Talk:Talmud/Archive 2

Come and Hear
JFW removed the link but I think this warrants a bit more discussion. Despite it being an anti-Jewish website, unfortunately THIS particular website also happens to be an important resource, as I'm not aware of any other site of the net that has parts of the Talmud online (yes there's Rodkinson but I think his version is spurious and anyway, the tractates are quite different in the two resources). Wikipedia pages have links to POV websites all the time, including very biased or deplorable ones. I think that it should be put back in, while it's the only site with a large proportion of Soncino in English online. Counterarguments shall be much appreciated. Frikle 11:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Wellllll, they sell copyrighted material (Soncino's translation is not yet public domain) on a CD-ROM. That, and Carol A. Valentine's anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on the rest of the internet make the site a rather distasteful addition to Wikipedia. And: have you checked the "Come-and-Hear" translation has not been doctored to reflect their views? JFW | T@lk  16:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It has been doctored at least to the extent that certain passages are highlighted; I have no confidence that it has not been doctored in other ways. Jayjg 17:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh my, that site is a laugh, it says that although Jews don't sacrifice Christian children they do sacrifice their own children, bwahahaha Kuratowski's Ghost 22:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Charges of racism
Chamaeleon's edits make it sound like people who make claims of racism in the Talmud do so honestly. Yet as the article explains these charges are based on deliberate fabrications, misquotes and half-truths. The nature of the claims therefore shows that these people are not honest and attempting to portray them as honest is itself dishonest. I am reverting his changes again. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And I am reverting yours. Your opinions have no place in the article, let the facts speak for themselves. I agree of course that there are many misquotes, but there are also statements embracing of ethnocentrism and a special status of Jewry which are not to be ignored. 14:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Ghost, don't be an extremist. As it stands, there is already heavy bias in favour of your point of view.  (The section starts off with a neutral introduction, and then gives two quotes viciously attacking people who criticise the Talmud.  The opposing point of view is not given.)  What you want is 100% bias instead of 90% bias.  This is not acceptable.  You are lucky that I am even tolerating the section as it stands.  As a matter of fact, I came to this article after hearing that a respected radical Jewish scholar had made such criticisms of the Talmud, and wanted to see what the Talmud article had to say about these things.  I have not even added these criticisms, but simply toned down the POV.  Chamaeleon 14:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've tried to write a compromise yet NPOV version. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

please read the book and see them advocating rape, murder cheating and pedophelia of non-jews. who do i believe me or my lieing eyes? i saw a authorized talmud in a national book store and was totaly horrified at its contents. defenders of the talmud are unreal and liers bar none! the Anti-anti-semite

You're a moron, and your viewpoint does not belong on this Wikipedia entry. You've never looked within a Talmud because if you did, you'd find nothing of the sort. For one, it's very large and I doubt there's a quick index for you to reference "pedophilia and gentiles". Secondly, these passages simply do not exist. Do your own research and find out that, gasp, WEHATEJEWS.com is simply distorting and fabricating passages in order for morons like you to believe what they want to hear.


 * Personallly I liked the Christian baby blood recipe for matza in the Baba Matza :) nazi moron :P

I think much of this part of the article is based on opinions and not facts. A appeal to generalization is also a logical fallacy within the text. Talmud is very much used by Jews as a main source of reference for their religion; although, they may claim that majority of Jews don't believe that which is a generalization and non-factual since their is plenty of evidence to proof Talmud is held very highly within Jewish community. Since the Talmud states to lie about things like this we might say that most Jews will never be truthful about the Talmud. Only accusations of "Anti-Semite," or "Nazi." will be used to sort of discredit the person who is objectively contemplating.


