From Harry.Katz@mci.com Fri Jul 10 13:06:18 EDT 1998 Article: 188346 of alt.revisionism Path: trends.ca!hub.org!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!18.104.22.168!pm01nn!not-for-mail Message-ID: <359AC532.2905CB10@mci.com> From: Harry Katz
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.skinheads Subject: Re: Was Jeffrey Dalmer Jewish? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <358079F9.6B27@hotmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <35884EB5.6B043E30@mci.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3589FAAB.163A9C35@mci.com> <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 16 Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 23:26:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 22.214.171.124 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 23:26:59 GMT Organization: MCI2000 Xref: trends.ca alt.revisionism:188346 alt.politics.white-power:132027 alt.politics.nationalism.white:101757 alt.skinheads:91159 Karl Zimmer wrote: Harry Katz wrote in message <3589FAAB.163A9C35@mci.com>... Was Jeffrey Dalmer Jewish? I didn't think he was. Please clarify! Mr. Zimmer changes the subject line and snips all of the comments. Exactly what is it that he wants clarified? Jeffrey Dahmer was not Jewish and I am sure that was a salient point in whatever I wrote. -- Harry Katz From Harry.Katz@mci.com Fri Jul 10 13:06:18 EDT 1998 Article: 188348 of alt.revisionism Path: trends.ca!hub.org!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!126.96.36.199!pm01nn!not-for-mail Message-ID: <359AC607.3B17BC0E@mci.com> From: Harry Katz X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power Subject: Re: Winston Churchill's views on the Zionist WORLD-WIDE CONSPIRACY X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <35884B2D.8F23766B@mci.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <358A0C8F.97D1F5CD@mci.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 15 Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 23:30:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 188.8.131.52 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 23:30:32 GMT Organization: MCI2000 Xref: trends.ca soc.culture.jewish:274994 alt.revisionism:188348 alt.politics.nationalism.white:101758 alt.politics.white-power:132029 I wrote: I expect that from the Covingtons, McTavish's, and McKinney's on this newsgroup, but I thought that Mr. B-- had some sense of decency and decorum. Andy Walton replied: I've been operating under the assumption that Billy Bob Throckmorton is another Tavish incarnation. The "Mr. B--" that I refer to is Mr. Baron. -- Harry Katz From Harry.Katz@mci.com Fri Jul 10 13:06:19 EDT 1998 Article: 188376 of alt.revisionism Path: trends.ca!hub.org!falcon!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!184.108.40.206!pm01nn!not-for-mail Message-ID: <359AFD5D.4EBFE869@mci.com> From: Harry Katz X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism Subject: Re: THE TALMUD (From DejaNews Archives) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 633 Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 03:26:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: dnamax5-136.mcit.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 03:26:45 GMT Organization: MCI2000 Xref: trends.ca alt.politics.white-power:132041 alt.revisionism:188376 Doc Tavish posted: X-NO-ARCHIVE: YES From DejaNews archives: http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=273203074 THE TALMUD Judaism's holiest book documented and exposed... THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TALMUD Judaism's Holiest Book Copyright ©1994 by Michael A.Hoffman II and Alan R. Critchley Distributed by The Campaign for Radical Truth in History I am sure that Mr. T-- will be delighted to learn that I dealt with exactly this screed in a series of posts several years ago. THE AUTHORITY OF THE TALMUD -- Part One Several months ago, in article , firstname.lastname@example.org promised to "expose the Talmud." While nothing could be more desirable than exposing the Talmud to a wider audience, all Mr. Hoffman succeeds in exposing is his own confusion. He begins: The Talmud is Judaisms holiest book. This is not quite true. Adin Steinsaltz is the world's acknowledged foremost authority on the Talmud. In "The Essential Talmud," (NY, Basic Books, Inc., 1976; translated from the Hebrew by Chaya Galai) he writes: If the Bible is the cornerstone of Judaism, then the Talmud is the central pillar, soaring up from the foundations and supporting the entire spiritual and intellectual edifice. In many ways the Talmud is the most important book in Jewish culture, the backbone of creativity and of national life. No other work has had a comparable influence on the theory and practice of Jewish life, shaping spiritual content and serving as a guide to conduct. The Jewish people have always been keenly aware that their continued survival and development depend on study of the Talmud, and those hostile to Judaism have also been cognizant of this fact. The book was reviled, slandered, and consigned to the flames countless times in the Middle Ages and has been subjected to similar indignities in the recent past as well. At times, talmudic