Borrowed from Hatewatch

The anti-Semetic document "The Talmud Exposed", which has gained in popularity because of the Internet, claims to show the true nature and intentions of the Jewish people by quoting damning statements from the Talmud. The problem is not only are these alleged examples of nefarious Jewish tactics and bigotry taken wildly out of context but in many cases simply misquoted. But of course accuracy and good research are not the hallmarks of the bigot. As we at HateWatch say, don't just believe what you read either from the bigot or from HateWatch, do the research yourself. We suggest that you the reader take a look at the citations of both the "Talmud Exposed" and this response and compare for yourself. In doing so, we are confident that you will come to the same conclusion that we have, that the disseminators of this anti-Semtic tract are trying to forment hatred against the Jewish people by lies and half-truths.

For examples of this text and information on the individuals reprinting this anti-Semetic tract online, please refer to these racist web sites; ex Klan leader, Don Black's Stormfront and Holocaust denier Michael Hoffman's, Campaign for Radical Truth in History. For more information on these online bigots, please read the HateWatch's biographies on Don Black and Michael Hoffman

CLAIM (1)
The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book. Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."

RESPONSE
That's not true. The Torah - the Five Books of Moses is Judaism's "holiest" book, however it has two parts, a written part (which is what Christians are familiar with) and an Oral part (which the early Christians abandoned). The Oral part, or "Oral Law" is analogous to be a body of jurispudence and procedures to accompany the written law and is understood to have been handed down from Moses around the 1200's BCE. It was expressly forbidden to write it down because it was thought that any such attempt would be incomplete but after much debate, it became apparent that the only way to preserve it would be to write it down and this was done between 70CE and 200 CE in the form of the Mishna and the supplementary Tosefta. Later the Gemara was added as additional material and was written between 200CE and 500CE. Finally around 500 CE this and other material were included in the encyclopedic Talmud consisting of 5,894 pages and there are many further works in addition to these as well.

The point of saying this is that in the absence of any interpretation via an oral tradition, it is difficult to understand what was meant. For example, the classic "eye for an eye" quote (Exodus 21:24 and Leviticus 24:17-22) which Christians interpret literally has no such interpretation in Judaism. No Jewish court has ever blinded or otherwise inflicted physical injury as revenge or retribution. The phrase is interpreted to mean what the perpetrator of a crime deserves, not what he should get. Another example is that despite the existence of capital punishment in the Hebrew Bible, Jewish courts rarely issued the death penalty as extremely strict conditions were imposed on who was considered valid witnesses and other requirements which were difficult to meet in practice.

Other examples proving the existence of the Oral Law within the Bible relate to the fact that many terms, procedures, rights and responsibilites are assumed to be common knowledge within the text. A common expression is "as I have commanded you" but it doesn't say anywhere what the command was, except that it known from the Oral part of the Bible.

The Talmud derives its authority from the Torah on which it is based..
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (2)
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the Black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians have more knowledge of the Old Testament than the Israelis.

RESPONSE
That's not true. In fact they have less knowledge of the Bible because they lost the Oral Law somewhere in their past and thus did not have complete knowledge of the Bible because the Oral Law is just as much a part of the Bible as the Written Law. How for example would they be expected to perform duties described in the written Bible described in the form "as I have commanded you" where no where else in the written Bible does it give what these instructions are? The instructions were given in the Oral part of the Bible.

Also, it is clear from the Talmud that the Torah law takes precedence over the Talmud: "When doubt arises in a Rabbinical law we are naturally lenient; but where the law is Scriptural we are strict."
Pesahim, Soncino Edition, p. 42, footnote (2)
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (3)
However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes Talmud, of which they have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4: "The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way." Because they don't traffic in Talmudic traditions, the Black Ethiopians are discriminated against and have been forbidden to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state.

RESPONSE
Because the Ethiopian Jews stopped following the Oral Law at some point and came to rely on only the Written Law (Bible) they stopped practising certain aspects of Judaism since they did not have the full knowledge required. The Talmud itself did not change the practice of Judaism as is claimed. All it did was codify the knowledge that already existed and had been handed down since the time of Moses. It still would be handed down orally, had it not been for people trying to murder all the Jews over the centuries. If it wasn't for that, there would have been no need to write it down in the first place.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (4)
Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik is regarded as one of the most influential rabbis of the 20th century, the "unchallenged leader" of Orthodox Judaism and the top international authority on halakha (Jewish religious law). Soloveitchik was responsible for instructing and ordaining more than 2,000 rabbis, "an entire generation" of Jewish leadership.

RESPONSE
So? What is your point?
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (5)
N.Y. Times religion reporter Ari Goldman described the basis of the rabbis authority: "Soloveitchik came from a long line of distinguished Talmudic scholars...Until his early 20s, he devoted himself almost exclusively to the study of the Talmud...He came to Yeshiva University's Elchanan Theological Seminary where he remained the pre-eminent teacher in the Talmud...He held the title of Leib Merkin professor of Talmud...sitting with his feet crossed in front of a table bearing an open volume of the Talmud." (N.Y. Times, April 10, 1993, p. 38).

RESPONSE
So? What is your point?
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (6)
Nowhere does Goldman refer to Soloveitchiks knowledge of the Bible as the basis for being one of the top world authorities on Jewish law. The rabbis credentials are predicated upon his mastery of the Talmud. All other studies are clearly secondary. Britains Jewish Chronicle of March 26, 1993 states that in religious school (yeshiva), Jews are "devoted to the Talmud to the exclusion of everything else."

RESPONSE
So? What is your point?
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (7)
The Scribes claim the Talmud is partly a collection of traditions Moses gave them in oral form. These had not yet been written down in Jesus time. Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because it nullified Biblical teachings.

RESPONSE
The Talmud does not nullify any Biblical teachings but clarifies them. The Bible has two parts, the written part and the oral part. The oral part is what is expounded upon in the Talmud. It is interesting that Jesus is claimed to have condemned the Talmud since many of his teachings and some of the "New Testament" are based directly on the Oral Teachings.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (8)
The famous warning of Our Lord about the tradition that voids Scripture (cf. Mark 7:13), which is regularly used against Catholicism by Protestants, is actually a direct reference to the Talmud or more properly, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ*s lifetime, before being committed to writing. All of Mark chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord*s pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.

RESPONSE
[Answer in preparation.]

CLAIM (9)
Unfortunately, due to the abysmal ignorance of our day, the widespread Christian notion is that the Old Testament is the supreme book of Judaism. But this is not so. The Pharisees teach for doctrine the commandments of rabbis, not God; the Talmudic commentary on the Bible is their supreme law and not the Bible itself. That commentary does indeed, as Jesus said, void the laws of God, not uphold them. As a reader of Talmud (in the rabbinically authorized Soncino version) I know this to be true.

RESPONSE
The Torah ("Old Testament") was given to Jews in two parts, the written part which is commonly known to Christians, and also the Oral part, which was codified in the Talmud. A proper understanding of the Torah requires knowledge of both parts. Indeed, the written Torah itself alludes to the presence of the Oral part.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (10)
There is a small Jewish sect which makes considerable effort to eschew Talmud and adhere to the Old Testament alone. These are the Karaites, a most hated and severely persecuted group within Judaism.

RESPONSE
It is not true that they are "hated and severely persecuted". The only concern with Karaites is that they do not practice normative Judaism as revealed in the Torah (like some other contemporary Jewish groups).
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (11)
To the Mishnah the rabbis later added the Gemara (rabbinical commentaries). Together these comprise the Talmud. There are two versions, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud is regarded as the authoritative version: "The authority of the Babylonian Talmud is also greater than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. In cases of doubt the former is decisive." (R.C. Musaph-Andriesse, From Torah to Kabbalah: A Basic Introduction to the Writings of Judaism, p. 40).

RESPONSE
This is essentially true. It doesn't hurt to tell the truth occasionally, does it?
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (12)
This study is based on the Jewish-authorized, English translation of the Babylonian Talmud: the Soncino edition. Every selection we cite is documented directly from the text of the authoritative Soncino Talmud. We have published herein the authenticated sayings of the Jewish Talmud. Look them up for yourself. To verify the Talmud passages cited, refer to the Soncino edition Talmud, which may be found in large university and seminary libraries. The Soncino Talmud may also be purchased from book dealers.

RESPONSE
Of course, as will be revealed in the following analysis of the posted material, it is full of gross mistranslations, fabrications and out of context "quotes". And of course, no translation will ever capture the real flavour of what is being said. For proper study of the Talmud, an excellent knowledge of Aramaic and Hebrew is required.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (13)
Translations: The translators of the Talmud sometimes translate the Hebrew word goyim (Gentiles) under any number of terms such as heathen, Cuthean, Egyptian, idolater etc. But these are actually references to Gentiles (all non-Jews). See for example footnote 5 of the Soncino edition Talmud: Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the original goy... Christians are sometimes referred to by the code word Min or Minim.

RESPONSE
Only Jewish Christians are referred to as minim or "heretics". Gentile Christians are not.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (14)
It is the standard disinformation practice of the Pharisees to deny the existence of the following Talmudic scriptures and to claim they are the fabrications of "anti-Semites." This disinformation can only obtain cachet among those too lazy to go to the English-language books of the Talmud and look these passages up for themselves. Hebrew University Professor emeritus Israel Shahak in his monumental 1994 work, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" (London:Pluto Press), has confirmed the malice and racism contained in Talmud.

RESPONSE
Here we have the bizarre claim of the "Christian Identity" movement that the modern day Jews are "Pharisees" and thus not "true" Jews of the Bible... And Professor Shahak is well-known as a self-hating Jew and for his vitriolic attacks against Judaism. He can hardly be cited as an authoritative source on Jewish belief.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (15)
Like the courageous Prof. Shahak, we publish the following educational material in the hope of liberating people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, from the superstitions, hate-mongering and barbarities of Talmud. The implementation of Talmudic philosophy has caused untold suffering throughout history and now in occupied Palestine it is used as a justification for the mass murder of Palestinian civilians.

RESPONSE
Professor Shahak is a self-hating Jew who will go to any lengths to discredit his own religion. Unfortunately, his understanding of his own religion is not valid or authentic and he is certainly not a theologian.

Also, rather than causing "untold suffering", the teachings of the Talmud for much of the basis for the legal system and common law in most civilised societies.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM (16)
Some Teachings of the Talmud Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

RESPONSE (1)
Interpreting the verse "Much study is weariness of the flesh" (Eccl 12:12), one Rabbi alone understands that anyone who *mocks* (which is worse than disobeying) the Rabbi's statements would be boiled in excrement. HIS UNDERSTANDING IS REJECTED BY THE TALMUD.
Avraham Hampel <hampel@brachot.jct.ac.il>

RESPONSE (2)
The correct quote is as follows:

"Whoever [rebelliously] breaches the words [legislative enactments] of the Scribes [early legal authorities who had legislative power] is liable for death [at the hands of Heaven]... whoever mocks the words of the Wise is sentenced to [divine] punishment [in the afterlife] by boiling excrement."

The Written Torah bids Jews to follow legislation enacted by the Sanhedrin (council of sages). This legislation was designed to prevent Jews from violating Written Torah laws and to organize life in a manner befitting a holy people. Rebellion against this legislation was naturally seen in an extremely negative light.

As a result it is no wonder that the Talmud expresses itself in the strongest terms against those who systematically and rebelliously violate the rabbinical enactments promulgated by the ancient Sanhedrin. On the other hand one who violates a Written Torah commandment usually does so not as an act of rebellion but because he has succumbed to a momentary sinful impulse.

Phrases such as 'is liable for death' are used to indicate a negative attitude to a certain form of behavior and refer to a penalty imposed by Heaven and not to punishment inflicted by a religious court. In fact such expressions are not usually meant to be taken literally as implying that Heaven will punish someone with early death for his sin. Some commentators note that any unfortunate occurrence such as sickness or poverty may be seen as implementation of a 'death' penalty by Heaven. Also, the judgment of Heaven may be mitigated by factors such as repentance.

Another example of the use of this type of phrase is found at Shabbat 114a where "R. Yochanan said that every scholar who has filth on his cloak is liable for death", and there are many other similar examples. It is important to emphasize that the such statements are in no way meant to suggest implementation of a death penalty by a human court. (In fact the death penalty was so rare in rabbinic times that the Talmud states that "A Sanhedrin that gives a death penalty once in seven years is called 'destructive'; Rabbi Eliezer ben Azaria said [that the reference is to a Sanhedrin which gives a death sentence] once in seventy years." (Makot 7a).)

Similarly the term 'boiling excrement' is another example of the metaphorical style used by the Talmud to express disapproval of negative behavior (I believe that in ancient times animal excrement was used for industrial purposes and the term may not have quite the same connotation it has nowadays).
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (17)
Moed Kattan 17a . If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.

RESPONSE (1)
It never talks about a "Jew", and it never refers to him being "tempted". It refers to a stage where a person has already been overcome by his evil inclination, and the only question is whether he will sin publicly, or privately in a place where he is not known. The latter is the lesser of the two evils, as at least he does not become a bad example for others to follow. The Gemarrah explained that someone who acted this way died, and could not be buried near the righteous. Obviously it is not recommending it, just attempting damage control. Very wise, IMHO.
Avraham Hampel <hampel@brachot.jct.ac.il>

RESPONSE (2)
The correct translation should be: "R. Elayi says: 'if a man sees that the evil urges is overcoming him he should go to a place where no one knows him, dress in black, cover himself in black and do what his heart wills and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public".

The commentators on the page immediately point out that the statement means that in the process of leaving his town, entering a strange place, dressing in black and covering himself in black, a person's evil urge will be broken and he will have no desire to do evil; i.e., he may do as his heart wills since his heart will no longer wish to do evil (several commentators note that this interpretation is stated explicitly in a parallel passage of agada in the Talmud Yerushalmi).

Other commentators point out that the statement does not refer to an evil urge to commit a sin but rather the urge to behave improperly, thereby desecrating G-d's name. When a Torah scholar acts in a manner that is not becoming to one who has studied Torah (for example, when he speaks with undue severity) he desecrates G-d's name because he is expected to conform to a higher standard of behavior. According to these commentators this
passage is directed at these scholars; if they feel the urge to act on the level of the common person they should do so where they are not known as Torah scholars and thus avoid the desecration of G-d's name.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il)

CLAIM (18)
Non-Jews are Not Human Baba Mezia 114a-114b. Only Jews are human ("Only ye are designated men").

RESPONSE (1)
Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai alone makes the statement that non-Jews are not considered in the laws of impurity - therefore a priest can touch a non-Jewish corpse without being defiled. It nowhere states that non-Jews are not human, or that only Jews are human.
Avraham Hampel <hampel@brachot.jct.ac.il>

RESPONSE (2)
Okay, here we have piece of misinformation number 1; a slick one, because anyone who read this line would surely be outraged. But this has nothing to do with designating anyone as "men."

What is going on here is a method of analysis known as a "hekesh," or in English a "linkage." The verse from the Bible says, "And I made my sheep (those who follow my commandments) into sheep, my flock into Man." From there, the Sages understand similar usages of the term "Man" to mean the nation which follows the commandments - the Jewish People. The Tosafos in Sanhedrin 59a, points out many times when Gentiles are indeed referred to as "Man?"
[Edited response.] mat6263@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner)

RESPONSE (3)
This is a mistranslation of the term "adam". Also, the Talmud just has a Rabbi quoting Ezekiel XXXIV, 31 in this place. Nothing is being said about non-Jews not being human or only Jews being human.
From Usenet message
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)

RESPONSE (4)
Apparently a deliberate mistranslation. The passage deals with the technical rules of corpse-impurity which, according to the author of this text, apply to Jews and not to gentiles. In this connection Ezekiel 34:31 is cited: "And ye My sheep [referring to Israel], the sheep of My pasture, are _men [Hebrew: "adam"]_, and I am your God, saith the Lord God." From a careful midrashic reading of this Biblical verse, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai deduced "Only "ye" [i.e., Israel, not other nations] are designated "adam," in the sense that only Jewish corpses and graves generate impurity according to Numbers 19:14: "This is the law: when a _man ['adam']_ dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the tent...shall be unclean seven days..." The passage is legal and exegetical, not theological. If anything, it seems to put Jews on a lower footing than non-Jews. Typically, the words "but beasts" were added on by whoever put this list together. They do not appear in the original.
From Usenet message

RESPONSE (5)
In Numbers 19:14 the Written Torah states that "If [a] man [person] dies inside a tent ...." and the passage goes on to describe the laws of ritual impurity caused by the corpse.

The sages considered whether this law applied to all men or only to Jews. It might have been thought that the word 'man' or 'person' would indicate a reference to both Jews and non-Jews. However the Oral tradition made it clear that when the Torah uses the word 'man' or 'person' in connection with legal restrictions the reference is usually to Jews and not to non-Jews who are not bound by Torah law.

The Talmudic passage states in connection with this matter: "'... My sheep ... you are men' (Ez. 34:31); you [Jews] are called 'adam' [men], and the idol worshippers are not called 'adam' [men]".

Commentators explain that the use of the word 'men' [adam] in this passage is similar to the use of the word 'person' in modern national law codes. When such a law code uses the term 'person' the reference is not universal but is restricted to those persons who are bound by that national law code.

Similarly in the case at hand the laws of ritual impurity apply only to Jews and not to non-Jews. The passage should thus be understood as follows:

"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that for the purpose of legal enactments the term 'person' refers to Jews, who are bound by the law, and does not refer to non-Jews who are not bound by the law". It is interesting to note that the proof text is taken from Ezekiel Chapter 34 in which Israel is compared to sheep.

Another interpretation given by commentators is that when the context is negative (as in a discussion of ritual impurity caused by a corpse or the commission of a sin) the word 'man' is used to refer to Jews only (in this
way not bringing shame on the name 'Israel'), but when the context is positive then the word includes all of mankind.

With this understanding the Talmudic passage should be understood as follows:

"It is a general rule of interpretation in the Torah that in a negative context such as that of ritual impurity the word 'man' refers to Jews only, and not to non-Jews".

This sentence appears three times in the Talmud; the reference in Baba Mezia 114a is tangential and therefore the subject is not developed at any length. An honest reader would follow the cross-references to the other locations and note that in Kerithoth 6b the Talmud points out that the application of this principle of interpretation is questionable in any event.

Yevamot 61a is the third place in which this rule of interpretation is mentioned and in this location the commentators on the page also point out that this rule of interpretation has very limited use. They specifically cross reference to the Talmudic statements in Avoda Zara 3a and Sanhedrin 59a which compare non-Jews who engage in Torah study to the High Priest.
Michael Gruda (mgruda@netvision.net.il) v