JUDAISM FROM THE TALMUD

Originally posted by Byrd
reply to post by asher

 

I do agree (on looking further) that there is a section called Sanhedrin. However, your quotes seem very out of context.

The full page is here: (using a translation you pointed to, I believe)

...which starts in a court of rabbis arguing about what constitutes idolatry.

R. Jannai said: Punishment is not incurred unless one delivers his seed to the acolytes of Molech,1 for it is said, And thou shalt not give of thy seed to pass through the fire to Molech.2 It has been taught likewise: I might think, that if one caused his seed to pass through the fire to Molech, without first delivering it to the priests, he is liable: therefore the Writ teaches, Thou shalt not give. If he gave it to the priests, but did not cause it to pass through the fire, I might think that he is liable: therefore the Writ states, to pass through. If one delivered it [to the priests of Molech], but caused it to pass through to some other deity, I might think that he is punished: therefore the Writ teaches, to Molech. Now, if he delivered it to the priests and caused it to pass to Molech, but not through the fire, I might think that he is liable.

So it condemns offering anything to idols.

Then one of the Rabbis proposes a thought question: suppose the "seed" is an illegitimate child (from a woman that has been forbidden to a man) and is offered to an idol:

R. Aha the son of Raba said: If one caused all his seed to pass through [the fire] to Molech, he is exempt from punishment, because it is written, of thy seed implying, but not all thy seed.

This view is rejected, and the point is restated that it's God's commandment that if anyone does this, he will be cut off from God's grace and mercy:

Why is this stated?7 — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire.8 From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son's son or daughter's son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]

The discussion continues with a Rabbi who says that a man is responsible for his own actions -- so if any member of his family (performs an act of idol worship), the man is not responsible for the actions of his family.

He is liable only for his own issue; e.g., for his son and daughter, he is punished; but for his father or mother, brother or sister, he is not. If he passed through himself, he is free from punishmen

They then take up the matter addressed in the PREVIOUS page, of someone doing something in mockery (to reject an idol)... having the kids run through the fire as a game.

Abaye said: There was a loose pile of bricks in the middle, and fire on either side of it.13 Raba said: It was like the children's leaping about on Purim.14 It has been taught in support of Raba. Punishment is incurred only for causing one's seed to pass in the normal fashion; if he caused him to pass through on foot, he is exempt.

This continues with the argument that "if you do something to mock a false idol, can you be held responsible for idol worship?"

The chapter concludes that any form of idol worship is worthy of a death penalty:

R. Jose, son of R. Hanina said: Why is extinction thrice threatened for idolatry?22 — One teaches extinction for the normal worship of idols; one for abnormal; and one for the service of Molech

The question is asked, "Why is Moloch different" and the answer is that "offering your kid to Moloch is NOT a method of worshiping Moloch and is a lame excuse. You'll be executed for the act."

To apply to one who causes his son to pass through to an idol [not Molech], where such is not the normal mode of worship. Now, on the view that a megaddef24 is a worshipper of idols,22 why is extinction stated for it?25 — Even as it has been taught:26 That soul shall surely be cut off from among his people;27 he shall be cut off in this world and in the next: this is R. Akiba's view

It concludes with the idea that "his soul shall be cut off" in all the worlds (and notes that the "three worlds" is metaphorical.)

So, no. No child sacrifice.

And so forth.

i just want this thread moved back to where it belongs. by falsely discrediting this thread you have also discredited my reputation and the message i am trying to relay. sorry for calling you a guy

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by asher
reply to post by yadda333

 

i think nothing of the talmud or any religious scripture except the original hebrew bible. my post about the talmud was only a front to safely discuss the atrocities on behalf of rothschilds khazars zionist and the state of israel. i do thank you for your reply but including religious arguments would only shift focus of the true topic of this thread. what i want to really discuss are the actions of the zionist jews

Well, I'm not arguing religiously, but I am attempting to describe Rabbinic thought as an outsider who has studied it in a secular way.