 * Maybe if the above comment were written in lucid English, one could respond to it. Slrubenstein  &#124;  &#91;&#91;User talk:Slrubenstein&#124;Talk]] 22:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The Talmud is indeed "held very highly within Jewish community". It is the main source of practical Jewish law. However, this article is not "based on opinions" at all. Do you have specific examples where you think opinion has prevailed? The problem is that you have been fed selective quotes, taken completely out of context, and without regard of how these have been interpreted through the ages. Another problem is that those critical of the Talmud (whatever that may be) often end up having rather radical views of Jews as well, suggesting that their criticism is more than just intellectual. JFW | T@lk  01:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Critical discussion of translations and commentary
I removed a totally false claim about critics of Neusner's translations. I happen to have a copy of Professor Saul Lieberman's critical review of Jacob Neusner's translation of Talmud Yerushalmi, and it isn't even close to what was claimed by the anonymous contributor. That edit claimed:


 * The criticism comes mainly from those who reject Neusner's modern scholarly agenda and prefer a traditional view of the text or one that is rooted in nineteenth century scholarship.

Nonsense. In fact, I know of no criticism of this project by people with such views. In contrast, many liberal Jewish academics who agree with Neusner's modern, critical, historical analysis of the Talmud disagree with some of his translations and views. This is not anything to ashamed of, but it also is not something to be hidden. The only way that one can make sense of the now-deleted polemic is to assume that anyone who disagrees with Neusner by definition must "reject a scholarly agenda" and must "be rooted in 19th century scholarship." RK 21:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

having read parts of the talmud on a mall bookstore shelf i honestly dispute the claims that is is not perverse or racist text as it says clearly many pornographic things about pedophilia ;in defence of it and it does advocate hate and murder and lieing and cheating of non-jews. anyone that denies this has not read the book. out of context or not its still immoral to stay its out of context as is it there and is plain as day. religious jews even admit that the talmud is not a holy book and call it unholy if not evil. why do people insist on this but never pick the book up and read it?

Menachem Mendel Schneerson
There are Thousands of talks and letters by Menachem Mendel Schneerson in which the talmud is expounded upon. As for the term "Talmudist" you will find a quote below from Mr. Avner Shaki, a Member of Knesset. "He was a philosopher, physicist, chemist, Talmudist and Chassidic master. Without doubt, the most interesting, charming, fascinating, and comprehensive person that I have ever met." Mr. Avner Shaki, Member of Knesset http://www.chabad.com/therebbe.cfm
 * What makes Shaki an expert in this? Schneerson was noted for other things. Jayjg (talk)  17:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether someone should be mentioned in that section should be made dependant on the acceptance of someone's Talmudic views in the circle of students of the Talmud. As the Rebbe has not published any chiddushim, and the chidushim interwoven in his Sichos are not quoted (apart from Chabad people) I do not think he should be counted as a Talmudist.

I agree with Jayjg that Avner Shaki is a rather shaky source to determine whether someone is a Talmudist or not. JFW | T@lk  18:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rabbi Mordechi Eliyahu, the past Chief Rabbi of Israel after his visit to the Rebbe said. "I saw that no secret is hidden from him, and I mean that simply and explicitly. He knows all of the Talmud, Poskim (legal precedents) and in the Mystical works his understanding is very very deep. He is the master of light. He is a master of all the Torah. And is an expert on everything that is happening in Israel. His face shines like an angel of G-d and he himself is higher than any angel. He is the greatest Torah master in our generation and no one is even close to him. And together with this he worries for every Jew in the world." Ariel Sokolovsky


 * I must agree with Ariel Sokolovsky here, and would like to add that Rabbi Mordechi Eliyahu wasn't the only Jewish leader that thought of the Rebbe this way, and that there where many, many more that thought the same way. --PinchasC 28 June 2005 07:18 (UTC)

Yeah, and this is coming from two users both quite interested in glorifying the Rebbe to the absolute maximum. I dispute the Rebbe has made any impact on Talmud study outside Chabad, and unless you can adduce proof to the contrary the Rebbe should not be mentioned here. Knowing the Talmud is not the same as being an influential Talmudist. JFW | T@lk  28 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

Unsigned by PinchasC --PinchasC 13:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct. What's more, I'd like to see a non-Lubavitch source for that quote. Jayjg (talk)  28 June 2005 15:22 (UTC)

