From schwartz@infinet.com Fri Dec 20 23:04:52 PST 1996
Article: 87124 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!op.net!inter2.interstice.com!nanospace.com!eit.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-chi-13.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.infinet.com!schwartz
From: schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Reply to Jim Stuart regarding Talmud "quotations"
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:10:27 -0500
Organization: Cat's Lair
Lines: 180
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmh-p026.infinet.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.3.1

Jim:
 
As promised, I did some research. I contacted a Tamludic scholar and
college professor, someone who it seems is familiar with the quotes you
offered. Here is his reply:
 
"It seems that the quotations you asked about are the same ones
that appeared in a (forged) pamphlet called "facts are facts" that I had to
refute when I served as expert witness at the second Keegstra trial in 1992--he
was teaching that material in his infamous Eckville classroom. Most of the
quotes are blatantly fictitious and very easy to discount.

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!
    
^ 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.

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 [i.e.: 114b].    

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. 

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.

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.

^ 5. "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."-
^ -Aboda Sarah 37a.

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.

*********************************

By the way, I should note that not all the citations pulled out by our neo-Nazi
friends are as easy to refute as this one. The Talmudic Rabbis, and some of
their medieval successors, were creatures of their non-pluralistic times, and
the Talmud said some really nasty things about their Roman occupiers--generally
these were the "gentiles" referred to in ancient sources, depicted as utterly
depraved heathens (a characterization that is not completely off the mark, if
one reads Suetonius, Petronius and other contemporaries).

Several of their citations (including one in your collection) are designed to
show that Judaism is not based entirely on the Old Testament --an accusation
that traditional Jews would gladly confess to, but which constitutes a damning
flaw in the eyes of fundamentalist Christians.

Similarly, there are  are some anti-Christian polemics in talmudic literature,
which is of course their right, but which the Christian consider blasphemous.
*************************************

Jim:
 
I hope this answers some of your questions. It seems that your "source" for
the statements you posted are in error, at least in the opinion of this
particular scholar and some of the other respondants from alt.revisionism.

Sara

Here is some additional information for you:

"The standard forms of Judaism (other than the Karaite movement mentioned
in the passage) do not rely solely on the authority of the "written Torah"
(i.e., the Biblical Books of Moses), but believe that the Bible is also
supplemented and interpreted by the "Oral Torah" transmitted over the
generations. The nature of this Oral Torah is somewhat complex, but
traditional Jews will claim that its origins go back to the original
revelation to Moses at Mount Sinai. It also includes intepretations and
enactments by Jewish sages over the generations.

It is through the oral tradition, especially as embodied in the Babylonian
Talmud, that Jews understand the correct meaning of the written Torah--the
comparison to Catholicism is quite valid. For the most part, Jews have
studied the Bible through the interpretations of the Talmud, and for that
reason the Talmud has been central to the curriculum of Rabbinic training.
Because of its extreme difficulty (it consists largely of complex debates
on technical issues of Jewish law), mastery the Talmud has often been
viewed as a higher level of intellectual accomplishment than mastery of the
Bible. Ordination of Rabbis is defined by the individual's expertise in the
Talmud and related literature.      

Accordingly, it is not considered sufficient for Orthodox Jews to follow
the Bible alone. The Karaites are pleased to live with that situation, and
exist as a separate movement. The Ethiopians have mostly opted to join the
Jewish mainstream, a fact which has put their teachers at a disadvantage
vis a vis the Israeli religious establishment--at least for the current
generation. In Israel at the moment, Orthodox Judaism is the only form of
Judaism that has full recognition in the legal system (due to coalition
politics). 

The New Testament is ambivalent on the whole question of the Oral
Tradition. While Jesus clearly criticizes the "man-made" rules of the
Pharisees, he elsewhere instructs his followers to obey the Pharisees,
since they occupy the "seat of Moses." Several important Christian
institutions (e.g., the identification of the two greatest commandments,
belief in bodily resurrection and the symbolism of Pentecost as a day of
revelation) seem to presuppose Jewish oral interpretation. I don't think
there is anything earthshaking in the claim that Judaism and Christianity
are at odds on key issues.

