L | A
Dear Jew In the City,
Some horrid information has been spread about the Talmud on X this last week. How do we refute it?
Sincerely,
Ella
–
Dear Ella,
Thanks for your question. First let’s discuss the general topic of misinformation and disinformation.
There are a lot of ways that a message can get garbled. Sometimes things are lost in translation. This can happen even in the same language, as the meaning of words can change over time.
For example, today most people use the expression “blood is thicker than water” to mean that familial ties are more important than all others. But the original expression, which goes back hundreds of years, was “the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.”
In other words, the obligation we owe to our comrades in arms takes priority over family obligations! If you were to read the phrase about blood and water in a book from Shakespeare’s time (or even earlier!), you would walk away with an impression the exact opposite of the author’s intention!
That being the case, do you think that antisemites on the internet citing English translations of 2,000-year-old Aramaic texts have a firm grasp of the nuances of the authors’ intended meanings?
Such errors in transmission are often accidental. What’s typically intentional, however, is quoting things out of context.
Quite a few years ago, a clip of Hillary Clinton espousing white supremacy circulated online. She actually said what she appeared to be saying; the clip was authentic, and it wasn’t doctored in any way. It was, however, taken out of context. If you watched what came before and after, you would see that she was giving an example of a reprehensible belief that someone might claim in order to influence educational curricula.
Similarly, a single line pulled from a work of 37 volumes, 5,422 pages (2,711 two-sided folio sheets) and approximately two million words…. Well, let’s just say that it wouldn’t be too hard to divorce a stray thought here and there from their proper contexts.
And, of course, there are outright lies.
An example of an outright lie is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a famously fabricated text claiming to reveal a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. It’s not even a good fraud.
Entire sections are plagiarized whole cloth from the 1864 political satire Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (“Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”) and the 1868 novel Biarritz. But facts don’t matter when the agenda is a smear campaign.
So now let’s take an example of each type of misinformation/disinformation from the currently circulating list of canards.
An example of an error in transmission, where the words don’t mean the same to the reader as they did to the author, is the claim that the Talmud permits sexual relations with a girl under the age of three or a boy under the age of nine. Of course that’s not the case.
As we discussed in a previous article, when the Talmud says that intercourse with a minor isn’t intercourse, that doesn’t mean that it’s permitted and it doesn’t mean that there are no consequences. What it means is that the act doesn’t have the legal consequences of intercourse.
For example, if a two-year-old is raped (God forbid), she’s still considered a virgin under Jewish law and is entitled to the larger dowry. Not only does such a law not permit the rape of minors, it benefits the victim. (See the article linked above for more on this topic.)
An example of something taken out of context is the complaint that Jews need not return lost objects to non-Jews. That’s actually correct, but now let’s provide the context. There are two types of mitzvos: those in which only Jews are obligated, and universal (“Noachide”) laws that apply to all of mankind.
When it comes to Noachide laws, Jews and non-Jews are equal: we’re not allowed to kill them and they’re not allowed to kill us (or each other). We’re not allowed to steal from them and they’re not allowed to steal from us (or each other). Mitzvos in which only Jews are obligated, however, only apply to Jews.
For example, Jews are not allowed to lend to one another with interest. Non-Jews are not commanded regarding interest. Therefore, Jews may lend to non-Jews with interest, non-Jews may lend to Jews with interest, and non-Jews may lend to one another with interest. This is simple reciprocity that keeps everyone on a level playing field. (Do you see where this is going?)
So, Jews are required to return lost objects to one another; non-Jews are not so commanded. The result is that Jews need not return lost objects to non-Jews, non-Jews need not return lost objects to Jews, and non-Jews need not return lost objects to one another. Among themselves, Jews are held to a higher standard, but in relations between Jews and non-Jews, everyone has a level playing field.
An example of an outright lie is the claim that Jews are allowed to violate (but not marry) non-Jewish girls. This quote is attributed to “Gad Shas.” What is “Gad Shas”? I don’t have such a book in my library. I assure you that your rabbi doesn’t have such a book in his library, nor will you find it in your local Jewish book store, because it doesn’t exist.
“Gad” is one of the twelve Tribes of Israel and “Shas” is an acronym referring to the Talmud as a whole; combined, the phrase equals gibberish. So, either the entire quote is fabricated or these antisemites are such great Talmudic scholars that they have access to works that no rabbi has ever heard of. (Hint: it’s the former.)
So how can we refute such things online? Not easily because haters don’t care about the truth.
People correct such things online all the time and the comment sections invariably devolve into “Nuh uh!” “Nuh huh!” Those who hate Jews and/or Israel will accuse us of lying and disinterested spectators will be left bewildered as to who is telling the truth.
I think the best we can do is to clarify matters for other Jews who are unfamiliar with the material and who may be confused when they read such outlandish claims online.
Nevertheless, I do think that it’s important that we familiarize ourselves with what sources such as these are really saying, as well as with sources that speak about the universality of mankind. I think most readers on this platform recognize that Judaism values truth, peace, and the brotherhood of mankind.
Our firsthand experiences tell us that quotes such as these are either fabricated or taken out of context. Knowing what Judaism actually preaches and living accordingly is no doubt slower than a social media blast, but it’s ultimately the best way to effect change.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Jack Abramowitz
Educational Correspondent
Dear Jew In the City,
Some horrid information has been spread about the Talmud on X this last week. How do we refute it?
Sincerely,
Ella
–
Dear Ella,
Thanks for your question. First let’s discuss the general topic of misinformation and disinformation.
There are a lot of ways that a message can get garbled. Sometimes things are lost in translation. This can happen even in the same language, as the meaning of words can change over time.
For example, today most people use the expression “blood is thicker than water” to mean that familial ties are more important than all others. But the original expression, which goes back hundreds of years, was “the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.”
In other words, the obligation we owe to our comrades in arms takes priority over family obligations! If you were to read the phrase about blood and water in a book from Shakespeare’s time (or even earlier!), you would walk away with an impression the exact opposite of the author’s intention!
That being the case, do you think that antisemites on the internet citing English translations of 2,000-year-old Aramaic texts have a firm grasp of the nuances of the authors’ intended meanings?
Such errors in transmission are often accidental. What’s typically intentional, however, is quoting things out of context.
Quite a few years ago, a clip of Hillary Clinton espousing white supremacy circulated online. She actually said what she appeared to be saying; the clip was authentic, and it wasn’t doctored in any way. It was, however, taken out of context. If you watched what came before and after, you would see that she was giving an example of a reprehensible belief that someone might claim in order to influence educational curricula.
Similarly, a single line pulled from a work of 37 volumes, 5,422 pages (2,711 two-sided folio sheets) and approximately two million words…. Well, let’s just say that it wouldn’t be too hard to divorce a stray thought here and there from their proper contexts.
And, of course, there are outright lies.
An example of an outright lie is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a famously fabricated text claiming to reveal a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. It’s not even a good fraud.
Entire sections are plagiarized whole cloth from the 1864 political satire Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (“Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”) and the 1868 novel Biarritz. But facts don’t matter when the agenda is a smear campaign.
So now let’s take an example of each type of misinformation/disinformation from the currently circulating list of canards.
An example of an error in transmission, where the words don’t mean the same to the reader as they did to the author, is the claim that the Talmud permits sexual relations with a girl under the age of three or a boy under the age of nine. Of course that’s not the case.
As we discussed in a previous article, when the Talmud says that intercourse with a minor isn’t intercourse, that doesn’t mean that it’s permitted and it doesn’t mean that there are no consequences. What it means is that the act doesn’t have the legal consequences of intercourse.
For example, if a two-year-old is raped (God forbid), she’s still considered a virgin under Jewish law and is entitled to the larger dowry. Not only does such a law not permit the rape of minors, it benefits the victim. (See the article linked above for more on this topic.)
An example of something taken out of context is the complaint that Jews need not return lost objects to non-Jews. That’s actually correct, but now let’s provide the context. There are two types of mitzvos: those in which only Jews are obligated, and universal (“Noachide”) laws that apply to all of mankind.
When it comes to Noachide laws, Jews and non-Jews are equal: we’re not allowed to kill them and they’re not allowed to kill us (or each other). We’re not allowed to steal from them and they’re not allowed to steal from us (or each other). Mitzvos in which only Jews are obligated, however, only apply to Jews.
For example, Jews are not allowed to lend to one another with interest. Non-Jews are not commanded regarding interest. Therefore, Jews may lend to non-Jews with interest, non-Jews may lend to Jews with interest, and non-Jews may lend to one another with interest. This is simple reciprocity that keeps everyone on a level playing field. (Do you see where this is going?)
So, Jews are required to return lost objects to one another; non-Jews are not so commanded. The result is that Jews need not return lost objects to non-Jews, non-Jews need not return lost objects to Jews, and non-Jews need not return lost objects to one another. Among themselves, Jews are held to a higher standard, but in relations between Jews and non-Jews, everyone has a level playing field.
An example of an outright lie is the claim that Jews are allowed to violate (but not marry) non-Jewish girls. This quote is attributed to “Gad Shas.” What is “Gad Shas”? I don’t have such a book in my library. I assure you that your rabbi doesn’t have such a book in his library, nor will you find it in your local Jewish book store, because it doesn’t exist.
“Gad” is one of the twelve Tribes of Israel and “Shas” is an acronym referring to the Talmud as a whole; combined, the phrase equals gibberish. So, either the entire quote is fabricated or these antisemites are such great Talmudic scholars that they have access to works that no rabbi has ever heard of. (Hint: it’s the former.)
So how can we refute such things online? Not easily because haters don’t care about the truth.
People correct such things online all the time and the comment sections invariably devolve into “Nuh uh!” “Nuh huh!” Those who hate Jews and/or Israel will accuse us of lying and disinterested spectators will be left bewildered as to who is telling the truth.
I think the best we can do is to clarify matters for other Jews who are unfamiliar with the material and who may be confused when they read such outlandish claims online.
Nevertheless, I do think that it’s important that we familiarize ourselves with what sources such as these are really saying, as well as with sources that speak about the universality of mankind. I think most readers on this platform recognize that Judaism values truth, peace, and the brotherhood of mankind.
Our firsthand experiences tell us that quotes such as these are either fabricated or taken out of context. Knowing what Judaism actually preaches and living accordingly is no doubt slower than a social media blast, but it’s ultimately the best way to effect change.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Jack Abramowitz
Educational Correspondent
that certainly the intent is not that he engaged in intercourse with the animals, but rather that he mentally probed them and evaluated them, and found them all lacking: כל בהמה חיה ועוף ולא נתקררה דעתו בהם (יבמות ס"ג א). ירצה שבא בדעתו וטוב התבוננותו עליהם ועל טבעם ולא נתקררה דעתו שיהיה זווגו