Scott 4th): I will respond specifically in regards to the challange I
Responding to your own challenge? Wish you'd respond to mine and
answer the qestions I posed to you.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): I had asked QUOTE"Prove conclusively the
Talmud teaches a man may have sex with a young girl or boy & that this
behavior is condoned as moral.." and I did NOT GET a meaningful answer.
You got a perfectly meaningful and relevant answer. I will give
you the highlight again:
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
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): Like I said Vox's attacks on Judaism are
identical to Jack Chick's attacks on Catholicism and both are just as ignorant
in regards to the subject matter they attemp to polemic. Anyone can compare
Vox's fringe crank charges against the Talmud with these sober responses
from Rabbis in the links below & see that for themselves.
Yes, anyone can see for themselves. Read the Talmud, read what Jewish
converts have said about it, read what Popes have said about it.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): Just like anyone can compare Jack Chick's fruity
charges against Catholicism to the sober & reasonable responses of Catholic
Apologists & faithful Priests & see they are what they are: hysterical,
ignorant crankery. Ask yourself who sounds more reasonable & who sounds
like a crank. I think it's self evident.
Yes, ask yourself who sounds reasonable here and who sounds as if he
is reacting in the spirit of "hysterical, ignorant crankery."
Scott 4th): Anyway I do not believe the Talmud teaches a man may have
sex with an underage little girl.
One who seduces an underage girl is considered as if he had raped her [i.e.,
the laws applicable to rapists would apply to the molester].
Whoever has licentious relations with a woman without marriage bonds is lashed
by biblical mandate. This is the Short verson of Vox's "Proof" text.(BTW
thanks for putting it in context. I'll give you that not that it helps you
First, be clear. "Underage" to Americans means age 18. In the
Talmud, it is 3 years and 1 day for females. Second, who said anything
about sex outside of marriage? You are obfuscating the issue and
ignoring the fact that three years old girls can marry according to
the Talmud. Niddah 44b:
MISHNAH. A girl
of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; if
the yabam had intercourse with her, he acquires her thereby; the guilt of
adultery may be incurred through her, and she causes uncleanness to
the man who had intercourse with her so that he in turn conveys uncleanness
to that upon which he lies, as to a garment which has lain upon [A Zab].
If she was married to a priest, she may eat Terumah. If any of the
ineligible persons cohabited with her he disqualifies her from the priesthood.
If any of the forbidden degrees enumerated in the Torah cohabited with her
he is to be executed on her account, but she is exempt [from the
penalty]. If one was younger than this age intercourse with her is like putting
a finger in the eye.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed
by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years
and one day old. What is the practical difference between them? The
school of R Jannai replied: The practical difference between them is the
day preceding the first day of the fourth year. R. Johanan, however, replied:
The practical difference between them is the rule that thirty days of a year
are counted as the full year.
An objection was raised: A girl of the age of three years and even one of
the age of two years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir.
But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old.
Moving on to Folio
Now, all is well
according to R. Johanan, for just as there is a Tanna who holds that one
day of a year is counted as a year so there may also be a Tanna who holds
that thirty days of a year are counted as a full year; but, according to
R. Jannai, does not this present a difficulty? This is a difficulty.
If one was younger than this age, intercourse with her is like putting
a finger in the eye. It was asked, Do the features of virginity disappear
and reappear again or is it possible that they cannot be completely destroyed
until after the third year of her age? In what practical respect could this
matter? In one, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with
her before the age of three and found blood, and when he had intercourse
after the age of three he found no blood. If you grant that they disappear
and reappear again [it might well be assumed] that there 'was not sufficient
time for their reappearance, but if you maintain that they cannot be destroyed
until after the age of three years it would be obvious that a stranger cohabited
with her. Now what is your decision? R. Hiyya son of R. Ika demurred:
But who can tell us that a wound inflicted within the three years is not
healed forthwith, seeing it is possible that it is immediately healed and
it would thus be obvious that a stranger had cohabited with her? Rather the
practical difference is the case, for instance, where her husband had intercourse
with her while she was under three years of age and found blood and when
he had intercourse after the age of three he also found blood. If you grant
that the features disappear and reappear again the blood might well be treated
as that of virginity, but if you maintain that they cannot be destroyed until
after the age of three years, that must be the blood of menstruation. Now
what is your decision? R. Hisda replied, Come and hear: If one was
younger than this age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the
eye; what need was there to state, 'like putting a finger in the eye' instead
of merely saying: if one was younger than this age, intercourse with
her is of no consequence'? Does not this then teach us that as the eye tears
and tears again so do the features of virginity disappear and reappear again.
Our Rabbis taught: It is related of Justinia the daughter of 'Aseverus son
of Antonius that she once appeared before Rabbi 'Master', she said to him,
'at what age may a woman marry?'. 'At the age of three years and one day',
he told her. 'And at what age is she capable of conception?' 'At the age
of twelve years and one day', he replied. 'I', she said to him, 'married
at the age of six and bore a child at the age of seven; alas for the three
years that I have lost at my father's house'. But can a woman conceive at
the age of six years? Did not R. Bibi recite in the presence of R. Nahman:
Three classes of woman may use an absorbent in their marital intercourse:
A minor, and an expectant and a nursing mother. The minor, because otherwise
she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother, because otherwise
she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal. A nursing mother,
because otherwise she might have to wean her child prematurely, and this
would result in his death. And what is the age of such a 'minor'? From the
age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One
who is under or over this age must carry on her marital intercourse in a
normal manner; so R. Meir. But the Sages ruled: The one as well as the other
carries on her marital intercourse in a normal manner and mercy will be
vouchsafed from heaven, for it is said in Scripture, The Lord preserveth
the simple? If you wish I might reply: Whose flesh is as the flesh
of asses. And if you prefer I might reply: Whose mouth speaketh falsehood,
and their right hand is a right hand of lying.
Our Rabbis taught: A story is told of a certain woman who came before R.
Akiba and said to him, 'Master, intercourse has been forced upon me when
I was under three years of age; what is my position towards the priesthood?'
'You are fit for the priesthood', he replied. 'Master', she continued, 'I
will give you a comparison; to what may the incident be compared? To a babe
whose finger was submerged in honey. The first time and the second time he
cries about it, but the third time he sucks it'. 'If so', he replied, 'you
are unfit for the priesthood'. Observing that the students were looking at
each other, he said to them, 'Why do you find the ruling difficult?' 'Because',
they replied, 'as all the Torah is a tradition that was handed to Moses at
Sinai so is the law that a girl under the age of three years is fit for the
priesthood one that was handed to Moses at Sinai'. R. Akiba too made his
statement only for the purpose of exercising the wits of the students.
MISHNAH. If a boy of the age of nine years and one day cohabited with
his childless brother's widow, he acquires her thereby, but he
cannot divorce her until he attains his majority. He contracts uncleanness
through intercourse with a menstruant and he in turn conveys the same
degree of uncleanness to that upon which he lies as [does A Zab] to
that which has lain upon him. He disqualifies a woman from the priesthood,
but cannot confer upon one the right to eat Terumah. He renders a beast invalid
for the altar, and it is stoned on his account. If he had intercourse
with any of the forbidden degrees that are enumerated in the Torah, she is
to be executed on his account, though he is exempt from punishment.
GEMARA. But when he attains his majority, is a divorce alone sufficient?
Was it not taught: The cohabitation of a boy of nine years of age was given
the same validity as that of a ma'amar by an adult; as a ma'amar by an adult
requires a divorce in respect of his ma'amar and halizah in respect of his
marital bond so does the cohabitation of a boy of nine years of age require
a divorce in respect of his ma'amar and halizah in respect of his marital
bond? Rab replied: It is this that was meant:
>Come and hear!
A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition,
Scott 4th): I reply: Coition is the act by which a VALID marriage is
contracted by both parties agreeing to marry(of course in the case of an
underage girl Her Father would have to agree on her behalf) then they have
sex to seal the deal & boom they are validly married. Here is what Vox
left unexplanted because he (she?)clearly isn't interested in treating the
Talmud objectively or fairly he is just trying to vindicate his fellow cranks
& their slanders & smears. 1) The Rabbis FORBID Jews from contracting
marriages threw coition & some of them even argue it merits the death
penalty for adults to practice coition.
Not according to the Talmud, relevant excerpts of which can be read above.
Scott 4th): 2) The Talmud teaches it's a fobbiden SIN for a Jewish Father
to give his daughter in marriage while she is underage.
Where "underage" means less than three years and one day old.
Scott 4th): 3) Even thought both these things are sinful in Judaism
nevertheless Judaism teaches such marriages are VALID. Thus a "A maiden aged
three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition" but elsewhere
the Talmud says it's a sin. In summary underage marriages & coition are
sinful but if contracted both marriages are valid.
Your last line, "In summary underage marriages & coition are sinful
but if contracted both marriages are valid" can be read, according to the
Talmud, thus: "In summary, marriages and coition with girls who are less
than three years and one day old are sinful, but if contracted, both marriages
are valid. In the case of coition with one of such an age, it is like putting
a finger in the eye anyway. Marriage and coition with girls over three years
and one day old are not sinful, though one must remain aware of laws pertaining
to the Niddah (which entails not only menstruation, but vaginal bleeding
of any sort -- the "fruits" of which were (are?) closely examined by
Scott 4th): Sex outside of a marriage is strictly forbidden (Maimonides,
Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 1:4, Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 2:17; Shulchan
Aruch, Even HaEzer 26:1, 177:5) as is this obvious case of child abuse. The
Talmud is only discussing ex post facto what would happen if such a case
Once again, we are not talking about sex outside of marriage.
We are talking about married toddlers.
Scott 4th): It is not UNLIKE Underage Ordination(can be looked up in
the Catholic Encylopedia) in Catholicism. If I took my One Year Old Baptised
Son to the bishop & somehow talked him into consecrating my Son a Bishop
then little Jimmy would VALIDLY be a bishop. But of course it would be a
mortal sin to for both the Bishop & I to do this but Jimmy would have
the powers of a Bishop & there ARE canon laws governing how a underage
child who recieves illicit ordination must be dealt with. Strange Vox as
a Catholic you never learned the difference between valid & licit?
I am fully aware of the differences between validity and liceity, but
your analogy fails in any case. The Talmud says that a girl of three years
and one day of age can be married and, er, "loved" by her
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): Thus I renew my challenge. Prove conclusively
the Talmud teaches a man MAY have sex with a young girl or boy & that
this behavior is condoned as moral. You have failed to do this. Your response
is a joke. Thought I will spot you points for at LEAST giving the quote in
context. Thought it hardly helped you. A dicussion on wuther you should still
slay a beast an Israelite has had sex with in ignorance doesn't really prove
your claim or refute mine.
I have proven my case. Speaking of Israelites having sex with beasts,
what did you think about that part concerning what should happen to
trees that are sexually molested?
>ponder how strange it is for a Catholic (you) to go about defending the
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): I reply: Why because it's a "Jewish" Commentary
on the Mishna (which in turn was a Commentary on the Torah) and THAT makes
it OK to lie & misrepresent it? Since when?
Say what? There has been no misrepresentation.
>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.
I reply: If the above where the SOLE charges you made against the Talmud
I would not be complaining. But LYING about the Talmud & claiming it
teaches men may have sex with children (among MANY other lies refuted in
the links above) is evil sinful slander. It causes scandel & it serves
as a stumbling block to Jews accepting Jesus as the Messiah. I will not have
I won't have lies and slander, either, though it is amazing how
easy it for so many Catholics to only even consider the possibility
of "lies" and "slander" when it comes to things such as the
contents of the Talmud. It's very easy to lie about and slander fellow
Catholics (e.g., "That site is radtrad, they don't accept the Council, they
hate JPII, they love tradition more than Christ" and such.)
no qualms about slandering a fellow Catholic.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): I reply: I have not slandered you I have
corrected you & refuted you.
I believe you think you have corrected me. That is, I think that
you truly believe what you are saying and I don't impugn your motives
in this regard. But you are incorrect, and you have slandered me.
Scott 4th): BTW I am tempted to answer the other of Vox's massive errors
(his novel untraditional understanding of Judaizing is priceless) stated
in his response but as the old saying goes a donkey can ask more questions
than a wise man can answer. If that is true of a wise man then what changes
does a goof like me have?
You were the one asking questions.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): So I ask again Vox put up or shut up. Prove
conclusively the Talmud teaches a man MAY have sex with a young girl or boy
& that this behavior is condoned as moral.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): The above is about as likely as Jack Chick
"proving" the Popes & Eccumenical Council clearly teach sinners can be
justified by their own natural good works done apart from Divine Grace(Council
of Trent Session Six, Canon One anybody?).
It's a binary thing -- 1 or 0, True or False, On or Off. Jack Chick is
wrong in his perceptions of Catholic doctrine pertaining to justification.
I am not wrong about what the Talmud teaches about sex with married girls
who have reached the age of three years and one day.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): In a like manner how Vox will justify his
(her?) slanders in the face of Mishneh Torah, Tractate Yevamot, & all
those other citations THAT CLEARLY UNAMBIGIOUSLY teach a man MAY NOT have
sex with a young girl & state CLEARLY such behavior is immoral will be
Hope you enjoyed the show. I didn't; I'd much rather be doing other things.
Scott 4th): Of course Papal condemnations of the Talmud don't mean anything
for reasons I have told Tim F in another comments box. So Vox don't bore
me with those just answer the question or concede you are wrong.
It is amazing how you can write about how Papal condemnations of the
Talmud don't mean a thing, and Catholics say nothing. Meanwhile, I
am accused of hating and mocking JPII because I made a random speech
generator as a joke (BTW, I don't hate John Paul II. I think that he was
a very weak Pope, that he isn't deserving of this "the Great" title
that is tacked on to his name, and that he did/allowed some truly scandalous
things (appointing Mahony and Weakland as Cardinals, the Assisi events,
kissing the Qu'ran). I also think he was a warm, lovable, charismatic
man whose grandfatherly style was beautiful. And, yes, the generator was
most definitely a joke, not a jibe.).
>a book that
calls Our Lord's mother a whore, a book that says that Our Lord is boiling
in hot excrement in Hell.
Rosemarie: Maybe not? http://talmud.faithweb.com/artic.../ jesusnarr.html
Personally I would hold too the "Hazy History" theory mentioned by Gil.
Rosemarie: Augustine said the "Children of Heretics are not True
Heretics they are only responding faithfully to what they have been taught
in Error." So you can't morally condemn the Talmud since the Rabbis who wrote
it are only faithfully following what the Pharasees taught them a generation
after Our Lord. Besides Christian & Messianic Jewish Apologists often
make good use of the Talmud to prove Jesus is the Messiah.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. That's like saying "Tom Cruise
is only responding faithfully to what he was taught in error, so we
can't morally condemn L. Ron Hubbard's 'Dianetics' because when he
wrote it, he was confused."
The subjective culpability of any given rabbi for writing, believing,
or teaching what is in the Talmud is up to God and God alone. He is the Judge,
not us, when it comes to human souls. But the contents of the Talmud
are objectively blasphemous and cruel to non-Jews, and must be condemned
by any right-thinking person.
Rosemarie: Besides Christian & Messianic Jewish Apologists often
make good use of the Talmud to prove Jesus is the Messiah.
And one can use cow poop to grow strawberries. I'm not sure exactly
what your point is.
Anyway as Sandra M once pointed out the reason the Pope banned the Talmud
was because they rightly or wrongly concluded the Talmud prevented the Jews
from accepting Jesus.
And there used to be a long list of Forbidden Books which no Catholic
could read, too, so any intimations of "antisemitism" are shot right there.
Popes used to be much more involved in protecting people from error.
If the Pope's pastoral policies are not infallible post Vatican II then they
can hardly be infallible pre-Vatican II.
This is over-the-top hilarious. Here I am, falsely accused of
being a "radtrad" (when I am not), and a Talmud-defending Catholic is telling
me about the fallibility of post-Conciliar pastoral policies (why, if
I were to have mentioned the fallibility of pastoral policies, I'd be accused
of being a Pope-basher).
Pastoral policies aside, it is clear that the Talmud is not a book to be
defended by Catholics, though it should be dealt with honestly, of course,
and with Truth as the objective.
Rosemarie: Additionally as Gil said "the authors of the Talmud did
not believe in Jesus' messiahship or his divinity. If you are looking for
Christian fellowship then Jewish literature is not the place to look."
Who'd go looking for "Christian fellowship" in any book, most
especially the Talmud?
Now seriously, you two, let's shake hands and be at peace.