.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (61)
"Great Rabbi" Deceives A Woman Kallah 51a (Soncino Minor Tractates).
Teaches that God approves of rabbis who lie: "The elders were once
sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head
and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi
Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is
the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a womans menstrual
period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a
niddah. "They said, "What induced you to contradict the opinion of your
colleagues?" He replied, "I will prove it concerning him." He went to
the lads mother and found her sitting in the market selling beans. "He
said to her, "My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to
you, I will bring you to the world to come." (eternal life).
She said to him, "Swear it to me." Rabbi Akiba, "taking the oath with
his lips but annulling it in his heart," said to her, "What is the
status of your son?" She replied, "When I entered the bridal chamber I
was niddah (menstruating) and my husband kept away from me; but my best
man had intercourse with me and this son was born to me." Consequently
the child was both a bastard and the son of a niddah. It was declared,
"..Blessed be the God of Israel Who Revealed His Secret to Rabbi
Akiba..."
RESPONSE (1)
There was no significance to this promise anyhow, all he wished to do is
persuade her to speak the truth, a procedure very popular today in
police forces and court cases all around the modern world.
E.S.
RESPONSE (2)
Kallah is one long baraita, or an 'external' Mishna which was not
included in the Talmud by the sages. In fact Rashi suggests that even in
ancient times it was rare to find someone who was familiar with this
material. In the modern versions of the Talmud this tractate appears
with only minimal commentary.
In any case the passage is a remarkable one (it is to be found at Kalla
51a and Kalla Rabati 52b):
The passage deals with brazen people (those who are impudent, defiant
and without shame):
"Brazenness - R. Eliezer says [this characteristic is that of the child
of] a forbidden union; R. Yehoshua says [it is characteristic of the
child of] a nidda [a menstruating woman]; R. Akiva said [this
characteristic is that of the child of] both .....
The passage then describes an incident [translated below] and concludes
that R. Akiva was correct.
It is clear that we are dealing with literary flourishes and agada. The
full passage appears below:
"Once the sages were sitting by the gate [in the place of the
Sanhedrin]; two children passed by, one uncovered his head, one covered
his head [in Talmudic times this uncovering of the head in front of the
sages at the place of the Sanhedrin would be considered an act of
brazenness]. [As for] the one who uncovered his head, R. Eliezer said he
was the son of a forbidden union; R. Joshua said he was the son of a
niddah [a menstruating woman forbidden to her husband]. R. Akiva said he
was both the son of a forbidden union and a niddah. They said to R.
Akiva: "What came over you that you contradicted the words of your
rabbis?". He said to them "I will prove it". He went to the mother of
the child and ... said: "... if you tell me this I will bring you to the
next world". She said 'Swear to me". R. Akiva swore with his lips and
canceled [his oath] in his heart."
The woman thereupon confirmed R. Akiva's supposition that her son was
conceived when she was a nidda and the father was not her husband.
Commentators note that R. Akiva's oath was only to bring the woman to
the next world for judgment and he did not promise her a reward in the
next world. It is also noted that an oath which is verbally uttered is
binding
and cannot be canceled in the heart [except in the case where a person
was compelled by force to make an oath against his will]. The reason
that R. Akiva denied his oath in his heart was that he did not want to
be responsible for bringing her to judgment in the next world.
In any case it is hard to accept this passage as a literal account of an
historic event. First, it is part of an agadic passage aimed at
condemning the characteristic of brazenness and does not have halachic
implications. Secondly, it is inconceivable that three of the greatest
sages of the day would engage in common gossip. In Pirkei Avot, perhaps
the most famous chapters of the entire Talmud and which set out the
ethical teachings of the sages, we learn: "R. Akiva says 'Beloved is
man, for he was created in G-d's image'" (and commentators emphasize
that R. Akiva refers to all mankind). And when the teacher of R. Eliezer
asked his students to summarize the proper ethical path, R. Eliezer
suggested 'a good eye' [that is, to be tolerant and have a benevolent
attitude to others]. R. Eliezer also said "let your fellow's honor be as
dear to you as your own and do not anger easily". R. Joshua warned that
three things remove one from the world: "an evil eye, the evil
inclination and hatred of other people".
The 'Brotherhood' article suggests that this passage is really an attack
on the founder of the Christian faith but this is hardly possible as R.
