Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:13, 27 March 2006

Archives of past Talk pages:

• Archive 1 (Nov 2001 - Oct 2004)
• Archive 2 (Nov 2004 - Feb 2006)

Question for the critics of the Talmud

Here is a simple question for the critics of the Talmud, have any of you ever met people who studied the Talmud? Or have you ever spent any time attending classes on Talmud by people who understand the Talmud? Obviously not! As anyone who has actually studied the Talmud, attended classes on Talmud or knows major Talmudists will attest that there is no "racism" whatsoever in the curriculum of the Talmud and that there is NO "racism" (as described above) and that there is NO preaching or practicing of "racism" at all, ever! (Perhaps too many project their own prejudice against Jews by convincing themselves that somehow the Jews who know Talmud preach "racism" the same ways that the enemies of the Jews preach anti-Semitism against them, but it just ain't so.) All the students and teachers and wise men of the Talmud, both alive and in the past, were and are, kind, gentle, considerate, polite, caring and humble human beings who understood that all mankind is created in God's image. They love ALL human beings. (Anyone is welcome choose a name from Category:Orthodox rabbis -- many of whom are the greatest Talmudists of modern times -- and dare to point out that any one of these people was a "racist" or taught "racism" based on the Talmud -- G-d forbid.) It's very easy to take quotes out of context (and it's even easier to "manufacture" false or twisted "quotes" meant to show Jews in a bad light since it's what anti-Semites do all the time), and run around and say "see, it's racist" when you don't have the first clue what Talmud is because not only have they never studied it but they have never met anyone who has studied it either. Shame on them. As history has PROVEN, Anti-Talmudism is basically equal to Anti-Semitism, and in those countries where they first attacked and burned the Talmud (as the Nazis did on Kristallnacht, 9 November, 1938) they will soon come to rationalize genocide and why they need to murder six million innocent Jews in the Holocaust. So let's get real and NOT show how ignorant we are of this subject by talking about things we know nothing about. Try doing some Google searches on Astrophysics see what bothers you about the subject and then start using quotes out of context on the Talk:Astrophysics page and see the reception you'll get...you'll be treated like a fool, and rightly so... IZAK 13:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats great. Anti Talmudism is the same as Anti Semetism. So if someone is Anti Christian that is the same as Anti-Gentilism or is only Jews who get the special protection? Attacking the talmud will lead the the holocaust. Yeah sure. For this reason we can give the Talmud special treatment and censor negative information about it unlike the Quran and bible.

Come and Hear

Is the alleged reproduction of the Soncino Talmud at the pages listed below genuine? - the question not being is "Come and Hear" an anti-Judaism site (evidently it is), but are these pages genuine reproductions of the Soncino text? If these opinions quoted and highlighted on these pages are genuine reproductions (and not complete fakes), then why are they in this book (given that they presumably (!) are not generally acceptable within Judaism)?

Babylonian Talmud - Sanhedrin 54

Babylonian Talmud - Sanhedrin 55

Exhibit 54 - Elizabeth Dilling: "The Jewish Religion; It's Influence Today"

--PeterR 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please be specific as to which passages/paragraphs you refer to? Each of these pages cover a lot of different topics, each of which have obviously different repercussions in Judaism. As a short answer to your question, the Talmud contains a record of Rabbinnic discussions considered to be the most important from the period of the Babylonian Academies. Not every decision is law (in fact less than 50% is, because at any point where 2 or more rabbis disagree, the law can only generally follow one opinion!) but that does not mean that it shouldn't be studied. Frikle 02:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

PeterR is referring to the 3 year limit as highlighted on his first source. It's a classic mistake. No such behaviour is being encouraged; it is still punishable. But antisemitic authors (which includes Come and Hear) expect the reader to fall into that trap. These are legalistic issues, and obviously Judaism does not encourage pederasty. What did you think? JFW | T@lk 03:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So are these passages really in the Soncino edition? The ones I refer to are highlighted on the Come and Hear site and mentioned on a variety of Anti-Semitic, and/or Anti-Judaism/Anti-Talmudic sites regarding apparent exoneration from guilt of people committing wicked acts against children? To be Anti-Semitic and to be Anti-Talmudic are not necessarily the same thing IMHO - because a Christian who is against the beliefs which some Jews have adopted may still, for instance, rescue Jews from Nazis, just as the apostolic gospels tell of Jesus proclaiming woe to the Scribes and Pharisees but loving the ordinary Jewish people. But I recognise that many who do oppose Judaistic teaching have an anti-Jewish-people agenda and one has to be aware of this.

The next question then is, if these passages are not fake where can one find a Jewish explanation of what they actually do mean (as opposed to the "obvious" explanation when they are taken out of context)?

By the way - someone has moved my original question to a different section, it followed on originally from the anonymous comment "You've never looked within a Talmud because if you did, you'd find nothing of the sort. For one, it's very large and I doubt there's a quick index for you to reference "pedophilia and gentiles"."

I had heard allegations before about the Talmud and paedophilia before but treated them as highly unlikely. What led me to look this up on the internet now was an unsolicited email from an American pro-Palestinian group (with some links to white supremacists) that referred to recent portrayals of Mohammed as a paedophile and made a brief and oblique comment about these Talmud passages. As someone with no direct links to either Jews or Muslims or those who campaign against either, I would nevertheless like to know the truth about the allegations, and all I have seen so far is evasion and slagging off of anyone who would show such ignorance as to ask such a question.--PeterR 13:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked them up, but I am familiar enough with Talmud to know what they are talking. In Halakha there is law that not all sex is considered sex. Sex with a girl under 3 years of age is not sex (just abuse), and would not be punishable for the sexual offence per se (if it was incestuous or otherwise punishable), but only for the damage caused. Likewise for a woman having sex with a boy, it is not sex unless he is 9 years old. Again that is not to say that it is permitted, but it is not sex. When the Soncino says "no guilt", it means to say "is not guilty" not "yea do it and don't feel guilty about it". All of this relates to weather it is sex or not, not if it is abuse. Regardless of the age the rapist is obligated to pay damages (mental and physical) to the victim and of course is not permitted (but if the victim is of age the offender could be put to death). Jon513 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Jon is correct. PeterR, can we close the discussion? JFW | T@lk 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not being honest? In Jewish Law a man may marry his daughter from the day of her birth (if she is not older than 12.5 years), and as the Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer, 37:1) puts it, that in case the girl is 3 years old at least, and the groom had had sex with her with her father consent, this "marriage" is valid, and she is under her "husband" authority. there is, though a discussion in the Talmud if one is "advised" to marry his daughter if she is under the age of 12, even it is permitted according to law. The Tosafoth (Kiddushin 41:a) and even the Rama (1530-1572) (Even HaEzer 37) testifies, about the common practice of marriages under the age of 12 in his community, and defends it too.Zadil 00:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• See #User:Zadil must come clean below. IZAK 07:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see this page: The Talmud Does Not Permit Sex With A Three Year Old Jayjg 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish law, Talmud and Racism

It is an urgent topic, but somehow the wikipedia still lacks any serious discussion about this issue. I came across some site that even concludes that this Holy Book ("The Talmud") is the "Mein Kampf" of the "Chosen People".

well, it seems like an extreme accusation, so it is natural to ask, are there any controversial laws in the Talmud or it is much ado about nothing.

So, with your king permission, let me just quote and discuss some issues in halacha, that in my humble opinion are sort of relevant here.

• "A Jew who rapes a gentile 3-year-old girl, because he raped her viciously, this girl is put to death, because she "brought" shame on the Jewish people, like a case a Jew coupling with an animal, the animal is to be executed as mentioned elsewhere. (Maimonides, chapter 12 of The Laws of Forbidden Relationships, halacha 8-9).
• "Ones' ox that injured a pregnant maidservant and she miscarried, the owner of the ox is exempt from payment for her offspring, for this is similar to injuring a pregnant she-ass".(Maimonides in chapter 11 of The Laws of Monetary Damage, halacha 4).

(This revered scholar even explains himself very well, here is an exact quotation:

"This is our law! And do not find it difficult, and don't be surprised by it, just as one is not surprised about the slaughter of animals even though they have done no harm, for, one in whom human characteristics are not complete is not truly a man, and his end purpose is only for 'man' (i.e. the Jew)". (Maimonides commentary on the Mishnah in Tractate Baba Kama, chapter 4, mishnah 3).

• A Jew who killed a Gentile with intent is not put to death by the Beit Din, as he would be had he killed a Jew. (Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer and Saving Life, chapter 2, halacha 10-11).

• A gentile who killed a Jew without intent, even though he did it unintentionally, he is put to death.(Maimonidesin chapter 5 of The Laws of a Murderer and Protecting Life, halacha 4)

OK, I'm not in a position to judge if comparing gentiles again and again to animals is racism or not, and again if you're searching Google for "Talmud anti-gentile", you will find among others the following quotations: "All gentile children are animals", "Gentiles prefer sex with cows" or "The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has exposed their money to Israel".(references to the above and many many others can by found here or on this excellent website . Another excellent website is available here

anyway, let me conclude, with some holy thoughts of the most influential rabbi of our days rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who is well-known to compare the Palestinians to snakes (again, search the web for Ovadia Yosef, snakes), and the following is an exact quotation of one of his recent sermons at Adat Yazdim just recently:

"There was a tsunami and there are terrible natural disasters, because there isn’t enough Torah study… black people reside there (in New Orleans). Blacks will study the Torah? (God said) let’s bring a tsunami and drown them... Hundreds of thousands remained homeless. Tens of thousands have been killed. All of this because they have no God"..

Just kind and loving words!

One is just reminded what rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook wrote in "Orot" regarding the gentile compared to an animal, that the Gentile's soul is by far more close to that of an animal, as opposed to the "Jewish soul". (Orot, chapter 5, page 156). This theorem is rigorously proven (in "Orot") on purely logical arguments deduced naturally from the holiest book of the Jewish people i.e. The Talmud, or so is convinced this rabbi.

Such Holy thoughts coming straight from such wise men of the Talmud , making their holy thoughts known to the world in such clear terms!!! honestly, I'm so humble...I'm just sitting here citing again and again every holy word written and spoken by these great rabbis and dissolve into tears as i read the minds of these great rabbis who came closest to reading God's thoughts.--Zadil 14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Zadil, the sources you quote are actually secondary; none are directly from the Talmud. You've also misquoted Maimonides in your first quote (the contentious information is actually in Issurei Biah 12:10).

The problem with responding to your quotes is, that your next entry will contain twenty others. In no way will quoting individual passages from the Talmud here contribute (1) to this Misplaced Pages article, (2) to your understanding of Judaism. From your language ("Mein Kampf", sarcastic "Holy thoughts") it is obvious where your sympathies lie. JFW | T@lk 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Zadil must come clean

When User:Zadil states:

"Such Holy thoughts coming straight from such wise men of the Talmud , making their holy thoughts known to the world in such clear terms!!! honestly, I'm so humble...I'm just sitting here citing again and again every holy word written and spoken by these great rabbis and dissolve into tears as i read the minds of these great rabbis who came closest to reading God's thoughts" (sic)

one is forced to conclude that he is motivated by cynical, highly prejudiced views and that he has a complete anti-Talmudic POV bias and therefore any discussions with him are a total waste of time and any of his edits to this article should be reverted or deleted on sight until such time as he can abide by Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith towards both the Talmud and the many editors here who know something about this subject, a number of whom are Misplaced Pages:Administrators. Otherwise this discussion is going nowhere fast. IZAK 07:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what I told Zadil above. It is rather easy to cherry pick material that comes accross as offensive according to 21st century standards. JFW | T@lk 11:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Zadil's external links

Zadil, please stop adding links to non-reliable and non-encyclopedic sources, and please trying to promote your "Talmud is racist" thesis via this backdoor method here and in Halakha and Anti-Judaism. Thanks. Jayjg 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It must be really hard if your only reliable source is one you've written yourself. JFW | T@lk 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

TALMUD RACISM? Can anyone explain this?

I'm not sure as whether this information is true or false that's why I didn't bother to edit the Talmud page.

Where a Jew Should Do Evil

Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.

Penalty for Disobeying Rabbis

Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.

O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

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."

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews

Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

Insults Against Blessed Mary

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

Gloats over Christ Dying Young

A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was?--He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."

--Gnosis 18:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of that is false; See Gemara and Anti-semitism Ill try to look them up. Epl18 18:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Every single one of those quotes is not from the Talmud and intentionally provokative. I checked http://talmud.faithweb.com/ you seem to have missed section 5.1 of Talmud#Charges_of_racism -Epl18

Thank you Epl18. I have a three questions however. Where can I find the truth about this matter in an unabridged version of the Talmud? Second, is this saying that some of the information is true and some is false based on changes in the Talmud and other quotes are total fabrication? I can use a correlation to the racism that exists in America hundreds of years ago. Although those practices don't openly exist today we both can agree that racism still exists in America. In saying that even though those changes were supposedly made to the Talmud and the preachers who were preaching this hatred years ago are no longer considered authorities on this and were wrong in what they are teaching. Can it be said that there still exists racism against others races? And I use the term race loosely as I don't believe in that particular meme. I have experienced predjudice from some not all Jewish people first hand without them even knowing that I have Moorish and Jewish blood. At the same time I have experienced it from non-Jewish people. I can go on and say that that may be only here in America however based on the mentality ofthe entire country. The fact that one group decides to separate one group from another based on the meme of race is in itself by definition racism. And staying with that definition those who practice the separating others according to race are racist. This is true whether we're dealing in the 21st Century or not. I personally am not anti-Jewish, anti-Islam, anti-Christian etc. What I am is pro truth and anti-lies. I would like to understand this more so please if you can help to educat me on this a little more.--Gnosis 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And now, a truth report. Every single one of those quotes is an EXACT quote from the Talmud, the quotes still exist in the Talmud NOW DAYS, and from personal experience, I have the "privilege" too, to testify that they are enthusiastically taught so in every Orthodox religious school. more so, with a little knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic it is easily verified on the web (The full text of the Talmud in the origional language exists on many sites), and I invite you to challenge me on every one of these quotes.Zadil 20:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Every single one... is an EXACT quote... easily verified... I invite you to challenge on every one." How about falsifying Zadil's bravado-ridden assertion with just one example? "Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile." Here's an actual "EXACT quote" from the page in question (text in brackets is added for clarity):

• "We may swear to murderers, thieves, and tax collectors that something is a tithe or is property of the king. For Shmuel taught, the law of the kingdom is law! Rav Chanina bar Kahana said in the name of Shmuel: The Mishnah speaks of a tax collector who (lit. "without limit")."

Be so kind and turn the page (to 113b) to find out more. Be sure to come back with a report, I'll sure love that...Zadil 00:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This ruling applies when dealing with both Jewish and non-Jewish criminals. Any other suggestion in this section of the Talmud that Jews may deceive non-Jews is raised by the Talmud only for the sake of demonstratively refuting it. Indeed, Zadil's distortions are "easily verified." (I hope this proves to be my last post to this section; I ought to restrain myself from wasting my time getting entangled in further discussion on Zadil's inevitable follow-up propaganda.) HKT 23:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, Just be sure to turn the page (to 113b), and expect wonderful news. be sure to share with us. and now, who distorts the Talmud? Zadil 00:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

113b? Let's see - Rav Yosef says that you can steal from an extortionist Canaanite (K'na'ani anas, which is what the entire section here is talking about), only to be refuted and told by Rava that you can only refuse paying back money to such an extorionist, but you can't steal from him outright (Abaye then challenges even this position).... Later on, the gemara states that there is no religious obligation to return lost objects to a Canaanite (though if there would be a secular legal obligation, Jews would have to follow it), because the biblical verse requiring returning lost objects only refers to other Jews.... Later on, the gemara discusses that if a non-Jew errs in a Jew's favor in a business transaction, the Jew may keep the money.... The gemara relates that Ravina bought a palm tree jointly with a non-Jew (for the sake of splitting up the wood amongst themselves). Before the non-Jew came by to choose his pieces of lumber, Ravina took the thicker logs because he knew that this person was only interested in splitting the number of logs equally and wasn't particular about the thickness of the logs.

I suppose this is a good sample of the material that you find objectionable. Earlier, I wrote: "Any other suggestion in this section of the Talmud that Jews may deceive non-Jews is raised by the Talmud only for the sake of demonstratively refuting it." This is true, barring cases of extortionists, murderers, etc., as I mentioned above. You continue to maintain that "Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile" is not misleading? HKT 11:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

By inserting three dots above in your quoted passage, you have left out two sentences, seventy words, one comma and two full-stops, or so it is according to one of the English translations (Soncino). Any reason? or is it THE reason? Anyway, assuming a FULL and EXACT quote may be constructive, let me read aloud from the Soncino edition:

• "Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were supposed to be a hundred while he similarly left him minus one ‘’zuz’’ and said to him: See that I am relying upon you.” (The full text of tractate Baba Kama)