Another problem you face is that there is an oral and a written law in the Hebraic tradition. My point is that understanding Rabbinic thought can be confusing unless you spend a lot of time with some credible sources. And if you're interested in the Torah, then you should consider looking into credible sources that expand on Rabbinic thought.

i know this is true. but these zionist are extremist and just like muslim and christian extremist they bend the messages of holy books to fit their agenda. im not saying all who follow the talmud are evil. but these zionist are the radicals amongst most jews. no matter how much you or i understand the talmud it still wont change their extremist view point.

reply to post by Byrd


Byrd,

From what I can tell, some of the excerpts that the OP posted at the start of this thread are indeed in that book of the Talmud.

However, wouldn't a better argument be that some of these statements were merely a sign of the times, or at least of those in charge during the writing of such laws? A sampling of a sort of 'medieval' set of actions no longer believed appropriate in our day and age?

That and/or that some of those quotes are admittedly not placed in their proper context.

Most ancient religious texts, from the Bible to the Koran, also have some pretty controversial statements within them. Whether or not a contemporary believer feels they should be followed, are out of context, or that another section within that book (or a another Holy source) negates the controversial one, such controversial statements and actions are indeed there.

It seems most of these quotes from the Talmud that the OP copied are there, but whether or not they are misinterpreted, actively followed, or out of context is another matter.

For example:

Approves of Sodomy: "If one committed sodomy with a child of less than nine years, no guilt is incurred" (Sanhedrin 5 4b)

It's there.

However from what I have read from some Jews and Rabbi's in defense of the claim this is not a green-light to rape children, but rather a piece of a section regarding capital punishment for a man lying with a man. It essentially states that since the victim was a child not a man, automatic capital punishment is waived and it is up to the courts to decide if whether or not it should be instituted in this particular case.

Or:

Sanhedrin 57a:
"If a Jew kills a non-Jew, he will not be sentenced to death."

This to is there as well.

However it is explained by some Jews and religious leaders that the statement in full context is meant to state that a Jew that kills a non-Jew will not be put to death...but not that they won't be punished if the act wasn't in self-defense. There would be a punishment, but not "capital punishment" as it could be with a Jew on Jew murder. Just one explanation regarding that particular quote.

Whether such controversial methods would be applicable in this day and age, or if we even agree with them at all is is another matter. I personally find a lot of the things I come across in religious texts to be archaic and out-dated but I can understand that I live in a different time and under different circumstances. I doubt anyone would currently follow these specific laws literally as written without consideration of the other texts that contradict them and our current society as it exists. It's just unrealistic.

This isn't really a willful hoax in my opinion.
At the very least, it is a possible misrepresentation due to a lack of context.

- Lee

reply to post by lee anoma

This isn't really a willful hoax in my opinion.
At the very least, it is a possible misrepresentation due to a lack of context.

Deliberately misquoting something out of context is a lie or deception. This thread is in the correct forum. If the OP wishes to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is an appropriate forum for that.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by lee anoma

 

This isn't really a willful hoax in my opinion.
At the very least, it is a possible misrepresentation due to a lack of context.

Deliberately misquoting something out of context is a lie or deception. This thread is in the correct forum. If the OP wishes to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is an appropriate forum for that.

who says anything is misquoted? those words are in the talmud so how can they be misquoted. its not my fault zionist follow this. once again i must say I'm not talking about all jews. I'm talking about the few who take this seriously and affect our world through manipulation and murder. this thread can go into many categories. the zionist rothschilds are the NWO. im not saying the talmud is evil itself. but the radicals that live by this (rothschilds, NWO) are.

Originally posted by lee anoma
reply to post by Byrd

 

Byrd,

From what I can tell, some of the excerpts that the OP posted at the start of this thread are indeed in that book of the Talmud.