Jayjg, are you going to require a non-Jewish source for every quote about Judaism as well? Or are you just biased against Chassidim and Chabad? --PinchasC 29 June 2005 01:53 (UTC) --PinchasC 13:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * PinchasC, neither myself nor Jayjg are biased against Chabad, let alone Chassidim (I wrote Simcha Bunim of Peshischa, in case you're interested in general Chassidus as well). Speaking for myself, I have constructively edited many Chabad-related articles.
 * However, your attitude is not helpful. Wikipedia is generally biased against users that are here with an agenda, and I think that if your edits get scrutinised more than average it is because you seem to do little else but push the POV that Chabad is the best thing that has ever happened to the world, and that the Rebbe was - apart from being a charismatic, inspirational and visionary leader and great Talmid Chacham - also a nuclear scientist, a lamdan, a psychologist and potential Nobel Prize winner.
 * I take the point that I should be "quite interested in degrading the Rebbe to the absolute maximum" as a personal attack. Just stop it and do something useful. JFW | T@lk  29 June 2005 10:08 (UTC)

JFW, and Jayg, Better late than never, but I would like to say I am sorry if I have written anything here that you took as a personal attack, I did not mean it in that way, and I take it back. --PinchasC 13:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Gracefully accepted. Again, if there's compelling evidence that the Rebbe is cited widely in Talmud-related literature as an authority I would not have the slightest problem with his inclusion. JFW | T@lk  09:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Grammar nitpick
The properly conjugated plural of "maseches" is not "masechtos", but rather "masachos", much as the similarly conjugated word "mateches" (metal) is pluralized as "matachos". "Masechtos" is an attempt to apply a Hebrew form of conjugation to the Aramaic word "m'sechta" (which is of the same meaning as the Hebrew "maseches"). If one wished to pluralize "m'sechta", I believe the proper Aramaic plural would be "m'sechtaya". Changes have been made. - Elyachba 21:21, May 08, 2005 (UTC)

This would not be the Aramaic plural form, since the final taw is the feminine plural morpheme and not a root form. Furthermore, the -ayya plural form is not the regular form in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. The best manuscripts appear to employ the plural form massachaata, which would conform with the expect form in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.

Link fairness
This is not really about your Talmud page, which I enjoyed, but rather the links you have here and those at the bottom of the page about Jesus. At the bottom of the page on Jesus, are several links to anti-Christian webpages which question the authenticity of the historical Jesus. These pages are known to use books which contain false and misinterpreted information. At the bottom of the Talmud page, you have links to webpages which defend the Talmud against anti-Semitic attacks. Don't you see a discrepancy here? To be fair on your webpage, you would have several choices: 1) include anti-Christian and anti-Semitic links at the bottom of both pages. 2)Include Jewish and Christian defenders at the bottom of both pages. 3) Include both at the bottom of both pages. I hope you are interested in fairness.
 * Which links do you object to specifically? Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. You should put links to web sites which both refute, and believe in, the supposed racism inherant within the writings. At the very least, remove the offending anti-christian links
 * I have added a link section titled "anti-semetic allegations concerning the talmud" above the "refutation of anti-semetic allegations concerning the talmud" link section, in the interest of balance and NPOV.

Obviously non-encyclopedic hate-sites are not appropriate links for any article. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You claim of "hate-sites" is a personal evaluation and not in the interest of neutrality. In the interest in presenting all points of view these links should be included in the article.

That's not what WP:NPOV states. Jayjg (talk) 15:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Refutation of anti-Semitic allegations concerning the Talmud" links to biased articles; there is no reason there should be a section of these links, and if so, another set of links should be included to balance them out.

