The Talmud allows beastiality and faggot pedo shit
(files.catbox.moe)
Comments (2)
sorted by:
I thought I'd done this graphic before, but you have cleverly used a cropping that hides most all the sources. I'll need to come back to it in a bit. Add: Obviously a bunch of generic quotes from any legal code intended to punish sexual immorality will have a lot of case law about it that is easy to misread out of context. That is the majority of the problem with the reading here, with the remainder of the problem being that the actual standards used, while stricter than most others of their day, were more lenient than some we use today. This does not condemn the original rulings. Add: Most Jews who study this only do one page per day, so doing five pages at a time is a tough call for anyone to get right in one pass.
You posted pilpul, you get pilpul. See the commentary on individual passages in Talmud Quotes.
Top left (rape, murder, theft): Sanhedrin 57a:14-17. This is focusing on Noah's laws applied to Gentiles, where capital punishment is always by sword; the tanna being reviewed speaks of Noah's laws not applying to Jews because Moses's greater laws apply, where the specific capital punishment for these cases is by stoning. Since the question is about sword executions, these are stated as not applying to Jews. However, paragraph 17 as shown points out that the word "permitted" is misleading because Jews are already prohibited from murder by another quoted baraita. The sidebar points out that some tannaim (earlier teachers) believed "stealing from a gentiles is permitted" in limited cases, but the Talmud's position is to accurately quote them and then to refute them from other tannaim (via baraita), as the later Rambam and Shulhan Arukh demonstrated from this text. The sidebar saying "A Jew who killed a gentile is not liable to be executed" interprets "he is exempt", which is earlier in paragraph 15 shown to mean prohibited but exempt from the Gentile liability being discussed. The idea that a Jew "may not rescue" a Gentile from death is explained (Abodah Zarah 26a-b) as meaning one should not risk one's own life in an attempt to save the life of a known "heretic"; when applied to ordinary strangers it becomes a judgment call in that one may not lower the Gentile and that life should be preserved when possible. The idea that Jews are automatically at war with all Gentiles so that there are no ordinary strangers is unsourced and not borne out by the Talmud, which distinguishes wartime and peacetime laws.
Top right (homosexual pedophilia, heterosexual pedophilia): Sanhedrin 54b:19-23. In this case the majority agrees with Rav (stated in the margin to be by default) that since a nine-year-old boy is not sexually mature it is not tried as adult homosexuality; Shmuel held the minority opinion that the threshold for adult activity should be that of the girl at three years old (when virginity can be more significantly ruptured). It is not that he is not an object of sodomy by our definition, but he is "exempt" from being (not ruled as) the object of a capital crime of homosexuality. The abuser is still subject to punishment and guilt as a rapist (porneia under Gen. 2:24), but not as a homosexual (abuse of an adult). So this is in discussion about adult homosexuality rather than child abuse, as the two are distinguished: "Rav says: Does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old like one who is nine years old." The abuse of a boy over nine is treated as an adult case, as is the abuse of a girl over three.
Bottom left (bestiality): Sanhedrin 55b:1-4. This is not about creating a category of "accidental" bestiality that justifies intentional perversion; this is in response to an actual case in Yevamot 59b of "a certain girl in Hitlu who was sweeping the house, and a village dog sodomized her from behind". The ruling was to protect the girl's marital status rather than to rule her guilty of bestiality. The Talmud does not condone using this event for wilfulness. Also, in this case the same rules apply to Gentiles.
Bottom right (bestiality porn): Sanhedrin 55b:11-14. Well, obviously a child below a certain age cannot be tried for committing bestiality knowingly. The passage has nothing to do with an adult knowingly causing a child to commit bestiality; that would be covered in the same way as generically sex perversion (Gen. 2:24) and specifically enticement and seduction (Deut. 22:25-27). It's not in view in this frame at all. When someone treats a passage about protection of young children from criminal processes as if, by treating those processes differently, it empowers and justifies adults in creating "bestiality porn involving children", well, that interpretation is itself a perversion.
TLDR: (1) Jews are exempt from Gentile capital punishment but not from Jewish capital punishment; (2) Pedophiles are exempt from criminal homosexuality but not from rape; (3) Claims of accidental bestiality are exempt from punishment but not from fact investigation to ensure the claim's validity; (4) Child bestiality is exempt from punishment of the child but not from punishment of any adult that contributes.