Now, it was those Amoraim who chose a definitive path to deal with their fellow Gentiles, whereas someone else may be relieved by suggesting that all Gentiles were murderers or extortionists. Anyway, one is free to describe those practices as deceit, theft or ultimate Divine justice, sure it doesn't matter, after all the rabbi is assured with an extra zuz in his pocket.Zadil 21:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My above post was not intended as a "quoted passage", but as a sampling of material on the page. Did you want me to quote the entire page? I didn't realize that that was what you meant by "come back with a report". Thank you, at least, for finally highlighting the section that you think proves that "Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile". I think I aptly summarized this point of the gemara with my above comment that "the gemara discusses that if a non-Jew errs in a Jew's favor in a business transaction, the Jew may keep the money." I did not indicate or even imply that this section of the page was referring to extortionists, only that the section which discusses theft and avoidance of debts was referring to extortionists. Here, the text was referring to cases where a non-Jew erred on his own. The Talmud would consider misleading a non-Jew into making a mistake in a business transaction to be forbidden. Rav Kahana was indeed relying on the "heathen" (actually not translated as "heathen", "Kuti", which, accurately translated, means Cuthean, and refers in different parts of the Talmud alternately to actual Cutheans or to non-Jews in general), not tricking him, and was allowed to keep the money since the other party had made an error. Similarly, in the case with Shmuel, the non-Jew mistakenly collected the wrong amount. Shmuel was allowed to benefit from that error as well as from the more significant error where the non-Jew didn't realize that his vessel was made of gold. A comprehensive knowledge of Talmudic literature yields the obvious conclusion that Amoraim weren't interested in luxury or hoarding money. Additonally, someone familiar with the Talmud would realize that the Amoraim frequently went out of their way to demostrate (though only one time per legal position) that they stood by each of their rulings, even when this would entailed difficulty for them and for those who were in their legal jurisdiction. In these cases, as per standard protocol, these Amoraim acted as they did to demonstrate the authority of their rulings.

Yet you somehow think that the Talmud was trying to show that Rav Kahana was a kleptomaniac who just couldn't resist saving one percent on his purchase. "n extra zuz in his pocket," indeed! HKT 08:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, put the blame on the Gentile, after all it was his mistakes. but you may be assured that Rashi's commentary on that page, makes it very clear, that the Jew is even invited to intentionally initiate such a "mistake" to his benefit. And may I comment that your lecture about the ever righteousness of the Amoraim is such not very appropriate. Zadil 14:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well, continue with your straw men, but you're wasting your time because any reader can easily read what I wrote for himself/herself. Rashi states: "He withheld a zuz of his money, and he tricked regarding the tally had taken three instead of four." Since a cursory reading of this would indicate what amounts to stealing from the seller, which Shmuel himself forbids, the Aruch commentary clarifies Rashi's explanation as follows (paraphrased): Shmuel gave the seller three zuz, while leading him to think that he had taken four zuz. Shmuel proceeded to give the seller another zuz, in order to pay the agreed amount. The seller thought that he had gotten away with a fifth zuz, and thus departed from the scene quickly (so that Shmuel wouldn't demand his "fifth" zuz back). Shmuel did this so that the seller would leave the scene quickly. This way, the seller would not notice that the vessel which he had already sold was gold, and then try to forcibly take it back from Shmuel. Thus, Shmuel tricked the seller so that the seller would not try to forcibly reclaim the sold merchandise. He didn't trick the guy in order to pocket a zuz. (I hope that this is really my final post, as per WP:DFTT). HKT 15:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just look up a few lines avove on that page in Rashi's commantary where again he's very clear that a Jew is even invited to intentionally initiate such a "mistake", and by the way be sure to look up the Tosafot on that same page, who echoes his commentary. For the rest, I find it a bit confusing how the arukh commentary has anything in common with that of Rashi's.Zadil 17:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already mentioned that that part of the Gemara appears to indeed be referring to dealing with extortionists. The Aruch's explanation is enlightening and can be read into Rashi (who often makes cryptic remarks that aren't easily understood). (This is probably my last post to this discussion). HKT 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, You keep going back to 113a which is a completely different sugya. It may be helpful, if you will take a look (in 113b) at EXACTLY the 17th line from above. Be sure to pick up an uncensored Edition, like this excellent source. As for the rest, may I warn you in Yeshivish that "you're drawing an elephant through the eye of a needle"...Zadil 13:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I indeed was referring to 113b, where the top several lines apparently discuss as I stated. On the 17th line of Rashi (which is again referring to a regular non-Jewish person): "'His Error': he was obligated to pay the Jew a certain amount, and he erred in the calculation, wherever there is no chillul HaShem involved." It is theoretically possible that this version of this Rashi was censored by the Catholic Church, as you suggest, but I am not aware of this being the case (I don't have an Oz v'Hadar edition available now, but that would almost certainly include any censored text). According to the text that I have, Rashi doesn't talk about initiating anything. (By the way, I wouldn't understand a French audio lesson.) Bye now. HKT 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Life is not that complicated. please look it up again here, it has an uncensored edition of the Talmud that will show up when you're trying to listen to the audio (and please ignore the audio and study the margines). Why not try and enjoy the luxuries of life? By the way, I don't understand French too. May I advise the Shabtei Frankel edition (of Baba Kama), as an unexceptionable uncensored edition of that tractate. Zadil 15:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tried again, but it only asked me for credit card info. Sorry. HKT 16:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that both of you check out the site that ] suggested. It was very informative. Jon513 21:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And another thought, just today the state prosecution of Israel has ordered the police to probe a famous and influential rabbi for incitement to racism for preaching in public that "the Arabs are a nation of asses" and even contemplating aloud: "why didn’t God give them four legs, because they are asses?". The Rabbi and his son defended themselves, that they are entitled to their religion and the Talmud pronounce clearly that Arabs are a nation of asses.in Hebrew. The extreme irony here, lies in the fact the Talmud-studies in Israel are heavily funded by government, and protected by the law in many ways, so with the probe initiated only for foreign pressure, one can assure himself right now, what sort of justice they will enforce in the end. Zadil 21:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you consider this to be your personal blog? If you wish to quote from media outlets making a sport of twisting and distorting statements from individuals who they wish to defame, you ought to find a different forum. Of course, the current Israeli government and police establishment isn't exactly pro-Orthodox. But this is all irrelevant to the fact that you are cluttering this talk page with material that is fundamentally irrelevant to the subject of this article. (See also WP:RS) HKT 23:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

JJon513, apparently you didn't read my message and if you did it wasn't in it's entirety. I asked specific questions related to the sites that Epl18 referred me to. In addition I asked for informatio on the book itself not some website that was created by and individual that may or may not have placed a slant on things. I choose to examine things for myself and not rely on websites for information as anyone can create a website to say whatever they choose. Websites are not proof of anything. That is why I asked my question based of of information I found online and I asked for proof on both cases. I do not and will not base my conclusions based on subsequent websites because that is not enough proof.

Rather we see from here that we are obligated to give ourselves over and sanctify G-d's name and if one, G-d forbid, changes one law it is as if he denied the Torah of Moses... To say that one who is innocent is guilty or vice versa is like denying the Torah of Moses. What is the difference between denying one word and denying the entire Torah?

Also JJon513 and Epl18 the site you recommend refers to the Torah. I asked about the Talmud. The author of the site then goes on to say for himself it is forbidden in the Torah or Talmud. I know the two books to be different. The author himself goes into saying Torah and Talmud. The information e provides states it is forbidden to lie in the Torah not the Talmud. I am not saying this is untrue but I would like to have references specifically referring to the Talmud.

When the Talmud sees the Hebrew word Adam it sees an allusion to Adam of Genesis 1-5 who was at one time the only person. The Talmud understands this as referring to the Jewish people who are an organic unit like one person. Gentiles do not have this organic national bond with each other and are therefore excluded from this concept. If i'm not mistaken Adam being the first of God's creations was a man of dark skin. As it is racially put a Black Man.

If this is true then why are Jewish people of different (darker) skin color are called (Black) Jews or (Black) israelites and are not accepted as being the same even though history proves the original Hebrews to be of African decent? This in itself labeling a person as a (Black) Jew follows the definition of racism. If this is true that Gentiles do not have this organic national bond with each other and are therefore excluded from the above concept. What about original African Hebrews? Why are they not considered equal if they are the ones the religion is founded upon? --Gnosis 21:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid after reading the EXACT QUOTATION of the "Yam Shel Shlomo" you'll find yourself denying, G-d forbids, the Torah of Moses, and let me quote him:

"In Baba Kama 38a there is a story. The Romans sent two officials to study the Torah. The Rabbis taught them the Torah. When the Romans were ready to leave they told the rabbis that they were very favorably impressed with the Torah with one exception. They did not like the halacha that differentiates between Jews and non-Jews with regard to compensation for damages, i.e. that if a Jew's ox causes damages for a Gentile, the Jew is exempt from paying any damages, whereas the Gentile is obliged to pay full damage to the Jew, how can it be both? if the word 'fellow' implies even a gentile, then let the Jew pay for his damages, and if not, why then does the Gentile have to pay for his damages? But the Rabbis did not disclose the reason for that law -which is, that God has exposed the Gentile's money to Israel, because they were afraid of revenge of the government". and now asks this rabbi: "Since it was clear that the Romans would not like -to say the least- this law, why did they teach it"? and answers: "If a Jew is called upon to teach Torah, and cannot escape from the responsibility, then he must teach it truthfully even if he will be killed for telling the truth".

any comment necessary? I'm not that sure...Zadil 23:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may interrupt, I you chose to examine things for yourself, why not pick up the "The Schottenstein Edition" which has a very easy and clear commentary on every word of the Talmud, apart from being a good translation? (it is easy to find in each Jewish center of any sort, or any major library) what about today? open up these holy books, enjoy their reading, and be sure to come back to share with us any findings. Good luck!. Zadil 22:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That is a great source of information where one can read accurate quotes translated in context (without cherry picking), usually with elucidations from Talmudic scholars throughout history - unlike the non-contextual, disconnected, mainly misquoted blurbs which are often found ubiquitously scattered around the internet. (Eh-hem.) HKT 23:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Posting of shocking quotes considered trolling

Several users have started posting quotes that come accross to the average reader as shocking. Some are fabrications, some are quotes out of context, some are quoted with complete disregard of the interpretations given by representative Jewish commentators, and finally a couple of them are true. The ones that are true sound rough by 20th century standards, but this ignores completely the extremely similar terminology in other works from the epoch. I mentioned above John Chrysostom's anti-Jewish diatribes. If Zadil is so shocked about the Maimonidean quote about rape victims (which has not been practiced for 2000 years), why disregard the fact that until this was forbidden, women in India were cremated alive together with their deceased husbands?

All this quoting of shocking stuff is "poisoning the well" (no pun intended with regards to the Medieval anti-Semitic witchhunts). Several editors have commented that the article already states quite clearly that some material in the Talmud comes accross as racist by 21st century standards. Hurray. Please refrain from posting poor translations of similar passages, and suggest why the present article is not adequate from your point-of-view.

I would go as far as stating that further posting of specific quotes is simple trolling. The choice is yours. JFW | T@lk 22:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Zadil's "rape victims" quote was a pretty pathetic deception (For a take not found in the main discussion , see here . The original material inserted by Zadil is found here). And this is indeed trolling. HKT 23:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The sound of the grinding of axes is getting on my nerves. JFW | T@lk 23:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can take a look and judge for himself, and sorry for misspelling 'needles'...Zadil 23:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me quote HKT from here refering to my (i.e. Zadil) edits:

"I took a look at the edits to Halakha, which, as expected, are made to appear well-sourced and neutral (as their author explicitly claims on his talk page). It looks like this is probably one of those guys who has been in yeshiva for a little while and decided that (a.) he's an expert scholar of Judaism, and that (b.) religion is immoral. To quickly summarize the mistakes in one short part of the edits:

• The Rambam was talking about a consensual relationship, not rape (zadon is referring to the woman). In fact, the Maggid Mishneh demonstrates that the Rambam's ruling doesn't apply in case of rape.
• This law is not targeting three-year-olds. This is talking about any female (whether adult or adolescent) who can demonstrably be determined to have willingly had relations with the male, provided that (by the way) the female was no younger than 3 and the male no younger than 9. The age of the girl is practically irrelevant here, anyway, given that a consensual relationship wouldn't apply to such a young girl. "Three years and one day," an unrelated standard, is frequently mentioned by the Rambam in many places.
• Takalah doesn't mean "shame" (it means something closer to downfall, as in his spiritual downfall in having sinned).
• The Rambam doesn't say that she would have "brought" anything on anyone, as Zadil claims. Rather, the Rambam writes that something would have occurred through her involvement.
• "Yisrael" here ref to the individual Yisrael (i.e. Jew) involved, not "the Jewish People."
• He implies that the Rambam rules that a non-Jewish man would be liable for death for raping a minor Jewish girl. That is false, as the Rambam states explicitly.
• "Needles (sic) to say" is not exactly the most neutral intro possible to hideous slander.

I believe that is seven significant problems in two sentences. There's no place like Misplaced Pages." (end quote).

And now please let me respond, but I will start by quoting yet again Maimonides, but this time using Moznaim's Translation:

• "If, however, an Israelite has intercourse with a heathen woman, whether she is a minor three ears and one day old or a adult, whether she is married or unmarried, even if the Israelite is only nine years and a day old, once he willfully has intercourse with her, she is liable to be put to death, because an offense has been committed by an Israelite through her, just as in the case of an animal (i.e.that a Jew coupling with an animal, the animal is put to death). This law is explicitly stated in the Torah, etc." (The Book Of Holiness, page 83)

And now, please pay attention to my following comments:

1) The word Zadon by all means refers to the Jew, please read again here, actually, you can check out the translation above.

Zadon is apparently understood by the Maggid Mishneh as referring to the woman. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam refers to a case of "niv'alah b'meizid (which shares the same root as zadon)," roughly translated as "her having willingly participated in intercourse." This explains the Rambam's cited basis (the verse about the Midianite women) for the law. Clarifying that the man acted with zadon seems a bit unnecessary, as the Talmud (as well as the Rambam) considers any intercourse to be intentional on the part of the male. This wouldn't really fit with the Rambam's style. I cannot speak for mechon-mamre's interpretation, but, even granting their interpretation, the Maggid Mishneh's reasoning (indicating that the woman must participate willingly) stands. HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you're confusing between zadon vs. shegaga (i.e. intentional vs. unintentional (transgression)) and ones vs. razon (i.e. rape vs. consensual (intercourse)). Maimonides has even devoted a hole section, 15 chapters long! to clarify the laws of unintentional transgressions, one case there, is a Jew having willingful relationship with a woman but somehow was mistaken about her identity as a classic example for an unintentional transgression. Again Zadon has nothing to do with willingness, and it's a completely different concept. .Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Zadon can also refer to willingness. Zadon's use here is apparently not preempting a case of mistaken identity, because the Rambam already wrote earlier in the chapter that such an act would not be biblically prohibited. As such, there would apparently be no legal distinction here between a sh'gagah and a zadon. In any event, this has no bearing on the Maggid Mishneh's reasoning, which is based on the Rambam's source (not his wording). HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's rather absurd, to come up with your own definition to well-defind Talmudic concepts. May I clarify the distinction by another quote:

• "If a man cohabited with his deceased brother’s wife, whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will, even if he acted in error and she is presumption, or he in presumption and she in error, or he under compulsion and she not under complustion, or she under compulsion and he not under compulsion..." (Yebamoth 53b) Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This anecdotal evidence doesn't preclude other uses of the term. HKT 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

2) The Magid Misheneh demonstration you discussed above is totally imaginative, and may I say I'm very disturbed with such dishonesty, I hope you apologize.

Really? That's quite a brash assertion, given that the Maggid Mishneh is quite explicit and lucid. HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I expect you to apologise. You still haven't provided any "demonstration" whatsoever. And again, if the Magid Mishneh happened to mention the word zadon, it was Maimonides first to mention that, and again, zadon has nothing to do with willingness, and clearly both are reffering to the Jew (as if there was any difference). Except for this single word, I'm not sure what the Magid Mishneh has to do with our discussion. .Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Maggid Mishneh did not use the word zadon, but a variant of it (as I explained above). The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's source for the law indicates that the Rambam is referring to a consensual relationship. By the way, "niv'alah b'meizid" obviously doesn't serve to exclude a case of mistaken identity. HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't get excited for his use of the rather word mazid, actually, it is a far more defined concept, extremely common in the Talmud, SERVING ALL AS THE ANTONYM TO SHOGEG (you can look again in the Mishnah I quoted above). For the Rambam's source, it was the killing of all Midianites "who were fit for carnal relations", i.e. Three years old (and a day, if you insist) at least. Surely, that could not have been Maimonides' inspiration, as for your interpreted zadon. And may I add that "niv'alah b'meizid" is far more naturally translated as "niv'alah (by the Jew) b'meizid" than any indication about her own free will. Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course "niv'alah" is a passive word, but the Maggid Mishneh would have written "bo'al b'meizid" if he was referring to the man. The Maggid Mishneh only uses a passive term because that it the proper description of her act, which is passive. HKT 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

3) Maimonides never uses "unrelated standards", the all purpose of mishneh torah is about being concise and exact, particularly when such a "standard" has no existence whatsoever in his work. If this age is ever mentioned anywhere in the book, it is because it was the very exact age relevant to that law.

This is a straw man. The "three-year-old" standard establishes whether the act is legally considered intercourse at all, which is an unrelated standard to determination of consent. Both standards have relevance to this law, but they are unrelated to each other. Inclusion of multiple relevant standards is typical in Mishneh Torah. HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Typical?! One example? .Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Here's a random pick out of the hundreds of examples of inclusion of multiple criteria: De'ot 6:1. HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What?! Somehow, you've managed to get from "unrelated standard" to "multiple criteria". make sure you don't end up with "multiple confusion"... Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Here's another random pick out of hundreds of examples of inclusion of unrelated multiple relevant criteria: Z'manim 4:1. Bye. HKT 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

4) The context of three year old, and the clear comparison to an animal (-which is not about punishment of the animal, but about "cause of the offense" or a source for shame) makes it very clear - and in fact the "Kli Hemdah" (part 5, page 170) even find that "beyond any doubt" - that the law equally applies in the case of rape.

