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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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)
RESPONSE
(2)
"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).
CLAIM (17)
RESPONSE
(1)
RESPONSE
(2)
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
CLAIM (18)
RESPONSE (1)
RESPONSE (2)
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?"
RESPONSE (3)
RESPONSE (4)
RESPONSE (5)
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
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.
CLAIM (19)
RESPONSE
CLAIM (19a)
RESPONSE (1)
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.
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?"
RESPONSE (2)
RESPONSE (3)
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.
CLAIM (20)
RESPONSE (1)
RESPONSE (2)
RESPONSE (3)
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.
CLAIM (21)
RESPONSE (1)
RESPONSE (2)
RESPONSE (3)
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.
CLAIM (22)
RESPONSE
(1)
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.
RESPONSE
(2)
"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).
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].
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.
CLAIM (23)
RESPONSE
(1)
RESPONSE
(2)
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."
CLAIM (24)
RESPONSE
(1)
RESPONSE
(2)
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.
CLAIM (25)
RESPONSE
(1)
RESPONSE
(2)
RESPONSE
(3)
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
".. 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.
CLAIM (26)
RESPONSE (1)
Again, this only applies to nations which reject
the laws of Noah.
RESPONSE (2)
RESPONSE (3)
"..[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".
CLAIM (27)
RESPONSE
(1)
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.
RESPONSE
(2)
RESPONSE
(3)
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."
RESPONSE (4)
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.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)
RESPONSE (5)
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.
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 adherence 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
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...
...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...
(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
CLAIM (28)
RESPONSE (1)
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.
RESPONSE
(2)
CLAIM (29)
RESPONSE
(1)
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.
RESPONSE
(2)
"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."
RESPONSE
(3)
CLAIM (30)
RESPONSE
(1)
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
.]
RESPONSE
(2)
"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
RESPONSE
(3)
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
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.
CLAIM (31)
RESPONSE
(1)
RESPONSE
(2)
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.
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
The correct quote is as follows:
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
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.
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
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".
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 (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
Non-Jews are Not Human Baba Mezia 114a-114b. Only
Jews are human ("Only ye are designated men").
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
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."
[Edited response.] <5ptttd$335$4@news.nyu.edu> mat6263@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner)
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
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)
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:
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.
way not bringing shame on the name 'Israel'),
but when the context is positive then the word includes all of mankind.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
Also see Kerithoth 6b under the sub-head, "Oil
of Anointing"
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
and Berakoth 58a in which Gentile women are designated
animals ("she-asses").
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.
Avraham Hampel
[Edited response.] mat6263@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) <5ptttd$335$4@news.nyu.edu>
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
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)
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.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
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.
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
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
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)
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]'".
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need
not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
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
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.)
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger) <65lb0o$26h@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
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".
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
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."
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.
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger)
<65lb0o$26h@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
Let's quote that part in full (Soncino edition).
The quote is the Mishna, the Gemara has been *cough* "accidentally" omitted,
I suspect.
From Usenet message
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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).
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.
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger)
<65lb0o$26h@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
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".
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
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..."
Returning a lost article to a member of enemy
nation is not such a great idea.
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger)
<65lb0o$26h@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
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'".
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
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.
The case under consideration was about whether
Jews must be compelled to rescue gentiles.
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger)
<65lb0o$26h@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
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
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)
(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.
12,3, who based his ruling on Talmudic teachings):
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection
of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."
In the real world the discussion is about whether
capital punishment may be imposed --- not about whether it is forbidden.
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger) <65lb0o$26h@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
Also, this particularly refers to Canaanites,
not Gentiles in general.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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:
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews Baba Kamma 113a. Jews
may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.
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.
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger) <65lb0o$26h@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
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
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)
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.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
This passage shares the same footnote as Baba
Kamma 37b, discussed above. What is at issue is the principle of legal
recipricocity:
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:
Harry Katz (Harry.Katz@mci.com)
Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human Yebamoth 98a. All
Gentile children are animals.
False. It does not say this.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
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 (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
Abodah Zarah 36b . Gentile girls are in a state
of niddah (filth) from birth.
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.
E.S.
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:
From Usenet message
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)
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 (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with
cows.
The Sages suspected that the nations of Babylon
and Rome were heavily into bestiality, and the 20th century historians
back them up.
mat6263@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) <5ptttd$335$4@news.nyu.edu>
Misquote. That's from the Mishna again, which
reads in full:
such inns can be considered kosher. No general
statement about the sexual preferences of non-Jews is made.
From Usenet message
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)
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.
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.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
Abodah Zarah 67b . "The vessels of Gentiles, do
they not impart a worsened flavor to the food cooked in them?"
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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)
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.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)