From email@example.com Tue Jan 9 14:35:33 PST 1996 Article: 19373 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news1.digex.net!news3.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Nazism Date: 9 Jan 1996 03:25:03 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 60 Message-ID: <email@example.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: access2.digex.net In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Yale F. Edeiken
wrote: [a user asked] >> I've heard that the Talmud teaches that a man should rape one's own >> daughter at the age of three. Then the child is a virgin again at 14-15. >> This sounds very absurd and I don't think it's even near a part of the >> truth, but I still wonder, where do nazists get these >> information-arguments? One of them lies, and the rest parrot it. I've never heard the "should rape one's own daughter" formulation before, though. The Talmud does make it easy to tell these lies because it is not organized at all as one would expect. Rather than listing an act and then listing all the possible penalties for that act in one place, the Talmud lists a penalty and talks about when the penalty is and isn't applied. Tractate _Sanhedrin_ talks about death penalty matters; _Makkoth_ deals with the penalty of lashes, and _Kerithoth_ deals with "extirpation," death by heavenly action. > There was an extended discussion of this about six months ago. >If you check with McVay he might have archived the decisions. The passage >in the Talmud is evidently a discussion of whether, after a girl is raped, >she can be considered a virgin when she reaches marriagable age. The usual canard is that the out-of-context phrase, "When a man lies with a little girl less than three, it is nothing" (Kethuboth 11b) means that it is perfectly fine. However, the whole discussion has to do with the circumstances under which a girl is considered to have lost her virginity and thus be ineligible for the entitlement of a virgin bride upon marriage; there is also a discussion in the same passage of being "injured by a piece of wood." The phrase which in its literal translation means "it is nothing" is a Talmudic idiom for "it has no bearing on this matter" - in this example, "it has no bearing on her status as a virgin." As I recall, the sentence ends with an idiomatic expression meaning, "because the hymen can heal" (implying she can still show the "tokens of virginity" mentioned in the Torah). I don't know that this is medically true, but that's what Talmudic law holds. A man who rapes an unmarried woman of any age, or seduces an unbetrothed minor, owes monetary damages; if she is over three, he can be forced to marry her. (Sounds strange, but you must remember that virgin brides were prized, and this expedient guaranteed the support of a woman who would otherwise be considered "damaged goods.") A father who rapes his daughter less than three is given forty lashes (but this is discussed in tractate _Makkoth_), and is considered liable to be struck down by heaven (tractate _Kerithoth_). Due to a technicality, the human-imposed death penalty for incest is only applied when the daughter is at least three years and a day (as discussed in _Sanhedrin_; hence the Jew-haters claim the Talmud permits it despite the fact that a reading of _Makkoth_ shows that there are no age-related exceptions listed for the penalty of forty lashes). Posted/emailed. -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. From epaus.island.net!kmcvay Sat Jul 15 14:15:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Smail22.214.171.124 #8) id m0sXEYW-0008orC; Sat, 15 Jul 95 14:15 PDT Received: from epaus.island.net by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca ; 15 JUL 95 14:15:13 PDT Received: by epaus.island.net (Smail126.96.36.199 #2) id m0sXEZ7-000NWRC; Sat, 15 Jul 95 14:16 PDT Message-Id: From: email@example.com (Ken McVay) Subject: talmud To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ken McVay) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 14:16:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4154 Status: O Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.uoregon.edu!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.usa.net!news.usa.net!not-for-mail From: email@example.com (Harry Katz) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.christian Subject: Re: Talmud OKs Child Molestation Followup-To: alt.revisionism,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.christian Date: 14 Jul 1995 15:04:50 -0600 Organization: Large Lines: 73 Distribution: World Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: earth.usa.net X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:28186 alt.conspiracy:86089 alt.religion.christian:35229 In article , Benjamin Johnson (email@example.com) writes: More disturbing than the assertion that "When a grown-up man has had intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when a girl is less than this (three years old-footnote tells us), it is as if one puts the finger into the eye, tears come to the eye again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years." (Kethuboth 11b)... Most disturbing in Mr. Johnson's rabid campaign of libel and distortion directed against the Talmud, is his complete and utter disregard for the fact that I have already refuted these same charges, which he made in an earlier post entitled "Talmudic Teachings." Since he could not answer my refutations then, he has instead chosen to ignore them and repeat his original lies and distortions all over again. To repeat myself: The passage above does not say that the "grown-up man" is sinless in having intercourse with a three year old girl, but that the girl is not considered to be "damaged goods!" In other words, she is still a virgin. This may be based on erroneous biological assumptions, but it was composed over 1500 years ago, when science was, to say the very least, primitive. The punishment for the "grown-up man" is not discussed in this section of the Talmud. ...is that of Sanhedrin 54b-55a: "Pederasty with a child below 9 years old is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that....(a footnote informs us- "At nine years a male attains sexual matureness" and speaks of "the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three") only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the *PASSIVE* subject of pederasy throw guilt [upon the active offender]." Once again, the argument focuses on the child involved in a sordid crime. The question is at what age can the passive acquiescence to a sex crime be considered innocent. The Rabbis believed that males reach sexual maturity at age nine and females at age three. Again, the worst this can accuse them of is ignorance of biology, which was general at that period of time. The Rabbis also felt that once a person is sexually mature, they must struggle and resist any unwanted sexual advances -- mere passivity is not then considered to be entirely innocent, as the child is then capable of enjoying illicit sexual pleasure. Let me reiterate that at most the Rabbis are guilty of being as ignorant of biology as any other people of the period. But only a Jew hater like Mr. Johnson could construe this passage to give license to Jewish adults to go around raping their neighbors' children. We are also told in San. 55b, "A maiden aged three years and a day may be aquired in marriage by coition." That is quite true, theoretically! In actual practice, however, this never happens, and Mr. Johnson cannot provide a single instance where it has happened as evidence that this passage has corrupted anyone who has studied it! 'Nuff said. Not quite! Mr. Johnson has never explained why he never responded to my posts which have already demolished these "citations!" Nor has he explained why he repeats his baseless libels when he cannot defend them from my analyses! -- Harry Katz Let thy house be open wide as a refuge, and let the poor be cordially received within thy walls. -- 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