I've come across a page that lists quite a few items as "Some of the teachings of the Talmud". They are pretty harsh things and I kind of doubt a reasonable and kind person would believe and follow them, whether Jew or not.
Starting on that page from the heading:
Some Teachings of The Jewish Talmud [This is the heading]
The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals. [This is the first summary]
[The parts supposedly from the talmud that say this follow.]
it lists many items (way to many to quote all) and they can certainly be construed as anti-Semitic (as the site generally appears to be).
Are these works generally considered part of the Talmud? Are they accurately represented in the brief summaries? Does a typical Jew believe and follow these things (or should they, I guess)?
Disclaimer: I'm not even sure what the Talmud is. I know many modern Jews revere it and that it is a collection of Rabbinical works, but that's about it.
Answer
Absolutely not, none of these "quotes" are representative of Talmudic, Rabbinic, or mainstream Jewish belief.
These quotes are either mistranslated or taken completely out of context.
Furthermore, most major commentators say that most, if not all the references to the idol worshipers in the Talmud do not apply to modern-day Gentiles.
Without a mastery of the original language of the source i.e.. Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew, it is impossible to pass judgment on the material at hand, and the nuances involved in the text are only privy to those who have spent a large amount of time and investment in understanding them.
It should be understood as well, that Jewish Law culled from the Talmud is an intricate body of rules, and each rule has its parameters and limits, and with that just like in any respectable set of laws and subset of laws, there will always be technical aspects to it that carries with it dispensations and scenarios that fall outside the bottom line "obligation". So too, regarding the "give and take"; known in Talmudic parlance as the Shakla V'tarya, of the Talmud when discussing and fleshing out the Law discussed, in order to fully understand the Law at hand in its fullness, full intellectual investigation requires a discussion of scenarios which are not practically feasible, and may even seem beyond the pale of normalcy, and completely impractical, but in order to find and feel out the parameters and boundaries of where the law applies and ends.
This approach is common in any normal university setting (especially Law School). Go into any classroom discussing civil rights and other social issues, and one will hear seemingly wacky discussions and scenarios seriously discussed such as "whether animals should be thought of as owned by humans, and whether that is needed to confer civil rights to animals" (as suggested by Cass Sunstien Here who claimed he does not believe that in a policy sense, but was only discussing it philosophically). These types of theoretical discussions are implicitly accepted as legitimate, for we understand that in the interest of investigation, ideas are tested and taken seriously. So too in the Talmud, in order to fully grasp the parameters of the Law and subject under discussion, ideas are discussed seriously and openly in order to push the discussion for more clarity.
Thus, a large part of these "quotes" are not representative of accepted, peer-reviewed and majority ruled Jewish opinion, as some of these comments were cherry picked straight out of the middle of a long detailed discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment