Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-19-2011, 05:45 PM

So are you withdrawing the charges about pedophilia?

Another link I gave you, that you didn't click, discusses the Schindler's List issue:

Nizkor

Quote:

We are told that the inscription is from the Talmud, "He who saves a single life, saves the entire world." (This quotation also appears on posters advertising Schindler's List in video stores and schools, apparently having been selected as the film's motto by its promoters).

The saying has a nice, warm, humanistic tenor, but there's just one problem: that's not what the Talmud says. The actual Talmud verse states, "Whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a complete world" (Tractate Sanhedrin 37a). The Talmud only praises the saving of Jewish lives. In Spielberg's non-stop deception, even the documented contents of Jewish books are falsified.

<<<<<

To my knowledge this accusation of falsification is simply wrong. Both quotes appear in different Talmud books, the first quote "He who saves a single life, saves the entire world." apparently comes from the Talmud Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 4:9), whilst the other quote "Whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a complete world" comes from the Talmud Bavli (Bava Batra 11a and elsewhere).

It is true that Jewish people consider the Talmud Bavli more authoritative, but nevertheless it is wrong to state that Spielberg is falsifying the contents of Jewish books in this particular case.

stephan huller · 08-20-2011, 09:43 AM

It doesn't matter which reading the Jews consider the more authoritative. Authority in law has a lot to do with how a case proceeds through the legal system. For instance in American law a local judge might rule first but then the Supreme Court might DECIDE on a case and that becomes the authoritative judgement. The Palestinian Talmud is undoubtedly MORE ORIGINAL (= earlier) than the material preserved in the Babylonian Talmud. As a historian I couldn't care less about which has greater legal weight. I want to know which is the earliest preservation of the saying. The story goes back to Akiva so it is Palestinian. The Palestinian Talmud is earlier and likely preserves the original form of the saying.

This is a stupid argument. Really, really stupid. Hate is an emotion. Strong arguments rarely develop from emotive states. There are hundred reasons to reject any religion's teachings. An appeal to emotions and prejudices is by far the least effective. If Little Dot really wants to disprove Judaism the place to begin is to go back to the fact that in the earliest period Jews believed only the ten utterances came from heaven (= the rest were man made). The Samaritans deny the sanctity of any of the writings outside of the Pentateuch. The Karaites any of the oral tradition. These are more powerful arguments than the stuff anti-Semites come up. But then again most anti-Semites want to preserve the sanctity of the fruit (= the writings invented by the Jews) but cut down the tree that produced them (= the Jewish people). It doesn't work like that. Apples need an apple tree to grow. The Jewish writings needed Jews.

semiopen · 08-22-2011, 06:48 AM

I assume the movie Schindler's List is sort of a side topic, but there is no question that Jews and Gentiles are valued differently.

Jews Are Called -- Man
The Distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Torah

Regarding killing gentiles -

Quote:

1. One who kills a Gentile, and even a ger toshav, is not put to death for this by the Beit Din, even if he kills him with intent. This is clearly stated in the Torah and in the words of Chazal.

2. In the opinion of the HaRa'aban, one who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of "You shall not murder," and in the opinion of Maimonides, the Yeare'im, and Rabbi David HaKochavi, the murder of a Gentile is not included in this negative commandment. However, according to all opinions there exists a prohibition in this matter, as is clear from the words of Chazal.

So the Torah differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile with regards to the killing of a man.

Regarding Saving of Life

Quote:

It must be pointed out that a Jew who wanted to engage himself in the saving of the life of a Gentile which involved a transgression of the Sabbath, and did so in front of witnesses and after being warned, is put to death by the Beit Din -- this is self evident.

I'm not sure about this.

Shabbat and Gentile Lives

Gil Student argues that there is no basis for not saving Gentile Lives. I'd tend to agree with him but the last paragraph is interesting - he wrote the paper after the death of Dr. Shahak who was involved in the great telephone scandal.

Quote:

When Dr. Shahak criticized Judaism of being racist by denying medical treatment to Gentiles on Shabbat, he was wrong on many counts. First, this is not practiced today[65], as can be evidenced by the treatment of Gentiles by Jewish doctors in Sha’arei Tzedek Hospital in Jerusalem or by Hatzoloh volunteers in New York. Second, the determination is not race-driven. In theory, it applies to both non-religious Jews and Gentiles. It also does not apply to all Gentiles. As we have seen from Ramban, we are allowed to violate Shabbat to save Gentiles who have officially accepted on themselves to live righteous lives. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the permission, or lack thereof, to violate Shabbat to save someone’s life is not in any way a valuation of that person’s life because no life, whether Jewish or Gentile, is more important than Shabbat.

First he says it is not practiced today - thank God. There apparently is some sort of "determination" which is not racially based, and there is no problem with followers of the

Seven_Laws_of_Noah which Chabad somehow got the US Congress to accept. If the issue of saving a gentile's life on Shabbat came up, the answer isn't a slam dunk of yes. One advantage of not being Shomer Shabbat is that this issue doesn't ever come up on a practical basis.

The NY Times: Can Jews Save Non-Jewish Lives On The Sabbath?

Quote:

The sad fact is that there is little, if any, halakhic (Jewish legal) support for the doctor's position on the origin of the rabbinic permission to save non-Jews on the Sabbath. Non-Jews are saved because, if we did not do so, non-Jews would not save us and, worse yet, may actually kill us. That is the rabbinic reasoning behind the loophole that allows us (not "commands us," allows us) to save non-Jewish life on the Sabbath or at other times and locations where such lifesaving would be in conflict with Jewish law.

Whatever the technical complexities of murder and saving, there is a completely different set of rules for Jewish relationships with Gentiles.

semiopen · 08-23-2011, 07:36 AM

Maybe this thread is dying a merciful death but it is worth pointing out that the Talmud supposedly recounts the oral law given by Moses in addition to some other shit that is pretty much mixed up with it.

The stick in the snatch issue is probably not from Moses but the superiority of Jews over Gentiles is. That is, it can be convincingly demonstrated by a careful reading of the Pentateuch.

Therefore as odd as some of this stuff might be, the Rabbis can't really be blamed except for maybe taking the whole thing too seriously.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-20-2011, 09:43 AM	#72
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It doesn't matter which reading the Jews consider the more authoritative. Authority in law has a lot to do with how a case proceeds through the legal system. For instance in American law a local judge might rule first but then the Supreme Court might DECIDE on a case and that becomes the authoritative judgement. The Palestinian Talmud is undoubtedly MORE ORIGINAL (= earlier) than the material preserved in the Babylonian Talmud. As a historian I couldn't care less about which has greater legal weight. I want to know which is the earliest preservation of the saying. The story goes back to Akiva so it is Palestinian. The Palestinian Talmud is earlier and likely preserves the original form of the saying. This is a stupid argument. Really, really stupid. Hate is an emotion. Strong arguments rarely develop from emotive states. There are hundred reasons to reject any religion's teachings. An appeal to emotions and prejudices is by far the least effective. If Little Dot really wants to disprove Judaism the place to begin is to go back to the fact that in the earliest period Jews believed only the ten utterances came from heaven (= the rest were man made). The Samaritans deny the sanctity of any of the writings outside of the Pentateuch. The Karaites any of the oral tradition. These are more powerful arguments than the stuff anti-Semites come up. But then again most anti-Semites want to preserve the sanctity of the fruit (= the writings invented by the Jews) but cut down the tree that produced them (= the Jewish people). It doesn't work like that. Apples need an apple tree to grow. The Jewish writings needed Jews.

08-23-2011, 07:36 AM	#74
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	Maybe this thread is dying a merciful death but it is worth pointing out that the Talmud supposedly recounts the oral law given by Moses in addition to some other shit that is pretty much mixed up with it. The stick in the snatch issue is probably not from Moses but the superiority of Jews over Gentiles is. That is, it can be convincingly demonstrated by a careful reading of the Pentateuch. Therefore as odd as some of this stuff might be, the Rabbis can't really be blamed except for maybe taking the whole thing too seriously.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.