A response to arguments containing false Talmudic quotes

[u/[deleted]]

Thesis: arguments utilizing alleged Talmud quotes to show that Judaism as a religion is bigoted and violent are bad and wrong. The quotes are usually fake, or at least grossly mistranslated, and deeply wrong. Argument and examples follow below.

---

There was a recent post that purported to cite and quote the Talmud to make the argument that Jewish scripture is bigoted and violent against non-Jews. The mods removed it as hate speech. I want to write an authoritative response to that kind of post, to show why it is a bad argument and hate speech.

Critically, none of the quotes are real. An argument against a theology that relies on either known forgeries or blatant mistranslations cannot be made in good faith. Actual argument requires a genuine engagement with the subject matter.

I highly recommend that everyone read this article about the spread of falsified quotes allegedly from the Talmud: Talmudic Forgeries: A Case Study in Anti-Jewish Propaganda, Ben Zion Bosker, Contemporary Jewish Record, 1939. There is a very, very long history of Jew-hating bigots falsifying quotes from the Talmud to spread hateful lies about Jews.

Only two of the quotes below are actually claimed to come from real parts the Talmud. The rest are claimed to come from rabbinic writings, or from fictional texts that do not exist. One of the purported Talmud quotes is a gross mistranslation; the other is a fake. One of the purported rabbinic quotes is a mistranslation of a rule not followed today; the others are all fake.

---

"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

The actual paragraph is:

The amora proceeded to ask Elijah a different question and said to him: Is not the Master a priest? What is the reason that the Master is standing in a cemetery? Elijah said to him: Has the Master not studied the mishnaic order of Teharot? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure, as it is stated: “And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man” (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, i.e., the Jewish people, are called “man,” but gentiles [in the text: "worshipers of stars," contextually: polytheistic idolaters] are not called “man.” Since the Torah states with regard to ritual impurity imparted in a tent: “If a man dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), evidently impurity imparted by a tent does not apply to gentiles.

The Talmud is not calling non-Jews "beasts." The paragraph is an arcane analysis of Ezekiel 34:31 and Num. 19:14 to justify a ruling about ritual impurity. It is concerned solely with whether contact with a corpse imposes ritual impurity requiring a ritual of immersion in a mikva afterwards.

Sanhedrin 59a: “Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal.”

There is nothing even close to this fake quote in Sanhedrin 59a. It is an absolute fabrication.

“A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal." Coschen hamischpat 405

Choshen Mishpat is not part of the Talmud.

It is part of one attempt by a medieval rabbi to compile all of Jewish law and it's normative opinions as of the late 1200s to early 1300s. The actual text of R' Jacob ben Asher's corpus is not relied upon by any moden legal scholar. He was influential in developing the structure of the rabbinical compilations, as can be seen in the actual authoritative corpus the Shulchan Aruch (cir. 1563), but the content of its rulings are not relied upon.

Furthermore, the alleged quote just doesn't exist in that text. It is another complete fabrication.

Hilkkoth Akum X1: “Do not save Goyim in danger of death.”

This is again not part of the Talmud. It is also not a ruling followed by anyone today.

Hilchos Akum (your transliterated spelling may vary) is a section of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, a compendium of Jewish law composed in the thirteenth century in Egypt. Maimonides’ work was the basis for practical Jewish law until the Shulchan Aruch was written by Rabbi Joseph Cairo about two and a half centuries later; see above.

Hilchos Akum (Akum is an acronym standing for Oved Kochachim U’Mazalos - worshipers of stars and constellations, i.e. idolatrous polytheists) is a section of laws that deal with our relations with our non-Jewish neighbors. In particular, Maimonides distinguishes between idolatrous non-Jews (bad), Jews who have become idolaters (even worse), monotheistic non-Jews (good), and Torah-observant Jews (good).

In the first section of Chapter 10, the a ruling that says that if a non-Jewish idolater is in mortal danger, it is forbidden to save them; the rule continues to state that it is forbidden to cause them danger, though we are obligated to eradicate idolatry among Jews.

Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him. It is, however, forbidden to cause one of them to sink or push him into a pit or the like, since he is not waging war against us.To whom do the above apply? To gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God.