study has been prohibited because it was abundantly clear that a Jewish society that ceased to study this work had no real hope of survival. -- p. 3 The Talmud is the repository of thousands of years of Jewish wisdom... It is a conglomerate of law, legend, and philosophy, a blend of unique logic and shrewd pragmatism, of history and science, anecdotes and humor. It is a collection of paradoxes: its framework is orderly and logical, every word and term subjected to meticulous editing, completed centuries after the work of actual composition came to an end; yet it is still based on free association, on a harnessing together of diverse ideas reminiscent of the modern stream-of-consciousness novel. Although its main objective is to interpret and comment on a book of law, it is, simultaneously, a work of art that goes beyond legislation and its practical application.... -- p. 4 The "book of law" referred to above is the Old Testament, especially the first five books of Moses, which brings us to Mr. Hoffman's next assertion about the Talmud: Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. This is a blatent error, as illustrated by Steinsaltz's next sentence: ...And although the Talmud is, to this day, the primary source of Jewish law, it cannot be cited as an authority for purposes of ruling. -- p. 4 Mr. Hoffman claims: As a reader of Talmud (in the rabbinically authorized Soncino version) I know this to be true. Mr. Hoffman must be a casual "reader of Talmud," not a student, as he seems to have missed a significant volume of the Soncino edition of the Talmud: the volume entitled _Index!_ In it he would have discovered a section marked "Scriptural References" with 148 pages of footnotes, in the small typeface reserved for footnotes, two columns per page, and all of them references to the Old Testament. Clearly, the authority of the Talmud does not take precedence over the authority of the Old Testament; rather the authority of the Talmud is derived from the authority of the Old Testament! -- Harry Katz Do not blame thy friend for shortcomings which thou hast thyself. -- The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud, Madison C. Peters, ed. -------------- THE AUTHORITY OF THE TALMUD -- Part Two As I pointed out in my previous article, Mr. Hoffman begins his "expose'" of the Talmud (article ), with a blatant error: The Talmud is Judaisms holiest book. Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. The Talmud derives its authority from the Torah, and does not in any way "take precedence" over it. How can this position be reconciled with the Talmudic citation that follows? Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): >>My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament).<< First, let's examine the rest of the passage: ...for in the laws of the Torah there are positive and negative precepts; [And the penalties vary -- Footnote (7)] but, as to the laws of the Scribes, whoever transgresses any enactments of the Scribes incurs the penalty of death. -- Erubin, Soncino Edition, p. 148 While the penalties for transgressing against the Scriptures may vary, the penalty of death is certainly among them; so, it would seem that some attention ought to be paid to the Scriptural law regardless! The confusion arises here from not factoring in a basic concept of the Talmud, that of "building a fence around the Scriptures." The authors of the Talmud realized that certain Scriptural laws incurred the penalty of death when transgressed, and they feared that otherwise innocent souls might transgress by accident or error. The Scriptures do not specifically state that mistakes do not count. So, the Rabbis imposed even greater restrictions than the Scriptures require; the idea being that even if a man transgressed the Rabbinical commandments by accident, he would still be prevented from transgressing a Scriptural commandment, which would have put his soul in peril. Therefore, the point of the passage above is this: If one adheres strictly to the laws of the Scribes, one will never transgress against the Scriptures! The proof is on the page immediately preceding the passage that so offends Mr. Hoffman, where a verse from the Song of Songs (VII, 14) -- specifically the phrase, "New and old," -- is fancifully interpreted: _New and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved;_ the congregation of Israel said to the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Lord of the universe, I have imposed upon myself more restrictions than Thou hast imposed upon me, and I have observed them.' -- Erubin, Soncino Edition, p. 148 Finally, in perusing a volume of the Talmud that I used in my research for this series of articles, I came completely by accident upon this: When doubt arises in a Rabbinical law we are naturally lenient; but where the law is Scriptural we are strict. -- Pesahim, Soncino Edition, p. 42, footnote (2) -- Harry Katz The learned man should judge himself according to his own teaching, and not do anything that he has forbidden others to do. -- The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud, Madison C. Peters, ed. -------------- CENSORSHIP OF THE TALMUD -- Part One Before examining any of the other