CLAIM (33)
Gloats over Christ Dying Young A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was?-He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."

RESPONSE (1)
Notice the "Jesus" in parentheses? The text does not say "Jesus". It says "Balaam". How to trump up a charge of blasphemy, in one easy lesson.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
The Talmud states that the wicked Bilaam (Numbers 23:24) died after living only half his allotted time span, in accordance with the statement in Psalms 55:24, that the wicked do not survive half their allotted life span. The commentary of Rashi makes it clear that the reference is to the biblical Bilaam.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (34)
Says Jesus was a Sorcerer Sanhedrin 43a . Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery.

RESPONSE (1)
It also says *how* he was executed - not by crucifixion. This isn't the same "Yeshu". Common name, different guy. buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
Standard versions of the Talmud do not mention anyone with this name. There is a version which mentions Yeshu HaNotzri who was executed and who had five students who were also executed. The description of this Yeshu HaNotzri indicates that he was executed by stoning and that for forty days before his execution announcements were made looking for evidence in his favor. The Talmud also indicates that this Yeshu HaNotzri was extremely friendly with the local Roman government. The passage describes the way in which the followers of this Yeshu claim that their names (Mathai, Natai, Netzer, Boni and Toda) give them immunity from the death penalty and the way they were answered (by passages from the bible connecting their names with death or execution). As the description of the person involved does not fit the descriptions given in Christian traditions it would appear that it is not referring to the same person.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (35)
Horrible Blasphemy of Our Lord Gittin 57a . Says Jesus (see footnote #4) is being boiled "hot excrement".

RESPONSE (1)
Nope. The name "Yeshu" occurs in only one edition - probably written in by one scribe with a grudge. The actual text concerns "Balaam" - and the story is being told by a rabbi who, as I understand it, died before Jesus was even born.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
In the standard Talmud this remarkable passage of agada is based on the vision of a non-Jew, Onkelos, who later converted to Judaism:

"Onkelos the son of Kalonikos the nephew of Titus wished to convert." The Talmud relates that he used witchcraft to raise Titus, his wicked uncle, from the dead and asked him whether he should convert to Judaism. His uncle was so filled with hatred against the Jews that he advised his nephew to be hostile to them, despite the fact that they are so close to G-d and despite the fierce punishment he endured after his death for his own hostility to Israel. Onkelos then called up Bilaam who had similar comments. Then he raised up 'the sinners of Israel' who advised him to join Israel since anyone who troubled the Jews is considered as if he troubled G-d. Onkelos asked what punishment the sinners of Israel had to endure and was told they were judged in boiling excrement as is fitting for all those who ridicule the words of the sages.

It may indeed be the case that there are manuscripts which name Yeshu HaNotzri as one of the sinners of Israel in the context of this passage but it is not clear who that person was (see item [CLAIM 34] above). More generally it may be said that while Judaism differs sharply from Christianity in many matters of theology and interpretation of historical events, attacking the founder of the Christian faith as a wicked person is not a central or even peripheral element of Jewish theology.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (36)
Sanhedrin 43a . Jesus deserved execution: "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged...Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer)?"

RESPONSE (1)
According to Jewish law there is no hanging or crucifying as a death penalty. The dead bodies are hanged after the execution for 5-10 minutes in order to publicize the execution (see Talmud Sanhedrin ibid.). Jesus was killed on the cross, a well known Roman way of execution, the Romans at the time regarded him as a heretic. After he died, he was taken down and buried by his Jewish followers. The Jewish court immediately dug him up and hung him for 10 minutes then buried him again to prove that he is dead and that his body did not rise to heaven.
E.S./Edited David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

RESPONSE (2)
In the common versions of the Talmud this quote does not exist. Generally speaking the person Yeshu referred to in Talmudic texts cannot be absolutely identified with anyone described in Christian tradition. See also comments to item [CLAIM 35] above.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (37)
Attacks Christians and their Books Rosh Hashanah 17a . Christians ("minim") and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations (see footnote #11 for the definition of minim).

