I told you I could explain the Day of Atonement vow. You don't seem interested.
Your interpretation of it is not in the Talmud.
If you've heard of the Talmud you should be able to post folio and paragraph. Since you don't, that implies you're playing hearsay down a telephone game of people, including some German skeptics, who had no idea what they were saying.
You're speaking Yiddish and refusing to name the Jew for real. I'm just replying to you and naming names. The community can tell the difference.
You mean lie. So what would meet your level of evidence? Are you going to say all these quotes are fake? What about straight from the mouth of an israeli jew who studied to be a rabbi before he converted?
Libbre David 37: "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."
Libbre David 37: "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."
Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted, if she is three years of age."
Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim
David, you're quoting a false report that was literally debunked 100 years ago: the meme version is source 4 in my list. In 1920 it was reported there exists no "Libbre David", and assiduous search for such quotes in one of several books called Dibrei David has not turned them up. So the first two quotes are too distorted to find any originals; the others are false interpretations that don't appear in the texts as such. I could present evidence in more detail if you didn't demonstrate yourself predisposed to reject it.
My level of evidence is, you look at a text (like from sefaria.org), you see what it says, you do like a sociologist and interpret it according to its culture. If you want to quibble with anything in the link on a fact basis, go ahead. But it may be simpler for us to do a test case to see what meets your level of evidence.
To your quote about lying, there is no such findable reference as "Schabouth Hag. 6d". However, I invite you to read any of many books called "Shavuot Haggadah" to see if you can find such a reference; I haven't found one. Now, you might bring the medieval source Zohar, Vayetzei 27 which is Google-translated as: "With tricks you will make war for yourself." But this is just an inference from Pr. 24:6 (KJV), "By wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." So it only applies to wartime and is similar to Christian (or most nations') views on use of deception in wartime.
If you wanted to go back to the actual Talmud, you could cite Bava Kamma 113a, which says, "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." Two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct (even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted in Sanhedrin 57a). Talmudists use context to show which of two contradictory statements is the majority ruling (i.e. Jewish practice), and here it's that marketplace deception or "circuitousness" is not permitted. But if you wanted to call out Ashi and Yishmael by name for a harsher minority approach, you could do so.
TLDR: When you go to the actual Talmud like a comparative religionist, you generally find reasonable judgments that are similar to other contemporary sources (e.g. church fathers on when to "reserve" information). I'd be happy to agree with you on an evidence standard such as I suggest above, and then to judge evidence, but you'll need to come to it without prejudice.
I told you I could explain the Day of Atonement vow. You don't seem interested.
Your interpretation of it is not in the Talmud.
If you've heard of the Talmud you should be able to post folio and paragraph. Since you don't, that implies you're playing hearsay down a telephone game of people, including some German skeptics, who had no idea what they were saying.
You're speaking Yiddish and refusing to name the Jew for real. I'm just replying to you and naming names. The community can tell the difference.
You mean lie. So what would meet your level of evidence? Are you going to say all these quotes are fake? What about straight from the mouth of an israeli jew who studied to be a rabbi before he converted?
Libbre David 37: "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." Libbre David 37: "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." Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted, if she is three years of age." Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording." Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death." Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim
David, you're quoting a false report that was literally debunked 100 years ago: the meme version is source 4 in my list. In 1920 it was reported there exists no "Libbre David", and assiduous search for such quotes in one of several books called Dibrei David has not turned them up. So the first two quotes are too distorted to find any originals; the others are false interpretations that don't appear in the texts as such. I could present evidence in more detail if you didn't demonstrate yourself predisposed to reject it.
My level of evidence is, you look at a text (like from sefaria.org), you see what it says, you do like a sociologist and interpret it according to its culture. If you want to quibble with anything in the link on a fact basis, go ahead. But it may be simpler for us to do a test case to see what meets your level of evidence.
To your quote about lying, there is no such findable reference as "Schabouth Hag. 6d". However, I invite you to read any of many books called "Shavuot Haggadah" to see if you can find such a reference; I haven't found one. Now, you might bring the medieval source Zohar, Vayetzei 27 which is Google-translated as: "With tricks you will make war for yourself." But this is just an inference from Pr. 24:6 (KJV), "By wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." So it only applies to wartime and is similar to Christian (or most nations') views on use of deception in wartime.
If you wanted to go back to the actual Talmud, you could cite Bava Kamma 113a, which says, "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." Two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct (even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted in Sanhedrin 57a). Talmudists use context to show which of two contradictory statements is the majority ruling (i.e. Jewish practice), and here it's that marketplace deception or "circuitousness" is not permitted. But if you wanted to call out Ashi and Yishmael by name for a harsher minority approach, you could do so.
TLDR: When you go to the actual Talmud like a comparative religionist, you generally find reasonable judgments that are similar to other contemporary sources (e.g. church fathers on when to "reserve" information). I'd be happy to agree with you on an evidence standard such as I suggest above, and then to judge evidence, but you'll need to come to it without prejudice.