Zionism and the Talmud
Cameron Sawyer writes: Although I do not think that inflammatory posts in Neonazi websites (which is what the online "National Journal" is; see http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/religion/ah_jc_en.htm) are necessarily worth the expense of time and energy to refute, I did manage to find out that the most complete English translation of the Talmud is in fact reproduced in full on the web: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t02/index.htm <http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t02/index.htm> and http://www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html <http://www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html> . I did not find any of the passages cited by "Irv Spielberg" (apparently not a real person) there in so many words, but the exact same passages, and many others in the same vein, can be found in many Neo-Nazi and White Power publications , with various attributions. See: http://stormfront.org/jewish/talmud.html <http://stormfront.org/jewish/talmud.html> ; http://www.freeyourmindproductions.com/sampler/talmud.shtml <http://www.freeyourmindproductions.com/sampler/talmud.shtml> , and http://web2.airmail.net/dsh440/proto.htm <http://web2.airmail.net/dsh440/proto.htm> ; http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/talmud_tidbits.htm; http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/judaism_vs_talmud.htm; http://www.principalityofcamside.cc/DarkAgenda/Talmud_The.htm . They seem to all have a common origin in a pamphlet by the Russian (or Lithuanian, judging by the name) Catholic priest Pranaitis, called, in its English translation, "The Talmud Unmasked, The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians", published in 1892 in St. Petersburg. See: http://shop.davidduke.com/cgi-bin/dukecat/00104.html <http://shop.davidduke.com/cgi-bin/dukecat/00104.html> ; http://www.neonazi.org/gpage.html <http://www.neonazi.org/gpage.html> ; http://www.talmudunmasked.com/note.htm <http://www.talmudunmasked.com/note.htm> ; http://holywar.org/txt/talmud_unmasked.html <http://holywar.org/txt/talmud_unmasked.html> ; http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/talmudx.htm <http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/talmudx.htm> . What a coincidence: Pranaitis is also the author of the theory that present-day Jews are actually the descendants of the convert Khazars, not the biblical Jews, also recently discussed on WAIS. The Khazar theory is widely cited in Neo-Nazi websites as an argument that the Jews have no claim on Israel. Pranaitis was the prosecutor’s “expert witness� at the infamous Beylis blood-libel trial. Beylis was acquitted by a Russian court after cross-examination of Pranaitis revealed that he had no actual knowledge of the Talmud.
See: http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/pr.htm <http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/pr.htm> ; http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/pranaitis.html; http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/p/pranaitis_j.shtml;
Pranaitis' citations from the Talmud are either spurious or malicious distortions of the Talmud texts. See: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/qts.html <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/qts.html> . There is also an in-depth refutation at http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf <http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf> . One thoughtful comment begins with the following citation from the Old Testament, valid as scripture for both Christians and Jews: "Do not testify as a false witness against your neighbor." See also my comments interlineated below.
"( II) THE TALMUD HATES FEMALES:
The birth of a girl is an unhappy event (Baba Bathra, 16b). "
A total and malicious distortion. Here is the text:
A daughter was born to R. Simeon the son of Rabbi, and he felt disappointed. His father said to him: Increase has come to the world. Bar Kappara said to him: Your father has given you an empty consolation. The world cannot do without either males or females. Yet happy is he whose children are males, and alas for him whose children are females. The world cannot do without either a spice-seller or a tanner. Yet happy is he whose occupation is that of a spice-seller, and alas for him whose occupation is that of a tanner. On this point19 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_16.html#16b_19> there is a difference between Tannaim. [It is written,] The Lord had blessed Abraham in all things20 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_16.html#16b_20> [ba-kol].What is meant by 'in all things'? R. Meir said: In the fact that he had no daughter; R. Judah said: In the fact that he had a daughter. Others say that Abraham had a daughter whose name was ba-kol. R. Eliezer the Modiite said that Abraham possessed a power of reading the stars21 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_16.html#16b_21> for which he was much sought after by the potentates of East and West.22 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_16.html#16b_22>
See: http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_16.html#PARTb <http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_16.html#PARTb>
It is never good to talk too much to women including one's own wife (Aboth, 1.5). The text says: He that talks much with womankind brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Law and at the last will inherit Gehenna. This is an innocuous ehxortation to study and be serious and not gossip, and according to the ideas of pre-historic times men and women ought to be separated in order to achieve this.
"All women are "temperamentally light-headed" (Kiddushin, 80b). " Kiddushin 80b is all about the old Jewish moral law about not leaving men and women alone together unless they are husband and wife or close relatives. Fairly sensible rule, actually, if one wants a moral society. I could not find the passage cited, but even if it exists, so what? There is also the following: "Even when a living man is in mourning, he is overcome by his proneness to sin." This is all part of a rich literature on original sin and the inclination of man to sin, which seems to me not only compatible with Christianity but wise and true. See http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=662.
"It is okay to divorce your wife if she spoils your food, or if you find a more beautiful woman (Gittin, 91a). " Could not find any such text.
"(III) THE TALMUD HATES CHILDREN: It is lawful for a girl three years old to have sexual intercourse (Abodah Zarah, 37a; Kethuboth, 11b,39a; Sanhedrin, 55b,69a,b; Yebamoth, 12a,57b,58a,60b). " Vile slander. Commentaries in Sanhedrin 55b and 69a and b just say that a girl over three may be married or betrothed, a common practice in ancient times. Jewish law -- the Torah (the Talmud is merely commentary) says that girls must be 12 to be married.
Abodah Zarah talks about defilement resulting from sexual contact with persons not one's spouse, and the passage cited is a debate about whether it is defiling for an Israelite to have sexual contact with a heathen since the prohibition in the Bible seems to refer to Jewish people. The rabbis come to the conclusion that of course it is defilement. Then they discuss from what age such contact may be defiling -- the premise being not that it's o.k. to have sex with children but that they presume that contact with too young people is not sexual, because such a young person "does not know how to persuade", but then go on to decide that this is immoral anyway; that at least from the age of three years old and a day there is potential for defilement. No where does it say that it is lawful to have sex with a minor. Kethuboth 11b regulates the compensation for loss of virginity in various cases. No where does it say that is moral or lawful for young girls to have sex. Kethuboth 39a talks about when it is lawful to use contraceptives, and when rapists and seducers are obliged to pay compensation for their crimes. There is no mention of three-year old girls and certainly no permission to have sex with any young girls. The only mention of age has to do with wives who are minors, who are permitted to use contraceptives because of the danger of pregnancy at a young age. Yebamoth 12a discusses divorce, and does not mention young girls at all. Yebamoth 57b and 60b say that a girl three years old may be betrothed, a common practice in ancient times. So this is a complete fabrication.
The source for the charge that Judaism permits child molestation is a passage from the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Ketubot, pg. 11b: ר×?×?ק ×™×›×” ×?בר ר×?×? , ×?ולכ ×?לו ×”× ×˜×§×” לע ×?בה לודג
×™×?ד ןיעב עבצ×? ×Ÿ×ª×•× ×› ן×?×›×? תוחפד . ava [a fourth century Rabbinic authority] said: If an adult has sex with a girl under the age of three, it is ignored, for it is like putting a finger in someone's eye [i.e., tears may drip from the eye but there will always be more tears to replace them; so too the hymen of a girl so young may break but it will heal]. From this quote, anti-Semites argue that Judaism permits the sexual molestation of younggirls. This, however, is not true. In fact, in several places the Talmud makes clear that Judaism possesses its own version of the American law of statutory rape. A formulation of this law may be found in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yevamot, pg. 33b: ×•×”× ×™× ×¡× ×•×? ×”× ×˜×§ יותיפ . One who seduces an underage girl is considered as if he had raped her [i.e., the laws applicable to rapists would apply to the molester]. An honest reading of the passage from Ketubot shows that it is part of a technical discussion regarding the evaluation of a woman's ketubah a reverse dowry that Jewish law requires a man to pay his wife in the event of divorce. A major factor in the determination of the ketubah in traditional Jewish law is whether the woman had been a virgin at the time of the marriage; virginity is considered a positive value that would enable the woman to claim a higher ketubah. The quoted passage indicates that if a girl had been molested before the age of three, she is still considered a virgin and is entitled to the higher ketubah. In no way does the passage or the discussion in Ketubot imply that it is permissible for Jewish men to molest young girls. That anti-Semites have taken the passage from Ketubot out of context and ignored Judaism's law against statutory rape demonstrates their true agenda: to instill others with hatred for Judaism and Jewish people. See: <http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf> <http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf>
When a man commits sodomy with a boy under nine years of age, it "is not deemed as pederasty" (Sanhedrin, 54b,55a). Sanhedrin 54b prohibits homosexuality: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." It does not permit sodomy with a young boy; it does not condemn the victim if he is not old enough to "engage in sexual intercourse" -- in other words, he is an innocent victim, but the abuser is not exonerated. This is a total distortion.
Sexual intercourse with a boy under the age of eight is lawful since it isn't fornication (Sanhedrin, 69b). (In other words, Religion X became X-rated! Is it any wonder that many Jewish persons today are liberally involved with the current sexual revolution and are even favorable towards legalization of adult-child sex?) Sanhedrin 69b does not say that it is lawful to have sex with a boy under the age of sex. It discusses the disqualification from the priesthood of a woman who "sported lewdly with her young son". It merely says that when the boy is eight or younger, any connection is "not a real connection." Nowhere does it say that such a perversion is lawful.
"( IV) THE TALMUD HATES ALL NON-JEWS: Since all Gentiles are only animals, all Gentile children are bastards (Yebamoth, 98a). " Yebamoth 98a does not say this. See http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_98.html <http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_98.html> .
See also this commentary :
Q: I am a Jew living in Dallas TX. I was watching news following the presidental election and candidates. I was watching a news article on Pat Buchanan. They spoke of a white power activist group backing Pat. He said he didn't want their backing and the news mentioned a web site. www.stormfront.org. I though I would visit this site and see what they had to offer to humanity. I was shocked to see what I had found. There was a section on the Talmud. Now I have not studied the Talmud or anything of that sort but was surprised at what I saw. Proclamations such as: Some Teachings of the Jewish Talmud Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell. 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. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed. O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work. 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." 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). 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..." 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. Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel." Jews May Lie to Non-Jews Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile. Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals. Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth. Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows. Living in the south I am bombarded with questions and attacks dealing with things of this nature. How does a Jew defend themselves when asked a question of this nature? Where are they getting these writings? What does it all mean? I feel this is very important to Judaism. I was also watching news on Al Gore and was +ñeased by the nomination of Joseph Leiberman, Democratic Senator from Conneticut, as his VP running mate. He and his wife Haddasa spoke wonderfully about breaking the Jewish barrier as Kennedy did by becoming the first Roman Catholic president. I get called many names, of which I won't repeat. They need not be spoken or written at any time. I understand this is a touchy subject but I would like to know how to handle their confrontations.
A: The Talmud (Yevamos 98a) discusses the very complex and intricate laws dealing with the familial relationships that survive a conversion to Judaism. The general rule is that a convert is deemed to have been "reborn" - i.e. without legal relation to his/her gentile parents and siblings. However where a gentile husband and wife convert during the wife's pregnancy, their resultant child will remain legally a son to the mother, but not to the father. This is a Halachic phenomenon, regardless of the fact that we know with certainty (and Rashi explains how we may be certain) that the father is in fact, the child's father. The Talmud then adds as another illustration, the law that twin boys, who later convert to Judaism, are not deemed brothers for purposes of a levirate marriage (where a married, childless man dies and his brother is obligated to marry or discharge the widow), even though it is a scientific, physical fact that twins are born from one split zygote. The Talmud comments that we see from here that Jewish law chooses to ignore the physical properties (DNA etc..) of non-Jewish seed, considering it for these intents and purposes to be irrelevant and the Halachic equivalent of an animal's seed, citing a passage in Ezekiel (23:20) where a metaphor is used that compares gentile flesh to a donkey's and gentile seed to that of a horse. The passage itself is an allegory referring to a harlot who lusts after Egyptian men. The commentaries (Rashi & Metzudas David) explain that the comparison to animals here is to illustrate how the relevant physical characteristice of Egyptian men were comparable to a donkey's (large) and the frequency of their liaisons were similar to a horses's (very frequent), both factors which were of interest to the harlot. Thus, there is quite a bit more to these Talmudic statements than meets the anti-semite's eye. From: http://jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr4942.htm <http://jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr4942.htm> .
"( V) THE TALMUD HATES CHRIST AND CHRISTIANS: Jesus was born a bastard (Jewish Encyclopedia, ' Jesus ' ; Yebamoth, 49b). " "Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a whore and ' played the harlot with carpenters ' (Sanhedrin, 106a,b). " Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the sword].40 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_106.html#106a_40> A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! — R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer.41 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_106.html#106a_41> R. Papa observed: This is what men say, 'She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.'42 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_106.html#106a_42> There is a theory that Balaam refers to Jesus and the woman referred to might be Mary, but names are not named.
Jesus "practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy" (Sanhedrin, 43a). This is a distortion. The text (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html) does not say that Jesus "practised sorcery" etc.; it recounts the event of Jesus' crucifixtion, noting that a herald went forth and said this for forty days and invited people to speak up on Jesus' behalf. One rabbi asks how Jesus could be defended, since he really was tempting people into heresy, but the rabbis do not dwell on this, but rather, go off on an arcane discussion of prophesies concerning Jesus' disciples. This leads into a very Christian-sounding and beautiful discussion of the holiness of humble contrition:
When the Temple was in existence, if a man brought a burnt offering, he received credit for a burnt offering; if a meal offering, he received credit for a meal offering; but he who was humble in spirit, Scripture regarded him as though he had brought all the offerings, for it is said, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.5 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43b_5> And furthermore, his prayers are not despised, for it is written, A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.6 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43b_6> Sanhedrin 43b. Here the Jewish roots of Christianity are very clear -- this sounds very much like the New Testament.
Jesus was punished and sent to Hell where he ended up in "boiling hot excrement" (Gittin, 56b,57a). The text reads: Onkelos son of Kolonikos20 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_56.html#56b_20#56b_20> was the son of Titus's sister. He had a mind to convert himself to Judaism. He went and raised Titus from the dead by magical arts, and asked him; 'Who is most in repute in the [other] world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, What is your punishment [in the other world]? He replied: What I decreed for myself. Every day my ashes are collected and sentence is passed on me and I am burnt and my ashes are scattered over the seven seas. He then went and raised Balaam by incantations. He asked him: Who is in repute in the other world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He replied: Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.1 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#57a_1> He then asked: What is your punishment? He replied: With boiling hot semen.2 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#57a_2> He then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel.3 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html#57a_3> He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement. Observe the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the other nations who worship idols. It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for God espoused the cause of Bar Kamza and destroyed His House and burnt His Temple. Nothing about Jesus there, just some rather nasty punishments for blasphemy, nothing odd for ancient or even medieval times.
"Christians will go to Hell 'and be punished there for all generations' (Rosh Hashanah, 17a) ". The text reads:
Wrongdoers of Israel who sin with their body(7) and wrongdoers of the Gentiles who sin with their body go down to Gehinnom and are punished there for twelve months. After twelve months their body is consumed and their soul is burnt and the wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous as it says, And ye shall tread down the wicked, and they shall be as ashes under the soles of your feet.(8) But as for the minim(9) and the informers and the scoffers,(10) who rejected the Torah and denied the resurrection of the dead, and those who abandoned the ways of the community,(11) and those who ‘spread their terror in the land of the living’,(12) and who sinned and made the masses sin, like Yarovam (Jeroboam) the son of Nevat and his fellows — these will go down to Geehinnom and be punished there for all generations, as it says, And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against me(13) etc. Gehinnom will be consumed but they will not be consumed, as it says, and their form shall wear away the nether world.(14)
Nothing particularly singles out Christians; the "minim" means sectarians which might refer inter alia to the Jewish converts to Christianity, not Christians in general. The whole list of people who will go to hell is quite similar to those of other religions -- many Christians even to this day think that anyone who does not accept Jesus will go to hell. The reference to those who "rejected the Torah and denied the resurrection of the dead" apparently refers to the Saducees, a Jewish sect , not Christians.
"Those who read 'the works of the Judeo-Christians, i.e., the New Testament' will end up in Hell (Sanhedrin,0a) ."
There is no "0a". I checked 10a, 20a, etc. but could not find this reference. "The books of the Christians "may not be saved from a fire, but they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names occurring in them" (Shabbath, 116a) ."The text reads: Come and hear: The blank spaces above and below, between the sections, between the columns, at the beginning and at the end of the Scroll, defile one's hands.13 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.html#116a_13#116a_13> — It may be that [when theey are] together with the Scroll of the Law they are different.14 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.html#116a_14#116a_14> Come and hear: The blank spaces15 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.html#116a_15#116a_15> and the Books of the Minim16 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.html#116a_16#116a_16> may not be saved from a fire, but they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names occurring in them. Now surely it means the blank portions of a Scroll of the Law? No: the blank spaces in the Books of Minim. Seeing that we may not save the Books of Minim themselves, need their blank spaces be stated? — This is iits meaning: And the Books of Minim are like blank spaces. It was stated in the text: The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them,17 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.html#116a_17#116a_17> and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand. For even if one pursued me18 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.html#116a_18#116a_18> to slay me, or a snake pursued me to bite me, I would enter a heathen Temple [for refuge], but not the houses of these [people], for the latter know (of God] yet deny [Him], whereas the former are ignorant and deny [Him], and of them the Writ saith, and behind the doors and the posts hast thou set up thy memorial.19 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.html#116a_19#116a_19> R. Ishmael said: [One can reason] a minori: If in order to make peace between man and wife the Torah decreed, Let my Name, written in sanctity, be blotted out in water,20 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.html#116a_20#116a_20> these, who stir up jealousy, enmity, and wrath between Israel and their Father in Heaven, how much more so;21 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.html#116a_21#116a_21> and of them David said, Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate then with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.22 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.html#116a_22#116a_22> And just as we may not rescue them from a fire, so may we not rescue them from a collapse [of debris] or from water or from anything that may destroy them. "Minim" means sectarian. Jewish converts to Christianity were treated as apostates (Christians treated their former coreligionists the same way); the attitude towards other Christians is quite different.
"(I) THE TALMUD HATES SCIENCE " This texts are taken out of context to try to make Judaism look silly. Anyone could do the same thing with either the New Testament or the Old Testament, both of which contain many passages which, read out of context, sound strange to modern ears. " Hyenas turn into bats after seven years, and later on turn into thorns and demons (Baba Kamma, 16a). " The text is as follows:
" THE WOLF, THE LION, THE BEAR, THE LEOPARD AND THE BARDALIS [PANTHER].23 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_23> What is bardalis? — Rab Judah said: nnafraza.24 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_24> What is nafraza? — R. Joseph said:: apa.25 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_25> An objection was raised: R. Meir adds also the zabu'a.26 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_26> R. Eleazar adds, also the snake.27 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_27> Now R. Joseph said that zabu'a means apa!28 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_28> — This, however, is no contradiction, for the latter appellation [zabu'a] refers to the male, whereas the former [bardalis] refers to the female,29 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_29> as taught elsewhere: The male zabu'a [hyena] after seven years turns into a bat,30 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_30> the bat after seven years turns into an arpad,31 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_31> the arpad after seven years turns into kimmosh,32 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_32> the kimmosh after seven years turns into a thorn, the thorn after seven years turns into a demon. The spine of a man after seven years turns into a snake,33 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_33> should he not bow34 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_34> while reciting the benediction, 'We give thanks unto Thee'.35 <http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_16.html#16a_35> " This is some kind of allegory, the meaning of which is obscure to me, but it certainly does not mean that the Talmud "hates science".
