Talk:Talmud/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Posting of shocking quotes considered trolling

Several users have started posting quotes that come accross to the average reader as shocking. Some are fabrications, some are quotes out of context, some are quoted with complete disregard of the interpretations given by representative Jewish commentators, and finally a couple of them are true. The ones that are true sound rough by 20th century standards, but this ignores completely the extremely similar terminology in other works from the epoch. I mentioned above John Chrysostom's anti-Jewish diatribes. If Zadil is so shocked about the Maimonidean quote about rape victims (which has not been practiced for 2000 years), why disregard the fact that until this was forbidden, women in India were cremated alive together with their deceased husbands?

All this quoting of shocking stuff is "poisoning the well" (no pun intended with regards to the Medieval anti-Semitic witchhunts). Several editors have commented that the article already states quite clearly that some material in the Talmud comes accross as racist by 21st century standards. Hurray. Please refrain from posting poor translations of similar passages, and suggest why the present article is not adequate from your point-of-view.

I would go as far as stating that further posting of specific quotes is simple trolling. The choice is yours. JFW | T@lk 22:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Zadil's "rape victims" quote was a pretty pathetic deception (For a take not found in the main discussion [linked to below by Zadil], see here [a list of inaccuracies in Zadil's "quote", which, even if it would have been accurate, would actually have been a paraphrase]. The original material inserted by Zadil is found here). And this is indeed trolling. HKT 23:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The sound of the grinding of axes is getting on my nerves. JFW | T@lk 23:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can take a look [the main discussion] and judge for himself, and sorry for misspelling 'needles'...Zadil 23:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me quote HKT from here refering to my (i.e. Zadil) edits:

"I took a look at the edits to Halakha, which, as expected, are made to appear well-sourced and neutral (as their author explicitly claims on his talk page). It looks like this is probably one of those guys who has been in yeshiva for a little while and decided that (a.) he's an expert scholar of Judaism, and that (b.) religion is immoral. To quickly summarize the mistakes in one short part of the edits:

• The Rambam was talking about a consensual relationship, not rape (zadon is referring to the woman). In fact, the Maggid Mishneh demonstrates that the Rambam's ruling doesn't apply in case of rape.
• This law is not targeting three-year-olds. This is talking about any female (whether adult or adolescent) who can demonstrably be determined to have willingly had relations with the male, provided that (by the way) the female was no younger than 3 and the male no younger than 9. The age of the girl is practically irrelevant here, anyway, given that a consensual relationship wouldn't apply to such a young girl. "Three years and one day," an unrelated standard, is frequently mentioned by the Rambam in many places.
• Takalah doesn't mean "shame" (it means something closer to downfall, as in his spiritual downfall in having sinned).
• The Rambam doesn't say that she would have "brought" anything on anyone, as Zadil claims. Rather, the Rambam writes that something would have occurred through her involvement.
• "Yisrael" here ref to the individual Yisrael (i.e. Jew) involved, not "the Jewish People."
• He implies that the Rambam rules that a non-Jewish man would be liable for death for raping a minor Jewish girl. That is false, as the Rambam states explicitly.
• "Needles (sic) to say" is not exactly the most neutral intro possible to hideous slander.

I believe that is seven significant problems in two sentences. There's no place like Wikipedia." (end quote).

And now please let me respond, but I will start by quoting yet again Maimonides, but this time using Moznaim's Translation:

• "If, however, an Israelite has intercourse with a heathen woman, whether she is a minor three ears and one day old or a adult, whether she is married or unmarried, even if the Israelite is only nine years and a day old, once he willfully has intercourse with her, she is liable to be put to death, because an offense has been committed by an Israelite through her, just as in the case of an animal (i.e.that a Jew coupling with an animal, the animal is put to death). This law is explicitly stated in the Torah, etc." (The Book Of Holiness, page 83)

Just for the sake of clarity: I do not necessarily accept the complete validity of this translation, nor (owing to Zadil's lack of credibility) do I accept even the assertion that this translation is faithfully reproduced from Moznaim. My comments below merely indicate that this translation does not contain some of the same errors found in Zadil's article edit (that I had addressed). In any event, it is interesting to note that Zadil indeed translates "b'zadon" here as "willfully", contrary to his later claims. Eh - might as well post the original problem edit for all to see:

"A Jew who rapes a gentile 3-year-old girl, the girl is put to death, because she "brought" shame on the Jewish people, like a case a Jew coupling with an animal, the animal is to be executed, but the Jew is not punish to death. (Maimonides, chapter 12 of The Laws of Forbidden Relationships, halacha 8-9). Needles to say, that in case the girl would be Jewish, the Halacha would be the reverse."

Methinks this looks a bit different than the alleged Moznaim version. HKT 00:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, doesn't Moznaim's translation refer to the JEW? Anyway, either "mazid" or "willfully" are well-defined Halachaic concepts, they have nothing to do with your speculation, and both mean the exact same meaning which they have as their EVERY OTHER SINGLE occurrence in the Talmud. (Rambam's source is again from the animal comparison, that in case a Jew is coupling with an animal b'shgeg, (the antonym of mazid), the animal is not than to be executed. (Maimonides, Forbidden Intercourse 1:18)[1]. zadil 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And now, please pay attention to my following comments:

1) The word Zadon by all means refers to the Jew, please read again here, actually, you can check out the translation above.

Zadon is apparently understood by the Maggid Mishneh as referring to the woman. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam refers to a case of "niv'alah b'meizid (which shares the same root as zadon)," roughly translated as "her having willingly participated in intercourse." This explains the Rambam's cited basis (the verse about the Midianite women) for the law. Clarifying that the man acted with zadon seems a bit unnecessary, as the Talmud (as well as the Rambam) considers any intercourse to be intentional on the part of the male. This wouldn't really fit with the Rambam's style. I cannot speak for mechon-mamre's interpretation, but, even granting their interpretation, the Maggid Mishneh's reasoning (indicating that the woman must participate willingly) stands. HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you're confusing between zadon vs. shegaga (i.e. intentional vs. unintentional (transgression)) and ones vs. razon (i.e. rape vs. consensual (intercourse)). Maimonides has even devoted a hole section, 15 chapters long! to clarify the laws of unintentional transgressions, one case there, is a Jew having willingful relationship with a woman but somehow was mistaken about her identity as a classic example for an unintentional transgression. Again Zadon has nothing to do with willingness, and it's a completely different concept. .Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Zadon can also refer to willingness. Zadon's use here is apparently not preempting a case of mistaken identity, because the Rambam already wrote earlier in the chapter that such an act would not be biblically prohibited. As such, there would apparently be no legal distinction here between a sh'gagah and a zadon. In any event, this has no bearing on the Maggid Mishneh's reasoning, which is based on the Rambam's source (not his wording). HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's rather absurd, to come up with your own definition to well-defind Talmudic concepts. May I clarify the distinction by another quote:

• "If a man cohabited with his deceased brother’s wife, whether in error or in presumption, whether under compulsion or of his own free will, even if he acted in error and she is presumption, or he in presumption and she in error, or he under compulsion and she not under complustion, or she under compulsion and he not under compulsion..." (Yebamoth 53b) Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This anecdotal evidence doesn't preclude other uses of the term. HKT 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "Google" provides us with a very useful list of every single occurrence of the word b'mazid in the Talmud or Mishneh Torah, I would suggest it as a comprehensive source to verify your theory. Enjoy the investigation. Zadil 18:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a sprinkling of examples where zadon is not understood as contrasting with sh'gagah - one from the Talmud and one from Maimonides: Sanhedrin 89a; Mishneh Torah, Ahavah, Nusach Birchot Ha'T'fillah v'Siduran. Here's another from the Aramaic Targum Onkelos: D'varim 29:17. HKT 22:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a matter of dishonesty, because Maimonides put there very CLEARLY mazid as the ANTONYM of shogeg (as always). As for the rest, you seem to mix between the use of the word zadon as a noun or adjective, to its use as a strictly well-defined halachaic concept as an adverb. I wonder why I have to stress it again? zadil 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

2) The Magid Misheneh demonstration you discussed above is totally imaginative, and may I say I'm very disturbed with such dishonesty, I hope you apologize.

Really? That's quite a brash assertion, given that the Maggid Mishneh is quite explicit and lucid. HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I expect you to apologise. You still haven't provided any "demonstration" whatsoever. And again, if the Magid Mishneh happened to mention the word zadon, it was Maimonides first to mention that, and again, zadon has nothing to do with willingness, and clearly both are reffering to the Jew (as if there was any difference). Except for this single word, I'm not sure what the Magid Mishneh has to do with our discussion. .Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Maggid Mishneh did not use the word zadon, but a variant of it (as I explained above). The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's source for the law indicates that the Rambam is referring to a consensual relationship. By the way, "niv'alah b'meizid" obviously doesn't serve to exclude a case of mistaken identity. HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't get excited for his use of the rather word mazid, actually, it is a far more defined concept, extremely common in the Talmud, SERVING ALL AS THE ANTONYM TO SHOGEG (you can look again in the Mishnah I quoted above). For the Rambam's source, it was the killing of all Midianites "who were fit for carnal relations", i.e. Three years old (and a day, if you insist) at least. Surely, that could not have been Maimonides' inspiration, as for your interpreted zadon. And may I add that "niv'alah b'meizid" is far more naturally translated as "niv'alah (by the Jew) b'meizid" than any indication about her own free will. Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course "niv'alah" is a passive word, but the Maggid Mishneh would have written "bo'al b'meizid" if he was referring to the man. The Maggid Mishneh only uses a passive term because that it the proper description of her act, which is passive. HKT 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Bo'al is not a word yet in Hebrew, but seriously, he discusses rather HER punishment by asserting that SHE was "nivalah (by the Jew) b'meizid", a fact - Maimonides himself - is very clear about. Had he agreed to punish the real criminal, he would hopefully have discussed him too. Zadil 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You continue to couch your egregious lies behind a veil of confidence. Bo'al (where the "o" is pronounced as "ä" as the "o" in "cottage" or "online") is the male past-tense active verb form, and it always has been. This verb form exists abundantly in all Hebrew writings from every era including the Bible, Talmud, modern and historical rabbinic works, and modern Hebrew literature. Again, see my above comments. Sheesh. HKT 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You meant ba'al? OK. Now, how is that related here? zadil 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

3) Maimonides never uses "unrelated standards", the all purpose of mishneh torah is about being concise and exact, particularly when such a "standard" has no existence whatsoever in his work. If this age is ever mentioned anywhere in the book, it is because it was the very exact age relevant to that law.

This is a straw man. The "three-year-old" standard establishes whether the act is legally considered intercourse at all, which is an unrelated standard to determination of consent. Both standards have relevance to this law, but they are unrelated to each other. Inclusion of multiple relevant standards is typical in Mishneh Torah. HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Typical?! One example? .Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Here's a random pick out of the hundreds of examples of inclusion of multiple criteria: De'ot 6:1. HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What?! Somehow, you've managed to get from "unrelated standard" to "multiple criteria". make sure you don't end up with "multiple confusion"... Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Here's another random pick out of hundreds of examples of inclusion of unrelated multiple relevant criteria: Z'manim, Sukkah 4:1. Bye. HKT 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually z'manim includes 10! different sections. I would appreciate if you could be more specific. Zadil 18:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I updated the citation above. HKT 19:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated?! How could it be so, when any tiny violation of each one of those exact and strict conditions actually renders the sukkah invalid? Zadil 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"How in the world could this be a shoe, when its shoelace is exactly sunshine-yellow?!," would an equally illogical question. The addressed disqualifications for a sukkah are not dependant on each other; they are unrelated. Just so, whether an act is considered intercourse or whether intercourse was done willingly are two completely unrelated, relevant criteria. "How could it be so, when any tiny violation of each one of those exact and strict conditions actually renders" a woman not culpable for intercourse? Such a question, just as yours above, would exhibit a blatant non-sequiter.

Additionally, please cut it out with your annoying abundant pyrotechnic use of "?!", capitalization, bolding, and unnecessary emphatic italicizing as replacements for valid, substantial arguments. You shouldn't expect these distractions to work on intelligent readers. Then again, such readers apparently do not constitute your target audience. HKT 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Maimonides, never ever used a "standard" which is actually "unrelated" and accurate to that law. Actually, no other book in Jewish literature exists which is more accurate and exact than his masterpiece. And may I say, that the yellow-shoelace is also in some way unrelated to our discussion, isn't it? zadil 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

4) The context of three year old, and the clear comparison to an animal (-which is not about punishment of the animal, but about "cause of the offense" or a source for shame) makes it very clear - and in fact the "Kli Hemdah" (part 5, page 170) even find that "beyond any doubt" - that the law equally applies in the case of rape.

The comparison to an animal is from a technical legal standpoint with regards to this particular law. It is obviously not a philosophical comparison. And "shame" is a mistranslation, as mentioned above. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the "Kli Hemda", so I have no basis for disputation of your citation other than that of my own experience in dealing with your misrepresentations. HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I challenge each of you to look up the "Kli Hemdah" (page 170) in your library. And the comparison to the animal is otherwise understood by any single rabbi I've referred to. (check for example the Minhat Khinukh, Mitzvah 35 for a very deep analysis, sure you'll enjoy it). Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Minchat Chinuch is indeed a source I would be interested in seeing, but, again, I don't currently have access to it. It doesn't keep me up at night, though, as I've learned not to rely on the accuracy of your citations. HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's all about free thought, certainly, I encourage every one to enjoy the reading of such a holy book. It could be helpful if someone will take the trouble to check it up and come back with a report. Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I went to research this Minchat Chinuch that you cite. After reading through the approximately 1,500 word analysis of the prohibition against adultery, all I found was one passing reference to a Rashi that indicates that a non-Jew's maidservant is compared (in one specific regard) to other types of his property (such as animals) from a technical legal standpoint. Do you claim that this somehow indicates that Maimonides' comparison in 12:10 was meant to show that non-Jews are no better than animals? That would be extremely convoluted, to say the least. Were you referring to another part of this Minchat Chinuch? Please let me know if I missed something. (Also, just in case I ever chance upon a copy of Rabbi Plotzky's Kli Chemdah, please let me know in which edition I should expect to find the indicated material on "page 170".) HKT 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, follow my references. In the old edition, page 52b (or 110), the second column at EXACTLY 28 lines from above. In the new edition, page 191, the second column at exactly 31 lines from above. The Kli Hemdah is at the common edition (no offense), part 5 page 170. The exact line - I suppose - you will find yourself at once. don't you? zadil 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

5) Some of your arguments, are in my view irrelevant, and whether you find a particular word as more suited as a literal translation is a matter of personal taste, and for that reason I quoted above an official translation by Moznaim. (I urge everyone to look it up in your library, be sure to look in page 83 of the book of Holiness).

Interestingly, your new translation from Moznaim doesn't contain the translation errors that I had mentioned. I fail to see how you call your choice of translation "a matter of personal taste", when it is actually inaccurate. Translating delet as "pencil", for example, would not be "a matter of personal taste." HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that finally we can agree at least to the quality of the above translation. Now we are free to discuss quality matter. .Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

...though I find the ubiquitous appearance of the term "heathen" to be a bit strange. I wish I had a Moznaim translation available, to find out if this, too, is an unfaithful rendering of your cited source. HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not trying to be helpful, some may find this comment as inappropriate. Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"...some may find..." Who is "some"? Weasel words are not constructive, and I am hard pressed to comprehend why doubting your credibility is "inappropriate". HKT 23:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you still need a hint... zadil 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

6) In case a Jewish girl is married or even just engaged, the Gentile who rapes her is put to death, but in case a Jew rapes a married Gentile, the Jew is not, whereas the poor Gentile is again put to death. Isn't the law here the reverse of one another, and if not, why?

You had added "...in case the girl would be Jewish, the Halacha would be the reverse." This implies that a non-Jew would always be liable for capital punishment for cohabiting with a Jewish girl. This implication is patently false, as a non-Jew would only be liable in the case of an adulterous relationship (as you now admit). HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, doesn't the very Maimonides we discuss, mention the case that the gentile is married. And again, isn't the law reverse in that case. and more so, isn't the law regarding the "punishment" of the girl always reverse regarding Jew vs. Gentile? .Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This backpedaling doesn't justify your earlier distortion. See my first response to your #6. HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Any relevant argument? Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to appreciate that Wikipedia talk pages are not meant to be vehicles for violating WP:NOR by personally assessing Maimonides' motivations. My responses on this part of the thread merely constitute a defense of my sixth objection that you reproduced above. Your diversions are irrelevant, so I might as well turn the question on you: "Any relevant argument?" HKT 23:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job! Now, can we go back to the subject? zadil 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

7) I thank you for your attention, have a very nice day.Zadil 13:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, this ends my participation in this dialogue, as per WP:DFTT. (Apologies for ruining your clever numbering system). HKT 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In case you found it clever, let's restore it. I hope you don't mind.Zadil 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. I must now bow out of this discussion (as I wish I had chosen to before). HKT 09:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Zadil 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I suppose that it is much to your chagrin that I've addressed your deceptions again. HKT 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, give it another try. I wish you luck! zadil 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I posteded quotes and they were taken down. This is censorship. These are quotes which are in fact in the talmud. If some quotes are not authentic notify me and we can take them down but you cant just take down legitimate information. The anti Jewish quotes are posted on the Christian page why should this page be any different? Jerry Jones 09:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Jerry, your quotes are mistranslations and distortions (as shown below). The whole idea that Bilam is a veiled reference to Jesus is utter conjencture not supported by Jewish scholars at al. You have not made that qualification in your posting.

Your additions completely fit the "trolling" bill above and I will treat them as such. Please participate in a serious discussion here, or realise you'll be acting against consensus.

I'm actually against direct antisemitic quotes on the Christianity page as well. It suffices to bring a serious source that documents these quotes and has made a neutral analysis of them.

Your accusation of censorship has been discussed below. JFW | T@lk 10:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What better source is the talmud itself? I posted the passage numbers whats the big deal? If they are wrong show they are wrong in the article to clear up the controversy because they have been added by a million different people. We would all be better served if it was explained that they were wrong in the article. Jerry Jones 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What better source? I can think of several good reasons why you are mistaken. The purpose of this article is not to prove or disprove the content of the Talmud but to explain what it is. What you are doing is reproducing primary sources (in a very poor translation copied straight from an anti website). The source you need is a scholary and somewhat more neutral list of Talmudic statements on Christianity. These are numerous, and this is potentially interesting given that there are very few reliable sources on the early origins of Christianity. The Talmud is certainly regarded as a source of information by scholars in this area. One should bear in mind that much of the relevant material has been censored over the centuries ("real" censorship, not the censorship you accuse people of on this talkpage). Strangely, even totally unrelated material has been censored, including that about Bilam, even though it is certain that the Talmud refers to the Old Testamental Bilam here. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just Looking for Answers

I really didn't intend to strike up an agrument. I only want to know the truth. As I stated before, "Is there a real book source I can get this infomration from?" I'd like to find the proof myself without having all the back and forth rhetoric. Zadil is the only one who provided me a book where I can do research. Is there any other person who has a suggestion? Even if you dispute what Zadil says you can still provide me with a book where I can research instead of just quotes or websites.--Gnosis 03:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may quote [Zadil] above: -"If I may interrupt, I you chose to examine things for yourself, why not pick up the "The Schottenstein Edition" which has a very easy and clear commentary on every word of the Talmud, apart from being a good translation? (it is easy to find in each Jewish center of any sort, or any major library) what about today? open up these holy books, enjoy their reading, and be sure to come back to share with us any findings. Good luck!. Zadil"-

However, the Schottenstein Talmud is rather expensive. Perhaps you could ask the owner of a jewish bookstore if you could check it without paying. I think in Gemara it has some links for english translations but I'm not sure if those are books or online files. Also worth noting is that Schottenstein uses more than one english translation per amud, and sometimes separates the volumes into, for instance, Berachos * for the first four perakim, then Berachos ** for 5-7. Epl18 08:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Schottenstein is a good resource; I had already echoed Zadil suggestion above. However, Epl18 is correct that each volume is expensive. And there are several dozen volumes.

Keep in mind that if you only research lines and sections of the Talmud that are cited by anti-Talmud websites, you may only be partially relieved by what you find. This is because the style of the Talmud may belie its intended meaning in some places. Commentaries frequently don’t address material that someone familiar with the Talmud's style would not find problematic, though this material might seem shocking to those unfamiliar with Talmudic style. In order to get a better perspective on Talmudic style, use of metaphor, use of hyperbole, etc, you ought to go through at least several chapters of the Talmud with commentary. Also, you’d probably benefit most from studying chapters primarily dealing with less obscure material and containing a good mix of legal and non-legal material. Most questions that you have could probably be resolved by someone with a comprehensive knowledge of Talmud. As such, if you have any questions, you should get in contact with a knowledgeable Orthodox rabbi and decide for yourself if you are satisfied with his responses. HKT 11:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Gnosis, if you are looking for real answers I would strongly recommend Gil Student's analysis on this site. This is not apologetics or heaven-knows-what, it addresses specifically the quotes that you have found so problematic.

May I remind you again that this is not a blog or forum. This page is to improve the quality of the Wikipedia article Talmud. If you are looking for answers, I would strongly recommend you do so elsewhere. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! This is the wikipedia...it is only the wikipedia...if you are looking for answers, you are strongly advised to look elsewhere :)

added anti Christian quotes section

I am strongly against censorship and it would be censorship to not include them. The anti Semetic quotes in the bible are included on the Christian and Quran pages and it shouldn't be any different for this page. The reader should be able to read the quotes in question and decide for themselves. It is verifiable factual information that needs to be included and the standard should be applied for all pages. The Talmud shouldnt be given special treatment. You all can be free to add to the pages and explains the quotes if you want but they should be left in the page. Jerry Jones 09:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To begin with those are false quotes; you need to find reliable sources for all quotes, as well as for your original thesis that claims they are all "anti-Christian". Jayjg ^(talk) 10:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments come across as dishonesty, because Soncino Translation absolutely confirms each quote above, and it's definitely considered a reliable source. You may be interested in the following references:

• "For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: "The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written (Ezekiel 34:31): "And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men" - only ye are designated 'men' ." (Baba Mezia 114b)

• "...But R. Aha, the son of R. Ika answered; It applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted." (Sanhedrin 57a)

• "Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were supposed to be a hundred while he similarly left him minus one zuz and said to him: See that I am relying upon you.” (Baba Kama 113b)

• "...R Abbahu thereupon said: The Writ says (Habakkuk, 3:6), "He stood and measured the earth; he beheld and drove asunder the nations", [which may be taken to imply that] God beheld the Seven Commandments which were accepted by all the descendants 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]. R. Johanan even said that the same could be inferred from this [verse] (Deuteronomy 33:2) "He shined forth from Mount Paran", [implying that] from Paran He exposed their money to Israel." (Baba Kamma 38a)

• "...as a Master has said: "Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives", for R. Johanan said: "When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her". [Objection:] If that be so [the same should apply] also to Israel! [answer:] When Israel stood at Sinai that lust was eliminated, but the lust of idolaters, who did not stand at Sinai, did not cease". (Abodah Zarah 22b).Zadil 22:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, you apparently haven't read the list provided by Jerry Jones/JJstroker, which did not match your own quotations. I also note that Soncino is considered a poor translation for a number of reasons, including obscurity of language, over-literalism, and lack of context - more modern translations are superior. In addition, please stop linking to anti-semitic copyright violating websites. More importantly, stringing a bunch of quotations together from primary sources in order to promote a novel thesis (e.g. "The Talmud is anti-Christian") is the epitome original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. It is that thesis that you and Jerry must find a reliable source for, not simply the quotations. And finally, please remember to observe Wikipedia's civility policy, it's one of our most important. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read here and anti-talmud has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Zadil 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is about 0.5" removed from protection. Direct quotes without context have been discussed above - they are utterly unsuitable. Jerry must be aware of the inflammatory nature of his posting, and thankfully it was removed (twice).

Claims of "censorship" usually come from those who misunderstand both Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:V) and guidelines (WP:RS) and the nature of censorship. Jayjg is correct that the quotes are false. The term niddah for example does not mean "vile" or "abhorrent" - it means "obstructed" (as per Hirsch, a noted etymologist of the Hebrew language) in a biological and legal context (compare the similar stem nadad, which is "closed" as in "a closed door"). Jerry's quotes, then, are deliberate mistranslations posted only for their shock value, which is to be regarded as trolling. JFW | T@lk 10:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Given Jerry's Wikipedia contributions to date, I'm not sure he's aware of the "inflammatory nature of his posting"; I rather suspect a different agenda. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Relatively new users keep emerging from the woodworks to villify the Talmud and Talmudic Law. They seem to like to compile a significant number of edits over a few days - and then they proceed to attack the Talmud. Almost immediately as soon as one troublemaker goes, another comes. I am suspicious of sockpuppetry, not just trolling, involving several usernames that have edited this talk page (perhaps occasionally more than one at a time). HKT 13:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jerry Jones is JJstroker, but they aren't Zadil. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

lets ends this

I think we are going about this all wrong. Instead of removing these quotes why not deal with them in their entirety. I think that what user:Gnosis said has truth to it: The fact that one group decides to separate one group from another based on the meme of race is in itself by definition racism If that is how you define racism then the Talmud is racist. However if you define racism as ...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. (The United Nations uses a definition of racist discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1966) then it is not. If we are willing to deal with the full topic not quotes from here and there then there can be a well presented view on the issue (ie Jew and Gentiles are not identical in halakha but the Talmud is not racist). However the topics that are pure nonsense (sex with minors, Gentiles prefer sex with cows, and other nonsense) needn't be dealt with. Jon513 14:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

These accusations are of all times, and there will be serial people pushing this agenda, in keeping with Raul's fifth law: "Over time, contentious articles will grow from edit-war inspiring to eventually reach a compromise that is agreed upon by all involved editors. This equilibrium will inevitably be disturbed by new users who accuse the article of being absurdly one sided and who attempt to rewrite the entire article. This is the cyclical nature of controversial articles.".

The mindlessness is palpable, and HKT (talk · contribs) has done a splendid job in debunking Zadil's allegations above. If there are more "postings of shocking quotes" I am prepared to get the page {{protected}} for a week. JFW | T@lk 15:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to be editing for a while, so the debunking will have to be put on hold. Though I expect Zadil to continue his straw-men, cherry-picking, and, of course, faulty and/or non-contextual presentation of sources. Isn't there a rule against continuously disrupting Wikipedia? HKT 09:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Science and The Talmud

I don't think that "Sciences and the Talmud" should be here. In any case, I think that the quote is irrelevant. Epl18 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why in your opinion it's irrelevant. Zadil 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant because this article is about what the Talmud is, not what the Talmud isn't. The Talmud isn't a science book? Big deal. And the quote itself is about "the ancient Jews" and sciences, not about the Talmud. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, this book was one of my favorite. And please don't pretend to know its content, rather than enjoy reading it. as I suggested, the very basis for this thesis is THE TALMUD, nothing else. finally: If Dr. Feldman is fond to describe the Amoraim as "the ancient Jews", still it doesn't disqualify him from discussing them. Does it? Zadil 18:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying? This book is a favorite of yours? Very well, but where's the relevance to an article about the Talmud? We know the Talmud is not a science book; the article doesn't claim it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

But, certainly it pretends to be so, at least from a religious prospective. As one of many examples, Rabbi Samson of Sens finds the Pythagorean theorem as unacceptable for it - G-d forbid - contradicts the Mishnah in Kilaim. (See there his commentary). Zadil 19:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What would a commentary on the Talmud have to do with that have to do with the Talmud "pretending" to be a science book? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To name a few, The Talmud assumes to have accurately calculate the value of the square root of 2, pi, the area of a circle and many inscribed polygons, not to mention countless "studies" in Astronomy, Agriculture and even Biology, all presented as their original or traditional science, and applied so to actual Halakha in many ways. Again, a reference to the major thesis of Dr. Feldman, as a very comprehensive study in this subject, would be wise and informative. Now, what about reverting to my edit? Zadil 20:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Talmud is immense, dozens of volumes, millions of words. Why on earth would this tiny subset of its contents be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Zadil 21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of using Feldman's work to summarise the Talmud's scientific views, you have quoted his personal opinion, which is not notable in itself. Zadil, are you here to edit an encyclopedia or to grind your numerous axes? JFW | T@lk 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be more helpful, if you could please elaborate on what basis you assert that his conclusion is "not notable in itself". And may I suggest, that a book should be read first before criticizing his findings. Anyway, his personal opinion is found on page 220-221 of that truly masterpiece under the title of "Summary and Conclusion", from which I've provided AN EXACT QUOTE. I hope you'll enjoy it Zadil 22:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the quote was not Talmud specific I have removed it from the Talmud article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, the ALL thesis is TALMUD SPECIFIC. Every single page of this book deals with the Talmud, Just the Talmud, and NOTHING else. Let me quote him again (page 220):

• "In this book an attempt has been made to explain the various mathematical and astronomical matters mentioned in the Talmud, and to investigate the extent of the mathematical and astronomical knowledge of the ancient Jewish sages as is revealed from a study of the Babylonian and Palestinian editions of that astounding work and its principal commentators. I believe that we are justified to draw the following conclusions..."(here comes the quote I added here).

It would be appropriate -in my humble opinion - to revert again to my edit. Zadil 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's use of the Talmud as one of its sources of information does not justify a section here as its point is not Talmud specific. I advise you to review all your edits to this article as you seem to have problems with WP:CON --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)