Bestiality and the Jewish Talmud - Doc Tavish Battles it Out With Two Neo-Pharisees R_1003
Sean Cyril O'Tavish
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:11:34 GMT, dr_ni...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <7Iuh6.249096$j6.34...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> "Mark Sherwin" <Sata...@home.com> wrote:
^^^^^^^^
Your e-mail address tells a lot about you Mark. Are you a son of the
father of lies?
>> If some inbred racist, makes a false statement, and uses some quotes
>> from the bible, are all dog-fuckers like you of the same mind?
>>
>> I would like you to answer me that one.
Is personal attack all you lefties have?
>LOL.... tell him about the dog fuckers in the Talmud and let him digest
>the passage about dog shit being a Talmudic medicine.
I know in the book of Gittin there are "medicinal cures" involving the
ingestion of feces from a white dog but here is a real classic and notice
that my opposition did not deny the text I quoted existed!
<START>
On Jewish teachings concerning dogs and women (also notice not once has
any Jew denied these teachings or debates or whatever are in the Talmud!)
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:44:52 GMT, Roving Fruitcake
<roving_f...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <582k5t42f1kn1bfjt...@4ax.com>,
> doc_tavi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> I just showed what the Talmud said!
:
>No, that's your interpretation of what it says.
It is NOT my interpretation fruitcake! I interpreted nothing!
What I posted was how it appears in the Talmud.
>> >Roving Fruitcake
>> You chose quite an appropriate name for yourself but all joking
>> aside-- I answer you quite well below!
:.
>I beg to differ. I understand the Talmud to be a commentary and series
>of rulings on Jewish religious law - I'd imagine someone would come up
>with hypothetical situations to discuss a particular point.
I can't imagine too many NORMAL people postulating over dogs having sex
with their womenfolk and the availability of womenfolk after the dogs of
the town have had their run!
>> The Talmud discusses Jewish women having sex with dogs as shown here:
:
>What you quote also mentions women having sex with men
I don't recall the text mentioning the women having sex with men.
>- in short, it's describing whether a woman is considered chaste -
Most NORMAL people think of being chaste relates to humans with humans!
>the sections about dogs strike me as hypothetical situations
What NORMAL people would delve into such hypothetical situations?
>rather than describing practises or advocating women having sex with dogs.
I won't say the Talmud advocates having sex with dogs BUT it certainly
condones and makes allowance for it!
Excuse me because I must show the text again for archival sake.
<start>
What the Talmud is:
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1943 edition, page 474] says: "The
Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break,
through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and
methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a
very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most
important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a
number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of
edification (Haggadic)."
[NOTE: The words in parenthesis are as they appeared in the text; they are
not my additions. Doc Tavish]
".... any decision regarding the Jewish religion must be based on the
TALMUD as the final resume...." "The JEWS - Their History, Culture, and
Religion", Vol. 4, p. 1332, Jewish Publication Society of America
"The TALMUD is to this day the circulating heart's blood of the Jewish
religion. Whatever laws, customs or ceremonies we observe- whether we are
Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic
sentimentalists-we follow the TALMUD. It is our common law." THE TALMUD;
HEART'S BLOOD of the JEWISH FAITH by Herman Wouk which also ran serially
in the (11/17/59) New York Herald Tribune
---------------------------------------------
The Talmud Elaborating on Women Having Sex With Dogs:
The Babylonian Talmud
Translated into English by Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein
London
The Soncino Press 1935
From the Talmud Volume Yebamoth:
<Yebamoth 59a pages 150 &151 of above volume>
Rabbi Eleazar having stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with
unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a
harlot! {11} Rabbi Joseph replied: {12} When for instance, the woman was
subjected to intercourse with a beast, where the reason of
'previous carnal intercourse' may be applied but not that of harlot. {13}
Said Abaye to him: Whatever you prefer [your reply cannot be upheld]. If
she is a beulah {14} she must also be a harlot; and if she is not a harlot
{15} she cannot be a beulah either! And were you to reply: This case is
similar to that of a wounded woman, {16} [it may be pointed out] that if
[the disqualification should be extended to] unnatural intercourse also,
{17} you will find no woman eligible to marry a [High Priest [since there
is not one] who has not been in some way (end of page 396 flipping to page
397 to continue) wounded {1} by a splinter! No, said Rabbi Zera, {2} in
respect of a minor who made a declaration of refusal. {3}
Rabbi Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with
a beast is eligible to marry a priest. {4} Likewise it was taught: A woman
who had intercourse with that which is no human being, {5} though she is
in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning, {6} is nevertheless
permitted to marry a priest. {7}
When Rabbi Dimi came {8} he related: It once happened at
Haitalu {9} that while a young woman was sweeping the floor {10} a village
dog {11} covered her from the rear {12} and Rabbi permitted her to marry a
priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest.
Footnotes for page 396:
{11} Infra 61b, 76a, Sanh. 51a, Tem. 30a
{12} Rab's reason of 'previous carnal intercourse' was necessary. {13} A
term which is not applicable to bestial intercourse. V. infra {14} one who
had experienced carnal intercourse.
{15} Presumably because her act cannot be regarded as 'sexual
intercourse'
{16} V. supra p. 394, n. 8 As in her case marriage with a High Priest is
forbidden (v. our Mishna), though she is no harlot, so also in the case of
bestial intercourse.
{17} I.e., if injury to the anus is to be subject to the same
restrictions as injury to the hymen.
Footnotes for page 397:
{1} Cf. supra p. 394, n. 8
{2} Rab's reason of 'previous carnal intercourse' was necessary. {3}
Mema'meth, v. Glos. Unnatural intercourse with her by her husband places
the minor in the status of beu'lah (v. Glos) but not in that of harlot,
while her refusal to live with him does not give her status of divorcee or
widow but that of mema'meth. Hence the necessity for Rab's statement that
such a minor also is forbidden to marry a High Priest. {4} Even a High
Priest. The result of such intercourse being regarded as a mere wound, and
the opinion that does not so regard such an accidentally damaged hymen as
a disqualification does not so regard such an intercourse either. {5} A
beast
{6} If the offence was committed in the presence of witness after due
warning.
{7} In the absence of witnesses and warning.
{8} From Palestine to Babylon.
{9} [Babylonian form for Aitalu, modern Aiterun N.W. of Kadesh, v. S.
Klein, Beitrage p. 47].
{10} Lit., 'house'
{11} Or 'big hunting dog (Rashi), 'ferocious dog' (Jast.) 'small wild dog
(Aruk).
{12} A case of unnatural intercourse.
<end>
The final line about the condition of the Talmudic Jew is best stated as:
" ...it may be pointed out that if the disqualification should be extended
to unnatural intercourse also, you will find no woman eligible to marry a
High Priest since there is not one who has not been in some way wounded by
a splinter.... A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to
marry a priest.
Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no
human being, though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of
stoning, is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest." [From above Talmud
"lesson"]
Doc Tavish
<stop>
Here is another person trying to discount the texts:
Subject: Pharisaic Interpretation of Talmud Lesson -- Animal Sex and Dogs
Date: 11/11/2000
Author: Doc Tavish <doc_tavi...@scottsmail.com>
Original subject title: Re: Talmud Lesson for Ken McVay: Animal Sex, and
Dogs [Dedicated to Nizkor]
On 3-Nov-1999, "Reuven Singer" <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:
> Replying to a Tavish nazi post is usually an exercise in futility but for
> the benefit of innocent readers, it should be pointed out that the Talmud is
> a vast compendium of discussion of laws- but is not a lawbook in itself.
> The case Tavish cites- completely misunderstanding the point- deals with a
> largely hypothetical discussion as to whether bestiality affects a woman's
> status as a virgin since the High Priest (at the time of the Temple) is
> forbidden to marry a woman who is not a virgin. One cannot conclude that
> bestiality was or is particularly common- although it is certainly a known
> phenomenon in every community.
Bestiality must have been rampant for the Talmud to say precisely: "....it
may be pointed out that if the disqualification should be extended to
unnatural intercourse also, you will find no woman eligible to marry a
High Priest..."
I notice that you did not once deny the validity of the Talmudic texts-
you only deny how they are "interpreted."
> The Talmud often deals with issues that are purely theoretical -at least
> at the time. For example there is a halachic discussion on flying towers
> in the Talmud, which seems more relevant now than at the time it was written.
> As such the discussion on bestiality is a rather straightforward and
> legalistic and Tavish's leers simply reveal his own sexual hangups.
Don't try to pass off Jewish perversity on me. I did NOT write the Talmud-
your kind did and this is precisely why Jesus taunted your forefathers
daily at the temple on account of their vain reasonings and teachings!
Need I say more?
Doc Tavish
---
"We are not allowed to drink any wine or grape juice, or any drink containing
wine or grape juice, which has been touched by a non-Jew after the seal of the
bottle has been opened." <http://www.kashrus.org/kosher/supervis.html>
Information taken from: Is it Kosher, Rabbi E. Eidlitz and Spice and Spirit,
The Lubavitch Women's Cookbook Publications (July 12, 2001)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=kllghv4i1i04qsl4hc4uva984ad499imdg%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Non-Jews: What is Taught About Them & How They are Viewed by 21st
Century Pharisees V2.1 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:23:59 -0500
Message-ID: <kllghv4i1i04qsl4h...@4ax.com>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Yitzchak Goodman
> CLASSIC DOC TAVISH REPOST
Here is what the Talmud really thinks about bestiality:
"The following are executed by stoning: one who has relations
with his mother, and [one who has relations] with his father's wife,
and [one who has relations] with his daughter in law, and [one who has
relations] with a male, and [one who has relations] with a beast,
and a woman who causes a beast to have relations with her . . ."
(Sanhedrin 53a in the Mishnah.)
Yitz