talmudic texts that Mr. Hoffman (email@example.com) finds objectionable, I must deal with another basic issue he raises in article <5U9YnUO.firstname.lastname@example.org>, wherein he enlists the aid of Dr. Israel Shahak's latest work, _Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years_ (London, Pluto Press, 1994). Unfortunately, Dr. Shahak's book is not available in any library in the State of Colorado, so I cannot vouch for the completeness or accuracy of Mr. Hoffman's citations. The spin that Mr. Hoffman intends to put on these citations are clear from the headline he composed for them: CONCEALMENT OF HATEFUL TALMUDIC TEXTS This is what was done: a few of the most offensive passages were bodily removed from all editions printed in Europe after the mid-16th century... At the same time, lists of >Talmudic Omissions< were circulated in manuscript form... once the rabbis felt secure, all the offensive passages and expressions were restored without hesitation in all new editions<< (pp.22-23). >>Modern scholars of Judaism have not only continued the deception, but have actually improved upon the old rabbinical methods, both in impudence and mendacity<<(p. 24). With all due respect, Dr. Shahak is a neither a theologian nor a historian, but a scientist, whose specialty is chemistry or physics. Adin Steinsaltz is the world's acknowledged foremost authority on the Talmud. In "The Essential Talmud," (NY, Basic Books, Inc., 1976; translated from the Hebrew by Chaya Galai) he writes: Attempts were made as early as the seventh and eighth centuries to prohibit study of the Talmud, but they failed... when the Catholic Church adopted a more severe attitude toward enemies within its own ranks, it also began to examine Jewish literature and, to a large extent, the Talmud. ...several European rulers and Church dignitaries were convinced that the Talmud contained anti-Christian material and, on the basis of informers' charges, they ordered that all anti-Christian statements and libel against Christ be erased from the books. This anti-talmudic campaign and the various decrees of the popes reached their height when, as the result of internal disputes in the Jewish community and at the urging of certain converts, Pope Gregory IX ordered the burning of copies of the Talmud in Paris in 1240. Similar decrees were issued several times in the course of the thirteenth century, on one occasion by Pope Clement IV in 1264, and thousands of copies were consigned to the flames... The decrees did not encompass all of Europe; in the Iberian peninsula, for example, the Talmud was not burned but merely censored by statements considered derogatory to Christianity being removed. Church leaders were not unanimous in their views on the subject. A Church synod in Basel in 1431 reaffirmed the stringent ban on the Talmud, but there were other opinions as well. In 1509 a convert named Johannes Pfefferkorn tried to incite church leaders to burn the Talmud in all countries under the rule of Charles V. A champion appeared, however, in the form of a Christian, Reuchlin, who pleaded the cause of the Talmud. Although the controversy was not settled at once, and copies of the Talmud were burned in several towns by the bishops, Reuchlin's arguments appear to have had some effect. In 1520 Pope Leo X permitted the printing of the Talmud, and several editions appeared in the next few decades. But this situation did not endure, and as the result of the intensification of the Counter-Reformation, and due to the efforts of several converts, Pope Julius III ordered the works burned again in 1553. This decree, carried out in the various Italian states, apparently resulted in the destruction of tens of thousands of copies of the Talmud. The harshness of the decree was alleviated by Pope Pius IV's announcement at the church synod at Trent in 1564 that the Talmud could be distributed on condition that those sections which affronted the Christian religion were erased. As the direct result of this decision, an edition was printed in Basel under the supervision and censorship of Catholic monks. It was cruelly truncated and censored, but still did not satisfy the Church and, in a papal bull issued in 1592, Clement II finally prohibited study of the Talmud in any version or edition. The ban did not apply to the whole of the Christian world, since large parts of Europe (the Protestant countries and those under Russian and Turkish rule) did not accept the authority of the Catholic Church, but it was put into operation in most parts of Italy. The Jews of Italy tried to evade the ban in various ways, the commonest being study of the book, _Ein Yaakov_ (after it too was banned, they changed its name to _Ein Israel_), which contained the aggadic [i.e., folkloric -- HK] text of the Talmud, and study of R. Isaac Alfasi's _Sefer Halakhah,_ which contained much of the talmudic _halakah_ [i.e., religious law --HK]. But the anti-Talmud decree had a decisive impact on the cultural life of Italian Jewry, which never regained its former splendor. This was a vivid historical illustration of the fact that a Jewish community which did not study the Talmud was condemned to attrition. No similar decree was issued in any other