RESPONSE (1)
"Minim" does not mean "Christians". It means Jewish heretics. A Jewish Christian would have been regarded as one of the "minim", but not a Gentile Christian. Since the Talmudic material mainly comes from the period 100BC to 100AD, when the Christians did not exist or were a tiny sect, most of the references to "minim" had Sadduccees in mind. And again, this is the opinion of one rabbi, recorded along with the other opinions. Nothing binding about it.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
At Rosh Hashanah 17a the Talmud quotes agadic passages regarding punishment after death. The passages describe those who will undergo a short period of punishment, those who will suffer for a longer period and those who will suffer eternally. In this latter group are Jewish heretics of various categories, the religious leaders of idol worshipping religions, those who abuse their authority and those who mislead the public and cause them to sin, such as Jeroboam.

With respect to the religious leaders of the pagans, Meiri, one of the most famous commentators on the Talmud wrote (about 700 years ago): "... we have already explained that ..... [the references are to] the nations of long ago who were not bound by the ways of religion but were deeply involved in the worship of idols and stars ..." (Meiri at AZ 26).

In one version of this text this group includes Jews who have betrayed their own religion. According to the Ein Yaakov these apostates are the Sadduccees. In the uncensored text of Rashi (the prime commentator on the Talmud) these apostates are described as the students of Yeshu HaNotzri who have twisted the words of the Torah. This version is not found in standard Rashi commentaries on the Talmud. See comments to item [CLAIM 35].

The teaching is directed against Jews who become apostates, not against Christians. In fact the Talmud makes it plain in another passage (Shabbat 116a) that there is a significant difference between those who knowingly choose heresy and those who are born into it and commentators also emphasize this important distinction.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (38)
Sanhedrin 90a . Those who read the New Testament (uncanonical books, see footnote #9) will have no portion in the world to come.

RESPONSE (1)
Yup. Jews think they're right and we're wrong. That's why they're Jews. If they thought we were right and they were wrong, they'd be Christians. Why is this shocking? Incidentally, it applies only to those *Jews* who read heretical books. And the New Testament is not named explicitly. Sanhedrin 90a just says Jews should stick to Jewish scripture. It doesn't single out Christianity in particular.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

NOTE
The footnote #9 referred to was not included in the quoted document and seems to be be derived from the original "Facts are Facts" booklet.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connnexus.net.au)

RESPONSE (2)
In this passage Rabbi Akiva held that those who read 'external books' forfeit their place in the World to Come. The Talmud discusses (San 100b) the exact meaning of 'external books' and suggests they refer to the books
of the Sadduccees. (The books of the new Christian religion did not exist at the time of R. Akiva, certainly not in their present form, but it is quite likely that the reference is to all works which interpret the Written Torah in a manner opposed to that transmitted by the sages.)

Commentators point out that the term 'reading' is meant to be understood as reading these works on a permanent basis, and not as reviewing them for a legitimate purpose.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (39)
Shabbath 116a (p. 569). Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament. See footnote #6.

RESPONSE (1)
This is wrong. On the Shabbat [Sabbath] a Jew may not put out fire unless there is danger to a life (Jew or non-Jew of course). Now the sages made a decree stating that a Jew may not save any item from a non-dangerous fire as he might come to extinguish it in his plight. The only article one is permitted to save is the Holy Torah scrolls written on parchment by hand. But Jewish prayer books, Jewish literature books, Jewish law books, printed Bibles, story books, encyclopedias etc. and also the new testament may not be saved from the fire on Shabbat.
E.S. / Edited David S. Maddison maddison@connexus.net.au)

NOTE
The footnote #6 referred to was not included in the quoted document and seems to be be derived from the original "Facts are Facts" booklet.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connnexus.net.au)

RESPONSE (2)
The Talmud discusses the prohibition against carrying on the Sabbath in certain areas and deals with the question of saving Torah scrolls from a fire in such areas. In certain cases it is permitted to save a Torah scroll from a fire by carrying it on the Sabbath and the Talmud discusses whether this rule applies to Torah scrolls written by Jewish heretics ('minim'). The passage reports a comment from Rabbi Tarfon that if these scrolls came to his hands he would burn them despite the fact that G-d's name is written in them.

This passage has been understood by the codifiers of Jewish law to deal with a Torah scroll containing G-d's name when the scribe who wrote such name had heretical thoughts when he wrote G-d's name. Where the intention was idolatrous then the Torah scroll should be burned. There are stringent rules regarding who may write a Torah scroll and how it is to be written. It is thanks to the great care taken by scribes throughout the ages that we have accurate bibles today. If a Torah scroll was not written with idolatrous intentions then it can be retained and read privately no matter who wrote it (Aruch HaShulchan YD 281).
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (40)
Israel Shahak reports that the Zionists burned hundreds of New Testament books in Occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21).

RESPONSE (1)
Even if this was true, what is the problem with some people disposing of books that they disagree with, particularly as the "New Testament" claims to supercede the Covenant that the Jews have with G-d with a new covenant? The NT that has been used to justify the mass murder of Jews for centuries. Of course, book burning is, under normal circumstances, a bad thing, but this was one single book of which hundreds of millions of copies are in circulation. They weren't burning libraries or anything.
David S. Maddison (maddison@power.connexus.net.au)

RESPONSE (2)
This 'report' has nothing to do with the Talmud. Israel Shahak is a contemporary Israeli writer well known for his virulent hatred of Judaism and Zionism. His writings are featured on anti-Semitic web sites such as Radio Islam.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (41)
Sick and Insane Teachings Gittin 69a . To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix it with honey and eat it.

RESPONSE (1)
A typical "home remedy" of those times. At least in Judaism the practise of medicine was based on some recognition of "cause and effect" and any attempt to use magic and sorcery to cure sickness was strictly prohibited by Jews, unlike their neighbours. Also see "Health and Medicine in the Jewish Tradition", David M. Feldman, 1986, ISBN 0-8245-0707-X
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

RESPONSE (2)
See introductory remarks concerning the enigmatic forms of expression used in agadic passages. In Gittin 69a the Talmud discusses the medical practices and beliefs of the time of the Talmud. The commentaries (Tos at MK 11a) make it clear to any reader that such remedies have not been held to be effective or applicable for many centuries. To the extent that these remedies are not metaphorical agadic passages they were included in the Talmud to show that the sages were well-versed with the medical knowledge of their age, and not as religiously sanctioned medicine. In fact when it became apparent that such remedies had no healing powers it became forbidden by Jewish law to use them.

See also remarks under item [CLAIM 55] below.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (42)
Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given.

RESPONSE (1)
The Jews believed you should try to do everything in a way that was pleasing to God. Why is that "sick and insane"?
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
The Torah teaches Jews to be holy in all their ways.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (43)
Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.

RESPONSE (1)
This is a famous misinterpretation of the passage, as the word "Daas" is interpreted sometimes as intercourse but it really means "understanding". So the real explanation is that he came to understand their spiritual existence and thus he called them proper names.
E.S./Edited David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

RESPONSE (2)
This passage of the Talmud describes various teachings in the name of Rabbi Elazar on the importance of marriage and the great merit of having a good wife. Rabbi Elazar shows how these ideas are contained in the biblical text (Gen. 3:20-23). Verse 23 reads "This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" and Rabbi Elazar states that since the verse teaches us that 'this time' Adam found a mate, there is an implication that there were previous times when he did not find a mate, and he states that Adam "came on" to all the animals but his "mind was not satisfied" until he "came on" Eve. In Hebrew the term "came on" is often used to describe intercourse and this is the simplistic literal translation of this passage.

This passage is a classical example of agadic literature and must be understood metaphorically (as the commentators point out). One commentator (Anaf Yosef) suggests that this agada teaches the importance of marriage. He explains that Adam reflected that the purpose of animal mating is primarily for the propagation of the animal species. Adam's "mind was not satisfied" with this concept of mating because, as the commentator explains, "... the mating of a man is different [from that of animals], for a man who lives with a woman not only benefits the species [by reproduction] but also benefits his own body and soul ..." in accordance with the Talmudic teaching that a man who lives without a wife lives without Torah and without the closeness of the Divine Presence. Adam was satisfied only when he found a mate with whom he could have a relationship that transcended an animal relationship.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (44)
Yebamoth 63a . Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.

RESPONSE (1)
A person who works the land day after day tends to have little time for spiritual pursuits. This is one of the reasons given for the "Smittah" or Sabbatical Year when the land must rest once in seven years and farmers then spend that year studying and raising their spiritual level.
B. Hurwitz

RESPONSE (2)
Ezekiel 27:28 states that the seamen of Tyre will 'descend' from their ships to the land. Rabbi Elazar noticed that this verse could be interpreted to mean that working the land is the lowest of all occupations. Commentators explain Rabbi Elazar's comment in different manners. One explains that the verse teaches that the worst and lowest form of slavery is the slavery of a field worker. Another explains that in the future there will be special blessings attached to agricultural work and everyone will abandon all other work in order to work in agriculture and participate in these special blessings (as described in Zecharia 8:12). Another commentator notes that in fact agricultural work is the work that is best suited to appreciation of G-d's bountiful mercy and divine providence and that the term 'lowest' of occupations means that it is the occupation which is most suited to the development of the trait of humility. (Eitz Yosef)
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (45)
Sanhedrin 55b . A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

RESPONSE (1)
Child betrothals were a common practice throughout the world - including the Christian world - before modern times. It didn't mean the "husband" had sex with the child.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
It is the manner of the Talmud to examine extreme theoretical cases in order to precisely define and delineate legal concepts. Such study is mandated because the laws are part of the Written and Oral Torah, not necessarily because they have practical application.

There are different legal consequences arising from an act of intercourse (related to personal status, punishment for rape, property rights etc.) and the Talmud investigates whether such an act committed on a baby girl has the status of intercourse or not. There is an ancient tradition that states that if the girl is older than the age of three then an act of intercourse was committed; before that age, such an act does not have the status of sexual intercourse for legal purposes (it may be an act of assault, of course).

The passage in question states as follows: "A girl of three years and a day is [capable of being] married by an act of intercourse ..." and the Talmud continues to list further legal consequences of an act of intercourse (laws of personal status, property etc.).

The reference to marriage refers to a case in which the father of the girl delivers his daughter to a man with the intention that he create a marriage bond with his daughter by having relations with her. From a legal point of view this procedure creates a marriage with all the legal consequences that flow therefrom. This is a legal conclusion which has nothing to do with rabbinic endorsement of such practices or with the number of such occurrences in history.

In fact the rabbis strongly opposed formation of the marriage bond by intercourse (at any age) and punished those who acted in such manner (Kidushin 12b). They further taught that the father's right to marry off his daughter was to be used for her benefit. The age and manner of marriage is to a large extent a societal variable but at Kidushin 41a the rabbis taught: "It is forbidden for a man to betroth his daughter while she is young [but rather he should wait] till she has grown and says 'This is the one I want [to marry]" and this teaching is repeated elsewhere in the Talmud.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (46)
Sanhedrin 54b . A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

RESPONSE (1)
False. It doesn't say that.

Leviticus says that if a man lies with another man, both must be killed. What Sanhedrin 54b says is that if one of the participants is under nine years old, he is not considered a "man" - and so it is not required that the child be put to death.

Really terrible, huh? Sparing the life of a victim of child abuse like that?
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
The discussion here revolves around the age at which a male child is capable of having relations that have the full legal ramifications and penalties of intercourse. The entire discussion is related to an analysis of the penalty for such action (which could be a capital offense), and the passage states: "intercourse with a child of nine and a day is not the same as that with a child of nine". As mentioned, this statement is made in the context of the nature of the penalty to be applied, and whether it is of a capital nature or not. See also the remarks in item [CLAIM 45].
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (47)
Kethuboth 11b . "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

RESPONSE (1)
Grossly out of context. The question is whether in such a case the girl can be considered a "virgin" later, when she comes to marry. The answer is, yes, as far as she's concerned what happened wasn't sex, it was just like getting poked with an inanimate object.

Really terrible, huh? Allowing a victim of child abuse to get on with her life, and be treated as if she were innocent?
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
The statement is that "when a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is as nothing [in terms of creating a marriage bond with the consequent legal ramifications] since for girls less [than three years old] it is as if he put his finger into her eye ...". In other words the act may be an act of assault but it does not create a legal binding marriage unless the child is over the age of three. See the discussion under item [CLAIM 45] for more details.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (48)
Yebamoth 59b . A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.

RESPONSE (1)
Neither of these occurrences is permitted in Jewish law, in fact both are strictly prohibited. The discussion concerns the technical definition of what a "virgin" is. A woman had to be a virgin in order to marry a Jewish priest of the Temple because of the especially high level of spiritual purity required of priests and their wives. There were also many other requirements of priests and their wives to ensure the maximum level of spiritual purity for Temple service (e.g. prohibition of contact with dead bodies). Naturally, the legal boundaries of these requirements needed to be defined.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

RESPONSE (2)
(a) It is the manner of the Talmud to explore every possibility including the most bizarre and extreme cases. The requirement to study the Torah includes examination of such extreme cases. Further, exploration of the extreme cases allows precise delineation of delicate legal principles. The passage in question deals with the law that forbids a Jewish priest to marry a 'zonah', which is commonly but incorrectly translated as a prostitute. The Talmud investigates whether a woman who had relations with an animal falls into this category.

(b) Th[e] [second] sentence does not exist in the standard versions of the Talmud (it also does not exist in the Soncino translation which I examined).
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (49)
Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.

RESPONSE (1)
A man called Elazar ben Dordin repented so much for the promiscuous life he led that he cried himself to death, his soul left his body and a voice came down from Heaven calling him "Rabbi" to recognise his highly improved spiritual level. Such is the power of true repentance. He was not a Rabbi during his life, but after he repented he was worthy of being one.
B. Hurwitz, David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

RESPONSE (2)
It hardly needs saying that the Talmud and Jewish law impose strict codes of sexual behavior and the passage in question contains a major discussion of the evils of prostitution.

In this passage the Talmud discusses the power of true repentance. It points out that sometimes penitents who repent of terrible religious sins such as idol worship die as a result of the remorse they feel over their past. The Talmud recounts the story of a man called Eliezer Ben Dordia (he is not mentioned anywhere else in the Talmud) who was in the habit of visiting prostitutes. The Talmud relates the tremendous internal struggle he undertook as part of his repentance and how he died as a result of the remorse he felt. A 'bat kol' (an echo of a heavenly voice) was heard declaring that "Rabbi" (a title of distinguished honor) Eliezer was invited to the World to Come, that is, his sins had been forgiven through his powerful act of repentance and further he had been posthumously awarded the title "Rabbi".

The greatest rabbi of the age, the redactor of the Mishna, Rebi, wept when he heard this story and declared that there are some who gain their share of the World to Come from years of constant effort, while there are others like Eliezer Ben Dordia who gain their share in a moment (of intense repentance), and not only is their repentance effective but in Heaven they are referred to by the title of "Rabbi" (as per the 'bat kol').
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (50)
Hagigah 27a . States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.

RESPONSE (1)
It states that no righteous student of the Torah can go to hell. This seems quite comprehensible. E.S.

RESPONSE (2)
At Hagiga 27a a passage of agada states that "the fire of Gehinom will not overcome a scholar as it says ..." and the Talmud employs a literary flourish based on a verse in Jeremiah to prove this point. This statement is followed by another literary flourish from the Song of Songs to prove that "The fire of Gehinom will not overcome the sinners of Israel". These literary flourishes represent the optimistic belief that even those who sin will, after a period of punishment, gain their place in the World to Come.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (51)
Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

RESPONSE (1)
Pretty horrid. They must have had some bad influence like reading that book where Moses pleads with God and changes His mind. Some people can't recognize a tall tale when they see it, and appreciate it for what it is.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
It is part of Jewish belief that G-d granted certain rights of biblical interpretation and legislation to the sages and rabbis. At Baba Mezia 59b the Talmud makes the point that disputes concerning such interpretation and legislation must be settled by majority vote in accordance with the rabbinical understanding of Exodus 23:2 and not by invoking claims of prophecy or special signs or miracles. This point is made in the graphic and metaphorical manner of agadic literature by describing a debate on a point of law between Rabbi Eliezer (sole opinion) and the majority of rabbis.

Rabbi Eliezer tried to prove his point by invoking various miracles and even a 'bat kol' (heavenly echo) to show that G-d supported his position, but nevertheless his opponents insisted that the rule of the majority prevailed. The story ends by describing how Elijah the Prophet noted that on that day G-d himself smiled and admitted that his sons had defeated him in debate.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (52)
Gittin 70a . The Rabbis taught: "On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic."

RESPONSE (1)
What's wrong with this teaching? Science is slowly beginning to admit that spiritual entities do exist in our world, see Parapsychology. E.S.

