@mhenrylaw1

@DissidentRabbi

@e2pilot

@jhirsch99

@2PT0TURBO

I'm always a bit skeptical when even my fellow Jews quote the Talmud to me in order to bolster any point. (we Jews often argue with each other on just about any topic, but the Tenach is chief among them.)...

Israel after all literally translates from Hebrew to English as one who contends with G-d. I hope you've all heard the expression, 2 Jews in a room means there are 3 opinions. That may be understating things a bit.

The Talmud is an even tougher issue. It is difficult to read, harder to follow, and one can easily come to the wrong conclusion in terms of how an argument ends or how the debaters got to where they were. In general, lawyers love studying it, while engineers and doctors hate it.

It's like a scribe walked into a bar one day and attempted to scribble down the rambling banter of a group of Rabbis discussing individual Torah verses and the extreme limits of the implied and applicable law generated from them. The discussions follows tangents, ...

takes us through stories to highlight moral points, refers to other discussions held in other cities between a different group of Rabbis, and sometimes never actually resolves. Case in point for the reason I am often skeptical. Two years ago, I was in an argument with a...

female Rabbi of the Reform persuasion. Even though she is of the woke variety, I do admire her as a person, and even respect her level of scholarship. Our debate topic was on the subject of abortion. For the great unwashed, there are some applicable Talmudic quotes used by...

both sides on this debate topic. My goal is not to rehash this argument here, for refernce, google C Everett Coop asks Rabbi Schneerson, and it should come up. The Lubavitch Rebbe's answer pretty much exhausts those quotes from both sides of the issue.

The point is, my woke Rabbi friend only quoted to me the arguments bolstering her pro abortion position. She skipped the corresponding arguments against her position. Lost in her liberal view was the corresponding restriction, that immenent danger to the life of the persued...

was a necessary condition for causing harm to the Rodef. (This is even before we get to the part of whether an unborn child qualifies as a Rodef.) The point is, when a Talmudic quote is pulled out of context, we don't have any idea if it's part of a winning argument, ...

a losing argument, a statement made in order to highlight a moral point, from a story being told in order to make a moral point, an argument that had been rejected, or a point that was made which has no connetion or similarity to the modern day application.

The reason for the previous discourse is that today, our list's author has actually referred to a real Talmud Tractate. whether or not the quote is real is a question for later. Here's the list in question:

Claim 12 on the above list has me puzzled. Not only is there no actual Tractate of the Talmud by this name, our author seems confused as to which languages the Talmud was written in. As with claims 4 and 5, here again in claim 12, he seems to suggest that the Rabbis argued...

in Spanish. For the uninitiated, the Talmud was written in two languages. The Mishnah was written in Hebrew, and the Gemarah was written in Aramaic. "Szaaloth Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia," is written in a stunning combination of Gibberish and Spanish. I'm going to take...

a wild guess here and say that by Szaaloth Utszabot, our author is attempting an Aramaic expression which might mean responses or answers. Jore Dia is a spanish expression which means good day. That would put this work, if it exists at all in post inquisition Spain.

The problem with post inquisition Spain of course is that all the Jews had been expelled from that particular country, leaving no one Jewish to actually write anything at all. It's not important, as this is an obvious fraud.

On to claim 13 with Tractate Bava Metziah being referenced, Dof 114. However, the author has now invented a page with 6 sides to it, eschewing the a or b format and labeling it 114-6, astounding!

Here is Bava Metziah 114a, keep scrolling in order to find the b side of that dof. https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.114a?lang=bi

Claim 13 has made every one of the statements made in my opening remarks on this thread pertinent. The statement made was embellished by the author of the list, taken out of context, from a story told for the purposes of bolstering a seemingly unrelated point to a seemingly...

unrelated topic. The teller of the story presupposes that the student studying this Tractate has a foundational knowledge of the laws of Terumah, Tazria, the Metzorah, Civil law involving debt, a working knowledge of the Book of Kings, Ezekial, Dueteronomy, and Leviticus.

Bava Metziah 114b begins with a story in which a student has a discussion with Elijah, after he's departed this world, involving whether or not he becomes a Metzorah, a person inflicted with the spiritual disease of Tzaaras, if he happened to walk through a Gentile grave yard.

This story is related to us within the context of the laws involving the rules surrounding collateral secured for loans to the poor. In the story, Elijah is standing in the Gentile's grave yard, and the student asks him why he would be standing in such a place, as...

priests are not allowed to become spiritually impure, something that happens if they enter a grave yard. Elijah answers that Gentile grave yards do not cause spiritual contamination, while Jewish ones do. It is Elijah, in a dream, quoting a passage from the Book of Ezekial.

It is not a statement made by any of Rabbi's concerning the value of any human life. Claim 13 is as false as all of the others so far, but at least it forced me to do some research.