Talk:Talmud/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

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)? : [http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_54.html#PARTb] Babylonian Talmud - Sanhedrin 54 : [http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_55.html#PARTb] Babylonian Talmud - Sanhedrin 55 : [http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/54.html] 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 ^(talk) 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).[1]
• "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).[2]

(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).[3]

• 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)[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 [http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/talmud.html] or on this excellent website [5]. Another excellent website is available here [6]

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".[7].

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Assume good faith towards both the Talmud and the many editors here who know something about this subject, a number of whom are Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 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)

Zadil is correct. I have a hard-copy text (in my posession) of Tractate Sanhedrin, copyright 1994 Sonico Press, London. I have found that some of the Sonico quotes in Sanhedrin are more "watered down" (i.e. less offensive) than some other tractates, but the basic text is preserved. Sanhedrin 106a refers to Jesus cryptically as "Balaam", but the identity is explained in footnote 5 (Herford, Christianity in the Talmud). Further, his death at age 33 or 34 is explained as a curse. Sanhedrin 57a is the beginning of the discourse on the Noahide laws. Non-jews are referred to as Cutheans, just as Christians are sometimes referred to as Min. Epl18 is intentionally misleading the readers.

You can read an online version at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm and judge for yourself who is telling the truth and who is lying. It's a large work, and may be difficult to locate each verse quoted. Sanhedrin 57 can be found under Book 8, Tractate Sanhedrin, chapter VII. Sanhedrin 106 is in chapter XI (aka Volume VIII of part II, aka XVI).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t08/t0814.htm shows the Anti-Marian, Anti-Chritian Sanhedrin 106 quote. However, in this online text, Balaam (cryptically referring to Jesus) is further hidden by calling him Bil'am. Go to the above link and search backward from the end for Bil'am. You will find the reference there. Note that the reference to Mary is deleted from this online version. Check in the Memoryhole.

"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 [falsely] swear to murderers, thieves, and tax collectors that something is a tithe or is property of the king. [Objection: We may not evade tax collectors!] For Shmuel taught, the law of the kingdom is [binding] law! [Answer:] Rav Chanina bar Kahana said in the name of Shmuel: The Mishnah speaks of a tax collector who [tries to take as much as he wants] (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.” [http://come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_113.html#PARTb (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 [who practiced some Jewish laws] 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. "[A]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 [the non-Jew] regarding the tally[, when, in fact, the non-Jew] 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': [If] he was obligated to pay the Jew a certain amount, and he erred in the calculation, [then the Jew may capitalize on the error] 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 found another version of Rashi, which adds the following (addition italicized): "...and he erred in the calculation, or he caused a coin to be lost [through miscounting, then the Jew may capitalize on the error]..." Neither version seems to be the product of censorship. HKT 18:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that both of you check out the site that [[[User:Epl18]] 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 [lie and] 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, 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)