European country, but there was a widespread tendency to censor the Talmud. In later times printers gradually and clandestinely restored those sections which had been censored, but despite these efforts the best editions of the Talmud are mutilated because of the changes and "corrections" introduced by the censors. The censored Basel edition was the archetype of such editions, as the censor erased or amended all those parts of the text he regarded as insulting to Christianity or various peoples, or as reflections of superstitious views. The Basel censor, Father Marco Marino, first erased the forbidden word _Talmud,_ replacing it by other terms, such as _Gemarah_ or _Shas,_ initials of Hebrew words for Six Orders. Wherever the text used the word _min_ (heretic, originally applied to Gnostic sects and only rarely to Christians), he changed it to read Sadducee or Epicurean. All mention of Rome, even where reference was undoubtedly to the pagan Roman Kingdom, was altered to read _Aram_ (Mesopotamia) or _Paras_ (Persia). The words _meshumad_ or _mumar_ (convert) were also forbidden and amended. A grave problem for the censors was the word _goy_ (gentile), which they always changed (sometimes puzzling scholars, who were unaware the censor was responsible). For a time the word _goy_ was changed to _akum_ (initials of "worshippers of stars"), but a convert informed the authorities that this term too constituted an affront to Christianity, since _akum_ also denoted the initials of "worshipper of Christ and Mary." It was therefore necessary to find substitutes, and the most common was the insertion of the word _kuti_ (Samaritan) for _goy._ In the Basel edition the censor ordered that the word kushi (African, Kushite) be inserted in place of _goy._ Wherever the Talmud makes derogatory reference to Jesus or to Christianity in general, the comment was completely erased, and the name of Christ was systematically removed, even when the reference was not negative. The Basel censor also decided to erase what he considered examples of personification of the Deity, as well as enigmatic legends. In certain cases he added his own comments in the margin. For example, where the text states that man comes into the world without sin, he added, "According to the Christian belief, all men are born tainted with the sin of the first man." Sections which he regarded as offending modesty were also eradicated, and other changes were made as well, as in the Talmudic saying: "A man who has no wife cannot be called a man," which offended his sensibilities as a celibate monk. He changed it to read "A Jew who has no wife ..." The _Avodah Zarah_ tractate was not printed at all, since it deals with the holy days of non-Jews and relations with them. Although the omissions and erasures were partially restored in other editions, there were always new censors in other countries who introduced new distortions and changes. The Russian authorities, for example, decided that Greece could not be mentioned in the Talmud, since Russian culture was supposedly inspired by that of Greece, and the word was therefore altered wherever it appeared. Some Russian censors declared that the phrase "Greek language" was offensive and changed it to read "language of _akum._" The ignorance of many censors led to the misspelling of names, and many of the errors were perpetuated from edition to edition. Some changes resulted from short-lived political calculations, such as the instruction of the Russian censor at the time of the Russo-Turkish War that the word _goy_ be replaced by Ishmael, a change which engendered a whole series of absurd errors. The Talmud was not the sole work affected by the heavy hand of the censor, but because of its scope and range and the thousands of changes introduced over the centuries, it was impossible to correct all the mutilations even in editions published in countries free of censorship. Offset printing perpetuated many of the mistakes and ommisions, and only in the most recent editions have attempts been made to restore the original format of the text. -- pp. 81 - 85 In my next article I will revisit Mr. Hoffman's post of Dr. Shahak and analyze it in light of the information above. -- Harry Katz When the thief has no opportunity to steal he considers himself an honest man. -- The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud, Madison C. Peters, ed. -------------- CENSORSHIP OF THE TALMUD -- Part Two In my previous article (<email@example.com>) I presented a concise history of censorship of the Talmud. Armed with this information, we are ready to take to take a closer look at the citations >from Dr. Shahak that Mr. Hoffman (firstname.lastname@example.org) posted in article <5U9YnUO.email@example.com>. CONCEALMENT OF HATEFUL TALMUDIC TEXTS This headline is Mr. Hoffman's creation, not Dr. Shahak's. It is meant to imply that the Rabbis and other members of the Jewish community responsible for studying and publishing the Talmud have been involved in a conspiracy spanning centuries to "conceal" so-called "hateful" talmudic passages. The citations from Dr. Shahak have been carefully selected to reinforce this implication: >>...Talmudic passages directed against Christianity