|
Four Billion jews Killed in Bethar
If you believe what I write, you're an anti-semite. To be a good
gentile, believe only what I say now, because you prove that you hate jews by quoting what
I write.
David S. Maddison at maddison@connexus.net.au
CONFIRMS the amorality and stupidity of Talmudic claims
In reference to the jew claim that 4 billion jews were killed by Romans,
we have the following candid observation from Royce Buehler at buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu
"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."
So. The jews ADMIT that the writings of their long respected EXPERTS are
grossly in error--but expect us to believe the EXACT SAME story today about 6 million jews
dying in a "holocaust" during WWII?
WHICH of their writings is correct, IF any? Their OWN writings, from
the Bureau of the Synagogue Council itself, claim that there were 584,549 MORE jews after
WWII than before. Is this also "obviously" a jew writing which
"contains human errors", or is this an ACCURATE jew writing [for a change]?
Even though it was jews themselves who claimed that there were more than
half a million MORE jews after WWII than before, it is THEY who changed THEIR story and
NOW want US to believe that there were SIX MILLION LESS jews--to whom WE owe reparations
of some sort, for some as yet unexplained reason, exclusive of any reparations to the
friends, relative, and descendants ofthe 264 million Christians who WERE missing after WWII.
Which jew LIE do we believe? Which one is closest to the TRUTH [as
if a jew cares about such nigglies]? Could it be that 6 BILLION jews actually died
in the holocaust, rather than only 6 million?
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/mad.htm
A side note: outlandish claims of Jewish casualties is nothing new. They
claimed 6,000,000 in WWI, too, believe it or not. And, as historian/journalist
Michael Hoffman has pointed out: “There 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 the Romans."
Judaism's Strange Gods, Michael Hoffman (Independent History, 2000) The
Bible abounds with outlandish claims of Jewish casualties, as well.
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html
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 the
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).
http://holocaust.nu/default.aspx?catch=http://holocaust.nu/article.aspx?aid=32&refer=1&print=1
The size of Bar-Kokhba's Bethar army is given as 200,000 men. Bar-Kakhba
is said to have been so tough that, when the Romans catapulted missiles into his fort, he
would intercept the missiles with his knee with such force that he would knock them back
into the faces of the astonished Romans, killing many. The Talmud goes on to claim that
the number of Jews killed by the Romans after the fortress fell was 4 billion "or as
some say" 40 million, while the Midrash Rabbah reports 800 million martyred Jews. In
order to reassure us that these figures are given in earnest, the necessarily accompanying
events are set forth. The blood of the slain Jews reached to the nostrils of the Romans'
horses and then, like a tidal wave, plunged a distance of one mile or four miles to the
sea, carrying large boulders along with it, and staining the sea a distance of four miles
out.
http://groups.msn.com/Mishpocha/thetalmudpart4.msnw
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 (70)
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) <catamont-2305980759150001@ts003d13.den-co.concentric.net>
CLAIM (71)
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 (72)
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 <hampel@brachot.jct.ac.il>
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.] mat6263@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner)
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)
| 
