Scott 4th): So let me get this straight "Vox" you really believe the
Talmud teaches a man may have sex with an underage little girl(like your
website claims)? Yes or no?
Yes. Sanhedrin 55b in its entirety:
since the latter
reason embraces both the reason of a stumbling block and of human degradation,
the former reason is that of stumbling block alone, e.g. when a heathen commits
bestiality! No. The second reason is that of stumbling block and of
degradation, but the first teaches that even if there is degradation without
a stumbling block, the animal is stoned, e.g., if a Jew committed bestiality
in ignorance [of the fact that it is forbidden].
Even as R. Hamnuna propounded: What if a Jew committed bestiality in ignorance;
must there have been both a stumbling block and degradation [for the animal
to be stoned] and in this case there is only degradation, but no sin; or
perhaps for degradation alone without there having been a stumbling block
[the animal is stoned]? R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged
three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her
deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty
of adultery may be incurred through her; [if a niddah] she defiles him who
has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies,
as a garment which has lain upon [a person afflicted with gonorrhoea]. If
she married a priest, she may eat of terumah; If any unfit person has a
connection with her, he disqualifies her from the priesthood If any
of the forbidden degrees had intercourse with her, they are executed on her
account,but she is exempt.Now, 'any of the forbidden degrees' implies even
a beast: in this case, there is degradation but no stumbling-block, yet it
is taught that they [including a beast] are slain on her account.[No, this
is not conclusive, as it can be argued that] since she deliberately offended
there is a stumbling-block] [though she is a minor] but the All-Merciful
One had mercy upon her; now, He shewed mercy to her, but not to the animal.
Raba said: Come and hear! A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with
his deceased brother's wife [the former having left no issue] acquires her
[as wife]. But he cannot divorce her until he attains his majority.He is
defiled through coition with a niddah,so that he in turn defiles that upon
which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon [a person afflicted with
gonorrhoea] He disqualifies [a woman from the priesthood],but cannot
enable a woman to eat [of terumah].He renders an animal unfit for the altar,and
it is stoned on his account, and if he had intercourse with one of the degrees
forbidden in the Torah, the latter is executed. Now here there is degradation,
but no stumbling-block, yet it is taught: 'It is stoned on his account.'
Since it was a deliberate offence, there is a stumbling-block, but the
All-Merciful One had mercy upon him; now, He showed mercy to him, but not
to the animal.
Come and hear! ANOTHER REASON IS THAT THE ANIMAL SHOULD NOT PASS THROUGH
THE STREETS WHILST PEOPLE SAY, 'THIS IS THE ANIMAL ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH SO
AND SO WAS STONED.' Now surely, since the latter reason embraces both
stumbling-block and degradation, the former reason refers to degradation
only, that is, when a Jew committed bestiality in ignorance. No! The second
reason is one of stumbling-block and degradation; but the first teaches that
even if there is a stumbling block without degradation, the animal is stoned,
e.g., if a heathen committed bestiality, even as it was asked of R. Shesheth.
Scott 4th): I'm supposed to take you seriously for beliving that &
speading that vile slander? Right! Sure pal let me know when Elvis gets
If you are looking for Elvis, you can find him
Scott 4th): I reply: I have done this & have concluded these
charges against the Talmud are false misrepresentations & they are morally
& intellectually no different than Jack Chick's slanders against the
Catholic Church or James McCarthy's misrepresentations of the CCC or Bill
Webster's misrepresentations of the Church Fathers(Webster quotes the Fathers
to "prove" they taught proto-Reformation doctrine & not
I have done this, and others have done this, and we've concluded they
are true, as did Popes during some of the great Disputations. One can read
the testimony of Jewish converts, too. Or one can simply
the Talmud for oneself. I will duplicate some of the Jewish-Catholic
relations section of the site here since you seem not to have read it:
The ex-Rabbi Drach,
a 19th c. convert to Catholicism, honored by Popes Leo XII, Pius VIII and
Gregory XVI, tells us about it:
For a long time
it was my professional duty to teach the Talmud and explain its doctrines,
after having attended special courses for many years under the most renowned
of contemporary Jewish Doctors.... The judicious reader of the Talmud is
often saddened by the presence of many of those strange aberrations into
which the human mind falls when bereft of the true faith, and very frequently
rabbinical cynicism makes him blush with shame. The Christian is horrified
by the insane and atrocious calumnies which the impious hatred of the Pharisees
hurls at everything he holds sacred ... In the Ghemara there are at least
a hundred passages which are insulting to the memory of Our Adorable Savior,
the more-than-angelic purity of His Holy Mother, the Immaculate Queen of
Heaven, as well as the moral character of the Christian, whom the Talmud
represents as practicing the most abominable vices.
Jane Rachel Litman
writes that, when faced with the teachings of the ancient rabbis, some Jews
respond with out and out denial. She describes a class she taught on Talmud:
sound in the small library is muted but intense. Pairs of scholars lean over
their talmudic texts whispering energetically, trying to puzzle out the meaning
of the particular sugya, passage. The teacher directs them back toward the
group and asks for questions.
One student raises a hand: "I don't understand verse 5:4 of the tractate
Niddah. What does the phrase 'it is like a finger in eye' mean?"
The teacher responds, "This refers to the hymen of a girl younger than three
years old. The Sages believed that in the case of toddler rape, the hymen
would fully grow back by the time the girl reached adulthood and married.
Therfore, though violated, she would still technically be counted as a virgin
and could marry a priest. It's an analogy: poking your finger in the eye
is uncomortable, but causes no lasting harm."
There is a collective gasp of breath among students. Their dismay is palpable.
They do not like this particular talmudic text or the men behind it. But
its authors, the talmudic rabbis, hardly wrote it with this particular group
of students in mind -- mostly thirty- and forty-year old women in suburban
Philadelphia taking a four-week class titled 'Women in Jewish Law' at their
The questioner perists. 'I don't understand. Are you saying this refers to
the rape of a three year-old girl?'
"Or younger," the teacher responds dryly.
"I don't see how it says anything about rape and hymens. You must be mistaken.
I don't believe the rabbis are talking about rape at all. I think this statement
has nothing to do with the rest of the passage."
The teacher (I'll admit now that it was me, a second-year rabbinic student)
responds, "Well, that's the common understanding. What do you think it means?"
The woman is clearly agitated, "I don't know, but I do know that it couldn't
be about child rape." This is week three of the class. The woman does not
return for week four. Denial.
Scott 4th): They use the same questionable methodology anti-Catholics
use against the Church. Like the charges from anti-Catholics they spiritually
come from the same master. Not Our Lord Jesus Christ but a master who is
a liar & the Father of Lies.
If you want to compare Popes to Jack Chick, then I have to question your
Catholicity. And what do you make of Talmud teacher Jane Rachel Litman quoted
>Do a search
for Chabad (Lubavitcher) discussion forums sometime to hear, for ex., incredibly
racist talk about how non-Jews have animal souls,
Scott 4th): I reply: I have read on so called "traditional Catholic"
websites even worse said about the Jews & even Jewish Catholics(calling
them Judaizers). So what's your point?
Some Hebrew converts are Judaizers; others aren't. Some non-Hebrew Catholics
are Judaizers; others aren't. Judaizing is a heresy (see the
Encyclopedia) -- one of the first heresies, and using the word "Judaizer"
to describe those who Judaize is akin to describing someone as a Protestant.
It's either true or not true. In other words, it's not like calling someone
The word applies to those:
who want to put
Christians back under the yoke of the Law, and/or, more recently, to those
who want to think
of Hebrew converts as a "Chosen" sub-set of the Chosen, a sort of the cream
of the Catholic crop, etc., and/or
put down "historical Christianity" or "European Christianity" (code words
for "Catholicism") in order to defend Jewish history, and/or
Nostra Aetate to say what it doesn't say (especially
with regard to ideas concerning this "dual Covenant" stuff and the necessity
of preaching the Gospel to Jewish people), and/or
who attempt to
make Catholic culture and liturgy in other ways Jewish, and/or (as is most
who simply water
down or out and out lie about what post-Temple Judaism teaches and who put
defense of post-Temple Judaism/Eretz Israel/facts of Jewish history ahead
of the defense of the Church.
if a Hebrew convert wants to light a Channukiah in December, no one would
care. Keeping family traditions as family traditions is laudable.
But to get entire Catholic parishes to have seders and such is silly and
an insult to the Mass which fulfills all that -- especially when the human
craving for ritual should be met, among Catholics, by the
Catholic practices that have been done away with since the Council.
Scott 4th): You found some fringe Jews who are racist against Gentiles?
Big deal. That still doesn't give you the right to return evil for evil nor
does it prove your slanders & misrepresentations of the Talmud correct.
It just shows you have a false conscience & that you need prayer.
|Chabad (that link is to 2,230,000 Google search returns
for the word "Chabad" -- not bad for a sub-set of 14 million people) isn't
a group of
"fringe Jews." And I've proven what the Talmud says by
duplicating it above.
should be spread -- a religion which would make the worship of Christ worthy
of punishment by decapitation (don't gape and guffaw and start to yell names;
look it up yourself from Chabad sources).
Scott 4th): I reply: Sounds like your personal interpretation of their
sacred texts(which you haven't cited just made vague ambigious inferences
about) or at best you have found a small fringe Jewish group that happens
to conform to your sterotypes & conspiracy theories.
No, quite the contrary. And if you'd bothered to follow the links in
the Jewish-Catholic Relations section of my site, you'd have seen direct
links to Jewish sources on the Noahide Laws. I will put some of the links
here since I don't think you will go look for them yourself, and since
any onlookers will see a person with a Jewish name going against one who
has been slandered as one of those "rad-trad, integrist,
more-Catholic-than-the-Pope, hatin' bigot types who probably even has a Southern
accent to boot" (even though none of those things are true about me), and
will automatically, post-Shoah, side with you and also not bother to actually
http://www.noahide.com -- see especially
Scott 4th): Much like Abe Foxman tried to portray holocaust denier Hutson
Gibson as the typical conservative traditional Catholic. Yeh that's fair!
Abe Foxman doesn't have to slam traditional Catholics; fellow Catholics
do that for us, usually in a very reaciontary, knee-jerk way. All it takes
is for one famous apologist to lay the label out there on a person, and that's
all she wrote. People like labels. It's easier than thinking.
Scott 4th): BTW Maimonides taught that Gentiles are not guilty of idolatry
for worshipping Jesus & this is the dominant view among Jews. They believe
that Gentiles are allowed to have a "defective" view of God because they
only know God through the seven Noachide laws & so can assign to God
a "partner" without being polytheists or believe that God has personified
Maimonides was either of two minds about whether Christians are idolators,
or he changed his mind about it. First he wrote that "A gentile who engages
in the study of the Torah deserves to die. He should not engage in the study
of anything but their seven commandments [i.e., the Noahide Laws] alone"
(Mishneh Torah), and that "all Torah restrictions pertaining to idolaters
pertain to them" (Commentary on the Mishnah), and then he goes on about how
Christians are easier to proselytize than Muslims, who are not generally
considered idolators. So whatever. But in any case, he put forth that "Gentiles"
should obey the Noahide Laws. Who interprets the Noahide Laws, which aren't
actually 7 Laws, but many laws that fall into 7 categories? Not the Pope,
I assure you. How will they be interpreted? See this page
Scott 4th): I studied Noachide laws & the Noachide movement &
basically they're similar to the philosophies & theories of Reformed
The Noahide Laws are classic Rambam stuff, not some new thing.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): Yet I don't see you posting hysterical
conspiracy-obessessed theories on how theonomists want to take over the world
& force all Catholics to confess sola fide & Calvinism. Gil Student
told me that Jews believe that Noachide laws will only become worldwide after
the coming of the Messiah. Since we know that when the Messiah comes again
He will be Jesus so its not really something I'm worried about, any more
than I'm worried about the Protestant theonomists.
There's a reason why my website doesn't focus on that dastardly and
infamous theonomist conspiracy to take over the world: theonomists
aren't bombing Lebanon right now; they aren't planning on bombing Iran; they
aren't stirring up Muslim hatred against my country; they don't get billions
of dollars from the U.S. every year; they don't have nuclear, biological,
and chemical weapons; they don't have the equivalent of AIPAC influencing
Washington; they don't have millions of misguided, doctrinally corrupt Christians
rallying to send their own sons to die for them; they don't have B'nai B'rith
shaping thought-crime laws all over the world; they're not spying on the
U.S., et cetera and so forth. One can speak rationally about theonomist
interests clashing with Catholic interests without being called nasty names,
Anyway, it doesn't
matter what we know about Who the Messiah is; Jews aren't expecting
the Christ. When the one they think is the Messiah is come, they will
do what they can to institute the Noahide Laws and back it up with force.
Hopefully many of the Fathers who believed that some Jews will come to Christ
in the End Times were right, but there will be an Antichrist, too -- and
before the true Christ comes.
Scott 4th): Besides, some Traditionalists believe we should create a
Catholic monarchy here in America that would punish heresy & restrict
the rights of non-Catholic Christians. Should I now then weave grand conspiracy
theories condemning all Traditionalists & citing fear in my fellow Catholics
because of the beliefs of just a few? You ought not slander the Jews in a
The only options are rule of law with someone's traditional religious
precepts behind them, rule of law with secular straw behind them, or no rule
of law at all. We can see what the second option has gotten us, and we can
imagine what the third would offer.
It isn't radical at all for a Catholic to want a nation whose laws are based
on Christian morality (Jews want a Jewish nation based on Jewish precepts,
with only Jewish immigrants having a "right to 'return'" -- and they have
one, with Yankee, "We Need More Separation of Church and State" dollars paying
the bill). Now, why would a Catholic want a nation with laws based on Muslim
morality? Or Jewish morality? Or Wiccan morality? Or secular "values"? Ever
Primas? It's an encyclical. From a Pope. It's Catholic doctrine, not
some "rad-trad, integrist, freak o' nature" bit of Kleenex.
As to monarchy, can you think of a system more divisive, more corruptible,
less forward-thinking, more swayed by money and demagoguery, and more rewarding
to the power-hungry than a democracy? Read
"Democracy: The God that Failed" sometime and then tell
me how it'd be slanderous to call someone a "monarchist."
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): Your Website Vox contain Jew Baiting conspiracy
obsessed trash that has been long refuted. At best you have defended the
charge that the Talmud makes negative references to Jesus & Mary. But
so what? I have always believed that based on secular & Jewish sources
& I don't consider pointing that out to be a slander.
But claiming the Talmud authorizes Jewish men to use little boys sexually
or little girls(& pretty much all the other extremist accusations you
put on that website) is a lie. On the same level as Jack Chick claiming we
Catholics believe Mary is a Fourth Divine Person of the Trinity. Only it's
worse because the scandal that trash gives to Jews just helps to drive them
from knowing the Messiah Yeshua and His True Church.
Anyway I issue a challenge to you. Prove conclusively the Talmud teaches
a man may have sex with a young girl or boy & that this behavior is condoned
as moral or remove the offending material from your website.
See above. And I issue a challenge to you: ponder how strange it is for
a Catholic (you) to go about defending the Talmud -- a book investigated
and found to be blasphemous by many Popes, a book that calls Our Lord's mother
a whore, a book that says that Our Lord is boiling in hot excrement in Hell
-- while having no qualms about slandering a fellow Catholic.
Now, I do wish we could metaphorically shake hands and be kind to one another.
to page two of this debate
To the Fish Eaters Website