------------------------------------------------------------
Islamic site quotes Talmud as: "Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old)."
Jewish Soncino Talmud says: " Sanhedrin 55b - R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. " ("Coition" is "sexual intercourse")
------------------------------------------------------------
Islamic site quotes Talmud as: "Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old."
Jewish Soncino Talmud says: "Sanhedrin 54b -He who submits both to pederasty and to bestiality - ..Divine Law thus designated passive submission as an active offence: just as for the active offence there is punishment and prohibitions so for the passive offence too.21 ....Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 What is the basis of their dispute? - Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect].25 But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.26
It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day;"
My summary: If the passive partner is less than 9 years, Samuel says the active partner is guilty and the passive partner is not guilty, while Rab says neither active nor passive partner is guilty. The Talmud gives Rab the last word.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Islamic site quotes Talmud as: "Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."
Jewish Soncino Talmud says: "Kethuboth 11b - AND THERE IS WITH REGARD TO THEM NO CHARGE OF NONVIRGINITY. A WOMAN PROSELYTE, A WOMAN CAPTIVE AND A WOMAN SLAVE, WHO HAVE BEEN REDEEMED, CONVERTED, OR FREED [WHEN THEY WERE] MORE THAN THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY OLD - THEIR KETHUBAH IS A MANEH, AND THERE IS WITH REGARD TO THEM NO CHARGE OF NON-VIRGINITY.
--------------------------------------------------------
GEMARA. Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood.1 When I said it before Samuel he said: �Injured by a piece of wood� does not apply to2 flesh. Some teach this teaching by itself:3 [As to] a small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman. Rab said, he makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood; whereas Samuel said: �Injured by a piece of wood� does not apply to flesh. R. Oshaia objected: WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN HAS HAD INTERCOURSE WITH A LITTLE GIRL, OR WHEN A SMALL BOY HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UP WOMAN, OR WHEN A GIRL WAS ACCIDENTALLY INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD-[IN ALL THESE CASES] THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ]; SO ACCORDING TO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A GIRL WHO WAS INJURED ACCIDENTALLY BY A PIECE OF WOOD - HER KETHUBAH IS A MANEH!4 Raba said. It means5 this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this,6 it is as if one puts the finger into the eye;7 but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as �a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.� and [with regard to the case of] �a girl injured by a piece of wood.� itself, there is the difference of opinion between R. Meir and the Sages."
My commentary: This is defining conditions under which virginity is deemed to be lost. It a grown man has intercourse with a small girl, the small girl is not deemed to have lost her virginity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
these are some of the verses in question, i challenge anybody (jewish or not) to refute them
Byrd
posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 12:40 AM link
Actually (I did look them up).
What the website says is correct. That was the Jewish law of the time of Abraham (and even of the time of Jesus.) The "age of marriageability" has crept upward; as little as 100 years ago it was not unusual for a man anywhere in the US to take a 15 or 14 year old girl as his wife. And in England, girls as young as 7 were sold as prostitutes.
This has a number of implications that Christains usually don't think about -- in the Old Testament where Jehovah tells the Israelites to save only female children that have "not known men" (i.e. virgins) then they were saving only the very youngest girl children. When they (as with the Amekelites, I believe it was) were given as spoils of war, yes, some of the adult male warriors took home little girls as concubines.
And the results probably weren't very pleasant for the little girls... forced into sex with an adult male and forced into converting to another religion by the people who killed their families.
Thankfully, the practice has changed and has been condemned. By the time of Jesus, 9-14 was the usual age of marriage (so Mohammad taking a 9 year old as wife in 500-600 was fairly usual for that culture at that time.)
Ashlar
posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 12:57 AM link
Byrd,
thanks for your reply, but these verses were written well after the time of abraham.
Also; did you notice that sexual intercourse was permitted with a girl as young as 3!
this is not a girl, this is still a baby!
i dont think that the cultural practices of the time permitted that!
let us look at the greeks for example, they practiced pedophilia but the age was still around 12-13; when a girl begins to become a woman,
let us look at the babylonians, they did not have sex with 3 year olds.
regardless of the culture at the time, a religion which clearly stipulates that sex with an infant of 3 is acceptable to the lord, this is a evil religion!
MoGame11
posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 07:21 AM link
This is disgusting.
anonemus
posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 12:16 PM link
You find this drivel on an Arab website and take it as the truth. These are the guys who HATE the Jews, remember?
Not to long ago an Arab TV show dredged up the old lie about Jews killing kids and using the blood in matzo. Get a clue. Read the bible. Jews are forbidden from eating any blood -- to be kosher meat has to have all the blood removed from it! (Read Leviticus 17).
Any way back to this drivel. Of course this isn't true. Go to talmud.faithweb.com... and read it.
"The accusation here is quite nefarious. It implies that Judaism permits pedophilia, has no respect for women, and generally advocates loose sexual morals. To those familiar with the Talmud, this claim is patently ridiculous. However, the majority of people � particularly those making this claim � know little to nothing about the Talmud, its contents, or its methodology. . .
". . .the discussion here relates to the dowry for virgins and non-virgins. It has nothing to do with what acts are allowed, encouraged, forbidden, or discouraged. "
BTW, until the last 100 years or so Jewish women had more rights than any women worldwide. Women were judges, owned land -- and had to AGREE to marry the man who asked. Read your bible. Start with where Isaac wants to marry and her father asks her if she wants him!
And in the future I'd suggest you ask Jewish sources what Judaism teaches -- not Muslims.
anonemus
posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 01:08 PM link
Talmudic lies
It helps if you understand what the Talmud is and is not. The Mishna (the heart of the Talmud) is a barebones writing down of the oral laws God gave Moses at Sinai. The Gemara is rabbinical interpretation of the Mishna.
So we are dealing with LAWS here. Talmud often takes extreme theoretical cases in order to precisely define and delineate legal concepts. Such study is mandated because the laws are part of the Written and Oral Torah, not necessarily because they have practical application. Just like American law.
So let��s look at these lies you��ve presented and see what they really say and what they are really about.
Lie: "Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old)."
The Talmud strongly opposed formation of the marriage bond by sexual force (at any age) and punished those who acted in such manner (Kidushin 12b). Sanhedrin 55b says IF a girl is raped �V if she is younger than 3 she is still considered a virgin for the sake of later marriage. Is she is older then 3 it is considered RAPE and one of the compensations is that her father may demand the perp marry her as well as pay all the criminal penalties.
Remember that the man is not allowed to have sex with a 3 year old �V we are discussing what happens if someone DOES. The Talmud goes on to say that the father's right to marry off his daughter was to be used for her benefit. The age and manner of marriage is to a large extent a societal variable but at Kidushin 41a the rabbis taught: "It is forbidden for a man to betroth his daughter while she is young [but rather he should wait] till she has grown and says 'This is the one I want [to marry]" and this teaching is repeated elsewhere in the Talmud.
As I said before, taking things out of context and getting them from anti-Jewish sites isn��t the way to understand Judaism.
The next lie was "Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old."
Gee, what happened to 3? ��
This is about boys, not girls and the Talmud doesn��t say what your quote would indicate. Read what Leviticus has to say about homosexuality regardless of age.
Leviticus says that if a man lies with another man, both must be killed. What Sanhedrin 54b says is that if one of the participants is under nine years old, he is not considered a "man" - and so it is not required that the child be put to death.
Do you think the Jews should put a 9 year old victim of homosexual rape to death? Would that be better to your way of thinking????
Next lie. "Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."
Grossly out of context. The question is whether in such a case the girl can be considered a "virgin" later, when she comes to marry. The answer is, yes, as far as she's concerned what happened wasn't sex, it
Talmud says that "when a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is as nothing [in terms of creating a marriage bond with the consequent legal ramifications] since for girls less [than three years old] it is as if he put his finger into her eye ...". In other words the act may be an act of assault but it does not create a legal binding marriage unless the child is over the age of three.
Really terrible, huh? Allowing a victim of child abuse to get on with her life, and be treated as if she were innocent?
There are many anti-Jewish sites who perpetrate lies about Talmud so they can hate the Jews and feel good about themselves. Somehow they forget Jesus was a Jew and abided by the Jewish laws.
This is exactly what Hitler did. He dehumanized the Jews. It is easy to hate a caricature. Why not actually as a Jew about Talmud, or would that be too easy? Is it easier to just make fun of people and hate them??
Ashlar
posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:57 PM link
you have perhaps not seen that the exact quotes are there!
the original quote, in the original soncino translation
" Sanhedrin 55b - R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. " ("Coition" is "sexual intercourse")
your explanation:
Originally posted by anonemus
The Talmud strongly opposed formation of the marriage bond by sexual force (at any age) and punished those who acted in such manner (Kidushin 12b). Sanhedrin 55b says IF a girl is raped �V if she is younger than 3 she is still considered a virgin for the sake of later marriage. Is she is older then 3 it is considered RAPE and one of the compensations is that her father may demand the perp marry her as well as pay all the criminal penalties.
Remember that the man is not allowed to have sex with a 3 year old �V we are discussing what happens if someone DOES.
im sorry, but i dont buy it. the evidence is against you.
perhaps it would be more convincing if you provided talmudic evidence of the contrary (ie: thou shall not rape kids) by providing us with talmudic quotes that ban the sexual abuse of children
Ashlar
posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 09:38 PM link
aztlan.net...
Byrd
posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 10:24 PM link
Originally posted by Ashlar
Byrd,
thanks for your reply, but these verses were written well after the time of abraham.
Actually, we don't know WHEN the "time of Abraham" was.
Also; did you notice that sexual intercourse was permitted with a girl as young as 3!
this is not a girl, this is still a baby!
Yes, in fact, I did. I **DID** check this one because it shocked me and yes, did see on legitimate sites by legitimate rabbis that yes, this was the law back then.
i dont think that the cultural practices of the time permitted that!
They did.
let us look at the greeks for example, they practiced pedophilia but the age was still around 12-13; when a girl begins to become a woman,
And let's not forget boys were also included in this. In fact, one of the scandals of Emperor Augustus (mentioned in Tacitus and elsewhere. The Romans are great scandal fodder for historials) was his little "fish boys" who were kept to swim around his pond and ... provide for his pleasure when he went bathing.
I hope you don't mind if I gloss over the details?
In the time of Jesus, girls and boys were married off at the age of 13... so technically, any adult male taking a virgin girl during those time periods was also a pedophile. There were no laws against it... and in the case of where Jesus healed the Roman soldier's "slave boy" the word used in the original Greek (pais) means "beloved boy."
...much has been made of that in some circles.
regardless of the culture at the time, a religion which clearly stipulates that sex with an infant of 3 is acceptable to the lord, this is a evil religion!
Human beings have many strange cultural practices, and in some areas of the world (ohboy, how do I say this...) uh... stimulation of infants is one method used by parents and relatives to keep the babies happy. It is a very old practice and culturally (not religiously) based.
Look up "cultural practices" and "sex" sometime in an anthropology section. I think you'll be boggled at just what goes on around the world.
I surely was...
(and, on a sticky and culturally relativistic note, it's only our legal system that defines "pedophile" as someone who has sex with someone under the age of 18. This is made more complex by some of our "age of consent" rules (14 in some states... yes, really...) By those terms, most of the royalty and nobles of most countries were pedophiles throughout history. ****NOTE**** I personally believe that sex with children and young teens is dead wrong and should NEVER be encouraged. I am simply reporting what I've read and others have documented.)
Byrd
posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 10:26 PM link
Originally posted by Ashlar
aztlan.net...
As much a role as Protestants do (in fact, there are more of them on the pedophile list), Catholics do, or the members of any other religion.
aryaputhra
posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 03:35 AM link
Personally back then most religions advocated marriage as soon as the time the boy and girl where in their 10s or 12s. The same rule applied to Hindus back then when child marriage was common. Medieval Catholicism advocated that a 14 year old girl could get married. My own grandmother got married when she was 13! It is still common amoung arabs, even to this day, to marry against underage wives.
So why single out the jews?
The point is with times changing and modern studies proving abused kids do endure problems in adulthood, it is inherently wrong to do such an act and any civil law abiding country should enshrine that into their constitution. So most of the "civilised" world, barring the nordic countries, advise against pedophilia.
Leveller
posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 05:22 AM link
The title of this thread is "Does Judaism condone pedophilia?".
Whatever spin may be put on the subject; whatever insinuations may be read into the literature; the answer is no.
Pedophilia is not a part of Jewish society. Israel jails child molestors just the same as we do in the West.
If the masses following the religion do not practice or condone pedophila the question is irrelevant.
Anonemus. Judaism is not the liberal religion that you so claim. Although I don't dispute the Judges statement, it is in general, a masculine relgion. As you've stated, I've read the Bible (many times) and women are always the property of men. They are also, according to the Bible, responsible for the downfall of man. You can't get anything more sexist than that, can you?
LadyV
posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 06:57 AM link
I think people forget that the "IF" your going to go by the Christian bible.....people lived to very old ages in the beginning of the book. By the time Christ came around, the life span was short........girls were married young, by "our" standards but not by there's....Mary was probably 13 or 14.
Crakeur
posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 07:26 AM link
I'd leave my kids with a rabbi 1000 times before leaving them once with a priest.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق