Sounds like you're responding to something not facts on the ground. The original Zionist bought land from the Turkish land owners, and developed it, including disease-ridden swamps. Arabs moved in to get jobs, then claimed they always owned the land. Other areas were captured in defensive wars the Arabs initiated.
Goyim and gentile mean "the nations". As in other nations in the world. It does NOT mean cattle. That's a smear.
(Golem is a legend of a clay man made by a Rabbi to defend the community, but it's probably just a legend)
The Talmud is a long and involved work of Rabbinical commentary on the laws of the Torah in minute detail and abstraction that makes it a difficult area of study. Some anti-Semites focus in on a few problematic passages out of context and declare the whole work evil. Is that what you're planning to do?
The land was part of the Ottoman Empire, which dissolved after World War 1 and was part of Britain. There was never an independent nation or people of Arabs called "Palestinians."
If you have citation of the Talmud, let's hear it.
Sex with three year old girls -- I think I saw this particular slur addressed by a Talmudic scholar who took the time to rebut the popular, anti-Semitic slanders on the Torah.
Here's what it is discussing:
A woman who loses her virginity is ineligible for marriage.
The question was: If there was a girl who was three, and was molested by some creep, does that mean she was ineligible for marriage?
The Talmud's interpretation of this was that it did not count as sex, therefore the girl could still get married when she came of age.
Horrors. An abused child is allowed to get on with her life.
You see, this is the kind of out-of-context crap you Jew-haters come up with to slander the Talmud and the Jews.
I can't speak for other anons, but some verses from the Sanhedrin are quite strange, so I think that's what he's talking about.
is this just some weird way to tell stories? like morality plays? isn't Sanhedrin part of the Talmud?
and maybe I missed it, since I was raised Catholic-not proficient in the Bible-
but I don't remember talking about children and 'intercourse' in catechism class...
"The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree?
The Gemara answers: Rav holds that any halakha that applies to one who engages in intercourse actively applies to one who engages in intercourse passively,
and any halakha that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse actively does not apply to one who engages in intercourse passively.
Therefore, just as one who engages in intercourse actively is not liable if he is less than nine years old,
as the intercourse of such a child does not have the halakhic status of intercourse,
so too, if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively,
the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable.
22"
ושמואל
I'm often to extend the benefit of the doubt to a lot of people here, a lot more than usual. And I've said some pretty harsh things about leftist Jews. (Basically that they're idolators). But when I get hit like the other guy did, with "Synagogue of Satan" and stuff, well, that's what we have a block button for.
Anyway, onto your question.
This verse you're going to -- what one people miss about the Talmud and this track you are citing as well is that these are conversations. It's famous Rabbis of old, discussing the application of the Torah's laws in absolute minutia. You see both sides are being recorded. Like "Rabbi Rav said this, but Rabbi Shmuel countered with this."
One of the most famous friendly rivalries was between Hillel and Shami, for instance. We don't often arrive at a "correct" answer, but it's debates on the question of applicable law -- even on cases that are not theoretically possible. Think of it like a brain exercise.
There's one anecdote about Rabbis discussing how an animal that is born on one man's property belongs to him, but if it's born on the other side, it belongs to the neighbor. So one asks: "What if a goat is born with two legs on one man's side of the property line, and the other two legs on his neighbor's?"
That's the kind of minutia I'm talking about. Not even possible in the real world, but they still inquire about it.
Onto these phrases -- as to the liability of these sexual sins -- nothing is off base. It's risqué subject matter. But keep in mind, the Torah does outlaw a wide range of sexual activities. A question might be -- if a boy is raped by a homosexual, is he liable? Maybe he is never liable below a certain age? But maybe there's an age where he would be a willing participant? And if he's a willing participant, is he liable? Should that be the age of Bar-Mitzvah, or not? What if he's not physically forced, but is coerced? Or bribed? If bribed, was he in poverty? Should his liability be reduced if it was his only method of getting food?
It may seem odd that a bunch of Rabbis are talking about this, but the Torah doesn't deal with risqué subjects by ignoring them. That's why a lot of people go nuts. "the Bible codifies slavery!" yes it does. Because slavery was a reality. If the Bible said "stop slavery altogether" that sounds fine in 2021. But in 3000 BC, people would say: "Not possible. We can't have functioning farms without at least some slaves." So they made a codification to lessen the burden.
There's even a rule for what to do with captive women. If you read the Iliad, you may recall that the initial fight that starts it all is when Achilles and Agamemnon are arguing about a captive girl. That is, some girls was captured in the skirmish. Agamamenon and Achilles both had one... a girl to keep in their tent, to rape when the move struck them. Agamemnon had to give his girl back to her father, since her father was a priest of Apollo -- and Apollo was sending plagues to the Greeks until they gave the girl back. Agamemnon then takes Achilles's girl as compensation. (She has no connections, unlike the other one). And Achilles, pissed off, boycotts the war.
What were they fighting over? Captured women who would be their rape slaves.
What does the Bible say about this subject?
It says this: You can do it. BUT you have to do it this way. The girl gets captured. You have to cut her hair. Then she wears baggy, unflattering clothes. You give her a month to mourn her family. Then you can take her home and MARRY her.
What changed? Well, she gets married in the end. But something else is happening. If you're a soldier, you captured this beautiful woman. You imagine doing the nasty with her. But first... she has to cut her hair. And wear ugly clothes. And sit in your tent for a month, crying about how she misses her family. And she's no longer as pretty as when you caught her. After all, you cut her hair and gave her ugly clothes. What might many a soldier do in this situation?
After a few days, you might just say: "Okay, okay, that's enough. Don't cry anymore. Go home. "
That gives her a better shot of that than if she was a captive of the Greeks.
It seems weird to us, but we're thinking of 21st century war, not what it was like in the ancient world. the Bible (and by extension, the Talmud) confronts these uncomfortable subjects, and works their way through them.
Nothing wrong with Jews supporting their ancestral homeland.
If there's another connotation to zionist, tell me.
Sounds like you're responding to something not facts on the ground. The original Zionist bought land from the Turkish land owners, and developed it, including disease-ridden swamps. Arabs moved in to get jobs, then claimed they always owned the land. Other areas were captured in defensive wars the Arabs initiated.
Goyim and gentile mean "the nations". As in other nations in the world. It does NOT mean cattle. That's a smear.
(Golem is a legend of a clay man made by a Rabbi to defend the community, but it's probably just a legend)
Horse shit.
The land was part of the Ottoman Empire, which dissolved after World War 1 and was part of Britain. There was never an independent nation or people of Arabs called "Palestinians."
If you have citation of the Talmud, let's hear it.
Sex with three year old girls -- I think I saw this particular slur addressed by a Talmudic scholar who took the time to rebut the popular, anti-Semitic slanders on the Torah.
Here's what it is discussing:
A woman who loses her virginity is ineligible for marriage.
The question was: If there was a girl who was three, and was molested by some creep, does that mean she was ineligible for marriage?
The Talmud's interpretation of this was that it did not count as sex, therefore the girl could still get married when she came of age.
Horrors. An abused child is allowed to get on with her life.
You see, this is the kind of out-of-context crap you Jew-haters come up with to slander the Talmud and the Jews.
I can't speak for other anons, but some verses from the Sanhedrin are quite strange, so I think that's what he's talking about.
is this just some weird way to tell stories? like morality plays? isn't Sanhedrin part of the Talmud?
and maybe I missed it, since I was raised Catholic-not proficient in the Bible- but I don't remember talking about children and 'intercourse' in catechism class...
really is a creepy verse:(
https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.54b.21-22?lang=bi
"The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree?
The Gemara answers: Rav holds that any halakha that applies to one who engages in intercourse actively applies to one who engages in intercourse passively,
and any halakha that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse actively does not apply to one who engages in intercourse passively.
Therefore, just as one who engages in intercourse actively is not liable if he is less than nine years old,
as the intercourse of such a child does not have the halakhic status of intercourse,
so too, if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively,
the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable. 22" ושמואל
I'm often to extend the benefit of the doubt to a lot of people here, a lot more than usual. And I've said some pretty harsh things about leftist Jews. (Basically that they're idolators). But when I get hit like the other guy did, with "Synagogue of Satan" and stuff, well, that's what we have a block button for.
Anyway, onto your question.
This verse you're going to -- what one people miss about the Talmud and this track you are citing as well is that these are conversations. It's famous Rabbis of old, discussing the application of the Torah's laws in absolute minutia. You see both sides are being recorded. Like "Rabbi Rav said this, but Rabbi Shmuel countered with this."
One of the most famous friendly rivalries was between Hillel and Shami, for instance. We don't often arrive at a "correct" answer, but it's debates on the question of applicable law -- even on cases that are not theoretically possible. Think of it like a brain exercise.
There's one anecdote about Rabbis discussing how an animal that is born on one man's property belongs to him, but if it's born on the other side, it belongs to the neighbor. So one asks: "What if a goat is born with two legs on one man's side of the property line, and the other two legs on his neighbor's?"
That's the kind of minutia I'm talking about. Not even possible in the real world, but they still inquire about it.
Onto these phrases -- as to the liability of these sexual sins -- nothing is off base. It's risqué subject matter. But keep in mind, the Torah does outlaw a wide range of sexual activities. A question might be -- if a boy is raped by a homosexual, is he liable? Maybe he is never liable below a certain age? But maybe there's an age where he would be a willing participant? And if he's a willing participant, is he liable? Should that be the age of Bar-Mitzvah, or not? What if he's not physically forced, but is coerced? Or bribed? If bribed, was he in poverty? Should his liability be reduced if it was his only method of getting food?
It may seem odd that a bunch of Rabbis are talking about this, but the Torah doesn't deal with risqué subjects by ignoring them. That's why a lot of people go nuts. "the Bible codifies slavery!" yes it does. Because slavery was a reality. If the Bible said "stop slavery altogether" that sounds fine in 2021. But in 3000 BC, people would say: "Not possible. We can't have functioning farms without at least some slaves." So they made a codification to lessen the burden.
There's even a rule for what to do with captive women. If you read the Iliad, you may recall that the initial fight that starts it all is when Achilles and Agamemnon are arguing about a captive girl. That is, some girls was captured in the skirmish. Agamamenon and Achilles both had one... a girl to keep in their tent, to rape when the move struck them. Agamemnon had to give his girl back to her father, since her father was a priest of Apollo -- and Apollo was sending plagues to the Greeks until they gave the girl back. Agamemnon then takes Achilles's girl as compensation. (She has no connections, unlike the other one). And Achilles, pissed off, boycotts the war.
What were they fighting over? Captured women who would be their rape slaves.
What does the Bible say about this subject?
It says this: You can do it. BUT you have to do it this way. The girl gets captured. You have to cut her hair. Then she wears baggy, unflattering clothes. You give her a month to mourn her family. Then you can take her home and MARRY her.
What changed? Well, she gets married in the end. But something else is happening. If you're a soldier, you captured this beautiful woman. You imagine doing the nasty with her. But first... she has to cut her hair. And wear ugly clothes. And sit in your tent for a month, crying about how she misses her family. And she's no longer as pretty as when you caught her. After all, you cut her hair and gave her ugly clothes. What might many a soldier do in this situation?
After a few days, you might just say: "Okay, okay, that's enough. Don't cry anymore. Go home. "
That gives her a better shot of that than if she was a captive of the Greeks.
It seems weird to us, but we're thinking of 21st century war, not what it was like in the ancient world. the Bible (and by extension, the Talmud) confronts these uncomfortable subjects, and works their way through them.