The comparison to an animal is from a technical legal standpoint with regards to this particular law. It is obviously not a philosophical comparison. And "shame" is a mistranslation, as mentioned above. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the "Kli Hemda", so I have no basis for disputation of your citation other than that of my own experience in dealing with your misrepresentations. HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I challenge each of you to look up the "Kli Hemdah" (page 170) in your library. And the comparison to the animal is otherwise understood by any single rabbi I've referred to. (check for example the Minhat Khinukh, Mitzvah 35 for a very deep analysis, sure you'll enjoy it). Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Minchat Chinuch is indeed a source I would be interested in seeing, but, again, I don't currently have access to it. It doesn't keep me up at night, though, as I've learned not to rely on the accuracy of your citations. HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's all about free thought, certainly, I encourage every one to enjoy the reading of such a holy book. It could be helpful if someone will take the trouble to check it up and come back with a report. Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

5) Some of your arguments, are in my view irrelevant, and whether you find a particular word as more suited as a literal translation is a matter of personal taste, and for that reason I quoted above an official translation by Moznaim. (I urge everyone to look it up in your library, be sure to look in page 83 of the book of Holiness).

Interestingly, your new translation from Moznaim doesn't contain the translation errors that I had mentioned. I fail to see how you call your choice of translation "a matter of personal taste", when it is actually inaccurate. Translating delet as "pencil", for example, would not be "a matter of personal taste." HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that finally we can agree at least to the quality of the above translation. Now we are free to discuss quality matter. .Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

...though I find the ubiquitous appearance of the term "heathen" to be a bit strange. I wish I had a Moznaim translation available, to find out if this, too, is an unfaithful rendering of your cited source. HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not trying to be helpful, some may find this comment as inappropriate. Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

6) In case a Jewish girl is married or even just engaged, the Gentile who rapes her is put to death, but in case a Jew rapes a married Gentile, the Jew is not, whereas the poor Gentile is again put to death. Isn't the law here the reverse of one another, and if not, why?

You had added "...in case the girl would be Jewish, the Halacha would be the reverse." This implies that a non-Jew would always be liable for capital punishment for cohabiting with a Jewish girl. This implication is patently false, as a non-Jew would only be liable in the case of an adulterous relationship (as you now admit). HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, doesn't the very Maimonides we discuss, mention the case that the gentile is married. And again, isn't the law reverse in that case. and more so, isn't the law regarding the "punishment" of the girl always reverse regarding Jew vs. Gentile? .Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This backpedaling doesn't justify your earlier distortion. See my first response to your #6. HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Any relevant argument? Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

7) I thank you for your attention, have a very nice day.Zadil 13:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, this ends my participation in this dialogue, as per WP:DFTT. (Apologies for ruining your clever numbering system). HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In case you found it clever, let's restore it. I hope you don't mind.Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. I must now bow out of this discussion (as I wish I had chosen to before). HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I posteded quotes and they were taken down. This is censorship. These are quotes which are in fact in the talmud. If some quotes are not authentic notify me and we can take them down but you cant just take down legitimate information. The anti Jewish quotes are posted on the Christian page why should this page be any different? Jerry Jones 09:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Jerry, your quotes are mistranslations and distortions (as shown below). The whole idea that Bilam is a veiled reference to Jesus is utter conjencture not supported by Jewish scholars at al. You have not made that qualification in your posting.

Your additions completely fit the "trolling" bill above and I will treat them as such. Please participate in a serious discussion here, or realise you'll be acting against consensus.

I'm actually against direct antisemitic quotes on the Christianity page as well. It suffices to bring a serious source that documents these quotes and has made a neutral analysis of them.

Your accusation of censorship has been discussed below. JFW | T@lk 10:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What better source is the talmud itself? I posted the passage numbers whats the big deal? If they are wrong show they are wrong in the article to clear up the controversy because they have been added by a million different people. We would all be better served if it was explained that they were wrong in the article. Jerry Jones 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What better source? I can think of several good reasons why you are mistaken. The purpose of this article is not to prove or disprove the content of the Talmud but to explain what it is. What you are doing is reproducing primary sources (in a very poor translation copied straight from an anti website). The source you need is a scholary and somewhat more neutral list of Talmudic statements on Christianity. These are numerous, and this is potentially interesting given that there are very few reliable sources on the early origins of Christianity. The Talmud is certainly regarded as a source of information by scholars in this area. One should bear in mind that much of the relevant material has been censored over the centuries ("real" censorship, not the censorship you accuse people of on this talkpage). Strangely, even totally unrelated material has been censored, including that about Bilam, even though it is certain that the Talmud refers to the Old Testamental Bilam here. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just Looking for Answers

I really didn't intend to strike up an agrument. I only want to know the truth. As I stated before, "Is there a real book source I can get this infomration from?" I'd like to find the proof myself without having all the back and forth rhetoric. Zadil is the only one who provided me a book where I can do research. Is there any other person who has a suggestion? Even if you dispute what Zadil says you can still provide me with a book where I can research instead of just quotes or websites.--Gnosis 03:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may quote above: -"If I may interrupt, I you chose to examine things for yourself, why not pick up the "The Schottenstein Edition" which has a very easy and clear commentary on every word of the Talmud, apart from being a good translation? (it is easy to find in each Jewish center of any sort, or any major library) what about today? open up these holy books, enjoy their reading, and be sure to come back to share with us any findings. Good luck!. Zadil"-

However, the Schottenstein Talmud is rather expensive. Perhaps you could ask the owner of a jewish bookstore if you could check it without paying. I think in Gemara it has some links for english translations but I'm not sure if those are books or online files. Also worth noting is that Schottenstein uses more than one english translation per amud, and sometimes separates the volumes into, for instance, Berachos * for the first four perakim, then Berachos ** for 5-7. Epl18 08:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Schottenstein is a good resource; I had already echoed Zadil suggestion above. However, Epl18 is correct that each volume is expensive. And there are several dozen volumes.

Keep in mind that if you only research lines and sections of the Talmud that are cited by anti-Talmud websites, you may only be partially relieved by what you find. This is because the style of the Talmud may belie its intended meaning in some places. Commentaries frequently don’t address material that someone familiar with the Talmud's style would not find problematic, though this material might seem shocking to those unfamiliar with Talmudic style. In order to get a better perspective on Talmudic style, use of metaphor, use of hyperbole, etc, you ought to go through at least several chapters of the Talmud with commentary. Also, you’d probably benefit most from studying chapters primarily dealing with less obscure material and containing a good mix of legal and non-legal material. Most questions that you have could probably be resolved by someone with a comprehensive knowledge of Talmud. As such, if you have any questions, you should get in contact with a knowledgeable Orthodox rabbi and decide for yourself if you are satisfied with his responses. HKT 11:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Gnosis, if you are looking for real answers I would strongly recommend Gil Student's analysis on this site. This is not apologetics or heaven-knows-what, it addresses specifically the quotes that you have found so problematic.

