|
|
Copyright
© 2002 by Dave and Neta Jackson. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
Cracks in the "Facts" The World Church of the Creator's pamphlet, "Facts that the Government and Media Don't Want You to Know" by Matt Hale, includes many vitriolic attacks on all nonwhites, but a major portion is directed against the Jews, Judaism, and especially the Talmud. Hale says in his introduction, "The following are shocking but exact quotes from the various books of the Talmud." If they were true, they would be shocking, but far more shocking is how WCOTC distorted them to their own ends. These false charges are not original work by Hale, they have been recycled again and again. An Internet search turned up over three-dozen sites with very similar disinformation. Therefore, we solicited the following critique of the charges from a Jewish scholar at the Anti-Defamation League of B'NAI B'RITH. (We have honored his way of writing God as G-d even when quoting Hale, though Hale, of course, did not use that form.) * * * * Although the quotations cited are supposed to be from the Talmud, many are actually from other works, most notably the "Shulchan Aruch" which was written about a thousand years after the Talmud. Therefore, before responding to each of the individual quotations, a general introduction would be helpful, to describe what the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch are, and what they are about. The traditional Jewish belief is, that in addition to the Pentateuch, called the "Written Law," G-d also gave Moses an entire body of information to accompany the written law, which was to remain unwritten, and aptly called the "Oral Law." For the most part the Oral Law does not contain any additional commandments, rather it is a explanation and elaboration of the Written Law. This elaboration is necessary because the commandments in the Pentateuch are written very tersely, with little or no detail exactly how to go about fulfilling those commandments. Take for instance the injunction of not working on the Sabbath. What constitutes work? Does it mean to just take the day off and not do any strenuous labor? Or take the commandment to don phylacteries; what do they consist of? Similar questions can be asked about the other commandments. It is the Oral Law that contains the answers to these questions and supplies the myriad details. The original receivers of the Oral Law passed it on to the next generation, from father to son and from teacher to student, and so on for many centuries. It was not written down, for the Oral Law itself contains an injunction against putting it to writing.[1] About fifteen hundred years ago the sages of the day saw that if it would not be recorded the Oral Law would be forgotten, and thus they wrote the Talmud. Although the central theme of the Talmud, being the written version of the Oral Law, is to provide detail and explanation to the commandments, it also discusses many additional issues. Midrashic interpretations of verses, Rabbinic enactments, some Jewish history,[2] and anecdotes from the lives of the individual sages, are some of these additional issues that take up many pages of the Talmud. Over the generations disputes over points of law arose among the sages. These disputes too, are meticulously recorded in the Talmud, and the sources and reasoning for each opinion are given. Once all the opinions on a particular point are defined and laid out, it becomes necessary to determine which opinion should be accepted in actual practice, or, according to which opinion is the "Halachah." The word "Halachah" connotes the Law in its final form and is loosely translated as "Jewish Law." Most of the time the Talmud itself declares whom the Halachah follows, sometimes however it was left to the later commentators and codifiers.[3] This brings us to the purpose and function of the Shulchan Aruch. Written about 450 years ago it contains the final Halachah as decided by the Talmud and later authorities, including decisions about additional situations and questions that arose over the generations. All the reasoning and give and take are basically absent from the Shulchan Aruch. Although the nature of the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch are as we have described, and is not subject to dispute, many Jews, however, do not accept the Divine origin of the Oral Law and do not follow the Talmud at all. Therefore, the assertion made in this screed [the WCOTC's "Facts"] that all Jews whether "Orthodox, Reform, Liberal, Conservative, Ashkenazim, Zionist, etc.," all use the Talmud and accept it "as the essence of the Jewish creed" is simply incorrect. This is also why the statement that Jewish media moguls, many of whom have a completely secular orientation, are trying to "further a Talmudic conspiracy" is the ridiculous canard that it is. One additional note about the transliteration of Hebrew and Aramaic[4] words. Except for when directly quoting from WCOTC's pamphlet, throughout this thesis, we will be following our own method of transliteration that is currently in use, as opposed to the method used in this pamphlet, which is outdated and inconsistent, with four different spellings for the tractate Avodah Zarah (Abodah Zara, Aboda Sarah, Aboda Zara, Abda Zara) to name one inconsistency. In the introductory remarks to the quotations from the Talmud the author cites a work titled "Mizbeach," which says, "there is nothing superior to the Holy Talmud." In response to this, there is nothing wrong with this statement. Most, if not all religions have a central book or books and by definition must claim it to be the most important and holy work. Christians believe this about the New Testament and the Moslems about the Koran. More importantly however, the author misunderstands the assertion of the Mizbeach. The same statement is made by the Talmud itself (Bava Metzia 33a) in the context of discussing which books amongst the different books in Judaism is the most central and important for understanding Jewish Law or Halachah. The Talmud concludes that it is the Talmud itself that is the most important or "superior" in this regard. This is something that any student of the Talmud can confirm, but without an adequate background in Talmud any understanding of Jewish Law is at best simplistic and superficial. Further along in the introductory remarks the author states that the word "goyim" used in the Talmud in reference to Gentiles means "cattle or beast." It is immediately clear that the author has no knowledge of the Hebrew language whatsoever. The word "goyim" simply means "nations," and "goy" is the singular form meaning "a nation." It is true that in common usage it refers to members of Gentile nations, "goyim" meaning a number of gentiles and "goy" would mean one gentile, however, it is also used both in the Torah[5] and the Talmud to refer to the Jewish nation. The verse in Exodus 33:13, "this nation is Your nation," where the Hebrew word "goy" is used would be an example. It is merely a noun without any negative connotations. In responding to the alleged quotations from the Talmud it will be useful to divide them into four categories. A) Quotations that are complete fabrications. They simply do not exist in any variation. B) Quotations whose sources are unintelligible or nonexistent. C) Quotations that are distorted, with mistranslations, insertions, or deletions, to the point that they barely resemble the original statement made in the Talmud. D) Quotations that are fairly accurate, but having been removed from their original context and presented without the Halachic framework and backdrop in which and against which they were made, become impossible to understand. A prime example of this last category would the statement from tractate Nedarim concerning vows. It will be explained a bit later on. We will analyze these "shocking but exact quotations," as this screed calls them, by the outlined categories. Part A: Quotations that are complete fabrications. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal." This simply does not exist, not in 59b either, or anywhere else for that matter. Even taking the wildest distortions into account, it still doesn't exist. Tosefta Aboda Zara 13, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew kills a goy he is not responsible." Pure fabrication. In fact the Tosefta of Avodah Zarah in section B only goes as high as number 3; there is no number 5 at all. Tosefta Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy." Again, this does not exist. The Tosefta at this point is discusses an entirely different matter. Shulchan Aruch Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples." No such statement in that section or any other section of the Shulchan Aruch. Part B: Quotations whose sources are unintelligible or nonexistent. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording." This does not exist. However, there is a tractate "Shavuot" that discusses the laws of oaths, and oaths is definitely what "schabouth" means. But "Hag" is totally meaningless, and "6d" is also incorrect, as there is no 6d. There is a 6a and 6b but this quotation is not there. As for the statement itself; quite the opposite is true as the Talmud in a number of places expressly states that swearing falsely is a terrible sin.[6] Szaaloth Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them." The source given for this quotation is useless. "Szaaloth Utszabot" means "questions and answers" and is usually called 'responsa.' "Szaaloth Utszabot ... Jore Dia" means a book that contains halachic Q&A about issues discussed in the Jore Dia (Yoreh Deah) section of the Shulchan Aruch. The problem is, there are a few thousand such books. Some centuries have passed since the writing of Yoreh Deah, enough time for a lot of rabbis to do a lot of writing. This is equivalent to telling someone interested in a recipe they can find it in "a cookbook" on page 29. Try that on a Jewish housewife. So there is no way to track this one down. But even assuming that this statement exists somewhere in an undistorted form, what it means is simply the following. Every religion claims some sort of uniqueness and specialness, and Judaism is no exception. Thank G-d in America we understand that this is precisely what freedom of religion is all about--living in peaceful coexistence in spite of these significant differing beliefs. It is this type of statement that the responsa, if it is legitimate, is referring to. For lest we forget, it was not too long ago, that in many countries Jews were persecuted mercilessly for these very beliefs and for just being Jews. Therefore, if the situation arose whereby it was necessary to fudge a Rabbinic comment here or there[7] in order not to incur the wrath of the local mob inciter, and if by not fudging, some statement might be used as an excuse for persecution, the author of this responsa is merely saying that is was required to do so. Nidrasch Talpioth p 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." To begin with, it is "Midrash Talpioth" not "Nidrasch
Talpioth." Furthermore, there is no 225-L at all in the work. So
the accuracy and existence of this quote cannot be determined, unless
of course one was to read the entire Midrash Talpioth, a thick tome with
small letters, and a complex Kabbalistic work, from cover to cover. And
given the batting average of the author of this screed we have our doubts
as to the veracity of this quotation. Also this statement stands in direct
contradiction to the statement in tractate Avot[8] "that all mankind
was created in the image of G-d." "Gad. Shas." Doesn't refer to any known work. Suffice it to say that the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch clearly forbid a Jew to have any form of sexual relations with a non-Jew, consensual or not, in marriage or outside of it.[9] Seph Jp., 92, 1: "G-d has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all the nations." Again, "Seph. Jp.," is undecipherable and matches no known
work. Also, The various Jewish scholars that were consulted never heard of this work, and in all likelihood, it does not exist. It certainly is not in the libraries of synagogues or other Jewish institutions. A search of Internet using the Alta Vista search engine for the words "Libbre David" yielded fourteen results. Every single one of them were anti-Semitic Web sites with the same two miserable quotations. Not one normal Jewish Web site. It seems that "Libbre David," if it exists, is the essence of the creed of hate mongers. The only thing that is shocking about these "shocking and exact quotations" is how someone can disseminate something so easily shown to be false. The author does not bear sole responsibility however, as this is certainly not an original work. This is not the first or only time a screed of this genre has been published, and this collection of supposed exact quotations is borrowed work, and probably has been recycled a number of times. Part C: Quotations that are distorted, with mistranslations, insertions, or deletions, to the point that they barely resemble the original. Yebhamoth 11 b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age." Distorted. The correct version appears many times in the Talmud as follows: "A girl over three years of age that has had a sexual act performed upon her has the (halachic) status of a sexual act, under three years of age it does not have the (halachic) status of a sexual act." This statement is not discussing the permissibility, impermissibility, or for that matter, the advisability of having intercourse with three year old girls. Rather, it is propounding a principle of Jewish Law or Halachah, of which the Talmud has hundreds. In order to have any understanding of this statement, one must have some grounding and knowledge of the various areas in Halachah where it is pertinent to determine whether from the standpoint of Halachah an act of sexual intercourse has taken place. We will briefly outline one such situation.[10] In Leviticus (Chap. 18 and 21) the Torah lists certain forbidden relatives, some of which, if one has sexual intercourse with, can incur capital punishment to the consenting partners. (If it is rape, obviously only the rapist would be eligible for the death penalty.) The Talmud therefore maintains that should, for example, a father rape his daughter under three years of age he would not incur the death penalty, as that act would not be considered from a halachic standpoint as sexual intercourse. It is, of course, an unspeakably terrible deed. (Please see the footnote to understand capital punishment as practiced in the Torah and Talmud).[11] This understanding of the Talmudic statement is not an interpretation that can be worked into the text; it is the simple explanation and has always been thus understood. The Talmud also gives a corresponding age for males below which it would not be considered true intercourse: nine years old. The Talmud also has a principle of statutory rape. In tractate Yevamot,[12] it states "seduction of a minor is rape." Furthermore the Talmud in Kiddushin 41a specifically states that one should not give his minor daughter away in marriage; this at a time when it was customary in other cultures to do so. Aboda Sara 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years of age may be violated." This distortion is similar to the previous one. The Talmud there is discussing certain laws of ritual impurity, their applications, and how they are contracted. The particular impurity under discussion can only be contracted by someone whom, as explained above has passed the minimum age, and were they to engage or be engaged in a sexual act, it would be halachically considered as such. As stated, for a female this is three years old. The Talmud there says that even though many types of ritual impurity can only be contracted by Jews, this particular impurity can be contracted by anyone. The statement without distortions is as follows "a Gentile girl three years of age, since an act on her would be considered true intercourse can also contract this impurity."[13] Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "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." Some historical background is necessary to understand this Halachah. Over the past centuries Jews have had many dark periods. Government oppression, mob uprisings, and pogroms all took their toll. In some countries the central government was extremely weak, creating a situation where local communities were controlled by a local count or landowner. And if this landowner was a tyrant, the Jews often bore the brunt of it. Under these conditions, if the local overlord coveted the possessions of a particular Jew, he could find an excuse to do away with him. The excuse could take the form of a broken law, trying to evade the exorbitant taxes placed upon Jews, or perhaps something uttered that could be considered treasonous. To dig up this kind of information, the landowner might need an informer from the inside. Sadly, throughout the generations there were a handful of Jews, perhaps seeking to alleviate their grinding poverty, that turned traitor to their people and became paid informants. Living in the Jewish communities, they had access to information and passed it on to those that wanted it, which resulted in Jews being killed, or imprisoned were they languished for years and sometimes didn't emerge alive. This scenario is one of a few. When the Talmud discusses "informers," the situation was somewhat different. The basic premise that lives were in jeopardy is the same, however. How to deal with these informers is what this section of the Shulchan Aruch is about. (Choshen Hamm is a section in Shulchan Aruch). The quotation is somewhat distorted. What it actually says is, "If it can be proven that someone handed over three times, the money of Jews--or Jews themselves--over to non-Jews, a way must be found, etc. . . ." The words, "Jews themselves," mean that Jews were taken away and killed. This is not a punishment for a crime, rather it is simply to prevent it from occurring again. The Shulchan Aruch clearly states that if we do not have a reason to believe he will do it again, he cannot be killed. It also states that if any other means can be employed, it is forbidden to kill him. Even if only the possessions of the victims were confiscated, if it is perceived that this was good fortune and it is possible that the next time the victim may not be so fortunate, the informer may be stopped as he is endangering lives. This is the straightforward understanding of the relevant passages in the Shulchan Aruch. The other quotation brought in this screed, "it is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces," is from the same section and passage in the Shulchan Aruch and is talking about the type of situation just outlined. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts." The title of the tractate is "Bava Metzia" not "Baba Necia." And there is no "114, 6," but a statement resembling this quotation does appear on 114b of that tractate. Accurately quoted, the statement reads "You (referring to Jews) are called 'Adam' Gentiles are not called 'Adam.'" The words, "but beasts," are a gross fabrication. The Talmud there is discussing the following verse, "This is the law if an 'adam' dies in a tent, anything that enters the tent or is already in the tent shall become impure for seven days" (Numbers 19:14). The Talmud wants to know if the Hebrew word "adam" in the verse, which usually translates simply as "a man" is referring to both Jewish and Gentile men or perhaps only to Jewish men, and Gentile corpses would not impart ritual impurity.[14] This question is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the other Sages. Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that only Jewish corpses impart ritual impurity and makes the statement quoted above, that only Jews are called "adam," etc. Rabbi Shimon brings proof from another verse to his opinion. The other Sages disagree and maintain that the word "adam" in the verse refers to both Jews and Gentiles. But even Rabbi Shimon was speaking about this verse. There are other verses however, says the Talmud , in which "adam" clearly refers to Gentiles even according to Rabbi Shimon. For instance, the verse, "and the people (adam) numbered sixteen thousand," in Numbers 31:40 is speaking about Gentiles. Furthermore "adam" is just one of a few Hebrew words that mean "a man." There are others such as "ish," "enosh," and "gever." Regarding those words, again, even Rabbi Shimon agrees they refer to both Jew and Gentile. An example for the word, "ish," would be the verse "if a man (ish) brings an offering" (Leviticus 22:18), about which the Talmud states[15] that both Jew and Gentile can bring offerings to the Temple; a law not disputed by Rabbi Shimon. Hilkkoth Akum XI: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death." Also, Hilkkoth Akum XI: "Show no mercy to the Goyim." At least something similar to this appears in chapter 10 of Hilchot Akum in Maimonides' work. It is misquoted and mistranslated, the worst distortion being that it does not say "goyim" there at all. Rather it says, "akum" (as the section is titled!), which means idolaters. Idolatry in Judaism is a capital offense. Additionally in that same section, Jewish idolaters are not spared the wrath of Maimonides' pen and share the same fate. Schulchan Aruch Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a gentile in his clutches another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile according to our law belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it." This quotation is so wildly distorted--almost beyond recognition--that it barely squeaked past being included in Part A. The Shulchan Aruch is discussing the laws of unfair business practice. The question on the table there is, to what extent a Jew may go to divert a business account held by his Jewish competitor from a Gentile customer. The passage there reads as follows, "If someone has an account with a Gentile, there are locales that forbid another Jew from interfering and attempting to divert the account away, in some locales, however, they permit this and allow a Jew to approach the Gentile and extend him loans, to do business with him, to offer monetary incentives in order to divert the business to himself, because the Gentiles' business is free and open to all who wish to get it." Part D: Quotations that are fairly accurate, but having been removed from their original context. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed." Although there is no such statement in the Talmud, this statement does appear in a commentary to that page of the Talmud called, "Tosafot," which was written about 700 years ago. It also appears in a Halachic Midrash called the "Mechilta." Let us quote the statement precisely, however, along with its entire context. In Exodus 10:7 it says, "And Pharoah took his six hundred best chariots and all of the chariots of Egypt and pursued the Children of Israel." Asks the Mechilta, "But from where did the Egyptians get horses to drive the chariots, didn't all the Egyptian livestock perish? (in the plagues of pestilence and hail) as it is written (Exodus 9:6) "and all the Egyptian livestock died"? The Mechilta responds that they must have belonged to those Egyptians that "feared G-d," as it says in Exodus 9:20, "He who feared G-d among Pharoahs subjects brought his servants and livestock inside their homes." The Mechilta continues, therefore "the best of Egyptians, kill." Egyptians not Gentiles; 3,300 years ago, not now. For it was those good "G-d fearing" Egyptians that gave chase (or at least lent their horses to give chase) to the Children of Israel with murderous intent. There is another version that reads, "The best of the Canaanites, kill." But again, the Children of Israel were at war with the Canaanites. The Mechilta is describing a wartime policy of not sparing even the seemingly good of the enemy for otherwise you may fall into their hands. This is also the way the Tosafot commentary to Avodah Zarah 26b explains this statement; that it refers only to times of war. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-d: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." This statement is part of Midrash,[16] which contains many passages that are allegorical in nature, and are meant to be understood in a completely or partially nonliteral fashion. This is why there is a general principle that "we do not learn Halachah from Midrash."[17] That having been said, this statement can be understood even on the literal side. The Midrash gives as the source for its words the following verse in Zechariah 8:23, "So saith G-d, Lord of hosts, in those days ten men of foreign nations will grasp the edge of the garment of a Jew saying, 'let us go with you for we have heard that G-d is with you.'" This prophecy reflects the traditional Jewish belief that in the future G-d will once again dwell in Jerusalem and His word will emanate from there. All that can be seen from this verse then, is that the nations of the world will desire to learn about G-d and His word from the Jewish people. This may therefore be all that this statement means. The word "slaves" that is used here is translated from the Hebrew word "eved," which usually does mean slaves. It has softer meanings however. For instance, all the subjects of a particular king are said to be an "eved" of that king. Also, when relating that someone studied under a certain sage, the Talmud uses the expression "so-and-so served Rabbi so-and-so,"[18] using the same term. Schulchan Aruch Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean." The first half of the quotation is accurate, but the words, "because
the touch has made the wine unclean," are an unauthorized addition.
The rationale for this law has nothing to do with "contamination."
Some historical background will be helpful in understanding this law.
This prohibition was created by a Rabbinic enactment. The Talmud explains
that the Sages were motivated by two factors. One was to aid in preventing
intermarriage; if a Jew couldn't drink wine touched by a Gentile, it would
be difficult to attend non-Jewish social events, nipping possible relationships
before they can bud. The second reason was as follows. The Torah forbids
a Jew from deriving any benefit from something used for idolatrous purposes.
Since the nations among whom the Jews dwelt were all steeped in one form
of idolatry or another, and wine was commonly used in worship, all wines
purchased from a Gentile contained the possibility that it was associated
with idol worship. To remove any vestige of doubt, the Sages proscribed
all wine contacted by a Gentile. Today, however, this prohibition does
not have that significant an impact on the average person. This is because
the Sages exempted from their prohibition wine that was "mivushal,"
which means "cooked." This is accomplished simply by heating
the wine to a high enough temperature.[19] The reason for this exception
is because this type of wine was uncommon, considered of lower quality
and not used for worship. Most wines sold in the U. S. that carry kosher
certification are "mivushal." Additionally, since today the
fear that the wine was used for idol worship is basically no longer extant,
so even the prohibition on nonmivushal wine, while still in force, is
a little less stringent in certain respects. The death sentence here is not literal; the Talmud is merely conveying the severity of the matter. There are a good number of such statements in the Talmud where the words "deserving of the death" or a similar phrase are clearly not literal and were always understood nonliterally. For instance, take the statement in Tractate Avot,[20] "If someone was traveling on a road and studying Torah and he interrupts his study to say, "How beautiful this tree is,' the Torah considers him guilty of death." Maimonides[21] also maintains that the statement in Sanhedrin is nonliteral. And wherever a list of real capital offences is enumerated (idolatry, murder, etc.), whether in the Talmud or in later works, this is not mentioned. As to the reason why the Sages viewed this so seriously, we can surmise that they knew that if the laws of the Torah would be studied by nonpractitioners of the Jewish faith, all sorts of different interpretations, practices, and distortions would be espoused, creating confusion. And many Jews may be led astray. Additionally the Talmud on that very page states that a Gentile who studies those moral laws of the Torah that were given to all mankind,[22] (theft, murder, adultery, etc.), that Gentile "is like the High Priest." Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'every vow which I may make in the future shall be null.' His vows are then invalid." This supposedly shows the Talmud giving Jews a green light to lie, cheat,
and steal; a Jew need only to utter this formula and, Viola! no vows or
spoken word is binding. What is lacking is a little knowledge of some
very relevant information. In Jewish Law there is something called a "neder,"
which is loosely translated as "a vow." A "neder"
is not a promise or agreement with another party, but rather a private
resolution whereby one declares something to be forbidden to oneself.
For instance, if one states, "All the apples in the world are forbidden
to me for the next thirty days," he must keep his word or else violate
the commandment in Numbers 30:3, which says, "He may not profane
his words according to all he said he must do." There really are
no limits, anyone can make anything forbidden to himself personally by
simply making a "neder." The Talmud also derives from certain
verses and from an oral tradition that one can extricate oneself from
a vow by approaching a rabbinical court of three judges knowledgeable
in the laws of Nedarim (plural of Neder), outlining why he no longer desires
to keep the vow, and if certain conditions are met, the vow is voided
and the item becomes permitted. If someone knows he or she has a nasty
habit of making vows in the heat of the moment, there is another tool
at his disposal to alleviate the problem; he can make the above declaration.
What is hopefully clear is that these vows have nothing to do with transactions
made between man and fellowman. Regarding any condition or other oral
agreement made between two people, this little declaration is of course
meaningless. This is not apologetics or some interpretation, it is the
absolute bare bones simple explanation that is abundantly clear from every
page of tractate Nedarim. Additionally the Talmud specifically states[23]
that if someone did a make a "neder" in a manner, that its voiding
would affect other people, the court will not void the vow unless it is
within that persons right to affect those people in that particular manner. Not wishing to turn this essay into a Talmudic treatise unto itself, we hope the responses provided will be adequate. Aside from the responses to the individual quotations however, we would like to pose a question of a general nature. If the Talmud, the Shulchan Aruch, and the Jewish People have such a visceral, racial, and deep seated hatred and contempt for Gentiles, why is it that Jews all over the world, from time immemorial, have always, and continue to lovingly accept converts from all races and nationalities? Finally we would like quote some statements of our own from the Talmud. On Honesty In reality, the Talmud, while allowing those little white lies of social niceties (you look great today! etc.), demands searing honesty and truthfulness. If the world would only live up to half the level demanded by the Talmud it would be a far better place. There are tens if not hundreds of sayings throughout the Talmud and Midrash emphasizing the importance of honesty. Here are only a few pointed and telling quotations. Shabbat 31 a: "The first issue to be judged and asked upon (after a person's soul departs this world and enters the spiritual realm) is 'have you dealt honestly?'" Shabbat 55a: "G-d's seal and signature is truth." Makkot 24a: "He speaks the truth in his heart."[24] What does this refer to? queries the Talmud. The Talmud replies "Like the case of Rabbi Safra." Rabbi Safra had an item for sale. A buyer offered him a price to which he agreed, in his mind. The buyer not realizing that Rabbi Safra agreed, quoted a higher amount. Rabbi Safra honored the lower Price.[25] On morality Again, the moral standards of the Talmud are extremely high, something
anyone with some background in Talmud can verify. It should be sufficient
to quote just one Halachic statement, found in the Talmud and codified
in the Shulchan Aruch to prove this point. This Halachah is kept by observant Jews the world over to this day. Undoubtedly it has prevented untold numbers of disasters, the type of which it was designed to prevent. On Gentiles Avot 3:18 "All of Mankind is beloved, because it was created in the image of G-d." Avot 3:18 "An even greater love was shown to man by informing him that he was created in the image of G-d, as it is written "in the image of G-d He made man." Tosefta Sanhedrin 13: "Righteous Gentiles are destined for the World to Come." [27] Tana Dvei Eliyahu[28] 10: "Let heaven and earth testify, that
whether Jew or Gentile, man or woman, each person according to their actions,
will they be graced by Divine spirit and inspiration." __________
|