RESPONSE (2)
See comments to items [CLAIM 41] and [CLAIM 42] above and introduction under heading 'Science and Medicine'. Also see comments to item [CLAIM 55] below.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

RESPONSE (3)
Much of Judaism is concerned with separating the holy from the unholy. This teaching is concerned with separating the (unholy) act of going to the bathroom and the holy act of having relations with one's wife. Similarly, it is forbidden to pray in the presence of excrement or bad smells, etc..
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (53)
Toilet and excrement obsessions are laced throughout Talmud and were exhibited in Spielberg*s Schindlers List where the Hollywood director shows a Jewish child jumping through a toilet seat in an outhouse and falling into a pool of liquefied excrement. There the child meets two other Jewish children partially immersed who inform the interloper that this cesspool is their hiding spot exclusively and that he must find his own. These are the kind of disgusting and morbid, psychotic images which Jewish kids are exposed to constantly in the cinematic liturgy of Holocaustianity and for that matter, in the Talmud as well.

RESPONSE
If after seeing Schindler's list this guy can say anything against Jews he is a psychopath. Actually, the poor boy who hid in the outhouse did so in order to save his life from the "clean German anti-Semites" who would not go close to the outhouse (they most probably suffer from OCD).
E.S.

CLAIM (54)
Gittin 69b (p. 329). To heal the disease of pleurisy ("catarrh") a Jew should "take the excrement of a white dog and knead it with balsam, but if he can possibly avoid it he should not eat the dogs excrement as it loosens the limbs."

RESPONSE (1)
The true statement does not relate to a Jew rather to any human. This is an extract from a scientific procedure of ancient gentile doctors and this medicinal compound together with the rest of the other remedies mentioned there have been eradicated hundreds of years ago from Jewish law. By the way, the earth over there would be very rich in vitamin B12 which originates from sludge.
****E.S.****?

RESPONSE (2)
See comments to items [CLAIM 41] and [CLAIM 42] above and introduction under heading 'Science and Medicine'. Also see comments to item [CLAIM 55] below.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (55)
Pesahim 111a. It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads.

RESPONSE (1)
This relates to the prevention of people using witchcraft which could be used when people were in the situations being described. By people avoiding those situations, they would not become victims of people who practiced witchcraft which was commonly practiced in ancient times. The Sages recognised that some people believed in the power of witchcraft and the Sages did not want people to become psychologically affected by it. Therefore, people who believed in it were told to avoid exposure to it as it might affect their mental health. This was simply about not putting oneself in potentially dangerous situations. There are also similar laws prohibiting Jews from entering old, abandoned, decaying buildings which may collapse and cause injury or death.
David S. Maddison (maddison@power.connexus.net.au)

RESPONSE (2)
In this passage of agada the rabbis in Babylon refer to various stratagems to avoid witchcraft. The passage also reports that the sages in the Land of Israel did not concern themselves with some of these matters. These stratagems were based on the prevailing beliefs at the time and in at least one case a stratagem is reported in the name of a non-Jew who was an instructress for local witches. The Talmud summarizes the discussion with the following sentence: "As a general rule, those who are worried about such things may be affected by them; those who are not worried about them are not affected by them". The Meiri, a commentator who lived some seven centuries ago wrote at the beginning of his commentary on this passage of agada as follows: "In a few places we have explained that in those times people believed in chants .. [and other similar beliefs] ... and the sages did not try to uproot these beliefs unless they were related to idolatry ..... and certainly [they did not try to uproot these beliefs] where the people were so accustomed to them that they could derive strength or suffer weakness on their account, and we see this in this passage where it states 'those who are worried about such things may be affected by them; those who are not worried about them are not affected by them'".

Most modern readers would probably agree with the Meiri that this passage expresses an important psychological truth about the power of suggestion and mass belief.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

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 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.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

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 (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

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 (maddison@power.connexus.net.au)

RESPONSE (2)
See note to item [CLAIM 42] above.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

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.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

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 (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

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.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

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 (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

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.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

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 (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

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 (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

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.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)

Again, the Talmud quotes this saying (in some versions). But it does not endorse it.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

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 (mgruda@netvision.net.il)
 

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.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)

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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)

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.
buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)

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 (maddison@connexus.net.au)

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 plural.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

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 catamont@concentric.net (Sara Salzman)

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 (maddison@power.connexus.net.au)

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

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 .] mat6263@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) <5ptttd$335$4@news.nyu.edu>

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
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (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 (mgruda@netvision.net.il)