Hello Nancy,
What with our friend Emile's taste for quoting vicious verbatim verses from the evil antichrist Talmud, I was inspired to study his diligent efforts in Jewish studies (which he tells us he has been pursuing for decades) in more detail, especially since he's graced everyone with his presence of late. The findings are actually quite interesting.
Emile is fond of referencing his quotations to the hated Babylonian Talmud, Soncino edition, a well respected one among the hateful Zionist Talmudic Jews. Interestingly, headings like the one immediately below, "Jews May Lie to Non-Jews," do not actually come from the Soncino edition. They coincidentally come verbatim from hate sites such as this one, many of which seem to have "evil Talmud" sections which have nearly identical texts and even mistakes:
www3.stormfront.org
Stormfront. Nice ring to it, huh? Also, what a coincidence indeed! His post on Ask God #5913, "Who Rules America?" (a lengthy diatribe about the Jewish media) is prominently featured there as well, as well as on a number of other savory sites. Now, I am not saying that he picked it up off of Stormfront, which is a general "White Pride" site that only has one section on Jews and lots of other ones on other undesirables that Emile does not seem to pay any attention to, at least not here. These texts make the rounds of all these types of places and there were probably six or seven where he could have picked it up.
Anyway. Back to the foul and anti-Christian Babylonian Talmud. The translations he offers for some reason often bear no earthly resemblance to the Soncino edition text. In fact, lo and behold! His Shabbath 116a below even includes a certain "See Footnote #6" (I've pointed it out) which doesn't come from Soncino at all, but it does show up in a well known and widely circulated Talmudic hate pamphlet called "Facts are Facts." There is no footnote in the Soncino.
Basically, although maybe I'm wrong, perhaps Emile has found that taking his Talmud commentary off these convenient sites saves mucho time and energy versus the tedium of poring over the Soncino edition itself, thus allowing him to devote his efforts to other lofty tasks.
What I have done below is to include each of a number of Emile's "Talmud quotations" in italics, followed by explanatory commentary by noted Talmudic scholar Michael Gruda, which somehow did not make it into Emile's expositions. This is rather lengthy and difficult reading, but in the interests of balance I have included it all for those who may wish to run through everything. I have not put in Emile's SI post numbers on these, but I will be pleased to furnish them to anyone who asks.
Quotations from the Babylonian Talmud: The Soncino edition
"Jews May Lie to Non-Jews Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may
use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile."
Commentary: The passage discusses robbers (such as tax collectors who acted beyond their legal authority) who have stolen property. The question that arises is whether it is permitted to use subterfuge to circumvent their thievery. In a long legal discussion, the entire thrust of which is that any form of stealing from heathens is forbidden, the following statement is brought forward for consideration: "we use subterfuges to circumvent him [a heathen; this is one opinion] ... but Rabbi Akiva said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name". The Talmud continues and notes that Rabbi Akiva forbids subterfuges not only on account of desecration of G-d's name, but also because theft from a non-Jew is absolutely forbidden by biblical law. The Talmud continues to explain that even the opinion which is rejected does not condone outright theft which is absolutely forbidden according to all opinions.
The Talmudic passage here is a well-known one which makes the point that the "law of the land is the law", that is, the civil and commercial law of the nations in which Jews reside is binding on them.
The conclusions to be drawn from this passage, as noted by the commentator Meiri, some 700 years ago are as follows:
"We find that it is forbidden to steal even from idol worshippers and those who do not have any kind of legal system and if a Jew is sold to them [as a slave] it is forbidden for him to leave their service without payment, and it is forbidden to refrain from repaying a loan received from them but one is not required to expend efforts to find and return their lost articles, and in fact one who simply finds their lost articles is not required to return them .... since return of lost articles is an act of extraordinary kindness [in places where 'finders-keepers' is the rule] and we are not required to show this extraordinary kindness to those who live without laws, but in any event ... in the case of a lost article it should be returned if there is any chance of desecration of G-d's name by failing to do so .... but for all those who have any kind of legal and religious system at all of any type even though their faith is far from our own, they are not [referred to] in these laws, rather they are in all respects as Jews for these matters, both as to lost articles, or to mistakes and to all the other matters without exception."
Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human Yebamoth 98a. All Gentile children are animals."
