In article ,
hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:
Translations: The translators of the Talmud sometimes translate
the Hebrew word goyim (Gentiles) under any number of terms such
as heathen, Cuthean, Egyptian, idolater etc. But these are
actually references to Gentiles (all non-Jews). See for example
footnote 5 of the Soncino edition Talmud: Cuthean (Samaritan)
was here substituted for the original goy...
In my last article in this series I established that all of these
substitutions that Mr. Hoffman attributes to translators were actually
forced on the Talmud by Medieval Christian censors. What sense does it
make for the translator to change the word and then add a footnote to
point up the change?
Furthermore, the word “goy” has undergone considerable evolution in the
millenia that have passed since it was first coined. The original
Hebrew meaning of goy is "nation." In Genesis XII:2, the Lord tells
Abraham, “I will make of you a great 'goy' [nation].” “Goyim” is the
plural and referred again to "nations."
By the time the Talmud was composed, the word came to indicate
individual non-Jews, or Gentiles, but not Christians nor Moslems.
Islam, of course, had not been revealed as yet, and “Christianity” was
a word that had not been coined yet, the followers of Jesus still being
mainly Jews. The word “goy” as employed in the Talmud refers either to
immigrants from neighboring pagan countries, or to the Roman occupation
forces. Therefore, the alternate terms of heathen, star-gazer,
idolator, etc. are quite apt. Moreover, the occasional outbursts of
venom against “goyim” are directed at the cruel and inhuman policies of
the Roman occupational administration.
Christians are sometimes referred to by the code word
Min or Minim.
Far from being a code word, Min (plural, Minim) means “heretic,” as I
am sure is explained in some footnote or other in the Soncino
translation. The word was applied mainly to Gnostics, and sometimes
to followers of Jesus, although the distinction between the two groups
could often be blurry during the formative years of Christianity.
Mr. Hoffman continues, pompously:
It is the standard disinformation practice of the Pharisees to
deny the existence of the following Talmudic scriptures...
The Talmud is not “scripture!” That word is reserved for the Bible --
the so-called "Old Testament" -- as even the most casual glance at the
Soncino translation will clearly prove. To apply the term "scripture"
to the Talmud can only serve to confuse the issues under discussion.
...and to claim they are the fabrications of >>anti-Semites.<<
This disinformation can only obtain cachet among those too lazy
to go to the English-language books of the Talmud and look these
passages up for themselves.
It took me a bit of time but I managed to follow Mr. Hoffman's advice
to the letter and what I discovered shocked me! I discovered that Mr.
Hoffman is a brazen and shameless weasel! For example, he presents this
"citation," under a subtitle of his own creation:
Jews Have Superior Legal Status
Baba Kamma 37b. >If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a
Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite
gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full.<
Mr. Hoffman could hardly have missed footnote 6, on page 211, as it
refers directly to this passage:
As Canaanites did not recognize the laws of social justice,
they did not impose any liablitity for damage done by cattle.
They could consequently not claim to be protected by a law they
neither recognized nor respected... In ancient Israel as in the
modern state the legislation regulating the protection of life
and property of the stranger was... on the basis of
reciprocity. Where such reciprocity was not recognized, the
stranger could not claim to enjoy the same protection of the
law as the citizen.
This particular footnote is referred to in several other passages in
the Soncino Talmud that Mr. Hoffman “cites,” such as this one:
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews
Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies (>subterfuges<)
to circumvent a Gentile.
A footnote to the passage above refers to the previous footnote. In
other words, this is a case of legal non-reciprocity. That this passage
is directly related to the preceding one, is apparent from the
full citation:
Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you
can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify
him and say: 'This is _our_ law'; also if you can justify
him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the
other party:] 'This is _your_law'; but if this cannot be done,
we use subterfuges to circumvent him. This is the view of R.
Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to
circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name.
Note that an opposing opinion is quoted in the very next sentence after
the one cited by Mr. Hoffman -- he could not have missed it! R. Akiba's
opinion, the one Mr. Hoffman does not see fit to mention, is the one
that is accepted as the rule. The reason given, “the sanctification of
the Name,” means that a heathen must not be goaded into cursing
against God.
Neither does Mr. Hoffman see fit to mention the very narrow
circumstances in which R. Ishmael sees subterfuge as warranted.
Nevertheless, as R. Ishmael's opinion is not accepted, R. Ishmael
himself would be required to follow R. Akiba's rule. (The strict
adherence of the talmudic rabbis to majority rule is even affirmed by
another of Mr. Hoffman's "citations" in this same article -- the story
of R. Akiba washing his hands before a meal when he had hardly enough
water to drink -- but I will not be getting around to discussing that
one in this post.)
This particular talmudic discussion continues a few lines down:
Is then the robbery of a heathen permissible? Has it not been
taught that R. Simeon stated that the following matter was
expounded by R. Akiba when he arrived from Zifirin: 'Whence can
we learn that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden? From the
significant words: _After that he is sold he may be redeemed
again,_ which implies
that he could not withdraw and leave him [without paying
the redemption money].
That is, an Israelite may not be freed from servitude to a Gentile
without paying compensation to the Gentile.
The debate ends with an affirmation of R. Akiba's view.
R. Bibi b. Giddal, R. Simeon the pious, and R. Huna agree, “The robbery
of a heathen is prohibited...” A footnote to this
last passage delivers the knockput punch:
...v. also Tosef. B.K. X,8 where it is stated that it is more
criminal to rob a Canaanite than to rob an Israelite...
(The abbreviation, Tosef., stands for _Tosefta_, a commentary on the
Talmud, and B.K. stands for Baba Kamma.)
In spite of which, Mr. Hoffman has the audacity, the unmitigated gall,
and the _chutzpah_ to make up subtitles for his “citations” such as,
“Jews May Steal from Non-Jews” and “Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews!”
--
Harry Katz
Rather be thou the tail among lions than the head among foxes.
-- The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud, Madison C. Peters, ed.
To Gentiles (Part Two)
Back To Censorship Of The Talmud (Part Two)
Back To Censorship Of The Talmud (Part One)
Back To The Authority Of The Talmud (Part Two)
Back To The Authority Of The Talmud (Part One)
Back To Other Contributors Index
Back To Site Index