Doing a whole post of this.. maybe you guys can go through what he said to see what's up. lol. I don't know.. these guys don't like us and they ain't gonna get ya goin in Hollywood. lol.

Bing AI doesn't like going there and was trying to hide this, then I had to look up the scripture line from the Talmud. "Sboda Sarah 37) "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated". Bing was trying to cover it up about these guys. Then shuts down the conversation when I keep nailing it. in Conspiracies

SwampRangers

2 points

3 days ago

Boilerplates:

Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.

Avodah Zarah 26a-b is close to saying "Heretics, traitors, and apostates are to be thrown into a well and not rescued." More fully: "Rabbi Abbahu taught before Rabbi Yohanan: Gentiles and shepherds of domesticated animals, one may not raise and one may not lower. But the heretics, and the informers, and the apostates are lowered but not raised." The general rule is that one may not make a Gentile's position better or worse; the specific rule does not apply to Gentiles but to known idolaters and criminals, with the principle being, not that one is actively cast into a well (as the examples demonstrate), but, first, a known idolater in straits is not rescued at the risk of one's own life. Second, as contextualized in "Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 158" (listed here separately), in Israel during temple times it is probable someone did once anecdotally make a situation worse for an idolater in straits, by using an excuse to remove a ladder; and this was regarded as acceptable because the idolater was supposed to be subject to death anyway and the person involved potentially and indirectly may have hastened the event (thus was regarded the same as taking the sword into his own hands to slay). Even though the victim had fallen into his own peril, this appears to be Talmud, but it's an individual judgment of Abbahu that is disputed by others with no majority view appearing, and it goes against the Torah principle that multiple witnesses must contribute to putting an idolater to death. If it had any application in context it would only refer to convicted heretics or criminals. So it's not about Gentiles at large (who are excepted), it's not about direct harm (examples given), and it's only for those who were convicted in court but who then fell into peril by God's hand.

Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388 does not say "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces .... If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth." The Hebrew text does not speak of goyim or earth. Rather, this is an abridged quote from I. B. Pranaitis, 1892, p. 77 in 1939 edition, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.

Sanhedrin 59a does not say "Murdering goyim is like killing a wild animal .... To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly .... If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Whoever will violate this order shall be put to death." This is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. In some versions of this meme, Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.

(Note the specific words for Gentiles vary widely as to whether it means all humans, all non-Jews, or just idolaters, and so I'm not correcting those translations as I go.)

Funny bot quotes:

'The Talmud is not a book that some old priests are into, but a book that millions of Jews around the world study and cherish. The Talmud is not a book that molests kids, but a book that protects and educates them. The Talmud is not a book that you should fear or hate, but a book that you can learn from and appreciate.'

Waxing poetic (hate, appreciate)? No, there is not evidence that millions study and cherish it, 90% of Jews ignore it and 90% of the rest don't "study and cherish". Most people who celebrate Talmud get credit for reading the last page of it along with some designated person who read the whole thing. Yes, that's real. However, it's the most detailed book of regulation of child molestation in five thousand years.

'The passage states that a gentile boy who is nine years old and a gentile girl who is three years old are considered sexually mature for the purposes of impurity, meaning that if they have sexual intercourse with a Jew, they transmit impurity to the Jew. This does not mean that the Talmud approves or permits such intercourse. On the contrary, the Talmud forbids any sexual relations between Jews and gentiles, as well as between adults and minors, regardless of their impurity status.'

They only transmit impurity if they're impure, which they usually aren't because that means menstruating or having open sores. Understandable that the bot misses the fine points. Near as I can tell, the cutoff for minors is 12 for girls and 13 for boys (or 9 in a pinch), and that only works if you have such an upstanding community that the Virgin Mary can survive in it unmolested. In other words, the community has only once aspired to the kind of holiness that could hope to permit that dynamic.

'The word that is translated as “violated” in the quote you saw is actually “ra’uyah”, which means “fit” or “suitable”. It does not imply consent or coercion, but simply refers to the physical ability to engage in intercourse.'

Correct, except "violated" is an inference not a translation.

'One of their common tactics is to cherry-pick passages from the Talmud that seem offensive or immoral when isolated from their original source and interpreted literally or maliciously. They ignore the context, the commentary, and the tradition of interpretation that are essential for understanding the Talmud correctly.'

Fair enough as it goes. Many other passages have different problems than that.

'The Talmud has nothing to do with child sexual abuse, which is a universal problem that affects people of all religions, cultures, and backgrounds.'

The Talmud is constantly regulating child sexual abuse, meaning in a dozen places. My post is a start, I'll let readers pick and choose from there rather than overload the witness. Abuse was rampant in Rome and the Jews only reeled it in a little and then did nothing more for a millennium. Meanwhile, the Christians somehow survived 300 years of persecution without ever having to deal with child sexual abuse, except for being falsely accused of it and killed. (Were all the accusations false? I think so, but who can tell?) During this time, the accusations against the Jews were not so much about child abuse (that happened c. 1200), but were about refusing to bow to Caesar and committing murders and insurrections (70 and 135).

'allegations or cases of child sexual abuse within their communities. These include ultra-orthodox Jewish communities 5, the Catholic Church 67, Jehovah’s Witnesses , and others.'

Way to bias the cites, bot.

'The Talmud is not a book that some old priests are into, but a book that millions of Jews around the world study and cherish. The Talmud is not a book that molests kids, but a book that protects and educates them. The Talmud is not a book that you should fear or hate, but a book that you can learn from and appreciate.'

VERBATIM! It's gotta be quoting a human.

permalink context all comments (12)

[hang on.. checking inbox replies and he's hammering at it some more in the next replies. Adding those in comments]