I basically was prying into the Talmud, what was it, I think eight months ago and I just pulled out all these verses.
That's a lie because all he did was to quote a single-source telephone-game distortion meme as if he was actually reading the Talmud. He merely read most of points 1-9 on this graphic. If he had actually pried into the Talmud he would realize how mistaken the graphic was.
Here is one case where that graphic was posted to Scored and deleted, with my excessively detailed answers.
Short version:
Sanhedrin 59a is no different from Jesus calling people dogs or vipers, it's metaphorical.
Avodah Zarah 26b does not contain the quote stated, which is not as such in Talmud but in the medieval source Tractate Soferim 15, where it only applies to a declared war (in which enemies might be killed without discrimination).
Sanhedrin 59a again first quotes one rabbi's opinion that Gentiles should not engage in Torah and then overrules that opinion by the majority, so it is not a binding tenet of Judaism.
"Libbre David 37" has never been proven to exist despite 100+ years of people searching for a quote with a reference remotely like this. There may exist some similar thought around 17th or 18th century in some similarly named book in German, but it hasn't been located.
Yevamot 11b does not contain the quote stated, but the quote is close to Ketuvot 11b and Yevamot 57b. The very short version is that (while the Roman empire had no legislation against pedophilia) rabbinical Judaism regarded rape of girls over three to be punishable up to and including by death, but classified molestation at up to age three as a lesser crime so that the girl's reputation would not be injured by it. The arcane organization of the Talmud makes these facts hard to comprehend without careful reading.
Hilkkoth Akum 10:1 is an adventurous name for Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, which was not Talmud but the 13th-century Maimonides commentary and refers to not risking one's own life for a known idolater in mortal danger, who may jeopardize both lives.
When the actual Talmud is compared it makes sense in its time and place even though it has some rough edges natural to it, just as our Christian patristics, and Muslim ahadith, both have as well. To fight against the Talmud with mistaken claims from many other sources is actually to embolden Talmudists because the strawman is so easy to deflect. To criticize the Talmud rightly, we must quote it accurately and object to its actual insularity, superstition, and casuistry rather than nonentity bogeymen recently invented.
Total fabrication.
That's a lie because all he did was to quote a single-source telephone-game distortion meme as if he was actually reading the Talmud. He merely read most of points 1-9 on this graphic. If he had actually pried into the Talmud he would realize how mistaken the graphic was.
Here is one case where that graphic was posted to Scored and deleted, with my excessively detailed answers.
Short version:
Sanhedrin 59a is no different from Jesus calling people dogs or vipers, it's metaphorical.
Avodah Zarah 26b does not contain the quote stated, which is not as such in Talmud but in the medieval source Tractate Soferim 15, where it only applies to a declared war (in which enemies might be killed without discrimination).
Sanhedrin 59a again first quotes one rabbi's opinion that Gentiles should not engage in Torah and then overrules that opinion by the majority, so it is not a binding tenet of Judaism.
"Libbre David 37" has never been proven to exist despite 100+ years of people searching for a quote with a reference remotely like this. There may exist some similar thought around 17th or 18th century in some similarly named book in German, but it hasn't been located.
Yevamot 11b does not contain the quote stated, but the quote is close to Ketuvot 11b and Yevamot 57b. The very short version is that (while the Roman empire had no legislation against pedophilia) rabbinical Judaism regarded rape of girls over three to be punishable up to and including by death, but classified molestation at up to age three as a lesser crime so that the girl's reputation would not be injured by it. The arcane organization of the Talmud makes these facts hard to comprehend without careful reading.
Hilkkoth Akum 10:1 is an adventurous name for Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, which was not Talmud but the 13th-century Maimonides commentary and refers to not risking one's own life for a known idolater in mortal danger, who may jeopardize both lives.
When the actual Talmud is compared it makes sense in its time and place even though it has some rough edges natural to it, just as our Christian patristics, and Muslim ahadith, both have as well. To fight against the Talmud with mistaken claims from many other sources is actually to embolden Talmudists because the strawman is so easy to deflect. To criticize the Talmud rightly, we must quote it accurately and object to its actual insularity, superstition, and casuistry rather than nonentity bogeymen recently invented.
u/Cabalshallfall u/myturningpoint u/TaogTaov