Many Jewish "holidays" are true "holy days" in the original meaning of the word. They haven't been turned into orgies of beer and football like so many of ours have. I've been told that Yom Kippur ("Day of Atonement") is the holiest of all holy days. When it falls on the Sabbath, as it did yesterday, it becomes the holiest of Sabbaths.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of religion and even though I'm no fan of football either, I still prefer our holiday system. You can always find something else to do at a really good orgy. :) But this totally secular explanation of Yom Kippur, by a professional writer, was very thought-provoking.A DAY TO EDIT OUR LIVES
What Yom Kippur Means to Me
By Jim Sollisch
Washington Post, Saturday, September 22, 2007

When I was in my 20s, I wrote a novel and sent it to Doubleday. In my hubris, I skipped the editors and sent it directly to the president. She called five days later to tell me she liked it. An editor was assigned and suggested major revisions. I refused and got an agent, who sent it to other publishers.

The novel never made it into print.

I blew it, not because I thought that my novel was perfect but because I clung to the idea that its nature was unchangeable.

As I've gotten older, it's become easier to revise. Not just my writing but my life. And I finally understand the genius of Yom Kippur, the Jewish holiday that asks us to acknowledge mistakes and make amends.

On Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, each of us is asked to reread our manuscript of the past year and make revisions. We are tasked with asking such questions as "What could I have done differently?" and "What were the effects of my choices on others?" When I realized these were the questions novelists ask of their characters, it became easier to ask them of myself.

Writing is a process of making choices. Thousands of them. The act of writing an opening sentence is the result of more choices than I can count. Every word a character speaks or swallows is a choice. Every action or inaction, more choices. It's so easy to get them wrong. Or at least to see that another choice would have made more sense.

The best writers are usually the best revisers, and they learn to look forward to the process. Revision gives you a chance to get things right. You learn to ask other people for suggestions. Your narrator may be omniscient, but you realize you're not. Suddenly, the writing isn't yours alone anymore.

You see that it affects people differently from the way you intended.

On Yom Kippur, we are given the chance to understand that our lives are also not ours alone. Our actions and choices affect others, often in ways that we don't intend. If we cling to our vision of ourselves too fiercely, we blow the chance to gain insight.

Yom Kippur is not a holiday for the young. Judaism requires only adults to fast while they reflect. Nor is it a holiday for the weak of heart.

Revising yourself requires you to do something almost psychologically unnatural -- stop narrating the story of your life the way you always have.

The British novelist John Fowles said that people under 40 should not attempt to write novels because they lack the wisdom to do so. I think he may have meant that they lack the ability to revise. Living, like writing, requires no wisdom. Only revising does.

Jim Sollisch is a writer in Cleveland.

converting us to Judaism...heh...no thanks

Better to be in Congress.

Each year the congressional leadership is responsible for setting Congress' legislative calendar, and this year that calendar will be tightly packed with the smorgasbord of issues Congress must tackle in the coming months. The legislative work Congress fails to finish, however, may be what makes headlines in 2006. This year boasts the fewest legislative days for Congress in twenty years, and this compressed election-year schedule is sure to make finishing appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, a task lawmakers find difficult even with more ample time, next to impossible.


In 2006, the leadership has decided to devote 72 days, or a little over two months, to official legislative business. When Mondays and Fridays are included in this total (voting generally only takes place Tuesday through Thursday), this number rises to 125 days. Since 1985, Congress has allocated an average of 152 days per session (including Mondays and Fridays) to legislative work.

Featured high on the list of reasons for this year's limited schedule are the upcoming midterm election and the accompanying pressure on lawmakers to hit the campaign trail early and often. Yet, in previous election years, Congress allocated significantly more time to legislative work than it has for 2006. In 2002, for example, Congress was in session for 149 days, and in 2000 lawmakers clocked 141 days.


http://wzpo.ask.com/r?t=p&d=mys&s=ads&c=a&l=dis&o=1180&sv=0a300521&ip=4109ac2d&id=3FF06DBE8E6D63D398028F58671E005A&q=How+many+days+in+the+year+does+the+U.S.+Congress +actually+meet%3F&p=1&qs=0&ac=24&g=7388cpvxzKOpFE&en=te&io=4&ep=&eo=&b=alg&bc=&br=&tp=d&ec=10&pt=Congress%20to%20Have%20Short%20Year%3B%20Approp riations%20Work%20Likely%20to%20Suffer%20-%20...&ex=&url=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ombwatch.org%2Farticle%2Farticl eview%2F3272%2F1%2F248%3FTopicID%3D1

converting us to Judaism...heh...no thanks

You can't do that. The only way to surely become a jew is to be born of a yewish mother.

You can't do that. The only way to surely become a jew is to be born of a yewish mother.No, they permit converts. They just don't go after them aggressively the way the Christians and Muslims do, because their religion does not have an imperative for evangelism. That's why most Jews have Jewish parents. But it's not too terribly rare for a person to "convert" to Judaism in the process of marrying a Jewish spouse. It's more unusual for it to be done for any other reason, although the medieval Khazarians did it for reasons that were probably political although we may never know for sure. If you marry in, depending on which congregation you join, you may be expected to walk the talk. Learn Hebrew, recite the Torah, understand what the holidays mean, etc. In others all you may have to do is like matzo ball soup. ^_^

You can't do that. The only way to surely become a jew is to be born of a yewish mother.

untrue. im a turkish/french american with zero ties to hebrew heritage. i converted back in 2000.
self taught myself hebrew, learned the scriptures..the whole shebang.
it is difficult, even actively discouraged by jewish temple leadership. this is because judaism isnt "religion lite". if you dont take spiritual development seriously, they will weed you out.
funny enough, its actually the natural born jews who usually neglect their religion.

Oh, ok, but weren't the chosen people of God supposed to belong to specific tribes?
I.e., God chose Israelites or whatever as their favourite sheep.
Is there a special ritual to enter the jew club?

Oh, ok, but weren't the chosen people of God supposed to belong to specific tribes?
I.e., God chose Israelites or whatever as their favourite sheep.
Strangely enough, the 'chosen people' phrase is usually emphasised more by antisemites than by Jews themselves. They say the biblical story of Ruth is meant to show that origin doesn't matter so much as desire to serve God (according to Jewish law, of course). Ruth herself was a Moabite (i.e. non-Israelite) who joined the Jewish faith, but her descendants include the biblical king David, and the messiah.

Is there a special ritual to enter the jew club?
It depends whether you're interested in orthodox or reform Judaism. Joining the reform jew club (the majority branch in the USA) probably isn't much more difficult than joining the muslim, christian or buddhist clubs. The orthodox Jewish authorities don't recognise reform conversions, though.

self taught myself hebrew,

Wow..isn't Hebrew one of the hardest languages to learn? Pretty impressive.

Wow..isn't Hebrew one of the hardest languages to learn? Pretty impressive.

eh..difficult, but i spent months applying myself to ONLY that. i literally bought enough groceries, cigarettes, and other smokables to last the 3 months i spent in one room, reading and learning.
all said, it cost me around 1200 dollars to learn hebrew. :)

Oh, ok, but weren't the chosen people of God supposed to belong to specific tribes?I.e., God chose Israelites or whatever as their favourite sheep.

the idea of a "chosen people" in the sense that it is usually thought of (superiority or favoritism from g-d) is actually quite silly.
jews originally thought of themselves as teachers, not rulers. this is what the "chosen people" phrase references. it implies a burden placed on the jews to teach the rest of the world, not rule it. zionists, nazis, and pretty much anyone that cant read the torah in hebrew misinterpret the phrase to be one of kingship, rather than scholastics. *shrug*



Is there a special ritual to enter the jew club?
yeah, i suppose so. nothing too homoerotic though. :)

I disagree with the basic sentiments of this holiday. If you aren't aware of what you are doing at the time, what's the point of second-guessing yourself later? That is not the way to enlightenment. There is nothing to atone for and nothing that can grant atonement.

There is nothing to atone for and nothing that can grant atonement.

youve made a fundamental judgement about the holiday from an atheist point of view. this cant be done if you want to understand why jews celebrate it.

youve basically said "there is no g-d" here. that is best for a different thread, when the discussion is about the merits of a particular holiday.

as for the beginning of your post, i can understand why you say it...but jews tend to disagree.