Akiva was born many decades after his death.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (62)
In addition to the theme that God rewards clever liars the preceding
discussion is actually about Christ (the lad who "uncovered his head").
The reference to the lad*s mother is of course to the mother of Jesus,
Blessed Mary (called Miriam and sometimes, Miriam the hairdresser, in
Talmud).
RESPONSE
Utterly unfounded. It says something bad - so the anti-Semites deduce it
*must* be talking about Jesus. "Of course" is a little phrase thrown in
to make you accept it as true, despite the fact that no reason has been
given to believe it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CLAIM (63)(1)
Genocide Advocated by Talmud Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This
is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even
the best of the Gentiles should all be killed").
RESPONSE (1)
Simeon ben Yohai said this under the most extreme circumstances - after
his friends and teachers had been persecuted, tortured and eventually
murdered by the Romans in the Bar Kochbar revolt (135 CE).
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Again, the Talmud quotes this saying (in some versions). But it does not
endorse it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RESPONSE (2)
Soferim, like Kalla, is a 'minor tractate', which is not studied in
talmudic academies, and only very sparse commentaries are available.
This passage, which is agadic in style and content, appears as follows
in the common editions of the Talmud:
"R. Yehuda said .. most sailors are saintly people, the best of the
doctors to Gehinom (hell), the best of the butchers is the partner of
Amalek ... R. Shimon B. Yochai taught 'the best of the idol worshippers
- kill - during
war ..."
The only commentator on this passage on the page appears to understand
this last passage to mean that even the best of idol worshippers, when
they are at war, are liable to kill innocent Jews for no reason. He
notes that there is another version of the passage which does not state
'during war'.
This other version appears in the Mechilta, which is a commentary on the
Book of Exodus dating back to Talmudic times. Chapter 14, verse 7
describes how the Egyptians who chased after the People of Israel to the
Sea of Reeds took chariots to pursue them. The question that arises is
this: Which animals were harnessed to these chariots? After all, the
Egyptian animals had been killed in the plagues. The Mechilta notes that
that the answer to this question is hinted at in Ex. 9:20 which
describes how some "G-d fearing" Egyptians kept their animals indoors to
avoid their death during the plagues.
When it came time to attack the Jews, however, these so called "G-d
fearing" people - the "best of the Egyptians" - forgot their fear of
Heaven and allowed their animals to be used by Egyptian troops. They
were drowned at the Sea of Reeds.
In view of this experience R. Shimon stated that "the best of the
Egyptians - kill; the best of snakes, crush its head". R. Shimon's
comment relates to these wicked "G-d fearing" Egyptians (the "best of
the Egyptians") who were all too ready to persecute the Jewish people.
Both context and commentary make it clear that the reference is to war,
when enemies are attempting to kill or enslave the Jews. (Generally
speaking Jews are obliged to remember Egyptian hospitality to their
fathers with gratitude, even though eventually these Egyptians became
very cruel to the Jews.)
There are some different versions of this text outside the standard
version translated above (one such version states that the passage
refers to the wars with the Canaanite nations conquered by Joshua) but
in each case the reference is to war.
Michael Gruda ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (63)(2)
This passage is not from the Soncino edition but is from the original
Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted by the 1907 Jewish
Encyclopedia, published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled by Isidore
Singer, under the entry, "Gentile," (p. 617).
This original Talmud passage has been concealed in translation. The
Jewish Encyclopedia states that, "...in the various versions the reading
has been altered, The best among the Egyptians being generally
substituted." In the Soncino version: "the best of the heathens" (Minor
Tractates, Soferim 41a-b]. Israelis annually take
part in a national pilgrimage to the grave of Simon ben Yohai, to honor
this rabbi who advocated the extermination of non-Jews.("Jewish Press"
of June 9, 1989, p. 56B).
RESPONSE (2)
Simon ben Yohai was a leading - perhaps the leading - rabbi during a
period in which the Romans outlawed the practice of Judaism entirely, on
pain of death. (Wrong as his statement, if he actually made it, was, it
was not without the most severe provocation. Even great spiritual
leaders are only human.)
Jews have always honored ben Yohai for shepherding the nation through
that terrible time. I doubt that even the most rabid of the extremists
in Israel endorses the quote you mention.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CLAIM (64)
On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an
orthodox Jew from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians,
including children, while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein
was a disciple of the late Rabbi Kahane who has stated that his view of
Arabs as "dogs" is "from the Talmud." (Cf. CBS "60 Minutes", "Kahane").
Univ. of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldsteins
philosophy: "They believe it's God's will that they commit violence
against "goyim," a Hebrew term for non-Jews." (NY Daily News, Feb. 26,
1994, p. 5).
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood
and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989,
p.5). Rabbi Yaacov Perrin says, "One million Arabs are not worth a
Jewish fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).
RESPONSE
Quotes from certain Jewish radicals can hardly be considered as
representative of Jews in general.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (65)
Jewish Talmudic Doctrine: Non-Jews are Not Humans The Talmud
specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and
specifically dehumanizes Gentiles as not being descendants of Adam. We
will now list some of the Talmud passages which relate to this topic.
RESPONSE
This is another absurd lie. The anti-Semites who say this are not even
familiar with the origin of man in the (Jewish) bible they claim to
believe in! (Although they say that the people calling themselves Jews
are not really Jews...) All humans, both Jew and Gentile, descended from
Adam according to the Hebrew Bible, however, their lack of knowledge of
Hebrew leads them to draw totally ridiculous conclusions.
In Hebrew, the singular of the word man is "Adam", whilst the plural is
"Anasheem". The Torah states that "kol Yisrael areivim zeh lazeh, all
Jews are responsible for each other" (Shevuos 39). [******] According to
this principle, the fate of a single Jew determines the fate of all
Jews. This has been shown time and time again in history, where the
misbehaviour or crimes of a single Jew, whether real, alleged or
completely fabricated, have led to the whole Jewish people being held
responsible (and, for example, subsequent pogroms). In this sense the
Jewish people are like a single man, or Adam, because what affects one
part, affects all. This is why Jews are referred to as Adam, or man in
the singular sense. In the case of the misbehaviour or crimes of a
non-Jew, only the individual is held responsible, not the whole of the
Gentile people. Therefore, non-Jews are referred to in the plural sense
of the word man, or men, that is, Anasheem. In other words, what is
claimed of one individual is not claimed of all, therefore the Gentiles
are considered as a collection of individuals, but since what is said of
a single Jew is blamed on all Jews, the Jews are to be considered as a
single man as all Jews are affected.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (66)
Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer
every day: Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman or a
slave.
RESPONSE
Gentiles, women and slaves were not obligated under Old Testament lawn
to follow *all* the laws of the Torah. This was a prayer of thanks for
having been commanded to follow all of the law.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CLAIM (67)
Kerithoth 6b: Uses of Oil of Annointing. Our Rabbis have taught: He who
pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over
gentiles [Hebrew: goyim] or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating
to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: "Upon the flesh of
man [Hebrew: adam] shall it not be poured [Exodus 30:32]"; and cattle
and vessels are not man [adam]. Also with regard to the dead, [it is
plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called corpse and
not a man [adam]. But why is one exempt in the case of gentiles [goyim];
are they not in the category of man [adam]?--No, it is written: "And ye
my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are man [adam] [Ezekiel 34:31]": Ye
are called man [adam] but gentiles [goyim] are not called man [adam].
In the above passage, the Rabbis are discussing the Mosaic law which
forbids applying holy oil to men. In the discussion, the Rabbis state
that it is not a sin to apply the holy oil to gentiles, since gentiles
are not human beings (literally, adam).
RESPONSE
This represents a lack of knowledge of Hebrew at a most fundamental
level. Here, the anti-Semites claim that Adam means human but it really
means man. "Yetsoor" is the Hebrew word for human. Jews are referred to
by the singular form of man, Adam, whilst non-Jews are referred to by
the plural form of man, or anasheem. Both forms of the word mean human,
but one is single, the other is plural.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (68)
Yebamoth 61a: It was taught: And so did R. Simeon ben Yohai state [61a]
that the graves of gentiles [goyim] do not impart levitical uncleanness
by an ohel [standing or bending over a grave], for it is said, "And ye
my sheep the sheep of my pasture, are men [adam]" [Ezekiel 34:31]; you
are called men [adam] but the idolaters are not called men [adam].
