GENTILES
-- Part Three

To recap the major points of previous articles:  The word “Goy,”

translated "Gentile," as used by the Talmud, denotes a pagan, or

idol-worshipper.  It could not refer to Christians as the word

“Christian” had not yet been coined.  The followers of Jesus of Nazareth

were a small, breakaway sect  of Jews.  Nor could the word refer to

Moslems, as Mohamed had not yet been born.



Second, Jews may not murder, or rob, or cheat a Gentile.  Nevertheless,

a rabbinical court cannot enforce the law because of a lack of

reciprocity in Gentile law.  These facts were discovered while

examining Mr. Hoffman's own "citations" from the Talmud, (article

) which he distorted to "prove" the

very opposite proposition!



Mr. Hoffman's blatant distortions continue under yet another bogus

subtitle:



	Jews May Steal from Non-Jews



	Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile

	(>heathen<) it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also

	in Baba Kamma 113b).



	Sanhedrin 76a . God will not spare a Jew who >marries his

	daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or

	returns a lost article to a Cuthean...<



Note that the subtitle says, "steal," but the citations say "return a

lost article!"  Mr. Hoffman obviously lost sight of the fact that his

work would be under scrutiny in his rabid zeal to subvert the truth!



Let me address the second citation first, since it is merely a wise saw,

and not a ruling on some obscure point of law.  The full quote is:



	Rab Judah said in Rab's name:  One who marries his daughter to

	an old man or takes a wife for his infant son, or returns a

	lost article to a Cuthean, -- concerning him the Scriptures

	sayeth, [_that he bless himself in his heart saying, I shall

	have peace, though I walk in the imagination of my heart] to

	add drunkedness to thirst:  The Lord will not spare him._

			-- Sanhedrin, p. 517



And it is accompanied by this footnote:



	Deut. XXIX, 18ff. i.e., the associations involved in these

	practices are displeasing in the eyes of the Lord.  [How bitter

	must have been the persecution of the Jews under Ardeshir

	to have provoked gentle Rab to this harsh utterance.]

			-- Sanhedrin, p. 517, n. 7



So, what's the point?  The point is that Rab was not issuing a ruling on

talmudic law; he did not say it was a sin to return the lost article; he

was venting his spleen at personal political persecution; and he was

warning people to make the extra effort and sacrifice necessary to

associate only with worthy souls.





Now, let me proceed to the other "citation" above, namely:



	Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile

	(>heathen<) it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also

	in Baba Kamma 113b).



This is not an exact quotation from the Talmud.  The actual passage

reads:



	If one finds therein  a lost object, then if the majority are

	Israelites it has to be announced,...

		-- Baba Mezia, p. 151



I interrupt this citation to offer this brief explanation of what the

Talmud means by the phrase, "it has to be announced."  Briefly, if a Jew

finds a lost article, then the next time he goes to Jerusalem to

celebrate a major holiday, he must announce that he has found the lost

article in a public forum.  To claim a lost article the owner must give

the finder proof of ownership in the form of some unique distinguishing

mark or identifying feature of the lost article.  If no one claims the

article after three holidays, the finder may keep it.



	...but if the majority are heathens it has not to be announced.

		-- Baba Mezia, p. 151



Note that it never says the lost article belongs to a heathen, and

indeed it may have been lost by a Jew.  This is affirmed by a footnote

which appears two pages previous to the quoted passage, but at the start

of this particular discussion:



	Heathens do not return lost articles (v. _infra_ p. 152, n.

	3), and consequently do not come within the provision of the

	law relating to the announcement of finds.  Moreover, according

	to Tosaf., even if it were certain that the article belonged to

	an Israelite, there would be no need to return it  because the

	owner, presuming that a heathen found it, would despair of

	recovering it, v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 666.

		-- Baba Mezia, p. 149, n. 6.



And this footnote refers to another just one page beyond Mr. Hoffman's

cited passage:



	...as the majority of the inhabitants of the place are heathens

	who do not return lost articles, the owner must be assumed to

	have abandoned the hope of recovering the lost goods.

		-- Baba Mezia, p. 152, n. 3.



Although the first footnote was two pages away from Mr. Hoffman's

cited passage, he should have discovered it for two reasons.  First, he

owes it to his audience to thoroughly research the Talmud, not nitpick

at a phrase here, a sentence there.



Second, Mr. Hoffman wrote:



	(Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).



This is the passage referred to in the footnote I cited above as

"B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 666," and this passage in Baba Kamma in turn refers

directly back to this footnote!



	His lost article is permissible,...

			-- Baba Kamma, p. 666.



	I.e., it is not subject to the law of lost property;

	Deut. XXII, 1-3.  V. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p.149, n. 6.

			-- Baba Kamma, p. 666, n. 4



What is most interesting in the Baba Kamma passage is the way it ends:



	It was taught: R. Phinehas b. Yair said that where there was a

	danger of causing a profanation of the Name, [Of Israel and his

	God; V. The Chief Rabbi's commentary on Lev. XXII, 32. --

	Footnote 9] even the retaining of a lost article of a heathen

	is a crime.	-- Baba Kamma, p. 666



When would keeping the lost article of a heathen result in "a

profanation of the Name of God?"  The obvious answer is when the finder

knows who the loser is but still keeps the "lost" article -- which is

not the case discussed above where the finding of the lost article must

be announced.



Remarkable how the finely honed skills of such a "scholar" as

Mr. Hoffman caused him to overlook such glaring evidence when it

contradicted his pet prejudices!



--

Harry Katz



He who raises a hand against a fellow man, even if he injure him not,

is called wicked.

	-- The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud, Madison C. Peters, ed.