Except you did not. You going to engage with this?
Somehow missed that. It's a pretty easy list to debunk.
Moed Katan 17a: The Gemara asks:
What is the reason that he was accepted there? The Gemara answers: Even though he sinned,
he still
acted in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Ilai, as it is taught in a
baraita:
Rabbi Ilai says: If a person sees that his evil
inclination is gaining control over him and he cannot overcome it, then
he should go to a place where he is not known. He should wear black, and he should wrap his head
in black, as if he were a mourner. Perhaps these changes will influence him, so that he not sin. Even if these actions do not help,
he should at least
do as his heart desires in private
and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public. Although this person had sinned, he did so in private and in a manner that did not publicly desecrate God’s name, and therefore it was fitting that he be given an honorable burial.
If you want to sin, put yourself in such a state where you feel bad about doing the sin and if you still want to sin, at least dont shame the religion by doing so.
Erubin 21b:
What is the meaning of the words:
“And much study [lahag] is a weariness of the flesh”? Rav Pappa, son of Rav Aḥa bar Adda, said in the name of Rav Aḥa bar Ulla: This teaches that whoever mocks [malig] the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement, which results from the weariness of the flesh of man.
Rava strongly objects to this explanation:
Is it written: Mock [la’ag]? “Lahag” is the word that is
written. Rather, the verse must be understood in the opposite manner:
Whoever meditates [hogeh] upon them, the words of the Sages,
experiences enjoyment as if it had
the taste of meat.
Out of context verse that's immediately disagreed with
both Sanhedrin 57 a:
paying gentiles their wages:
It is necessary only to teach the
halakha of one who
withholds the wages of a hired laborer; for
a gentile to do so
to another
gentile and for
a gentile to do so
to a Jew is prohibited, but for
a Jew to do so
to a gentile is permitted.
The translation is wrong and the word gentile should be replaced by Cuthean. The term in the Talmud means idol worshipper of any kind, Jew or non Jew. There's also confusion on what the term withhold means. Quoting Gil Student
Before discussing this particular passage from the Talmud it is important to note that the commandments regarding not withholding a worker's wages [see below] DO NOT touch upon the issue of whether a worker is paid; they deal solely with WHEN a worker is paid. The commandments specify that a worker must be paid within that day/night period and that the employer is prohibited from delaying payment. For example, a babysitter who watches children at night must be paid before sunrise of the next day. Similarly, a shoemaker who gives you your shoes during the day must be paid before sunset of that day (Talmud Bava Metzia 110b; R. Yisrael Meir HaCohen Kagan, Ahavat Chesed, 1:9:1-2). Even without these commandments, or if the time period has expired, a worker must still receive his wages. If not, the employer is guilty of theft (Talmud Bava Metzia 111a; Ahavat Chesed, 1:10:14). These commandments only determine WHEN an employee must be paid.
However, these only apply to a worker who has been too careless to pre-arrange a payment schedule. If a shoemaker states, or it is assumed, that he must be paid on delivery of the shoes then the commandments do not apply and he must be paid as arranged (Ahavat Chesed, 1:9:12). These commandments dictate that an employer should go beyond the legalities of a worker's agreement and take extra care of a neglectful or economically unempowered employee.
With that in mind, let us examine the relevant Talmudic passages. The above passage clearly states that the biblical prohibition against holding back a worker's wages during the night/day period following employment does not apply to Cutheans.
Who are the Cutheans? In 2 Kings 17:24-41 we are told that they were displaced by Assyrians from Babylonia to Israel and converted to Judaism out of fear of natural disaster. Regardless of their original intention, the Talmud considers them to have eventually become believing Jews [Tosafot Ketuvot 29a s.v. Ve'al]. However, in later Talmudic times they became a community of idolaters [Talmud Chullin 6a]. Because of their transgressions they were no longer treated as part of the Jewish community. In general, the Talmud uses the term Cuthean to refer to any idolaters, whether Jewish or gentile.
We therefore see that the Talmud states that the commandments prohibiting holding back a worker's wages do not apply to idolaters, Jewish or gentile. What remains unstated in this passage but is implicit in other passages is that an employer must still pay an idolater his fair wages. He only need not go the extra mile and pay him immediately if there was no pre-arranged payment schedule.
Essentially in Judaism you have to pay workers by sundown. If the worker worships idols you don't have to pay them by sundown.
Sanhedrin 57a, the killing thing:
The Gemara challenges:
But wherever there is liability for capital punishment, this
tanna teaches it;
as it is taught in
the first clause: With regard to bloodshed, if
a gentile murders another
gentile, or a gentile murders
a Jew, he is
liable. If
a Jew murders
a gentile, he is
exempt. Evidently, the term liable is used in the
baraita.
Sounds bad yeah. Two points.
1. Exempt doesn't mean allowed.
2. He's still punished by the heavenly court.
Mechilta 21:14 clearly states:
""a man" — to exclude a minor (who killed); "a man" — to include others (i.e., gentiles who killed); "his neighbor" — to include (his killing) a minor; "his neighbor" — to exclude (his killing) others. Issi b. Akiva says: Before the giving of the Torah, we were exhorted against the spilling of blood (of gentiles). After the giving of the Torah, instead of being more stringent, shall we be more lenient? In truth, they said: He (one who kills a gentile) is exempt from the laws of flesh and blood, but his judgment is relegated to Heaven. (Exodus, Ibid.) "to kill him with subtlety": to exclude a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, who are not "subtle.""
Sanhedrin 58b:
Rabbi Ḥanina says: A gentile who struck a Jew is liable to receive the
death penalty,
as it is stated when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew:
“And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Exodus 2:12).
And Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who slaps the cheek of a Jew is considered
as though he slapped the cheek of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: “It is a snare [mokesh] for a man to rashly say [yala]: Holy” (Proverbs 20:25). The verse is interpreted homiletically to mean: One who strikes [
nokesh] a Jew is considered as though he hurt the cheek [
lo’a] of the Holy One.
In the context they were talking about Noahide laws and exploring edge cases. In this area they were discussing what to do with a violent person who is Jewish and who is a gentile.
going further down in the section it starts discussing Jews who are habitually violent:
Rabbi Elazar says: Such a violent person
has no remedy but burial, as it is stated: “And as a mighty man [ve’ish zero’a], who has the earth” (Job 22:
. The expression
ish zero’a literally means: A man of the arm, and the verse is interpreted homiletically to mean that one who habitually strikes others deserves to be buried.
So anyone who is habitually violent deserves the death penalty no matter if they are Jewish or not.
Minor Tractates, Soferim 15, Rule 10: Rabbi Simon ben Yohai:
R. Simeon b. Yoḥai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war;
If you're at war, it doesn't matter if the person you're fighting is a wonderful person, he's actively trying to kill you and you should kill him first.
Avodah Zara 22a-22b:
GEMARA: With regard to the assumption that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, the Gemara
raises a contradiction from a
baraita (
Tosefta 2:1):
One may purchase an animal from gentiles
for use as
an offering, and there is no concern that it might be unfit
due to it being
an animal that copulated with a person, or due to is being
an animal that was the object of bestiality, or due to it having been
set aside for idol worship,
or due to the animal itself having been
worshipped.
The Gemara explains: Rav Taḥlifa says that Rav Sheila bar Avina says in the name of Rav: A gentile protects and thereby spares his own animal so that it will not become barren. Since an act of bestiality may cause an animal to become barren, there is no concern that the gentile engaged in immoral behavior with it. Therefore, one may use an animal purchased from a gentile as an offering.
It never says that Gentiles prefer sex with cows. It's said that since bestality damages the animal, a gentile who is tempted to do it will use an animal that belongs to a Jew.
The Gemara answers: With regard to
themselves, i.e., other gentiles,
as they are aware of each other’s actions,
they are fearful that they may be caught, and therefore will not engage in bestiality with an animal belonging to another gentile. But with regard to
ourselves, Jews,
as we are not aware of them and their behavior,
they are not fearful of us.
It's essentially just a weird discussion all around.
Sanhedrin 55b: A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years 'and a day' old)
OK we're getting to the famous one here.
Rav Yosef says: Come and
hear a resolution from a mishna (
Nidda 44b): A girl who is
three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal
is betrothed with intercourse, as the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse.
And in a case where the childless husband of a girl who is three years and one day old dies,
if his brother, the
yavam, engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife;
and if she is married, a man other than her husband is
liable for engaging in intercourse with
her due to the prohibition of intercourse with
a married woman.
The mishna continues: And if she is impure due to menstruation, she transmits impurity to one who engages in intercourse with her, who then renders all the items designated for lying beneath him impure like the items designated for lying above him.
The mishna continues: And if one of any of those with whom relations are forbidden, who are stated in the Torah, engaged in intercourse with her, e.g., her father or father-in-law, they are executed by the court for engaging in intercourse with her, and she is exempt because she is a minor.
It's a thought experiment as evidenced by the question of what if the 3 year old is menstruating which is an impossibility. Additionally there are 3 places that say that this is not allowed.
Kiddushin 12b states:
The Gemara explains
that Rav would
flog a man
for betrothing a woman
in the marketplace, because this is disrespectful and crude,
and for betrothing a woman
through sexual intercourse, as it is unsavory to invite witnesses to observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse.
And he would also flog a man
for betrothing a woman
without an arrangement [shiddukhei], i.e., if he did not discuss betrothal with the woman before betrothing her. Each of these acts is considered indecent behavior.
Yebamot 44a advises against age gap relationships
The
baraita explains: Appropriate advice means
that if he was a young man and she an elderly woman or if
he was an elderly man and she a young woman, they say to him: What do you want
with a young woman when you are elderly? Or:
What do you want
with an elderly woman when you are young?
Go after your own kind, i.e., a woman of a similar age,
and do not place discord in your household that could be caused by marrying a woman of a significantly different age.
Sanhedrin 76a explicitly says that age gap relationships will cause the woman to cheat and the father of a girl who marries her off young to an old man is considered to be responsible for her cheating:
“Do not profane your daughter by causing her to act licentiously”? Rabbi Mani says: This verse is referring to
one who marries his daughter to an old man. Since she will not be satisfied with him, it will ultimately lead her to engage in adultery, and her father is responsible for causing that situation.
Marriage to an old man or a minor leaves the woman unsatisfied and is apt to lead to licentiousness.
Also you can't be married in Judaism as a woman at younger than 12 years old since you cannot sign the marriage contract. When they bring up the childless husband of a 3 year old who dies, that's a logical impossibility.
Yebhamoth 11b/Kethuboth 11b
Yebhamoth 11b says nothing about this so we'll go to the other source.
Rava said that
this is what the mishna
is saying: An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old has done
nothing, as intercourse with a girl
less than three years old
is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye.
The discussion here relates to the dowry for virgins and non-virgins. It has nothing to do with what acts are allowed, encouraged, forbidden, or discouraged. All it means is that if a three year old or younger girl is molested, she is still considered to be a virgin for the purposes of a dowry payment when she grows up. The Talmud doesn't allow sex before marriage.
Rosh Hashana 17a:
The rebellious Jews who have sinned
with their bodies and also
the rebellious people
of the nations of the world who have sinned
with their bodies descend to Gehenna and are judged there for twelve months. After twelve months, their bodies are consumed, their souls are burned, and a wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous, as it is stated: “And you shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet”
Jews and non-Jews get the same punishment here. It is worth noting that rebellious people of the nation of the world implies that there are non rebellious people that end up fine.
But the heretics; and the informers; and the apostates [apikorsim]; and those who denied the Torah; and those who denied the resurrection of the dead; and those who separated from the ways of the Jewish community and refused to share the suffering; and those who cast their fear over the land of the living; and those who sinned and caused the masses to sin, for example, Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and his company; all of these people descend to Gehenna and are judged there for generations and generations, as it is stated: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die; neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24).
Heretics, informers, apostates, those who denied the resurrection of the dead and so on are all categories of Jewish heretics. Why would the talmud suddenly refer to non jews in "those who denied the Torah" while listing Jewish heretics, especially since non Jews are not obligated to know Torah like Jews are? Even if your interpretation was right and it somehow applies to non Jews, anyone who follows an Abrahamic faith that uses the 5 books of Moses wouldn't fall into this category.
Kerithuth 6b
The mishna includes in its list of those liable to receive
karet:
And one who applies the anointing oil to his skin.
The Sages taught in a
baraita:
One who applies the anointing oil to animals or vessels is
exempt, and one who applies it
to gentiles or to corpses is
exempt. The Gemara objects:
Granted, one is exempt in the case of
animals and vessels, as it is written: “Upon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied” (Exodus 30:32),
and animals and vessels are not the flesh of
a person. It is
also clear why one is
exempt if he applies it to
a corpse, as once someone has died, the body
is called a corpse and not a person. But if one applies anointing oil to
gentiles why is he
exempt? Aren’t they included in the meaning of the term
person [adam]? The Gemara explains: Indeed they are not. As it is written: “And you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are people [adam]” (Ezekiel 34:31), from which it is derived that you, the Jewish people, are called adam, but gentiles are not called adam. The Gemara raises an objection based on a verse discussing captives taken during the war against Midian. But isn’t it written: “And the people [nefesh adam] were sixteen thousand” (Numbers 31:40). This indicates that gentiles are also referred to as adam. The Sage who was asked this said to the questioner: That term serves to exclude, i.e., to distinguish between the people who were taken captive and the animals that were taken as spoils of war, which are also mentioned in that verse. The Gemara raises another difficulty: But isn’t it written: “And should I not have pity on Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than one hundred and twenty thousand people [adam] who cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle” (Jonah 4:11). The inhabitants of Nineveh were gentiles. The Gemara answers: That term serves to exclude them from the animals mentioned in the verse.
In some cases in the talmud it refers to specifically jews as Adam. However it's very clear that nonjews are separated from animals here and there's no validity to the claim. For non Jewish people being considered people in other parts of the talmud:
Talmud Gittin 47a: A gentile has the ability to purchase land in Israel in order to dig holes and caves as it says (Psalms 115:16) "As for the heavens, the heavens are the Lord's; but the earth He has given to mankind (Bnei Adam=sons of Adam)."
Talmud Avodah Zarah 3a: Rabbi Meir would say: How do we know that even a gentile who engages in the study of Torah is like a Jewish high priest? We learn from the verse (Leviticus 18:5) "which man (
HaAdam=the man) shall do [i.e. study] and by which he shall live [in the afterlife]."
An explanation I found goes like this:
We see from Gittin that the Talmud considers the phrase
Bnei Adam (sons of man) to refer also to gentiles. We see from Avodah Zarah that the Talmud considers the term
HaAdam (the man) to refer also to gentiles. Clearly, gentiles are considered human. Why then does the Talmud in Bava Metzia understand that gentiles are not considered
Adam (man)?
The explanation is that these are different terms and only a superficial reading would render the term
Adam in Bava Metzia as man. Gentiles are absolutely considered human as biology clearly dictates; there are no physiological differences between Jews and gentiles. All people are ultimately descended from the same ancestors, Noah and Adam.
However, the Jews, as a unified nation, are one organic entity. We are obligated to treat each other as close family members and are responsible for each other's actions.
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.
Other terms referring to people,
Bnei Adam (sons of Adam) or
HaAdam (the man), are understood to refer to the species homo sapien of which gentiles are obviously members just as Jews are.
Thus, with regard to ritual impurity and holy oil, which are uniquely Jewish concepts, the Talmud sees an exclusion to all those who are not part of the organic Jewish nation. With regard to practical matters such as the purchase of land or individual matters such as spiritual status, gentiles are included. An understanding of
all of the relevant passages in the Talmud shows that Gentiles are considered human but not Jewish and the accusations against the Talmud are false.
Midrasch Talpioth 225: Quote literally doesn't exist after checking multiple copies.
The great thing about this is that you asked me to account for all these verses and I will have spent a ton of time to do so but in the end it won't matter because you'll read the rebuttals and just ignore them. At least I ended up learning some talmud in the end.
The Noachide covenant was with Noah and all his descendants (every living person). Those seven is the Noachide covenant applying to people whose covenant it is. We know of it because the Jews wrote it down, but the covenant was with all survivors of the flood. Noah's covenant already belongs to all goyim (including Jews).
yes we agree on this
It had to be stated multiple times because we kept returning to it. It had to be condemned because Jews were doing it.
we also agree on this, a ton of Jews served the cult of Baal and Moloch. The main Jewish religion spent a lot of effort fighting it.
If Jews do something religious, it's a Jewish religious practice
I disagree on this point here. If it's a religious act that clearly breaks the rules of Judaism eg child sacrifice in explicit service to another god then it's not a Jewish religious practice.
Tell that to every Jewish woman who had a baby scraped out of her because it was in the way of her life.
Torah is very clear that a woman's life is prioritized over the baby's life if it's dangerous to her to have it. I don't get why you compare it to Moloch sacrifice because it's considered a tragedy and a sad thing.
"See? It couldn't have happened because the religion prohibits it!"
Yeah tell that to the last expose of rabbis in Borough Park putting cameras in women's mikvaot. Tell that to the Catholic church whose priests molested kids.
You're 100 percent correct but theres a huge degree of distance between creeping on women and having illicit gay sex with minors versus actually murdering people in the service of god. All of them are horrible of course.
Them and the other local forum jews have successfully dispelled any doubt I had left that they are NOT some sort of monolithic entity. At least in the way I thought. Because it can't just be plain old propaganda and historical precedence at play here to make unconnected people, from different backgrounds, scattered all over the world want to play in group preference and defense this fucking hard.
I want to point out that when Android Raptor posts stuff about muh christians all being pedophile rapists who want to use women as breeding stock there's a lot of christians from entirely different sects/background who are unconnected by anything that argue with her on behalf of christianity because they feel insulted. Are all christians from different sects/backgrounds a monolithic entity?
I'm not 100% certain on this, but I think the reason Chabad is not seem in the same light as Christianity is because our Messiah, is THE Messiah, The Son of God.
Chabad messanics are viewed as similar to christianity, i keep hearing about how in 20 years it'll be a different religion from Judaism.
