| BenYachov(Jim
Scott 4th): I will respond specifically in regards to the
challange I have made.
| Response: 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.
Response: 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 becomes his.
|
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.
| Response: 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.
| Response: Yes, ask yourself who sounds reasonable
here and who sounds as if he is reacting in the spirit of
"hysterical, ignorant crankery." |
BenYachov(Jim
Scott 4th): Anyway I do not believe the Talmud teaches a man may
have sex with an underage little girl.
Tractate Yevamot
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].
Mishneh Torah,
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 nonexistent case).
Response: 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 45a:
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,
BenYachov(Jim
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.
| Response: Not according to the Talmud, relevant
excerpts of which can be read above. |
BenYachov(Jim
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.
| Response: Where "underage" means less than three
years and one day old. |
BenYachov(Jim
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.
| Response: 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 rabbis)." |
BenYachov(Jim
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 arose.
| Response: Once again, we are not
talking about sex outside of marriage. We are
talking about married toddlers. |
BenYachov(Jim
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?
| Response: 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 husband. |
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.
| Response: 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 Talmud
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?
| Response: 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 it.
| Response: 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.) |
>while
having no qualms about slandering a fellow Catholic.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th): I reply: I have not slandered
you I have corrected you & refuted you.
| Response: 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. |
BenYachov(Jim
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?
| Response: 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.
Response: Behold  |
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?).
| Response: 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 most entertaining.
| Response: Hope you enjoyed the show. I didn't; I'd
much rather be doing other things. |
BenYachov(Jim
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.
| Response: 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.
Response: 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.
| Response: And one can use cow poop to grow
strawberries. I'm not sure exactly what your point is. |
Rosemarie:
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.
| Response: 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. |
Rosemarie:
If the Pope's pastoral policies are not infallible post
Vatican II then they can hardly be infallible pre-Vatican II.
Response: 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."
Response: 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. |
|
