1. Talmud Defender Criticizes Hoffman
2. Michael Hoffman’s Rejoinder
Background: In a Feb. 19 e-mailed column we photographically reproduced the Babylonian Talmud’s declaration in Kiddushin 68B that the gentiles are donkeys. That column elicited the following response from the critic, which he e-mailed to 65 people:
1. Judaic Talmud Defender Criticizes Hoffman for "grossly misrepresenting the Talmud"
On Feb 21, 2016, at 12:35, Menachem Mevashir
Source of Talmudic Teaching on Gentiles as Donkeys
Michael P. KornDespite Michael Hoffman's claims to the contrary, the actual source for this idea is from the Old Testament book of Ezekiel.The Talmud merely expounds on this concept:The Adultery of Oholah and Aholibah
…19"Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt. 20"She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses. 21"Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth.St Paul roundly condemns the sexually immoral and Jesus calls unbelievers dogs.So this was a common Jewish attitude to unbelieving pagans.It does not apply to Christians Moslems and others of sincere faith in the Creator God.So i would say Michael Hoffman is grossly misrepresenting the Talmud and Judaism in general on this point.Last I checked, the Book of Ezekiel is in the canon of Christian sacred Scripture.Sincerely,
2. Hoffman’s Rejoinder
Dear Mr. Korn
You are thoroughly confused. The Babylonian Talmud (“BT") at Kiddushin 68B where it terms Gentiles animals (donkeys) has no basis in the Bible, and you should not do as the neo-Nazis do and indict the Bible for the rabbinic racism of the Talmud Bavli.
It is in Berakoth 58a that the Babylonian Talmud uses Ezekiel 23:20 as supposed “proof" of the sub-human status of gentiles. The rabbis’ citation of the Bible quote from Ezekiel as a “proof-text” is specious, since the quote does not prove that gentiles are animals. The quote from Ezekiel only says that some Egyptians had large genital organs and copious emissions. This does not in any way prove or even connote that the Egyptians being referred to in the Bible were considered animals. Once again, the Talmud has falsified the Bible by means of distorted interpretation. Other Talmud passages which expound on Ezekiel 23:20 in this racist fashion are: BT Arakin 19b, Berakoth 25b, Niddah 45a, Shabbath 150a, Yebamoth 98a. For further insight, see my book Judaism Discovered, pp. 471-473.
In BT Kiddushin 68B the proof text cited for the belief that non-Jewish nations are donkeys is Genesis 22:5 (not Ezekiel 23 as you allege). But this is a farce because in Genesis 22:5 we find no such thing — Abraham in this Scripture passage is going to sacrifice his son, Isaac. He tells his servants to watch over the donkey which Abraham was using as transportation. Can you believe it? This is the whole basis of the absurd “proof” the Talmud cites from the Bible for claiming gentiles are donkeys. This asinine “proof text" is a product of a frankly insane rabbinic exegetical method, Gezarah shava. It is a formal epistemological system of contrived fantasies employed by Chazal in the Talmud, which is explained and exposed in Judaism Discovered, pp. 169-172.
The Puritan exegete John Owen (1616-1683), quotes the antiquarian and philologist John Selden’s (1584-1654) description of the Gezerah shava: “It is a most common thing among the Talmudists to seek for some support for their additional customs from some words of the Scriptures, and, as it were, to try to hedge them up behind some Biblical word, interpretation or analogy. Those even tolerably familiar with their works will know this well. So the original words are twisted and distorted with great boldness to give some seeming confirmation to their customs, far out of the sense of the original.”
According to the rabbinic principle of Gezerah shava, the student of the Bible can only truly determine what the Bible is teaching through a process of drawing analogies between two disparate Scripture verses based on “verbal congruities” supposedly appearing in both of them. This is the sort of venerated lunacy which is at the core of the Talmudic system of Scriptural falsification and nullification.
Lastly, under the old censorship system whereby English translations of the Babylonian Talmud were heavily redacted and accompanied by disingenuous footnotes, all references to the goyim or the min in the Talmud were explained away as allusions to Cutheans or similar “unbelieving pagans.” It’s pathetic that you would stoop to this propaganda device in the face of the now readily available, uncensored English language Babylonian Talmud, in the pages of which we find numerous hateful references to Christians. But you have the chutzpah to claim that the Talmud respects “Christians…and others of sincere faith in the Creator God.”
Really? Is that why the Talmud says that Jesus was an idolater who deserved to die (BT Sanhedrin 43A), and that the New Testament should be burned (Shabbat 116A)?
If you want to play jokes on the ignorant you are free to do so. It might be a mistake to attempt to hoodwink this writer, however.
Mr. Hoffman depends on the charity of truth-seekers for the continuation of his work. Will you help?
Dear Michael Hoffman,
I am no apologist for Talmudic prejudice against Christianity (as you can see clearly in this article: http://www.4shared.com/web/preview/pdf/Ifumf80Mba), but on the other hand neither do I dismiss as worthless irrelevant or evil everything in the Talmud.
The Talmud contains much deep wisdom, and indeed its legal concepts and formulations many consider the basis for much of our Western legal system.
Only an ignoramus or a fool would hysterically denigrate categorically all that is contained in the vastness of the Talmud.
As for the passage you have cited, I merely wished to demonstrate that the prejudice expressed therein echoes that found in the Book of Ezekiel.
Furthermore, you seem to misunderstand that Talmudic passage completely. Strictly speaking it has zero connection to Christians at all. It refers to a Canaanite maidservant, and the question it poses is whether a Jew can marry such a person. The answer is no. And the supporting text is from Genesis 22:5 referring to the Canaanite servant of Abraham.
Here is the passage in context:
Genesis 22:1-5 New International Version (NIV)
22 Sometime later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”
3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”
It is simply bizarre that you would so totally misconstrue this passage. You fail to understand the context of both the Talmudic question and the supporting text from Genesis. If this is a reliable example of your “scholarship” then perhaps you are akin to a donkey!
It is not possible to apply this passage to Christians. But even if we were to grant your perverse desire to see in it a denigration of Christians, why should that bother you? The import of the passage is that Jews should not engage in conjugal relations with non-Jews, and Christians are exhorted similarly not to marry outside their faith. So all this Talmudic passage would do is to erect a barrier to intermarriage between Jews and Christians, something no doubt you would advocate yourself.
Here’s a passage from the Christian Scriptures affirming this very same concept:
2 Corinthians 6:14
[ Warning Against Idolatry ] Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
(And I don’t need to remind you that the famous Nuremburg Laws promulgated by the NAZIs affirmed the very same thing, banning marriage between German Christians and Jews.)
So you seem to me not only to be making a mountain out of a mole hill but more gravely and maliciously to be fomenting strife where none need be found.
Michael P. Korn
(This suspicion about your disqualification as a Talmudic "scholar" is buttressed by the fact that you misquote the source of the Talmudic passage itself as TB Kiddushin 68B when in fact it is found at the bottom of folio page 68A. You can verify this for yourself at this link: http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf)
If you would consult the Koren Talmud Bavli: The Noe Edition (Koren Publishers: Jerusalem, 2015) volume 22, p. 378, you will see that the passage in question about gentiles as donkeys is numbered Kiddushin 68B, exactly as I have indicated.
What a well-informed response to Menachem's assertion that Ezekiel 23:20 supports the Talmudic notion that non-Judaics are animals. It is this type of racist ideology that contributes to the denigration of ethnic groups and ultimately to genocide that is evident throughout history. That Talmudists would be so brazen to color those with opposing views of the "Holocaust" or critics of Talmudism with the brush of "racism" when they cling to their own racist worldview is unfathomable to me.
Further, Menachem's "proof" that you disqualify yourself from being a Talmudist scholar simply because, according to him, you have quoted the "wrong" page is ludicrous! This kind of pedantic argument has to be a logical fallacy surely?!
Truly, the Talmudists "proofs" for their anti-nomianistic, anti-Biblical and anti-Christian beliefs and practices reminds me of the saying, "A text without context is a pre-text for a proof text," which sums up their "religion" to a tee.
Mr.Michael Philip Korn background is as follows:
"I was born in America, moved to Israel after graduating from Harvard, enlisted in the Ba’al Teshuva movement, and joined a Messianic Chassidic cult (Breslov) from 1990-1999. Through the help of South African missionaries, I came to see that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and Saviour of the World. I was baptized in a natural spring in the Israeli Galilee outside of the famous mystical city of Safed on 20 June 2000, and now I seek to introduce Jewish people to Jesus Christ, their Messiah whom they don’t yet know."
GENTILES IN HALACHA
Foreword -- Daat Emet
For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha's real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva -- so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article "Jews Are Called 'Men'" by R' David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.
In this article R' Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards "Gentiles" in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:
"The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as 'man,' and a Gentile."
That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R' Bar-Chayim's work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R' Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs NOT on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
For the English readers' convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R' Bar-Chayim's article:
Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).
A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
A Jew's exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile's property. But if a Gentile's property causes damage to a Jew's property, the Gentile is liable.
The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah's law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one's sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
A Gentile -- or even a convert to Judaism -- may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment "love your neighbour" applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: "Your mother shall be greatly ashamed..."
Gentiles are likened to animals.
The Talmud is the holiest book in Judaism.
THREE YEAR OLD BRIDES
When Jesus accused the Pharisees of his day of being Evil, he fully realized what they were capable of. Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed,
“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1
Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. 2
Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.
References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.
1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403
THE PHARISEES ENDORSED CHILD SEX
The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hair-splitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.
Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” 3
In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia:
“How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” 4
3 Sanhedrin 76a.
4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
OUT OF BABYLON
It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it.
As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married a three year old girl.
But with expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.
Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.
TALMUDIC JUDAISM PART 2
SEX WITH A “MINOR” IS PERMITTED
What exactly did these sages say?
The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man”. Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law:
“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22)
One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,
“All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” 5
Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. 6
Presumably, the majority of little Jewish boys get raped before they are nine by Rabbis. They get caught doing this constantly.
A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised:
“…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” 7
The JEWISH Talmud also says,
“A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” 8
Clearly, the JEWISH Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.
5 Sanhedrin 69b.
6 Sanhedrin 55a.
7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
8 Sanhedrin 55b.
SEX AT THREE & ONE DAY
In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.
R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 55b)
A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(Yebamoth. 57b)
A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yebamoth. 60b)
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yebamoth. 60b)
[The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yebamoth. 60b)
The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”
The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” 9
But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.
The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage.
“At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”
9 Sanhedrin 55a.
TALMUDIC JUDAISM PART 3
NO RIGHTS FOR CHILD VICTIMS
The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age.
“As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest anymore.” 10
The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for,
“When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” 11
In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.
Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.
10 Kethuboth 11a.
11 Kethuboth 11b.
Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yebamoth. 60b:
There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.
The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai,
“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” 12
These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yebamoth. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but
“must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”
In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” 13 This passage says:
“… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”
The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.
12 Yebamoth 60b.
13 Sanhedrin 76b.
Post a Comment