Hateful?
I deleted the word "hateful" from the description of the people who made the attacks on the Talmud because this is non-verifiable and not an undisputed fact but seemingly an evaluation. If the issue in question is not making them seem legitimate, their names should be wikified articles if they exist and, depending on what the concensus of those articles is, a description like "extremist" might potentially be appropriate. Frikle 08:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a direct quote, so you can't change the wording. I'll make it clearer. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

racism
why not give the quotes "proving" racism, rather than the defense alone - ikh bin a curious yid --Taejo 14:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Because Judaism is not a race. This page isn't here for antisemitic conspiracy theorists to get their rocks off.  Imagine if non-Christian people went to every Christian Wikipedia and alleged all of these terrible things about the Bible and Christian authorities

Goodness, just read any Western work from the 17th century (or even the early 20th century) and see how they talked about Africans and American Indians. For some reason antisemites have a rather interesting double standard about racism; while claiming to be heirs to Western philosophy they crucially ignore the fact that until the 1950s blacks had to sit in the back of the bus in the white-dominated Southern states. Jews were almost in the majority amognst the Freedom Riders. Pot, meet kettle. JFW | T@lk  14:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This paper makes for interesting reading. JFW | T@lk

one sided article
The refutation links are themselves evasive and most of their arguments are little more than straw men, in the form of hardcore anti-semitic allegations against the talmud. This however does nothing to refute the other rational arguments against the POV of this article. Even in what they do refute they say things like "that section never even existed!" therefore they are lying anti-semites, when really, it very well could have existed, unbeknownst. Refuting ambiguous and seemingly partial accusations with ambiguous seemingly partial retorts doesn't amount to anything other than the ambiguity of that being debated. Censorship is another problem with this, since it has been seen with others apart from Jews, like literature in nationalist Poland for instance, which was full of anti-german disdain, yet those perspective's never managed to pass through too the abridged German edition.


 * What part of this article exactly are you referring to? This is rather vague. JFW | T@lk  11:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions
Urgent: see Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

List of prominent 20th century Talmud scholars
I restored the section on non-Orthodox Talmud scholars. This is important in its own right, but also useful as some Conservative Jewish Talmud scholars are often read and cited in the Modern Orthodox community, as well as within the Conservative and Reform communities. The Talmudic works of David Weiss Halivni and Saul Lieberman are the most prominent in this regards; I've read many articles from Modern Orthodox Jewish authors that cite the views of these authors alongside Orthodox authorities. Jacob Neusner's tremendous (and tremendously repetitious) body of work and analytical prowess has also earned him respect in some Orthodox circles, even while Orthodox Jews reject non-Orthodox interpretations of halakha. The point about Neusner in particular is discussed in "Piety and Power" by David Landau, Hill and Wang, 1993.

For the moment I have removed Dr. Dvora Weisberg from the list of Reform Talmud scholars, for two reasons. (A) I am not sure that she is Reform; she got her ordination at the Conservative movement's Jewish Theological Seminary, and (B) Her own website doesn't list any works she has published. How can someone be a well known Talmud scholar of the 20th century if they haven't made any contributions to the Jewish community at large? RK 23:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Charges of racism
This section is extremely one-sided. As someone else pointed out above, the quotes given to refute such allegations of racism are somewhat vague and ambiguous and don't seem to address any solid arguments. I would try to balance it out a bit, but I am only familiar in passing with the controversy regarding the Torah. Should we consider deleting the quotes from the Torah's defenders until such time as a more educated person than I is able to flesh out the controversy and give a balanced outline of it?--TheMcManusBro 16:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * After reading my own suggestion, that might not be a great idea. But still, would anyone happen to know of someone who is sufficiently familiar with the controversy to present a balanced account?  To leave the section as is permanently would be intolerable.--TheMcManusBro 16:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You should not be tagging sections without at least a nominal attempt at trying to improve it. It would be wrong to deny that there are racist concepts in the Talmud, e.g. Africans having big feet to manoeuvre the swamps, but these have a minimal if not completely absent influence on later Jewish thought and are certainly not beyond compare in literature produced at the same time by other religious groups. Beware of applying a double standard. JFW | T@lk  08:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Granted, but I still maintain that the section is comepletely unbalanced. There is absolutely no information given on the specific arguments or passage in question, but rather some choice quotes attacking the allegations--both, I might add, from people/groups who have agendae of their own.  Attention needs to be called to the bias of that section.  As it stands, it is so blatantly loaded that if anything it would make a neutral observer suspicious of the criticisms.  Personally, I have no axe to grind; I care very little whether the Talmud is in fact racist but I am certainly interested to know from whence the controversy arises and it would be nice if someone could give me some straight information on the controversy.  I am not interested in ADL talking points.--TheMcManusBro 17:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You may want to edit the paragraph to make it sound more NPOV. Just mention in the edit summary that it was discussed on this talk page. JFW | T@lk  20:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The only way I can see to improve the paragraph is to remove the quotations from the Talmud's defenders. The problem is that defenders may wish to include said quotes as part of their argument in a more fleshed-out discussion of the issue (although they are vague enough that I'm not sure they would add much that is meaningful to a good defense) and if so, that would make them relevant information, which I would be reluctant to delete.  Unfortunately, I am not qualified to state the attackers' positions with much more substance.  I will do some research when I have the time (probably next month), but in the meantime I thought it good to point it out so that someone more qualified than I might see the problem and help remedy it.


 * What is your opinion? *Personally*, I think the quotes are pretty well useless as they just restate the summary of the defenders' position in a more loaded, polemic fashion and this article would not be ill-served by their deletion and the addition in the section of a note to expand in the future.  But if enough people disagree, then I'll keep them.--TheMcManusBro 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My 2c, NPOV doesn't mean 50% honesty tempered by 50% anti-semitic libel, it means 100% honesty which what we have at present. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 02:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 100% honesty does not mean making vague statements directed at what appear to be caricatures of one's critics rather than examining the arguments themselves and explaining why they are false. And if you would like to talk about honesty, all I can sayI am not one to take what the ADL has to say at face value regardless of the subject.  That is not, of course, to say that their words validate the arguments of true anti-Semites; merely that honest defenders of the Talmud would be best off not appealing to an organization that turns out such disingenuous words as the quote in question in this article.  (As for the organization itself, this is after all Wikipedia, so I'll let readers decide for themselves.)--TheMcManusBro 10:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to make a controversial proposal. Currently, Holocaust denial has links to Holocaust-denying websites, what's wrong with including a link as an example of charges against the Talmud? The main text is "The Talmud Exposed" which probably half anti-Talmud websites are simply a copy of. It is also the text which has a statement-by-statement Jewish response, also quite prominent in this dispute. Why not just link them as sources? The actual article should probably have summaries of the 'kinds' of charges made (it would be too much to name specific ones but they can be characterised eg. alleged statements against Gentiles, ditto for Jesus, alleged "immorality" etc.). We could also summarise the various types of responses (eg. fabricated quotes, out of context quotes, quoting minority opinion as if this was halakha) etc. I think this would be a much more encyclopedic way of arranging the material without giving undue voice to anti-Semites. Frikle 05:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. What text in particular are you referring to so it can be used for a reference?  If I understand correctly, though, part of the problem in the controversy is that not all parts of the Talmud are available in many languages, and so a single quote, even if real, can be difficult to verify contextually (or, as the other side would undoubtedly argue, easy to accuse of being "out of context").--TheMcManusBro 10:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Given your very negative attitude to the ADL and concerns that Talmud apologetics not be from that organisation, do you think you are the right person to write an NPOV section on Talmud criticism? JFW | T@lk  17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't really care where Talmud defense comes from. If the Talmud's defenders wish to use the ADL quote as the meat of their side, that is fine.  But I reiterate my opinion that a) the section as it stands with the two quotes is not by neither a neutral presentation of the situation, and b) the ADL quote is might not be the best for a substantial argument on account of its vagueness.  Also, I don't think I'm the only one who would be inclined look with suspicion on an argument for which the ADL is the principal advocate.  I think we can all agree that the most credible sources available should be used to argue any position on Wikipedia; that will represent all sides the best.  I am simply suggesting that we flesh out this argument so that it is not so vague and one-sided.  This would ultimately mean examining meaningful statements from both the Talmud's critics and defenders.  I am not sure why that should be so controversial.


 * Side note: I'm not sure what a "negative attitude to the ADL" has to do with the Talmud, unles you want to imply that one cannot criticize any particular Jewish organization without being rabidly anti-Semitic.  By that same token I could not be a critic of Opus Dei or the Society of Jesus without being a rabid anti-Catholic.  Or the Jews I know who dislike Hillel are anti-Semites.  But that is quite beside the point.  I will concede that my tome against the ADL was a trifle polemic and rather beside the point itself.--TheMcManusBro 02:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you relize your calling Bies Shamia as anti-semites. Which isn't the case. 220.233.48.200 13:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Charges Of Authenticity
I don't understand why Charges Of Authenticity is being removed as a POV. I happen to feel that the arguments are wrong to but any idea should have some ideas presented on the opposing side and these were the most common I could find. Bringing up questions deosn't detract from the idea it just makes the idea more robust.


 * Some sources and we can talk. JFW | T@lk  15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does depend on sources but I also think a section 'like' the one proposed belongs more under the Oral Law article as the points are criticisms of the Oral Law in Judaism in general and not specifically the Talmud. Also shouldn't the title be Charges of Non-authenticity? Frikle 22:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Jerusalem Talmud
"(The Jerusalem Talmud; however, the name is a misnomer, as it was not written in Jerusalem. As such it is also known more accurately as the Palestinian Talmud or The Talmud of the Land of Israel.)"

From what I heard, it is named the Jerusalem Talmud, because the Bies Din of Jerusalem moved and started a new Yeshiva there... you know the story. I just can't remember the source, if anyone has good memory please. 220.233.48.200 13:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * At that time the Amoraei Eretz Yisrael all lived in the Galil. I have never heard about the J'lem beis din story. JFW | T@lk  13:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I will try and ask Rabbi Pinchas Feldman as he has very good and clear memory, along with his children. 220.233.48.200 12:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

From the Pharisees article, "he reestablished the Sanhedrin at Yavneh under Pharisee control." The Sanhedrin orignally was in Jerusalem, and latter moved to Yavneh. It was still called the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. And the Jerusalem Talmud is by them. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 14:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Karaites: the article needs clarification and additional info
The description of Karaism as a "great reaction" may be an overstatement. How many Karaites were there and what was their impact? I know that there are some halachic rulings reltaing to Shabbat observance that can be called reactions to Karaism, but, in general terms, how important was this movement historically? I know that it has limited impact now. My opinion: either explain why it's of "great" importance, or remove this characterization.

On the other hand, I would be interested to hear more about Karaites in this context. What were the philosophical and political bases for their rejection of the Talmud? What impact did Islam have? Who founded the movement, where, when and how?

In essence, I think that Karaism is a reaction to the Talmud. This is it's main principle and reason for being. Why not clarify that? Also, talk a bit about Jewish - Karaite relations over the years.

Thanks.

Adam Holland 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It has immense historical significance. If Saadia Gaon and Maimonides have gone on record extensively debunking the karaistic stance there must be something to it. Apparently in some areas the proportions of Karaites and non-Karaites approached 50:50. JFW | T@lk  17:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Racist Bias
This article is so biased and pro-Talmud, which is so unfair and far from the truth, even a casual search by Google for "anti-gentile, talmud" will expose all the evil and racist citation of the this shameful book called the Talmud.


 * Ah, it is the citation that is evil and racist. The sites you are seeing are quoting things out of context to make the Talmud look bad, apart from fabrications, poor translations and plain distortions. Also please look at the other content on these sites - the sites are invariably aimed at smearing Jews, however well they disguise this is pseudo-objective newspeak. You should be embarrased for taking their trash as fact or disinterested examination. JFW | T@lk  17:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article is extremly bias. What kind of sick mind would ignore these quote?;

"The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud..." "Babylonian Talmud", published by the Boston Talmud Society, p. XII The Jews refer to the remainder of Earths inhabitants, the non-Jewish peoples, as "Gentiles", "Goyim". Let's see what the Jewish Talmud teaches the Jews concerning the non-Jewish majority, i.e. those who are not part of Jahve's "Chosen People": "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b "The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew." Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30 "Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be served by animals in human form." Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855 "A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal." Coschen hamischpat 405 "The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs." Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b "Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b "If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog." Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b "If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"." Jore dea 377, 1 "Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals." Talmud Sanhedrin 74b "It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile." Sepher ikkarim III c 25 "It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah." Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5 "A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands." Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b "Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772

Zachorious 08:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What kind of sick mind would take matters literally where the use of idiom and metaphor in Hebrew is extremely common. You have clearly copied this whole list from a defamatory website (just look at the bizarre transliteration of the source names) not really interested in the actual meaning of any of these quotes but just their shock value. Most of these are deliberate mistranslations quoted out of context. Yet others may have been uttered yet are not codified, cited or put into practice.
 * Will you kindly examine the content of writings from the same epoch as these quotes? Have you ever considered the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the Church Fathers, such as John Chrysostom? And will you please show me a prominent Talmud Jew who has publicly advocated the killing of non-Jews?
 * If you want your POV represented, please advance a neutral, scholarly source that examines (systematically) the Talmud's views on race and nationality, not the garbage recycled on antisemitic websites. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Before you try to assume that anything type of critisizm to Judaism is "anti-semetic" perhaps you should read more. First of all jews are not semetic unless by semetic you mean that they speak a semetic language. Hebrew is semetic. So is Arabic and many other Middle Eastern and North African languages. However if by semetism you mean the race you should probably know that all modern jews are not the original semetic people that lived in Israel 2,000 years ago. As they migrated to other lands their ethnicity was lost by mixing with other ethnic group. Being against fundementalist Judaism doesn't make you an anti-semite either. Judaism is a religion, not race.

I got those quotes from this website;

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/jewras.htm

But it is anti-zionist muslim site so it may have a bit bias (but I might be nitpicking myself here). Other sources that confirm racism in the Tulmud;

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

http://home.columbus.rr.com/fnfal308/The%20Talmud%20Exposed.html

It isn't that hard to believe Their is racism even in the Torah and Tanakah such as Jews being the chosen people. Zachorious 23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC) .


 * Repeating racist rubbish like this is the only racist bias I see. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 23:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this world after world war 2 is that whenever someone critisized even the jewish religion and literatures they are labled racist or anti-semites. Instead of skirting around the sources and labeling them racist why don't you read some of them. I have ethnic jewish friends (who don't follow the jewish religion) so this has nothing to do with the race. We need to seek nothing but the truth so can anyone disprove the articles I provided? If not then there is a clear bias in this article. Zachorious 09:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Buddy, snowball. Thank God we're not looking for the truth here. You'd be in for some surprises. I have no desire to start fisking your links. It would be a waste of time. The Talmud is a big book, you know. Other material to misrepresent is easily found.


 * As for racism: by 21st centrury standards a lot of material in the Jewish literature can be classified "racist". But so what? Look at the works on which Western society is built. Even the heroes of the Enlightenment said pretty bad stuff that would easily fall under "racism" nowadays. Same for the Church Fathers I linked to above.


 * I have assumed good faith until now. Please state clearly which parts of this article are biased, and we'll talk. Otherwise, tabeh. JFW | T@lk  23:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First dude who did not sign, are you going to explain why these quotes are taken out of contest? Or are you just like some moderate muslim or christian that denies that there is hate in their religious books? There is a verse in the Bible that says homosexuals, adulterers, ect. should be put to death. I don't see how literal words can mean anything else to what they intend. Tell me how the words I provided doesn't prove that the Talmud is a racist book and anyone who follows it is a racist?Zachorious 23:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Second dude who did not sign his name, so what is Western society has some hate documents. Do you assume I am some white supremacy guy who is trying to prove that jews are evil? Of course not! The difference between some of the western hate literature is that many are taboo and not followed. Where is everyone doesn't care about hate in Jewish literature (which can easily be considered Western too).Zachorious 23:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, I posted those links and the quotes from the Talmud that preach hatred for majority of the people in the world. The fact that this article is so bias to there being no racism shows how bias it is. Unless someone changes it.Zachorious 23:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Except they're not quotes from the Talmud. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove that? And I don't only means the ones I posted, in the various links I provided, the verses are used.Zachorious 09:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * . Jayjg (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may add to the discussion about racism in western literature versus racism in the Talmud, I totally agree that western literature of the time, as well as a lot of religious books are very very racist, but the solution to this is definitely not to sweep it under the carpet but rather openly admit that these racist passages exist and shun them. Racism is an insidious thing and a lot of people do not realise their racism, they just think this is a valid opinion, until some people among the community start with overt discrimination, at a point which things easily get out of control. How do you think Germany got to the point where the Holocaust happened? I indeed heard from non-religous Israelis that the Talmud indeed contains a lot of racist stuff, but of course I am not in a position to say how truthful those statements are. Even if there is some "contextual" information that changes everything, I think that it is very important to look at the actual passages of the Talmud so people can see, and if indeed there can be any racist interpretation of them, these should be exposed so that people are aware of this.

Well, those were my two cents if anybody cares.

fmeneguzzi 09:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I found something that is if not slightly racist, incredibly funny. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t01/t0136.htm), it descbribes how a Jew should handle his purse if he is overtaken by dusk in the Sabath, should it give it to a Gentile or put it on an Ass. The description implies an Ass is more important than a Gentile. The racist part is questionable because even though it refers to "Gentiles" as less than an Ass, a modern Rabbi or anybody with commonsense would say that handing out stuff due to religious implications to a Gentile can be attributed to that person not caring to follow the laws of Judaism (this would be my good-faith interpretation of it though). I would greatly appreciate if somebody properly versed in Judaism could comment on this one. And the rest of the site for which I posted the link might be an interesting read. Again, I would call upon somebody who has actually studied Judaism to look at the site and post comments on the accuracy of the english translation of it.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

fmeneguzzi 10:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the Rodkinson translation which is at times misleading but in this case probably not too bad. May I ask where you found the implication that the ass is more important or that the Gentile is "less"? I searched the source for "less" and did not find it in the context of this Mishna.

I guess placing a purse on an ass is a funny concept but the whole law is to do with carrying (eg. a purse), which is prohibited on Shabbat. If a Jew is travelling and Shabbat begins he or she cannot continue carrying the purse. Usually they are not allowed to get a Gentile to do any violation of Shabbat on their behalf (even though they can obviously do anything on Shabbat for their own benefit). However in this case because the purse contains money the Sages feared that a person would be so concerned that they'd carry it themselves, so they relaxed the rule in this case and a Jew *is* allowed to get a Gentile to carry it for them. Because a Jew is required to let his or her animals rest on the Shabbat but is not responsible for a Gentile who is a free agent, it is preferable to give to the Gentile first and only if this isn't viable should he place it on the ass.

Does this help? Frikle 22:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It helps greatly, thanks for the contribution. Indeed the word "less" is not present, and your interpretation of that Mishna was as I would expect from a reasonable person. I will concede to you that I might have pushed my interpretation into saying that an ass is more than a gentile, *but* the way in which non-jews are discussed in comparison to asses (and later on distinction between deaf-mutes and idiots, which is an interesting discussion in itself :-)) is discriminatory in my mind at least. Of course this is perfectly in synch with the mindset of the time. The romans themselves distinguished slaves and cattle as "vocalic" an "non-vocalic" things, so I can take that kind of discussion in the same anachronistic light I would take a roman treatise on property law.

Since you mentioned that this book might be decent as a citation source, later on you can find a discussion regarding fabricated quotations on the Talmud (such as that of christians being worse than dogs).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht123.htm -- page 134

It seems to me that particular discussion has a NPOV and would make a fine addition to the article in the wikipedia. It does not dismiss the supposed quotations without mentioning their content while rebuking their possible content in a fairly reasonable way. I would appreciate if people with actual knowledge of judaism could read it and tell us their thoughts on this.

Cheers fmeneguzzi 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)