" Being naked in front of a lamp causes epilepsy (Pesahim, 112b). " Could not find this text. Pesahim or Pesachim is all about the rituals for Passover.
"There's medicinal value in dirt found in an outhouse's shadow, also in a white dog's excrement (Gittin, 69a,b). " Gittin 69 is a long list of odd folk remedies which are perfectly typical for ancient peoples (and certain modern ones). Does not say or mean that the Talmud "hates science".
WAISers may peruse the Talmud themselves if further proof is needed that the fictional "Irv Spielberg's" Talmud citations, based on a recycled 19th century Russian anti-Semitic pamphlet, are maliciously distorted or entirely spurious. I have to say that in the process of compiling this I was reading the Talmud for the first time. There was much legalistic and archaic in it, particularly the bits about dietary laws, but I found nothing which seemed alien or shocking to my Christian sensibilities. Judaism is much older than Christianity, so many of the Talmudic sensibilities are rooted in older, pre-historic times. But the connection to Christianity is very much evident, and I was moved by passages concerning original sin. "Irv Spielberg" -- really, Pranaitis -- is just libelling Jews, distorting their scriptures and lying outright, in order to stir up anti-Semitic passions, following a very old traditional method which did not begin with Pranaitis (see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/). The Talmud is not the Jewish bible -- it is a set of commentaries to it. Imagine what kind of hate of Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, or Jews could be stirred up against Christians by taking a bunch of comments of medieval or ancient Christian priests out of context (inventing them out of whole cloth, as Spielberg-Prainaitis does, would not even be necessary). Discerning minds -- possessed by practically all WAISers, as far as I can tell -- will be able to recognize this fundamentally un-Christian sludge for what it is.
RH_ We thank Cameron for the effort he has made to clarify the issue. He says that he has sent this to me earlier, but it is the first time I have received it. I am confirmed in my belief that the present texts of all the holy books-Old Testament, Torah,Talmud, New Testament, Hindu and Buddhist writings-must be rewritten so that they say clearly what they mean. Until that is done, modern man will simply walk away from religion. Incidentally, one posting said that Irving Spielberg was a real person, a converted Jew. I personally have no idea.
Cameron Sawyer sent a long, well.documented commentary on Irving Spielberg's exegesis of passages of the Talmud.
Christopher Jones says: While we should thank Cameron for the trouble he took to assemble his note on the Talmud, his sources for those Talmudic "interpretations" are hardly unbiased: "Come and Hear" claims on its first page to be inspired by George W. Bush to fight the "misinterpretation" of the Talmud. In other words, the site's promoter's interpretations may have been softened for propaganda reasons. (Of course exactly the opposite can be said of Spielberg's citations -- that his interpretations were hardened for his agenda) This only underscores the importance of the translator and who is doing the translation. However, even the Rabbis on the "Come and Hear" site do admit that the Talmud may "offend Christian sensibilities."
Surely any one person who reads this site will find something offensive.
While "Irv Spielberg" may be a nom de plume, it was fairly easy to find an email address for him at spielberg01@hotmail.com which of course is no guaranty that it works. It seems clear to me that if biblical texts fall in the wrong hands, they can be interpreted in just about any way for a radical agenda: both Zionist or "white supremacist." However, while the "white supremacist" movement is minuscule, the Zionist movement is not. There are a number of prominent organizations in the Israeli-American Zionist universe, and for them, any discussion about conspiracies or books about conspiracies like Protocols or the Pranaitis opuscule are stifled, books and articles labelled hoaxes, the concoction of warped minds, anti semitist, etc. Cameron listed a web address as the source for his comments about the Pranaitis book: http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/pr.htmwhich which is the personal home page for Lewis Loflin, who can only be described as a "Christian Zionist." Apart from his exposé on the Mandel Beyliss murder trial, the same page includes such tidbits as:
"What about Islam? I consider militant Islam the most violent and dangerous belief system we face today. Unlike Christians, Jews, and Hindus, Islam as an institution has refused to renounce the use of violence, religious terror and intolerance, slavery, polygamy, and even murders its own wives, daughters and sisters in the name of "family honor."