or against non-Jews had to go or be modified--the pressure was too strong. Who applied this pressure? If Mr. Shahak provides an answer Mr. Hoffman has not included it. However, we know from my last article that the pressure was applied mainly by the Catholic Church, but also by various other church and governmental entities throughout Europe, North Africa, and Asia. This is what was done: a few of the most offensive passages were bodily removed from all editions printed in Europe after the mid-16th century. While there may be a few "offensive" passages in the Talmud, my previous article clearly establishes that censorship of the Talmud was not limited to "a few of the most offensive passages!" References to pagan Greece and Rome were also excised or altered, for example, "...and the name of Christ was systematically removed, even when the reference was not negative [Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, p. 84]." In all other passages, the expressions >Gentile,< >non-Jew,< >stranger,< (goy, eino yehudi, nokhri)--which appear in all early manuscripts and printings, as well as in all editions published in Islamic countries--were replaced by such terms as >idolater,< >heathen< or even >Canaanite< or >Samaritan<..... >>Needless to say, this was a calculated lie from beginning to end... Exactly what "was a calculated lie from beginning to end?" Certainly not that the Talmud was censored! The only falsehood here is the implication that the excisions and emendations outlined by Dr. Shahak were not forced upon the Jewish community against their will! But that is probably not a conscious lie, so much as it is a silly mistake made by an overzealous atheist engaged in a holy war against religion. At the same time, lists of >Talmudic Omissions< were circulated in manuscript form, which explained all the new terms and pointed out all the omissions.. As well they should! The caretakers of the Talmud had every right -- nay, the moral duty -- to resist political and religious censorship to the utmost! Besides, the ignorant hypocrites who censored the Talmud had no care for the antiquity of the Talmud, nor for the cultural heritage it preserves. Even if it were abandoned entirely as a holy work and moral guide, it would retain a priceless intrinsic value equal to the classics of pagan Rome and Greece, not least for the insights it affords into the customs and practices of its times. ...and following the establishment of the state of Israel, once the rabbis felt secure, all the offensive passages and expressions were restored without hesitation in all new editions<<(pp.22-23). If only that were true! The sad fact is, as outlined in my previous article, errors introduced by censors were propagated by the printing press and much of the original text has been lost and cannot be reconstructed. And I must repeat that what the censors found to be "offensive" was largely arbitrary and unreasonable, as must be expected when a bureaucrat exercises absolute authority. >>Modern scholars of Judaism have not only continued the deception, but have actually improved upon the old rabbinical methods, both in impudence and mendacity<<(p. 24). Actually, unless Mr. Hoffman has done great violence to Dr. Shahak's text by selectively quoting him, the charges of "impudence and mandacity" would have to be laid at the door of the author. -- Harry Katz He who unjustly hands over one man's goods to another, he shall pay God for it with his own soul. -- The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud, Madison C. Peters, ed. -------------- GENTILES In article , firstname.lastname@example.org writes: Translations: The translators of the Talmud sometimes translate the Hebrew word goyim (Gentiles) under any number of terms such as heathen, Cuthean, Egyptian, idolater etc. But these are actually references to Gentiles (all non-Jews). See for example footnote 5 of the Soncino edition Talmud: Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the original goy... In my last article in this series I established that all of these substitutions that Mr. Hoffman attributes to translators were actually forced on the Talmud by Medieval Christian censors. What sense does it make for the translator to change the word and then add a footnote to point up the change? Furthermore, the word "goy" has undergone considerable evolution in the millenia that have passed since it was first coined. The original Hebrew meaning of goy is "nation." In Genesis XII:2, the Lord tells Abraham, "I will make of you a great 'goy' [nation]." "Goyim" is the plural and referred again to "nations." By the time the Talmud was composed, the word came to indicate individual non-Jews, or Gentiles, but not Christians nor Moslems. Islam, of course, had not been revealed as yet, and "Christianity" was a word that had not been coined yet, the followers of Jesus still being mainly Jews. The word "goy" as employed in the Talmud refers either to immigrants from neighboring pagan countries, or to the Roman occupation forces. Therefore, the alternate terms of heathen, star-gazer, idolator, etc. are quite apt. Moreover, the occasional outbursts of venom against "goyim" are directed at the cruel and inhuman policies of the