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.

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:

The background 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 Reform synagogue.

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.

• 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
• who consistently put down "historical Christianity" or "European Christianity" (code words for "Catholicism") in order to defend Jewish history, and/or
• who interpret 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 common)
• 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.

Quite obviously 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 traditional Catholic practices that have been done away with since the Council.

http://www.moshiach.com/action/morality/introduction.php
http://www.noahide.com -- see especially http://www.noahide.com/finalwar.htm
http://www.chabad.org
http://www.chabad.com