The Talmud Exposed refutations - part 2

CLAIM (19)
Also see Kerithoth 6b under the sub-head, "Oil of Anointing"

RESPONSE
Kerithoth 6b is a rehash of the above point, whereby non-Jewish dead do not impurify. Nowhere does it claim that they are not human.
Avraham Hampel <hampel@brachot.jct.ac.il>

CLAIM (19a)
Berakoth 58a in which Gentile women are designated animals ("she-asses").

RESPONSE (1)
Let's start off earlier up Berachot 58a. It says that anyone who sees a non-Jewish wise man should bless G-d for giving His wisdom to all his creatures (not just Jews). Anyone who sees a non-Jewish king should bless G-d for giving His glory to all his creatures (not just Jews). Someone should run to see a king, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. These are not misinterpreted quotes by individual Rabbis, this is what Judaism believes, as it was brought down in Jewish law and can be found in almost any prayerbook.

Having said that, Berachot 58a also records one individual sage (Rabbi Shila) referring to an ancient Egyptian woman as a she-ass. It does NOT generalise to Gentile women in the least, and was probably a reaction to the suffering the Jews had undergone at the hands of the ancient Egyptians.
Avraham Hampel <hampel@brachot.jct.ac.il>

Actually, what we have here is a quotation of a verse from Ezekiel. The verse, if one looks at the citation refers to the Jews who followed idolatry. It chastises them for their infidelity, comparing them to people who chase lovers, and it calls those lovers, "Whose flesh is that of donkeys, and their stream is that of horses." What that has to do with calling Gentile women "she-asses?" Especially considering the well-known fact that in the Bible, a "she-ass" is an "Aton" where the verse uses the term "Chamor?"
[Edited response.] mat6263@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner)

RESPONSE (2)
Ditto. Keritoth 6b even goes a long way explaining the different meanings of "adam" (namely man in general vs. man in the image of G-d) and when to use which meaning, especially in matters of ritual impurity.
From Usenet message
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)

RESPONSE (3)
The prophet Ezekiel (Ez. 23:20) says "... for their flesh is as the flesh of donkeys ..." in reference to the nations surrounding Israel. The prophet is castigating Judea for forming covenants with foreign nations and metaphorically describes this process as Judea desiring intimacy with donkeys.

The use of this designation by the prophet is consistent with biblical poetic style. See, for example, Gen. 49:14 where Issachar is denoted a "donkey"; or Gen. 49:17 where Dan is described as a "snake"; or Deut. 33:17 where Joseph is described as a "cow" etc.

The Talmud at Berakoth 58a relates how R. Shila had a Jew punished by flogging for having illicit sexual relations with a non-Jew. The person who was flogged used his influence with local imperial officials and tried to have them execute R. Shila.

These officials asked R. Shila to explain why he had ordered the flogging and he answered that the punishment had been meted out to someone who had had relations with a donkey. The exchange ended with the officials being so impressed with R. Shila that they extended R. Shila's legal powers and granted him the right to impose capital punishment.

The person who had been flogged accused R. Shila of being a liar, to which R. Shila answered by quoting Ezekiel; that is, he claimed that his statement was true on the same metaphorical level as that used by the prophet Ezekiel and therefore did not fall into the category of an outright lie. (In our own day we might find a rough parallel if a preacher were to accuse an errant member of his flock of lusting after animal flesh.)

This verse from Ezekiel is found in a few other Talmudic discussions. It is instructive to note that in Arakhin 19b the verse is applied to Jews to indicate that the density of human flesh and bone is similar to that of animal flesh and bone, and in Yevamot 98a the verse is taken to refer to a legal position which is lenient to converts to Judaism (in the sense that they are considered newborns, and not related to their former family members for purposes of legal strictures regarding marriage laws). Similarly in Berakhot 25b the Talmud specifically points out that the verse does not refer to non-Jews.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (20)
Jews are Divine Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.

RESPONSE (1)
Nowhere does it say that Jews are divine. In the opinion of one individual Rabbi, Rabbi Hanina, not the Talmud, a non-Jew who hits a Jew is worthy of death by the Hand of G-d - there is no room whatsoever for a Jew to kill him. That is what is written in Sanhedrin 58b. A Jew who hits a Jew, by comparison, is called wicked and excluded from Jewish communal life until he apologises (eg. can't be counted in a Minyan [Mininum size group of 10 men required for communal prayer.]) which is likewise a form of spiritual death. Therefore there is no discrimination.
[Edited RESPONSE.] Avraham Hampel <hampel@brachot.jct.ac.il>

RESPONSE (2)
Misquote. The text doesn't say that he must be killed but that he's worthy of death -- an idiomatic phrase referring to death by the hand of god (struck by lightning etc.). That's because by hitting a man (made in the image of God) you are marring the image of God. The same is also said of Jews who simply raise their hand against others, by the way.
Usenet message
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)

RESPONSE (3)
The correct translation is: "R. Chanina says 'an idol worshipper who strikes a Jew is liable for death, as it says .... [a proof text from Exodus 2:12] and if one strikes the jaws of a Jew it is as if he has struck the jaws of the Shechina as it says in Proverbs ... [a proof text from Proverbs 20:25 which is based on a play of words]'".

Commentators explain that the phrase 'liable for death' is not a punishment that is carried out by a human court. It may also be noted that in Jewish thought the term 'death' when referring to a 'death penalty' carried out by Heaven may include sickness or poverty, not necessarily untimely death, and in any event punishment may be mitigated by factors such as repentance. See [CLAIM 16] above where this matter is discussed with reference to another passage.

As far as hitting a Jew: Jews bear G-d's name in this world. One who strikes a Jew because of hatred toward the Jewish people is striking at those who brought G-d's word to all mankind. The term "Shechina" refers to the human perception of G-d's presence in this world, and that perception is one that is intimately related to the existence and well-being of the Jewish people.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (21)
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

RESPONSE (1)
A Jew must certainly pay a Cuthean the wages owed him for work. But because not paying is not the same as stealing, it is not actionable in a Jewish court. That is what is written in Sanhedrin 57a. Worlds apart from sanctioning robbery (and besides, one would expect the non-Jew to be able to make a claim in a non-Jewish court.)
Avraham Hampel <hampel@brachot.jct.ac.il>

RESPONSE (2)
When I searched for the word "withholding" in the Talmud, I found that the only other mention of withholding wages was in Baba Metzia 111b. In Baba Metzia 111b, it specifically applies to Amalekites --- a nation we are supposedly perpetually at war with. (In the real world, we haven't been able to identify any Amalekites in centuries.)
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger)

RESPONSE (3)
It is certainly not "OK to cheat non-Jews". In the Tosefta Baba Kama (10:8) we are taught: "It is more grievous to steal from a non-Jew than from a Jew because of the desecration of G-d's name".

In Sanhedrin 57a the Talmud discusses the Noahide laws which are binding on all non-Jews. It specifically examines the source of the prohibition against holding back wages. Such practice is forbidden to everyone - both Jew and non-Jew - but the biblical source of this prohibition is different for Jews and non-Jews.

Jews are prohibited from holding back wages by specific verses in the bible (Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:14) which impose this prohibition only on Jews. These verses specifically prohibit Jews from holding back wages from anyone, whether Jew or non-Jew (Rambam, positive commandment #200).

For non-Jews the biblical source for this prohibition is the verse generally prohibiting non-Jews from stealing.

In this passage the Talmud examines the prohibition of withholding wages with reference only to the scriptural passage prohibiting non-Jews from such behavior. The proper translation of the passage is this:

"holding back wages - a Cuthean [who does this] to a Cuthean - prohibited [by the verse prohibiting non-Jews from stealing]; a Jew to a Cuthean - permitted [by this verse, but prohibited by other verses which specifically prohibit a Jew from holding back wages].

It may be noted that there are other situations where Jews are forbidden to do something by one verse and Gentiles are forbidden the same action by a different verse.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (22)
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."

RESPONSE (1)
The next page (38a) says that the context applies to nations which do not recognize the laws of Noah in Genesis, chapter 9. In particular, Canaanites did not recognize that there should be payment in such situations. Such payments should only be made to members of goyim that do have such laws.

I suspect that the passage in question was aimed at the Romans. In this case, there is a clear difference between Judaism and the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus quite clearly said that we should treat our enemies the same way we treat our friends. When large numbers of people were convinced of this, the result was to hand more power over to Rome than before.

The Reformation reversed this a little.
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger)

RESPONSE (2)
Let's quote that part in full (Soncino edition). The quote is the Mishna, the Gemara has been *cough* "accidentally" omitted, I suspect.

"WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE HAS GORED AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE THERE IS NO LIABILITY etc. But I might here assert that you are on the horns of a dilemma. If the implication of `his neighbour' has to be insisted upon, then in the case of an ox of a Canaanite goring an ox of an Israelite, should there also not be exemption? If [on the other hand] the implication of `his neighbour' has not to be insisted upon, why then even in the case of an Israelite goring an ox of an Canaanite, should there not be liability? - R. Abbahu thereupon said: The Writ says, /He stood and measured the earth; he beheld and drove asunder the nations/, [2] God beheld the seven commandments which were accepted by all the descendents of Noah, but since they did not observe them, He rose up and declared them to be outside the protection of the civil law of Israel [with reference to damage done to cattle by cattle]. [4]"

Footnotes from the Soncino edition:

"[2] Hab. III, 6."

"[4] The exemption from the protection of the civil law of Israel thus referred only to the Canaanites and their like who had wilfully rejected the elementary and basic principles of civilised humanity."

The paragraph introduces the principle of reciprocity. People who do not obey the most basic laws of the country they live in forfeit their right to make demands based on civil law themselves (doesn't extend to criminal law).
From Usenet message
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)

RESPONSE (3)

The commentaries on the page explain that the reference is to Canaanites who do not observe the Noachide laws but act as pirates and are outside the community of civilized nations. According to their laws no one is liable for damage committed by his animals. Since they do not take the minimal steps necessary to guard their own animals from doing damage to others the sages ruled that they too should be bound by their own rules in this particular instance.

The passage of the Bible that is discussed here is Exodus 21:35. The following is a quote from the Torah Temima, a famous commentary published about a century ago: "Behold, this law referring to the exemption of payment [in this case] ..... has been used by anti-Semites to attack our ancient literature ... and this vicious claim is raised by the haters of Israel in generation after generation, and the wise men of Israel in each generation have explained that the intent of our sages was to idol worshippers of ancient times .... who are no longer found in modern times .... the Talmud here explains this matter ... [it applies to those] who do not keep the [seven Noachide commandments] but do the exact opposite, that is, they do not have a legal system, they permit murder and licentiousness, robbery ... etc. ... and all the modern nations deny the rights of such wild people and expel them from the civilized community .... and you will see that the Talmud itself makes an exception from this rule to all nations which accept the Noachide commandments which are the majority of the nations at this time [the Torah Temima commentary was written about a century ago] and their status is the same as that of Jews for these laws [and this matter is so clear and obvious that] no further discussion is necessary."

Similar sentiments were expressed by the Meiri about 700 years ago; in his commentary on this passage he pointed out that the law applied to nations who did not care if their animals damaged the property of others and did not apply to the nations of his time.

This discussion is continued below in item [CLAIM 36].
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

RESPONSE (4)

The footnote associated with this passage in the Soncino edition reads:

As Canaanites did not recognize the laws of social justice, they did not impose any liablitity for damage done by cattle. They could consequently not claim to be protected by a law they neither recognized nor respected... In ancient Israel as in the modern state the legislation regulating the protection of life and property of the stranger was... on the basis of reciprocity. Where such reciprocity was not recognized, the stranger could not claim to enjoy the same protection of the law as the citizen. <Baba Kamma, p. 211, Footnote 6.>
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (23)
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).

RESPONSE (1)
Found objects do not have to be returned when they are lost under circumstances that make the owner impossible to identify. This also applies to objects lost by Jews in crowded areas --- as you would know had you actually read the passage in question instead of pasting it in from a National Socialist web site.
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger)

RESPONSE (2)
Jews may not steal from non-Jews. In the Tosefta Baba Kama (10:8) we are taught: "It is more grievous to steal from a non-Jew than from a Jew because of the desecration of G-d's name".

The passage at Baba Mezia 24a deals with a specific religious commandment requiring Jews to collect lost items, such as stray animals, care for them, declare them to be lost, and hold them until the loser comes to identify and claim them. This rule is not universal; there are times when the loser is deemed to have renounced his ownership of the lost property and then the rule is 'finders-keepers'.

Jewish law requires Jews to be bound by the 'law of the land' in civil and commercial matters. Where the law of the land requires the return of lost objects, Jews are bound by that law as are all residents of that land. However, in pagan cities the general rule was 'finders-keepers' and the question discussed by this Talmudic passage is whether in towns with a majority pagan population (where the general rule is 'finders-keepers') Jews are required to return lost objects to Jews, and the answer is negative.

The statement made in Baba Mezia 24a is the following: "Come and listen [these words introduce a statement which will be analyzed in detail] if he finds a lost article in a place where the majority are Israelites, he must announce [that he found a lost article and return it to its owner]; if the majority are Canaanites [and the general rule is finders-keepers], he need not announce [that he found a lost article or return it to its previous owner]".

This discussion is amplified in Baba Kama 113b where the discussion concludes that even if there is no general religious obligation to return lost objects to heathens in cases where 'finders-keepers' is the law, nevertheless it is required in cases where failure to return lost objects might lead to a profanation of G-d's name.

To end this discussion, note that the Meiri (about 700 years ago), a famous Talmud commentator, wrote as follows in his comments on Baba Kama 113b:

"We find that it is forbidden to steal even from idol worshippers and those who do not have any kind of legal system ..... but one is not required to expend efforts to find and return their lost articles, and in fact one who simply finds their lost articles is not required to return them .... since return of lost articles is an act of extraordinary kindness [in places where 'finders-keepers' is the rule] and we are not required to show this extraordinary kindness to those who live without laws, but in any event ... in the case of a lost article it should be returned if there is any chance of desecration of G-d's name by failing to do so .... but for all those who have any kind of legal and religious system at all of any type even though their faith is far from our own, they are not [referred to] in these laws, rather they are in all respects as Jews for these matters, both as to lost articles, or to mistakes and to all the other matters without exception."
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (24)
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..."

RESPONSE (1)
Returning a lost article to a member of enemy nation is not such a great idea.
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger)

RESPONSE (2)
The correct quote is "[one] who marries his [young] daughter to an old man or who marries an [older woman] to his young son and one who returns a lost object to a Cuthean ['idol worshipper' in the text of the Ein Yaakov]; of such a person Scripture speaks (Deut. 28:18): 'thereby adding the watered upon the thirsty'".

The first two cases discussed in this agadic statement refer to a father's obligation to find a spouse for his child whose age is suitable to that of the child. The third statement refers to the prohibition against returning lost articles to pagans who earn their living by oppressing others in lands where 'finders-keepers' is the general rule. Note that even in this case there are times when lost articles are returned to such people [see discussion under point [CLAIM 23] above]. The term 'thereby adding the watered upon the thirsty' has been interpreted to mean increasing the amount of idol-worshipping in the world, for an idol worshipper who lives in a society where the rule is 'finders-keepers' will offer a special thank sacrifice to his idols if a lost object is returned to him.

See the discussion under item [CLAIM 23] above for a more detailed review of this entire subject.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)