It s common knowledge that anyone who doesn't tow the official dogma, (that the Jews have a biblical right to the land of Israel, even if this entails the deportation and dispossession of the Palestinians,) is silenced with ridicule. For example. the other sources Cameron lists can be all traced to Dr. David S Maddison in Australia. Let's see what he thinks of Dr. Israel Shahak:
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)
Given Cameron's sources, I am very skeptical about the idea that everybody is out to libel Jews, and that the world is filled with antisemites. I haven't read the Pranaitis book, but I defend the right to discuss assertions about the Talmud without being subjected to name calling.
Caneron Sawyer answers Christopher Jones: If I may be permitted a few concise responses to Christopher's posting:
1. Christopher systematically argues against positions I never took. I never said that "everybody is out to libel Jews, and that the world is filled with antisemites", and in fact I do not believe this at all. I grew up in Nashville, Tennessee in the 1960's and '70's and never heard a single word against the Jews (prejudice against blacks was another thing, of course), and never actually met an anti-Semite until I lived in Russia. What I was trying to say was not that "everybody is out to libel the Jews" but that the alleged "Spielberg's" piece on the Talmud was a malicious misrepresentation of the texts. A different point entirely.
2. I never impugned Christopher's right to discuss the Talmud and, on the contrary, I am on record as being opposed to any kind of infringement of free speech. But what Christopher is free to say, others are, likewise, free to rebut.
3. I never subjected Christopher any "name calling". I called the "Spielberg" piece, "fundamentally un-Christian sludge", which is a value judgement on a certain text, which I stand by, not name-calling with regard to any person, and certainly not Christopher. Christopher, if he did submit the "Spielberg" piece, has not admitted to it, so I don't think he has any basis to take my perhaps somewhat harsh judgement of it personally.
4. Christopher impugns a couple of my secondary sources, in such a way that implies that they were the main sources of my little essay. In fact, those secondary sources were only mentioned in passing. The main sources for my essay were the unedited original texts of the Talmud, both of the two extant English translations, which both happen to be available online.
5. Christopher attacks Zionism, and the supposed attempts of Zionists to silence their critics. I take no position on this here; I was not writing about Zionism at all. I was writing about the Jewish religious texts, a totally different subject. Confusing Zionism with the Jewish religion is pernicious. Christopher, a good WAISer, would never do such a thing, but I must say that nearly all of the neo-Nazi websites which I studied which carry the "Spielberg" piece and other similar Pranaitis-derived materials all seem to intentionally confuse the issue with the same line of warped logic: "We don't hate Jews, we hate Zionism and the International Jewish Capitalist Conspiracy, and the Jewish stranglehold on the American media, all of which victimize average Jews as much as us Aryans, but now look what bastards these Jews are -- see what their holy texts say about us." So let us employ WAISedly clear thinking and resist attempts by anyone to mix these things up in our minds.
6. If "Irv Spielberg" is a nom de plume, then I have proved my point. He is no doubt a creature of the imagination of Anthony Hancock or someone else from the National Journal.
7. Christopher considers the sources of secondary materials to be relevant. I agree with him completely. I think WAISers might be interested to know the background of the Uckfield "National Journal", the source of the "Irv Spielberg" piece we have been talking about. I did some research on this, the results of which is submitted separately.
RH:It would seem that Christianity is closer to Islam than to Judaism. Regardless of the authenticity of the Spielberg quotes, the Talmud certainly show no respect for Christianity. On the other hand, the Koran expresses admiration for Christ and the Virgin Mary. Can anyone produce a quotation from the Koran which disproves this? My conclusion is that Mohammed compared himself to Christ, whom he regarded as a prophet. He decided that Christ's pacifism had failed, so he decided to use force. Does Ed Jajko have any comments?