***Fund raising - Until I
can get that first pay check, I knew I might have to do fund
raising one more time. Soooo, here I am again asking you to donate
to help meet the deficit of $120 by the first of the month. Thank you all who have contributed so far. We are forever grateful for your support.
I
am confident that next month will be different. I honestly think I
will do well at it. So help me get there so I don't have to do this
asking/begging again. If you appreciate the work we do and it has
been of benefit to you, then we ask that you help us out by donating
at the Pay pal button off to the right of this blog. Thank you for
all your support and God Bless you and yours for this coming new Year.
Vatic Note: As we have said many times, "This is not a fast food information titillating headlines, blogsite". Its an educational site and thus requires a commitment to reading volumes of information that is deeply affecting our culture, our nation, our society, and our children. This is one of those topics that most Americans know nothing about, but best get educated, especially if they have children, since a global world order will be fully incorporating this below into the society at a level we would never have accepted, in anyway, before they demolished our moral base with their attack on Christianity.
It doesn't matter what one thinks of "Christianity", it still served to stabilize our society in every way by laying down a moral code that addressed every aspect of behaviour between members of all society and nations. Since the attack on Christianity and our movement by Bush Sr, over to the Noahide Laws, we have slipped rapidly down the amoral hole of the Talmud, sending us into chaos and deep instability as we see economically.
In fact, there is a long history of these khazars doing this over here on this continent and in most western cultures. Just read our blog on the Queen of England, whose son, Prince Charles, has admitted to being an offspring of Val the Empaler from Romania, previously transylvania, and Prince Charles has been fascinated with that Romanian side of his family. I believe one of relatives was named "count Dracula".
The count Dracula family line are blood drinkers and pedophilers according to researchers in Europe who have written extensively about it. In fact, the ICCC court is taking evidence on Charges againt the Queen for killing 10 children from state religious schools of native Canadians. Their bodies were not found until 10 years later and a child witness did a sworn testimony by video, and he died shortly after doing so.
This is Amazing.... I had no idea Pedastry was this deeply imbedded in the Khazar pagan religion dressed up like Judaism. Now I fully understand why they are always using someone else as cover for their very serious crimes. I now understand why these khazars hate both Judaism and Christianity. Both are diametrically opposed to the pedophiling of young children, which is apparently deeply embedded in the Khazar culture due to their pagan phallic worshipping.
I could not understand why the Mongols kicked the khazars out of Mongolia, until now. You have to be inhumane to do this below to your own children or to children of other parents. Its a form of murdering of the soul of the child. Now why have they done this? To offer these souls to Satan in return for power and profits.
Is it because of their pagan religion of worshipping the phallic symbol? And where the hell did that originate from? Are these khazars from another world? Its hard to believe they originated from our world. THESE KHAZARS are Child soul killers with no compassion, no humanity, and no moral core of any kind. It makes them dangerous neighbors to ourselves, our families, and most definitely to our nations.
New America 2. Sex with Children by Talmud Rules
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_2.html
By Admin, "Come and Hear", August 12, 2010
We are told there is a movement afoot to make
pederasty (child-adult sex) socially acceptable and legally permissible.
Researching the issue, we find that many dominant voices on both sides
of the controversy are Jewish.
How is this possible? Which voices speak for the core
values of Judaism? Our questions are not prompted by idle curiosity,
but by social concern. America is rapidly becoming Talmudized, and we
should understand the direction in which our social policies are moving.
Let us start with an article in the Washington Times, a major newspaper that espouses conservative Christian values. The Times provides a useful starting point because they name names. Let us borrow the Times' viewpoint.
Jewish Bad Guys
Feminist writer Judith Levine's book Not Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Kids from Sex has been condemned by those who say she excuses sexual abuse of children — a charge she strongly denies.
Ms. Levine says she was "misunderstood" after a news article last month
quoted her saying a boy's sexual experience with a priest "conceivably"
could be positive.
The Washington Times depicts Harris Mirkin as follows:
"Harris Mirkin, a professor at the University of
Missouri-Kansas City, published a 1999 article in the Journal of
Homosexuality complaining that boys who have sex with men "are never
considered willing participants, even if they are hustlers." He has
also written that "children are the last bastion of the old sexual
morality."
The Washington Times cites a controversial psychology research study:
"A 1998 "meta-analytic" study in an American Psychological
Association (APA) journal argued, among other things, that
"value-neutral" language such as "adult-child sex" should be used to
describe child molestation if it was a "willing encounter."
The study was conducted by Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman, and Philip Tromovitch, and was published in the
Psychological Bulletin in 1998 under the editorship of Nancy
Eisenberg.
(4)
Jewish Good Guys
Here come the good guys. Meet Joy Silberg.
Ms. Levine's book favorably cites the Rind study and, in a
telephone interview, she defended the study as "methodologically
meticulous." But Baltimore psychologist Joy Silberg, whose clinical
practice involves treating child-abuse victims, says the study is
"horribly flawed."
"I can't call it science," she said.
… Ms. Silberg, the Baltimore psychologist, agrees that the "whole
academic movement" to legitimize sex with children "is growing."
Now comes Dr. Laura Schlessinger:
Radio host Laura Schlessinger led a campaign against that
study by Temple University psychology professor Bruce Rind and two other
academics. Congress eventually voted unanimously to condemn the Rind
study — which has already been used as evidence to defend accused
child molesters in at least three court cases.
Dr. Laura is, of course, widely considered a shining
example of moral rectitude. She is famous for her denunciation of
homosexuality,
(7)
and very popular with those who call themselves fundamentalist
Christians. As one of America's best-known Orthodox Jews, Dr. Laura
received the 2001 National Heritage Award from the National Council of
Young Israel, an organization of 150 Orthodox synagogues in the US. The
executive vice president of Young Israel is Rabbi Pesach Lerner. The
following report comes from the
Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
The program for the National Council of Young Israel dinner
described Schlessinger as "a powerful source of inspiration and pride
for all Jews." The mainly right-leaning Orthodox Jews filling the large
room applauded her, and many approached her afterward to ask for
autographs and declare their admiration …
— Jewish Telegraphic Agency
(2)
We are told that Schlessinger is a member of a Lubavitch synagogue, Chabad of Agoura, in suburban Los Angeles. Then:
Schlessinger's rabbi, Moshe Bryski, insists that his most
famous congregant is serious about the moral questions she receives,
researching Jewish ethics and frequently calling him to consult on
issues that arise on her show.
"There is a sense of responsibility because at times she'll call me
about specific questions, and I realize the answer is going to be
broadcast to 20 million people, and I better get it right," Bryski says.
— Jewish Telegraphic Agency
(2)
The Jewish publication, Forward, also covered Dr. Laura's Young Israel award.
The executive director of Young Israel, Rabbi Pesach Lerner,
said Ms. Schlessinger was chosen because of her success "in changing
the moral compass of this country," on issues such as abortion,
abstinence and homosexuality. He also cited her personal religious
journey that eventually led her to adopt an Orthodox lifestyle.
No doubt Rabbi Bryski listens to Dr. Laura' show to
see how his student is doing. Given her fame as an Orthodox Jew, we
might expect that some of the rabbis affiliated with the 150 Orthodox
synagogues in the Young Israel organization would listen in, too.
Jewish law, of course, is based primarily on the Talmud, which Jews often call the "Torah."
(48)
Let's follow Dr. Laura, Rabbi Bryski, and Young Israel directly to the
source of their doctrines, the Talmud. We will ask the reader to be
patient and tolerant when reading this material, even though some of
these ideas may be very new.
(Note: When excerpting quotations from the Talmud,
we sometimes omit non-germane text and footnotes. Omission of text is
indicated by an ellipsis (…). To see the full text and footnotes,
follow the hot link at the end of the excerpt. It is our pleasure to
make available on line a number of Talmud tractates, so that you can see
the excerpt in full context. We indicate unprintable Hebrew characters,
words, and phrases with the symbol [H].)
Talmud Permits Child-Adult Sex
Talmud law permits sexual intercourse between children
and adults. This doctrine is contained in a number of Mishnahs.
Before we examine them, however, it is necessary that the reader be
familiar with the word kethubah.
According to the Soncino Talmud Glossary:
KETHUBAH (Lit., 'a written [document]'); (a) a
wife's marriage settlement which she is entitled to recover on her being
divorced or on the death of her husband. The minimum settlement for a
virgin is two hundred zuz, and for a widow remarrying one hundred zuz;
(b) the marriage contract specifying the mutual obligations between
husband and wife and containing the amount of the endowment and any
other special financial obligations assumed by the husband.
Zuz is a unit of currency. We see, then, that a dollar (or zuz) value is put on virginity.
Now let's look at a Mishnah from Kethuboth 11a:
MISHNAH. WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN
(7) HAS HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH (8) A LITTLE GIRL, (9) OR WHEN A
SMALL BOY (10) HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UP WOMAN, OR [WHEN A GIRL
WAS ACCIDENTALLY] INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD (11) — [IN ALL THESE
CASES] THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ] …
The translator, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, amplifies the text with footnotes:
- A man who was of age.
- Lit., 'who came on'.
- Less than three years old.
- Less than nine years of age.
- Lit., 'One who was injured by wood', as a result of which she injured the hymen.
— Rabbi Dr. Daiches
Let's review the above-cited Mishnah: "When a grown-up
man has had sexual intercourse with a little girl, or when a small boy
has intercourse with a grown-up woman …" It is obvious that sex
activity between a grown man and a little girl, and between a grown
woman and a little boy, is a part of the woof and the warp of everyday
Talmud life; such relationships, in the eyes of the Sages, are
unremarkable. There is no prohibition on sexual activity between adults
and young children — it is simply regulated. Recall the words of the
Very Reverend the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire the late Dr. Joseph
Herman Hertz:
Religion in the Talmud attempts to penetrate the
whole of human life with the sense of law and right. Nothing human is in
its eyes mean or trivial; everything is regulated and sanctified by
religion. Religious precept and duty accompany man from his earliest
years to the grave and beyond it. They guide his desires and actions at
every moment.
Thus, if the Talmud permits girls three years old and
younger to be sexually used by adults, that is the law. The concern of
the Sages is to ensure that the adult is not, technically speaking, in
violation of any of the rules.
Regenerating Virginity
In the Gemara that follows the Mishnah of Kethuboth
11a (cited above), the Sages discuss the issues. They say having
intercourse with a girl younger than three is like putting a finger in
the eye. Rabbi Dr. Daiches explains in the footnotes that, just as
tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to
the little girl under three years.
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 to
(2) 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 means (5) 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.
Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches amplifies the text with footnotes (page 58):
- Although the intercourse of a small boy is not
regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a
piece of wood.
- Lit., 'is not in'.
- I.e., the difference of opinion between Rab and Samuel with
regard to that question was recorded without any reference to R. Judah.
- The Sages differ only with regard to a girl injured by a piece
of wood, but not with regard to a small boy who has intercourse with a
grown-up woman. This shows that the latter case cannot be compared with
the former case. The Mishnah would consequently be against Rab and for
Samuel.
- Lit., 'says'.
- Lit., 'here', that is, less than three years old.
- I.e., tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years. Cf. Nid. 45a.
— Rabbi Dr. Daiches
To a person unaccustomed with the Talmud culture, it
may seem that discussion of sexual intercourse between grown men and
very young girls is merely theoretical. But as we shall see, cases are
cited, judgments are weighed and debated, and the Sages discuss the
wounds suffered by the young girls as a result of the intercourse.
More on Regenerating Virginity
We know that the amount of a woman's kethubah
depends on her virginity on her wedding day. But what of a woman who,
as a little girl below the age of three years, was raped or otherwise
subjected to sexual intercourse? The Sages rule that the kethubah of such a woman is set as if she were still a virgin.
MISHNAH. A WOMAN PROSELYTE, A
WOMAN CAPTIVE, AND A WOMAN SLAVE, WHO HAVE BEEN REDEEMED, CONVERTED, OR
FREED [WHEN THEY WERE] LESS THAN THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY OLD — THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ]. AND THERE IS WITH REGARD TO THEM THE CLAIM OF [NON-]VIRGINITY. (17)
This seems like a generous and humanitarian ruling,
the creation of a legal fiction of virginity when the woman is no longer
physiologically a virgin. But Dr. Daiches corrects us. He tells us
that, according to the Sages, the hymen of a girl younger than three literally grows back again.
- If they had sexual intercourse before they were three years and one
day old the hymen would grow again, and they would be virgins. V. 9a
and 11b and cf. Nid. 44b and 45a.
See also the discussion of Niddah 44b and 45a, below.
As we continue to explore the Talmud doctrines on
child-adult sex, we will see further confirmation that the Talmud Sages
believed that the hymen regenerates in a girl younger than three.
"… Of Lesser Age, No Guilt is Incurred"
In modern America, sex between an adult and a child
is condemned in proportion to the youth of the child. That is,
Americans generally consider sex with a fifteen year old, a twelve year
old, a six year old, and a three-year-old on a continuous scale of
condemnation. The younger the child, the greater the condemnation.
Talmudic law works on the reverse scale: sex with
younger children is less significant than sex with older children. How
did this doctrine come about?
Scripture states thus:
- Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
The Old Testament prohibits a man lying with a
man; but notice, the Old Testament does not prohibit a man lying with a
boy. Thus, the Talmud Sages arrive at their position on pederasty. In
the following, bestiality said to be committed "naturally" when a man
uses the vaginal passage of the beast, and "unnaturally" when a man uses
the anal passage of the beast. The Sages make a similar distinction
for the couplings of a woman with a beast.
GEMARA. … 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. (2) 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].
(3) But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman. (4)
It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine
years and a day; [55a] [he] who commits bestiality, whether naturally or
unnaturally; or a woman who causes herself to be bestially abused,
whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment. (5)
The translator, Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, amplifies the
text with footnotes. Note particularly footnote 2: "… but if one
committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred." See
also the final sentence of footnote 5: "… nine years (and a day) is the
minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable." (See
Soncino Talmud Glossary for definition of
Baraitha.)
- I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy
with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three
the minimum.
- At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
- Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three.
- (Rashi reads [H] instead of the [H] in
our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day who commits etc.]
There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first — a
male aged nine years and a day — refers to the passive subject of
pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This
must be its meaning — because firstly, the active offender is never
explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible
states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of
the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference
is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult
party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive
adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years
and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years
(and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to
be liable.
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman
The plain English meaning of the Talmud text is clear,
but if there is any doubt, the Soncino scholars put the matter to rest:
No guilt is incurred with a boy child younger than nine, even in
incest. Thus we see that Orthodox Jewish doctrines concerning
homosexuality are not accurately represented by Dr. Laura and other
Orthodox spokesmen.
Out of Context?
When quoted, those passages in Tractate Sanhedrin 54b
and 55a are sometimes said to be taken out of context. Theologian James
Trimm is one who makes this protest.
(6)
But now the full context of Sanhedrin 54b and 55a — and indeed, the
complete Sanhedrin — is available to the readers of Come and Hear™.
Rabbi Michael Rodkinson, whose English translation of
the Talmud was republished in 1918, censored the Sages' teaching on this
issue. The 1918 Edition of Rabbi Rodkinson's Talmud was published under
the editorship of Rabbi Dr. I. M. Wise, the pioneer of Reform Judaism.
Rabbi Rodkinson explains his censorship in a footnote:
We deem it expedient not to translate about two pages of the
text preceding the next Mishna, treating of miserable crimes with men
and animals, and giving the discussion with questions and answers, it
would be undesirable to express in the English language …
Censorship, expurgation, and denial of the clear and
obvious meaning of basic religious text do not help inter-religious
understanding. It does not help people of different religions understand
each others' faiths. See
What We're About.
The lack of reliable authoritative information on the
doctrines of Judaic law is a significant problem as American society and
law becomes more Talmudized. Such information gaps can cause unwanted
societal consequences.
America Is Rapidly Becoming Talmudized
In 1999, the Supreme Court agreed to consider an
amicus brief based wholly on Talmudic law (see
Sentence and Execution).
In November 2002, the American Orthodox Jewish community held a kosher
dinner in the Supreme Court building to celebrate the establishment of
the National Institute for Judaic Law.
(31)
The dinner was attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court
Justices. The purpose of the Institute is to introduce Talmudic laws
into the US legal system and law schools.
It is thus the clear civic duty of every American to become intimately acquainted with the Talmud. Read articles at:
Death Penalty: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_1.html
Kosher Dinner: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jp-11-09-2002 and http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jw-01-08-03
Oedipal Incest
According to Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman (
footnote 5, above),
in Sanhedrin 54b-55a the Sages confirm, "in all crimes of incest, the
passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least
nine years and a day." Therefore, a mother who encourages her son to
have sexual intercourse with her incurs no guilt if her son is younger
than nine years old and a day. In such an arrangement, the mother would
be the "passive" adult, of course.
Adult Male Homosexuality
MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED.
This clears matters up. Consenting adults who engage
in homosexuality suffer the death penalty. But homosexuality with a
male child under the age of nine years and a day is not punishable
(Sanhedrin 54b-55a, above). Recall Rabbi Dr. Freedman's clear statement
of the doctrine:
- I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy
with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three
the minimum.
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman
(21)
Female Homosexuality
But what of female homosexuality?
GEMARA. … Women who practise lewdness with one another are disqualified from marrying a priest.
The same statement appears in
Shabbath 65a,
page 311. The ruling, then, is only that a woman who "commits
lewdness" with another is disqualified from marrying a priest. Thus a
woman who never had ambitions to marry a priest suffers no sanction for
her homosexual activity.
All of this paints a different picture of Orthodox
Jewish doctrine on homosexuality — as enshrined in the G-d-given law of
the Talmud. What would Dr. Laura say if she knew? Or does she?
More on Oedipal Incest
In the following passage, the question before the
Sages is this: If a mother committed incest with her son, would she
still be eligible to marry a priest? As we shall see, the answer
depends on the son's age. Again, incest with a young boy is not a
concern, while incest with an older boy brings consequences to the
adult. Here, the Sages debate the threshold age.
GEMARA. … Our Rabbis taught: If a
woman sported lewdly with her young son [a minor], and he committed the
first stage of cohabitation with her, — Beth Shammai say, he thereby
renders her unfit to the priesthood. Beth Hillel declare her fit. R.
Hiyya the son of Rabbah b. Nahmani said in R. Hisda's name; others
state, R. Hisda said in Ze'iri's name: All agree that the connection of a
boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one
less than eight years is not: (2) their dispute refers only to one who
is eight years old, Beth Shammai maintaining, We must base our ruling on
the earlier generations, but (3) Beth Hillel hold that we do not.
The translator, Dr. Freedman, uses "cohabitation" to denote sexual intercourse.
(32) He amplifies the text with footnotes.
- So that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree
that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less that
eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not
- When a boy of that age could cause conception.
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman
The issue rests on the boy's theoretical ability to
cause conception. Since (theoretically) a boy younger than nine cannot
cause conception, he cannot (theoretically) engage in
sexual intercourse (see above, from
page 58, footnote 1, "… the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act"). This is a specialized definition of
sexual intercourse.
The boy's youth also exempts the man who sodomizes him
— from moral guilt and legal liability. That is, the young boy
cannot "throw guilt" on a man who lies with him, and the Scripture does
not apply. If the boy is old enough to cause conception, the man who
lies with him is in violation of Scripture.
And now we have the answer to a question that might
have occurred to the reader when we discussed incest between mother and
son, above: Why wouldn't a mother like that be charged with incest? We
have seen this explanation from Rabbi Dr. Freedman before, but it
warrants further study. In a synthesis of logical premises unique to
Talmudism, the translator again helps us out with a footnote. The
language is complex, but the meaning of the last few lines is clear: By
reckoning back and forth between the definition of "man," "cause
conception," "active," and "passive" participants in a sexual act, the
conclusion is drawn that incest is not punishable with a boy younger
than nine years old.
- [Rashi reads [H] instead of the [H] in our printed texts. A male,
aged nine years and a day who commits etc.] There are thus three
distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first — a male aged nine years
and a day — refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment
being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning — because
firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male,
it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind,
where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and
secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being
incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all
crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the
other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha
supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age
of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman
(24)
American Puritanism vs. Rabbinic Tradition
Forward reports criticism of Young Israel's award to Dr. Laura.
The problem, according to her liberal critics, is that Ms.
Schlessinger pushes a conservative, pro-life platform that is out of
touch with the mostly liberal American Jewish public. Worse, they say,
is that her "sanctimonious" moralism and harsh style are more a
reflection of American Puritanism than the ancient rabbinic tradition.
"It's sad that with all the outstanding individuals doing great work,
the National Council of Young Israel has chosen someone whose comments
have been so divisive within and outside of the Jewish community," said
Rabbi Douglas Kahn, the executive director of the Jewish Community
Relations Council of San Francisco.
Rabbi Kahn said he was referring in particular to the controversy
sparked by Ms. Schlessinger's claim that homosexuality is "deviant" and a
"biological error." Last year gay rights organizations and other
liberal groups organized a boycott of Ms. Schlessinger's new television
show, which was eventually canceled due to poor ratings.
More than a dozen Jewish leaders signed a critical letter to Ms.
Schlessinger, including Rabbi Paul Menitoff, the executive vice
president of the Reform movement's Central Conference of American
Rabbis.
Indeed, Rabbis Kahn, Menitoff, and other Reform
rabbis are right. Dr. Laura is not representing "the ancient rabbinic
tradition," which allows ample room for homosexuality and pederasty. But
why didn't Rabbis Kahn and Menitoff and their Reform colleagues
publicly correct Dr. Laura and her Orthodox mentors, in particular Rabbi
Moshe Bryski, by using the authority of direct quotes from the Talmud?
Children as Concubines, Babies as Wives
The ancient Hebrews were permitted to use children as
concubines. Moses established the precedent. In the passage below,
the Hebrews have just massacred the Midianite men. They return home
with booty, and the Midianite women and children. Moses directs them to
slaughter the captive women and children with this exception: virgin
girl children are to be kept as concubines for the Hebrews.
- And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto
Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children
of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan
near Jericho.
- And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
- And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the
captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the
battle.
- And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
- Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the
counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of
Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
- Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
- But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
In the following, the Talmud Sages reason that, since
Phinehas was among the Hebrews who were permitted a child concubine and
Phinehas was a priest, Numbers 31:17-18 is Divine sanction for the
marriage of priests with girls under the age of three — babies. The
rabbis describe the babies as proselytes. The American Heritage Dictionary defines proselyte as "a Gentile converted to Judaism." In the following passage, a bondman is a male slave, and a bondwoman a female slave.
GEMARA. … It was taught: R. Simeon
b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one
day is permitted to marry a priest, (2) for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,
(3) and Phinehas (4) surely was with them. And the Rabbis? (5) — [These
were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. (6) If so, (7) a proselyte
whose age is three years and one day (8) should also be permitted! —
[The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R.
Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him,
(9) but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be
inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or
have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,
(3) but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently (10) it must
be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit (11) for cohabitation.
(12)
This is a special definition of cohabitation. The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with footnotes:
- She is not regarded as a harlot.
- Num. XXXI, 18.
- Who was a priest.
- How could they, contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai,
which has Scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young
proselyte?
- Not for matrimony.
- That, according to R. Simeon, Num. XXXI, 18 refers to matrimony.
- So long as she has 'not known man'.
- Num. XXXI, 17.
- To reconcile the contradiction.
- I.e., one who had attained the age of three years and one day.
- Not one who had actually experienced it.
— Rev. Dr. Slotki
The doctrine that Jewish men may have sexual
intercourse with non-Jewish children ("proselytes") under the age of
three is expanded in the following passage; "Rabbi" is Judah the Prince.
GEMARA. … R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah
is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai. (13) Said R. Zera to R. Jacob
b. Idi: Did you hear this (13) explicitly or did you learn it by a
deduction? What [could be the] deduction? — As R. Joshua b. Levi
related: There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy
of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who
conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was
under the age of three years and one day, (14) and Rabbi declared her
eligible to live with a priest. (15)
The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with footnotes:
- That a proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.
- And was married to a priest.
- I.e., permitted her to continue to live with her husband.
— Rev. Dr. Slotki
Not every Sage agreed with this practice. The Talmud
records the words of one Sage who objected to one case, though it does
not record the specifics of his objection.
GEMARA. … A certain priest married a
proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day. Said R.
Nahman b. Isaac to him: What [do you mean by] this? (12) — The other
replied: Because R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi
that the halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai. (13)
'Go', the first said, 'and arrange for her release, or else I will pull
R. Jacob b. Idi out of your ear'. (14)
The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with footnotes:
- I.e., on what authority did you contract the marriage.
- V. supra p. 403. n. 13.
- He would place him under the ban and thus compel him to carry out his decision which is contrary to that of R. Jacob b. Idi.
— Rev. Dr. Slotki
How Old Is the Screamer?
In Talmud doctrine, if a wife is a screamer — that is,
her voice can be heard by the neighbors — she can be divorced without
her kethubah.
MISHNAH. THESE ARE TO BE
DIVORCED WITHOUT RECEIVING THEIR KETHUBAH: A WIFE WHO TRANSGRESSES THE
LAW OF MOSES OR [ONE WHO TRANSGRESSES] JEWISH PRACTICE … [SUCH
TRANSGRESSIONS INCLUDE] ALSO THAT OF A WIFE WHO CURSES HER HUSBAND'S
PARENTS IN HIS PRESENCE. R. TARFON SAID: ALSO ONE WHO SCREAMS. AND WHO
IS REGARDED A SCREAMER? A WOMAN WHOSE VOICE CAN BE HEARD BY HER
NEIGHBOURS WHEN SHE SPEAKS INSIDE HER HOUSE.
— Babylonian Talmud,
Kethuboth 72a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 449
However, in the current context of the child bride,
the matter becomes another issue. It is surely possible that a three or
four-year-old wife screams in pain when required to perform her marital
duties. On reading further, the Gemara explains that if the wife
screams during intercourse, it may be a sign of a physical defect.
GEMARA. … R. TARFON SAID: ALSO ONE
WHO SCREAMS. What is meant by a screamer? — Rab Judah replied in the
name of Samuel: One who speaks aloud (10) on marital matters. In a
Baraitha it was taught: [By screams was meant a wife] whose voice (11)
during her intercourse in one court can be heard in another court. But
should not this, then, (12) have been taught in the Mishnah (13) among
defects? (14) — Clearly we must revert to the original explanation. (15)
Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki amplifies the above Gemara
in the following footnotes. He tells us these were not screams of
pleasure — they were screams of pain.
- Lit., 'makes her voice heard'.
- Her screams of pain caused by the copulation.
- Since her screaming is due to a bodily defect.
- Infra 77a.
- Of course it should. Such a case in our Mishnah is out of place.
- That given in the name of Samuel.
— Rev. Dr. Slotki
In some cases, however, the screaming wife may be one
who is so young and physically underdeveloped, her sexual organs cannot
accommodate those of a grown man. It seems this child is at risk of
being divorced without her kethubah. That is, of course, a concern.
A Different Viewpoint
There is no Talmud prohibition against sexual activity
between an adult and very a young child on the basis that such activity
could wound the child. Instead, the concern of the Sages is focused on
interpreting Biblical injunctions and technicalities that absolve the
adult from guilt or liability: At what age, they ask, does the child
begin to cause "defilement" of the adult who uses the child for sex?
This next passage illustrates the point once more.
The Sages debate "from what age does a heathen child cause defilement"?
Is it nine years, or is it three years? If the correct threshold age
is observed, the Jew incurs no guilt for the act of pederasty.
GEMARA. … From what age does a
heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine
years and one day, [37a] for inasmuch as he is then capable of the
sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore
to be concluded that a heathen girl [communicates defilement] from the
age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of
the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux. This is obvious! — You
might argue that he is at an age when he knows to persuade [a female]
but she is not at an age when she knows to persuade [a male, and
consequently although she is technically capable of the sexual act, she
does not cause defilement until she is nine years and one day old].
Hence he informs us [that she communicates defilement at the earlier
age].
This may surprise the American reader who encounters
it for the first time. In our society, of course, an adult who uses a
child — particularly a very young child — for sexual activity is
criminally censured.
Brother Takes Three-Year-Old Widow
In Tractate Niddah, again there is approval for
priests to marry and copulate with baby girls. This passage describes a
situation in which a priest dies without children, leaving a
three-year-old widow. In such case, the priest's brother (the yebam) can acquire the girl by having sexual intercourse with her. The
ellipsis (…) in the following Mishna indicates the omission of
non-germane text. The full text is available through the link at the
Come and Hear™ link, below.
MISHNAH. A GIRL OF THE AGE OF
THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED BY INTERCOURSE; … IF SHE WAS
MARRIED TO A PRIEST, SHE MAY EAT TERUMAH.
Terumah is the word for temple offerings eaten
by priests. This statement indicates that the three-year-old bride is
the widow of the priest in all respects and privileges.
In the passage below, we see that the widow of a man
who is not a priest can be sexually possessed by her erstwhile
brother-in-law and thereby become his wife.
GEMARA. … 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.
Wounding Young Brides by Intercourse
The Sages go on to discuss sexual intercourse with a
girl younger than three years old: Wounding the child and causing her to
bleed is one possible result. From the Sages' description, it is
apparent that the baby bleeds again and again from copulation with a
grown man, and the Sages, once again, attribute the bleeding to the
repetitive rupturing of the hymen (i.e., virginity growing back).
In the following Mishnah, non-germane text is omitted (…). Please follow the source link to view the complete Mishnah.
MISHNAH. A GIRL OF THE AGE OF
THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED BY INTERCOURSE; … IF ONE WAS
YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN
THE EYE.
The image of "a finger in the eye" is once again
explained in the following Gemara. The possibility that the
three-year-old committed adultery with a stranger is also addressed:
GEMARA. … IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE.
It was asked, Do the features of virginity disappear and reappear
again or is it possible that they cannot be completely destroyed until
after the third year of her age?
"In what practical respect could this
matter? — In one, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with
her before the age of three and found blood, and when he had
intercourse after the age of three he found no blood. If you grant that
they disappear and reappear again [it might well be assumed] that there
'was not sufficient time for their reappearance, but if you maintain
that they cannot be destroyed until after the age of three years it
would be obvious that a stranger cohabited with her. Now what is your
decision?" — R. Hiyya son of R. Ika demurred:
"But who can tell us that a
wound inflicted within the three years is not healed forthwith, seeing
it is possible that it is immediately healed and it would thus be
obvious that a stranger had cohabited with her?
Rather the practical
difference is the case, for instance, where her husband had intercourse
with her while she was under three years of age and found blood and when
he had intercourse after the age of three he also found blood. If you
grant that the features disappear and reappear again the blood might
well be treated as that of virginity, but if you maintain that they
cannot be destroyed until after the age of three years, that must be the
blood of menstruation. Now what is your decision? — R. Hisda replied,
Come and hear: IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE; what need was there to state, LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE' instead of merely saying: IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS
of no consequence'? Does not this then teach us that as the eye tears
and tears again so do the features of virginity disappear and reappear
again.
Rest for the Intercourse Wound
This Gemara from Tractate Kethuboth takes up the discussion of the pre-pubescent bride who is wounded by intercourse.
GEMARA. … R. Hisda objected: If a
girl, whose period to see [blood] had not arrived yet, got married,
Beth Shammai say: One gives her four nights, and the disciples of Hillel
say: Until the wound is healed up. (1) If her period to see [blood] had
arrived and she married, Beth Shammai say: One gives her the first
night, and Beth Hillel say: Until the night following the Sabbath [one
gives her] four nights.
The translator, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, amplifies the text with this footnote.
- The blood that comes out is attributed to the wound and not to
menstruation. Ordinarily, after the first intercourse further
intercourse is forbidden until the coming out of blood, i.e.,
menstruation, is over. But in this case, in which the young bride had
never yet had any menstruation, it is assumed that the blood is not due
to menstruation but to the wound caused by the intercourse.
- According to
Beth Shammai this assumption holds good for four nights, and according
to Beth Hillel it holds good 'until the wound is healed up.' As to the
definition of this phrase, v. Nid. 64b. V. also Nid. 65b, where it is
finally decided that after the first coition no further intercourse must
take place until the flowing of blood has stopped, even in the case of a
young bride who had not yet had any menstruation. V. also Eben
ha-'Ezer, 63, and Yoreh De'ah, 193.
— Rabbi Dr. Daiches
We have been told that according to Jewish law, a
post-pubescent bride who bleeds after the first intercourse does not
have intercourse again until after her next menstrual period (above).
The situation is different, however, for a bride who has not reached the
age of menstruation. What are the rules concerning the bleeding
pre-pubescent bride? Shammai rabbis say the intercourse wound should be
given four nights rest. The Hillel rabbis recommend abstinence until
the wound is healed (
Kethuboth 6a).
See also Tractate Niddah, as follows:
MISHNAH. IF A YOUNG GIRL,
WHOSE AGE OF MENSTRUATION HAS NOT YET ARRIVED, MARRIED, BETH SHAMMAI
RULED: SHE IS ALLOWED FOUR NIGHTS, AND BETH HILLEL RULED: UNTIL THE
WOUND IS HEALED.
Again, there is no prohibition of a sexual practice
that would almost certainly cause physical damage to a young girl due to
the mismatched sizes of genitals between an adult's penis and a child's
vagina or anus.
Old Fashioned Torah Values?
At a time when Americans are displaying an ever-increasing
interest in all things Jewish — from kabbala to Senator Joseph
Lieberman to "Kosher Sex" — Dr. Laura is the most popular source for a
healthy dose of Jewish nagging, guilt trips and what she presents as
lessons in good old-fashioned Torah values.
We have seen in Numbers 31:12-18 that Moses
permitted grown men to use little girls as concubines. In the Talmud,
grown men are permitted to have sexual intercourse with female babies
and children, and homosexual relations with boys younger than nine.
Those "good old fashioned Torah values" are not quite as Christian America remembers them.
Marital Duties of the Pre-Pubescent Bride
The marital duties of the pre-pubescent brides are
addressed in at least three tractates in almost the same words (Yebamoth
12b and 100b, Niddah 45a, and Kethuboth 39a).
In the following passage, the Sages discuss the use of
contraception. All the Sages agree that a wife younger than eleven — a
wife who is too young to become pregnant — is required to carry on
"marital intercourse" in the normal manner. Recall that those brides can
be as young as three, and sometimes younger. (VN: a recent change in the Talmud has raised that age to now be 3.5 years old, like that is a big difference? These people are insane.)
GEMARA. … Three classes of woman may
use an absorbent
(1) in their marital intercourse:
(2) A minor, and an
expectant and a nursing mother. The minor,
(3) because otherwise she
might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother, because
otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.
(4) A
nursing mother, because otherwise she might have to wean her child
prematurely,
(5) and this would result in his death. And what is the age
of such a 'minor'?
(6) From the age of eleven years and one day to the
age of twelve years and one day. One who is under
(7) or over this age
(8) must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R.
Meir. But the Sages ruled: The one as well as the other carries on her
marital intercourse in a normal manner and mercy
(9) will be vouchsafed
from heaven, for it is said in Scripture, The Lord preserveth the simple (10) …
The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with these footnotes:
- Muk, flax or hackled wool.
- To avoid conception.
- Is permitted the use of the absorbent.
- A fish-shaped abortion. Lit., 'flat-fish'.
- On account of her second conception which causes the deterioration of her breast milk.
- Of whom it has been said that she is capable of conception but is thereby exposed to fatal consequences.
- When conception is impossible.
- When conception involves no danger.
- To protect them from harm.
- Ps. CXVI, 6; sc. those who are unable to protect
themselves. At any rate it was here stated that a minor under eleven
years of age is incapable of conception. …
— Rev. Dr. Slotki
Did Girls Reach Puberty Earlier Then?
It is sometimes claimed that in the days when the
Talmud Sages walked the earth, girls matured earlier; hence, sexual
intercourse with girls three years old and younger was not
inappropriate. However, the Talmud itself repudiates this assertion.
In Tractate Niddah 45a (
quoted above),
the Sages argue:
"From the age of eleven years and one day to the age
of twelve years and one day" a girl may use an "absorbent"
(contraception) "because otherwise she might become pregnant and die."
The Sages also say girls younger (than eleven) must carry on sexual
intercourse
"in the normal manner."
Therefore, as a general rule, the
Sages did not expect a girl younger than eleven could get pregnant. The
statements in Niddah 45a indicate that sexual maturation of women in
the time of the Talmud Sages compares with sexual maturation of women in
our own day.
Or consider the passage that appears just previous in Niddah 45a:
GEMARA. … It is related of Justinia
the daughter of 'Aseverus son of Antonius that she once appeared before
Rabbi. 'Master', she said to him, 'at what age may a woman marry?'. 'At
the age of three years and one day', he told her. 'And at what age is
she capable of conception?' 'At the age of twelve years and one day', he
replied. 'I', she said to him, 'married at the age of six and bore a
child at the age of seven; alas for the three years that I have lost at
my father's house'. But can a woman conceive at the age of six years?
Justinia's assertion that she had a child at seven is
surprising, and it even surprises the Sages ("But can a woman conceive
at the age of six years?"). But note that Rabbi (Judah the Prince), who
was familiar with far more than a single girl's experience, estimated
twelve as the earliest age for childbearing. Rabbi would of course be
familiar with all phases of human life from his career of counseling,
judging, and recording. Remember (
Talmud Laws of Menstruation),
the rabbis were intimately familiar with the physiological details of
their female parishioners, consulted even on specimens of a woman's
vaginal discharge. Rev. Dr. Slotki remarks on the above Gemara in
footnote 10 on the following page:
- "… At any rate it was here stated that a minor under eleven years of
age is incapable of conception. How then is Justinia's story to be
reconciled with this statement?"
The Rights of the Child
The treatment of children in Orthodox Judaism has
caused concern in Italy. A Genoa court, ruling in a custody dispute,
accepted the report of psychologists that Orthodox Judaism views
"exploitation and cruelty to minors as legitimate … and perverted
behavior as normal." For more details, see
Appendix: The Rights of the Child.
The Rudin Standard
Let us consider again Forward's coverage of Dr. Laura's National Heritage award from Young Israel.
"With 20 million listeners and a tendency to present her
conservative views as an outgrowth of her Orthodox Jewish faith, Dr.
Laura may well be Judaism's top ambassador to middle America."
But we notice Dr. Laura never tells Middle America
about the doctrines of Orthodox Judaism on child-adult sex. We wonder
how things would work out for her ratings if she followed the advice of
Rabbi A. James Rudin, Senior Interreligious Adviser of the American
Jewish Committee.
In February 2002, Rabbi Rudin wrote an article for Forward,
commenting on the Vatican's decision to open its World War II archives —
partially. In that context, Rabbi Rudin offered the Vatican the
following advice:
"… one thing is clear. Partial, incomplete or pre-selected
archival records will not be enough in a world where transparency and
full disclosure is now the norm if an institution — whether political,
financial, or spiritual — is to maintain its integrity."
— Rabbi A. James Rudin (8)
If it is important to fully disclose records of
historical events, surely it is more important to fully disclose
fundamental religious doctrines that may soon be embodied in US law —
especially when those doctrines are controversial.
On the subject of child-adult sex, there is a great
divide between Talmud culture and American culture. However, the extent
of that divide is known only to one side. Rabbis in America know and
understand American culture, Americans know almost nothing about Talmud
culture. When the fundamental doctrines of the Talmud are examined
carefully, we find that feminist writer Judith Levine, author of Not Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Kids from Sex, is truer to classical Judaism than Dr. Laura.
Jewish leadership — from the most liberal of the
Reform rabbis to the most conservative of the Orthodox rabbis — have
done Judaism a disservice by not coming forward with the facts and
applying Rabbi Rudin's standard of full disclosure. How can we achieve
understanding between people of different religious faiths if we do not
take courage and stand behind our own religious convictions?
Thank you for your consideration of the above,
Carol A. Valentine,
Ear at come-and-hear dot com
July 14, 2003 ( This article is on line at
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_2.html )
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
