Opinion How Do We Refute Horrid Rumors About The Talmud?

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

 

[Imperial Citizen]

So your argument is that its like trying to understand the constitution. Like lets say the Second Amendment. Without also reading about Bruen, and if in Hawaii the federal judges ruling there about the spirit of Hawaii overwriting the second amendment.

I see your argument. Its not going to go against the sentiment that jewish culture is about finding loopholes that let go against the spirit of what you are supposed to do.

It’s not loopholes, it’s how do we understand the law. Let’s take one of the 10 commandments as an example.

Thou shall not murder.

On a simple view of it, the commandment says that you are not allowed to end life. But we have multiple times in the Torah where murder is permitted. Witches, criminals, committers of sexual immoralities. Also, is it murder if it is in self-defense? What about in war? How do we make sense of the commandment?

That is what the Talmud is for. It is a compilation of legal opinions and stories for religious law. It is a codification of a religion’s rules and traditions whose origins go back thousands of years.

 

[smartypants302]

View attachment 6494162
What did YHWH mean by this?

I would love for them to justify eruv zones. Ahh God, if put this wire around Manhattan and into New Jersey God will think all the land is our home and we can freely go about our day on Sabbath. What the point of pretending your keeping Sabbath and God does not understand what your doing. Also how in United States they have a right to force religion on others by doing this when public displays are forbidden for Christianity.

 

[BestUserName]

Catch The Rainbow never thought the leopards would bite his face.

 

[The Taco Santo!]

This is simple reciprocity that keeps everyone on a level playing field.

Yeah, Jews are all about a level playing field, especially in financial matters.

the obligation we owe to our comrades in arms takes priority over family obligations!

Sure. So why all the nepotism, then?

I think most readers on this platform recognize that Judaism values truth, peace, and the brotherhood of mankind.

Sounds good, but the author is aware that we can actually see that Jewish behavior really doesn't add up to this high ideal in the real world, right?

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

I would love for them to justify eruv zones. Ahh God, if put this wire around Manhattan and into New Jersey God will think all the land is our home and we can freely go about our day on Sabbath. What the point of pretending your keeping Sabbath and God does not understand what your doing. Also how in United States they have a right to force religion on others by doing this when public displays are forbidden for Christianity.

How are they forcing their religion on others when they maintain the wires themselves and pay for it themselves

Quoting an explanation since you wanted a justification of the eruv

Biblically there are three domains. Private, semi-public, and public.

Private domains would be like a house, or a fenced yard. (Apartment buildings require an eruv chatzerus...a different subject)

The parameters for Public domain are probably not what you think. Generally, it has to be a busy market place. The definition of "busy" is a subject of debate, but the generally accepted definition is that 600,000 people (the number of adult males at the time of the giving of the Torah) have to regularly pass through, and that the area is never closed off to civilians. Examples given in the Talmud are roman street markets.

Using those parameters to define "public" (obviously there is more to it, but for simplicity sake, we'll go with just that) there are a lot of areas that fall between private and public. According to the strict biblical law, carrying in a semi-private domain, like a suburban side street, is ok. The rabbis decided that carrying in a semi-private domain might lead to carrying in a public domain. Anyway, in order to mitigate the risk of carrying from a semi-private domain into a public domain, the rabbis decided to forbid carrying in a semi-public domain, unless there is an eruv. The discussion about why and what is mostly found in Gemara eruv in, although it's hard to learn practical law from it. Remember, that biblically, carrying in a semi-private domain is ok. So the rabbis did not permit something that was forbidden. They forbid something that was permitted, and then made conditions for exceptions.

Now, what's with the strings, you might ask. The simple answer is that in order for a semi-public domain to be considered "like private," it must be walled off. Like a walled city. But even walked cities have gateways. So the rabbis permitted doorways and gateways. What about a wall made completely of doorways? Yes, that's ok. What is the absolute minimum that you can call something a proper doorway? At least two poles with a string attached. And that's where the idea of an eruv being a string around an area comes from. But it's not as simple as four posts with a string connecting them. The land also has to be private. Usually the Jewish community will "lease" the land in the eruv from the city for a few dollars. There are strict rules about how far each pole can be from the next one to still be considered a doorpost, and strict rules about how the string has to be attached to be called a lintel

>bible allows you to carry in semi public place on the Sabbath
>rabbis say dont carry in a semi public place unless there's an eruv because accidents can happen
>follow the safe way where the worst failure is still ok biblically
>be accused of not following the obligations set in the bible

 

[namelesstacotruck]

It’s not loopholes, it’s how do we understand the law. Let’s take one of the 10 commandments as an example.

Thou shall not murder.

On a simple view of it, the commandment says that you are not allowed to end life. But we have multiple times in the Torah where murder is permitted. Witches, criminals, committers of sexual immoralities. Also, is it murder if it is in self-defense? What about in war? How do we make sense of the commandment?

That is what the Talmud is for. It is a compilation of legal opinions and stories for religious law. It is a codification of a religion’s rules and traditions whose origins go back thousands of years.

So the difference to me is that its "forgiveable" given the context. But its still wrong. The spirit of "thou shall not kill" is that killing is wrong and killing might be forgivable against invaders or someone trying to kill you. But its still an unfortunate act.

Jewish culture on the other treats a loophole as full steam ahead not only is it not wrong but you dont need to even worry about it if your in the loophole space.

To simplify my analogy. Killing is a black act. Things might make it grey. Jewish culture is if you are in the loophole its white. No grey. There are benefits to a system like this especially in times when survival and not debating what to do are important. But is also explains why jews are so absolutely morally certain.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Case in point, one of those idiots shows up. Doesn't care about context, common practice, or anything, guy just wants to bitch. No point in talking to him.

I hate to bring it up but sometimes "Lack of context" or "They don't care about context" can be used as a shield to rid all justified criticism. Leftist use this very argument when people will quote someone being outright open of their context all the time.

On a simple view of it, the commandment says that you are not allowed to end life. But we have multiple times in the Torah where murder is permitted. Witches, criminals, committers of sexual immoralities. Also, is it murder if it is in self-defense? What about in war? How do we make sense of the commandment?

No, it says you are specifically not allowed to MURDER. the definition of murder is different from the term or phrase ending life. Self-defense when not upheld by corrupt legal advisors is generally considered not the same thing as murder... It's a distinction between killing and murdering. In regards to your questions: Those were crimes often accountable by death (aka: Killing) as the penalty in the ancient days.


War is also very obvious if you are at war, your enemies goal is to kill you, killing them is obviously not murder within reasonable means though.

is that killing is wrong and killing might be forgivable against invaders or someone trying to kill you. But its still an unfortunate act.

The original translation is actually Thou shall not murder . I agree with the rest of your post, but the example of the mistranslation works perfectly. It's like seeing "Thou Shall Not Murder" and then going "But what about killing?" To create a loophole to justify murder, or indirect murder and creating a muddying of the water to what is considered as murder within certain boundaries... See David and Bathsheba example. Technically he didn't murder her husband the enemy soldiers did type of logic.

 

[Jimjamflimflam]

it's because we question things, break them down carefully to see the why of things, and then put it back together.

No. This is just being an ass. It's the "Well the rules don't say a dog can't play football" line of reasoning.

Society can agree on the general understanding without it being specifically written out until you get some autistic asshole thinking that are smarter then they really are having to upset everything because they think they got a big "aha!" moment when it's already understood by everyone else.

 

[Return of the Freaker]

You didn't even get the aggadot like the bathroom sheep

Give Jews this, at least they don't use toilet demons/witches to excuse designated shitting streets

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

The spirit of "thou shall not kill" is that killing is wrong and killing might be forgivable against invaders or someone trying to kill you.

You shall not kill and you shall not murder are two completely different concepts.

See David and Bathsheba example. Technically he didn't murder her husband the enemy soldiers did type of logic.

Bad example, King David was explicitly punished for this.

I hate to bring it up but sometimes "Lack of context" or "They don't care about context" can be used as a shield to rid all justified criticism.

It can be used that way yeah. I think there can be legitimate criticism, I just want it criticized with the full understanding of what's going on

Society can agree on the general understanding without it being specifically written out

Essentially every society has the general understanding that stealing is wrong but there's a range of responses to it from the Nordic model of rehabilitation to the Islamic model of cutting off hands. There's no universal punishment, one has to be defined relative to the society.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

How are they forcing their religion on others when they maintain the wires themselves and pay for it themselves

Isn't it on public property of which they don't own? I mean I'm certain Christians and other religious groups pay for their merchandise themselves and are even willing to pay a small fee to keep it available and open on public property but it's still not allowed, yet eruv zones are made exception to this? Correct me if I'm mistaken there.

Bad example, King David was explicitly punished for this.

That is true, but there are people who actually argue that he wasn't guilty of any sin by doing such actions. It's similar to people who argue Muslims are solely responsible for killing their victims and Jewish people pushing mass migration in the west are innocent because they weren't the one's raping and murdering. "Yeah I know Muslims are a bunch of backwards violent savages who rape little children, but it's not my fault when I encourage sending them west they continue to act like that." Type of logic.

 

[John.Doe]

why does this article defending the original conman’s guide book include an example about a two year old getting raped

why are jews like this

Arrogance.

Its because of their insane amounts of arrogance, all the way up to hubris. These people believe that they can rules-lawyer GOD, an omniscient and omnipotent being through their own human, flawed, and imprecise understanding of His Divine Will. Once you start looking into the mental gymnastics they contort themselves into to claim that things like; running a string around their house, sacrificing chickens, sucking mutilated baby dicks, etc, all somehow make them immune to God's Judgement you will see what I mean. They make Sovereign Citizens look sane, grounded, and humble by comparison.

Once you understand that these people think they can outwit GOD, it becomes obvious that they'd think they are able to control, manipulate, and explain away anything. Whenever one scheme fails, it is inevitable that the next Jew will smugly say to himself, "Ah, but I'm so much smarter than Schlomo and GOD, surely I can make it work!"

And around and around we go.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

Isn't it on public property of which they don't own

They lease it. No one generally cares because it's a thin wire no one sees and it's not an open statement of religion.

That is true, but there are people who actually argue that he wasn't guilty of any sin by doing such actions

Those people are retarded

 

[Imperial Citizen]

So the difference to me is that its "forgiveable" given the context. But its still wrong. The spirit of "thou shall not kill" is that killing is wrong and killing might be forgivable against invaders or someone trying to kill you. But its still an unfortunate act.

Jewish culture on the other treats a loophole as full steam ahead not only is it not wrong but you dont need to even worry about it if your in the loophole space.

To simplify my analogy. Killing is a black act. Things might make it grey. Jewish culture is if you are in the loophole its white. No grey. There are benefits to a system like this especially in times when survival and not debating what to do are important. But is also explains why jews are so absolutely morally certain.

I would agree that there is no grey within Jewish law. You have to remember that this is religious law, given by the creator of the universe, the being that is the absolute good. We have to know how to follow the commandments in order to be following these holy laws. The Orthodox are especially strict with following these laws as they hold that they are binding like the laws of a country.

Shabbat is the day of rest, in which Jews are not permitted to work. Well, what is work? Turns out that there are 39 activities that are considered work on Shabbat. One activity is lighting a fire. You could conclude that it just means making a fire, but it has been determined that the ignition of heat source is making a fire. So lighting the candles for Shabbat has to be done before the holiday begins, no way around that. You can’t press the button on an elevator, instead it operates automatically, going up and down one floor at a time.

These laws were developed for a Bronze Age civilization, but for the Jewish religion, it is the word of God. They don’t go away because the times change. Those who observe the laws have to adapt modern times to these laws. The Talmud, the knowledge of the Rabbis, are the key for that adaptation.

 

[Overly Serious]

Setting aside the contents for a moment, can someone clarify for me what weight the Talmud carries in Judaism? By way of explaining my question, there are many Christian groups that don't actually reference the bible that much directly and they don't have to - the Bible is not the literal word of God and Christianity is not a single rigid hierarchy (probably tempting that annoying No True Scotsman catholic poster with this but I'll ignore him if he shows up). People can draw their own interpretations on Christ's words or the events described in the Bible because it is a known collection of writings and translations by people.

Contrast that with Islam where one of the critical differences between the faiths is that the Koran is believed by Muslims to be literal dictation by God via his angel Gabriel. And this is one of the foundational pillars of Islam the rejection of which means you are not a Muslim. Additionally the Koran has its Haddiths which are the approved interpretations of the Koran and accompanying lore which again have a really, really high level of authority given to them. Regular Joe Muslim is not supposed to say "yeah, I don't think this means what you think it does" or "I reckon that's apocryphal" (pun intended and proud of).

Where does the Talmud sit with all this? Are normal religious Jews supposed to be complying with it? Like the whole part about not lending money with interest to other Jews, if you own shares in a bank, credit card company, real estate portfolios and any Jew anywhere has a mortgage with what you've invested in, you're violating it. Basically, how central to Judaism is the Talmud?

EDIT:

These laws were developed for a Bronze Age civilization, but for the Jewish religion, it is the word of God. They don’t go away because the times change. Those who observe the laws have to adapt modern times to these laws. The Talmud, the knowledge of the Rabbis, are the key for that adaptation.

Oh gods, the Talmud is 57 volumes of patch notes? It's time to fork the project and rebase everything.

(Wait - that's Christianity)

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

Are normal religious Jews supposed to be complying with it? Like the whole part about not lending money with interest to other Jews, if you own shares in a bank, credit card company, real estate portfolios and any Jew anywhere has a mortgage with what you've invested in, you're violating it. Basically, how central to Judaism is the Talmud?

It's pretty central. In Orthodox Judaism you have two holy books which are both legal codes, the written Torah and the Oral Torah which form the basis of Jewish law. The written Torah is impossible to understand without the oral Torah which itself was written down and called the mishnah. The Talmud is a commentary on the Mishnah that records the arguments of rabbis who were interpreting it and establishing legal principles based on logical arguments. There's also other stuff like stories, jokes, remedies, and so on.

Jews follow the majority legal opinions set out in the Talmud. They do this by following legal codexes such as the Hilchot HaRif and others which are collections of only the legal opinions of the Talmud.


Tldr:
The Talmud's legal rulings are the basis of Jewish law. It's central.

Better way to put it. Mishnah is the Constitution and the Talmud are the federalist papers.

 

[Overly Serious]

It's pretty central. In Orthodox Judaism you have two holy books which are both legal codes, the written Torah and the Oral Torah which form the basis of Jewish law. The written Torah is impossible to understand without the oral Torah which itself was written down and called the mishnah. The Talmud is a commentary on the Mishnah that records the arguments of rabbis who were interpreting it and establishing legal principles based on logical arguments. There's also other stuff like stories, jokes, remedies, and so on.

Jews follow the majority legal opinions set out in the Talmud. They do this by following legal codexes such as the Hilchot HaRif and others which are collections of only the legal opinions of the Talmud.


Tldr:
The Talmud's legal rulings are the basis of Jewish law. It's central.

Better way to put it. Mishnah is the Constitution and the Talmud are the federalist papers.

Thanks. Very informative. Given how complex it is, how well does that work as the basis for law? And in Israel, given it's the Jewish state, are the countries laws based on it or is Israeli law 'secular'?

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

Given how complex it is, how well does that work as the basis for law?

It works pretty well. Judaism goes by majority consensus so the view that has the most rabbis supporting its logic is the official law. You can be stricter than the law in your personal practice but the law is just the minimum standard required.

And in Israel, given it's the Jewish state, are the countries laws based on it or is Israeli law 'secular'?

Israeli law is secular and I think it's based on English civil law.

 

[Imperial Citizen]

Thanks. Very informative. Given how complex it is, how well does that work as the basis for law? And in Israel, given it's the Jewish state, are the countries laws based on it or is Israeli law 'secular'?

There is the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, but that is only for religious practices and Jewish law issues within Israel. There are Rabbinical courts within the Israeli legal system which handles things like marriage and other religious duties. Israel is the Jewish State, but it was designed as a secular state, so Israeli law governing non-religious issues is separate from Jewish law.

 

[Echo_Doge]

I have an ex-jew acquaintance who basically said it's a cultural problem endemic to Jewish society:

They love "Getting one over" on people. Behavior that would, at best, be deemed "Pretty dickish" in most societies is celebrated by them.

Catching someone in a predatory loan, locking them in an exploitative contract, harassing them by enforcing the most trivial of rules, ect. It's all seen as a positive, "Clever" thing and respected by their Jewish peers.

They particularly love imposing rules on others, then finding ways to not have those rules apply to them. They'll tear down Christian displays while screaming about "Separation of Church and state", and in the same breath try to say why THEIR displays are fine.

That's why they LOVE their Mitzvos. They basically give them carte Blanche to screw over any non-jews and be morally justified by it. The author unintentionally draws attention to two of the biggest ones:

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

This is what they use to justify loan-sharking, predatory lending, and all sorts of other unfair contracts they trap people in.

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

This is typically used to justify stealing shit and pretending they found it. Their definition of "Lost" is very loose.

I would love for them to justify eruv zones. Ahh God, if put this wire around Manhattan and into New Jersey God will think all the land is our home and we can freely go about our day on Sabbath. What the point of pretending your keeping Sabbath and God does not understand what your doing. Also how in United States they have a right to force religion on others by doing this when public displays are forbidden for Christianity.

I asked him specifically about Eruvs. He said: "They'll try to justify these by saying it's 'Symbolic' and such. But the real reason is because they found their own rules for Shabbat so much of a strain on daily life that they literally invented a bunch of fancy-sounding nonsense to avoid it.

They celebrate it as a collective win by jews as they came together to pull one over on their own religious rules.

As a secondary bonus, it lets them mark their territory in an overt way. And as a "Religious practice", anyone who doesn't like it can be harassed as antisemitic."