I am making a new thread on this subject because I feel it needs to be addressed.

KoFE wrote:

Hi Lars, your joke the other day caused me to wonder; since you referred to the Rabbi as having a long history and ultimate authority, which set of instructions is this particular Rabbi following; the Torah, which is a forerunner of the "old testament", which includes the ten commandments, or the Talmud, which includes instructions on the proper age (3, and youmger) to have sex with children, and the total domination of the goyim? ***********

KoFE

First of all, this dis-information on the Talmud is an example of repugnant ignorance.

Second, the word, "Goyim," means "nations" in Hebrew and "non-Jews" in Yiddish. Where you get your reference for total domination of the goyim is questionable.

Third, the words, "When a grown man has intercourse with a girl less than three years and a day, it is nothing" actually do appear in the Talmud.

There are a couple of critical pieces of information that must be added. The phrase "it is nothing" is the literal translation of an idiom that means "it has no bearing on the case under discussion." It doesnt mean "it is morally acceptable." The case being discussed is the property rights of a bride. A virgin has greater entitlement than a non-virgin. The actual question was: if a girl is raped when she is less than three years old, for the purpose of fixing her property rights at marriage, is she still considered a virgin or not? The law is that she is entitled to the property rights of a virgin. "It is nothing," as used here, means that it has no effect on her rights.

"Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed," is a statement in a commentary by Shimon bar-Yochai. This statement contradicts other statements in the Talmud. It is not supported anywhere else in the document. He was talking specifically about the Romans against whom he was leading a revolt. Perhaps a little research on your part about his life and what was going on at the time would be beneficial.

Remember, the Talmud is a compilation of Jewish Oral Law, with rabbinical commentaries. In order to understand what is being said you must have knowledge of the culture at that time in history, and a knowledge of the common usage of the language in which the text is written. The Talmud is comprised of Mishna, the text of the Oral Law, and the Gemara, a commentary on the Mishna, which it supplements. The Gemara developed out of the interpretations of the Mishna by the Amoraim (Jewish scholars of A.D. c.200-c.500), whose detailed arguments made the work a comprehensive body of information and comment.

Please do not espouse, quote or repeat out-of-context material that is used by anti-Semitics for the purpose of bolstering hate.

I am not, nor do I pretend to be a Talmudic Scholar. I am not Jewish. However, I do resent and abhor anti-Semitism in any form.

-- Casey DeFranco (caseydefranco@mindspring.com), July 04, 2000

Answers

My girlfriends say,"don't throw good stuff at pigs."

I have very good freinds.

-- // // (I am sorry but@giveup.com), July 04, 2000.

I wasn't trying to bolster hate. Sorry you took it that way. But thanks for giving the subject a fair hearing.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 04, 2000.

And talking about a religious document doesn't amount to "anti-semitism", at least in my veiw. As I stated from the beginning, I expected knee jerk reactions, and you didn't disappoint.

My reason for starting the first post, was a reference made to an "ultimate authority".

And after looking everyone over, I have to say that what I see are people that are all equal and the same, it could be that I'm the only "anti- rascist".

-- KoFE (Your@town.USA), July 04, 2000.

TOO bad,the jews rejected the MESSIAH!but it brought the gospel-to-us- gentiles.THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), July 04, 2000.

KoFE,

This has nothing to do with knee jerk reactions. You posted quotes that you say you "saw in a film"? How did you happen to remember exact quotes that you saw in a film? It seems you are being a bit too coy about this. You had to get those quotes from an anti-Semetic web site - it's the only place they ever show up. At least be honest about your sources and don't bullshit us about how you were just posting an innocent question.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), July 04, 2000.

I told the truth. I don't have a reason to lie. Furthermore, there is more to De Francos' info. than he knows, but this obviously is not the place to get a fair hearing. I think that no matter what the the information showed, you couldn't deal with it.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 05, 2000.

KoFE,

I've witheld judgement about your motivations until now. You refuse to give the actual source of your quotes except to say they came from a film, an obvious lie. Your other comments have shown that you believe that this type of anti-Semtic crap has some basis in fact. At this point, it's clear to me that you are both an anti-Semite and a liar and no longer worth the effort to debate.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), July 05, 2000.

KoFE,

You say, I asked a question, and then I asked a second question. No one here has said these quotes don't exist, so I take it that so far,no one here knows if they do or not. I have seen evidence that they do, but I am not claiming that it is true. Personally, I would like to know, and put it to rest, once and for all.

KoFE, I did exactly that. I answered your questions. I fear it is you who cant deal with the information.

I must agree with Mr. Cooke, you appear to ask innocent questions in honest pursuit of answers, but in reality you are merely parroting trash youve read or heard without doing even the slightest research. Apparently this anti-Semitic trash appeals to you. Considering this, you have been given a more than fair hearing and are no longer worth the time reading or answering.

-- Casey DeFranco (caseydefranco@mindspring.com), July 05, 2000.

I've been dismissed! Whoa and shame!

The weird thing is that neither one of you assholes has a stake in the outcome. You're really some brainwashed idiots. If I had implied some kind of critisism of Jehovahs Witnesses, you jerks would probably chime right in.

Remember, you did exactly like I said you would.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 05, 2000.

Casey, Jim,

You both made convincing arguments against a person that was just asking a question... just one Q?... if girl is raped after she is 5 years old, will she still have her "property rights"? According to the Talmud.

I know that you are both Talmudic Scholars, so I await your response... or you might just give a guy a break, and stop the senseless Bigotry that infuses this forum.

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), July 05, 2000.

Netghost, as I said at the beginning of this thread, I am not a Talmudic Scholar nor do I claim to be one. However, for your infomation, I will pass on comments and sources from Talmudic experts.

1. A couple of paragraphs from "The Essential Talmud", Adin Steinsalz, 1976, Bantam, ISBN 0-465-02060-7 - by way of explaining the process of Rabinical commentary. An understanding of this cultual and ancient process is vital.

Chapter 29 Strange and Bizarre Problems ACQUAINTANCE with the basic talmudic methods furthers our comprehension of an ostensibly odd phenomenon - the bizarre and outlandish issues sometimes debated therein. The problems that are clarified with great thoroughness and seriousness are largely of practical and prosaic interest, and in some cases their solution has practical implications. But the Talmud also relates to questions that are extremely unlikely to arise in everyday life and to some that may not be totally unrealistic but appear absurd because details of infinitesimal importance are discussed with a gravity out of all proportion to their significance.

Those cognizant of the Talmud's patterns of thinking are aware that hypothetical elucidation of an elemental problem can never be regarded as insignificant. Some questions may be insoluble within the talmudic text, but in seeking an answer the scholar presents a certain case, a model, with whose aid he tries to clarify the nature of the problem. There is yet another argument in favor of these discussions. Since the Talmud in general is not primarily concerned with practical application, almost all problems are granted equal weight. It is not the urgent need of a solution that counts, but the intrinsic interest of the issue. Thus the claim that a problem is unrealistic would bear little weight in rabbinical circles. We sometimes find constructions so dense and convoluted that it is almost impossible to envisage their implementation. But what of it? "It is Torah and therefore deserves to be studied."

2. Specifics pertaining to KoFEs issues. This is from David S. Maddisons site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/index.html (Im sorry, I dont know how to make a proper link)

Response to anti-Semites' posting of Talmud "Quotes" and other anti-Semitic fabrications and distortions

(snip) CLAIM (45) Sanhedrin 55b . A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

RESPONSE (1) Child betrothals were a common practice throughout the world - including the Christian world - before modern times. It didn't mean the "husband" had sex with the child. buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2) It is the manner of the Talmud to examine extreme theoretical cases in order to precisely define and delineate legal concepts. Such study is mandated because the laws are part of the Written and Oral Torah, not necessarily because they have practical application.

There are different legal consequences arising from an act of intercourse (related to personal status, punishment for rape, property rights etc.) and the Talmud investigates whether such an act committed on a baby girl has the status of intercourse or not. There is an ancient tradition that states that if the girl is older than the age of three then an act of intercourse was committed; before that age, such an act does not have the status of sexual intercourse for legal purposes (it may be an act of assault, of course).

The passage in question states as follows: "A girl of three years and a day is [capable of being] married by an act of intercourse ..." and the Talmud continues to list further legal consequences of an act of intercourse (laws of personal status, property etc.).

The reference to marriage refers to a case in which the father of the girl delivers his daughter to a man with the intention that he create a marriage bond with his daughter by having relations with her. From a legal point of view this procedure creates a marriage with all the legal consequences that flow therefrom. This is a legal conclusion which has nothing to do with rabbinic endorsement of such practices or with the number of such occurrences in history.

In fact the rabbis strongly opposed formation of the marriage bond by intercourse (at any age) and punished those who acted in such manner (Kidushin 12b). They further taught that the father's right to marry off his daughter was to be used for her benefit. The age and manner of marriage is to a large extent a societal variable but at Kidushin 41a the rabbis taught: "It is forbidden for a man to betroth his daughter while she is young [but rather he should wait] till she has grown and says 'This is the one I want [to marry]" and this teaching is repeated elsewhere in the Talmud. Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (46) Sanhedrin 54b . A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

RESPONSE (1) False. It doesn't say that.

Leviticus says that if a man lies with another man, both must be killed. What Sanhedrin 54b says is that if one of the participants is under nine years old, he is not considered a "man" - and so it is not required that the child be put to death.

Really terrible, huh? Sparing the life of a victim of child abuse like that? buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2) The discussion here revolves around the age at which a male child is capable of having relations that have the full legal ramifications and penalties of intercourse. The entire discussion is related to an analysis of the penalty for such action (which could be a capital offense), and the passage states: "intercourse with a child of nine and a day is not the same as that with a child of nine". As mentioned, this statement is made in the context of the nature of the penalty to be applied, and whether it is of a capital nature or not. See also the remarks in item [CLAIM 45]. Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (47) Kethuboth 11b . "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

RESPONSE (1) Grossly out of context. The question is whether in such a case the girl can be considered a "virgin" later, when she comes to marry. The answer is, yes, as far as she's concerned what happened wasn't sex, it was just like getting poked with an inanimate object.

Really terrible, huh? Allowing a victim of child abuse to get on with her life, and be treated as if she were innocent? buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2) The statement is that "when a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is as nothing [in terms of creating a marriage bond with the consequent legal ramifications] since for girls less [than three years old] it is as if he put his finger into her eye ...". In other words the act may be an act of assault but it does not create a legal binding marriage unless the child is over the age of three. See the discussion under item [CLAIM 45] for more details. Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

I have included the above for educational usage.

I will not give ...a guy a break on this issue when, if youve followed the threads prior to this one, it is clear he is not looking to find the answer, but merely looking for something else. You identity it.

-- Casey DeFranco (caseydefranco@mindspring.com), July 06, 2000.