"Goyim" literally refers to the "nations." In the Bible that includes
Israel, but in Rabbinic works it designates the other nations of the world.
Of course during Talmudic times the nations in question were the ones that
Jews came in contact with, principally the Romans--there were no other
monotheistic peoples around then, and the Romans, the "kingdom of evil,"
were despised for their cruelty, lewdness and immorality--similar views are
found in Paul and in Revelation, and the accusations have some historical
basis. Gentile Christians were not very well known at the time that the
Talmud was redacted, and Jewish Christians are mentioned surprisingly
rarely, as an internal heresy. They are referred to as "Minim" though the
term encompassed several "heretical" views, especially dualists and
gnostics. Medieval Jewish law for the most part did not understand these
statements as applying to the monotheistic religions."

The Talmud is a mixed bag. It is a collection of many contradictory
opinions, and not everything in it has been accepted as valid by posterity.

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


From schwartz@infinet.com Sat Dec 28 09:42:20 PST 1996
Article: 89397 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!pumpkin.pangea.ca!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.infinet.com!schwartz
From: schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: "Hall of Shame" A Jooo Shows Himself For Just What He Is
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:21:11 -0500
Organization: Cat's Lair
Lines: 69
Message-ID: 
References: <59p3k8$dd3@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>  <32C2E8C0.77D5@phoenix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmh-p112.infinet.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.3.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:89397 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41011 alt.politics.white-power:53761 alt.skinheads:46725

In article <32C2E8C0.77D5@phoenix.net>, tavish@phoenix.net wrote:


> Why does Mark act so arrogant? Could it be an attitude that has been
> taught. Look below and see what I found from another post.
> 
> 2. "The Jews are human beings , but the nations of the world are not 
>     human beings but beasts."-
> -Baba Mecia 114, 6.
> 
> [Beasts do not have the image of God.]


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.


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. 


> 
> [What have we been trying to tell all of you fellow "beasts" all along.
> It is in
> Van Alysine's allies nature to look down on us this way. They are taught
> this from an early age. What can be expected?]
> 
> Now do any of you get the sense of my symbolism about jugular veins?
> 
> 
> Doc Tavish  Showing the Proud and Arrogant for just what they are.
 
No, Mr. Tavish. What I see is a deliberate attempt to perpetuate
anti-Semitic lies that have already been debunked here.
 
The above statements come from a teacher and Tamludic scholar, one who was
an "expert witness" on the Talmud in the Canadian court system during the
Keegstra trial.
 
These have been posted before. Why do you continue your libel?
 
Sara

-- 
"Remember, there is a great difference between kneeling down and bending over."
   Frank Zappa



From tstedham@dbtech.net Sun Dec 29 02:18:15 PST 1996
Article: 89667 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.dbtech.net!usenet
From: "Thomas Stedham" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Could someone explain this?
Date: 27 Dec 1996 02:48:51 GMT
Organization: db Technology
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <01bbf3a0$10651ec0$3dd0d6cc@tstedham.dbtech.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp78.dbtech.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155

I found this on a site, and I don't understand. Is this _really_ in the
Torah? And if so, is it still valid today?

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

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

< Kethuboth 11b . "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl
it is nothing."

-- 
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right
to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
themselves against Tyranny in government."
                    ---Thomas Jefferson---

Thomas Stedham is tstedham@dbtech.net


From schwartz@infinet.com Tue Dec 31 09:24:41 PST 1996
Article: 90058 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!pumpkin.pangea.ca!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.infinet.com!schwartz
From: schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Could someone explain this?
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 20:20:31 -0500
Organization: Cat's Lair
Lines: 25
Message-ID: 
References: <01bbf3a0$10651ec0$3dd0d6cc@tstedham.dbtech.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmh-p162.infinet.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.3.1

In article <01bbf3a0$10651ec0$3dd0d6cc@tstedham.dbtech.net>, "Thomas
Stedham"  wrote:

> I found this on a site, and I don't understand. Is this _really_ in the
> Torah? And if so, is it still valid today?
> 
> < Sanhedrin 55b . A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically,
> three years "and a day" old).
> 
> < Sanhedrin 54b . A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is
> less than nine years old.
> 
> < Kethuboth 11b . "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl
> it is nothing."
> 

No, these are *not* really from the Torah. They are mis-translations and
deliberate fabrications.
 
Sara

-- 
"Remember, there is a great difference between kneeling down and bending over."
   Frank Zappa

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