If you aren't aware of what you are doing at the time, what's the point of second-guessing yourself later? So as to be aware of what you are doing next time? Just a thought - - - .

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of religion and even though I'm no fan of football either, I still prefer our holiday system. You can always find something else to do at a really good orgy. :) But this totally secular explanation of Yom Kippur, by a professional writer, was very thought-provoking.
...

A similar content, but formulated in a much more constructive way, can frequently be found in various approaches to human productivity and how to improve it.


For example, from David Allen's Getting Things Done - here from the notes on Minezone.org (http://www.minezone.org/wiki/MVance/GettingThingsDone):

Six Level Model for Reviewing Your Own Work

current actions
current projects
areas of responsibility
1-2 year goals
3-5 year vision
big picture view



Or a discussion on why we resist the weekly review and plan and what we can do about it at a blog (http://rickyspears.com/blog/?p=86) and its summary at Lifehack.org (http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/why-we-resist-the-weekly-review-and-plan.html):


It’s not on our calendar.
We don’t know how or we fear we may not do it right.
We don’t have a step-by-step plan for it.
We aren’t ready—and getting ready is too overwhelming.
We feel that the weekly review is a “have to” instead of a “want to”.
We haven’t defined our outcome vision.
We have’t defined our purpose and principles.
We think it has to be perfect and complete.
We don’t see the benefit of it.
We don’t have time.
We feel we don’t have enough to review.
We feel we have too much to review.
We are too far behind or haven’t done a review in several weeks.
We have no accountability.
We don’t like the isolation.
We find the weekly review boring.
We fear we might get interrupted.
We fear what we will discover.
We’re scared of what others will think about us.
It’s hard.

Wow..isn't Hebrew one of the hardest languages to learn? Pretty impressive.

Having studied it, I don't think so. Certainly much easier than Chinese and other Eastern languages. Hebrew uses 32 letters, not thousands of ideograms, and grammar is based on modifying the words, not the tone. Actually, I found Hebrew easier to learn than French. Fewer rules.

Having studied it, I don't think so. Certainly much easier than Chinese and other Eastern languages.Have you tried to learn Chinese? I found it refreshingly easy. It has no "noise words" like articles and prepositions, and no inflections. It's not much of an exaggeration to say it has no grammar to study. In addition, since because of the lack of inflections and noise words it has a lower syllable count to express a thought than most languages, it's usually spoken rather slowly, making it easy to pick out the words you know.Hebrew uses 32 letters, not thousands of ideograms. . . .Yes, written Chinese is a monster, but you can be sure they will change that, perhaps in your lifetime, now that Mandarin has become universal and they don't need the logograms to unite the speakers of the various Chinese languages.. . . .and grammar is based on modifying the words, not the tone.Tone is not a grammatical element in Chinese. It's just an extra phoneme in the words, which allows them to be shorter. There is typically no relationship at all between two words that are identical except for tone.Actually, I found Hebrew easier to learn than French. Fewer rules.Oh, French is impossible! But if you want a language with no rules, learn Chinese. :)

No, I never studied Chinese. Maybe some day I will have enough free time to study it (yeah, right!).

If you aren't aware of what you are doing at the time, what's the point of second-guessing yourself later?

It's not second-guessing yourself - it is learning from your mistakes through reflection and introspection when you have a perspective from hindsight.
In this way, you can be more mindful and aware in the future - the two work hand in hand on a path towqrd enlightenment.

the idea of a "chosen people" in the sense that it is usually thought of (superiority or favoritism from g-d) is actually quite silly.
jews originally thought of themselves as teachers, not rulers. this is what the "chosen people" phrase references. it implies a burden placed on the jews to teach the rest of the world, not rule it.


So what do you say about these: "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/talmud.htm

So what do you say about these: "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." Talmud: Baba mezia, 114bYou're confusing the Talmud with the Torah. The Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament and is considered by Jewish fundamentalists to be the word of god. The Talmud is just a record of discussions by ancient scholars ("rabbis") about Jewish customs, laws and culture. These are the words of human beings and they are argumentative. I'm sure for every statement in the Talmud, if you look hard enough you'll find another rabbi who said exactly the opposite. The whole point is to get Jews to think about their religion and use reason to guide their lives, instead of being misled by irrational blind faith the way Christians and Muslims so often are.

You can't take one quote out of the Talmud and say, "See here, this is what Jews believe." You don't understand Jews or their documents.

At some point in their history just about every human tribe has said, "We're humans and all the rest of you are animals." That's how we always justified conquest, occupation and slavery. Europeans and Americans thought that about Africans, merely 200 years ago!

You're confusing the Talmud with the Torah. The Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament and is considered by Jewish fundamentalists to be the word of god. The Talmud is just a record of discussions by ancient scholars ("rabbis") about Jewish customs, laws and culture. These are the words of human beings and they are argumentative. I'm sure for every statement in the Talmud, if you look hard enough you'll find another rabbi who said exactly the opposite. The whole point is to get Jews to think about their religion and use reason to guide their lives, instead of being misled by irrational blind faith the way Christians and Muslims so often are.

But it doesn't change the fact that Talmud is a well-accepted Jewish book and there are many lines that spread hatred and racism in it. The fact that these lines made it into a credible Jewish book should be somehow illustrating, don't you think so?

You can't take one quote out of the Talmud and say, "See here, this is what Jews believe." You don't understand Jews or their documents.

There are more than one quote actually.. but anyway the same can be said of any oher religion when others criticize it.. you can easily say you don't undertand muslims or christians, etc.

At some point in their history just about every human tribe has said, "We're humans and all the rest of you are animals." That's how we always justified conquest, occupation and slavery. Europeans and Americans thought that about Africans, merely 200 years ago!
I do not agree with this point. Europeans and Americans maybe, but the Jewish one doesn't seem to be a statment in the wartime.. it look like a general advise to the jews..

I do not agree with this point. Europeans and Americans maybe, but the Jewish one doesn't seem to be a statment in the wartime.. it look like a general advise to the jews..The U.S. attitude that Africans were less than human had nothing to do with wartime either. Neither did their attitude that America's aboriginal people were less than human. That attitude started a number of wars; it was not the result of a war.

The Jews were and are no worse and no better than the rest of us.

The winners of WWII put the Jews in an impossible situation. They "gave" them somebody else's homeland and said, "Here, make this work for yourselves." What was it; less than one year before virtually every adjoining nation declared war on them? Nice way for the Europeans to make up for a thousand years of antisemitism!

Wouldn't it be nice if they'd settled them in Baja California or Southwestern Australia instead? Knowing what they can do with a desert!

The U.S. attitude that Africans were less than human had nothing to do with wartime either. Neither did their attitude that America's aboriginal people were less than human. That attitude started a number of wars; it was not the result of a war.

The Jews were and are no worse and no better than the rest of us.

The winners of WWII put the Jews in an impossible situation. They "gave" them somebody else's homeland and said, "Here, make this work for yourselves." What was it; less than one year before virtually every adjoining nation declared war on them? Nice way for the Europeans to make up for a thousand years of antisemitism!

Wouldn't it be nice if they'd settled them in Baja California or Southwestern Australia instead? Knowing what they can do with a desert!

I'm not an American (even anti-US government), and I fully agree that Americans were racist and igorant. The same can be said about the British and the French (in India, Vietnam, Algeria, America, Australia...).

Your viewpoint about Jews and Palestine is correct according to me. The establishment of a state so-called Israel in the middle east was a long-thought plan to put the muslims in permanent trouble and discourse in their own geography. But you can't acquit the jews just saying they were put in an impossible situation. They were the ones who choose to occupy the lands of others, committed massacres to force the locals leave, and badged every resistance against their aggressions as terrorism.

But you can't acquit the jews just saying they were put in an impossible situation.I do not mean to acquit them. I'm just pointing out that there is plenty of responsibility to go around.They were the ones who choose to occupy the lands of others, committed massacres to force the locals leave, and badged every resistance against their aggressions as terrorism.I've always found it to be a remarkable exercise in cognitive dissonance for Americans, of all people, to support Israel. Their historical claim to Palestine is about two thousand years old, and we have no respect for historical issues that go back any farther than the memories of our grandparents. If we insist that the Jews had a valid claim on Palestine then that puts us in the awkward position of choosing whether we are required to give Arizona back to the Mexicans or to the Navajo.

The talmud is full of it and is indeed the supposed most studied judeaic text by modern practicing Jews. there may be some fringe sects that stick to the Torah. Oh wait, those are actually Chirtians. Silly me. Guess there aren't any surviving Jews in that category, but in Jesus time there was though. That non-jews are beasts is actually pretty tame compared to some of the racist bigoted crap that book of hate spews. It also recounts 2 previous "holocausts" against the Jews. One where something like 4 billion Jews were killed by the romans, and another where some 4 million Jewish children were killed by the romans. All 100% BS, makes you could wonder about the supposed one that happened in WW2, don't it?

So what do you say about these: "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/talmud.htm

i would say that the talmud is not the core religious text in judaism. that would be the torah.

if you put the torah aside in favor of anything else, you arent practicing judaism anymore.

you will not find anything of the sort in the torah.

i would say that the talmud is not the core religious text in judaism. that would be the torah.

if you put the torah aside in favor of anything else, you arent practicing judaism anymore.

you will not find anything of the sort in the torah.

and is Talmud a dispensable book in Judaism?

and is Talmud a dispensable book in Judaism?

well, im hardly an orthodox jew, but i rarely bother with it.
the core teachings of judaism are in the torah. anything else is extra, as far as im concerned.

im not allowed in temple in my hometown, so make what you will of what i think.
:)

Yom Kippur, when you take the theological out of it, is about atoning for the bad things you've done during the year. It consists of asking forgiveness, literally, from all the people whom you think you've wronged (e.g. your buddy for not helping him with something, or your mom for not listening to her, or some girl you called fat...), and punishing yourself for these transgressions by not eating for 24 hours, not wearing comfortable shoes (e.g. of leather), not driving the car and using electricity (like on any Sabbath), or use any conveniences that we usually enjoy in our everyday lives.

The religious implication is that G-d writes down all the good and bad deeds you do every year, and every year he performs an "audit" of you. Every "sin" you atone for, reduces the "bad" list and increases the "good" list in His books. The goal is to get the "good signature", meaning you've passed G-d's audit, which is why Jews wish eachother "have a good signature" during Yom Kippur.

If you filter the religious stuff out, this holy day has universal appeal, IMO.

hardly. yom kippur is about recognizing the human condition, not some celestal "audit".

You can't do that. The only way to surely become a jew is to be born of a yewish mother.

In a sense you are correct. If you convert, you're still not able to do half the stuff a child born of a jewish mother can. Such as yom kippur for example. There is certain practices you can only take part of if you have a jewish mother.

Hence all the jokes you may hear about a jewish mother encouraging her son to marry only jewish women. It's very difficult in itself to practice as an orthodox jew.

Take what you will from it, but even if you convert, you'll never be fully accepted.. hence you are correct in saying to surely become a jew you must be born of a jewish mother.

and is Talmud a dispensable book in Judaism?It's not exactly dispensible. The Torah is traditionally regarded as the words of the Israelites' god, as transcribed by Moses. These first five books of the Old Testament comprise the definition and foundation of the Jewish religion, as well as the traditional ancient history of the Israelite/Jewish people from the point in time when they split off from the other Canaanite tribes (one of whom, according to increasing scientific evidence, was the Palestinians). In other words, the Torah is sacred, at least to Orthodox Jews and others who take it seriously because of either its supernatural or traditional nature.

Unlike the Torah, which is traditionally dated to the 13th century BCE and attributed to one of the great prophets of the three Abrahamic faiths, the Talumud was written by ordinary folks during the Christian Era. It is a compendium of the oral law of the Jews in an era when the Jewish commonwealth had dissipated under the military, political and cultural pressure of the dominant societies they lived in. It is the writings of rabbis or "scholars," who wanted to preserve all of Jewish culture--not just the religion--without a Temple as the center of scholarship and with a nation that was virtual instead of geographical.

Much of the Talmud is written in the style of debates with many voices participating, which presages--and perhaps informs--the stereotype of Jews as people who never stop arguing in their search for the truth. The Talmud is by no means sacred and any rabbi--i.e. any scholar of Judaica, not just the leader of a religious congregation--is free to question it, although he's going up against some great minds.

Every religion has its unique features. A unique feature of Judaism is that one of its most fundamental documents, the Talmud, is open to debate.

The specific rhetorical style of the Talmud, a pensive, logical concatenation of conditional premises leading to a question to be debated, is often used by Jewish scholars to clarify points in question, and is called "Talmudic reasoning." It is one in which any scientist will quickly recognize some of the prototypical elements of the Scientific Method.

On to another holiday: Passover, which started at sundown yesterday. An op-ed in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802465.html) by Claire Simmons highlights the significance of Passover in a post-Holocaust world. Abstracts:

This year, the celebration of Passover coincides with the 45th anniversary of the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto on April 19, 1943.

In 1940, Nazi forces herded more than 400,000 Jews, nearly 40% of the population of occupied Warsaw, into an area of only 1.3 square miles, surrounded by 10-foot-high walls topped with barbed wire. By the spring of 1943, one tenth of this population had died from starvation or disease.

On April 19, occupying German troops and police stormed this ghetto to deport its survivors to the Treblinka death camp. A handful of resistors--probably around 750 teenagers and young adults--held off this assault by a far more powerful force for more than three weeks.

The heroism of the fighters is enshrined in history, but what is less well-known is a different type of resistance by ordinary men, women and children who refused to despair and die anonymously. Their bravery is part of a legacy of spiritual resistance and freedom that is often misunderstood, yet is the central theme of freedom in Passover.

It must be understood that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was never about achieving freedom from oppression, because the outcome was never in doubt. (The Jews expected the Nazis to be the brave warriors of their own propaganda, who would take casualties in order to end the uprising in a few days, rather than being held at bay by some starving kids with a few light weapons for almost a month.) The revolt was about denying their German (and Polish) oppressors some part of their humanity, and about sending a message to future generations regarding the true meaning of "freedom."

Throughout the sequestration of the ghetto behind a morbid curtain of death, there was never a hope of escape or mercy. Public prayer was punished by execution. Yet prayer services were held in clandestine locations, secret factories fabricated matzos, and children confirmed their freedom to be human by studying the Torah in underground schools. Even secular cultural activities fluorished, with theatrical productions in Yiddish, Russian and Hebrew.

Why did these people use their last vestige of freedom in this way? Consider historian Emmanuel Ringelblum, who chose to use his freedom to document the Nazi atrocities and the refusal of the Jewish people to surrender their religious, cultural and political life to tyranny. He buried his records in large milk cans, which were discovered and preserved after the war ended.

The actions of these people teach us that "Passover" is not a "passive" celebration of historical events, nor of laissez-faire libertarianism, nor even the freedom to be left alone.

It is a celebration of the freedom to repair the world, to light a candle for posterity, to continue to perform the many small prosaic acts of solidarity and sacrifice--for friend and stranger alike--in the shadow of totalitarianism, and even under circumstances calculated to make us assume these acts will be meaningless.

According to Jewish tradition, the prophet Elijah waged a struggle to deliver freedom from oppression. On Passover, Jews open their doors to Elijah and his promise of redemption from tyranny. It is a freedom that armed freedom fighters may, in some circumstances, secure, but not one that they can maintain.

Simmons closes this piece with words that everyone--Jew and Gentile--should hear. (And yes, words that many of us--Jew and Gentile--would like to say to the leaders of Israel and other nations.)

"The true meaning of Passover, as those in the Warsaw Ghetto understood, is the freedom to engage the world, to fulfill our responsibilities as citizens, and to reject the seductions of spiritual and political retreat. As the martyrs of the Ghetto knew all too well, the work of Elijah must inevitably be our own."

So what do you say about these: "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/talmud.htm

for the 1000 time-thats a fake quote. jews are obligated to dedicate their lifes to correct the world and bring peace by studying the torah. its their duty.

and im not surprised its a muslim site-the one best they know how to do, spread hate and misinformation.

for the 1000 time-thats a fake quote. jews are obligated to dedicate their lifes to correct the world and bring peace by studying the torah. its their duty.

and im not surprised its a muslim site-the one best they know how to do, spread hate and misinformation.

Here is the actual quotation link

http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_114.html

Here is the actual quotation link

http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_114.html

so you also believe its true?:p

so you also believe its true?:p

You can read it if you like.

If a man dies, according to Talmudic law, then standing on or near his gravesite is considered a defilement. This does not apply to graves of gentiles as they are not considered men.

You should at least look up the Talmud before calling anyone a liar.

You can read it if you like.

If a man dies, according to Talmudic law, then standing on or near his gravesite is considered a defilement. This does not apply to graves of gentiles as they are not considered men.

You should at least look up the Talmud before calling anyone a liar.


http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/man2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bava_Metzia


well now i know why you hate jews so much.

As soon as Spock gets cornered he comes back to "this shows you hate jews" argument

As soon as Spock gets cornered he comes back to "this shows you hate jews" argument

im only making an observation. how does one gets cornered when facing lies is something beyond me.

finally i found it:

CLAIM (18)
Non-Jews are Not Human Baba Mezia 114a-114b. Only Jews are human ("Only ye are designated men").

RESPONSE (1)
Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai alone makes the statement that non-Jews are not considered in the laws of impurity - therefore a priest can touch a non-Jewish corpse without being defiled. It nowhere states that non-Jews are not human, or that only Jews are human.
Avraham Hampel

RESPONSE (2)
Okay, here we have piece of misinformation number 1; a slick one, because anyone who read this line would surely be outraged. But this has nothing to do with designating anyone as "men."

What is going on here is a method of analysis known as a "hekesh," or in English a "linkage." The verse from the Bible says, "And I made my sheep (those who follow my commandments) into sheep, my flock into Man." From there, the Sages understand similar usages of the term "Man" to mean the nation which follows the commandments - the Jewish People. The Tosafos in Sanhedrin 59a, points out many times when Gentiles are indeed referred to as "Man?"
[Edited response.] <5ptttd$335$4@news.nyu.edu> mat6263@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner)

RESPONSE (3)
This is a mistranslation of the term "adam". Also, the Talmud just has a Rabbi quoting Ezekiel XXXIV, 31 in this place. Nothing is being said about non-Jews not being human or only Jews being human.
From Usenet message
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)

RESPONSE (4)
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.
From Usenet message:

RESPONSE (5)
In Numbers 19:14 the Written Torah states that "If [a] man [person] dies inside a tent ...." and the passage goes on to describe the laws of ritual impurity caused by the corpse.

The sages considered whether this law applied to all men or only to Jews. It might have been thought that the word 'man' or 'person' would indicate a reference to both Jews and non-Jews. However the Oral tradition made it clear that when the Torah uses the word 'man' or 'person' in connection with legal restrictions the reference is usually to Jews and not to non-Jews who are not bound by Torah law.

The Talmudic passage states in connection with this matter: "'... My sheep ... you are men' (Ez. 34:31); you [Jews] are called 'adam' [men], and the idol worshippers are not called 'adam' [men]".

Commentators explain that the use of the word 'men' [adam] in this passage is similar to the use of the word 'person' in modern national law codes. When such a law code uses the term 'person' the reference is not universal but is restricted to those persons who are bound by that national law code.

Similarly in the case at hand the laws of ritual impurity apply only to Jews and not to non-Jews. The passage should thus be understood as follows:

"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that for the purpose of legal enactments the term 'person' refers to Jews, who are bound by the law, and does not refer to non-Jews who are not bound by the law". It is interesting to note that the proof text is taken from Ezekiel Chapter 34 in which Israel is compared to sheep.

Another interpretation given by commentators is that when the context is negative (as in a discussion of ritual impurity caused by a corpse or the commission of a sin) the word 'man' is used to refer to Jews only (in this
way not bringing shame on the name 'Israel'), but when the context is positive then the word includes all of mankind.

With this understanding the Talmudic passage should be understood as follows:

"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that in a negative context such as that of ritual impurity the word 'man' refers to Jews only, and not to non-Jews".

This sentence appears three times in the Talmud; the reference in Baba Mezia 114a is tangential and therefore the subject is not developed at any length. An honest reader would follow the cross-references to the other locations and note that in Kerithoth 6b the Talmud points out that the application of this principle of interpretation is questionable in any event.

Yevamot 61a is the third place in which this rule of interpretation is mentioned and in this location the commentators on the page also point out that this rule of interpretation has very limited use. They specifically cross reference to the Talmudic statements in Avoda Zara 3a and Sanhedrin 59a which compare non-Jews who engage in Torah study to the High Priest.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/exp.html

So you are saying when the Talmud says:

Said he [Rabbah] to him: Art thou not a priest:2 why then dost thou stand in a cemetery?3 — He replied: Has the Master not studied the laws of purity?4 For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men;5 only ye are designated 'men'.

They don't literally mean men?

So you are saying when the Talmud says:



They don't literally mean men?

:p im saying what you quoted isnt even written in the talmud and because you are so stupid and your muslim brothers filled your head with lies about judaisim for so long you will beileve anything.

Its a direct quote from a Talmud learning site.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/index.html

Its a direct quote from a Talmud learning site.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/index.html

and jews also eat christian babies:p

that site was probably produced by jew haters such as yourself or muslims(theres a difference?).


Much of anti-Semitism appears to have its origins in the supposed belief that Jews must intrinsically hate Christianity and humanity in general. Of course, this is not true, but it does not stop the production of vast amounts of anti-Semitic propaganda to this effect. This belief is often combined with the idea that Jews are somehow not human, but must have access to various subterfuges or even magic to give, at least, the appearance of being human and thus be able to "infiltrate" and "corrupt" normal society. Indeed, many societies have blamed "the Jews" for all their problems. It follows from these beliefs that Jews must therefore be exterminated in order for society to function normally, and sadly, this has been tried on more than one occasion. The types of fears and misconceptions at work in these cases are among the most ancient and primordial in existence. Perhaps if those that blamed "the Jews" for their problems had the same devotion to education, learning and personal advancement that Jews typically do, they wouldn't have whatever problems they are blaming Jews for.

This is a project to provide responses to the anti-Semites who post alleged quotes from the Talmud and other anti-Jewish propaganda in a way intended to promote hatred of Jews. These "Talmud quotes" and other material are either entire fabrications, mistranslations or out of context. This is a sample of the first small completed section. If you have any comments I would be happy to hear them. I would like to thank all the people who have contributed answers. Each contribution includes the author's name or initials. I would also like to thank Frances for starting this site and for ongoing support. There are also several other documents that I am working on. Most of the "Talmud quotes" come from the Russian anti-Semite Rev. I. B. Pranaitis, who had a criminal record and was "Master of Theology and Professor of the Hebrew Language at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of the Roman Catholic Church" in Old St. Petersburg, Russia. He wrote this material around the turn of the century in a booklet in Latin with the English title of "The Talmud Unmasked". He was a self-identified Talmudic "scholar" who testified at the B. Mendel Beilis "Blood Libel" case and was laughed out of court when asked some very basic questions on the Talmud which he couldn't answer. Nevertheless, his legacy survives and it is about time there was a response to it. So here is the first part.

The Reverend Justinas Bonaventura Pranaitis or Pronaitis[1] (July 27, 1861 - January 28, 1917[2]) was a Lithuanian Catholic priest, Russian "Master of Theology and Professor of the Hebrew Language at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of the Roman Catholic Church" in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and, later, priest in Tashkent[2] who published an anti-Semitic tract called Christianus in Talmude Iudaeorum in Latin in 1892 under the imprimatur of the Archbishop Metropolitan of Mogilev, which was translated into English as The Talmud Unmasked; The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians, by American anti-Semites around 1939.[3]

The book continues to be sold by mainstream sources and cited by anti-Semites, who revere Pranaitis as a "Talmud Scholar" and authority; "The Rev. Pranaitis was the greatest of the students of the Talmud. His complete command of the Hebrew language qualified him to analyze the Talmud as few men in history." [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinas_Pranaitis

of course moronic ignorant people such as yourself-who never bothered to check the truth-beileve this BS. along with all the other islamic propaganda BS.

and jews also eat christian babies:p

that site was probably produced by jew haters such as yourself or muslims(theres a difference?).

.

This is a jew hater?

The Babylonian Talmud
edited by Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein
of Jews’ College, London
More than fifteen years in the making, more than 5 1/2 million words, this monumental task of scholarship called on the best brains in Judaism and won the approval of the world's top rabbis. Yet few Christians today even know it exists, and you will probably not find it in your local public library. The Come and Hear™ hypertext version, currently on line at this web site, represents approximately 1431 folios (produced as accurately as possible). We hope this presentation will provide the necessary context for understanding ancient and modern rabbinical teachings. We hope the larger context will also enable you to evaluate how fairly various commentators interpret the text.

Passages censored in previous editions of the Talmud were restored, and the translators amplified the text with extensive footnotes that form a running commentary. The publication was completed as a 35-volume set in 1952, and republished in 18 volumes in 1961. Each tractate was accompanied by a glossary, a table of abbreviations, an index of Biblical references, and a general subject index. In 1952, Soncino published a comprehensive Index volume collating the indices from all tractates, and included an index to the statements of each of the Sages. The Jew's College/Soncino English translation of the Babylonian Talmud has remained the gold standard of English Talmuds for six decades.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/index.html

The quote which started this whole debate is indisputably authentic. If it satisfies Spock to simply deny its existence, then so be it; however, if you were to look within the Talmud, that verse would be there, crystal clear. There are numerous websites dedicated to the Talmud, including ones which are operated by renowned Jews, all of which display that verse (and ones similar to it). Of course, I'm not the type of person who will pick specific out-of-context, isolated verses to try and make a religious point.

This is a jew hater?



http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/index.html

probably his real name is brian, or Jeffery or any other british name:p

The quote which started this whole debate is indisputably authentic. If it satisfies Spock to simply deny its existence, then so be it; however, if you were to look within the Talmud, that verse would be there, crystal clear. There are numerous websites dedicated to the Talmud, including ones which are operated by renowned Jews, all of which display that verse (and ones similar to it). Of course, I'm not the type of person who will pick specific out-of-context, isolated verses to try and make a religious point.

the man who believes in the protocol sais :D

how about registering to a jewish site and ask them? :eek:

probably his real name is brian, or Jeffery or any other british name:p

Umm no?

Dr. Isidore Epstein, an Orthodox rabbi and rabbinical scholar in England, was the longtime principal of Jews' College, London. Dr. Epstein is best known for his English translation of the Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Press, London, 34 volumes, also available on CD-ROM and other books about Judaism, such as The Faith of Judaism: An Interpretation for Our Times (1960).

http://www.jewishstore.com/Books/Products.asp?ProdID=SoncinTalmud

Umm no?


http://www.jewishstore.com/Books/Products.asp?ProdID=SoncinTalmud

:roflmao:

you actually argue with me on that?

boy you dont have any brain cells at all do you? :p

cant face the fact you beileve in a lie SAM ? :D

the man who believes in the protocol sais :D

how about registering to a jewish site and ask them? :eek:

Sort of like how you register to Muslim websites and ask the educated members there about Islam before you post your baseless, hateful bullshit here.

:roflmao:

you actually argue with me on that?

boy you dont have any brain cells at all do you? :p

cant face the fact you beileve in a lie SAM ? :D

That a highly acclaimed Orthodox rabbi who has published an edition of the English translation of the Talmud, sold online in Jewish stores is an anti-semite?

Sort of like how you register to Muslim websites and ask the educated members there about Islam before you post your baseless, hateful bullshit here.

i did actually.

That a highly acclaimed Orthodox rabbi who has published an edition of the English translation of the Talmud, sold online in Jewish stores is an anti-semite?

then if he is a rabbi he quoted wrong:

כת בבא מציעא פרק ט

דף קיד, ב גמרא מנין לערום שלא יתרום דכתיב (דברים כג) ולא יראה בך ערות דבר אמר ליה לאו כהן הוא מר מאי טעמא קאי מר בבית הקברות א"ל לא מתני מר טהרות דתניא ר"ש בן יוחי אומר קבריהן של <עובדי כוכבים> {גוים} אין מטמאין שנאמר (יחזקאל לד) ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם אתם קרויין אדם ואין <עובדי כוכבים> {גוים} קרויין אדם אמר ליה בארבעה לא מצינא בשיתא מצינא א"ל ואמאי אמר ליה דחיקא לי מילתא דבריה ועייליה לגן עדן אמר ליה פשוט גלימך ספי שקול מהני טרפי ספא שקל כי הוה נפיק שמע דקאמר מאן קא אכיל לעלמיה כרבה בר אבוה נפץ שדנהו אפילו הכי אתייה לגלימיה סחט גלימא ריחא זבניה בתריסר אלפי דינרי פלגינהו לחתנוותיה ת"ר (דברים כד) ואם איש עני הוא לא תשכב בעבוטו הא עשיר שכיב מאי קאמר אמר רב ששת הכי קאמר ואם איש עני הוא לא תשכב ועבוטו אצלך הא עשיר שכיב ועבוטו אצלך ת"ר המלוה את חבירו אינו רשאי למשכנו ואינו חייב להחזיר לו ועובר בכל השמות הללו מאי קאמר אמר רב ששת הכי קאמר המלוה את חבירו אינו רשאי למשכנו ואם משכנו חייב להחזיר לו ועובר בכל השמות הללו אסיפא רבא אמר הכי קאמר המלוה את חבירו אינו רשאי למשכנו ואם משכנו חייב להחזיר לו במה דברים אמורים שמשכנו שלא בשעת הלואתו אבל משכנו בשעת הלואתו אינו חייב להחזיר לו ועובר בכל השמות הללו ארישא תני רב שיזבי קמיה דרבא (שמות כב) עד בא השמש תשיבנו לו זו כסות לילה (דברים כד) השב תשיב לו את העבוט כבוא השמש זו כסות יום אמר ליה דיממא בליליא למה לי ודליליא ביממא למה לי אמר ליה איסמייה אמר ליה לא הכי קאמר עד בא השמש תשיבנו לו זו כסות יום שניתנה לחבול בלילה השב תשיב לו את העבוט כבוא השמש זו כסות לילה שניתנה לחבול ביום אמר ר' יוחנן משכנו ומת שומטו מעל גבי בניו מיתיבי אמר ר' מאיר וכי מאחר שממשכנין למה מחזירין למה מחזירין רחמנא אמר אהדר אלא מאחר שמחזירין



which is related to:

יחזקאל פרק לד
א וַיְהִי דְבַר-יְהוָה, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר. ב בֶּן-אָדָם, הִנָּבֵא עַל-רוֹעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; הִנָּבֵא וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם לָרֹעִים כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, הוֹי רֹעֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ רֹעִים אוֹתָם--הֲלוֹא הַצֹּאן, יִרְעוּ הָרֹעִים. ג אֶת-הַחֵלֶב תֹּאכֵלוּ וְאֶת-הַצֶּמֶר תִּלְבָּשׁוּ, הַבְּרִיאָה תִּזְבָּחוּ; הַצֹּאן, לֹא תִרְעוּ. ד אֶת-הַנַּחְלוֹת לֹא חִזַּקְתֶּם וְאֶת-הַחוֹלָה לֹא-רִפֵּאתֶם, וְלַנִּשְׁבֶּרֶת לֹא חֲבַשְׁתֶּם, וְאֶת-הַנִּדַּחַת לֹא הֲשֵׁבֹתֶם, וְאֶת-הָאֹבֶדֶת לֹא בִקַּשְׁתֶּם; וּבְחָזְקָה רְדִיתֶם אֹתָם, וּבְפָרֶךְ. ה וַתְּפוּצֶינָה, מִבְּלִי רֹעֶה; וַתִּהְיֶינָה לְאָכְלָה לְכָל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, וַתְּפוּצֶינָה. ו יִשְׁגּוּ צֹאנִי בְּכָל-הֶהָרִים, וְעַל כָּל-גִּבְעָה רָמָה; וְעַל כָּל-פְּנֵי הָאָרֶץ נָפֹצוּ צֹאנִי, וְאֵין דּוֹרֵשׁ וְאֵין מְבַקֵּשׁ. ז לָכֵן רֹעִים, שִׁמְעוּ אֶת-דְּבַר יְהוָה. ח חַי-אָנִי נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, אִם-לֹא יַעַן הֱיוֹת-צֹאנִי לָבַז וַתִּהְיֶינָה צֹאנִי לְאָכְלָה לְכָל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה מֵאֵין רֹעֶה, וְלֹא-דָרְשׁוּ רֹעַי, אֶת-צֹאנִי; וַיִּרְעוּ הָרֹעִים אוֹתָם, וְאֶת-צֹאנִי לֹא רָעוּ. ט לָכֵן, הָרֹעִים--שִׁמְעוּ, דְּבַר-יְהוָה. י כֹּה-אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, הִנְנִי אֶל-הָרֹעִים וְדָרַשְׁתִּי אֶת-צֹאנִי מִיָּדָם וְהִשְׁבַּתִּים מֵרְעוֹת צֹאן, וְלֹא-יִרְעוּ עוֹד הָרֹעִים, אוֹתָם; וְהִצַּלְתִּי צֹאנִי מִפִּיהֶם, וְלֹא-תִהְיֶיןָ לָהֶם לְאָכְלָה. {ס}

יא כִּי כֹּה אָמַר, אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה: הִנְנִי-אָנִי, וְדָרַשְׁתִּי אֶת-צֹאנִי וּבִקַּרְתִּים. יב כְּבַקָּרַת רֹעֶה עֶדְרוֹ בְּיוֹם-הֱיוֹתוֹ בְתוֹךְ-צֹאנוֹ, נִפְרָשׁוֹת--כֵּן, אֲבַקֵּר אֶת-צֹאנִי; וְהִצַּלְתִּי אֶתְהֶם, מִכָּל-הַמְּקוֹמֹת אֲשֶׁר נָפֹצוּ שָׁם, בְּיוֹם עָנָן, וַעֲרָפֶל. יג וְהוֹצֵאתִים מִן-הָעַמִּים, וְקִבַּצְתִּים מִן-הָאֲרָצוֹת, וַהֲבִיאוֹתִים, אֶל-אַדְמָתָם; וּרְעִיתִים, אֶל-הָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּאֲפִיקִים, וּבְכֹל מוֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ. יד בְּמִרְעֶה-טּוֹב אֶרְעֶה אֹתָם, וּבְהָרֵי מְרוֹם-יִשְׂרָאֵל יִהְיֶה נְוֵהֶם; שָׁם תִּרְבַּצְנָה בְּנָוֶה טּוֹב, וּמִרְעֶה שָׁמֵן תִּרְעֶינָה אֶל-הָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. טו אֲנִי אֶרְעֶה צֹאנִי וַאֲנִי אַרְבִּיצֵם, נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה. טז אֶת-הָאֹבֶדֶת אֲבַקֵּשׁ, וְאֶת-הַנִּדַּחַת אָשִׁיב, וְלַנִּשְׁבֶּרֶת אֶחֱבֹשׁ, וְאֶת-הַחוֹלָה אֲחַזֵּק; וְאֶת-הַשְּׁמֵנָה וְאֶת-הַחֲזָקָה אַשְׁמִיד, אֶרְעֶנָּה בְמִשְׁפָּט. יז וְאַתֵּנָה צֹאנִי, כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה: הִנְנִי שֹׁפֵט בֵּין-שֶׂה לָשֶׂה, לָאֵילִים וְלָעַתּוּדִים. יח הַמְעַט מִכֶּם, הַמִּרְעֶה הַטּוֹב תִּרְעוּ, וְיֶתֶר מִרְעֵיכֶם, תִּרְמְסוּ בְּרַגְלֵיכֶם; וּמִשְׁקַע-מַיִם תִּשְׁתּוּ--וְאֵת הַנּוֹתָרִים, בְּרַגְלֵיכֶם תִּרְפֹּשׂוּן. יט וְצֹאנִי--מִרְמַס רַגְלֵיכֶם תִּרְעֶינָה, וּמִרְפַּשׂ רַגְלֵיכֶם תִּשְׁתֶּינָה. {פ}

כ לָכֵן, כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה--אֲלֵיהֶם: הִנְנִי-אָנִי--וְשָׁפַטְתִּי בֵּין-שֶׂה בִרְיָה, וּבֵין שֶׂה רָזָה. כא יַעַן, בְּצַד וּבְכָתֵף תֶּהְדֹּפוּ, וּבְקַרְנֵיכֶם תְּנַגְּחוּ, כָּל-הַנַּחְלוֹת--עַד אֲשֶׁר הֲפִיצוֹתֶם אוֹתָנָה, אֶל-הַחוּצָה. כב וְהוֹשַׁעְתִּי לְצֹאנִי, וְלֹא-תִהְיֶינָה עוֹד לָבַז; וְשָׁפַטְתִּי, בֵּין שֶׂה לָשֶׂה. כג וַהֲקִמֹתִי עֲלֵיהֶם רֹעֶה אֶחָד, וְרָעָה אֶתְהֶן--אֵת, עַבְדִּי דָוִיד; הוּא יִרְעֶה אֹתָם, וְהוּא-יִהְיֶה לָהֶן לְרֹעֶה. כד וַאֲנִי יְהוָה, אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים, וְעַבְדִּי דָוִד, נָשִׂיא בְתוֹכָם: אֲנִי יְהוָה, דִּבַּרְתִּי. כה וְכָרַתִּי לָהֶם בְּרִית שָׁלוֹם, וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה-רָעָה מִן-הָאָרֶץ; וְיָשְׁבוּ בַמִּדְבָּר לָבֶטַח, וְיָשְׁנוּ בַּיְּעָרִים. כו וְנָתַתִּי אוֹתָם וּסְבִיבוֹת גִּבְעָתִי, בְּרָכָה; וְהוֹרַדְתִּי הַגֶּשֶׁם בְּעִתּוֹ, גִּשְׁמֵי בְרָכָה יִהְיוּ. כז וְנָתַן עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה אֶת-פִּרְיוֹ, וְהָאָרֶץ תִּתֵּן יְבוּלָהּ, וְהָיוּ עַל-אַדְמָתָם, לָבֶטַח; וְיָדְעוּ כִּי-אֲנִי יְהוָה, בְּשִׁבְרִי אֶת-מֹטוֹת עֻלָּם, וְהִצַּלְתִּים, מִיַּד הָעֹבְדִים בָּהֶם. כח וְלֹא-יִהְיוּ עוֹד בַּז לַגּוֹיִם, וְחַיַּת הָאָרֶץ לֹא תֹאכְלֵם; וְיָשְׁבוּ לָבֶטַח, וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד. כט וַהֲקִמֹתִי לָהֶם מַטָּע, לְשֵׁם; וְלֹא-יִהְיוּ עוֹד אֲסֻפֵי רָעָב, בָּאָרֶץ, וְלֹא-יִשְׂאוּ עוֹד, כְּלִמַּת הַגּוֹיִם. ל וְיָדְעוּ, כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם--אִתָּם; וְהֵמָּה, עַמִּי בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל--נְאֻם, אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה. לא וְאַתֵּן צֹאנִי צֹאן מַרְעִיתִי, אָדָם אַתֶּם: אֲנִי, אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--נְאֻם, אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה. {פ}

and doesnt actually says anything close to:


If a man dies, according to Talmudic law, then standing on or near his gravesite is considered a defilement. This does not apply to graves of gentiles as they are not considered men.

We can't read Hebrew, Spock. You don't win an argument by debating in a different language.

We can't read Hebrew, Spock. You don't win an argument by debating in a different language.

so maybe you shouldnt argue with me what it says and what its not? :eek:

its says nothing of gentiles being not men.

so maybe you shouldnt argue with me what it says and what its not? :eek:

its says nothing of gentiles being not men.

As Sam said:

"highly acclaimed Orthodox rabbi who has published an edition of the English translation of the Talmud"

I don't know Hebrew, so considering my circumstances, it's fair to say that a Jew with such impressive credentials is likely my best source for understanding the Talmud. You're here saying he quoted the text incorrectly.

I ask you, is your résumé as impressive as his? Do tell.

Even the term Gentiles, used for non-Jews, refers to pagan sex worshippers (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1THES%204:5&version=9;) and demon worshippers (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Cor.%2010:20&version=9;) and is itself a derogatory term.

1 Thessalonians 4:5 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
5Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

1 Corinthians 10:20 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

As Sam said:

"highly acclaimed Orthodox rabbi who has published an edition of the English translation of the Talmud"

I don't know Hebrew, so considering my circumstances, it's fair to say that a Jew with such impressive credentials is likely my best source for understanding the Talmud. You're here saying he quoted the text incorrectly.

I ask you, is your résumé as impressive as his? Do tell.

ho ho ho? when you said the elders of zion was true and proven i asked you for evidence, you ran away, now you are saying you prefer an english version on something that was translated from hebrew?

being a 25 years old speaking hebrew as a mother tongue isnt better? i met foreigns rabbis who know hebrew less then me-so you can beileve what you want.

i think the mistake of whoever translated the text made was to translate men instead of adam-just like the refuting sources i quote say, which is actually the source of the confusion-however, the passage still doesnt say gentiles are not men, as chhush said and linked us to a muslim site that supposedly proves it.

talmud is learned from hebrew. you cant learn it from english.

i think the mistake of whoever translated the text made was to translate men instead of adam-just like the refuting sources i quote say, which is actually the source of the confusion-however, the passage still doesnt say gentiles are not men, as chhush said and linked us to a muslim site that supposedly proves it.

I'm not saying you are wrong, as I cannot read the Hebrew myself. I'm just challenging you calling chuush a liar when authoritative sources support his query.

What is the word that has been wrongly translated?

Even the term Gentiles, used for non-Jews, refers to pagan sex worshippers (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1THES%204:5&version=9;) and demon worshippers (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Cor.%2010:20&version=9;) and is itself a derogatory term.

1 Thessalonians 4:5 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
5Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

1 Corinthians 10:20 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

so you insist that non jews are not consider men according to the talmud.

youll do anything to keep up your hate hu SAM :D

I'm not saying you are wrong, as I cannot read the Hebrew myself. I'm just challenging you calling chuush a liar when authoritative sources support his query.

What is the word that has been wrongly translated?

chussh said that non jews are not considered men according to the talmud.

you wanna support him and say its true?

ho ho ho? when you said the elders of zion was true and proven i asked you for evidence, you ran away, now you are saying you prefer an english version on something that was translated from hebrew?

No, actually, I offered to provide evidence but iceaura said don't bother.

being a 25 years old speaking hebrew as a mother tongue isnt better? i met foreigns rabbis who know hebrew less then me-so you can beileve what you want.

The Rabbi speaks Hebrew and has researched libraries worth of material about his religion. He is a higher authority for Judaism than you are.

No, actually, I offered to provide evidence but iceaura said don't bother.



sure :p


The Rabbi speaks Hebrew and has researched libraries worth of material about his religion. He is a higher authority for Judaism than you are.

on judaisim i agree-not on hebrew.

chussh said that non jews are not considered men according to the talmud.

you wanna support him and say its true?

I provided you a quote from an authoritative Talmud translation which supports that.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_114.html

Said he [Rabbah] to him: Art thou not a priest:2 why then dost thou stand in a cemetery?3 — He replied: Has the Master not studied the laws of purity?4 For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men;5 only ye are designated 'men'.6

So what do you say about these: "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/talmud.htm

this is what cuuush said-i challenged it as a fake quote of the talmud.
i didnt call him a liar actually, i only said what he think is true is actually wrong-he probably wasnt aware he believes in a lie.

I provided you a quote from an authoritative Talmud translation which supports that.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_114.html

its says nothing of that sort-Cf. Num. XIX, 14: This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent; all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.

and it doesnt say men either.

you wanna keep on arguing what the talmud teach about non jews? :rolleyes:

on judaisim i agree-not on hebrew.

So, how many conversations in Hebrew have you had with the man? I'm guessing somewhere along the lines of zero.

So, how many conversations in Hebrew have you had with the man? I'm guessing somewhere along the lines of zero.

like you tried to talk to zionist about the elders of zion book? :eek:

this guy says exactly what i said:

In Numbers 19:14 the Written Torah states that "If [a] man [person] dies inside a tent ...." and the passage goes on to describe the laws of ritual impurity caused by the corpse.

The sages considered whether this law applied to all men or only to Jews. It might have been thought that the word 'man' or 'person' would indicate a reference to both Jews and non-Jews. However the Oral tradition made it clear that when the Torah uses the word 'man' or 'person' in connection with legal restrictions the reference is usually to Jews and not to non-Jews who are not bound by Torah law.

The Talmudic passage states in connection with this matter: "'... My sheep ... you are men' (Ez. 34:31); you [Jews] are called 'adam' [men], and the idol worshippers are not called 'adam' [men]".

Commentators explain that the use of the word 'men' [adam] in this passage is similar to the use of the word 'person' in modern national law codes. When such a law code uses the term 'person' the reference is not universal but is restricted to those persons who are bound by that national law code.

Similarly in the case at hand the laws of ritual impurity apply only to Jews and not to non-Jews. The passage should thus be understood as follows:

"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that for the purpose of legal enactments the term 'person' refers to Jews, who are bound by the law, and does not refer to non-Jews who are not bound by the law". It is interesting to note that the proof text is taken from Ezekiel Chapter 34 in which Israel is compared to sheep.

Another interpretation given by commentators is that when the context is negative (as in a discussion of ritual impurity caused by a corpse or the commission of a sin) the word 'man' is used to refer to Jews only (in this
way not bringing shame on the name 'Israel'), but when the context is positive then the word includes all of mankind.

With this understanding the Talmudic passage should be understood as follows:

"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that in a negative context such as that of ritual impurity the word 'man' refers to Jews only, and not to non-Jews".

This sentence appears three times in the Talmud; the reference in Baba Mezia 114a is tangential and therefore the subject is not developed at any length. An honest reader would follow the cross-references to the other locations and note that in Kerithoth 6b the Talmud points out that the application of this principle of interpretation is questionable in any event.

Yevamot 61a is the third place in which this rule of interpretation is mentioned and in this location the commentators on the page also point out that this rule of interpretation has very limited use. They specifically cross reference to the Talmudic statements in Avoda Zara 3a and Sanhedrin 59a which compare non-Jews who engage in Torah study to the High Priest.

its says nothing about non jews not being men, so let it go.

or actually dont-im enjoying it.

The sages considered whether this law applied to all men or only to Jews. It might have been thought that the word 'man' or 'person' would indicate a reference to both Jews and non-Jews. However the Oral tradition made it clear that when the Torah uses the word 'man' or 'person' in connection with legal restrictions the reference is usually to Jews and not to non-Jews who are not bound by Torah law.

The Talmudic passage states in connection with this matter: "'... My sheep ... you are men' (Ez. 34:31); you [Jews] are called 'adam' [men], and the idol worshippers are not called 'adam' [men]".

Commentators explain that the use of the word 'men' [adam] in this passage is similar to the use of the word 'person' in modern national law codes. When such a law code uses the term 'person' the reference is not universal but is restricted to those persons who are bound by that national law code.


That makes sense to me. And that is the right way to answer a query, not by insinuating that the rabbi is a fraud and everyone is an anti-semite.

Its similar to how people are called the Quran too, with adam used for men, indicating that adam is a word used to designate people.


The word Adam occurs twenty five times in the Quran but it is used in twenty one cases as a symbol for self-conscious humanity. Here, it is pertinent to point out that the word Adam is a Hebrew word (from adamah meaning the soil) and it functions generally as a collective noun referring to the human rather than to a male person. In the Quran, the word Adam (which Arabic borrowed from Hebrew) mostly does not refer to a particular human being. Rather it refers to human being in a particular way. ...

http://saudiamber.blogspot.com/2007/07/is-there-space-for-feminism-in-islam.html

That makes sense to me. And that is the right way to answer a query, not by insinuating that the rabbi is a fraud and everyone is an anti-semite.

Its similar to how people are called the Quran too, with adam used for men, indicating that adam is a word used to designate people.

so we learn several things:

a. you think jews dont consider non jews as men - without checking.

b. you didnt bother to read it the first time i posted it.

d. you didnt bother to read the interpretation of the same text you outed that specifically explains what that lines is intended to.

c. i never said he is a fraud, i said that probably someone took a pen jewish name because i knew for a fact that the passage doesnt say anything on non jews being not men. maybe i was a little hasty on that. but i have no problem saying im wrong-he just mistranslated adam to men. actually the entire line is not entirely accurate-as every word or connotation in the talmud, bible and every other jewish religious document is important.


actually the only thing you were right about was that the rabbi and the translation are real. but you still hate jews.

so you still want to insisnt its says non jews are no men according to the talmud ? :D

i never said he is a fraud, i said that probably someone took a pen jewish name because i knew for a fact that the passage doesnt say anything on non jews being not men. maybe i was a little hasty on that. but i have no problem saying im wrong-he just mistranslated adam to men. actually the entire line is not entirely accurate-as every word or connotation in the talmud, bible and every other jewish religious document is important.

Hmm so when you said his English name may be Brian, you were referring to Monty Python?

I understand the vagaries of translation, so I never take stuff from translation without checking it for some semblance of authenticity.

But you called chuush a liar for doing the same thing that the rabbis have done -putting human instead of men- and my intent was merely to challenge you on that. As far as I am concerned, the Talmud can go the way of teh Hadiths.

Hmm so when you said his English name may be Brian, you were referring to Monty Python?

I understand the vagaries of translation, so I never take stuff from translation without checking it for some semblance of authenticity.

But you called chuush a liar for doing the same thing that the rabbis have done -putting human instead of men- and my intent was merely to challenge you on that.

where did i say he was liar? :confused:

where did i say he was liar? :confused:

You called all muslims liars. He happens to be one.

for the 1000 time-thats a fake quote. jews are obligated to dedicate their lifes to correct the world and bring peace by studying the torah. its their duty.

and im not surprised its a muslim site-the one best they know how to do, spread hate and misinformation.

for the 1000 time-thats a fake quote. jews are obligated to dedicate their lifes to correct the world and bring peace by studying the torah. its their duty.

and im not surprised its a muslim site-the one best they know how to do, spread hate and misinformation.

this is my initial response to chuuush-where did i call him a liar?

i think you tried to defend the quote because YOU beileve that what it says. he quoted from a muslim site with fake talmud quoted designed to spread hate on jews. you want to defend them? go ahead im waiting.

You called all muslims liars. He happens to be one.

i didnt know he was a muslims. and i never used the term liars i said they are fake, which makes my other assertion true-muslims are best at spreading hate without checking their sources first :p

but what the heck-im opened to a debate whether the source he used to quote from is true or not.

this is my initial response to chuuush-where did i call him a liar?

i think you tried to defend the quote because YOU beileve that what it says. he quoted from a muslim site with fake talmud quoted designed to spread hate on jews. you want to defend them? go ahead im waiting.

Its not a fake quote, its just a literal translation. Like using men instead of those-who-are-bound-by-the-Torah. I'm assuming most English translations of that verse are more likely to use the former rather than the latter.

Its not a fake quote, its just a literal translation. Like using men instead of those-who-are-bound-by-the-Torah. I'm assuming most English translations of that verse are more likely to use the former rather than the latter.

of course:

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

so, where does it say they are beasts?

http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/talmud.htm


**again to call him a liar i have to presume he knew it is a fake quote.

of course:

so, where does it say they are beasts?


It does not say it there, unless you translate not men as beasts.

But here is what a scholar of the the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva has to say on the issue:

In this article R' Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards "Gentiles" in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion: "The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as 'man,' and a Gentile." That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R' Bar-Chayim's work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R' Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs not on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
For the English readers' convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R' Bar-Chayim's article:

1. Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).
2. A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
3. A Jew's exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile's property. But if a Gentile's property causes damage to a Jew's property, the Gentile is liable.
4. The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah's law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
5. A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one's sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
6. The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
7. One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
8. A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
9. One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
10. A Gentile -- or even a convert to Judaism -- may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
11. One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
12. The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
13. One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment "love your neighbor" applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
14. One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: "Your mother shall be greatly ashamed..."
15. Gentiles are likened to animals.
16. If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
17. The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure -- he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
18. One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
19. An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile's ritual slaughter -- but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
20. Their members are like those of asses" -- Gentiles are likened to animals.
21. Between the Jews and the Gentiles -- In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought

http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/index.html

It does not say it there, unless you translate not men as beasts.


so i was right. its FAKE!

It is safe to say that, under appropriate Talmudic law, the goyim are more or less equivalent to animals?

this is intresting-Foreword -- Daat Emet.

daat emet are jews who left judaisim-or at least their teachings.


why are they farwerded with this?

It is safe to say that, under appropriate Talmudic law, the goyim are more or less equivalent to animals?

Leave it.

It is safe to say that, under appropriate Talmudic law, the goyim are more or less equivalent to animals?

sure :p

Leave it.

why? :eek:

he understood the original cuuush quote just as perfect.

ho i get it-you are mocking me:

R' Bar-Chayim's arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R' Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d,

come and hear think he is racist?

maybe i was right about those guys after all.

WTF

About Carol A. Valentine

Carol A. Valentine is a writer, researcher, publicist, and human rights activist. Her work has been published in diverse periodicals and newspapers in subjects ranging from economics to human rights. Her article, The Insanity of the Insanity Defense, was first published by the conservative newspaper Human Events on September 26, 1981, republished in the October, 1981 Criminal Justice Report (the National Association of Attorneys General monthly) and again republished as the lead article in a special "Insanity Defense" edition of The Prosecutor, published by the National District Attorneys Association.

Carol is the author and Curator of the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum, and president of Public Action, Inc.

More recently, Carol published a collection of cutting edge essays analyzing the events of 9-11 and the follow-up wars. She was the first to point out that the 9-11 suicide jets could have been remote-controlled aircraft, and showed conclusively that 9-11 would not have been possible without the knowing cooperation of the North American Aerospace Command.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/valentine.html

This is what will drive me nuts, I've never seen these quotes, and I know for a fact the muslim translation is off by a mile.

Baba Mezi'a 114b


Dilling discusses highlighted text here, here, and here
[He asked him further:] Whence do we know that a naked man must not separate [terumah]? — From the verse, That He see no unclean thing in thee.1 Said he [Rabbah] to him: Art thou not a priest:2 why then dost thou stand in a cemetery?3 — He replied: Has the Master not studied the laws of purity?4 For it has been taught: R.Simeon b. Yohai said: The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men;5 only ye are designated 'men'.6 — He replied: I cannot even adequately study the four [orders]; can I then study six?7 And why? he inquired. — I am too hard-pressed,8 he answered. He then led him into Paradise and said to him: Remove thy robe and collect and take away some of these leaves. So he gathered them and carried them off. As he was coming out, he heard a remark, 'Who would so consume his [portion in] the world [to come] as Rabbah b. Abbuha has done?' Thereupon he scattered and threw them away. Yet even so, since he had carried them in his robe, it had absorbed their fragrance, and so he sold it for twelve thousand denarii, which he distributed among his sons-in-law.

Our Rabbis taught: And if the man be poor, thou shalt not sleep in his pledge:9 hence, if he is wealthy, thou mayest sleep thus. What does this mean?10 — Said R. Shesheth: This is the meaning: And if the man be poor, thou shalt not sleep whilst his pledge is in thy possession; but if he is wealthy, thou mayest do so.11

Our Rabbis taught: If a man lends [money] to his fellow, he may not take a pledge of him, nor is he bound to return it to him, and he transgresses all these injunctions.12 What does this mean? — R. Shesheth said: This: If a man lends [money] to his fellow, he may not [himself] take a pledge of him; and if he did take a pledge of him [by means of a court officer], he is bound to return it;13 whilst 'he transgresses all these injunctions' refers to the last clause.14 Raba said: It is thus meant: If a man lends money to his neighbour, he may not take a pledge of him [himself], and if he took a pledge of him [through the court], he must return it.15 Now, when is this? If the pledge was not taken at the time of the loan.16 But if it was taken at the time of the loan,17 he is not bound to return it to him.18 Whilst 'and he transgresses all these injunctions' refers to the first clause.19

R. Shizebi recited before Raba: Thou shalt return it unto him until the sun goeth down20 — this refers to night attire; in any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down — to an object of day attire. Said he to him: Of what use is an article of day attire by night,21 and a night attire by day? Shall I then delete it? he asked. — No, was his reply. It reads thus: Thou shalt return it unto him until the sun goeth down — this refers to an