Subject:      Re: Success!
From:         schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)
Date:         1996/12/18
Message-Id:   
References:    <59724t$alv@access5.digex.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Organization: Cat's Lair
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   alt.revisionism,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.white-power

Excellent commentary, Mike, and just to make sure the message gets across,
I will again add the two cents of the Talmud scholar I contacted, who was
judged an "expert witness" on Talmud by the Canadian courts.

In article <59724t$alv@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net
(Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>     Followups trimmed.
> 
> In article ,
> Jim Stuart  wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >On to more interesting things.  I was looking at some quotes from
> >the Talmud the other day, and noticed a couple of interesting items:
> >
> >1. "The teachings of the Talmud stand above all other laws. They are 
> >    more important than the laws of Moses."-
> >-Rabbi Ismael, Rabbi Chambar, et. al.
> 
>     Not even a book name to check the quote.  No source, no donut. 

"The passage as quoted is clearly spurious. Rabbi Ishmael lived far too early to
be saying anything about the Talmud (which was not compiled until centuries
afterwards), and there is nobody with a name that sounds remotely like Rabbi
"Chambar."

There are some statements that speak of the teachings of the sages as being
"more beloved" before God than those of the Torah (because of their human
component), or requiring more strengthening (i.e., additional stringencies lest
people treat them lightly). I am not aware of any statement that formulates it
as in the passage."

> 
> >
> >2. "The Jews are human beings , but the nations of the world are not 
> >    human beings but beasts."-
> >-Baba Mecia 114, 6.
> 
>     Baba Metzia 114b.  The question is whether a priest becomes ritually
> unclean (disqualified from performing priestly duties until the prescribed
> period has passed and washing has been performed) if in contact with the
> grave of a non-Jew.  One rabbi taught that ritual uncleanliness did not
> occur in such a circumstance, and it is in _this_ context that he cited a
> proof text from Ezekiel, "only ye are designated men."  (There is no
> indication that this rabbi was correct, BTW - Baba Metzia is not concerned
> with purity laws; this was a digression from the main discussion.)  The
> part about "beasts" is a complete invention not found in the text. 
> 

"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."


> >
> >3. "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would 
> >    not have to be served by beasts.
> >    The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and commanded 
> >    to serve the Jew day and night."-
> >-Midrasch Talpioth, p225-L.
> 
>     This is definitely not the Talmud.  I have no idea what this book is
> supposed to be, and 225-L doesn't look like any kind of valid page
> reference.

"I was unable to check this reference in my extensive Judaica library. The book
"Midrash Talpiyyot" is appparently an obscure eighteenth-century Kabbalistic
work that is little known and carries no authority whatsoever. Even if the
citation were correct (which seems doubtful in light of the other examples on
this list, and the fact that Jews never employ the designation "Jehovah"), it is
hard to imagine what could be proven from it about Judaism or the Talmud."


> 
> 
> >4. "At the time of the Cholhamoed the transaction of any kind of 
> >    business is forbidden. But it is permitted
> >    to cheat a goy, because cheating of goyim at any time pleases the Lord."-
> >-Chulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 539.
> 
>     Shulchan Aruch at least exists, but it is not the Talmud.  I have not
> checked to see if "Orach Chaim 539" exists in the larger work.  Chol
> Hamoed is the intermediate period of the festivals of Pesach (Passover)
> and Sukkot (Tabernacles).  This is already suspect, as business is
> discouraged but not forbidden.
> 

"Nothing of the sort is found there. The passage deals with various types of
business transactions that are forbidden or permissible on the "intermediate
days" of festivals. Some of the references are to transactions with gentiles
(who are not bound by the prohibitions); e.g., it is permitted to collect a debt
from a gentile on the half-holidays. Nowhere does it say anything about
cheating."


> 
> >And, lastly,
> >
> >5. "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."-
> >-Aboda Sarah 37a.
> 
>     Aboda Zara 37a.  A complete distortion of the text, and as I
> understand the book, explicitly prohibited elsewhere.  The rabbis
> prohibited cohabiting with Gentile women for fear that they would seduce
> their husbands away from following the law and into following their
> idolatrous ways.
> 
>     The discussion of Aboda Zara 37a involves the conditions under which
> contact with certain bodily secretions causes ritual uncleanliness,
> similar to that of Baba Metzia 114b.  The law is that a bodily secretion
> of a gentile girl less than three years and a day, if touched, does not
> cause ritual uncleanliness.  The text says _nothing_ about the
> permissibility of having sex with such a girl; that is a malicious
> conclusion dishonestly presented as if it were a quote. 

"Apparently a deliberate misquote. The observation is a technical, physiological
one,  regarding the impurities related to genital "flows" as outlined in
Leviticus chapter 15. The Talmudic source argues that since the tearing of the
hymen at that age would be permanent (as distinct from a younger girl whose
hymen the rabbis believed would grow back), she is considered to have reached a
state of physical development that her discharges would be included under the
category of impure flows according to the Biblical purity laws. (The same rule,
by the way, would apply to a Jewish girl). This is of course not a permission to
"violate" the girl, merely a legal definition of her age."
> 
> 
> >So, here's my question.  Are these quotes in truth and in fact from
> >the Talmud?
> 
>     Definitively not for the two which really did refer to the Talmud.
> 

And for additional reference, here's what the "expert witness" said about
the source of these quotes:

"Yes, these are the same texts that were taught in Mr. Keegstra's
classes, and have long been circulated by various American antisemitic groups.
Most of them are garbled from a work by I.V. Pranaitis, a slimy turn-of-the
century Russian charlattan who served as an "expert witness" at the nototious
Mendel Beiliss blood libel where he was literally laughed out of court for his
displays of ignorance under cross-examination!"

-- 
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the
Christian religion."
       George Washington, 1796

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor