[Me:] > I had wanted to make sure (at this point, to confirm) that I was on the > right footing in attacking his belief that the Talmud says one should kill > and/or cheat the goyim, and also to ask you if you knew of any texts that > examine anti-Talmud arguments of this sort and demonstrate them false (I > recall an informal exchange on this subject in scj, but I've long since= lost > it). I suspect that some of these beliefs could be an "innocent" mistake; > since so much of the gemara seems to be discussions of actual legal cases > and hypotheticals on every subject under the sun, it's conceivable that= one > Amor could have thrown up a proposition like "Well, _is_ it a crime to= kill > goyim?", allowing antisemites to claim that the Jews therefore thought it= at > least arguably okay by quoting only the question and any hypothetical= "pro" > arguments and ignoring the umpteen responses saying, "Yes, of course it= is." [Eliot:] You are right on target. There was, I recall, a request from Danny Keren from alt.revisionism on the same topic. Someone had posted a long list of alleged quotations from the talmud suggesting that Jews were permitted (or required) to cheat, rape, plunder, etc, provided that the victims were nonJewish. I spent some time responding to almost all of the alleged quotations, but no longer have the text; you may want to try Danny Keren (AFAIK, he still posts to alt.revisionism) or to Ken McVay (who certainly does). [Me:] > I realise that there's very little hope of ever convincing this sort of > fellow to amend his views. The reason I want to confront him is that= there > could well be a good number of well-meaning but ignorant people who see= his > stuff and take it at face-value. I think it just as important (in a way, > even more important) for non-Jews to stand up to this sort of thing as for > Jews to do so. [...] [Eliot:] The bad guy wrote: > >Of course, again, our friend overlook the glorious massacres of > >christians by jews throughout history: From Herod to the Sanhedrin. > >What about the first persecution ordered by Nero under the influence > >of Poppea, his jewish concubine? What about the massacres and > >persecutions from the jews depicted in St Ambrosis, St Augustine and > >other fathers's scriptures? What about the great Talmud? I think that > >"killing a christian is pleasing God" and "goyim are to be chated and > >treated like beasts" is almost as "good" as your "Bishop of Bezier's" > >quotation... It You responded: > I'm afraid I'll have to give the laurels to His Lordship of Beziers here;= you > see, he actually said that, whereas your cites to the Talmud do not exist.= > As it happens, Michel, I know a bit about the Talmud (and no, I'm not= Jewish, > pity really, that would have explained my opinions for you rather nicely,= I > suppose). Nowhere does it state that killing Christians is pleasing to= God. > And far from stating that goyim are to be cheated and treated as beasts,= it > imposes a heavier penalty for cheating a non-Jew than for cheating a Jew. = Of > course, it also states that one isn't supposed to cheat anybody,= regardless > of religion; but you probably missed that passage amidst all the detailed= > instructions on how to drain the blood of Christian children.... Again, your answer was right on the mark. Amazingly, there are almost no references to Christians or Christianity in the talmud! This may be attributed to the fact that when the talmud was being compiled, Christianity was not the major threat to Judaism. Alternatively, the Church censors may have eliminated all references to Christianity, and replaced the term "Christian" with "idolater" (although Christianity does not meet the Jewish legal definition of idolatry). As far as Jewish massacres of Christians are concerned, such events simply didn't occur (as you pointed out). Furthermore, I don't know of any sources in Jewish law that might be read as allowing such massacres. Given everything I know about the history of religions, I'd guess that such massacres might have occured if the circumstances permitted ... but the= Jews never had enough political power to get away with it. ********* Original poster's new, more specific accusations: [Original poster:] >(Please excuse my traduction, don't forget that I'm only a french >canadian who is trying to write in english... for you would not >understand french...) > >"The use of double-talking is expected for overcoming the non-jewish" >(J. Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud, 1935, "Seder Nezikin" t.1, p. 664) >(Baba Kamma 113a) > >"If the jews are called men, the people of the whole earth are not >called men but beasts" (Baba mezia 114b) (Kerihuth 6B p.78, Midrach >Talpioth foli. 255d, Orach chaiim 376a, Zohar II, 64b) > >"Christians are non-pure " (Schabbath 145b, Aboda zaza) > >"They are like excrements (shit...)" (Orach chaiim 55, 20) > > >"It is right to kill christian leaders (ZoharI, 219b) > >"The jew that kills a christian is offering a sacrifice to God" >(Sepher Or Isra=EBl 177b, ibidem fol. 180, Lalkut Simoni 245 c.n. 772, >Bamidbar rabba 229c) > >"Those who destroy christian are promised the most elevated place in >Paradise" (Zohar I, 386. e 39a, Hilkoth Akum X, 1, ibidem X,7) > >And I'm passing over the commentaries about Jesus, the Apostles, the >Blessed Virgin, Maria Magdalena ... > > [O.P. quoting me:] >>What on earth do you mean by the "Sanhedrin"? This was a court, not an executive body (in the >>Palestine of the period you're talking about, the executive would have= been >>Roman). And it never ordered any massacre of Christians. > [O.P. again:] >They voted Jesus death, and he was kind of "christian before the date" >I guess... They even voted it agaisnt their own laws ( where it was, >among other things, written that the Sanhedrin could not vote by >night, that the judgement would be valid only if held in a special >room ( the chamber of the polished rocks) ect...) I guess that the >pharisians and the priests were not at all implied in Saint Stefen's >death, and that Sa=FCl (Saint Paul) was not commissioned to find and to >kill Jesus's disciples? ********** I would guess that the "Christians are non-pure" bit refers to ritual impurity, so the answer is "Big deal, so are the Jews, at least until a red heifer shows up, and anyway 'ritual impurity' is a term of art having noting to do physical loathesomeness", but I'd like to be better armed to answer his other points.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor