"So Another Goy Dies. So?"

In the middle of a long string of comments on this post, ed and I had a little exchange. That exchange is unfinished. I invite ed or anyone else to complete the job here.

Here's the exchange, with minor editing for clarity:

Shmarya: [T]the rabbis decided to allow the rescue of non-observant Jews. Why? Because they might one day do teshuva and keep Shabbos.

Non-Jews, however, won't [ever] keep Shabbos, so they DIE.

ed: What's the problem with that? So another Goy dies. So?

Shmarya: You can't be serious[, ed]. Not even you could really mean it.

ed: Just recently, a local Chassidish Rov held a Drosha. "B'toch Hadvorim", he said - Alle Goyim Zenen Rotz'chim Und Ganovim.

Seriously. So one less Goy on the world. One less Soneh Yisroel. What's the problem?

Shmarya: Please name this "Rov."

ed: To the contrary, name me a Chassidish Rov that honestly disagrees. Here, try this one:

Rabbi Tzadok HaCohen of Lublin:

In the book "Poked Akarim" page 19, column 3, he wrote: "Concerning what is explained in Yevamot, 'You are called men,' and not the other nations, [the meaning is] that the Gentiles were deprived of the title 'men' only where Israel were called 'men,' because in comparison to Israel, who are the primary form of man in the Divine Chariot, it is irrelevant to call any of the Gentiles 'men'; at most, they are like animals in the form of men. Taken as themselves, however, all the children of Noah are considered men…and when the Messiah comes…they too will recognize and admit that there are none called 'man' except Israel…anyway, in comparison to Israel even now they are in the category of animals"

Shmarya: Do you have other sources like this? If you do, could you post 9 of them, please?

Do any of you have more sources like this? If so, please post them below.

Comments

[onionsoupmix]

I think it was Ovadyiah Yosef who said that first part about rochtzim etc.

As for the rest of your nine quotes, read the first two perakim in Tanya. As well as the second paragraph in moreh nevuchim, III:51 http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp187.htm

[Satyaman]

I found all these in the essay written by Rabbi David Bar Chaim of Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav:

A. The Ra'avad

We have already mentioned the words of the Ra'avad with regards to an animal slaughtered by a Gentile: "for the Gentiles are like animals…and one who thinks of them as something [worthwhile] will gather the wind in his fist." It is clear that this is not a simple Halachic argument merely explaining why he disagrees with Maimonides on matters of Halacha, but rather the expression of an entire outlook concerning the Gentiles. As far as an explanation is concerned, his words speak for themselves.

E. Rabbi Abraham Issac HaCohen Kook

In the book "Orot," Orot Yisrael chapter 5, article 10 (page 156), Rabbi Kook wrote: "The difference between the Jewish soul, in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal, for the difference in the latter case is one of quantity, while the difference in the first case is one of essential quality."

H. The Arizal and Rabbi Chaim Vital

On the difference between souls of the Jews and Gentiles it is written in the book "Etz Chaim" (Heichal Abi'a, Sha'ar HaKlipot, chapter 2):

"So we find that Israel possesses the three levels of soul (nefesh, ruach, neshama) from holiness… The Gentiles, however, possess only the level of nefesh from the feminine side of the klipot…for the souls of the nations, which come from the klipot, are called 'evil' and not 'good,' are created without the da'at [knowledge], and therefore they also lack the ruach and neshama."

In Sha'ar Klipat Noga, chapter 3, it is written: "Now you will understand what the animalistic soul of man is; it is the good and evil inclination in man. The soul of the Gentiles comes from the three klipot: wind, cloud, and fire, all of them evil. So is the case with impure animals, beasts, and birds. However, the animalistic soul of Israel and the animalistic soul of pure animals, beasts, and birds all come from [klipat] noga."

[Satyaman]

Rabbi David Bar Chaim of
Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav:

C. The Maharal

The Maharal of Prague OBM, explains the saying of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "You are called men" in a number of places. In the book Gevurot HaShem chapter 44 (page 167) he wrote: "…for even if all human beings have a common shape, there still is a distinction…there are nations who have more of a tendency towards the physical and their actions testify to this, for they are inclined towards lust and abominable things. This is evidence of their materialistic nature…and as we find animals, which are like an intermediary between man and the rest of the animal world, such as the monkey…likewise there exist men--who are not completely men. Therefore he [Rashbi] spoke of, the complete man who doesn't gravitate towards materialism too much -- these are the Jews, for they posses the complete form without a tendency towards materialism. However, as for the other nations, their form is nullified by their material aspect, until they, so to speak, cease to be 'men,' because their material aspect is primary and their form is secondary -- and in everything which has both a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondaryaspect is always nullified by the primary aspect. With the Jews, however, the opposite is true, for their form is primary and their material aspect is secondary, and is therefore nullified."

In chapter 67 (ibid., page 311-312) he wrote: "For even thought all human beings were created in the image of G-d, said it is written: 'You are called men and the nations of the world are not called men,' for the G-dly form that was placed in man should not be nullified. In the Gentiles, who are extremely materialistic, this form is nullified by the materialistic aspect until the form itself becomes materialistic. Concerning the Jews, however, the material aspect is nullified compared to the form, and since the material aspect is nullified by the form, they are considered men."

Regarding what is written in Avot, chapter 3, mishnah 17 (in the Vilna edition, mishnah 14), "He used to say, 'beloved is man for he is created in [G-d's] image,' a greater love spreads upon him because he was created in [G-d's] image, as it is written: 'For with G-d's image He made man;' beloved are Israel, for they are called G-d's children. A greater love spreads upon them, for they are called G-d's children, as is written, 'You are the children of the Lord, your G-d'." The Maharal wrote in his commentary on Avot, "Derech Chaim," (Hanig edition, page 146; in R' Chaim Pardes's edition, page 354): "Even though it says 'Beloved is man,' this does not include all human beings, for Chazal said: 'You are called men and the nations are not called men' -- as though the completeness of the Creation, which is given to man in particular, is given to the Jews and not to the other nations…And even though this advantage is only possessed by Israel, he said on this matter 'beloved is man' and not 'beloved are Israel,' because there is a great difference [between the two]. Even though this advantage is also possessed by Israel in particular, nevertheless, there does exist the form of man in the nations also. However, the principal form of man does not appear in the nations. In any case, this image does exist amongst the rest of the nations, but it is worthless, and therefore he did not say 'beloved are Israel who were created in G-d's image.' Additionally, when man was created, this advantage was only possessed by Adam and Noah, even though they are not called 'Israel.' Though after G-d chose Israel this Image was lessened amongst the nations, nevertheless His image belongs to man in essence, and this matter is clear" (see also "Netzach Yisrael," page 73).

[Satyaman]

The Ramak wrote in his commentary "Or Yakar," (volume 2, page 31): "'His body is only a dress of the "man," etc.' -- this means that although one may find that the bodily features of the Gentiles and the Jews are the same, the meaning of the word 'man' is not the body. For were it so, their saying "'You are called man' would not be just. But rather the body is only a dress of what is within him -- namely the spirit, and the body is only a dress for the spirit, that is the 'flesh of man': 'man' -- the spirit, 'flesh of man' -- the garment of man. And for this reason the Jews, who are holy, are called 'men.' 'The lower aspects, which were blended, etc.', they are holy and not impure, but not at the level of man; however they are blended from the holy spirit, which expands increasingly, and reaches the final levels of holiness…"

[Satyaman]

Furthermore, in the portion of Bereishit (page 47a) on the verse "Let the waters teem with swarms of creatures that have a living soul" the Zohar writes: "Rabbi Aba said: the verse 'creatures that have a living soul,' pertains to the Jews, for they are the sons of G-d, and from Him come their holy souls… And the souls of the other nations, where do they come from? Rabbi Elazar said: they have souls from the impure left side, and therefore they are all impure, defiling anyone who comes near them."

In the continuation there it is written: Rabbi Elazar said: it supports what we said above, 'that have a living soul' -- these are the Jews, for they have the high and holy living soul. And the verse, 'Animals, creeping things, and beasts of the earth, each to its kind,' refers to the Gentiles, for they have no living soul, but only the prepuce, as we said above [that they stem from powers of the left side which defile them -- the Sulam]."

In the end of the portion of Vayikra (page 25b) the Zohar says: "Come and see the difference between Israel and the rest of the nations. Even though a man from Israel merited only a nefesh, he remains on his level; [and the higher levels are also open before him -- the Sulam] if he wants to merit ruach or if he wants to merit a neshamah… [in the printed editions it is added: 'he can obtain and merit it' and thus also explains the Sulam]. The Gentiles, however, can never obtain more [than their impure nefesh, -- the Sulam] except if one of them is circumcised, for then he merits 'nefesh for nefesh' -- a nefesh from a different source [from the holy side-- the Sulam]. In 'Or Yakar' (volume 12, page 100) it is explained: "Can never obtain more; even the righteous Gentiles do not merit holiness, except only from superficial levels…"

[Isa]

When the Oral Law was written, most goyem were idol worshippers.
Now they are not, they worship the same G-d as Jews.
How does that change things?

[Anon]

This whole exchange is assinine. Anyone can bring 100 sources and twist them one way or explain them another way. The bottom line is if the Sanhedrin was around today and Ed went and killed a goy, the Sanhedrin would sentence Ed to death. Much of the derogatory rhetoric about goyim comes from times when jews were horribly persecuted and in those times the rhetoric was absolutely justified. No one disputes that a goy's life is valuable (as noted above if you kill a goy your punishment would be death). We may be the chosen people but they are God's creation as much as we are. The concept of chasidei umos haolom is pervasive throughout jewish literature - which essentially means that a goy is judged by his actions, not his status as a goy. Lastly, I should point out that our ancestor Noah was a goy. Yet the torah refers to him as ish tzaddik. Abraham was a goy until his circumsision (some would say even after because the jews did not attain the status of a nation until the giving of the torah). Do we need more proof then that.

[David]

This is an obscenity. According to the Torah, Jews are supposed to be a "light to the nations." If the nations don't matter, then the purpose for which the Jewish people was created doesn't matter. If that's the case, then we don't matter.

If, as some people have suggested, the gentiles are somehow morally deficient, then perhaps the fault lies with the people whose mission was to instruct them by example.

If this is true, then we might as well close up shop, because it's hard to imagine that strict adherence to a bunch of seemingly pointless rules is an actual "purpose."

[Abe]

Of course Ed and and his like-minded gentile bashers are wrong.
He has never bothered to ponder the deeper insights of brilliant sages who offer contrary opinions. Permit me to mention just one.
Among his celebrated Torah responsa, none is more acclaimed than the Parsumay Nida of the famous 13th century Gaon, Rav Dovid Berel Yahooza. The 3d edition of this treatise was redacted to reincorporate the censored material that was removed by contemporary rabbanim because of their steadfast opposition to his halachic opinion that Gentiles will be raised to exalted spiritual levels in the latter days.This will occur in the time approaching the reapearance of a black-hatted, hand waving moshiach distributing dollar bills to anyone that comes to him for a brucha.
The Parsumay Nida in a prophetic allusion to the the third perek in Tanya (www.allthatisshtuyot.org/gevaldigegoyim) states that at the time of the Moshiach's second revelation, gentiles will be recognized as the heir to Hashem's great imprimatur because the gentiles had been right all along by worhipping a dead messiah. Unfortunatley, they venerated the wrong one. But at the time of his second coming, the Gentiles will be in the vanguard of proclaimimg the error of mankind and will recognize the black-hatted, hand waving redeemer who will usher in and era of peace and lint-free black suits.
Ed, I am convinced that if you delve into the mysteries of the aformentioned, you will abandon your gentile bashing. If you were to learn a little more true torah, you will be zocheh to see the day of when you too will deliver your mind to the total victory of shtooyot over reason, bimhayra biyamaynoo amayn.
Hey, now I that I think of it, that day has arrived !

ed: What's the problem with that? So another Goy dies. So?

If that is the feeling and or believe of the Heredi community? Can this be?

Ed if you feel that why lets turn it around.
During WWII all the nations gathered and said should we help to Jews. And the nations said "let see if they are honorable people, nation worth sacrificing our young men." and they see quotes like What's the problem with that? So another Goy dies. So? Gentile souls are lower than animals etc." " His body is only a dress of the "man," etc.'

The nation gather and proclaim we will not safe the Jews they are a racist nation and darkness to the world. And proclaim "So another Jew dies. So"

Many of the quotes about Gentiles from our ancestors sound very similar to the quotes from Hitler about Jews. Maybe he studied
Torah and that is where he got his racist Idea?

[Shalom]

I ask you, in the last 2000 years, and even from the origins of the jewish people, have jews treated non jews better than non jews have treated jews? The idea of one group being superior to another, or at the least having the potential to be superior to another group is a very scary concept to the western world, and rightfully so. We have to be on our guard for anything that would lead to facism, corruption, racism, and all the other evils that have been perpetrated throughout history, many times especially against the jews. But the idea that being a jew means having a greater potential for G-dliness, is this a bad thing? If taken the wrong way, and mistakenly applied, it can lead to many evil things. But when taken in the context of the entire torah and halacha, it means that jews have more responsibilities than the rest of the world, and have a greater potential for punishment if they fail to accomplish their duty. We jump on this idea because it resembles racism and the idea of a superior race, and we fear all the evils that come from such ideas. But if you look at the actions of the true leaders of the jewish people historically, and you see what jewish thought requires in terms of the behavior of jews towards non jews--showing care and concern for non jews and sparing them from suffering, and even going so far as to spare animals from unnecassary suffering--judaism is far superior to the ideas of secular morality today, because it is rooted firmly in the torah and it involves truly caring about others, as opposed to the moral relativism of today, whose foundations are shallow and whose ideas can change as easily as clothing fashions. I think ed's comments are more influenced by a culture that is still shaken by the holocaust and persecutions of eastern europe, rather than the true attitude of jewish thought towards non jews.

I'll end with a quote from Rav Kook regarding tzaddikim. "And endless love for G-d is his supreme joy. An inner love for all creation, a faithful friendship for all people, a dedicated love on all levels - to the family, to friends, to the nation, to the human being, to animal and plant, to everything that has being - is imprinted in the fullness of its equity in the wishes of his heart. Heavenly strength and immense respect fill all his thoughts."
Orot Hakodesh III, pp. 229-230

[David]

Shalom, I disagree with you. As to how Jews treated others "from the origins of the Jewish people" go ask a Canaanite.

Moreover, your claim that our morality is "superior" because it is rooted firmly in the Torah is more of an assertion than an argument. Moral relativism is an easy straw man to bash, but it's pretty obvious that (even though you don't care for how Ed put things) you look down on non-Jews and their traditions.

There is a good deal more out there, Shalom, than just Torah and "secular morality" or moral relativism. And a halakha that requires us to allow someone to die on Shabbat just because he's not one of us might possibly not be the best thing going.

[Satyaman]

I ask you, in the last 2000 years, and even from the origins of the jewish people, have jews treated non jews better than non jews have treated jews?

The last two thousand years are irrelevant because the Jews have been a minority with little or no political control over non-Jews. Prior to that time, Jews were just as murderous and barbaric as non-Jews. Read the many acts of violence in the bible, murder of babies at ba’al peor, Levi and Shimon’s mass murder of an entire city in retribution for Dina’s rape , murder in judges, navi, etc. How about during the Macabein period-the Macabes converted many non-jews by the sword-King Herod was a descendant of these forced converts. There may be some merit in what the roman historian Tacitus said when he stated that “Jews were haters of mankind.” Was this just the musings of an anti-Semite or is there possibly some truth to what he is saying?

But the idea that being a jew means having a greater potential for G-dliness, is this a bad thing? If taken the wrong way, and mistakenly applied, it can lead to many evil things.

Your sanguine view (its about potential for holiness) is completely misleading. You are putting an apologetic spin on this entire issue to dishonestly escape the fact that Torah Jews today, outside of kiruv [this is an important fact], express no doubts about non-Jewish inferiority and Jewish superiority. Go to Lakewood, Monsey, New Square, Meir Shearim, Williamsburg, etc. You will get no apologies there. They say and mean exactly what is quoted by the rishonim and achronim and chazal. Were do you live? IN a bubble? .I have spoken to many Rabbis, rabbis who have real gadlus in Torah, and they do NOT hold by you view. They would probably laugh. They were very very clear that it was not just about “potential for holiness, “etc and they were very very clear about Non-jewish inferiority and the fact that non-Jewish hatred of Jews was indurate.

If taken the wrong way, and mistakenly applied, it can lead to many evil things

And it has, except that it was not mistakenly applied. It was applied in a way that is very close to the Talmud original intent – an intent not distorted by Westerner’s who are embarrassed of their heritage.

We jump on this idea because it resembles racism and the idea of a superior race, and we fear all the evils that come from such ideas.

NO we jump at the idea because IT IS RACISM

showing care and concern for non jews and sparing them from suffering, and even going so far as to spare animals from unnecessary suffering--Judaism is far superior to the ideas of secular morality today, because it is rooted firmly in the torah and it involves truly caring about others, as opposed to the moral relativism of today, whose foundations are shallow and whose ideas can change as easily as clothing fashions.

This is complete garbage. It is true that many aspects of American culture are vacuous and nihilistic, but again these are gross oversimplification and a strawman of the culture. The overwhelming majority of Westerners care about people, animals and human dignity, etc. I can just as easily focus on the negative of the Torah world, a world that has enabled (with the sanction of Gedolim like Rav Sheinberg) pedophiles and that the rabbinic establishment covered up these kinds of crimes for the past 30 years in the same manner as the Catholic Church. You also have a naive and distorted picture of the Frum world - - a world that has much dysfunction and misery and it is not always because of Torah being applied the wrong way. Often it is applied the right way to people who just DO NOT fit into the system. If they have a size 10 foot and they have to wear a size 8 shoe, the frum world will cut 2 inches from that persons foot. I could go on and on. Bottom Line: If it world for you - -great, but don’t try to justify your decision to be frum by falsely convincing yourself and others that this life is appropriate for everyone.

[Satyaman]

Another example of selective quotation from Rabbi who was hardly mainstream, not to mention the fact that such an attitude is almost unheard of within the tradtion. Compare this one quote with hundreds of hatefull and bigoted comments throughout the tradtion over the past few thousand years

[Satyaman]

The bottom line is if the Sanhedrin was around today and Ed went and killed a goy, the Sanhedrin would sentence Ed to death.

WRONG!! Exactly the opposite…you need to learn. Intentional murder of a non jew by a jew is not punished by the Sanhedrin!! That is, one who kills a Gentile, and even a ger toshav, is not put to death for this by the Beit Din, even if he kills him with intent. This is clearly stated in the Torah and in the words of Chazal.

Further more all those procedural safeguards that inhibit the proffering of evidence and that make it difficult to get a death penalty conviction DO NOT apply for the non-jew. See Sanhedrin 57b: "Rabbi Jacob bar Acha found it written in an Aggadic book from the school of Rav: a Gentile is put to death by one judge and by one witness, even if he was not forewarned, by testimony of a man and not of a woman, and even of a family member.

[Satyaman]

Much of the derogatory rhetoric about goyim comes from times when jews were horribly persecuted and in those times the rhetoric was absolutely justified.

Absolutely not, the Babylonians during the time of chazal were very tolerant. Furthermore you need to read up on objective history, not the heavily biased, historically inaccurate, and polemical words of Chazal. For starters, read Jacob Katz’s “Exclusivity and tolerance” for one view. I could list dozens of other books on the topic. There is also much other material that addresses the issue, although from a tangential viewpoint. Bottom line: Although Jews suffered miserably at times, they were treated respectfully for much of their history.

ALL THIS IS IRRELEVANT ANYWAY because these halachas and attitudes were not qualified with an explanation that limited the import of what they said based on the behavior of the non-Jews of their time. Chazal is supposed to have ruach hakodesh and the laws and insights into the nature of non-Jews were supposed to be in consonance with G,d's wil and inerrant understanding. Given this, it is inaccurarte and apologetic to explain these laws and attitudes as being a function of the time period? I have never heard a frum Rabbi say these laws and insights were meant to be of a conditional and temporary nature

[Satyaman]

The bottom line is if the Sanhedrin was around today and Ed went and killed a goy, the Sanhedrin would sentence Ed to death.

However, a Jew who murders a gentile (even in
peaceful times and even intentionally) is not punishable by death in the human
courts (under normal circumstances). According to some opinions he is not
punishable at all (under normal circumstances) by the human courts. But a gentile
who kills a Jew, even purely by accident and unintentionally, must be put to death.
This applies to a ger toshav as well. There is a single opinion according to which a
ger toshav who killed a Jew by accident is not put to death, but only goes into
exile (like a Jew who killed by accident).

the Sources:
Exodus 21:14
Mechilta d'Rabbi Yishmael on Mishpatim - Nezikin section, Mishpatim, parasha 4
Mechilta d'Rabbi Yishmael on Beshalach - Ubeshalach section, parasha 1
Mechilta d'Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai chapter 21
Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin 9:2
Tosephta to Tractate Avodah Zarah (Zuckermandel edition) 8:5
Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 57a
Babylonian Talmud Tractate Avodah Zarah 13b
Minor Tractates, Tractate Soferim 15:7
Maimonides, Laws of Murder and the Saving of Lives 1:1
Maimonides, Laws of Murder and the Saving of Lives chapter 2
Maimonides, Laws of Idolatry chapter 10
Tosphot on Tractate Avodah Zarah 26b
Beit Yosef Choshen Mishpat 425:5
Sefer Yeraim 175 [older printing: 248]
The Raaban on Bava Kama 22
Meshech Chochma on Leviticus 24:18
Maimonides, Laws of Murder and the Saving of Lives chapter 2
Mishna, Tractate Makkot 2:3
Maimonides Laws of Murder and the Saving of Lives 5:4
Minchat Chinuch commandment 34 --Do not kill the innocent -- section 1
Responsa Mishpatei Uziel volume 3, Orach Chayim 10
Sifrei Bamidbar piska 160
The commentary of Rabbi Hillel on Sifrei Bamidbar 160 (the portion of Maasei,
Numbers 35:12)
Gloss and explanations by an early Sephardic sage (attributed to R' Suliman Ohana, a
student of the Ari) on Sifrei Bamidbar 160 (the portion of Maasei, Numbers 35:12)

[onionsoupmix]

In addition to satya's clarification, please note that allowing a Jew to be mechallel shabbos to save a gentile's life is permitted only in some cases and only for fear of reprisal against the Jews if this is not allowed. As an aside, the rambam is also very clear about apikorsim- you don't need a beis din or a sanhedrin, feel free to drown them in your local well. Third perek of hilchos maamrim. So I really very much doubt that the sanhedrin would have a problem with the murder of a nonJew.

[Satyaman]

YOu are very very niave and ill informed, or downright dishonest if you should know better. it has nothing to do with the above. At most it accentuates an already pre-existing hatred

[steve]

Off topic, but a feel-good story nonetheless:

Minneapolis, MN - An incredible story has just surfaced from yesterday’s tremendous catastrophe of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Roman Koyrakh, a frum Shomer Shabbos college student, was saved from a life-threatening situation with only a few bruises to show for it.

VIN News has just conducted a dramatic phone conversation with the 20-year-old bachur, who provided minute details of the hair-raising, miraculous incident in an exclusive interview. At about 6 o'clock Wednesday night, his car was stuck in traffic on the north side of the bridge, at the water edge. “There was a loud bang, and my car buckled suddenly. Dust and smoke shot up all around and the next thing I knew I was falling, plunging headfirst.” His airbag was activated, and his car was hit several times, and then jolted to a stop. “There was water, water, everywhere”, he says. Rushing into his car, the current pulled his car directly into the river below. Certain this was the end, Roman said Shema Yisroel as he was thrown to and fro like a rubber ball. His mind blank, pure instinct took over, and he subconsciously managed to escape from his seat belt and car door. Submerged in water, he maneuvered his way out like an obstacle course, but not before swimming over to other victims to offer assistance. He only scrambled for safe ground once he realized his own danger in the precarious situation. Koyakh was transported by ambulance to North Memorial hospital where he was pronounced lucky to be alive, and only needed stitches on his face and arms.

Roman Koyakh has been living in Minnesota for many years and is an active participant in the local community kollel. “Hashem saved me,” he told VIN news. “There’s no other explanation for such nissim.” Boruch Hashem, he has suffered no lasting effects from the accident, and knows of no other Yid involved in it either. His main worry, he confessed, is that he had to miss last night's gemara shiur at his evening kollel program.

[formellyfrun]

well it is a real nissin “Hashem saved me,” he told VIN news. “There’s no other explanation for such nissim.”

Of course a better trick would have been if the bridge started falling and somehow repaired itself or superman came and help it up so no one died or got hurt.

Or if Hashem saved him then one must conclude hasam killed the others.

[sharpinchitown]

Being a highly spiritual being who believes in mankind and the ability of each and every man - with much effort and willingness to consciously evolve - to reach his highest level of spiritual competency, REGARDLESS of religious belief, I must say each and every one of you that believes that non-Jews are somehow inferior to Jews are exactly the same as the lowest animal that lacks conscious spiritual awareness of its existence as a part of mankind and the universe as expressed through G-d's beautiful creation.

As for the "materialist" animalism of the goy, the vulgar materialism of such noted billionaire Jews as Gary Winnick and Larry Silverstein is beyond compare. In addition, I have seen how Gary Winnick treats even his fellow Jew and it is despicable. How it is that he is lauded as a near savior for his material support to the political (not godly) state of Israel is mindboggling.

So, does or does not G-d believe that materialistic beings are beneath man (as defined by so many of the noted rabbis above)? If so, how does one explain the free pass awarded extreme materialists, who entirely lack compassion and even general decency toward others - EVEN JEWS, as long as it supports a state that has not been created by G-d but instead man, prematurely, before the return of the Messiah?

The hypocrisy is beyond belief and it is not beyond the sight of G-d, either.

[Y. Ben Qor'ha (Baldwin).]

The onion soup, is attributing the following quote brought by ed, to Maran Obadyah Yosef Shlita:
["B'toch Hadvorim", he said - Alle Goyim Zenen Rotz'chim Und Ganovim.]
For several reasons, I think you are wrong soupaleh.
a- ed, quoted a chassidic rabbi, which i think will preclude Rabbeinu Maran O.Y.
b- Last I know, Moreinu Harav R' O.Y Shlita is not in the habit of delivering O.G. language (yiddish) droshos.
c- You think it was? It doesn't seem you really thought much in this case. Keep stirring trouble within your natural turf and away from topics u didn't give much thought about.
Otherwise, as ours would say: Chizki ve-imtzi.

"The bottom line is if the Sanhedrin was around today and Ed went and killed a goy, the Sanhedrin would sentence Ed to death"
WRONG

א כל הורג נפש אדם מישראל--עובר בלא תעשה,
שנאמר "לא תרצח" (שמות כ,יב; דברים ה,טז). ואם רצח בזדון בפני עדים--מיתתו בסיף, שנאמר "נקום, יינקם" (שמות כא,כ): מפי השמועה למדו שזו מיתת סיף; בין שהרג את חברו בברזל, בין ששרפו באש--מיתתו בסיף.

Is says he who killes a jew. Not a gentile

[me]

But all commentators agree, that if Ed, or anyone else, ever did kill an innocent gentile, God would deal with him, when he get's to heaven.

[Alan]

Why is it not surprising that all these racist sources are coming out of the Zohar and Chasidic bullshit sources? You give the peasants liquor and tell them they're better than their neighbors, no matter what, and of course they'll follow your asinine pseudo-Jewish nonsense.

Outside of those tainted communities, this kind of rhetoric is rare. Look at the record among non-Kabalistic German, Italian, and American rabbanim for hundreds of years for examples.

"Why is it not surprising that all these racist sources are coming out of the Zohar and Chasidic bullshit sources? You give the peasants liquor and tell them they're better than their neighbors, no matter what, and of course they'll follow your asinine pseudo-Jewish nonsense.

Outside of those tainted communities, this kind of rhetoric is rare. Look at the record among non-Kabalistic German, Italian, and American rabbanim for hundreds of years for examples."

your absolutely right.

[Jim the Catholic]

Of course I've read some crap Catholics have written about Jews that makes my arse twitch & fills me with the certainty that Jesus would not aprove.

So there were ancient Rabbis who hated gentiles with the same passion some ancient Christians hated Jews. Yeh big suprise.

St John Chrystrom anyone?

BTW doesn't the Talmud say a Gentile who repudiates idolatry is counted a Jew?

>The bottom line is if the Sanhedrin was around today and Ed went and killed a goy, the Sanhedrin would sentence Ed to death"
WRONG.

So what says the Gentile Catholic? The Jewish killer of a goy could be tried in special courts set up by the King. According to Rav Steinsaltz the King of Israel has the power to set up his own courts & set his own rules. So a modern analogy would be it's a State crime to kill a Jew but a federal crime to kill a gentile.

[Jim the Catholic]

those last two where me.

[Satyaman]

Grim consolation to the distraught family of the Goy who was murdered by a Jew

[Satyaman]

So what says the Gentile Catholic? The Jewish killer of a goy could be tried in special courts set up by the King. According to Rav Steinsaltz the King of Israel has the power to set up his own courts & set his own rules. So a modern analogy would be it's a State crime to kill a Jew but a federal crime to kill a gentile.

That is true, absolutely true that it could be an issue of jurisdiction. This is why any comment that a Sanhedrin that executed every (x?) number of years was a bloody Sanhedrin is grossly misleading with respect to using this fact to demonstrate how much or how little a Jewish state values Jewish life. I have not seen documentation regarding how the kings law was implemented with regard to Jew on Non jew crime, but I think it is irrelevant to the point because if G,d and Torah place this kind of value on Non-Jewish life why should we expect courts under a Jewish Kings jurisdiction to be any better. And if they do enforce some kind of punishment, it is purely utilitarian and says nothing about how Judaism sees the value of non-Jewish human life. If you know of any chazal, rishon, achron who deals with the issue of a Kings Jurisdiction for murder of non jew by a jew I would love a reference.

Jim The Catholic, you should read this:

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2007/07/27/feldman%e2%80%99s-folly-part-one/

amazing, he mentions exactly what you mention

later.

[me]

that last one was written by me.

[anon]

Jim the Catholic sounds like a fake

[Yos]

ed's totally right. religion is a terrible thing espoused only by the wicked and simple-minded. wha...? that wasn't his point? oops.

[Theodore Jessa]

MEN SUCK!

[Jim the Catholic]

A fake? Oh really! Wanna see my cross? Jesus is Lord! Now & Forever! Fake indeed....

[Jim the Catholic]

I read the cross currents article.

QUOTE"A question arose about John Chrysostom, the fourth century Church Father who put the charge of deicide on the map, and whose vitriol against Jews was surpassed by none, and embraced for centuries thereafter, including by the Nazis." END QUOTE Charge of Deicide? I think the author is confusing St Melito of Sardis with Chrysostom. St John Chrysostom called the local Jewish house of worship a "brothel" because he didn't like Christians visiting it on Saturdays. Other then that he was on friendly terms, if you can believe it, with the Jew of Costantinople.

[Jim the Catholic]

>And if they do enforce some kind of punishment, it is purely utilitarian and says nothing about how Judaism sees the value of non-Jewish human life.

Accept the Talmud DOES say God will punish the Jewish murderer of a Gentile. Judaism is clearly by nature an OUTCOMES based religion "action proceeds intention". You are ironically thinking like a Christian placing "Intention before action" & judging Judaism accordingly. Not that I'M complaining mind you.;-) Good Show!

[Nachman]

Now my 2 cents...
ANY person who has no spiritual purpose is דומה לחמור... Jew and non Jew alike.
He basically works to eat to be able to work so he can eat some more to work even harder to eat more...
A non Jew who keeps the seven mitzvoth has a purpose in this world - He's serving Hashem who created this world for its inhabitants.
As Jews we believe the world was created for us. בשביל ישראל שנקראו ראשית. We accordingly got many more Mitzvoth. A person void of any spirituality HAS NO PURPOSE IN THIS WORLD. There will be those of you who will say look at what they are producing! Isn't that purpose enough? NO! Animals produce food and provide for us in many different ways. THEY ARE STILL A-N-I-M-A-L-S! They do not get a free upgrade to human status...
Having said that, let me make myself clear: NO ONE has the right to take anyone elses life PERIOD! As far as SAVING ones life? The TORAH (to include D'rabanans - whom ATHEISTS dislike) has taken care of that aspect as to when and where. Nowadays it is of little relevance anyway. So why the whole commotion. To some (weak)individuals the Torah ruling is not acceptable - TOUGH LUCK! Maybe the "sympathetic" church is the way to go...

[Nachman]

BTW the Torah has provisions for the treatment of animals as well. So please don't feel left out...

[Jim the Catholic]

The problem Nachman is if you scratch an Atheist you will find a Fundamentalist. I have met a few Atheists who seem to believe the words of St John Chrysostom where the sum total of Christian teaching about Jews. The rest of Christianity is ignored.

Clearly Judaism can be abused in a similar fashion. Can't say that I'm impressed.
I'm happy a Jew will save my life & I really don't care why he does it. I'm happy a Jew fears God enough to know he can't murder me just because I'm a gentile. I don't care if a lesser Sanhedrin of 23 tries the Case or the King of Israel or a Secular Court in Israel tries the case. I have an equal access to justice. I can see this AND I AM NOT A JEW. So what's some people problem?

[Jim the Catholic]

additional: Ironically according to hard core secularist. Humans are just another animal......

[PishPosh]

Satyaman, what do you know in this world aside from cutting and pasting from a website that feigns promoting religous tolerance while on the authors other website we find.

"What does the establishment of a world-wide Jewish theocracy have to do with the events of 9-11? Everything. If the Jews who rule America have their way, freedom of religion will soon be a thing of the past, and rabbinical courts will rule the world. May 15, 2002.

"Zionist Christians are traitors to America. Along with Jews, they scream loudest for Arab blood, even though all rational analysis shouts that Israel and Israeli agents in America were responsible for 9-11. January 26, 2002."

[PishPosh]

Satyaman, what do you know in this world aside from cutting and pasting from a website that feigns promoting religous tolerance while on the authors other website we find.

"What does the establishment of a world-wide Jewish theocracy have to do with the events of 9-11? Everything. If the Jews who rule America have their way, freedom of religion will soon be a thing of the past, and rabbinical courts will rule the world. May 15, 2002.

"Zionist Christians are traitors to America. Along with Jews, they scream loudest for Arab blood, even though all rational analysis shouts that Israel and Israeli agents in America were responsible for 9-11. January 26, 2002."

[tafkaa]

"Seriously. So one less Goy on the world. One less Soneh Yisroel. What's the problem?"

libi l'moav yizak - rashi says:

bilaam haya mevakesh la'akor es yisrael al lo davar, u'nevi'i yisrael misonnim al puronus ha'ba al ha'umos.

Of course this is only rashi and not nearly as authoritative as a local chassidiche rav

[Alex]

Now my 2 cents...
ANY person who has no spiritual purpose is דומה לחמור... Jew and non Jew alike.
He basically works to eat to be able to work so he can eat some more to work even harder to eat more...

and people who don't work are domeh li-FREAKING BUMS, right Lakewood?

[rebeljew]

To weigh in, I also agree that most frum Jews understand the difference the way that ed does, whether they agree or not. Personally, I know so many nonJews that I am close with, that it is hard for me to fathom the comments of Mr. Ed. I have to agree with the comment above, it is not LIKE racism, it is definitively racism. To say that all non Jews are antiSemites is not only a slap at the brave men like Wallenberg, Schindler, the king of Denmark and the like, but it is the utmost arrogance, abhorred by the Torah. The Torah itself makes clear in the current parshios that it is not our inherent superiority but the depth to which the K'na'anim have sunk that merits us the land. IOW, the Jews are comaprible to any nation, but because G-d wants to punish THOSE particular people, we are the beneficiary.

Considering the Torah's treatment of Eliezer, Yisro, Bas Paroah, pshuteh teich in Shifra and Puah, etc. it seems G-d does not consider all goyim to be just some antiSemites, so who cares. For every Balak, there is a Dasan and Aviram.

It is sad the depth to which TRUE Torah study has sunk in our time.

[Anon]

Don't know enough to argue about what the halacha is or isn't - but I throw the following thoughts out for consideration: (1) When Yishmael was banished by Abraham and he was stuck in the desert without water and God was about to create a miracle to save him, chazal teach that the Angels complained to God that why would he create a miracle for someone if he would create future generations that would cause so much trouble for jews. God in response insisted that Yishmoel was entitled to be judged own his own merits and not based on future harm he or his children would cause. Apparently the life of a goy was important enough to God to create a miracle for him even though this would be harmful to God's nation in the future. (2) After the Egyptions were killed at the sea, the jews sang "shira" but God refused to allow the Angels to sing "shira." Chazal teach us that God told the Angels that the jews were permitted to rejoice at the deaths of human beings because their lives were in danger and they were saved. In contrast the Angels were not in danger and the death of humans - yes goyim, and not just goyim, but goyim who were tring to annihalate the jews - was no a cause to rejoice. I'm sure someone more knowledgable than I can come up with many more sources, but it is mind boggling to me how someone can insinuate that the jewish religion does not attribute significant value to the life of a non-jew. That is a gross distortion of our religion.

[Yochanan Lavie]

I love these kind of debates!

Here's my pov, not that anyone asked. All that post-biblical stuff is optional, as far as I'm concerned. The rabbis occasionally offer pearls of wisdom, but they were also embittered by persecution. I read miqra literally when it says "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Thou shalt not murder." Things that pertain only to Jews have caveats such as "amitecha" in the verses. As Alan points out, there are interpretive traditions that read the torah more universally. Certainly the non-Orthos do.

The disturbing stuff that's in the miqra- like genocide against Amalek, are harder to explain away. We can say it was a different time period, or that it only applied to certain, specific, now extinct, people. But that feels like an apologetic cop out. I would rather argue with God about it- in the tradition of Avraham, Moshe, and Yonah, etc. (although I am not worthy to be considered in their company).

Pish Posh: Satya brings good points, even if he draws from a poisoned well. To mix metaphors, a broken clock occasionally tells the right time.

Yos: Whither religion? In my opinion (supported by some, but not all, scientists), human beings are hardwired to believe. Like sexuality, religion is very powerful and can lead to heinous crimes. But like sexuality, it can also lead to great good. I am basically a selfish, lazy, self-absorbed person. That is my temperment, not my values. Because I believe in a God, and want to be close to Him, I try to control my nature.

Jimbo: Intentions are very important, because they lead to results. It's good to be results oriented, to a point- but I think ideology ultimately affects outcome (esp. in extreme conditions). Also, you are a friendly outsider, but I live here. I don't want a crappy religion.

rebeljew: Rock on. I also am close to many gentiles. I can't believe Hashem wants me to hate them, or that they secretly hate me as eddie would have it.

(BTW: George Steiner wrote a novel "The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H." In it, the Mossad captures Hitler in S. America. He says that he derived the concept of the Master Race from that of the Chosen People. The book was very controversial in its day.)

Ultimately: "Lo bashamayim hee." It is up to us to interpret the text in a lifegiving manner. I beleive ethical monotheism as expressed in Judaism can be a wonderful thing. It doesn't have to be another racist shtick. There must be some reason why the Tanach has excited and inspired people throughout the ages- including literally billions of gentiles. (Not just to appropriate choseness, as some have done). Let's not throw out the wheat with the chaff.

[Satyaman]

This is really pathetic...you must be desperate. YOu should really get help and I mean this in all seriousness

[Satyaman]

Satyaman, what do you know in this world aside from cutting and pasting from a website that feigns promoting religous tolerance while on the authors other website we find.

This is really pathetic...you must be desperate. YOu should really get help and I mean this in all seriousness

[Satyaman]

Pish Posh: Satya brings good points, even if he draws from a poisoned well. To mix metaphors, a broken clock occasionally tells the right time.

thanks again for the postive feedback. I do want to point out however that the poison well that you are refereing to are Jewish sources NOT neo nazi hate sites. The only outside source I bring is talk reason (a place for scholars to discuss issues, most of whom are Jews.

If my points are also mentioned in nazi hate sites it is irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the point being made--sorry they pick up on what we, as Jews shuld be ashamed of. In fact, I think these sites point this out because they see how hypocritical we can be.

I think ping posh is also aliased as *me* or *jim the Catholic* or maybe even *Shimon* or some *vengeful machon shlomo alum* trying to dishonestly discredit the points I have made by deceitfully drawing on a the fact that nazi hate groups bring up the same points as many other jews on the topic. This is really very sad indeed when he has nothing to go by except an attempt to character assination -- in this case by association, except that it is a false association anyway. This is the essence of an ad hominem attack - -it lacks substance and is dishonest

[yos]

"A fake? Oh really! Wanna see my cross? Jesus is Lord! Now & Forever! Fake indeed...."

Heh, that reminds me of that part in Little Big Man:

Didn't you hear me say, God bless George Washington, God bless my mother? I mean, now what kind of Indian would say a fool thing like that?

Ahhh, fine goyish cinema.

[Anon]

--The disturbing stuff that's in the miqra- like genocide against Amalek, are harder to explain away. We can say it was a different time period, or that it only applied to certain, specific, now extinct, people. But that feels like an apologetic cop out.--

once attended a lecture where the rabbi said that Amalek is not a nationality but a quasi-religion / philosophy - namely people whose goals are to kill jews. According, to him, when the torah said to kill Amalek, it was not referring to people of a special race, but to people that are out to destroy jews. Can't say if that interpretation is correct, but if it is, it seems eminently justifiable.

[Satyaman]

Very powerful, interesting and soul searching comment from a Gadol B'torah (now Niftar) who had the inner courage to acknowledge the deeply disturbing attitudes and halachos within the tradition.

Rav Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg in a letter to his friend, Professor Samuel Atlas, dated September 15, 1957, wrote:

I have bitter thoughts about the very existence of the nation and its hopes for the future. The entire world hates us. We assume that this hatred is due to the wickedness of the nations, and no one stops to think that we also bear some guilt. We regard all the nations as similar to an ass. It is forbidden to save a Gentile, it is forbidden to offer him free medical treatment, it is forbidden to violate the Sabbath to save his life, his sexual intercourse does not render a woman forbidden to her husband according to R. Tam because their issue is like that of horses. Can the nations resign themselves to such a deprivation of rights? It is permitted to deceive a Gentile and cancel his debt as well as forbidden to return his lost object! What can we do? Can we uproot our Torah teaching with apologetic formulae or clever deceptions? God knows that I have written this with the blood of my heart, the blood of my soul.

From Marc B. Shapiro, "Scholars and Friends: R. Jehiel Jabob Weinberg and Professor Samuel Atlas", The Torah U-Madda Journal, VII, 1997.

[PishPosh]

"This is really pathetic...you must be desperate. You should really get help and I mean this in all seriousness"

Who is desperate here, cause I mentioned that you pulled something off a racists site and take it as a legit representation of what Jewish literature says you run away crying?

And by the way, desperate denotes that Im losing some sort of battle. I dont need to battle, I read and speak Hebrew quite comfortably chump. Your the one desperately in need of furthering your Jewish Education.

Terapeh atzmecha nevailah. Ata legamre tipesh vechole. Shlomo Hamelech haya omer sh ain maspik zevel lemalot et hapeh shell dfukeem camocha.

So you need to pull a bunch of quotes of the site of someone who no doubt has autograped copies of the Protocols on her bookshelf. Cant speak Hebrew? Cant read Aramaic? But damed if you dont know reliable translations when you see them.

Terapeh atzmecha nevailah. Ata legamre tipesh vechole. Shlomo Hamelech haya omer sh ain maspik zevel lemalot et hapeh shell dfukeem camocha.

[Satyaman]

Who is desperate here, cause I mentioned that you pulled something off a racists site and take it as a legit representation of what Jewish literature says you run away crying?

YOur a LIAR also!....wow another demonstration of your fine character. YOu should really be ashamed of yourself. As I said before and as you keep trying to dishonestly assert...I DID NOT PULL FROM THE SITE YOU NOTE.

Now do yourself a favor and work on your connection with G,d

[Satyaman]

Who is desperate here, cause I mentioned that you pulled something off a racists site and take it as a legit representation of what Jewish literature says you run away crying?

The real issue, which you keep trying to dishonestly evade, thorough obfuscation and ad hominem attack, is whether or not these halachos are TRUE. Your attempt to shift the focus away from what is substantive - - the bigoted attitudes and discriminatory halachos of Chazal, the Rishonim, and Achronim - - IS WHAT IS DESPERATE. If you had a meaningful and thoughtful explanation for these heinous laws you would be asserting it rather then throwing out red herrings.

Here are a few questions (There are many many more exactly like this). ARE THE FOLLOWING Halachos - - yes or no?
1.A jew is NOT executed by the Sanhedrin for murdering a non-Jew
2. A non-Jew who accidentally kills a Jew is executed; the Jew goes to city of refuge
3.Gentile is put to death by one judge and by one witness, even if he was not forewarned

Also, Did the Ra'avad say “for the Gentiles are like animals…and one who thinks of them as something [worthwhile] will gather the wind in his fist?" Did Rabbi Abraham Issac HaCohen Kook say “"The difference between the Jewish soul, in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal,?” Did Rabbi Tzadok HaCohen of Lublin say “it is irrelevant to call any of the Gentiles 'men'; at most, they are like animals in the form of men.” Did the Arizal and Rabbi Chaim Vital say ” the souls of the nations, which come from the klipot, are called 'evil' and not 'good,' are created without the da'at [knowledge], and therefore they also lack the ruach and neshama………………The soul of the Gentiles comes from the three klipot: wind, cloud, and fire, all of them evil. So is the case with impure animals, beasts, and birds.?”

YES or NO? If Yes, do you CONDEMN these sages for making such statements? If not, please explain. Is it because the statements do not mean what they appear to convey i.e. .taken out of context, some deeper idea that is missing? If so, please incorporate this into your explanation, but with honestly, NOT with apologetics.

[Jim the Catholic]

I've seen plenty of anti-Catholic fundies "accuratly" quote Catholic texts (the funndie book THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ROME by James McCarthy comes to mind). But there is an old saying "A Text without a Context is a Pretext". The fact Satyaman reads the Talmud & comes to similar conclusions as Nazi types merely tells me he reads the text & Cherry Picks it with the same spirit of malace & bias the Nazi brings with him.
BTW I too heard of the story of how God rebuked the Angels for rejoicing over the death of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. Very moving I thought. It's NOT convincing to cheery pick the negative & portray it as if it was representitive of the whole. Thus this Gentile is NOT convinced Judaism is a Racist religion. But I am convinced Satyaman should do some soul searching. Normally I'd recomend he go to Confession but Alas......

[Jim the Catholic]

The Torah among other things is a civil Code for either the past OT Israelite Commonwealth or a Future One set up by the King Messiah(of course I believe the Real Messiah's Kingdom is not of this World but I won't go there...). It's not hard to imagine back in OT times gentiles who where all pagan foreners had less civil rights in the Commonwealth than citizens. This was the case with Jews in pagan countries at the time AND later on in Christian countries.

Of course any Gentile living in the hypothetical Religious Commonwealth CAN become a Ger Toshav. If Judaism was a "racist" religion then no Gentile could become a Ger Toshav because they have no decent threw Jacob Son of Issac.
Of course all this is moot. If the Messiah never comes then this is all just theory. If the Messiah Comes (assuming it's not Jesus coming again) why would any sane Gentile want to live as a pagan before the one God, or as a non-Ger Toshav Noachide?
This is just common sense AND I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE in Rabbinic Judaism. Hello Catholic here!

[Nachman]

Alex.
Let me attempt to clarify my view...
1. If you have NO purpose then you are worthless.
2. One who studies Torah (NOT "bonk kvetcher..)so he can serve Hashem PROPERLY has purpose. I know it's a matter of belief so I'm not talking to atheists.
3. Bonk Kvetchers (or as I call them "coffee sippers...) are wasting their time and SHOULD go to work and be productive to society. They can do their share of learning (which is a mitzvah) in the evening or early morning.
4. For the record! I work hard for a living (not a 9-5'er). I do not live in Lakewood. As a matter of fact I hate Lakewood mentality. I also find plenty time to learn - that's what keeps me going.
5. Hence your point of people who do not work are domeh l'freaking bums holds true under circumstances...

Got it?
Good!
Gut Shabbes!

[Abe]

Jim the Catholic,
You are blinded by your obsession with biblical and talmudic innerancy. It erases the capacity to engage in logical discourse and provides an avenue promote a surreal attachment to your polemical nonsense.
That you accuse Satyaman of cherry-picking and promoting nazi propoganda speaks more of your ignorance and propensity to absolve ancient Jewish sages of racism.
If Satyaman cherry-picked it is because the the haredi and ultra-orthodox mindset is littered with a proliferation of rotten cherries. This fundie mindset holds a bizarre attraction to fundies like Pish-Posh and you. That you find it satisfying to embrace ancient racism speaks more of a desire to promote falsity and superstition than facing the truth that many of our ancient Jewish sages were the ignorant products of their times.
You are no longer living in the 13th century, so what is your excuse ?

[Jim the Catholic]

>You are blinded by your obsession with biblical and talmudic innerancy.

I reply: I only believe in Biblical innerancy but reason & the virtue of authentic Christian Charity commands me to treat things fairly. Satyaman is simply not doing that with Jewish Tradition. I've seen anti-Semitic Radical "Catholic" Traditionalist treat the Talmud the same way & I've seen Fundie Prots do it to Catholicism. It's tragic & more than a little disturbing to see a Jew do it to Judaism.

>It erases the capacity to engage in logical discourse and provides an avenue promote a surreal attachment to your polemical nonsense.

I reply: Your EMOTIONAL defense of logical discourse & knee jerk dismissal of all orthodox religious belief is duly noted.

>That you accuse Satyaman of cherry-picking and promoting nazi propoganda speaks more of your ignorance and propensity to absolve ancient Jewish sages of racism.

I reply: I am accusing Satyaman of READING the Talmud like a Nazi. I never said (others did) he took his charges from Nazi websites.

>If Satyaman cherry-picked it is because the the haredi and ultra-orthodox mindset is littered with a proliferation of rotten cherries.

I reply: All religions(mine included) have Jerks. The presence of Jerks in OrthJudaism is no excuse to mishandle the Talmud. Just as the presence of Trad Ectremist in my religion is no reason to reject having the Old Mass.

This fundie mindset holds a bizarre attraction to fundies like Pish-Posh and you. That you find it satisfying to embrace ancient racism speaks more of a desire to promote falsity and superstition than facing the truth that many of our ancient Jewish sages were the ignorant products of their times.

I reply: You have just assumed what you have not proven. It is easyer for you to engadge in projection then to answer my rational arguments. Well tough guy if the Talmud is racist WHY are Gentiles Noachides allowed to become Ger Toshav's?

>You are no longer living in the 13th century, so what is your excuse ?

I reply:???????????

nice to see you again Abe. Feel free to come back for another ass kicking Thomistic style.

[Yochanan Lavie]

We, as Jews, have to face the uncomfortable side of our religion- in order to purify it of some hateful mumbo jumbo that certain rabbis cooked up. We should not explain it away; we should surgically remove it. Even if Satyaman cherry picks, there had to be cherries to pick.

However, I agree that we are basically a noble people with a noble faith. (Look at all the Nobel Prize winners and humanitarians- some even orthodox). And even xenophobes don't deserve a Shoah.

Rather than self-congratulate (which we're good at), we need to introspect and improve. We are not angels, and nobody's perfect.

Yes, we can focus on the life-affirming stuff, and we should. But we can't pretend the dark side doesn't exist. Pharoah was the King of Denial (the Nile) and look what happened to him.

[Satyaman]

It's not hard to imagine back in OT times gentiles who where all pagan foreners had less civil rights in the Commonwealth than citizens. This was the case with Jews in pagan countries at the time AND later on in Christian countries.

So G,d was behind the times, his perfect and eternal laws only reflect ancient world morality; very interesting!

All this is besides the point because even by ancient standards, 1000 years before Chazal, there was precedent for the concept of equal rights for all ethic groups. See Human Rights in the Ancient World
“The Achaemenid Persian Empire of ancient Iran established unprecedented principles of human rights in the 6th century BC under Cyrus the Great. After his conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, the king issued the Cyrus cylinder, discovered in 1879 and recognized by many today as the first human rights document. The cylinder declared that citizens of the empire would be allowed to practice their religious beliefs freely. It also abolished slavery, [Does chazal, with their ruach hakodes, aboloish slavery?] so all the palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era where slaves typically did such work.[9] These two reforms were reflected in the biblical books of Chronicles and Ezra, which state that Cyrus released the followers of Judaism from slavery and allowed them to migrate back to their land. The cylinder now lies in the British Museum, and a replica is kept at the United Nations headquarters.
In the Persian Empire, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups were also given the same rights, while women had the same rights as men.”

[Yochanan Lavie]

Jim: I don't think Orthodox Judaism has had a house cleaning like the Catholics had with the Second Vatican Conference. I appreciate your sticking up for our religion. I believe in God and the miqra, and I am not a self-hating Jew (I am a Zionist and all). But every tradition needs a good colonic cleansing once in a while. I think we're past due.

[Satyaman]

"A Text without a Context is a Pretext"……..same spirit of malace & bias.

Negative mind reading…You do not even know me. Again, just another dishonest evasion, thorough obfuscation and ad hominem attack. How low can one stoop?!

By the way, you have NOT answered ONE question. Do you condemn the sages mentioned. If not why. Also, Lets hear you context and don’t forget part of the context must be based on the fact that Chazal had ruach hakodes of G,d’s perfect and eternal laws.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Satyaman: Daas Torah is a recent innovation. And the ascribing of Ruach Hakodesh to human beings smacks of idolotry. I don't buy it, personally. What is more disturbing is the material in tanach. That is harder to explain away. Maybe I'm naive, but I think we don't need to toss the baby with the bathwater. Or else, why be Jewish?

[Satyaman]

Well tough guy if the Talmud is racist WHY are Gentiles Noachides allowed to become Ger Toshav's?

My sources, if not primary (due to time constraints) come from Proud Jews, like Leon Zilberstein , author of “Judaic sources on the attitude towards gentiles” or Sasson Lerner, author of “Gentiles, Rabbis and Texts”
How about these two Jews - -the authors of the articles? Are they like Nazi’s or are they honest and sincere Jews who want to objectively explain a very difficult aspect of their own tradition? A tradition, that whatever its beauties, has a very ugly and hateful side. Mature men of character like these two Jews believe it is important to bring this out in an honest way. It appears to me that it is mostly fundamentalists who become upset when confronted by this issue and it is the western educated ones that become the most enraged….. “How dare you remind me that my own religion can be as hateful and bigoted as the very non-jews we criticize? “How dare you.”

Leon Zilberstein writes:
• If a Jew is chasing a gentile in order to murder him, it is forbidden to kill the Jew in order to save the gentile, even if there is no other way to save the gentile's life. A person who kills the Jewish pursuer in order to save the gentile's life must be put to death. But if a gentile (or a Jew) is chasing a Jew in order to murder him, one must kill the pursuer in order to save the pursued person (if there is no other way to save his life). This law applies to a ger toshav as well.
1.9) In a case where someone orders a Jew to kill some innocent person or else he will himself be killed: If the person he is ordered to kill is a Jew then he must not kill him,even if it will result in his own death. If the person he is ordered to kill is a gentile, then it is permissible to kill him to save the life of the Jew (in this situation).It appears that this law applies even if the person whom the Jew is ordered to kill is a ger toshav.
1.10) If an animal owned by a Jew kills a Jew then the animal is killed and its owner is required to pay compensations to the family of the victim. But if an animal owned by a Jew kills a gentile, killing the animal is not required and its owner is not required to pay any indemnity. It appears this law applies even when the victim is a ger toshav.

[Satyaman]

Maybe I'm naive, but I think we don't need to toss the baby with the bathwater. Or else, why be Jewish?

I think Judiasm has much beauty. I never suggested abandoning our tradition, but I do suggest that we condemn in the most unequivocal way its hateful aspect. We expect the Church to denounce Anti-semitism. Why should we be any different?ciriticism is

[Satyaman]

Jim: I don't think Orthodox Judaism has had a house cleaning like the Catholics had with the Second Vatican Conference. I appreciate your sticking up for our religion. I believe in God and the miqra, and I am not a self-hating Jew (I am a Zionist and all). But every tradition needs a good colonic cleansing once in a while. I think we're past due.

AMEN!

But don't forget Jim is not a Catholic..This is an alias for a very dishonest person who feels the need to impersonate a non-jew to lend credibility to his empty arguments

[Satyaman]

It's not hard to imagine back in OT times gentiles who where all pagan foreners had less civil rights in the Commonwealth than citizens. This was the case with Jews in pagan countries at the time AND later on in Christian countries.

See also Human Rights in 3rd century bce. India, 700 years before Chazal.

“The Maurya Empire of ancient India established unprecedented principles of civil rights in the 3rd century BC under Ashoka the Great. After his brutal conquest of Kalinga in circa 265 BC, he felt remorse for what he had done, and as a result, adopted Buddhism. From then, Ashoka, who had been described as "the cruel Ashoka" eventually came to be known as "the pious Ashoka". During his reign, he pursued an official policy of nonviolence (ahimsa) and the protection of human rights, as his chief concern was the happiness of his subjects.[11] The unnecessary slaughter or mutilation of animals was immediately abolished, such as sport hunting and branding. Ashoka also showed mercy to those imprisoned, allowing them outside one day each year, and offered common citizens free education at universities. He treated his subjects as equals regardless of their religion, politics or caste, and constructed free hospitals for both humans and animals. Ashoka defined the main principles of nonviolence, tolerance of all sects and opinions, obedience to parents, respect for teachers and priests, being liberal towards friends, humane treatment of servants, and generosity towards all. These reforms are described in the Edicts of Ashoka.
In the Maurya Empire, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups also had rights to freedom, tolerance, and equality. The need for tolerance on an egalitarian basis can be found in the Edicts of Ashoka, which emphasize the importance of tolerance in public policy by the government. The slaughter or capture of prisoners of war was also condemned by Ashoka.[12] Slavery was also non-existent in ancient India.”

[Satyaman]

Ping-posh: "Ata legamre tipesh vechole"

Your attitude here is not emotionally mature or healthy, and it is far from the ben torah I am sure you aspire to be. Kol avodot hashem talui batikun hamidot

[Alex]

1. If you have NO purpose then you are worthless.
2. One who studies Torah (NOT "bonk kvetcher..)so he can serve Hashem PROPERLY has purpose. I know it's a matter of belief so I'm not talking to atheists.
___________________________

A man's purpose is his career. The word c-a-r-e-e-r might be new to you Nachman, and it doesn't mean working at a kosher pizza shop or something for fifty years.

And feel free to keep "serving hashem" by following rules that rabbis made to put them in God's mouth. You are serving rabbis, mere mortals you stupid dope, not God.

[Jim the Catholic]

Bigots are all cut from the same cloth. In my dealings with Radical Traditionalist
"Catholics" whenever I stick up for Jews they accuse me of being a closet Jew or Jewish Convert(I'm neither). Now the self-hating Jewish bigot is accusing me of being a closet Jew! Mother of God! Classic! :-) Well I will paraphrase the words uttered by St Ignatius of Loyola when he was brought before the Spanish Inquisition and accused of being a Jew. I am honored you think me a member of the Race of people who spawned Our Lord & Our Lady but I must state before Christ I do not have that nature. Now then...

Yochanan Lavie, my good friend. God be with you. It's not for me to tell you how to reform your religion since my answer as you well know is for you & your fellow Jews to join the Judaism of the New Covenant(i.e. The Catholic Church). But speaking personally as a Catholic I would not listen to liberal extremists like HANS KUNG or ROSEMARY RADFOR RUTHER for advice on reform & I would council you not listen to "Jews" whose criticisms are similar to the charges of Israel Shahak.

Satyaman, I'm a Catholic Apologist not a Jewish one so perhaps you need to run your anti-Talmud polemical crap past someone who has more of a stake in it like Gil Student? However, if you wish to challenge me on Papal Infallibility or the Galileo Affair I would be more than happy to expose your likely ignorance. But I will note the follow flaws in your arguments.

>Negative mind reading…You do not even know me. Again, just another dishonest evasion, thorough obfuscation and ad hominem attack. How low can one stoop?!

I reply: Sorry but I have spent the past 5 years of my life opposing Talmud smearing among my fellow Catholics I don't need some liberal Jew undermining my efforts just because he wants to bash his more orthodox brethren.

>By the way, you have NOT answered ONE question.

I reply: The burden of proof is always on the accuser. You have to show the context as measured against the whole of Jewish Tradition to prove your claims that Judaism is a racist religion(yeh good luck with that BTW). Also most extremist in this area DON'T just make that charge against the Talmud. But they also say that of the Old Testament itself. That I can't abide.

>Do you condemn the sages mentioned. If not why. Also, Lets hear you context and don’t forget part of the context must be based on the fact that Chazal had ruach hakodes of G,d’s perfect and eternal laws.

I reply: Given time & research I'm sure I could come up with something. Even with his cracks comparing the Synagogue to a whore house THAT is not the sum total of John Chrystrom's thoughts on Jews. But such is the nature of the tactics employed by both the forces of anti-Catholicism & anti-Semitism. It takes little effort to scan a text & cheery pick what looks good for your negative agenda & isolate your cherries from the rest of the Whole & it often takes pages & pages to answer. A donkey can ask more questions than a wise man can answer. Just because a 100 foot tall building is made up of 10 inch tall bricks doesn't mean said building is really 10 inches tall.

>My sources, if not primary (due to time constraints) come from Proud Jews, like Leon Zilberstein , author of “Judaic sources on the attitude towards gentiles” or Sasson Lerner, author of “Gentiles, Rabbis and Texts”
How about these two Jews - -the authors of the articles? Are they like Nazi’s or are they honest and sincere Jews who want to objectively explain a very difficult aspect of their own tradition?

I reply: Yeh here is the problem with your reasoning. Jews like Shmarya, Rabbi David Dalen. and Rabbi Pinchas Lapide have publicly DEFENDED the honor of His Holiness Pope Pius XII by denouncing the charge He was "Hitler's Pope" & that he did nothing to help the Jews during ww2(& for the record I would like to again praise Shmarya for that).
However "Catholics" like John Cornwell and Garry Wills have said that the charge against Pius XII as Hitler's Pope is accurate. Based on your reasoning I must conclude Shmarya, Dalen & Lapide are engaging in evasion, and thorough obfuscation when faced with the "truth" of Pius XII as taught by these "Proud Catholics". OTOH maybe, just maybe Shmarya & Company are correct & Wills & Cornwell are self hating Catholics who are really bad scholars trying to exploit their baptism to push their liberal agenda?
So the fact Leon Zilberstein & the other guy what's His Name are "Jews" doesn't mean squat. But after scanning their website it seems they have a strong bias against any form of conservative or orthodox religious belief, at best they are Deists with Yamakas. Well since I am rather a theologically conservative Catholic I am going to be skeptical if not contemptuous towards such liberal fundamentalism. Plus the extreme similarity with Nazi material still can't be ignored.

[Jim the Catholic]

>How dare you remind me that my own religion can be as hateful and bigoted as the very non-jews we criticize? “How dare you.”

I reply: This is called assuming what you are trying to prove then treating the assuption & your own interpretation as proof. Another anti-Catholic tactic I've grown familar with in life(oh Don't you Catholics know Mary isn't a God blah blah blah yadayadayada).

> Leon Zilberstein writes:
• If a Jew is chasing a gentile in order to murder him, it is forbidden to kill the Jew in order to save the gentile, even if there is no other way to save the gentile's life. A person who kills the Jewish pursuer in order to save the gentile's life must be put to death. But if a gentile (or a Jew) is chasing a Jew in order to murder him, one must kill the pursuer in order to save the pursued person (if there is no other way to save his life). This law applies to a ger toshav as well.

Well according to Maimonides QUOTE"Beware that thou takest not literally those words of the Sages of the Talmud, for this would be degrading to the sacred doctrine, and would sometimes contradict it. Seek rather the hidden sense; and if thou canst not find the kernel, let the shell alone, and confess: "I cannot understand this!"END quote. Did Ziberstein do that? This is as bad as a Protestant Fundie quoting from THE GLORIES OF MARY by St Alphonsus to "prove" we Catholics really worship Mary as God. What kind of research this person do anyway? Did he just read the Halakhah at the bottom of the STEINSALTZ edition of the Talmud and go from there? Well Steinsaltz himself explains "It should be noted that the summery of the Halakhah presented here is not meant to serve as a reference source for actual religious practice but to introduce the reader to halakhic conclusions drawn from the Talmudic text," (The Talmud, Steinsaltz Edition Vol 18 Tractate Sanhedrin Part 4 page X).

I've been amateur self student the Talmud off & on for the past couple of years ever since my former favorite Catholic Apologist Bob Sungenis claimed (among other ugly charges) the Talmud taught it was moral to have sex with 3 year old girls. It's been down hill for him ever since. Mercifully His current Bishop has made him remove anything pertaining to Jews from his website (his old bishop didn't do shit). One thing I've learn & it's confirmed me in my Catholic sensibilities. Orthodox Judaism doesn't have a Pope thus who is to say what group of past sayings of the Rabbis mean what? Even in the OrthoJewish sex scandal I've read about one Rabbi who claimed turning in sex abusers is "informing" and shouldn't be done & I've read another OrthoRabbi say YOU MUST turn in sex abusers even if it means putting Orthodox Jewish Children in a non-observant home. So don't give me these simplistic generalizations that the Talmud & Judaism is "racist" or mean this & that. First prove to me YOU are the President of the Restored Greater Sanhedrin & have formally ruled on the matter then we will talk.

[Jim the Catholic]

> From then, Ashoka, who had been described as "the cruel Ashoka" eventually came to be known as "the pious Ashoka". During his reign, he pursued an official policy of nonviolence (ahimsa) and the protection of human rights, as his chief concern was the happiness of his subjects.[11]

I reply: Yeh Amartya Sen the guy who is the source for the above "information" is NOT a historian of ancient India he is an economist & political philosopher not a historian. Just thought I'd mention that since commenting with authority outside one's field of expertise was such a big deal to Shmarya when he & I butted heads over the Lost Tomb of Jesus nonsense of his buddy Simcha.
BTW the Jewish Encylopedia says QUOTE"According to the views of Amoraim......Alhough he himself witnessed gross immoralities perpetrated by non-Jews ('Ab. Zarah 22b). Yet he is credited with the opinion that during the Messianic time only the heathen will be subject to death (Gen. R. xxvi.).END QUOTE See the entry on GENTILES.

Interesting. Not bad for your "racist" religion.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Satyaman: I have had correspondence with Jim and I believe he is what he says he is. He knows his Scholasticism too well to fake it (and I know enough Scholasticism to know if he's faking it- although not as much as Jim).

Although I disagree with Reform and Conservative Judaism (the latter not as much as the former), I think they have successfully expunged anti-gentilism from their theology. (One can say that leads to assimilation and intermarriage, but nothing is w/o risks, and some risks are worthwhile). The Karaites, on the other hand, don't seem as obsessed with goyim, although I might be wrong there.

As for you, I can't see into your soul, but I think your doing this painful introspection leshaim shamayim. Others criticize you for bringing out our dity linen, and indeed anti-Semites described by Jim and Pish-Posh do just that. But if we do it ourselves, in order to clean it up, we mitigate the harm it does when used against us. We can say, "Yes, some of our sages believed that way, but we no longer do, and it's not essential to our core beliefs."

We rightly demand that Islamofacists do that with the Qu'aran and the Hadith (or Catholics with St. John the Golden-Mouthed). But as the machzor says, we should not smugly say, "We are righteous people, not sinners." We should also do soul searching occasionally.

[David Bar-Magen]

Jim:

As you stated, the likelihood of a contemporary Jew refusing to save your life on the grounds of your being a gentile is nil. Whatever the reasoning behind it, a Jew would certainly save your life first and ask questions later.

The debate heretofore has been a purely legal, academic one, and one that I think would be better suited to a study hall, with all the relevant sources actually open in front of the debating parties.

[Shmarya]

Well according to Maimonides QUOTE"Beware that thou takest not
literally those words of the Sages of the Talmud, for this would be
degrading to the sacred doctrine, and would sometimes contradict it.
Seek rather the hidden sense; and if thou canst not find the kernel,
let the shell alone, and confess: "I cannot understand this!"END quote.
Did Ziberstein do that?

Zilberstein is quoting HALAKHA as it is brought down in HALAKHIC CODES, including the Mishna Berura of the Hafetz Hayyim.

What you and Bar Magen abd others refuse to see is that these halakhot are REAL and have real modern-day import.

That most Modern Orthodox and some haredi Jews IGNORE these halakhot is honorable but besides the point.

[Satyaman]

Negative mind reading…You do not even know me. Again, just another dishonest evasion, thorough obfuscation and ad hominem attack. How low can one stoop?!>>>

I reply: Sorry but I have spent the past 5 years of my life opposing Talmud smearing among my fellow Catholics I don't need some liberal Jew undermining my efforts just because he wants to bash his more orthodox brethren.>>>>

AGAIN, YOu do not even know me. I am a conservative republican and still orthodox, at least orthoprax..so you are way off base and the charge of negative mind reading still stands..Stop reading your own biography into this discussion. Since you are not Jewish, do not live in Frum communiites, do not intetract with Frum jews on a daily basis..YOU WOULD HAVE NO IDEA HOW THESE IDEAS AND HALACHOS impact Jewish attitudes. YOur children are not in yeshivas, you do not attend shiurim(classes) on a daily basis with Ultra Orthodox fundamentalist rabbis, you do not sit though dvrei torah (sermon) every Friday night and Sata morning and you certainly do NOT know the geshtalt of talmud and or judiasm if your understading is purely academic and not experiential. When you have all of these above listed things get back to me. You can always learn with a Rabbi one on one, but hey there is a limit to what they will teach you becasue you are subject to the death penalty if you learn things that a goy should not, and really can not (according to Judiasm) learn

[Satyaman]

By the way, you have NOT answered ONE question.>>>

I reply: The burden of proof is always on the accuser. You have to show the context as measured against the whole of Jewish Tradition to prove your claims that Judaism is a racist religion(yeh good luck with that BTW)>>>.

No my dear Catholic friend, the burden of proof IS ON YOU. YOu are trying to shift the burden because you do not have an adequate answer. I listed many laws and noted at least a half a dozen ugly hateful statements. Prey tell, what is the context of these laws and statements that indicate that they are not bigoted and hateful. I am still waiting for an answer. Please take each law and each statement, one by one, and explain to me how they ARE NOT bigoted.

[Satyaman]

Satyaman: I have had correspondence with Jim and I believe he is what he says he is. He knows his Scholasticism too well to fake it (and I know enough Scholasticism to know if he's faking it- although not as much as Jim).

YOu are probably correct. I retract my accusation and apologize ot Jim for the insinuation.

As for you, I can't see into your soul, but I think your doing this painful introspection leshaim shamayim.

thank you, I appreciate this acknowledgment.

Others criticize you for bringing out our dity linen, and indeed anti-Semites described by Jim and Pish-Posh do just that. But if we do it ourselves, in order to clean it up, we mitigate the harm it does when used against us. We can say, "Yes, some of our sages believed that way, but we no longer do, and it's not essential to our core beliefs."

Well said. I want, however, to add that I think others perception of us is secondary; the primary issue is the moral degradation of us as individuals and as a collective that occurs when we continue to condone such hatred.

We rightly demand that Islamofacists do that with the Qu'aran and the Hadith (or Catholics with St. John the Golden-Mouthed). But as the machzor says, we should not smugly say, "We are righteous people, not sinners." We should also do soul searching occasionally.

EXACTLY

[Satyaman]

> From then, Ashoka, who had been described as "the cruel Ashoka" eventually came to be known as "the pious Ashoka". During his reign, he pursued an official policy of nonviolence (ahimsa) and the protection of human rights, as his chief concern was the happiness of his subjects.[11]

I reply: Yeh Amartya Sen the guy who is the source for the above "information" is NOT a historian of ancient India he is an economist & political philosopher not a historian. Just thought I'd mention that since commenting with authority outside one's field of expertise was such a big deal to Shmarya >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Specialists do lend credibility for detailed and speculative aspects of the historical record, BUT they are NOT necessary to confirm the broad outlines of history that every one agrees on. General info on Ashoka is part of the broad outlines of history, not some controversial and speculative detail.

[Satyaman]

Well according to Maimonides QUOTE"Beware that thou takest not literally those words of the Sages of the Talmud, for this would be degrading to the sacred doctrine, and would sometimes contradict it. Seek rather the hidden sense; and if thou canst not find the kernel, let the shell alone, and confess: "I cannot understand this!">>

YOu totally misunderstood the Maimonides QUOTE. It is TOTALLY inapplicable to our discussion...He is not talking about clear cut halachops such as those under discussion. Infact the rambam himself explicily confirms in the mishna torah that these laws ARE applicable exactly as stated

[David Bar-Magen]

[I]What you and Bar Magen abd others refuse to see is that these halakhot are REAL and have real modern-day import.[/I]

Yes, they are certainly real, and they have modern-day, [I]academic[/I] import and need to be reexamined amongst those learned enough to do so. What I am "refusing to see" is the practical benefit of debating a legal issue that (a) will be grossly misunderstood by your run-of-the-mill unlearned,hate-mongering ignoramus and (b)is not symptomatic of a practice that effects our on-the-ground reality.

Most of your entries deal with topical, contemporary issues, Shmarya, not fine legal points already grossly misrepresented in the New York Times magazine by an obviously angry Jew.

While I understand what Satyaman is doing, I don't believe the path to moral honesty and exactitude begins on a blog. I think there are far more important issues for the Jew to examine closely, the foremost of them being the baseless hatred that continues to rend us into ever smaller pieces; the hatred that got Shmarya excommunicated and is essentially the father of FailedMessiah.

[Yochanan Lavie]

David: I think there are far more important issues for the Jew to examine closely, the foremost of them being the baseless hatred...

It's not either/or, it's both/and. Traditional Judaism has to face up to how we perceive "Others" whether it's gentiles or Jews of different persuasions than ours. To me, it's of one piece.

[Shmarya]

Yes, they are certainly real, and they have modern-day, [I]academic[/I] import and need to be reexamined amongst those learned enough to do so.

1. It has more than academic import, as anyone who has spent time in the hasidic world can tell you.

2.These laws need to be removed from the halakhic corpus. Ignoring the problem to satisfy people like you is not the solution.

[David Bar-Magen]

Yochanan: We are not in disagreement. I did not mean to imply that baseless hatred is a more important problem per se, but rather that it is a far more present and immediate danger than an academic mortal issue that does not manifest itself in any mortally significant manner.

Shmarya: I find myself once again reading your replies and wondering at your tendencies toward crypticism.

Cryptic Statement 1:

"It has more than academic import, as anyone who has spent time in the hasidic world can tell you."

Do you mean:

A)That hasidim have a tendency to allow non-Jews in their neighborhoods to die unaided? How often? If that were true--and I don't believe it is--I wonder why Feldman didn't mention the ACTUAL deaths that have resulted from these laws, as opposed to the hypothetical ones.

B)That hasidic rebbes tend to deride non-Jews in their rhetoric and imply that their lives are not on par with Jewish ones? If THAT'S true--and I believe it IS, to some extent--that would make the hasidic approach to non-Jews virtually identical to their approach to all non-Jewish media, literature, culture and apparel. Extreme, yes. But actually leading to non-Jewish deaths by neglect? Doubtful.

Cryptic Statement 2:

"These laws need to be removed from the halakhic corpus. Ignoring the problem to satisfy people like you is not the solution."

What mystifies me about that little chestnut is the implication that I advocate ignoring the problem. To the contrary: I advocate that all leading rabbanim sit down in the beis midrash of their choice and dissect this law publicly to ensure that all Jews understand that it is no longer applicable. What I DON'T advocate is airing a complex legal issue before the eyes of many, far less complex individuals who feel themselves duty-bound to read implications into this issue that were never meant to be conveyed.

When you're ready to explain exactly why this legal issue is as functionally important to tout as, say, rabbinic pedophiles or tax scandals, I'll be here to listen.

[Shmarya]

The statements are not cryptic; your response to them is disingenuous, however.

1. The view that non-Jews should NOT be saved and that they have less of a right to life than Jews do is prevalent in the hasidic world. That view has carried over to parts of the yeshiva world and, most importantly, to the right wing of the National Religious world in Israel, especially among the so-called Hilltop Youth, who have been heavily influenced by a well-known Chabad rabbi, Yitzhak Ginsburgh.

2. The idea that rabbis will sit down in the privacy of a beit midrash and work out the law is foolish. Perhaps that was once possible. But certainly that has not been so since about 50 CE. Too cryptic for you? Check out Talmud Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:4. You'll see how well that worked out.

3. When you're ready to explain exactly why this legal issue is as functionally important to tout as, say, rabbinic pedophiles or tax scandals, I'll be here to listen.

I'd point out that rabbi shave not handled these issues, and on;y public pressure and exposure has made any difference.

I'd also point out that it is alrady a real issue on the ground in Israel and it is rapidly becoming a problem here, as well. Do we really want to wait for an American Goldstein before we force change?

Of course, for apologists, the answer to that question is clearly, yes.

[Jim the Catholic]

Ah somebody who loves the Talmud & seems to be learned in it & can offer a proper defense. Excellent! Because there is a limit to what I can do.

I might as well add my Scholastic Thomistic two cents. First I accept Satyaman apology for questioning my Catholicity. That he offered one puts him miles above Radical Traditonalist "Catholic" pseudo-heretic anti-Semites who have yet to apologize to me for claiming I am a closet Jew(not that I find the idea that God could of made me a Jew objectionable. Blessed be God who made me according to your will & all that).

I'm sorry if I was too hard on you Satyaman but never the less I KNOW the dirt bags who try to revive & spead anti-Semtic propoganda among orthodox Catholics. They would undo all the holy work done by My Father in Faith the late John Paul II of happy memory. I will not abide it. But I will stand by this observation, you Jews don't have a Pope so what YOU think the Talmud means Vs. what Bar-Magen Vs. whoever doesn't really mean anything. So I don't personally believe there is an offical position but Christian charity compels me to automatically favor the idea one as the intended.

[Jim the Catholic]

I say more later when the wife isn't bugging me to use our computer. What can you do?

[Jim the Catholic]

>No my dear Catholic friend, the burden of proof IS ON YOU. You are trying to shift the burden because you do not have an adequate answer. I listed many laws and noted at least a half a dozen ugly hateful statements. Prey tell, what is the context of these laws and statements that indicate that they are not bigoted and hateful. I am still waiting for an answer. Please take each law and each statement, one by one, and explain to me how they ARE NOT bigoted.

I reply: No the burden of proof IS IN FACT on the accuser. You have to show me the context to affirm your claims.

BTW Do you consider the following statement "bigoted & hateful" This is from the ECCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
QUOTE"It[i.e. The Council] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also JEWS or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives;END QUOTE

Please note (and I'm an expert in this) the above is from Session Six of Florence & is offically considered INFALLIBLE TEACHING for the Catholic Church. VATICAN II has NOT abrogated it. So I pose you two questions is it bigoted and does it really mean ALL non-Catholics are going to Hell?

Now hurry up & give me the wrong answer so I can correct you relate it back to your charges against the Talmud & finally explain why I am not impressed with your proof texting. A text without a larger context is a pretext.

HINT: I personally believe Florence Six with all my heart. But I alsos DON'T believe every non-Catholic is automatically going to Hell. Why?

[Jim the Catholic]

Some other things to consider.

To quote Rabbi STEINSALTZ "The principles of Halakhic decision-making are not meant to determine absolute and final truth, and the Talmudic discussion itself continues to consider views that have been rejected from the Halakhah, together with those that have been included within it."
-THE TALMUD STEINSALTZ EDITION A Reference Guild, RANDOM HOUSE NEW YORK 1989 page 295.

Also in regard to the charge a Jew will only save the life of a Gentile on the Sabbath "on account of the ways of peace" & that this means he will only do it because it looks bad I note the following from the JEW ENCYLOPEDIA. QUOTE"In judging the halakic enactments one must keep in mind not merely the situation of the Jews engaged in a bitter struggle for self-preservation and exposed to all sorts of treachery and suffering from persecution but also the distinction between law and equity. The law can not and does not recognize the right of demented persons, minors, or aliens to hold property. Even modern statutes are based on this principle; e.g., in the state of Illinois, U. S. A., an alien can not inherit real estate. But what the law denies, equity confers. The Talmudic phrase "mi-pene darke shalom" ("on account of the ways of peace"; see below) is the equivalent of the modern "in equity."END QUOTE.

Whom should I believe? That doesn't sound so bad.

[Jim the Catholic]

>1. It has more than academic import, as anyone who has spent time in the hasidic world can tell you.

I reply: It is as I suspected. It's not the Talmud that is the problem(i.e. bigoted) it's that fact Judaism like any other religon(mine included) has jerks and bungholes.

>2.These laws need to be removed from the halakhic corpus. Ignoring the problem to satisfy people like you is not the solution.

I reply; I remember reading somewhere (I'm still searching for the Quote) that the idea Halakha can't be changed is a legal fiction.
What it means is you don't go back & re-write earlier rulings BUT if a New Ruling is handed down that seems to come to an opposite conclusion than the former that then become part of the Halakha and "can't be changed". Gotta find the Orthodox Rabbi who said that.

But I also found this in the Jewish Encylopedia QUOTE"Of Gamaliel II. is recorded a conversation with two pseudo-proselyte generals, who, being sent to investigate Jewish practises, take exception only to the provision permitting to a Jew the use of property stolen from a non-Jew (Sifre, Deut. 344; B. K. 38a—the law which, in regard to the damage done by a goring ox, does not put Jew and Gentile on an equal footing). In Yer. B. Ḳ. 4b they censure also the prohibition of Jewish women from attending non-Jewish women as midwives and nurses. Gamaliel is reported to have repealed the obnoxious law on the use of stolen property, (see Grätz in "Monatsschrift," 1881, p. 493).END QUOTE

So even Gamaliel was doing this way back when. Interesting.

[Jim the Catholic]

>Specialists do lend credibility for detailed and speculative aspects of the historical record, BUT they are NOT necessary to confirm the broad outlines of history that every one agrees on.

I reply: Where were you back when I was debaiting Shmarya on the qualifications of the critics of Simcha' Lost Tomb of Jesus nonsense?

>>3. When you're ready to explain exactly why this legal issue is as functionally important to tout as, say, rabbinic pedophiles or tax scandals, I'll be here to listen.

>I'd point out that rabbi shave not handled these issues, and on;y public pressure and exposure has made any difference.

I reply: At LEAST you Jews don't have busybody liberal arseholes in the dirtbag liberal media telling you "Oh if only let your clergy marry this would never have happen". Yeh right! Rabbis, Protestant Clergy & Orthodox Christian Priest (& Eastern Rite Catholic BTW) can marry so what is their excuse when they commit sins of depravity?
The problem is not the Talmud or Jewish Tradition or some obscure negative Halakha made when so called "Christians" where force baptising Jews. The problem is one of leaders who refuse to see the forest for the trees.

[Jim the Catholic]

>1. The view that non-Jews should NOT be saved and that they have less of a right to life than Jews do is prevalent in the hasidic world. That view has carried over to parts of the yeshiva world and, most importantly, to the right wing of the National Religious world in Israel, especially among the so-called Hilltop Youth, who have been heavily influenced by a well-known Chabad rabbi, Yitzhak Ginsburgh.

I reply: Alas I know certain extremist traditionalist "Catholics" who see St John Chrystrom's ugly words on Jews as equivilent religious council to St Athanasus defense of the Trinity & the Summa of Aquinas. These same people want to restore Catholic Monarchies & revoke Vatican II teachings on religous liberty & return Jews to the Ghetto(after they confiscated & burn the Talmud). Lovely people let me tell ya....NOT!

>2. The idea that rabbis will sit down in the privacy of a beit midrash and work out the law is foolish.

I reply: Then you have a limited imagination. We Catholics had a Vatican Two it seems to me orthodox Jews could have the Jewish eqivilent if enough of them had the WILL. BUT Vatican II was NOT BORN out of a hatred for Apostolic Tradition or a desire to do away with it or living in meaningless despair. Nor will you win support from Orthodox Jews by trying to tear down Judaish tradition.