Roman occupational administration. Christians are sometimes referred to by the code word Min or Minim. Far from being a code word, Min (plural, Minim) means "heretic," as I am sure is explained in some footnote or other in the Soncino translation. The word was applied mainly to Gnostics, and sometimes to followers of Jesus, although the distinction between the two groups could often be blurry during the formative years of Christianity. Mr. Hoffman continues, pompously: It is the standard disinformation practice of the Pharisees to deny the existence of the following Talmudic scriptures... The Talmud is not "scripture!" That word is reserved for the Bible -- the so-called "Old Testament" -- as even the most casual glance at the Soncino translation will clearly prove. To apply the term "scripture" to the Talmud can only serve to confuse the issues under discussion. ...and to claim they are the fabrications of >>anti-Semites.<< This disinformation can only obtain cachet among those too lazy to go to the English-language books of the Talmud and look these passages up for themselves. It took me a bit of time but I managed to follow Mr. Hoffman's advice to the letter and what I discovered shocked me! I discovered that Mr. Hoffman is a brazen and shameless weasel! For example, he presents this "citation," under a subtitle of his own creation: Jews Have Superior Legal Status Baba Kamma 37b. >If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full.< Mr. Hoffman could hardly have missed footnote 6, on page 211, as it refers directly to this passage: As Canaanites did not recognize the laws of social justice, they did not impose any liablitity for damage done by cattle. They could consequently not claim to be protected by a law they neither recognized nor respected... In ancient Israel as in the modern state the legislation regulating the protection of life and property of the stranger was... on the basis of reciprocity. Where such reciprocity was not recognized, the stranger could not claim to enjoy the same protection of the law as the citizen. This particular footnote is referred to in several other passages in the Soncino Talmud that Mr. Hoffman "cites," such as this one: Jews May Lie to Non-Jews Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies (>subterfuges<) to circumvent a Gentile. A footnote to the passage above refers to the previous footnote. In other words, this is a case of legal non-reciprocity. That this passage is directly related to the preceding one, is apparent from the full citation: Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is _our_ law'; also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is _your_law'; but if this cannot be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him. This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. Note that an opposing opinion is quoted in the very next sentence after the one cited by Mr. Hoffman -- he could not have missed it! R. Akiba's opinion, the one Mr. Hoffman does not see fit to mention, is the one that is accepted as the rule. The reason given, "the sanctification of the Name," means that a heathen must not be goaded into cursing against God. Neither does Mr. Hoffman see fit to mention the very narrow circumstances in which R. Ishmael sees subterfuge as warranted. Nevertheless, as R. Ishmael's opinion is not accepted, R. Ishmael himself would be required to follow R. Akiba's rule. (The strict adherence of the talmudic rabbis to majority rule is even affirmed by another of Mr. Hoffman's "citations" in this same article -- the story of R. Akiba washing his hands before a meal when he had hardly enough water to drink -- but I will not be getting around to discussing that one in this post.) This particular talmudic discussion continues a few lines down: Is then the robbery of a heathen permissible? Has it not been taught that R. Simeon stated that the following matter was expounded by R. Akiba when he arrived from Zifirin: 'Whence can we learn that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden? From the significant words: _After that he is sold he may be redeemed again,_ which implies that he could not withdraw and leave him [without paying the redemption money]. That is, an Israelite may not be freed from servitude to a Gentile without paying compensation to the Gentile. The debate ends with an affirmation of R. Akiba's view. R. Bibi b. Giddal, R. Simeon the pious, and R. Huna agree, "The robbery of a heathen is prohibited... " A footnote to this last passage delivers the knockput punch: ...v. also Tosef. B.K. X,8 where it is stated that it is more criminal to rob a Canaanite than to rob an Israelite... (The abbreviation, Tosef., stands for _Tosefta_, a commentary on the Talmud, and B.K. stands for Baba Kamma.) In spite of which, Mr. Hoffman has the audacity, the unmitigated gall, and the _chutzpah_ to make up subtitles for his "citations" such as, "Jews May Steal from Non-Jews" and "Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews!" -- Harry Katz Rather be thou the tail among lions than the head among foxes. -- The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud, Madison C. Peters, ed.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor