The Campaign for Radical Truth in History
http://www.hoffman-info.com presents:
Steven Spielberg's hallowed
celluloid liturgy, Schindler's List not
only defames every soldier in the German military as a
homicidal robot, it also perpetrates a myth about the Jewish religion.
The Jewish religion is based upon the Talmud, one of the most racist and
chauvinist works ever committed to writing.
Of course Spielberg, being
a cunning and deceptive propagandist, cannot reveal the fact of the Talmud's
racism to his audience. Instead, he portrays it as a sort of manual for
universal love. Hence, toward the end of the film in a key tear-jerking scene,
Schindler's Jews present Schindler with a ring upon which is inscribed a quotation attributed to the Talmud, "He who saves a single life, saves the entire
world."
This quotation also appears
on posters advertising Schindler's List
in video stores and schools, apparently having been selected as the film's
motto, by its promoters.
However, the actual Talmud
verse referred to in the movie says no such thing. Here is what the Talmud really says, "Whosoever
preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him
as if he had preserved a complete world" (Tractate Sanhedrin
37a).
The Talmud only praises the saving of
Jewish lives.
In response to our
exposé of Spielberg's deceptive whitewash of the contents of the Talmud,
Dene Bebbington, who obviously knows nothing about the Talmud, nevertheless
decided to ignorantly repeat some obscurantist propaganda contradicting our
information. Bebbington is apparently convinced that anything that emanates
from a Zionist source in this area must be infallible and with the kind of
painfully blind faith many such naive and easily duped people exhibit, repeated
the propaganda around the Internet, as a supposedly definitive confirmation of
our error and the "truth" of Spielberg's version.
Alan R. Critichley, the
co-author of our original, critical review of Spielberg's movie (to access that review, "Swindler's Mist," go to
http://www.hoffman-info.com/shindler.html ), has penned our rejoinder to
Bebbington's anonymous writer.
Mr. Bebbington's preface
and then the argument of his anonymous writer appear first. Mr. Critchley's
rejoinder immediately follows.
--Michael A. Hoffman II
From Dene Bebbington:
Subject: The
"Swindler's Mist" article on your web site
I notice that .... you have
a copy of Michael Hoffman's "Swindler's Mist" article. Since you are
interested in truth I would like to point out a serious error in something that
this article asserts. Hoffman charges that Spielberg is falsifying the Talmud
by using the quotation "He who saves a single life saves the whole
world", he then goes on to explain why he thinks this is false by giving
the quotation that instead refers to the life of a Jewish person.
Unfortunately the truth is
that there are actually two versions of this quotation, including the one
Spielberg uses, in different Talmudic books. Thus it is wrong for Hoffman to
accuse Spielberg of falsifying what the Talmud says.
The information I have
regarding this is attached below and comes from one of several posts on Usenet
regarding this quotation, other posts said basically the same thing, but this
one was the most detailed...
I make no opinion as to why
Hoffman made this error, but would ask that you consider changing the article
to reflect the truth, certainly there should be enough information in the
attached post to facilitate any cross checking that you may like to do.
Regards, Dene Bebbington
This question came up some
time ago on scj. I cannot find my original post on the subject in my files, so
I will reproduce it in brief.
The source for this saying
is in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5. It appears in several versions:
1. In the standard edition
of the Mishnayot, the wording is: "Whoever destroys the life of a single
human being [nefesh a`hat mi-bnei adam] ... it is as if he had destroyed an
entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being ... it is
as if he had preserved an entire world".
2. In the Talmud Bavli,
where this mishnah appears on Sanhedrin 37a, the wording is the same, except
for the substitution of "life of a single Jew" [nefesh a`hat
\mi-yisrael] for "life of a single human being".
3. In the Talmud Jerushalmi,
Mishnah 5 is divided into subsections (Halakhot). In my edition the saying
appears in Halakhot 12-13. Others divide Mishnah 5 differently: e.g. MTR
locates it in Halakhah 9. It reads "destroys a single life" [ma'abed
nefesh a`hat] and "preserves a single life" [meqayem nefesh a`hat].
There is no specific mention of either "human being" or
"Jew", though the former is clearly implied.
The question is: Which is
the original version? Was the limitation to Jewish lives there to begin with,
and then taken out as a result of Church censorship? This is suggested in the
book of corrigenda, Hesronot Ha-shas.
Alternatively, was the
universal formulation the original one, and the limitation to Jewish lives
introduced into it at some later date, perhaps in a period when particularly
severe persecution of Jews generated a justified feeling of xenophobia?
The answer would seem to be
obvious from the context, which is the same in all three versions. The citation
is preceded by the words: "This is why Adam was created alone. It is to
teach us that ...". A bit father down it reads: "When a man mints a
number of coins from a single die, they are all identical; but the King of the
kings of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, minted every human being from the
die of the primal Adam, and not one of them is like any other".
Evidently, if the original
had referred to the preservation of Jewish lives alone, the reference would
have been to Abraham at the earliest. The repeated reference to Adam,
progenitor of all mankind, makes it clear that the original must have referred
to the preservation of human life in general.
This is aparently how the
Rishonim (medieval commentators) understood it as well. Rambam adopts the Yerushalmi
version, (3.) slightly altered, in Hilkhot Sanhedrin 12:3, but also cites the
Bavli version (2. above) briefly in Hilkhot Rotzea`h 1:6. Hameiri too bases his
commentary on the Yerushalmi version, illustrating "the destruction of a
whole world" by pointing out that Cain's murder of Abel eliminated all of
his victm's descendents at one fell swoop. Abel, like Adam was not Jewish; he
was not even the ancestor of Jews.
The humanistic version was
not universally accepted by the A`haronim (later commentators). MaHaRSh"A,
for example, in Hidushei Agadot on Sanh.37a, stays with Version 2, and explains
at some length why it is only important to save Jewish lives, even though the
Mishnah bases the dictum on Adam's being the father of all mankind. I would be
interested in learning what present-day Orthodox Judaism regards as the
authentic reading.
SEVERAL ROADS TO THE
SAME PLACE
A response to Dene
Bebbington and an unknown writer
by Alan R. Critchley
Copyright©1997. All
Rights Reserved
Dene Bebbington states that
Michael A. Hoffman II and this writer have committed a "serious
error" when we accuse Steven Spielberg of falsifying a Talmud reference in
his movie "Schindler's List.".
In the Internet edition of
our article, "Swindler's Mist," we stated: "Toward the end of
the movie, Schindler is shown being presented with an inscribed gold ring by
the Jews he rescued. We are told that the inscription is from the Talmud, `He
who saves a single life, saves the entire world.' (This quotation also appears
on posters advertising Schindler's List in video stores and schools, apparently
having been selected as the film's motto by its promoters). The saying has a
nice, warm, humanistic tenor, but there's just one problem: that's not what the
Talmud says.
"The actual Talmud
verse states, `Whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes
to him as if he had preserved a complete world' (Tractate Sanhedrin 37a). The
Talmud only praises the saving of Jewish lives. In Spielberg's non-stop
deception, even the documented contents of Jewish books are falsified."
Mr. Bebbington's response
merely accuses us of being error. He presents no original research to prove his
point, basing his attack on another article by an unknown author. Bebbington
says that the unknown writer's article concerning the preceding Talmud passage
demonstrates that we are in error. Since Bebbington has nothing more to say,
this critique will focus on to the unknown author.
OUR RESPONSE TO THE UNKNOWN
AUTHOR
The unknown author's
article is a combination of fact and fraud.
In spite of this, it
contains enough evidence to exonerate us of the charge of falsehood.
The Talmud is a two-part
collection of the sayings of ancient Rabbis. These two parts consist of the
Mishnah ("Teaching") and the Gemara ("Completion").
The Mishnah contains the
earlier Rabbinic material, and the Gemara is later Rabbinic commentary on the
Mishnah.
There are two editions of
the Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. Of these two, the
Babylonian Talmud is authoritative for Orthodox Judaism, which regards it as
divinely inspired.
The superiority of the
Babylonian Talmud is so great, that "...when
people now talk about the Talmud, they always mean the Babylonian Talmud. The
authority of the Babylonian Talmud is also greater than that of the Jerusalem
Talmud. In cases of doubt
the former is decisive." (pg. 40, From Torah to Kabbalah, by R.C.
Musaph-Andriesse, New York, Oxford University Press, 1982, emphasis in original
text).
Further, "Thus the
fuller Babylonian Talmud became the dominant work: when
reference is made to the Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud is meant..."
(pg. 105, "The Sacred Books of the Jews," by Harry Gersh, Stein and
Day, New York, 1968).
Our article stated that the
Talmud (i.e. the Babylonian Talmud) has: "Whosoever preserves a single
soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a complete
world."
Bebbington's unknown author
states, "2. In the Talmud Bavli [the Babylonian Talmud; ARC], where this
mishnah appears on Sanhedrin 37a, the wording is the same, except for the
substitution of `life of a single Jew' (nefesh a'hat\mi-yisrael) for `life of a
single human being'."
The unknown author cited by
Mr. Bebbington thus says precisely the same thing we said in our article,
proving that what we wrote is correct.
This also proves that Mr.
Bebbington himself knows very little about Jewish literature, since he
apparently is not even aware of basic Jewish terms or what they mean. We doubt
he would have attacked us using the unknown author had he known that this
author would agree with us.
Even though this point by
itself is enough to prove us right, we shall continue in order to thoroughly
examine related issues.
The unknown author,
apparently embarrassed by the Talmud's assertion of the value of saving only
Jewish life, attempts to cloud the issue by giving various amounts of vague,
unsupported and untranslated information. For example:
1. He says that "1. In
the standard edition of the Mishnayot, the wording is `Whoever destroys the
life of a single human being (nefesh a 'hat mi-bnei adam) ... it is as if he
had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human
being ... it is as if he had preserved an entire world".
There are several things
wrong with the above statement. First, the unknown author does not provide us
with any specifications of what exactly is "the standard edition of the
Mishnayot [the Mishnah, the first part of the Talmud; ARC]". The modern
standard editions of the Mishnah in fact agree with our article, as we shall
see.
THE STANDARD EDITIONS OF
THE MISHNAH AS CONTAINED IN THE ONLY COMPLETE TRANSLATIONS OF THE TALMUD IN
THIS CENTURY.
Mishnah 4.5, The Babylonian
Talmud, Soncino English translation, translated by Jacob Shachter, University
Press, Oxford, 1935, pg. 234, Sanhedrin 37a: "...whosoever destroys a
single soul of Israel, Scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had
destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a
single soul of Israel, Scripture
ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world."
Mishnah 4.5, Der
Babylonische Talmud, translated and provided with short explanations by Lazarus
Goldschmidt, German translation of the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin pgs.
169-170, Sanhedrin 37a: "...dass wenn jemand eine jisraelitische Seele
vernichtet, es ihm die Schrift anrechnet, als hatte er eine ganze Welt
vernichtet, und wenn jemand eine jisraelitische Seele
erhalt, es ihm die Schrift anrechnet, als hatte er eine ganze Welt
erhalten."
This German passage, which may
be translated much the same way as the Soncino English cited above, also
contains the restriction of a blessing reserved only to saving an Israelite soul ("eine jisraelitische
Seele").
To the best of my
knowledge, this Goldschmidt translation was the only complete, uncensored
German translation of the Babylonian Talmud at the time of World War Two. It is
worth noting that Goldschmidt specifically made his Talmud translation
"according to the first uncensored Bromberg edition (Venice 1520-23),"
comparing it to the famous uncensored (and handwritten) Munich Talmud text.
Goldschmidt's Talmud for Sanhedrin was published in The Hague and Berlin in
1933.
Mishnah 4.5, The Talmud of
Babylonia; An American Translation, translated by Jacob Neusner, Bavli
Sanhedrin 4:5, Scholars Press, Chico, California, 1984, pg. 35: "J.
...whoever destroys a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had
destroyed a whole world. K. And whoever saves a single
Israelite soul [sic; ARC] is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a
whole world."
Talmud Bavli, The
Schottenstein Edition, The Art Scroll Series, Published by Mesorah
Publications, ltd. Brooklyn, New York, 1993 Tractate Sanhedrin, pg. 37a3:
"...that whoever destroys a single life from Israel is considered by
Scripture as if he had destroyed an entire world; and that whoever preserves a single life from Israel
is considered by Scripture as if he had preserved an entire world."
This version is translated
from "the classic `Romm Edition' of the Talmud, universally known as the
Vilna Shas." (pgs. xxvi and xxvii) ("Shas" is a name for the
Talmud; see below.) This authoritative and handsome edition presents the Talmud
as the very word of God (pg. xxvi), and it does not even mention the universal
version used by Spielberg, in the notes on the text.
Mishnah 4.5, The Talmud of
Babylonia XXIII, Bavli Tractate Sanhedrin, by Jacob Neusner, Scholars Press,
Atlanta, Georgia, 1994, pg. 183: "J. ...whoever destroys a single
Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed a whole world. K.
And whoever saves a single Israelite soul is
deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world."
STANDARD TRANSLATIONS OF
THE MISHNAH ALONE
The Mishnah, translated by
Herbert Danby, Oxford University Press, London, 1933, Sanhedrin 4.5, pg. 388:
"...if any man has
caused a single soul to perish from Israel Scripture imputes it to him as
though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if any man saves alive a single soul from Israel Scripture imputes it to him
as though he had saved alive a whole world."
For many years in this
century, Danby's Mishnah was the standard English translation of the Mishnah.
Gateway to the Mishnah, by
Isidore Fishman, Jack Mazin Ltd, London 1955, Sanhedrin 4.5, pg. 156:
"...he who destroys
one human life of Israel, it is accounted to him by Scripture as though he had
destroyed a whole universe; and he who saves one human
life of Israel, it is accounted to him by Scripture as though he had
preserved a whole universe."
The Mishnah; A New
Translation, by Jacob Neusner, Yale University Press, New Haven and London,
1988, Sanhedrin 4.5, pg. 591:
"J. ...whoever
destroys a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed
a whole world. K. And whoever saves a single Israelite
soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world."
THE JERUSALEM TALMUD
Though it only of
peripheral interest to our article (since we were not referring to the
Jerusalem Talmud's version in the first place, and since it is not
authoritative for Judaism anyway), we would like to note that although earlier
translations and editions of the Jerusalem Talmud omit "of Israel",
yet the most recent edition of passages from the Jerusalem Talmud has the
version we listed.
The Two Talmuds Compared,
by Jacob Neusner, III, Volume C, Tractate Sanhedrin, Scholars Press, Atlanta,
Georgia, 1996, Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:10 A, pg. 95:
"...whoever destroys a
single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed a whole
world. And whoever saves a single Israelite soul
is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world."
THE PROBLEM OF ALTERNATE
TEXTS
Various editions of the
Talmud mention that for many passages of the Babylonian Talmud, there exist
alternative texts. Though the editors of the Talmud agree that the original
text of Sanhedrin should read "a single soul of Israel", yet textual
notes in many mention that some texts of the Talmud omit "of Israel",
resulting in a text that universalizes the verse as follows: "whoever
destroys a single soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed a whole
world, etc."
That this rendering is
disproved by the Talmud itself is obvious (see below), but the proper explanation of how such an errant text exists is
as follows.
After the Talmud was
finally committed to writing, some of its more offensive passages eventually
became known to those outside of Judaism. In the
1400's the printing press was invented; and because the dominant
governments in Europe were mostly Christian (at least in profession), the
authorities became involved in more stringent censorship of the text of the
Talmud and other Rabbinic writings.
Permission had
to be granted to print many Hebrew books, and this permission was withheld
unless the books were censored to bring them in line with Christian beliefs.
Thus, passages in Jewish
sacred writings which said Jesus the Christ was heretical, or passages which
insulted Mary, or Christians, or Gentiles, had to be changed or omitted
entirely. In some cases, editions of the Talmud which contained offensive
passages were destroyed by the Church.
At the same time, however,
some Talmud manuscripts faithful to the uncensored original, were saved from
destruction (like the Munich Talmud, for example), while other Rabbinic
authorities marked new editions so that readers would know something was
omitted, printing the omitted sections separately. In this way, they hoped to
circumvent the censorship.
Mr. Bebbington's unknown
author, knows about the publication of omitted sections, yet he handles it in a
deceitful manner, probably because of his embarrassment for the Talmud.
Observe his comments:
"The question is: Which is the original version? Was the limitation to
Jewish lives there to begin with, and then taken out as a result of Church
censorship? This is suggested in the book of corrigenda, Hesronot Ha-shas."
Note that the
unknown author does not translate "Hesronot
Ha-shas".
A translation
would be: "That which is removed from the six orders", or "That
which is removed from the Talmud."
Concerning Ha-shas (the
shas), The Censorship of Hebrew Books, by William Popper, KTAV Publishing
House, Inc., New York, 1969, pg. 59 says, "In Aramaic, `Shitta Sidhre',
`six orders,' from the six divisions into which the Mishnah is divided. The term
is abbreviated sh''s (shas), and is often used to designate the Talmud."
Hesronot Ha-shas has been
recently reprinted in 1989 by Sinai Publishing of Tel-Aviv. On page 44 of this
antique reprint, Hesronot Ha-shas specifically lists the original text of the
ancient Babylonian Talmud as follows: "a soul
from Israel".
It specifically lists
"from Israel" as having been removed due to censorship. In the face
of this Hebrew evidence, which proves us correct, our unknown author feels the
necessity to soften its factual listing into a mere "suggestion".
Are there texts which have
the universal version? Yes. But all modern
translations of the Talmud relegate the universal version to footnote status in
view of the Hebrew evidence on censorship. The Christian censors forced the
Jewish publishers to omit "of Israel", in order to give the Talmud a
less Jewish-chauvinistic, anti-Gentile meaning.
Popper's censorship
information (above, pg. 58-59), states that an omission like the one we are
discussing is not at all unusual: "It was not always that long passages,
such as those instanced, were censored on these various charges, but often
single words alone were omitted; ...Often, in these cases, another method of
correction was used in place of omission--substitution."
Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, the
translator of the latest modern English version of the Babylonian Talmud, says,
"Indeed, almost every passage dealing with
non-Jews must be suspected of having undergone some change." (Talmud
Reference Guide, by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, Random House, New York, 1989, pg.
50)
To give a humorous example,
we shall now list a Hebrew prayer: "Guardian of the holy people, Guard the
remnant of thy holy nation, Nor let a holy people perish."
Because the word
"people" in Hebrew is "goy", sometimes used negatively of
Gentiles, the censors made the later printed edition of the prayer to read as
follows: "Guardian of the holy Turks, Guard the remnant of the Turks, Nor
leave the holy Turks to perish!" (Popper, pg. 130)
In spite of the fact that
Hebrew editions of this prayer exist praising the Turks, no scholar believes
they represent the true Hebrew text when the evidence is presented. It is
similar to the Sanhedrin passage under discussion in our article; we are aware
of no Jewish publisher or editor of the Talmud who defends the universal text
as the original.
THE REFERENCE TO ADAM IN
ALL VERSIONS OF THE TALMUD
The unknown author makes
the point of checking the context of the passage in Sanhedrin 37a, and says the
following:
"Which is the original
version? Was the limitation to Jewish lives there to begin with, and then taken
out as a result of Church censorship? ...Alternatively, was the universal
formulation the original one, and the limitation to Jewish lives introduced
into it at some later date...? The answer would seem to be obvious from the
context, which is the same in all three versions.
The citation is preceded by
the words:
`This is why Adam was
created alone. It is to teach us that...'. A bit father [sic] down it reads:
`When a man mints a number of coins from a single die, they are all identical;
but the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, minted every
human being from the die of the primal Adam, and not one of them is like any
other'.
Evidently, if the original
had referred to the preservation of Jewish lives alone, the reference would
have been to Abraham at the earliest. The repeated reference to Adam,
progenitor of all mankind, makes it clear that the original must have referred
to the preservation of human life in general."
The above argument appears
convincing, until other related Talmud verses are scrutinized.
The fact is, the Talmud
specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and
specifically lists Gentiles as not being descendants of Adam. We will now list
some of the Talmud passages which relate to this topic.
Kerithoth 6b:
OR USES OIL OF ANOINTING.
Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or
vessels is not guilty; if over gentiles [Hebrew: goyim] or the dead, he is not
guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written:
"Upon the flesh of man [Hebrew: adam] shall it not be poured [Exodus
30:32]"; and cattle and vessels are not man [adam]. Also with regard to
the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called
corpse and not a man [adam]. But why is one exempt in the case of gentiles
[goyim]; are they not in the category of man [adam]?--No, it is written:
"And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are man [adam] [Ezekiel 34:31]":
Ye are called man [adam] but gentiles [goyim] are not called man [adam].
In the above passage, the
Rabbis are discussing the Mosaic law which forbids applying holy oil to men. In
the discussion, the Rabbis state that it is not a sin to apply the holy oil to
gentiles, since gentiles are not human beings (literally, adam).
Yebamoth 61a: It was
taught: And so did R. Simeon ben Yohai state [61a] that the graves of gentiles
[goyim] do not impart levitical uncleanness by an ohel [standing or bending
over a grave], for it is said, "And ye my sheep the sheep of my pasture,
are men [adam]" [Ezekiel 34:31]; you are called men [adam] but the
idolaters are not called men [adam].
The Mosaic law states that
touching a human corpse or grave imparts uncleanness to those who touch it. But
the Talmud here teaches that if a Jew touches the grave of a gentile, it does
not make him unclean, since gentiles are not human (literally, adam).
Baba Mezia 114b: Said he
[Rabbah] to him: Art thou not a priest: why then dost thou stand in a
cemetery?--He replied: Has the Master not studied the laws of purity? For it
has been taught: R. Simeon ben Yohai said: The graves of gentiles [goyim] do
not defile, for it is written, "And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures,
are men [adam]" [Ezekiel 34:31]; only ye are designated men [adam].
A Jewish priest was
standing in a graveyard. When asked why he was standing there in apparent
violation of the Mosaic law, he replied that it was permissible, since the law
only prohibits Jews from coming into contact with the graves of humans [adam],
and he was standing in a gentile graveyard.
Since the so-called
Scriptural proof text (Ezekiel 34:31) repeatedly cited in the above three
Talmud passages in reality does not prove that only Jews are human, it is self-evident
that the Talmudic sages who asserted the preceding absurdities about Gentiles
were already anti-Gentile racists or ideologues who, in desperate search of
some proof of their position, distorted an Old Testament passage in order to
justify their bigotry. Their ideology came first, their "proof"
second.
Berakoth 58a
R. Shila administered
lashes to a man who had intercourse with an Egyptian woman. The man went and
informed against him to the Government, saying: There is a man among the Jews
who passes judgment without the permission of the Government. An official was
sent to [summon] him. When he came he was asked: Why did you flog that man? He
replied: Because he had intercourse with a she-ass.
They said to him: Have you
witnesses? He replied: I have. Elijah thereupon came in the form of a man and
gave evidence. They said to him: If that is the case he ought to be put to
death! He replied: Since we have been exiled from our land, we have no
authority to put to death; do with him what you please.
While they were considering
his case, R. Shila exclaimed, "Thine, Oh Lord, is the greatness and the
power" [1 Chronicles 29:11] What are you saying? they asked him. He
replied: What I am saying is this: Blessed is the All-Merciful who has made the
earthly royalty on the model of the heavenly, and has invested you with
dominion, and made you lovers of justice.
They said to him: Are you
so solicitous for the honor of the Government? They handed him a staff and said
to him: You may act as judge. When he went out that man said to him: Does the
All-Merciful perform miracles for liars?
He replied: Wretch! Are
they not called asses? For it is written: "Whose flesh is as the flesh of
asses" [Ezekiel 23:20]. He noticed that the man was about to inform them
that he had called them asses. He said: This man is a persecutor, and the Torah
has said: If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first. So he
struck him with the staff and killed him. He then said: Since a miracle has
been wrought for me through this verse, I will expound it.
My apologies for subjecting
our readers to the preceding lengthy drivel, but it is best to include all of
it to demonstrate its depravity. In addition to having Elijah float down from
heaven to deceive the gentile court, it teaches that gentiles are in reality
animals, so that Rabbi Shila (and Elijah) did not really lie at all. It also
teaches that anyone (even a Jewish man) who reveals this great Talmud truth
deserves execution, since revealing it makes gentiles angry and causes persecution
of Israel.
We can only rejoice that
the vast majority of Jews today do not follow such heinous teachings; only a
few openly espouse the Talmud as divinely inspired, (although unfortunately
these few are sometimes to be found in influential leadership positions).
Parenthetically, the above
Scripture proof-text does not prove that gentiles are not human, being animals.
The Ezekiel passage only says that some Egyptians had large sex organs and
copious emissions. This does not in any way prove or even connote that the
Egyptians referred to were animals.
Having sufficiently proven
our point from the Talmud, namely that the Talmud teaches that gentiles are not
human [Hebrew: Adam], and are really animals, we will list a few other passages
which expound on the Ezekiel 23:20 "proof text", allowing our readers
to research them on their own: Arakin 19b, Berakoth 25b, Niddah 45a, Shabbath
150a, Yebamoth 98a.
The original text of
Sanhedrin 37a applies God's approval only to the saving of Jewish lives. This
is demonstrable by referring to Jewish books such as the Hesronot Ha-shas.
But Bebbington's unknown
author claims that the various Talmud texts mentioning Adam, prove that the
passage includes gentiles among those worthy of having their lives saved, since
gentiles are of Adam. This is not true because Talmud itself teaches that
gentiles are not human [Adam], but indeed are only animals. So this line of
reasoning is completely fallacious.
As another example of the
unknown writer's deception, we will examine the very first example of
post-Talmudic commentators which he mentions: Rambam:
"Moses Maimonides is
considered the greatest codifier and philosopher in Jewish history. He is often
affectionately referred to as the Rambam, after the initials of his name and
title, Rabenu Moshe Ben Maimon (Our Rabbi, Moses son of Maimon)."
"(Maimonides' Principles," Edited by Aryeh Kaplan, Union of Orthodox
Jewish Congregations of America, New York, 1975, pg. 3)
Here is what our unknown
antagonist says: "Rambam adopts the Yerushalmi version, (3.) slightly
altered, in Hilkot Sanhedrin 12:3, but also cites the Bavli version (2. above)
briefly in Hilkot Rotzeach 1:6."
What Bebbington's unknown
writer does not say however, is what Rambam actually taught about saving
people's lives, especially about saving the lives of gentiles and Christians,
or even Jews who dared to deny the divine inspiration of the Talmud.
Maimonides, Mishnah Torah,
Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English
Translation, pg. 184:
Accordingly, if we see an
idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If
we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him.
It is, however, forbidden
to cause one of them to sink or push him into a pit or the like, since he is
not waging war against us. To whom does the above apply? To gentiles [Hebrew:
goyim, found on pg. 185]. The Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 edition of
Mishnah Torah has this also.
Immediately after
Maimonides' admonition that it is a duty for Jews not to save a drowning or
perishing gentile, he informs us of the Talmudic duty for Jews towards
Christians, and also towards Jews who deny the Talmud.
Maimonides, Mishnah Torah,
Chapter 10 English Translation, pg. 184 "It is a mitzvah [religious duty;
ARC], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to
cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to
the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his
students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked
rot."
The commentary accompanying
the preceding statement of Maimonides mentions that Jesus was an example of a
min (plural: minnim). The commentary also states that the followers of Tzadok
were defined as those Jews who deny the truth of the Talmud and who uphold only
the written law (the Pentateuch, i.e. the Old Testament).
According to Maimonides'
Principles, pg. 5, Maimonides "spent twelve years extracting every
decision and law from the Talmud, and arranging them all into 14 systematic
volumes. The work was finally completed in 1180, and was called Mishnah Torah,
or `Code of the Torah'."
Mr. Bebbington's unknown
author is guilty of fraud, because he refers to Maimonides, the greatest Talmud
codifier, without stating what Maimonides said the Talmud teaches concerning
the duty to save life.
It is not at all
surprising, though, that Maimonides said exactly the opposite of what our
unknown writer asserts concerning the Talmud. Maimonides asserted that it is
the duty of Jews to save only Jews. Ordinary gentiles are to be allowed to
perish, but not actively killed, except during war; while Christians and Jewish
so-called heretics are to be executed.
And there is more: "As
for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that their lives must not be
saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright. The Talmud itself
[Abodah Zarah 26b] expresses this in the maxim `Gentiles are neither to be
lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]'.
Maimonides explains [in
Mishnah Torah 4:11]: `As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their
death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the
point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he
should not be rescued, for it is written: `neither shalt thou stand against the
blood of thy fellow [Leviticus 19:16]'--but [a Gentile] is not thy
fellow." (Jewish History, Jewish Religion, by Israel Shahak, Pluto Press,
London, Boulder, Colorado, pg. 80, emphasis in original)
It is not too surprising
that Maimonides would have taught this concerning saving the lives of Gentiles.
Maimonides taught in
another section of the Mishnah Torah that Gentiles are not human: "Man
alone, and not vessels, can contract uncleanness by carriage. ...The corpse of
a Gentile, however, does not convey uncleanness by overshadowing. ...a Gentile
does not contract corpse uncleanness; and if a Gentile touches, carries, or
overshadows a corpse he is as one who did not touch it. To what is this like?
It is like a beast which touches a corpse or overshadows it. And this applies
not to corpse uncleanness only but to any other kind of uncleanness: neither
Gentiles nor cattle are susceptible to any uncleanness." (The Code of
Maimonides, Book Ten, translated by Herbert Danby, Yale University Press, New
Haven, 1954, pgs. 8-9)
Small wonder, then, that
our opponent, Bebbington's unknown author, speeds past the greatest of all
Talmud scholars without bothering to mention his teachings on saving lives.
In conclusion:
1. Mr. Dene Bebbington says
nothing to refute us; he leaves that to his unknown writer.
2. Mr. Hoffman and this
writer stated that the Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) text of Sanhedrin
37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only Jewish lives. The unknown
writer says this very same thing, without Dene Bebbington even being aware of
it.
3. The censorship book,
written by Jews (Hesronot Ha-shas), states that the Talmud texts which have
"Whoever destroys the life of a single human being ... it is as if he had
destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human
being ...it is as if he had preserved an entire world," have been censored
(tampered with). In other words, these are not the authentic texts of the Talmud
and what Steven Spielberg quoted in his movie is not from the Talmud, and is
precisely what we said it was, falsification intended to give a humanistic
gloss to the Talmud which is, in its essence, racist and chauvinist.
The authentic, original
Talmud text has "a single soul of Israel". This is upheld by the
modern editions of the Talmud.
4. The most recent
translation of even the Jerusalem Talmud restricts the blessing for saving life
to saving only a Jewish life.
5. Though the Talmud
passage at issue (Sanhedrin Mishnah 4.5/Sanhedrin 37a) mentions Adam, this does
not prove the passage's original intent was universal, since the Talmud
elsewhere teaches that gentiles are not Adam, but are in fact animals.
6. The greatest of all
Talmud codifiers, Moses Maimonides, taught the exact opposite of Bebbington's
unknown author: Gentiles on the point of death should not be saved, and
Christians and Jewish "apostates" should be executed.
All roads in Talmud
research lead to the same conclusion: the Talmud absolutely repudiates the idea
that saving Gentile lives is on the same level as saving Jewish lives.
Therefore it is apparent that Steven Spielberg's movie "Schindler's
List" falsifies the text and teaching of the Talmud.
A DOUBLE STANDARD
I wish to add a comment on
a subject mentioned by Bebbington's unknown author while discussing the
original text of Sanhedrin 37a. He states:
"The question is:
Which is the original version? Was the limitation to Jewish lives there to
begin with, and then taken out as a result of Church censorship?
...Alternatively, was the universal formulation the original one, and the
limitation to Jewish lives introduced into it at some later date, perhaps in a
period when particularly severe persecution of Jews generated a justified feeling
of xenophobia?"
I have reserved Mr.
Bebbington's author's statement for my conclusion, to demonstrate that the
unknown author is guilty of upholding a double standard,thus he is a hypocrite.
The unknown writer says
that if the Jews being persecuted by Gentiles decided that Gentiles no longer
needed to be saved from death, this "feeling of xenophobia" was
"justified".
If Jews are persecuted,
then they are "justified" in not saving the lives of Gentiles they
meet, as well as in teaching other Jews not to save the lives of Gentiles. This
most awful teaching is mentioned by our opponent, who in the rest of his
writings attempts to prove that the Talmud favors saving the lives of Gentiles.
His two-step reasoning is as follows:
1. The Talmud favors saving
Gentile lives. 2. Even if it doesn't, it is "justified", since the
Gentiles were persecutors of the Jews.
Would our unknown writer or
Mr. Bebbington adopt the same tack concerning Gentiles persecuted by Jews?
For example, the Ukrainian
hetman Boghdan Chmelnicki was persecuted by Poles and their Jewish allies.
He lived peaceably with the
Poles and Jews until he was horribly provoked into war, when he mercilessly
slaughtered Jews and Catholics within his grasp.
Would Mr. Bebbington or his
ally consider Chmelnicki's conduct as "justified"? We think not.
For another example, it is
a fact mentioned by a Jewish encyclopedia that after Jews viciously murdered
many Romans and Greeks c. 120 A.D. in North Africa and the Mediterranean, many
Gentiles retaliated by murdering thousands of Jews. Is this conduct
"justified"?
In WWII, when the German
army occupied the city of Lvov, Poland, hundreds of Ukrainians were found
slaughtered by the Soviet Secret Police. Many of these Communist secret police
were observed to be Jewish. The inhabitants of Lvov (and members of the German
army too) immediately began to murder hundreds of Jews living in the area. Is
this conduct "justified" by Mr. Bebbington or his unknown writer? The
answer is obvious: neither of them would justify any Gentile oppression of
Jews, even if preceded by gross persecution. And neither would we.
But if Gentiles persecute
some Jews, and those Jews decide that Gentiles in general are not worthy of
being saved from death, that is just all right with the unknown author. In
addition to being in error, he is a hypocrite.
Alan R. Critchley
Copyright ©1997. All
Rights Reserved.
Mr. Critchley's writing is
distributed by The Campaign for Radical Truth in History
Visit our Archives at
http://www.hoffman-info.com
talmudic
exegesis / world war two revisionism / archives / bookstore / news bureau / home