Response to "QUOTES FROM THE TALMUD"

Response to "QUOTES FROM THE TALMUD"
Also known as
"Non-Jews as seen in the Jewish Talmud"
and
"Jewish Racism towards Non-Jews as expressed in the Talmud"



This document appears at the following hate sites:


http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=378976012
http://www.ostara.org/zundel/talmud2.txt
(The above URL is a variant text.)
http://compuserb.com/talmud1.htm
http://internettrash.com/users/revision5/racijud.htm
http://abbc.com/islam/english/toread/jewras.htm
http://abbc.com/islam/portugues/textes/racijud.htm

CLAIM
"The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud..."
"Babylonian Talmud", published by the Boston Talmud Society, p. XII

The Jews refer to the remainder of Earths inhabitants, the non-Jewish peoples, as "Gentiles", "Goyim". Let's see what the Jewish Talmud teaches the Jews concerning the non-Jewish majority, i.e. those who are not part of Jahve's "Chosen People":

RESPONSE
It is true that modern Judaism derives most of its teachings from the Talmud, but what anti-Semites claim about the Talmud is quite different from the truth.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM
"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

RESPONSE (1)
This represents a lack of knowledge of Hebrew at a most fundamental level. Here, the anti-Semites claim that Adam means human but it really means man. "Yetsoor" is the Hebrew word for human. Jews are referred to by the singular form of man, Adam, whilst non-Jews are referred to by the plural form of man, or anasheem. Both forms of the word mean human, but one is single, the other is plural. The reason that Jews are referred to in the singular is that if one Jew does something bad, or is alleged to have, all Jews are blamed for it. So, for the wrongdoing or alleged wrongdoing of one, all suffer. In the case of non-Jews, only individuals suffer, not all of the non-Jews. So that is why Jews are referred to as a single person and non-Jews are referred to in the plural.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

RESPONSE (2) (Also, see other responses elswhere.)
Apparently a deliberate mistranslation. The passage deals with the technical rules of corpse-impurity which, according to the author of this text, apply to Jews and not to gentiles. In this connection Ezekiel 34:31 is cited: "And ye My sheep [referring to Israel], the sheep of My pasture, are _men [Hebrew: "adam"]_, and I am your God, saith the Lord God." From a careful midrashic reading of this Biblical verse, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai deduced "Only "ye" [i.e., Israel, not other nations] are designated "adam," in the sense that only Jewish corpses and graves generate impurity according to Numbers 19:14: "This is the law: when a _man ['adam']_ dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the tent...shall be unclean seven days..." The passage is legal and exegetical, not theological. If anything, it seems to put Jews on a lower footing than non-Jews. Typically, the words "but beasts" were added on by whoever put this list together. They do not appear in the original.
Correspondent of catamont@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) catamont-2305980759150001@ts003d13.den-co.concentric.net

CLAIM
"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew." Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30

RESPONSE
The reference cited is does not exist, therefore the "quote" is forgery. Also "Akum" specifically means idolater. It does not refer to non-Jews in general. Additionally, the writing style is totally inconsistent with writings of this type which are extremely terse and abbreviated since they assume a great deal of prior knowledge.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM
"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be served by animals in human form." Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855

RESPONSE (1)
I was unable to check this reference in my extensive Judaica library. The book "Midrash Talpiyyot" is appparently an obscure eighteenth-century Kabbalistic work that is little known and carries no authority whatsoever. Even if the citation were correct (which seems doubtful in light of the other examples on this list, and the fact that Jews never employ the designation "Jehovah"), it is hard to imagine what could be proven from it about Judaism or the Talmud.
From Usenet message catamont-2305980759150001@ts003d13.den-co.concentric.net

RESPONSE (2)
Apart from anything else, the use of the term "Jehovah" should be an immediate indicator of a forgery since Jews don't write this term in books. The actual book in question is not part of the Talmud but was written by a Turkish Jew called Elijah ben Solomon Abraham, ha-Koen in the eighteenth century. And it is unlikey that the quote exists given the other forgeries on this list.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM
"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal." Coschen hamischpat 405

RESPONSE
The above quote is a wrong inference from a fiscal law in Shulchan Oruch, Choshen Mishpat 405.3, that relates to times when slavery was a standard and accepted practice across the world.

It states that if an ox gored a pregnant woman, and this resulted in the loss of the fetus, the owner does not have to pay for the loss of the fetus (medical expenses and other damages are discussed elsewhere). If an ox gored a pregnant non-Jewish slave-woman, the owner of the ox has to pay for the loss of the fetus to the owner of the slave-woman (because the owner would have had another slave to work for him had the woman given birth). The same applies if the ox gored a pregnant cow, or a sheep, because had the animal given birth, the owner would have had an extra one. The law is clearly hinged on the rights of the owner, and does not compare non-Jews and animals in any way. It is purely legal, and does not have any philosophical or social implications.
I.I.

CLAIM
"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs." Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b

RESPONSE
The above quote does not exist in the source. The reference to page 12b in Yalkut Reuveini is meaningless, as the pages are numbered individually, not having "a" and "b" parts.

Yalkut does quote from Shnei Luchot Habrit (in Sefer Dovor Shebikdusho, Os Alef), that the souls of two ancient nations (Amoni and Moavi that do not exist now), come from "the spirit of impurity", but the same goes for the soul of a bastard (mamzer) of Jewish origin.
I.I.

CLAIM
"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

RESPONSE
A complete fabrication. The reference to p.250 b is meaningless (unless "b" stands for "column 2"), as each page is individually numbered. There is no mention of any comparison of Jews to non-Jews on page 250.
I.I.

CLAIM
"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog." Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b

RESPONSE
This appears to be a forgery.
Joe Slater

CLAIM
"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"." Jore dea 377, 1

RESPONSE
The Mishna from which this law is derived speaks about a specific formula [in] Hebrew "Hamokom menachem eschem" that is said to somebody whose close relative died within [the] last 7 days, it does not mean regular words of consolation. A question is asked by the commentators: the above formula is said [by] the grieving person only for a close relative, and not even for a distant relative or a regular Jew, so why do we have to be told that it's not said for a servant? Several answers are given: either the personal servant is so close to his master, that he is considered by the master as his son, or because the servant was his property the master considered him part of his body so to speak. So why not say the above formula? The reason given is that people who don't know the master might hear and think that the slave was completely Jewish and part of master's family, which might lead to confusion. Actually, the same Mishna mentions that R. Gamaliel accepted this formula [of] condolence for his slave, because he respected the slave greatly for his Torah knowledge.
I.I.

CLAIM
"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals." Talmud Sanhedrin 74b

RESPONSE
It does not say this or any such thing.
David Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM
"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile." Sepher ikkarim III c 25

RESPONSE
This is a misquotation. Rabbi Yosef Albo (the author) was asked by a Christian thinker about seeming injustice of the laws of Judaism dealing with charging interest on a loan. (According to Deuteronomy 23:20 and 23:21, a Jew is not allowed to lend with interest to another Jew, but may do so to a Gentile). R. Albo answers: The "Gentile" or "heathen" in the above passage refers to idolater, who refuses to keep seven Noahide laws. The laws are universal for all mankind: 1) prohibition of idolatry, 2) prohibition of blasphemy, 3) prohibition of murder, 4) prohibition of immorality and promiscuity, 5) prohibition of theft, 6) establishment of judicial system, 7) prohibition of cruelty to animals. Such a person, who does not respect other's rights, places himself apart from human community and therefore can expect to be treated according to his own rules. He is a threat to everyone around and hence if somebody kills him, that person is not charged. On the contrary, even according to non-Jewish philosophers in those days (14th and 15th century, Spain), as R Albo brings, such a person should be killed. So it is regarding money matters: the prohibition of taking interest, that applies to everybody, including a non-Jew who keeps the Noahide laws (as R. Albo mentions a few sentences earlier), do not apply to him.
I.I.

CLAIM
"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah." Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5

RESPONSE
This is from the Shulcan Aruch and applies to killing Jewish heretics. The following line in this passage is that this law does not apply to anyone non-Jewish and it is forbidden to harm any gentile. The Jewish heretics are people which are a potential cause of harm and trouble to the Jewish nation. The penalty is designed to demonstrate the severity with which heretical views were considered, rather than a practical penalty as such penalties were rarely imposed.
E.S./David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM
"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands." Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b

RESPONSE
It does not say this this is a forgery.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM
"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772

RESPONSE
Midrash Bamidbar Raba 21: "[Numbers 23:11 regarding Phinehas who killed Zimri for fornicating with a Midianite woman] `Because he was zealous for his G-d and atoned for the children of Israel' It says he atoned - did he bring a sacrifice? This teaches us that whoever spills the blood of the wicked is like someone who brings a sacrifice."
Joe Slater

Uploaded 29 Sep 1999


Return Home