However, wouldn't a better argument be that some of these statements were merely a sign of the times, or at least of those in charge during the writing of such laws? A sampling of a sort of 'medieval' set of actions no longer believed appropriate in our day and age?

That and/or that some of those quotes are admittedly not placed in their proper context.

Most ancient religious texts, from the Bible to the Koran, also have some pretty controversial statements within them. Whether or not a contemporary believer feels they should be followed, are out of context, or that another section within that book (or a another Holy source) negates the controversial one, such controversial statements and actions are indeed there.

It seems most of these quotes from the Talmud that the OP copied are there, but whether or not they are misinterpreted, actively followed, or out of context is another matter.

For example:

Approves of Sodomy: "If one committed sodomy with a child of less than nine years, no guilt is incurred" (Sanhedrin 5 4b)

It's there.

However from what I have read from some Jews and Rabbi's in defense of the claim this is not a green-light to rape children, but rather a piece of a section regarding capital punishment for a man lying with a man. It essentially states that since the victim was a child not a man, automatic capital punishment is waived and it is up to the courts to decide if whether or not it should be instituted in this particular case.

Or:

Sanhedrin 57a:
"If a Jew kills a non-Jew, he will not be sentenced to death."

This to is there as well.

However it is explained by some Jews and religious leaders that the statement in full context is meant to state that a Jew that kills a non-Jew will not be put to death...but not that they won't be punished if the act wasn't in self-defense. There would be a punishment, but not "capital punishment" as it could be with a Jew on Jew murder. Just one explanation regarding that particular quote.

Whether such controversial methods would be applicable in this day and age, or if we even agree with them at all is is another matter. I personally find a lot of the things I come across in religious texts to be archaic and out-dated but I can understand that I live in a different time and under different circumstances. I doubt anyone would currently follow these specific laws literally as written without consideration of the other texts that contradict them and our current society as it exists. It's just unrealistic.

This isn't really a willful hoax in my opinion.
At the very least, it is a possible misrepresentation due to a lack of context.

- Lee

this isnt a hoax at all. the misinterpretation would be on behalf of the zionist

reply to post by asher

i just want this thread moved back to where it belongs. by falsely discrediting this thread you have also discredited my reputation and the message i am trying to relay. sorry for calling you a guy

By not checking your sources carefully before you posted, you have damaged your own credibility. Rather than do the simple research that would have kept you from making a fool of yourself, you chose to deflect from the topic of the thread by posting completely off topic remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The Talmud is clearly not what you have been led to believe it is. I suggest you do additional research into the history of Zionism, Arab Nationalism, the Palestinian Liberation Organization and other relevant topics.

Originally posted by DJW001
Deliberately misquoting something out of context is a lie or deception. This thread is in the correct forum. If the OP wishes to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is an appropriate forum for that.

No it is not in the correct forum. It's not a hoax.

This thread was about those controversial excerpts from the Talmud which do exist, not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is merely a debate of the statements themselves and their meaning.

It's no different than the threads that do the same for the Koran and the Bible, where some of it's more controversial contents are held up to scrutiny or other interpretations. Those threads aren't hoaxes or in the hoax bin unless the source material is false.

No one is making up what is in the Talmud, but rather debating the meaning of what is there. That's not a deceptions and falls more into the category of personal interpretation.

The statements are there. The interpretations however vary. The OP said he/she has a problem with those statements.

That isn't exactly the same as a hoax at all.

The examples I put in this thread are just two of many interpretations. They aren't supposed to be the 'final word' because others have interpreted those statements to mean something else.

You can also discuss religious interpretations of the Talmud without discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

- Lee

reply to post by asher

who says anything is misquoted? those words are in the talmud so how can they be misquoted. its... my fault zionist follow this. once again i must say I'm...talking about all jews. I... affect our world through manipulation and murder. this thread... is evil itself.

See how that works?

reply to post by lee anoma

You can also discuss religious interpretations of the Talmud without discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I agree completely. So why can't asher do that?

reply to post by asher


You say "people live by this in a disgusting way" when you don't even know what "this" is.

What you're doing is lame and pathetic. If you have questions about what's in the Talmud take your tractates and bring them to your local Rabbi. He'll explain to you what is really being said. Bringing them to the ATS table where there are probably 2 (if even) religiously educated Jews is a stupid ploy at spurring hate.

"instead of criticizing me why don't you criticize the people who are actually living by this"

Foolish human. You're criticizing something that doesn't exist and in place of that nothing you're putting the Jewish people. No Jew lives by the Talmud at it's literal base level which you don't seem to care to look past. Any Jewish scholar is well aware before even opening a Talmud that it's not a stand alone text - and that it's codified so that simpletons can't understand it's treasures. Maybe that was a mistake as fools like you stumble upon it then generate hate.
No religious, G-d fearing, mitzvot following Jew makes Jews look bad. It's imbeciles like you who do. Butt-munchers who see a people, don't understand their ways, don't care to understand their ways and then find things that without understanding make these people look bad are who make people hate Jews.

You're full of something that I know ATS would delete my post for saying.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by asher

 

i just want this thread moved back to where it belongs. by falsely discrediting this thread you have also discredited my reputation and the message i am trying to relay. sorry for calling you a guy

By not checking your sources carefully before you posted, you have damaged your own credibility. Rather than do the simple research that would have kept you from making a fool of yourself, you chose to deflect from the topic of the thread by posting completely off topic remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The Talmud is clearly not what you have been led to believe it is. I suggest you do additional research into the history of Zionism, Arab Nationalism, the Palestinian Liberation Organization and other relevant topics.

if you bother to read the thread you will see that i am actually right and she is wrong. she has even admitted it. so what are you talking about? she has discredited the mods of ATS and so has Springer. you have even agreed with what i am saying.

Originally posted by DJW001
the actions of an increasingly right wing Israeli government

once again i dont hate jews. this thread is about the evil of zionist israel. even you notice it. so what is our true argument. all you do is bring up non issues.

Originally posted by DJW001
(Incidentally, there are Zionists who are little better than bearded skinheads, but they are an exception, not the rule.)

here you are again agreeing with what i am saying

Originally posted by DJW001
Well said, sir. I agree with you about the increasingly irrational acts of the Israeli government. Their reprehensible actions stem from a hardening siege mentality, not religion.

and again. so whats the problem? or are you just trolling?

and here is byrd admitting she is wrong

I do agree (on looking further) that there is a section called Sanhedrin. However, your quotes seem very out of context.

unlike you i dont change peoples words around to serve my own agenda.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by asher

 

who says anything is misquoted? those words are in the talmud so how can they be misquoted. its... my fault zionist follow this. once again i must say I'm...talking about all jews. I... affect our world through manipulation and murder. this thread... is evil itself.

See how that works?

yes i do. this is a prime example of how zionist operate. thanks for proving my point for like the 4th time

Originally posted by DJW001
The Talmud is clearly not what you have been led to believe it is.

Like most religious texts that's just open for debate.
It's a matter of personal opinion.

That doesn't make the OP's thread a hoax because he disagrees with someones interpretation of the Talmud.

That simply means he/she feels those excerpts are as bizarre as the Koran saying beat your wife:

"...(as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." - Qur'an 4:34

or the Bible saying a woman shouldn't be in a position of power and slaves should be happy to be slaves:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." - 1 Timothy 2:12

"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." - Peter 2:18

Both have been explained away or interpreted in a number of ways, but pointing them out and saying they are wrong isn't hoaxing.

It's been done plenty of times on this site and those threads aren't condemned as hoaxes.
Those with a different opinion or information simply present and debate it.

They're all in the Religion, Faith, and Theology thread.

Have you looked in there?
This thread fits right in.

- Lee

reply to post by DJW001


ok then lets do that. lets discus israel is without bringing up the talmud. i totally agree

Originally posted by Crabmeat
reply to post by asher

 

You say "people live by this in a disgusting way" when you don't even know what "this" is.

What you're doing is lame and pathetic. If you have questions about what's in the Talmud take your tractates and bring them to your local Rabbi. He'll explain to you what is really being said. Bringing them to the ATS table where there are probably 2 (if even) religiously educated Jews is a stupid ploy at spurring hate.

"instead of criticizing me why don't you criticize the people who are actually living by this"

Foolish human. You're criticizing something that doesn't exist and in place of that nothing you're putting the Jewish people. No Jew lives by the Talmud at it's literal base level which you don't seem to care to look past. Any Jewish scholar is well aware before even opening a Talmud that it's not a stand alone text - and that it's codified so that simpletons can't understand it's treasures. Maybe that was a mistake as fools like you stumble upon it then generate hate.
No religious, G-d fearing, mitzvot following Jew makes Jews look bad. It's imbeciles like you who do. Butt-munchers who see a people, don't understand their ways, don't care to understand their ways and then find things that without understanding make these people look bad are who make people hate Jews.

You're full of something that I know ATS would delete my post for saying.

reply to post by asher


He's, for 20 minutes, criticizing a chabadnik's speech. It's completely invalid and unrelated to the problem I have with your assertions in this thread.
Be more constructive with your feedback.

Edit as video continues:

Let me explain something to you very clearly Asher. The Talmud is a CODIFIED text. Codified means that it was written in CODE.
The BASIS of the TALMUD is a written form of the ORAL TRADITION of JUDAISM. It was written around 200c.e. during/after the Babylonian exile because the Jews were worried the ORAL TRADITION would be lost. Its purpose in being written was to GUIDE RABBI'S in the teaching of the ORAL TRADITION to their STUDENTS. This being said, meaning, that if one was to take a Talmud and open it, and read it, they'd misinterpret all of it's contents without the guiding of their Rabbi.
The Talmud is NOT a STAND-ALONE TEXT. It's coupled with the GEMORA - A COMMENTARY by many of Jewish Scholarships biggest talmudic scholars about the MEANING of the TALMUD. It also is sometimes accompanied by the MIDRASH.
If you ever OPEN a GEMORA, you'll find that the TRACTATE takes less than 1/50th of the page and is SURROUNDED by said COMMENTARIES.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by lee anoma

 

You can also discuss religious interpretations of the Talmud without discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I agree completely. So why can't asher do that?

I've read through some more of the thread posts and I have to agree with you.
I missed some of the comments by the OP throughout the thread.
Seems that you are right in that regard.

I think the thread should have stuck to the religious interpretations and not deviated towards attacking all Jews.

That I don't agree with.

- Lee

Originally posted by Crabmeat
reply to post by asher

 

This video you have posted here is of a Jew who hasn't spoken one word about the contents of the Talmud, who probably never opened up a Talmud (presumption), and likely doesn't even like religious Jewry (presumption based on what he's saying).
He's, for 20 minutes, criticizing a chabadnik's speech. It's completely invalid and unrelated to the problem I have with your assertions in this thread.
Be more constructive with your feedback.

he is saying the same thing i am thinking. he even addressed the issue of this particular thread concerning context. maybe you should actually read the thread before you comment.

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by lee anoma

 

You can also discuss religious interpretations of the Talmud without discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I agree completely. So why can't asher do that?

I've read through some more of the thread posts and I have to agree with you.
I missed some of the comments by the OP throughout the thread.
Seems that you are right in that regard.

I think the thread should have stuck to the religious interpretations and not deviated towards attacking all Jews.

That I don't agree with.

- Lee

please go back and read my comments and take note of how many times i have specified that i am not talking about all jews. i am only talking about rothschilds khazarians and zionist. and i know that most jews are good people. if you skip over my post you will not hear what i am saying