May I remind you again that this is not a blog or forum. This page is to improve the quality of the Misplaced Pages article Talmud. If you are looking for answers, I would strongly recommend you do so elsewhere. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

added anti Christian quotes section

I am strongly against censorship and it would be censorship to not include them. The anti Semetic quotes in the bible are included on the Christian and Quran pages and it shouldn't be any different for this page. The reader should be able to read the quotes in question and decide for themselves. It is verifiable factual information that needs to be included and the standard should be applied for all pages. The Talmud shouldnt be given special treatment. You all can be free to add to the pages and explains the quotes if you want but they should be left in the page. Jerry Jones 09:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To begin with those are false quotes; you need to find reliable sources for all quotes, as well as for your original thesis that claims they are all "anti-Christian". Jayjg 10:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments come across as dishonesty, because Soncino Translation absolutely confirms each quote above, and it's definitely considered a reliable source. You may be interested in the following references:

• "For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: "The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written (Ezekiel 34:31): "And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men" - only ye are designated 'men' ."

• "...But R. Aha, the son of R. Ika answered; It applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted."

• "Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were supposed to be a hundred while he similarly left him minus one zuz and said to him: See that I am relying upon you.”

• "...R Abbahu thereupon said: The Writ says (Habakkuk, 3:6), "He stood and measured the earth; he beheld and drove asunder the nations", God beheld the Seven Commandments which were accepted by all the descendants of Noah, but since they did not observe them, He rose up and declared them to be outside the protection of the civil law of Israel . R. Johanan even said that the same could be inferred from this (Numbers 33:2) "He shined forth from Mount Paran", from Paran He exposed their money to Israel."

• "...as a Master has said: "Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives", for R. Johanan said: "When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her". If that be so also to Israel! When Israel stood at Sinai that lust was eliminated, but the lust of idolaters, who did not stand at Sinai, did not cease". Zadil 22:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To being with, apparently you haven't read the list provided by Jerry Jones/JJstriker, which did not match your own quotations. I also note that Soncino is considered a poor translation for a number of reasons, including obscurity of language, over-literalism, and lack of context - more modern translations are superior. In addition, please stop linking to anti-semitic copyright violating websites. More importantly, stringing a bunch of quotations together from primary sources in order to promote a novel thesis (e.g. "The Talmud is anti-Christian") is the epitome of Misplaced Pages's original research, which is forbidden on Misplaced Pages. It is that thesis that you and Jerry must find a reliable source for, not simply the quotations. And finally, please remember to observe Misplaced Pages's civility policy, it's one of our most important. Jayjg 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is about 0.5" removed from protection. Direct quotes without context have been discussed above - they are utterly unsuitable. Jerry must be aware of the inflammatory nature of his posting, and thankfully it was removed (twice).

Claims of "censorship" usually come from those who misunderstand both Misplaced Pages policy (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:V) and guidelines (WP:RS) and the nature of censorship. Jayjg is correct that the quotes are false. The term niddah for example does not mean "vile" or "abhorrent" - it means "obstructed" (as per Hirsch, a noted etymologist of the Hebrew language) in a biological and legal context (compare the similar stem nadad, which is "closed" as in "a closed door"). Jerry's quotes, then, are deliberate mistranslations posted only for their shock value, which is to be regarded as trolling. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Given Jerry's Misplaced Pages contributions to date, I'm not sure he's aware of the "inflammatory nature of his posting"; I rather suspect a different agenda. Jayjg 10:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Relatively new users keep emerging from the woodworks to villify the Talmud and Talmudic Law. They seem to like to compile a significant number of edits over a few days - and then they proceed to attack the Talmud. Almost immediately as soon as one troublemaker goes, another comes. I am suspicious of sockpuppetry, not just trolling, involving several usernames that have edited this talk page (perhaps occasionally more than one at a time). HKT 13:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jerry Jones is JJstroker, but they aren't Zadil. Jayjg 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

lets ends this

I think we are going about this all wrong. Instead of removing these quotes why not deal with them in their entirety. I think that what user:Gnosis said has truth to it: The fact that one group decides to separate one group from another based on the meme of race is in itself by definition racism If that is how you define racism then the Talmud is racist. However if you define racism as ...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. (The United Nations uses a definition of racist discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1966) then it is not. If we are willing to deal with the full topic not quotes from here and there then there can be a well presented view on the issue (ie Jew and Gentiles are not identical in halakha but the Talmud is not racist). However the topics that are pure nonsense (sex with minors, Gentiles prefer sex with cows, and other nonsense) needn't be dealt with. Jon513 14:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

These accusations are of all times, and there will be serial people pushing this agenda, in keeping with Raul's fifth law: "Over time, contentious articles will grow from edit-war inspiring to eventually reach a compromise that is agreed upon by all involved editors. This equilibrium will inevitably be disturbed by new users who accuse the article of being absurdly one sided and who attempt to rewrite the entire article. This is the cyclical nature of controversial articles.".

The mindlessness is palpable, and HKT (talk · contribs) has done a splendid job in debunking Zadil's allegations above. If there are more "postings of shocking quotes" I am prepared to get the page {{protected}} for a week. JFW | T@lk 15:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to be editing for a while, so the debunking will have to be put on hold. Though I expect Zadil to continue his straw-men, cherry-picking, and, of course, faulty and/or non-contextual presentation of sources. Isn't there a rule against continuously disrupting Misplaced Pages? HKT 09:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Science and The Talmud

I don't think that "Sciences and the Talmud" should be here. In any case, I think that the quote is irrelevant. Epl18 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why in your opinion it's irrelevant. Zadil 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)