Discussion:
Sanhedrin 55b,p.376. "A Jew may marry a three year old girl
(too old to reply)
Gibbon
2005-06-01 22:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Examples of Jews'"New Testament", the Talmud:

"A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." -9boda
Sarah 37
(This means a baby can be "violated" up to age three and
still have the hymen grow back. The big question is how does
the Jew know this? What did Jew do to "Gentile" (non-Jew) toddlers, to
find this out?)

Non-Jewish Children Declared Sub-Human:

Yebamoth 98a. "All Gentile children are animals."

"Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth" Abodah
Zarah 36b

Jews' Own Children:
Sanhedrin 55b,p.376. "A Jew may marry a three year old girl
(specifically, three years and one day."
Sanhedrin 54b . "A Jew may have sex with a child as long as
the child is less than nine years."
[9 years and a day old is OK?]
Sanhedrin 54b, 55a, p.371."If a man commits sodomy with a
boy less than nine years old, they are both guilty of sodomy"
[9 years old and a day is OK?]
Kethuboth 11b, p.58: "Sexual intercourse with a girl less than
three is 'nothing'", or: [Kethuboth 11b . "When a grown-up man
has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."]
cindys
2005-06-01 22:29:39 UTC
Permalink
snip boring crap, which has already been refuted dozens and dozens of
times.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
d***@hotmail.com
2005-06-01 22:41:10 UTC
Permalink
<yawn>

The Talmud is nothing like the Xian "New Testament".
Post by Gibbon
"A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." -9boda
Sarah 37
There is no "9boda Sarah" in the Talmud.
Post by Gibbon
(This means a baby can be "violated" up to age three
No, it means that once again, another braindead Jew hater has
cut'n'pasted the same drivel previously posted by Paminifarm, Nazi Ted,
and other braindead Jew haters.
Post by Gibbon
Yebamoth 98a. "All Gentile children are animals."
CLAIM (28)
Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human Yebamoth 98a. All Gentile children are
animals.

RESPONSE (1)
False. It does not say this.

What is at issue in this passage is the status of the children of a
Gentile woman who converts to Judaism. Essentially, it finds a legal
loophole which makes it clear that her children will carry no stigma
from having had an uncircumcised father. The logic is similar to that
in the graveyard example above.
***@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$***@senator-bedfellow.­MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
Such statements do not exist. On this page the Talmud considers whether

converts are considered relatives of their biological kin from the
point of view of enforcing upon them the strictures of Jewish law
regarding forbidden marriages. The Talmud quotes one lenient opinion
(in the end rejected) to the effect that these strictures should not
apply to converts because their blood relationship before marriage is
not considered to carry over to their new status as Jews. In the manner

of the agada this ruling was pinned on the verse in Ezekiel (23;20)
"... for their flesh is as the flesh of donkeys ..." referred to in
item [CLAIM 19a] above. Refer to the discussion under that heading for
more details on the use of this verse and the way it is applied to Jews

as well as to non-Jews.
Michael Gruda (***@netvision.net.il)
- http://www.geocities.com/Athen­s/Cyprus/8815/exp.html
Post by Gibbon
"Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth" Abodah
Zarah 36b
CLAIM (29)
Abodah Zarah 36b . Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from
birth.

RESPONSE (1)
This is a misinterpretation. The source is a Mishnah in Nidda 31b.
First it is not speaking about gentiles but about Jews, second Niddah
means the menstruation cycle and not filth.

A gentile has no status of Niddah, however a female Jew who has had her

menstruation period has a certain type of status until the flow has
stopped and she has dipped in a natural pool of water - Mikveh. This
statement regards a Rabbinical decree categorizing all female Jewish
members of the Jewish sect of Cuthites (something like Saduccees) as
Niddah from birth, unless proved otherwise, as they did not keep the
laws of the Niddah properly so a collective decree had to be issued.
E.S.

RESPONSE (2)
First, Abodah Zarah means idolatry. It's not about non-Jews but refers
to the tainting effect of idolatrous conduct. And, of course, it's a
misquote again:

"The above text stated: `Behold Bali delcared that Abimi the Nabatean
said in the name of Rab: The bread, wine and oil of heathens and their
daughters are all included in the eighteen things?' What means `their
daughters'? - R. Nahman b. Isaac said: [The schools of Hillel and
Shammai] decreed that their daughters should be considered as in the
state of /niddah/ from their cradle; and Geneba said in the name of
Rab: With all the things against which they decreed the purpose was to
safeguard against idolatry."
***@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)

RESPONSE (3)
The word 'niddah' does not mean filth but is related to a period of
menstrual flow and the prohibition of intimate contact with women
during this period. According to Jewish law the term has more
application to Jewish women than to non-Jewish women but the Sages
ruled that Gentile women should be treated as if the state of niddah is

applicable to them as well. This ruling was meant to ensure that Jewish

men would avoid excessive contact with non-Jewish women.
Michael Gruda (***@netvision.net.il)
- http://www.geocities.com/Athen­s/Cyprus/8815/exp.html
Post by Gibbon
Sanhedrin 55b,p.376. "A Jew may marry a three year old girl
(specifically, three years and one day."
CLAIM (45)
Sanhedrin 55b . A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically,
three years "and a day" old).

RESPONSE (1)
Child betrothals were a common practice throughout the world -
including the Christian world - before modern times. It didn't mean the

"husband" had sex with the child.
***@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$***@senator-bedfellow.­MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
It is the manner of the Talmud to examine 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.

There are different legal consequences arising from an act of
intercourse (related to personal status, punishment for rape, property
rights etc.) and the Talmud investigates whether such an act committed
on a baby girl has the status of intercourse or not. There is an
ancient tradition that states that if the girl is older than the age of

three then an act of intercourse was committed; before that age, such
an act does not have the status of sexual intercourse for legal
purposes (it may be an act of assault, of course).

The passage in question states as follows: "A girl of three years and a

day is [capable of being] married by an act of intercourse ..." and the

Talmud continues to list further legal consequences of an act of
intercourse (laws of personal status, property etc.).

The reference to marriage refers to a case in which the father of the
girl delivers his daughter to a man with the intention that he create a

marriage bond with his daughter by having relations with her. From a
legal point of view this procedure creates a marriage with all the
legal consequences that flow therefrom. This is a legal conclusion
which has nothing to do with rabbinic endorsement of such practices or
with the number of such occurrences in history.

In fact the rabbis strongly opposed formation of the marriage bond by
intercourse (at any age) and punished those who acted in such manner
(Kidushin 12b). They further taught 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.
Michael Gruda (***@netvision.net.il)
- http://www.geocities.com/Athen­s/Cyprus/8815/exp01b.html
Post by Gibbon
Sanhedrin 54b . "A Jew may have sex with a child as long as
the child is less than nine years."
CLAIM (46)
Sanhedrin 54b . A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is

less than nine years old.

RESPONSE (1)
False. It doesn't say that.

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.

Really terrible, huh? Sparing the life of a victim of child abuse like
that?
***@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$***@senator-bedfellow.­MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
The discussion here revolves around the age at which a male child is
capable of having relations that have the full legal ramifications and
penalties of intercourse. The entire discussion is related to an
analysis of the penalty for such action (which could be a capital
offense), and the passage states: "intercourse with a child of nine and

a day is not the same as that with a child of nine". As mentioned, this

statement is made in the context of the nature of the penalty to be
applied, and whether it is of a capital nature or not. See also the
remarks in item [CLAIM 45].
Michael Gruda (***@netvision.net.il)
- http://www.geocities.com/Athen­s/Cyprus/8815/exp01b.html
Post by Gibbon
Kethuboth 11b, p.58: "Sexual intercourse with a girl less than
three is 'nothing'", or: [Kethuboth 11b . "When a grown-up man
has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."]
CLAIM (47)
Kethuboth 11b . "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl

it is nothing."

RESPONSE (1)
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 was
just like getting poked with an inanimate object.

Really terrible, huh? Allowing a victim of child abuse to get on with
her life, and be treated as if she were innocent?
***@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler)
<5iroi7$***@senator-bedfellow.­MIT.EDU>

RESPONSE (2)
The statement is 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. See the
discussion under item [CLAIM 45] for more details.
Michael Gruda (***@netvision.net.il)
- http://www.geocities.com/Athen­s/Cyprus/8815/exp01b.html

It says far more about ignorant Jew haters, like the
aptly-named "Gibbon" and his fellow Jew haters Paminifarm,
Nazi Ted, and others, that they all drool over their
imaginary "sexual perversion" in their boilerplate faked
"Talmud quotes", than it does about anything that's actually
in the Talmud.

Deborah
Patricia Heil
2005-06-01 23:35:22 UTC
Permalink
"Gibbon" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

A lie refuted many times over the years.
Mark Levitski
2005-06-02 00:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Examples from Quran tell the same, ancient laws were similar, your gibbon
head is working in one direction only.

An example of Mohammed marrying a 9-year old Aisha is a prime example of
similar Islamic laws, we have one father: Abraham and Islam is closer to
Judaism than Judaism to Chrsitianity! But whatever anyuone says you will
dwell in your lies anyway... so bleah, a donkey can't be taught.
d***@hotmail.com
2005-06-02 00:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Levitski
Examples from Quran tell the same, ancient laws were similar, your gibbon
head is working in one direction only.
That is not what the aptly named "Gibbon" claimed; in fact, he claimed
nothing. He merely posted a series of fake "quotes" often posted over
the years by numerous Jew haters.
Post by Mark Levitski
An example of Mohammed marrying a 9-year old Aisha is a prime example of
similar Islamic laws,
He married her when she was six. Part of the marriage agreement was
that he'd hold off screwing her until she was nine.
Post by Mark Levitski
we have one father: Abraham and Islam is closer to
Judaism than Judaism to Chrsitianity!
That is a fallacy.
Post by Mark Levitski
But whatever anyuone says you will
dwell in your lies anyway... so bleah,
a donkey can't be taught.
And that is not a fallacy.

Deborah
Mark Levitski
2005-06-02 01:56:33 UTC
Permalink
change your email addie on Newsgroups, even your name sounds real. Too much
info, telling you I am a computer pro and been online forever, and if your
data is real one day you might pay the price. I know people's houses were
put on sale, phones disconnected, death threats received in real life, etc
because they go NAKED on the Net.

And still Abraham was Jews and Arabs one father, different moms (Sarah and
the other I forgot) it's not a fallacy
Mark Levitski
2005-06-02 00:14:40 UTC
Permalink
WHY DID MOHAMMED MARRY 9-YEAR OLD AISHA? BECAUSE IT WAS OK WITH ALLAH AT
THAT TIME, AND ISLAM, SAME WITH ANCIENY JEWISH LAW SO SHUT UP! OR DO YOU
WANT TO CONTRADICT MOHAMMED??? THEN YOU SURELY WILL TURN INTO A PIG!
d***@hotmail.com
2005-06-02 00:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Levitski
WHY DID MOHAMMED MARRY 9-YEAR OLD AISHA?
He married her when she was six.
Post by Mark Levitski
BECAUSE IT WAS OK WITH ALLAH AT THAT TIME, AND ISLAM,
Child marriages were common to a number of ancient cultures, and some
not so ancient cultures. Sex with a nine year old girl wasn't.
Post by Mark Levitski
SAME WITH ANCIENY JEWISH LAW
Nothing in common with Jewish law, ancient or otherwise.
Post by Mark Levitski
SO SHUT UP! OR DO YOU WANT TO CONTRADICT MOHAMMED???
THEN YOU SURELY WILL TURN INTO A PIG!
From a gibbon to a pig? Miracles and marvels.
Deborah
Susan Cohen
2005-06-02 02:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Gee, he can't even make a *partial* sentence without telling a lie!

[snip rest of lies]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/

Susan
Gibbon
2005-06-02 18:02:22 UTC
Permalink
JEW BASTARD, YOUR MOTHERS A PIG...AS FOR SUSAN COHEN YOU NEED TO BE RE-
PROGRAMMED, YOU WORTHLESS BOT!
cindys
2005-06-02 21:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gibbon
JEW BASTARD, YOUR MOTHERS A PIG...AS FOR SUSAN COHEN YOU NEED TO BE RE-
PROGRAMMED, YOU WORTHLESS BOT!
--------
Wow! How impressive! Such a genius like this belongs at Cambridge.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Susan Cohen
2005-06-03 02:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Amazing how afraid these projectionary losers are of me, just because I
speak the truth.

Susan
Post by Gibbon
JEW BASTARD, YOUR MOTHERS A PIG...AS FOR SUSAN COHEN YOU NEED TO BE RE-
PROGRAMMED, YOU WORTHLESS BOT!
Loading...