Commentary:Such statements do not exist. On this page the Talmud considers whether converts are considered relatives of their biological kin from the point of view of enforcing upon them the strictures of Jewish law regarding forbidden marriages. The Talmud quotes one lenient opinion (in the end rejected) to the effect that these strictures should not apply to converts because their blood relationship before marriage is not considered to carry over to their new status as Jews. In the manner of the agada this ruling was pinned on the verse in Ezekiel (23;20) "... for their flesh is as the flesh of donkeys ..." referred to in item [CLAIM 19a] above. Refer to the discussion under that heading for more details on the use of this verse and the way it is applied to Jews as well as to non-Jews.
Taken from the Babylonian Talmud--The Soncino edition.
WHAT THE TALMUD TEACHES
---Shabbath 116a (p. 569)." Jews must destroy the books of
the Christians," i.e. the New Testament. See footnote #6.
Commentary: 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', not Christians). 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).
[Note: "Footnote #6" is from an anti-Talmudic pamphlet called "Facts are Facts," it is usually thrown in as these lists make their way from hate site to hate site. No reference is made to "Christians"]
From the Soncino edition.
-------------
"
Non-Jews are Not Human Baba Mezia 114a-114b. Only
Jews are human ("Only ye are designated men")."
Commentary: Apparently a deliberate mistranslation. The passage deals with the technical rules of corpse-impurity which, according to the author of this text, apply to Jews and not to gentiles. In this connection Ezekiel 34:31 is cited: "And ye My sheep [referring to Israel], the sheep of My pasture, are _men [Hebrew: "adam"]_, and I am your God, saith the Lord God." From a careful midrashic reading of this Biblical verse, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai deduced "Only "ye" [i.e., Israel, not other nations] are designated "adam," in the sense that only Jewish corpses and graves generate impurity according to Numbers 19:14: "This is the law: when a _man ['adam']_ dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the tent...shall be unclean seven days..." The passage is legal and exegetical, not theological. If anything, it seems to put Jews on a lower footing than non-Jews. Typically, the words "but beasts" were added on by whoever put this list together. They do not appear in the original.
Kerithoth 6b under the sub-head, "Oil of Anointing" and Berakoth 58a in which Gentile women are designated animals ("she-asses")."
Kerithoth 6b Text: Uses of Oil of Anointing. 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]."
Commentary: In Numbers 19:14 the Written Torah states that "If [a] man [person] dies inside a tent..." and the passage goes on to describe the laws of ritual impurity caused by the corpse.
The sages considered whether this law applied to all men or only to Jews. It might have been thought that the word 'man' or 'person' would indicate a reference to both Jews and non-Jews. However the Oral tradition made it clear that when the Torah uses the word 'man' or 'person' in connection with legal restrictions the reference is usually to Jews and not to non-Jews who are not bound by Torah law.
The Talmudic passage states in connection with this matter: "'... My sheep ... you are men' (Ez. 34:31); you [Jews] are called 'adam' [men], and the idol worshippers are not called 'adam' [men]".
Commentators explain that the use of the word 'men' [adam] in this passage is similar to the use of the word 'person' in modern national law codes. When such a law code uses the term 'person' the reference is not universal but is restricted to those persons who are bound by that national law code.
Similarly in the case at hand the laws of ritual impurity apply only to Jews and not to non-Jews. The passage should thus be understood as follows:
"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that for the purpose of legal enactments the term 'person' refers to Jews, who are bound by the law, and does not refer to non-Jews who are not bound by the law". It is interesting to note that the proof text is taken from Ezekiel Chapter 34 in which Israel is compared to sheep.
Another interpretation given by commentators is that when the context is negative (as in a discussion of ritual impurity caused by a corpse or the commission of a sin) the word 'man' is used to refer to Jews only (in this way not bringing shame on the name 'Israel'), but when the context is positive then the word includes all of mankind.
With this understanding the Talmudic passage should be understood as follows:
"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that in a negative context such as that of ritual impurity the word 'man' refers to Jews only, and not to non-Jews".
This sentence appears three times in the Talmud; the reference in Baba Mezia 114a is tangential and therefore the subject is not developed at any length. An honest reader would follow the cross-references to the other locations and note that in Kerithoth 6b the Talmud points out that the application of this principle of interpretation is questionable in any event.
Yevamot 61a is the third place in which this rule of interpretation is mentioned and in this location the commentators on the page also point out that this rule of interpretation has very limited use. They specifically cross reference to the Talmudic statements in Avoda Zara 3a and Sanhedrin 59a which compare non-Jews who engage in Torah study to the High Priest.
Berakoth 58a text: "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' [I 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."
Commentary: 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. |
