A Jewish Holiday Worth Borrowing

of course:

so, where does it say they are beasts?

It does not say it there, unless you translate not men as beasts.

But here is what a scholar of the the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva has to say on the issue:

In this article R' Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards "Gentiles" in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion: "The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as 'man,' and a Gentile." That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R' Bar-Chayim's work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R' Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs not on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
For the English readers' convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R' Bar-Chayim's article:

1. Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).
2. A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
3. A Jew's exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile's property. But if a Gentile's property causes damage to a Jew's property, the Gentile is liable.
4. The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah's law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
5. A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one's sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
6. The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
7. One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
8. A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
9. One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
10. A Gentile -- or even a convert to Judaism -- may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
11. One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
12. The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
13. One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment "love your neighbor" applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
14. One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: "Your mother shall be greatly ashamed..."
15. Gentiles are likened to animals.
16. If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
17. The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure -- he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
18. One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
19. An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile's ritual slaughter -- but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
20. Their members are like those of asses" -- Gentiles are likened to animals.
21. Between the Jews and the Gentiles -- In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought

http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/index.html
 
It is safe to say that, under appropriate Talmudic law, the goyim are more or less equivalent to animals?
 
this is intresting-Foreword -- Daat Emet.

daat emet are jews who left judaisim-or at least their teachings.


why are they farwerded with this?
 
ho i get it-you are mocking me:
R' Bar-Chayim's arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R' Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d,

come and hear think he is racist?

maybe i was right about those guys after all.
 
WTF
About Carol A. Valentine

Carol A. Valentine is a writer, researcher, publicist, and human rights activist. Her work has been published in diverse periodicals and newspapers in subjects ranging from economics to human rights. Her article, The Insanity of the Insanity Defense, was first published by the conservative newspaper Human Events on September 26, 1981, republished in the October, 1981 Criminal Justice Report (the National Association of Attorneys General monthly) and again republished as the lead article in a special "Insanity Defense" edition of The Prosecutor, published by the National District Attorneys Association.

Carol is the author and Curator of the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum, and president of Public Action, Inc.

More recently, Carol published a collection of cutting edge essays analyzing the events of 9-11 and the follow-up wars. She was the first to point out that the 9-11 suicide jets could have been remote-controlled aircraft, and showed conclusively that 9-11 would not have been possible without the knowing cooperation of the North American Aerospace Command.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/valentine.html
 
This is what will drive me nuts, I've never seen these quotes, and I know for a fact the muslim translation is off by a mile.

Baba Mezi'a 114b


Dilling discusses highlighted text here, here, and here
[He asked him further:] Whence do we know that a naked man must not separate [terumah]? — From the verse, That He see no unclean thing in thee.1 Said he [Rabbah] to him: Art thou not a priest:2 why then dost thou stand in a cemetery?3 — He replied: Has the Master not studied the laws of purity?4 For it has been taught: R.Simeon b. Yohai said: The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men;5 only ye are designated 'men'.6 — He replied: I cannot even adequately study the four [orders]; can I then study six?7 And why? he inquired. — I am too hard-pressed,8 he answered. He then led him into Paradise and said to him: Remove thy robe and collect and take away some of these leaves. So he gathered them and carried them off. As he was coming out, he heard a remark, 'Who would so consume his [portion in] the world [to come] as Rabbah b. Abbuha has done?' Thereupon he scattered and threw them away. Yet even so, since he had carried them in his robe, it had absorbed their fragrance, and so he sold it for twelve thousand denarii, which he distributed among his sons-in-law.

Our Rabbis taught: And if the man be poor, thou shalt not sleep in his pledge:9 hence, if he is wealthy, thou mayest sleep thus. What does this mean?10 — Said R. Shesheth: This is the meaning: And if the man be poor, thou shalt not sleep whilst his pledge is in thy possession; but if he is wealthy, thou mayest do so.11

Our Rabbis taught: If a man lends [money] to his fellow, he may not take a pledge of him, nor is he bound to return it to him, and he transgresses all these injunctions.12 What does this mean? — R. Shesheth said: This: If a man lends [money] to his fellow, he may not [himself] take a pledge of him; and if he did take a pledge of him [by means of a court officer], he is bound to return it;13 whilst 'he transgresses all these injunctions' refers to the last clause.14 Raba said: It is thus meant: If a man lends money to his neighbour, he may not take a pledge of him [himself], and if he took a pledge of him [through the court], he must return it.15 Now, when is this? If the pledge was not taken at the time of the loan.16 But if it was taken at the time of the loan,17 he is not bound to return it to him.18 Whilst 'and he transgresses all these injunctions' refers to the first clause.19

R. Shizebi recited before Raba: Thou shalt return it unto him until the sun goeth down20 — this refers to night attire; in any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down — to an object of day attire. Said he to him: Of what use is an article of day attire by night,21 and a night attire by day? Shall I then delete it? he asked. — No, was his reply. It reads thus: Thou shalt return it unto him until the sun goeth down — this refers to an article of day attire, which may be taken in pledge by night; in any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down — to a night attire, which may be taken in pledge by day. R. Johanan said: If he took a pledge of him, [returned it,] and then he [the debtor] died, he may distrain it from his children. An objection is raised: R. Meir said: Now, since a pledge is taken, why is it returned?22 'Why is it returned?' [you ask.]23 — Surely Scripture ordered, Return it! But [say thus]: Since it is returned,

http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_114.html

I do know a lot of the translations thay can be obscured are only meant to imply if you do not follow the torah, you are no Jewish.

Like, the name Adam is reserved for those who follow the torah. Now it'd be like saying, you're not a jew.

Any muslim truly offended by that, isn't a good muslim.


Well, another way it could be minsinterpreted is, okay. If you ate because you were hungry, like an animal does. You would be no different then an animal. This belief is carried over to the fasting of Yom Kippur. (It's not the main idea of it, but it's part of it)

But, that's basically it... If you're not a jew, then.. that's what that means. If you are gluttiness, you are no better than an animal.

This is really my take from it all, I haven't been to temple in months. Not by choice, but lack of being able to locate one.
 
well SAM are you ready to explain why you just quoted daat emet as evidence(known to be liars)? and why come and hear foreword them?

or you are ready to concede?
 
Last edited:
Liars? Daat Emet are secular Jews who reject the supremacism of the Torah.
There is an organization in Israel known as Daat Emet, (Hebrew for knowledge, truth). It was begun by a man named Yaron Yadan, a former ultra-Orthodox yeshiva head, who, with the aid of modern science, came to the conclusion that the Torah and subsequent religious writings like the Talmud, are solely human creations. This contradicts the Orthodox Jewish view that the Torah was written by god.

Daat Emet is composed of scholars, many of whom were former rabbis, and who now try to educate the public about the true nature of Judaism in order to help keep Israel a secular democracy.

http://www.daatemet.org/index.cfm?LANG=en

Here are some highlights from the site:

The status of women in halacha (Jewish law):

http://www.daatemet.org.il/daathalacha/en_women.html

Gentiles in halacha:

http://www.daatemet.org.il/daathalacha/en_gentiles.html
And as you say you are an athiest Jew, shouldn't you be supporting them?
 
Liars? Daat Emet are secular Jews who reject the supremacism of the Torah.

And as you say you are an athiest Jew, shouldn't you be supporting them?

too bad they dont mention they were convicted in court for hateful messages and harassment.

so, not only you deliberately quoted them, but you also left out their views on Judaism as a racist teaching, only because you want to defend chuuush fake quotes-which you still insists, after several pages, many quotes and two jews, that they are true.

but im enjoying showing how much you hate jews under the surface and you would lie(yes you did lie) to achieve your goal.
 
more on daat emet:
“What you are watching now is not a soccer game,” declared Israel’s Channel Two as it opened its July 16th report of an incident reminiscent of a European pogroms in the 1930s. The scene was shocking violence in a Haifa Synagogue. The maniacal screaming and shoving did indeed have a great deal in common with a ferocious soccer brawl.[1]

cnfjm

Yaron Yadan is a pseudo-intellectual thug who will stoop to anything, including law-breaking and violence, to force his vision of rabid Jew-hatred and societal breakdown on peacefully co-existing communities of Jews. This past July, Daat Emet “activists” invaded – there’s simply no other way to describe it – a synagogue in Haifa’s old Romema neighborhood.

Giving new meaning to the term “bully pulpit,” Yadan forced his way to the front of the sanctuary to deliver his usual rambling, anti-Semitic diatribe, setting off a violent altercation that left two individuals hospitalized and five others under arrest. The marauding “activists” were incarcerated and Yadan himself was charged with causing a public brawl, disorderly conduct and obstructing a police officer in the line of duty. This follows Daat Emet’s earlier conviction for criminal trespass in a September 2005 case. Click here to see the official court records.

Among Yadan’s other legal entanglements was his recent attempt to sue the Shofar organization’s Rabbi Yaakov Segal for libel. His crime? Having the temerity to mount a point-by-point refutation of some of Daat Emet’s choicest canards. Things didn’t turn out well for Yadan, however – a Tel Aviv court exonerated Rabbi Segal and compelled Daat Emet to pay all the former’s legal expenses. Recently, Daat Emet activists in Netanya were fined for defacing public property with their materials.

It appears that neither legal limitations nor moral considerations serve to hinder Yaron Yadan and his fellow Daat Emet cohorts. Is there anything that can stop them?


http://web.thinkingjew.com/Side%20Article%206.htm

so you need thugs on your side to prove judaisim has a racist view on non jews? :rolleyes:

suddenly you want atheists on your side :D
 
Thats interesting. Links?

What was the hateful message? And harassment?

they forcibly entered to a yeshiva and posted posters with hateful anti jewish statements in bnei brak.


its common knowledge in israel who they are.


you want them on your side? be my guest.
 
No I don't know any Hebrew, so I have to ask Jews for any information on their religion and as you claimed to be an athiest, I'm wondering why you don't support the secular Jews.

I would be interested to know what Orthodox Jews have to say on the matter.
 
sam doesnt hate jews. she and i get along quite well, actually.
what she hates is inequality and willful ignorance (at least as far as i see it).
 
No I don't know any Hebrew, so I have to ask Jews for any information on their religion and as you claimed to be an athiest, I'm wondering why you don't support the secular Jews.

I would be interested to know what Orthodox Jews have to say on the matter.

sure you do :p

so how about non jews in the talmud? where those it say they are beast? you are still claiming chuush quotes are not fake? or you want to quote any more of daat emet links?
 
sure you do :p

so how about non jews in the talmud? where those it say they are beast? you are still claiming chuush quotes are not fake? or you want to quote any more of daat emet links?

I don't know, do I? You're an athiest and those are apparently anti-Semite Jews. Who is speaking for Judaism?
 
Back
Top