Jews Look Down on Non-Jews?

[chosen_people]

“A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat. (Nadarine, 20, B; Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348).” Nadarine 20. The actual quotation is: “The Rabbis say: That whatever a man wants to do with his wife he may do; just as he can prepare meat to suit his fancy.” This concept of male superiority of 1700 years ago bears no relationship to the philosophy and conduct of present-day Jewry. To represent this as the teachings of Judaism in the twentieth century is to perpetuate a palpable fraud. Van Hyning perpetrated the additional fraud of twisting it into a Jew vs. Gentile problem.

“A Jew may rob a goy–that is, he may cheat him in a bill, if unlikely to be perceived by him. (Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348).” Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348. This is not a part of the Talmud. It is actually a part of a collection of Biblical commentaries in the sixteenth century. The actual text in this volume says that it is forbidden to steal even a small item from a Jew or non-Jew, from children or from adults. One of the commentators remarks that in dealing with an idolator it would be permissible to use artifice or stratagem to effect repayment of a loan. He then adds that others say that to do it intentionally is forbidden, but if the idolator makes a mistake in one’s favor, it is proper to accept the advantage that accrues. However it is pointed out that the famous Rabbi Maimonedes is vigorously opposed to such procedures.

“All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general. (Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348).” Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348. This is a complete fabrication.

“On the house of the goy one looks as on the fold of cattle. (Tosefta, Erubin VIII, I).” Tosefta, Erubin VIII, I. This is a complete fabrication. Tosefta is not part of the Talmud.

“How to interpret the word ‘robbery’. A goy is forbidden to steal, rob or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or Jew. But the Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy. (Tosefta, Abhodah Zarah VIII, 5).” Tosefta, Abhodah Zarah VIII, 5. This is a complete fabrication. Tosefta is not part of the Talmud.

 

[chosen_people]

“All vows, oaths, promises, engagements, and swearing, which, beginning this very day of reconciliation, we intend to vow, promise, swear, and bind ourselves to fulfill, we repent of beforehand; let them be illegalized, acquitted, annihilated, abolished, valueless, unimportant. Our vows shall be no vows, and our oaths no oaths at all. (Schulchan Aruch, Edit. 1, 136).” Schulchan Aruch, Edit. 1, 136. This is not from the Talmud. This is actually a garbled version of the Kon Nidre prayer. The reference to “Edit. 1, 136” is completely meaningless. [The Kon Nidre prayer, from the 8th century CE, did not release anyone from a judicial oath or obligation between people. It was intended to release a Jew from a vow made to God, specifically those made under duress to accept another faith.]

“At the time of the Cholhamoed the transaction of any kind of business is forbidden. But it is permitted to cheat a goy, because cheating of goyim at any time pleases the Lord. (Schulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 539).” Schulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 539. This is a complete fabrication.

“If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death. (Libbre David 37).” Libbre David 37. There is no such book, as previously noted.

Excerpted from: The Hoaxers, Plain Liars, Fancy Liars and Damned Liars. Morris Kominsky. Boston: Branden Press, Inc. 1970. SBN 8283-1288-5 LCCCN 76-109134. HC 735pp. pp. 169-176. [leaflet reprinted on p. 166-176]

 

[chosen_people]

The following is taken from a 06 Feb 1999 newsgroup thread archived at crnews.pastornet.net.au/jmm/aasi/aasi0151.htm with rebuttal provided by Nigel B. Mitchell nbm@echidna.id.au

Abhodah Zarah (22a): Christians have intercourse with animals. This fabrication is not in the text.

Sanhedrin 67a: Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier. Mother a prostitute. According to a footnote in the Talmud, this passage refers to a Jewish revolutionary named Ben Stada or Ben Padira who came from Egypt, claimed to be a prophet, led his followers to Mount Zion, and was executed by the Romans, about 100 years after the time of Jesus. The footnote also says that Christians have long misunderstood this passage as a reference to Jesus and tried to censor it or condemn the Jews because of it. Note the legend put about by Celsus, the Greek philosopher, who argued with Justin martyr in the 2nd century, and who repeated a tale that Jesus was the son of a Roman centurion called Panthera.

Kelhubath (11a-11b): “When a grown-up man has had intercourse with a little girl… It means this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [see footnote] three years old it is as if one puts the finger into the eye [again see footnote] tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl three years old.” This is probably the most insidious quote in the whole list. The words are correctly quoted but completely out of context. All the words after [see footnote] actually appear in the footnote, and are therefore not part of the Talmud itself. This passage is a discussion of the penalties and consequences of adult-child sexual relations. The point being made is that if a man has sexual relations with a little girl, that is to be punished less harshly than if it is with an older child or an adult woman. Importantly, when she grows up, the child is to regarded as still having her virginity for legal and marriage purposes. She is not to suffer. In modern times it is quite shocking to think that the fine or reparation for raping an infant should be less than that for raping or seducing an older child, but that is the relative judgement that some of the rabbis made, and which is recorded in the Talmud. The following paragraphs continue to discuss this issue, and there does not seem to be a strong consensus on the issue. The important thing, though, is that whilst from a modern standpoint we (whether Christian, Jew or atheist) might deplore the medical and psychological ignorance which seems to inform this decision, it must be stressed that the Talmud in no sense condones such behaviour. The discussion is about how it should be punished.

---

 

[ralphinal]

It seems like many anti-semites decide that since Jews do not accept Jesus, and there was a jewish involvement in his death, then they are all damned to hell. They then take it to the next step. If they are damned anyway, why not mistreat them. If they killed Jesus, why should we care about them. They deserve what they get. They live in thier own world and have their own rules. They obviously cheat us and look down on us. Some take it a step farther and actually attack them. I have never understood nor have I wanted to understand anti-semitism. I wish that we all could see people as Children of God until they show themselves to be otherwise, then we should pray for them.

 

[RomanCrusader]

It seems like many anti-semites decide that since Jews do not accept Jesus, and there was a jewish involvement in his death, then they are all damned to hell. They then take it to the next step. If they are damned anyway, why not mistreat them. If they killed Jesus, why should we care about them. They deserve what they get. They live in thier own world and have their own rules. They obviously cheat us and look down on us. Some take it a step farther and actually attack them. I have never understood nor have I wanted to understand anti-semitism. I wish that we all could see people as Children of God until they show themselves to be otherwise, then we should pray for them.

Like all forms of racism, true anti-semetism is revolting.

However, “anti-semite” today has become a smear word designed to isolate and blacklist anyone who dares go against a Jewish individual or the Jewish religion in a political or spiritual matter.

 

[holy_wood]

No, on average it’s about that rare. In between they frequently do pretty well.

They could even be nobles in Late Medieval Poland.

But when you’re 4000 years old, that’s 13 times you’ve nearly been wiped out. You have 13 attempts on your life, you don’t get over that in a hurry.

If you have the source for that statistic can you please post it?

I would just like to see who are the historical figures behind the persecutions as well as how many were Christian.

 

[RomanCrusader]

If you have the source for that statistic can you please post it?

I would just like to see who are the historical figures behind the persecutions as well as how many were Christian.

You have to keep in mind that there was a time where Jews persecuted Christians quite brutally too…

Neither side is totally innocent.

 

[paidion]

Um…Kabbalah (I forget which consonants are geminate; is it Kaballah?) is not a book, it’s a mystical school of thought based on the book called the Zohar. And second…most Jews *do *follow some school of Kabbalah properly so-called–I do believe it’s the predominant school of Jewish philosophy/theology (concept sort of combined in Jewish thought). They also use Aristotelianism as interpreted by Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Bar Maimon, aka Moses Maimonides). The alternative is Maimonideanism that rejects Kabbalah, which I believe is pretty much restricted to Yemenite Jews.

Madonna’s “religion” is not real Kabbalah.

I stand corrected on the teaching of Kabbalah being “a book”. What I meant to say was that because someone reads something in a book dealing with Jewish mysticism, that doesn’t necessarily mean that “all” Jews, or “most”, or even any Jews believe that.

As for “most” Jews following some sort of school of Kabbalah …wow… how did you acquire that information?

I’ve become very skeptical (especially since I’ve been on this forum) when someone says, “…most _____ (fill in the blank) believe such and so…”

shalom****

 

[paidion]

Well, again with the prophets, we see increased distance between God and human, with less direct intervention from God.
God speaks directly Adam and Eve, with Abraham, giving direct commands and engaging in conversation. He (possibly) wrestles with Jacob and blesses him. He also directly changes both Abraham and Jacob’s name, as well as Sarah’s. His direct communication peaks with Moses (those two never went anywhere without each other). And afterward, He starts to distance himself from communicating with humans, doing so through prophets, who generally hear from Him in dreams or visions.

(please pardon my barging in on this discussion between you and ralphinal)

That’s an interesting observation you make (above). How would you classify G-d’s communication with David? Would their communication be more direct or less?

 

[ralphinal]

Like all forms of racism, true anti-semetism is revolting.

However, “anti-semite” today has become a smear word designed to isolate and blacklist anyone who dares go against a Jewish individual or the Jewish religion in a political or spiritual matter.

The same can be said of homophobe. In fact, anyone who holds a postition against a minority runs the risk of being called a bigot. It is a unique thing that I see on this board that many Catholic posters call anyone who does not agree with them anti-Catholic, even if they are Catholic themselves (and right).

 

[Valke2]

(please pardon my barging in on this discussion between you and ralphinal)

That’s an interesting observation you make (above). How would you classify G-d’s communication with David? Would their communication be more direct or less?

It seems to me that the communication between God and David is much less direct than between God and Moses and no more direct than the communication between God and other prophets. I’m going to re-read samuel to confirm this.

 

[paidion]

It seems to me that the communication between God and David is much less direct than between God and Moses and no more direct than the communication between God and other prophets. I’m going to re-read samuel to confirm this.

I guess I was thinking of the Psalms too…but looking at some of them again just now, they seem a little more in the lines of a one-sided conversation because the reader doesn’t see much of G-d’s side of the dialogue, eh…

but could the more direct communication be implied there too?

(oops…realizing so far this post has virtually nothing to do with the OP… haven’t the foggiest idea how to turn it to the topic either …pardon me…)

 

[Valke2]

Ok, regarding King David.

His killing of Goliath is done without instruction or help from God. Goliath is apparently the last of the Giants that we first hear about in Genesis. The Nephilim make another appearance in Numbers when the scouts come back with dire warning about the land. And finally, Goliath, one of these Giants is slain by David.
In the first instance, the appearnce of the Giants causes God to put a limit on the age of man of 120 years. IN the second instance, the Israelite’s fear of the the Giants causes God to prevent an entire generation from entering the land. In the last case, David takes care of the Giant and God remains silent.

Later we learn that Saul feared David because the Lord was with him. Jonathan convinces Saul not to kill David without Divine intervention.

When David has to flee from Saul, he does so without Divine communication. There’s a whole elaborate scene in the field with the arrows, which is devoid of any direct Divine communication or intervention.

I’m reviewing chapters 22 and on and will continue the post when I can.

 

[Valke2]

I guess I was thinking of the Psalms too…but looking at some of them again just now, they seem a little more in the lines of a one-sided conversation because the reader doesn’t see much of G-d’s side of the dialogue, eh…

but could the more direct communication be implied there too?

(oops…realizing so far this post has virtually nothing to do with the OP… haven’t the foggiest idea how to turn it to the topic either …pardon me…)

I’d agree that the psalms are David (or man) talking to God, as opposed to the Torah which is God’s instruction to man. Taken together as a whole, they are a conversation.

If you look at the Decalouge, it starts with “I am the Lord, your God” and ends with “your neighbor.” [God to man]
While the book(s) of Psalms open with “The praises of man” and ends with “Hallelujah! Praise God in His holy place, praise Him in the firmament of His might.” [Man to God]

God to man and Man to God.

 

[Hastrman]

As for “most” Jews following some sort of school of Kabbalah …wow… how did you acquire that information?

Read even a basic book or article on Jewish philosophy.

Kabbalah is the major tradition of theology within Judaism, where most Jewish theological ideas come from. Almost all Ashkenazi, Saphardic, and Italkim Jews base their theological thought on the Zohar, as do many Mizrahim. The only Jews I know of who reject Kabbalah are some of the Yemenite Mizrahim.

 

[Hastrman]

Kabbalah is the major tradition of theology within Judaism, where most Jewish theological ideas come from.

I ought to have said “the major tradition of theology within Judaism, and where most Jewish theological ideas come from.” Otherwise it sounds like I meant, “most Jewish theological ideas come from Judaism.” Which is not exactly profound.