The Mosaic law states that touching a human corpse or grave imparts
uncleanness to those who touch it. But the Talmud here teaches that if a
Jew touches the grave of a gentile, it does not make him unclean, since
gentiles are not human (literally, Adam).
RESPONSE
This represents a lack of knowledge of Hebrew at a most fundamental
level. Here, the anti-Semites claim that Adam means human but it really
means man. "Yetsoor" is the Hebrew word for human. Jews are referred to
by the singular form of man, Adam, whilst non-Jews are referred to by
the plural form of man, or anasheem. Both forms of the word mean human,
but one is single, the other is plural.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM (69)
Baba Mezia 114b: Said he [Rabbah] to him: Art thou not a priest: why
then dost thou stand in a cemetery? - He replied: Has the Master not
studied the laws of purity? For it has been taught: R. Simeon ben Yohai
said: The graves of gentiles [goyim] do not defile, for it is written,
"And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men [adam]" [Ezekiel
34:31]; only ye are designated men [Adam].
RESPONSE
This represents a lack of knowledge of Hebrew at a most fundamental
level. Here, the anti-Semites claim that Adam means human but it really
means man. "Yetsoor" is the Hebrew word for human. Jews are referred to
by the singular form of man, Adam, whilst non-Jews are referred to by
the plural form of man, or anasheem. Both forms of the word mean human,
but one is single, the other is plural. The reason that Jews are
referred to in the singular is that if one Jew does something bad, or is
alleged to have, all Jews are blamed for it. So, for the wrongdoing or
alleged wrongdoing of one, all suffer. In the case of non-Jews, only
individuals suffer, not all of the non-Jews. So that is why Jews are
referred to as a single person and non-Jews are referred to in the plu
ral.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM
A Jewish priest was standing in a graveyard. When asked why he was
standing there in apparent violation of the Mosaic law, he replied that
it was permissible, since the law only prohibits Jews from coming into
contact with the graves of humans [adam], and he was standing in a
gentile graveyard.
RESPONSE
The reference for this was not given, but the concept is discussed
elsewhere in this document. (DSM)
The [concept] 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. Correspondent of [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sara Salzman)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CLAIM
Since the so-called Scriptural proof text (Ezekiel 34:31) repeatedly
cited in the above three Talmud passages in reality does not prove that
only Jews are human, it is self-evident that the Talmudic sages who
asserted the preceding absurdities about Gentiles were already
anti-Gentile racists or ideologues who, in desperate search of some
proof of their position, distorted an Old Testament passage in order to
justify their bigotry. Their ideology came first, their "proof" second.
RESPONSE
See above answer. The anti-Semite who wrote this material could hardly
claim to be an expert on the Torah, given all of the other incorrect
information he has supplied. Ezekiel 34:31 means exactly as discussed in
the Talmud.
David S. Maddison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
CLAIM
Berakoth 58a R. Shila administered lashes to a man who had intercourse
with an Egyptian woman. The man went and informed against him to the
Government, saying: There is a man among the Jews who passes judgment
without the permission of the Government. An official was sent to
[summon] him. When he came he was asked: Why did you flog that man? He
replied: Because he had intercourse with a she-ass.
They said to him: Have you witnesses? He replied: I have. Elijah
thereupon came in the form of a man and gave evidence. They said to him:
If that is the case he ought to be put to death! He replied: Since we
have been exiled from our land, we have no authority to put to death; do
with him what you please.
While they were considering his case, R. Shila exclaimed, "Thine, Oh
Lord, is the greatness and the power" [1 Chronicles 29:11] What are you
saying? they asked him. He replied: What I am saying is this: Blessed is
the All-Merciful who has made the earthly royalty on the model of the
heavenly, and has invested you with dominion, and made you lovers of
justice.
They said to him: Are you so solicitous for the honor of the Government?
They handed him a staff and said to him: You may act as judge. When he
went out that man said to him: Does the All-Merciful perform miracles
for liars?
He replied: Wretch! Are they not called asses? For it is written: "Whose
flesh is as the flesh of asses" [Ezekiel 23:20]. He noticed that the man
was about to inform them that he had called them asses. He said: This
man is a persecutor, and the Torah has said: If a man comes to kill you,
rise early and kill him first. So he struck him with the staff and
killed him. He then said: Since a miracle has been wrought for me
through this verse, I will expound it."
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])
-----
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
