1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, if AE911Truth has unintentionally permitted an unscientific truther culture to propagate around their insistence on objective data, an idea that I don't think is proven by cherry-picking from a single protest, then more's the loss. If this isn't settled by an earthly tribunal it'll be by a heavenly.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

Guess I'll need to chime in here too. See my unintentional mention of Einstein without realizing he'd been brought up above.

Since we're running on gut feeling, I'll suggest that Walther Mayer was not originally a "handler", as he was positioned by Richard von Mises, brother of Ludwig. After that the Macy trust took interest and funneled money to Mayer, so it's possible he may have graduated to the role of "handler". And at the same time, Einstein's study turned, from Mises's requested topic of teleparallelism, to refinement of general relativity. We are told that teleparallelism failed to have a Schwarzschild solution (don't confuse black and red there!) but that it was later determined to work with gravity but not electromagnetism.

Well, due to the thesis I laid out in the first link above, electromagnetism has been sidelined by Bohr's quantum revolution, and that's what makes it currently appear irreconcilable with gravity. Thus the conspiracy theory would be that teleparallelism does actually contain the seeds of understanding action-at-a-distance (often called FTL) and that Einstein was gradually pulled away from it so as to hide the "forbidden knowledge", which was then redirected to other scientists so that it could be published in warped fashion to make it appear consistent with nascent quantum theory.

If I were writing for a mainstream science pub, it would be easy to spin this into a series of sci-fi articles that pass editorial muster and sound like vague promises of power; but the reality is that all power flows from God and is free, without any arcana necessary. So regard my pontification as bluster. Teleparallelism relies upon tetrad (4D) field definition that relates distant observed effects. The path forward would then be to regard curvature and torsion as "the same thing" (two effects of the same phenomenon) and to consider what spacetime models (and standard-model alternatives) would explain action at a distance, which would then be electromagnetic teleparallelism. This is necessary because quantum theory still doesn't describe accurately how entangled particles appear to have FTL connection, which was exactly the point of the 1935 EPR paradox, which is exactly what Einstein was shuttled into studying in the period of interest. And we know the demons are excessively interested in how light modification upon the stars they control might affect our planet at a distance, so the topic is more than academic but relates to spiritual warfare.

Overall, the work of persuading Einstein that teleparallelism was fruitless and redirecting his objections to Bohr into the more palatable EPR challenge might be perceived as the influence of the Macy Foundation, but other factors were also present, and it seems to me that the Macy Foundation picked up slack after a prior attempt to influence Einstein via his friend Emil Warburg (who was indeed of the Warburg banking family as per the first link).

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

The argument you're attributing to the video is a strawman. Truthers do not say "never being touched", they say never being struck by a plane. Before the NIST report was released, AE911Truth was already commenting that the debris and fires on floors 7-17 were insufficient to take down the building, as it was the obvious conclusion. They had already measured the rate of freefall, then successfully objected to the NIST characterization as not being freefall, then proclaimed victory when the NIST recalibrated and admitted freefall rates for 2.3 seconds. There is no "giant chunk of the building" "ripped away by falling debris". So if you listened to a truther who was mistaken, you were not listening to the argument put forward by thousands of architects and engineers. In other fora we call that shilling.

I'm also not saying the uniqueness of 1-2 is that they were hit by planes either. AFAIK every other skyscraper hit by a plane has survived, while every other skyscraper consumed by catastrophic fire has either survived or had its upper structure fall sideways in one piece. Thus the fact that three related skyscrapers collapsed within hours consistently with controlled demolition (in circumstances where controlled demolition could be highly lucrative) means that grasping at other scenarios, and taking 7 years to "model" and publish them, strains credulity.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks for the Neilia link. Can't complain about any of that, so instead I will refer you to my prior loudmouth work on a very different conspiracy, the muzzling of Einstein.

Oh, here's one: Hawaii was very important for Obama, so much so that Pelosi had to modify his candidacy form only in Hawaii so that his unnatural-born status would not go on the record perjuriously. Hawaii has always been a testing state, where territorial politics are practiced under the guise of the rights of the several states.

3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +3 / -0

More to the point, OP is relying on the telephone game as if it produces truth. When we want to criticize the Talmud, we need to be very specific and very accurate so that we don't look like the bigger fools by comparison. My goal is accurate information so that criticism can be weighed impartially.

For instance, Sanhedrin 43a accurately says that Ulla believed that the Yeshu who was hanged during Passover was "an inciter", thus worthy of the death penalty; that's an accurately stated view from a 4th-century rabbi, though not a binding view in Judaism. On the other hand, Gittin 56b-57a is much more often misquoted here than accurately described; in the context of an afterlife joke, it states that Onkelos summoned Yeshu ("the Nazarene" in questioned manuscripts) by necromancy and was told about punishment by boiling excrement. The former can be used accurately, the latter has almost no usability while maintaining accuracy.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm in the Tower 7 thread commenting on the YT appearing therein. Thank you for pointing out the Gage thread by u/Asterix. Larry personally testified that he said "pull it"; the fact that Gage found somebody willing to testify of being told 7 would be "pulled" is a nice confirm, but not direct evidence unless this was contemporaneous testimony given to or promoted by mainstream sources.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +3 / -1

Yevamot 98a does not say "All children of the goyim are animals." Actual text: "They do not perform levirate marriage. Learn from this the Merciful One dispossesses his offspring, as it is written: Whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose semen is the semen of horses." Because God said the Egyptian seed in Ezek. 23:20 was metaphorically animal, even though a "child of God" in its humanity, it is concluded that (all) Gentile brothers are free from duties of levirate marriage applying to halakhically proven brothers. The Talmud goes no further than Ezekiel does with this thought.

Avodah Zarah 36b does not say "Goy girls are in a state of niddah from birth". It says "Rabbi Nahman bar Yitzhak says: They decreed upon their daughters, menstruating women from their cradle .... As it is written: Neither shall you make marriages with them." This is a decree that deems a state, not an actual biological state, and its purpose in context is to say that an unconverted girl is never marriageable (even arranged marriage), Deut. 7:3. Many Christians would never marry a non-Christian either.

Sanhedrin 55b accurately says "Three years and one day old is betrothed with intercourse. And if yavam engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her; and liable for her due to married woman. And she transmits impurity to one who engages in intercourse with her .... If one of any of those with whom relations are forbidden, who are stated in the Torah, engaged in intercourse with her, they are executed for her, and she is exempt." This indicates that a child over three who is sexually abused is no longer a virgin and the rapist is subject either to execution or (if her father permits) an arranged "shotgun" marriage where he must wait until she is mature to determine her father's decision, having all the financial responsibilities of marriage but none of the benefits. This is shown by the fact that the "impurity" transmitted is that of menstruation, so the passage is not talking about consummating marriage with a child but about the punishments and legal statuses applicable to child victims in their later mature marriages. Rape of girls not over three is similar but the virginity is not ruled to be violated out of consideration for the girl. Forbidden sexual relations with her at any age result in execution, but upon her maturity she becomes permitted to her betrothed husband.

Sanhedrin 54b-55a does not say "A child less than nine years old cannot be the object of sodomy" or "A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old." It reads: "With regard to what do disagree? Rav holds any that applies to one who engages in intercourse applies to one who engages in intercourse, and any that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse does not apply to one who engages in intercourse. And Shmuel holds: It is written: As with a woman. It is taught in accordance with of Rav: A male aged nine years and one day, ... liable." In this case the majority agrees with Rav 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). The quotation is a modern (lightface) attempt to explain the majority ruling. It is not that he is not an object of sodomy by our definition, but he is not ruled as the object of a capital crime of homosexuality. The abuser is still subject to punishment 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.

More.

u/ApparentlyImAHeretic

3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +3 / -0

I knew you'd enjoy the Reuben Harrison Hunt reference. I'm not able to judge Tartarian architecture, but if it was domes and obelisks it would be more obvious. It looks Masonic and that's a line of investigation with the hotel. Also Hunt's Elbert County Courthouse should be included in research, as it has not been exorcised to my knowledge. The most salient point is, as I've said, that the 5-story tower was deliberately constructed to allow oversight of the entire winding 15-minute mountain road, which was then celebrated as a long-successful opportunity to hide anything or anyone that was at risk of seizure and raid.

Since we're freewheeling and including everything just in case, I'll mention that a Mr. Hunt was allegedly searching for the Beale treasure for 20 years on the land of a Mrs. Given in Bedford County, Virginia, as testified by Gary Hutchinson on page 26 of Michael Stadther's "100 Puzzles". Stadther was excessively enigmatic and Hutchinson was admittedly Masonic, and the Beale ciphers were heavily connected with Masonry, being published by a Mason, James Ward. If the ciphers are inauthentic, they are being used still today by Masons as an allegory for hidden treasure in the same way the alchemists used the "sorceror's stone". Thus "Hunt" is an ad hoc allegorical name, and a real Hunt family would retain this allegory. The top leads recommended by WP are: Joseph and William Hunt began packing tomatoes in California in 1888, Helen Hunt has an Oscar, and Bonnie Hunt voices for Disney. The rumor that Robert Hunter Biden was named after Hunter S. Thompson, who had sufficient prominence prior to Biden's birth, might also be sustained.

A true follower of Jesus would interpret the "Hunt" as being our alertness for God's spiritual confirmation in daily living, accessible to all. The gnostic and central-controlled view of such a "Hunt" would be to make inquiry impossible except via approved arcana. The difference is clear. Everything will be brought into the light of inquiry and revelation.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

Greetings. You act as if AE911Truth didn't say anything at any time since the NIST report was published in 2008. I have not read every page of the report nor of their extensive rebuttal or ongoing research, but my recollection is that any slight observed deformation, and the penthouse collapse 2 seconds earlier, are not well-described as "folding in on itself over the course of hours" and do not account for around 2.3 seconds of freefall acceleration admitted by the NIST's corrections. Sounds like the video is debunking side issues without reviewing the hard data, even though it admits the corrected freefall curve without admitting how it contradicts the NIST thesis.

The video does not show any massive buckling on any side consistent with the NIST models, but only indicates ordinary fire damage, which in every other documented case results in either the whole structure remaining or the upper structure collapsing sideways while retaining its integrity. During the last second of the fall video you can see the top corner of 7 barely beginning to threaten to turn sideways, but something was destroying its structural integrity at freefall speed that has never been present in any accidental collapse. No skyscraper has ever undergone total collapse into its own footprint aside from controlled demolition, except, as we are told, on one day when it happened three times in the same place. The third time was just after the building's owner, Larry Silverstein, admittedly said "Pull it" about the building's potential collapse (and he didn't mean to pull out the firefighter team).

At any rate, 7 is only the most glaring of all the inconsistencies of the data and so is used as a front-end argument because it's more comparable to more evidence. However, even considering the evidence of skyscrapers hit by planes, no parallel to 1-2 has ever been seen either.

3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +3 / -0

Funny, the true Star of Remphan looks like $ and not *. The hexagram may well be the red shield now but was never King David's shield or King Solomon's seal, which were both Yahshua. By its scattershot inclusionism, the art accidentally hits upon the truth that the dollar (dale-r, meaning heath-en) is a continuation of much more history than the hexagram.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would say "those are rookie numbers" but this is a spammy gematria post without numbers. Right use of gematria exists [Jesus came in the 14th (Davidic) generation of the second temple], but the above ain't it.

You know what, u/ReturnOfShillSlayer, this is a one-post account with a single link. It's AI, no human writes that blandly.

3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +3 / -0

Bookmarking. Please note the very pertinent Lookout Mountain Hotel, which was the Roaring Twenties speakeasy that was purchased by and "became" Covenant College. You can easily see the building driving through Chattanooga below, and it was raid-proof due to the tower's "lookout" being able to invariably see the cops coming many minutes away. The Chapman connection is indeed real. There is evidence the hotel's demons were extensive in all the ways that are becoming public today, but they are now also significantly exorcised, despite potential hangers-on; yet the hotel's model seems to have been used more broadly since then.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

Decent but with a bias. It's good to have the full text of the student union's "theses" and there is almost neutral coverage of the sexual degradation of 30s Germany and brief salient mention of the Night of Long Knives.

The bias is to present book-burning as "good" because of the purported motive of escaping that cultural degradation. The reality as documented by Scott Lively and others is that the NSDAP used public morality as an excuse for selective and thus biased enforcement against enemies.

The sequence of events was that, immediately after the NSDAP election of 1933-01, the students in 30+ campuses began plans for burning "destructive" books and circulating lists; this was obviously coordinated community organization, as the Sex Institute event shows, but the NSDAP involvement in riling up the students was hidden. Unlike Luther's students, who burned tracts independently over his protest (not for self-purging but for celebrating a raid), the German student unions were shepherded by their sponsors. When the day came for the Sex Institute to be sacked (most of its personal records being burned publicly four days later), the students and SA worked together to overrun and commandeer the entire property, with the SA performing the vast seizures necessary, claimed by both Levy-Lenz and the NYT each as having 40,000 volumes (many of which were patient records). The public burning was essentially onetime, where the campuses conducted small fires in conjunction with Himmler's one big fire of the Sex Institute records (complete with Hirschfeld's bust), and there were very few other incidents afterward (which is misreported here as if the Sex Institute sack were the beginning of a movement rather than the end of an operation).

This indicates to me that the laudable motive of ridding evil, which we see in the New Testament book-burning in Ephesus, was deliberately repurposed by the NSDAP to destroy patient records, for the specific and documented reason that so many NSDAP officials had them (Sex Institute counseling being required for all convicted homosexuals). The video recognizes the rampant immorality documented, and in part fanned, by Hirschfeld, but it does not connect the dots to the very useful purpose that the NSDAP had in destroying the work of Hirschfeld and Levy-Lenz, which was known at the time but which could not be spoken of publicly, namely the excessive immorality in the NSDAP's own ranks. The later Night of Long Knives demonstrates the widespread existence of this fact, but is again cover, a performative purge of then-useless deviants (like Rohm) without addressing the satanic inspiration of other deviants remaining in "good graces".

In the present day, books are not burned but flooded by being surrounded by a hundredfold more babel than signal. The answer is still the kingdom of Jesus Christ over any political system of opaque performative narration and hidden ritual abuse.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good start but:

Our Spirits are all equally perfect but unique.

after death, one returns to our true reality which is heaven, heals up a bit and comes back to try again with extra wisdom.

Contradiction. Actually, gilgul teaches that the "returnee" is a separate, unique echo of the prior accompanying spirit, not the same being.


Ultimately though the review is incomplete. "The best recipe to follow to get out ASAP is Jesus ten[e]ts of love, forgiveness, unity and faith" is not enough because those principles can be speciously counterfeited. It is also necessary to have organic connection to Jesus (doing must accompany physical covenanting). The enemy craves and profanes blood because Jesus showed its holy use in making us one with him.


Just as the first three dimensions are interchangeable, so there is no set agreement on what order the other dimensions should be considered in, so I suspect your description of 6D may be a bit lacking. From these three spatial dimensions we need to, in one act, master time (one or more dimensions), and mind (information), and spirit (supernature), and the unknown, at a minimum of the dimensions enumerable. Obeying Jesus out of self-abandoning trust will put us on that path.

4
SwampRangers 4 points ago +4 / -0

(from p/17sOj2BOuO)

First fail at 1:00: WP says of Zoroaster, "While many scholars today consider a date around 1000 BC to be the most likely, others still consider a range of dates between 1500 and 500 BC to be possible." Abraham cut a monotheistic covenant in 1969 BC and this accords with Egyptian history, though people fight that Biblical fact. Making Zoroaster the first Zionist or monotheist works in no way for me except alliteration.

Like that swastika inside the zodiac? Almost historical.

2:00 The idea that Israel had nothing about a Messianic millennium until they got it from Cyrus who got it from Zoroaster is just silly. You'd have to cut off half of Isaiah and say Isaiah didn't write it in the 8th century, you'd have to throw out Abraham and Moses entirely, and you'd have to assume that Cyrus actually had all the developed doctrine instead of the Hebrew kings and prophets. I do see that Zoroastrianism sometime got around to having a theory of millennia (likely related to the Sumerian focus on sars of 3600 years), and hints of a redemptive figure Saoshyant mostly developed in AD, but there's no data that make that any different from the data that come to us by Abrahamic tradition.

3:00 Having tried to import this strand via Iran, he goes into a spiel of a second strand, mystery religions, that Jews supposedly also got there. This may be modern Masonic theory but has zero evidence. Each manifestation of a mystery religion is unique, they may be connected even, but it's just a common satanic spirit constantly seeding confusion to see what sticks to the wall.

Second fail at 4:00: The restored temple concept is seen as Persian, the OT as written all in the 6th century and later, and most specifically the (hexagram) "seal of Solomon" as coming from there too. No, I've documented that the "seal of Solomon" was originally an Arabic tradition about 3rd century AD, it was then connected with the hexagram in a later development, and there were no hexagrams in Judaism in the 6th or any century BC.

5:00 At least he's right about the swastika, as the Jews had it as a sign of peace on their tombs probably 1st century BC, long before the hexagram. But, third fail, he refers to Bahai, Theosophy, and JWs, and then "other Christian sects". Just no. They all stole it from us and left us. Their agreement with us doesn't prove that the Bible is lying or our faith is pagan.

6:00 After all the inaccuracy, a fully accurate view of millennialism in NatSoc, complete with the three-reich theory, after seeding us with Aryans and swastikas? Really? Are Nazis Zionists too then?

Then in a bizarre panoply we are told that German Templers seeded Palestine in the early 19th century, Germans in 1930s Palestine became Nazis but helped rebuild Haifa to new glory, Netanyahu out of context says Hitler wanted to expel rather than exterminate the Jews, and some background arises on the Haavara initiative the Jews were advantaged by. This part I can hardly keep track of. Churchill is read at length to the effect of casting secular Jews promoting communism (bolshevism) against religious Jews promoting "Zionism"; and German propaganda read at length to the effect of dissuading Britain from fighting them rather than Communism. As one not politically shrewd, what am I to make of all this? To me, Bolshevism and Balfourism both advanced their own agendas through much the same events via relatively direct invitation from the countries attacked, while those poor Nazis and Italian Fascists were beaten back from the folly of imposing their will on neighboring countries without real invitation.

The rabbi comes in to tell me that Mein Kampf says Hitler hated Jews because so many were communists trying to take over. So the rabbi agrees with Hitler, raising an Orthodoxy standard against secular Jews? Well, we knew Judaism was not monolithic. But am I supposed to group together all the millennialists then? Theosophists, Nazis, rabbis, Zoroastrians, Muslims, myself? There is no coalition here, even if all are equally opposed to "communists".

It gets weirder! Secret societies are now split by a hidden hand? Destruction of values means that noble "knights" have now become ignoble "lodges"? (Refuses to elaborate further.) Does he mean "communism equals bad" and now those Masons he seems so sympathetic to are being hurt by its relativism and they need to get more Zionist and millenarian? By lodge rules, we can't know!

Suddenly we speak of the "Jewish Messianic movement", by which he means not me (Hebrew-roots) but rabbinical Messianism, which now means Schneersohn Chabad. He swirls through Luria to Zevi (1666) to Frank to Weishaupt and Rothschild, with heavy ads for his book. Problem was, gnosticism in the first centuries AD already anticipated every aspect of "redemption through sin" philosophy, no news.

Somehow there is a stall around 30:00 on the concept that Sabbateans invented matrilineality and before that Judaism was a religion. Well, it was really always both, and that is true in Christianity too: you're either born into it or you're adopted (converted) into it, but it's a real family. It's probably a history fail to deny matrilineality before Zevi, and certainly the Orthodox agree on matrilineality so it's not like that divides them from the secular. WP: "Close to all Jewish communities have followed matrilineal descent from at least early Tannaitic (c. 10–70 CE) times through modern times." Fourth fail.

If Moses Mendelssohn invented secular Judaism, well, yes today we have Reform and Reconstruction, yes Orthodox and Conservative don't like them. So by 35:00 we get over five minutes of phone video of a speech bringing in these, and Nathan of Gaza, suggesting that we can credit Sabbataeans with remaining "racial Jews" while infiltrating all kinds of orgs for secular Jewish communistic goals.

Well, look, I don't care if communists/socialists are Jews or not, what I care about is that they don't have consent of the governed. Acts 2-5 is a communal organization where everything worked because the leaders had consent of the governed. Every other form of communism is an epic fail.

The video collapses into another whirlpool of loosely collated names that I don't care to try to track, from Cyrus's Persian mystery as the source of some imagined consistent kabbalah that made it all the way through to present-day illuminatist power. We see Schneersohn (I guessed it!) calling for Messiah to come immediately. And we depart (is he eating Thai to that Ave Maria?!) with the injunction that the new world order is set up by these communists to bring utopia via sin.

Is the idea that all the millennial threads then are the "good" side and all the secular threads are the "bad" side? I don't buy that at all. Is the idea that millennium is good but the Orthodox idea of messiah (Schneersohn) is better than the Reform idea of messiah (Zevi and Frank)? OP seems exceptionally gnostic and thus dualist about that! He leaves us with no means of combating the "bad" messiah, nor any clear moral compass for picking among a smorgasbord from Blavatsky to Marx. Graph, please message me you disown the lodge.

Folks, it's pretty simple IMHO. God has always given truth through an unfolding but constant message. Love good, hate evil. That brings you to him as your Savior and his appearing in Jesus as your Messiah. Then you, like I, don't need to sweat what the crazy world does. The current culture war indeed pits everyone against each other to try to claim their own Zion, whether the physical one or some conceptual kingdom. But Jesus makes clear his kingdom is within you plus he will come back and fix the physical too. We don't need to worry about world-shaking destruction arising from either the rampant sinners or the literalist Orthodox who haven't found their Messiah yet. Our lives are already secure even if the world falls. I see no guiding logic in this buffet, no hope after attempting to shake the faith we have in our written revelation, but my life is secure against even that manifestation of idiopathy.

(to u/Graphenium)

Okay, the four fails I counted are (1) 1:00 Zoroaster living about 3500 years ago and already preaching a plan of "glorious transformation and perfection of the earth", (2) 4:00 the "seal of Solomon" existing as a hexagram in 6th century BC concept, (3) 5:30 reference to Bahai, Theosophy, and JWs, and then "other Christian sects" as if there's no error in lumping these together, (4) 30:00 Sabbateans made Judaism no longer a religion but a race only. Those are pretty bald statements that scrape pretty heavily across established historical facts.

"Jew" first meant son of Judah only, then it meant citizen of Judea, then it meant descendant of a Judean including by naturalization/conversion, and now it theoretically includes all descendants of Judah's brothers if they can be counted the same way. Through that polity shift it was always understood that Jews practiced Judahite behavior and trained their children and proselytes too as well; and it was understood that the family of Jews could disown/excommunicate rebels from that behavior. When the Sabbateans said conversion to Islam is part of being Jewish there were "excommunications" but they could not be maintained consistently indefinitely. So I think the modern theory is that the rabbis continue to maintain definition of Jewishness and to excommunicate those discovered not to be within the pale, but to recognize that 90% are secular and yet haven't lost their Jewishness by a broad, consistent standard. That is, they are still "those under duty to practice Judahite behavior" but who, practically, don't do so, don't get called out on it due to mercy, and are invited to grow back into it. If the majority of those recognized rabbinically as Jews believe "Jew is ethnic", the rabbis still seem to have some hold over policy at the Israeli Supreme Court such that this wide belief doesn't reflect legislation or tradition.

Catholics (and others) have the same problem: even if a majority of Catholics believed some incorrect folk view about Catholicism, that wouldn't undermine the official pronouncements as being official. If we assume that both groups are assailed by insincere infiltrators who want to change the official judgment by majority pressure, then there is a war between the conservative upholders of the tradition and those who identify with the tradition but call for broad reform as if it accurately represents the tradition. There is not evidence that Khazar conversion hurt this tradition; there's a little evidence that Sabbatean/Frankist doctrine has weakened the tradition a bit such that its need to fight now is critical.

As a Messianic, I know anyone can call himself messianic and claim it, so I ask a person do you mean MJAA or UMJC or OMJRA or what? As a Presbyterian, I ask do you mean PCA or PCUSA or OPC or what? Otherwise the word, just like "Jewish", means whatever you want. And if you lowercase "Jew" it means something else entirely again. So if you mean "Jew" as defined by the continuous body of rabbinical Judaism, no it hasn't changed, and on this OU and UOR and RCA all agree. If you mean "Jew" as defined by anyone, all such words change and the change is not meaningful to exact speakers.

Other points. Sepehr seems unaware of the Hebrew-roots movement, he focuses on "messianism" within Jewish Orthodoxy, which is of course in your second category of religious Zionists. When he treats of Christian and other messianic expectations those are also lumped as if Zionists. The battle between globalists and Israeli nationalists is relatively minor, because (unlike us) Israel has a fluid Constitution and Basic Law that allows syncretist infiltration, so it won't manifest that way. Rather, I infer from Ezekiel and Isaiah that globalists and leftward nationalists will unite using aggression by (say) Russian nationalism as a pretext. (It would be interesting if the Jews were then ejected out of Israel.)

The real battle is between satanists/atheists, who generally seek immediate power, and people of good will, who generally are optimistic about future peace. These alignments are too broad and loose to characterize with Sepehr's clashing brushstrokes. It seems to me disingenuous to say the "Hidden History of Zionism" is that Zionism is really a good thing and it kinda bubbles up variously because of this (much more important and definable) giant monolithic leviathan of secular communism by some Jews that ruins everything, even peaceful music-loving Masons.

Secret societies, by their definition, were never identified with the transparency of people of good will. If you want a professional guild, you organize it transparently, not secretly, we have many such today. If you allow secret oaths, you contain the seeds of your own destruction because you never know when your "friends" will take another secret oath against you. Definitional.

WWII is so complicated that it gets in the way of (what we think of as) statements of fact. Germany seized Poland and had "invited" the Soviets to manage Eastern Poland after the Polish government fled. Ukraine, like other regions, transferred from the Russian Empire to the Soviet Union, but was briefly invaded by Germany. Germany invaded France and then cut a client deal with crippled Vichy France. Japan invaded America. So I don't see that the basic nonaggression principle fails to distinguish the two sides. I'm pretty sure we can make cases that the Allies failed and initiated aggressions somewhere too, but the issue is the balance between philosophies there.

I'm told that the Ottomans joined the Central Powers in WWI and so the Allies established a revolt against the Ottomans by invitation of the Arabs 1916, but the division of the land into British mandates did not appear to the Arabs to honor their agreement with Henry McMahon for the British (called British "reneging" by WP). I was not fully aware of this so it invites further investigation, but it agrees with what I just said about there being exceptions where the nonaggression principle was dishonored by the "good guys". If I said all I knew about Pearl Harbor, it would bring us right back to distrust of all the guys we have today except Jesus.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good observations, so I'll focus on the basics.

Jews don't explain the Talmud much because neither they nor the Gentiles seem much interested in the Gentiles learning it. So they take lots of things for granted. As I said, to be sure you've got everything called "Talmud", you need Mishna, plus Bavli, plus Yerushalmi (the last two are both called Gemaras, and are synonymous with Babylon and Jerusalem). People who object to Jewish teaching often throw in excessively many other sources that are indeed Jewish but are not core and are often quite recent, so those get filtered too.

When you see a cite with a or b, the code is that that means it's a page of the Talmud Bavli (also including Mishna) as printed by Bomberg. When you see two numbers such as with a colon, that means it's a section or long paragraph of the Talmud Yerushalmi (also including Mishna). There are other ways to refer to them, such as by chapter, which is further confusing. So in this case you got distracted by starting with Yerushalmi when the main cites you want are in the (larger) https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud/Bavli text. Clicking Sanhedrin there will immediately show you 59a is in chapter 7 of the Bavli Sanhedrin. The Yerushalmi would have a parallel passage, but honestly I don't know who has published a reference of parallel passages between the two Talmuds (Gemaras), and usually people don't care because they're only citing one of the two and they expect you to know that code that tells which one.

[Copilot is accurately saying there are 13 sections in chapter 7 (7:1 to 7:13) in Yerushalmi, but is getting the sections wrong. You can find these in Bavli by hand by searching for the word "mishna:" and comparing them to Yerushalmi, which is rather clunky. So to compare 59a, I scroll up and down and find that 55b has a mishna about blaspheming and 60b about idolatry (long section, 10 pages or 5 folios). I compare the mishna headers of Yerushalmi and find that these are 7:8 and 7:9, so 55b-60a Bavli corresponds to 7:8 Yerushalmi. But the parallels often diverge greatly: so the 59a quote is not in 7:8, only in 59a.]

TLDR: The first link in each paragraph of my rebuttal refers to the online page where the citation is best understood to refer (but not to subparagraph number). A few of them, having come from 19th-century texts that are not online, cannot be double-checked because the original source (sometimes August Rohling) misspelled them and/or didn't provide enough data for a valid citation.

However, since I didn't include subparagraph number, it would be appropriate for me to go back and do that. (Using both a-b and colon means paragraph in Bavli.) 1. Sanhedrin 59a, quote not found. 2. Avodah Zarah 26b, quote not found. 3. Sanhedrin 59a:2. 4-5. "Libbre David 37", source not found. 6. Yevamot 11b, quote not found. 7. "Schabouth Hag. 6d", source not found. 8-9. Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10:1. 10. Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388, quote not found. 11. Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266:1, quote not found. 12. "Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17", source not found. 13. Baba Metzia 114b:2. 14. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499:2. 15. Midrash Talpiot 315:1. 16. Avodah Zarah 37a:1. 17. Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8:2. 18. Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8, quote not found. 19. Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388, quote not found. 20. Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348, quote not found.

Among those where the anti-Talmud transcribers gave bad citations, #4-5 has six offline candidates that it could be, #7 has one, #12 has three. (Add: I finally found #15.) In a couple cases I found the correct more common name intended by the given source name. Besides those 4 offline, there are 8 online where the quote is findable and 8 online where (my longer link shows) the quote came from elsewhere, such as a later nonbinding commentary on the passage quoted. If you need more help interpreting my own brief takes, please let me know.

In short, it's likelier that this crazy misquotation meme is being circulated by Jews trying to get us to learn Talmud for ourselves by their self-deprecation than being circulated by Gentiles who are such horrendous researchers as to believe it accurately reflects Talmud.

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +2 / -2

I totally agree, which is why we should not believe Fermat's Last Theorem has actually been solved, since the Talmud says a day-old antelope is bigger than Mt. Tabor. Upvote if you agree!

3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thanks for the centralization. Your parts 2, 4, 6, 8 are all essentially identical, and are boilerplate responses to the 20 passages that keep coming up in the same graphic, which appears to be the most widely circulated one here (also one of the worst sets of citations). They're included repeatedly in the links below.

Part 1 is passages you asked the bot about or brought up in connection, plus my replies to the bot.

Part 3 is my reaction to the bot's view of 20 passages (it made about 7/20 judgments correct).

Part 5 is my summary of the 20 passages (only 6 are from the Talmud and none are accurate).

Part 7 is where you asked for the full text of one page of the Talmud, so I showed where it was online.

TLDR: If we were to read any massive legal code regulating child sexual abuse, it would be easy to find quotes out of context that appear to condone it. That's because laws are not written for easy reading but for research consultation via canons of statutory construction. Any paralegal can find the context of most of these passages and come to the same conclusions. There are also a few very arcane passages found in the 19th century and badly cited such that we cannot find them now because they are post-medieval and out of print in Hebrew and the Jews don't even know what passages the detractors were referring to since they are so obscure. So when we criticize the Talmud we need to do it in its own context so as to hit the mark and not to look foolish, nor look like Jewish anons who believe in agitating against themselves.

3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, my quotes make a little more sense in context, kinda like most quotes. I'm a sold-out servant of Jesus and this past month I finally decided to weed out the fake quotes from the almost-real ones. Here are accurate Sefaria-approved quotes for the ones I've researched, in one comment. AMA.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

Boilerplate:

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.

Sanhedrin 58b comes close to saying "If a goy hits a Jew he must be killed." It says: "Rabbi Hanina says: A Gentile who struck a Jew is liable death, as it is stated, And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian." Since the context is Ex. 2:12, this refers to Moses's vengeance for the Egyptian "smiting" a Hebrew, meaning to injure willfully and often unto death. This reflects the capital punishment laws of Ex. 21:12 and applies to all, as the same Talmud passage says, "Rava says: Is there any for which a Jew is not deemed liable, but a Gentile is deemed liable?" That is, all are alike.


That Dibre David link gives up to 6 candidates for the possible text, but they are probably all offline and untranslated. But one of them might have the long quote misattributed in the 19th century to "Libbre" David.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

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.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

20

1 Sanhedrin 59a: quote 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. 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.

2 Avodah Zarah 26b: out-of-context quote is from a different medieval source, Tractate Soferim 15 (see below for details). Avodah Zarah's closest statement seems to be: But may not a Gentile circumcise a Jew, because are suspected of bloodshed. The statement of Rabbi Meir. Even there, another Meir statement is taken to imply that a professional Gentile physician may circumcise a Jew: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean physician, Aramean circumcise and Samaritan not circumcise. The statement of Rabbi Meir. This is about Gentiles not being subject to Jewish courts, not about them being subject. Tractate Soferim 15: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, not from the main Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from early addenda.

3-5 See #1.

6 Yevamot 11b: quote appears to be a conflation of Yevamot 57b and Ketubot 11b. Ketubot says: "An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl ... their marriage contract is two hundred .... More than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not a claim virginity .... An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl, nothing, as less than is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye." This is not about age at marriage, this is about marriage to a mature woman who had been abused in her youth. The ruling is that a girl abused after the age of three has a lower brideprice because she is not a virgin, but a girl abused before that can still be counted as a virgin; that is, it provides opportunity for healing for the immature victim by not challenging her virginity on physiological grounds. I've previously pointed out that Gen. 2:24 regulates sexual intercourse as limited to a covenanted man and woman, and that the abuser is thus still subject to the death penalty regardless. Ketubot is about the marriageability aspect, not about the crime; and Yevamot 57b is about the applicability of levirate marriage and is even more tangential. 57b says: "With regard to a girl less than three years and one day old. Since there is no intercourse her." This just restates the principle above that an abuse incident in an infant's life is not held against her virginity, and it goes on to apply this principle to the mature bride's rights to eat offerings.

7 Shavuot Haggadah: no match. There are many books so named. Pranaitis translates Rohling as "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only." Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1327), and "Shevuot, Haggahot Asheri" 6:4 by Israel of Krems (15th c.), may be intended, as Israel speaks about false oaths. The quote is similar to Bava Kamma 113a. Actual text: "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." The 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 herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.

8-9 Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1, says: "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." As in Yoreh De'ah 158, this is not Talmud, is not about goyim but is limited to idolaters (with Jewish idolaters being mentioned separately), and refers only if one's own life would be at risk. Deut. 7:2 is limited to the seven nations in Canaan judged for their idolatry, who were in a state of war with Israel and were not to be shown mercy, so Maimonides extends this to other hypothetical known idolaters.

10 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388: no match, quote is from Pranaitis, 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.

11 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266: no match. It does teach the general principle that "finders keepers" sometimes applies when restoring property is impractical, such as for low value without distinct marks where the owner is unlikely to search long, or if hypothetically returning the property would be blasphemous (not "because"). The quoted development must come from a later source. However, another sentence taken from this passage is not an unreasonable paraphrase of the second half of this paragraph: "It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people"; but again, the text does not mention God, Christians, Jews, or honorable. A probably errant modification of Google's translation yields: "If one returned it to him in order to sanctify the name so that Israel will cause pride and they know that they have faith, that is fine."

12 Tur, Yoreh Deah 17, 14th century, does not say "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim ask if our books contain anything against them." This chapter pertains to animal slaughter and seems wholly unrelated. It is likely that a source is intended that would be called part 17 of "She'elot u-Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah", but the first two words mean Q&A or responsa, and could refer to any such book commenting on Yoreh Deah. Attribution of the quote to "Libbre David 37", or to Passover prayers in Pranaitis, appears to be confusion from its repeated close proximity to quotes from those sources. No searches indicate further leads on the original source of this particular quote, but it's clearly not Talmud, although it is close to Bava Kamma 113a.

13 Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)

14 Shabbat 32b does not say "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." Original: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499, by Simeon ha-Darshan, translated: "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him."

15 Midrash Talpiot 315 accurately says (my translation): "For the honor of Israel, that the star and constellation worshippers were not created except to serve them day and night, who would not rest from their work, and there is no honor in the son of a king that a beast in the form of a beast should serve him but it is as a beast in the form of a man." Compare copy and translation by Israel Shamir. Page 315 in this edition corresponds to (Rohling) 255 in the Warsaw 1875 edition, later misquoted as 225. This is tamer than the misquote and only has the Akum as beasts metaphorically, "as a beast" in reference to a bestial spirit; not unlike the Christian's view of the unsaved's dead spirit.

16 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.

17 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8: It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."

18 Sanhedrin 57a, actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. I'ts not about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" So, since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.

19 See #10.

20 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348 is about theft, but the closest I find, translated by Google, is: "A question to Gaon. Who is suspected of theft and there are no witnesses against him, and there are witnesses against him for another theft before, what is the law against him? Answer: Thus we have seen that there is neither judgment nor flogging for him unless the Torah commands flogging except with two witnesses, but they will judge him by a decree." The imaginative interpretation quoted is not in Pranaitis, so may have come from another route.

Details

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

I like how the bot kept repeating itself! My notes:

  1. "not an accurate representation": fail, it shoulda said not found at all, but it didn't know.

  2. "discussing legal and ritual matters related to idol worship, not advocating for violence against Gentiles": fail, it really is one man advocating for violence against Gentiles who have declared war against you. That's the context, bot.

  3. "not a call for harm": fail, yes it's a call for harm by one rabbi, but it was overruled is the important point.

  4. "not a recognized text in mainstream Judaism, and this quote is not from the Talmud": correct.

  5. same.

  6. "taken out of context": fail, not really, it's a misquote rather than an out-of-context. The concept is there but it's not about being "permitted" but punished afterward.

  7. "does not reflect mainstream Jewish ethics": fail, should just say stated source unavailable (per my links). I show the thought is close to Bava Kamma 113a and so it does reflect ethics about cases in which potentially deceptive circuitousness is permitted.

  8. "not representative of Jewish teachings, which generally emphasize the value of all human life": fail, it's a valid quote, context being if it means your own life would be at risk and the endangered person were a known idolater.

  9. "not a universal principle in Jewish teachings and should not be taken as such": mostly fail, yeah, it's universal because it's a quote of Deut. 7:2 (KJV): "nor shew mercy unto them." Only applies to Canaanites among the goyim though. In this case bot should learn the context (Deut. 7:1).

  10. "seems to be taken from a source that is not widely recognized": fail, it's widely recognized (Choshen Mishpat) but obscured. But the quote isn't there, there is no paragraph 15 in chapter 388.

  11. "not representative of the ethical teachings found in the Talmud and Jewish tradition": mostly correct, the concept is warped from the original.

  12. "not consistent with principles of truthfulness": mostly fail, it seems to come from somewhere medieval with that thought, but there are three or more obscure responsa that this cite could refer to.

  13. "not representative of mainstream Jewish teachings and values": pass this one, since the quote changes "are called" (deemed) to "are".

  14. "not from the Talmud and should not be taken as an accurate representation of Jewish beliefs": utter fail. The Talmudic source is Shabbat 32b, which reads "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is reflective of Jewish beliefs (as well as triumphalist Christian beliefs taken from Zech. 8:23), but the words Jew and Gentile are not present, which is significant.

  15. "reflects a distorted view that is not representative of Jewish thought": mostly fail, but it's not from the source quoted but from some unfindable haggah commenting upon it. Again, it's probably present in Judaism somewhere, but not binding at all.

  16. "not representative of any mainstream Jewish teachings and is not an accurate portrayal of Jewish ethics": pass this one. Again, it's nonrepresentative only because it's misinterpreted as permission.

  17. "not from the Talmud and is not consistent with Jewish teachings": pass for same reason as previous.

  18. "not reflective of Jewish teachings and ethics, which generally hold all individuals accountable for their actions": fail, the quote does reflect the ethic that Jews (death by stoning) are not capitally responsible in the same way as Gentiles (death by the sword).

  19. "from a legal code but should not be taken out of historical and legal context": hah! Well give it a pass here too. It can't say it's misrepresented, it can only say you have to read more of the unfindable source to understand it.

  20. "not representative of Jewish ethical principles and is not universally accepted": mostly fail. The principle of "finders keepers" expressed by the Talmud includes the thought that the Jews are not responsible for tracking the ownership rights of Gentiles to the same degree as their own.

Bot scores 7 out of 20 correct judgments.

view more: Next ›