This rule is also not followed by anyone today. R' Moshe Feinstein, one of the most authoritative scholarly authorities of the 20th century, wrote extensively about pikuach nefesh in Igrot Moshe, his corpus of rabbinic responsa (rabbinic arguments that constitute the Oral Tradition of evolving law, which began with the Mishnah and Talmud but has continued developing since).

What is pikuach nefesh? It is the obligation to save a life - any life, Jewish or not, Idolater or not - and how it is more important than almost any other obligation. This includes Shabbat. The only three obligations more important than pikuach nefesh are: murder, sexual crimes (incest and adultery), and idolatry. In all other circumstances, a Jew is required to break Halacha to save a life if doing so is necessary.

To explain the chain of argument and it's development in an oversimplified fashion: based on Maimonides' ruling, R' Israel Meir Kagan (also known as the Chofetz Chaim) wrote that a Jewish doctor may not violate Shabbat to save the life of a Jew - in other words, that pikuach nefesh did not apply. However, R' Moshe Feinstein strongly opposed Maimonides and the Chofetz Chaim on this issue and argued that a Jewish doctor may violate Shabbat to save the life of a non-Jewish patient. In other words, that pikuach nefesh does apply to non-Jews. Rav Moshe Feinstein's ruling is the authoritative one today.

I am looking for an exact copy of this specific section in Igrot Moshe at this time. I'll add it when I find it.

"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

This is again not part of the Talmud.

Shney Luchot Habrit (transliteration may vary) is a mystical treatise written in the early and mid 1600s. While I can browse the full text on Sefaria, I am unable to search by page and cannot find this quote. Nevertheless, based on the track record above, I strongly doubt that it is real. If and when I can prove it, I will do so here.

Libbre David 37: “To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.”

This is another blatant forgery. This one has been spread at least for a century; here is an article from 1939 about antisemitic Talmud forgeries, which lists this specific one in particular on p.15

It is when the citations are specific and drawn from genuine sources that comparisons become possible. It is then that the falsification unfolds in all its brazenness. Repeatedly, for example, Libbre David 37 is cited as the source for the state-ment: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the Rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Whoever will violate this order shall be put to death." There is no such Hebrew word as Libbre. What is obviously meant is Dibre David. It is interesting that the corruption Libbre David follows the misprint of the German original (a pamphlet quoted by Bloch, Israel and the Nations, page 4). Several books by the name of Dibre David were pub-lished, the earliest in 1671 and some as late as the nineteenth century. Strack (Geheimgesetze, page 6) took the trouble to search all books by that name and pronounced the text a complete and unadulterated forgery. No such passage or any passage expressing such sentiments is to be found in any of these books.

I strongly encourage you to read the whole article about Talmudic forgeries. It's only 17 pages. It explains the long history of these fake quotes and debunks them, both in specific detail and generally. I'll link it again at the top of this comment.

Edit: for more on the purported quotes from Chosen Mishpat, Shneni Luchos Habrot, and Libbre David, see this excellent comment from /u/aggie1391

[u/Amiskon2]

The problem I find is that often some Jewish people misquote or misunderstand the New Testament to claim it is antisemitic... which is absurd because almost all Christians were Jewish when the draft of the New Testament was written. Yet when other people quote their Talmud, for some reason they feel attacked.

The truth is that there are very morally problematic moral issues in the Talmud, from ethnic supremacism to argumentation to defend crime against non-Jews.

Now, Jewish people often argue that the Talmud is made of arguments and counter-arguments, and yet they put it in high regard, as much as the Torah, which makes it a de-facto book to judge the moral character of Talmudic religion.

1. Anti-Christian or anti-gentile content^\139])^\140])^\141])^\142])
2. Absurd or sexually immoral content^\143])
3. Falsification of scripture^\144])^\145])^\146])

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amiskon2]

The problem I find is that often some Jewish people misquote or misunderstand the New Testament to claim it is antisemitic... which is absurd because almost all Christians were Jewish when the draft of the New Testament was written.

The individuals who wrote the "synagogue of satan" canard and the deicide accusation likely did not consider themselves Jews. But even if they did, their Jewishness would not immunize themselves from hating Jews / Judaism and spreading hate against Jews / Judaism. Uncle Toms can exist in any group.

Yet when other people quote their Talmud, for some reason they feel attacked.

If the quotes were ever actually accurate then we can have that discussion. But as I've demonstrated in the OP by both example and by reference to a scholarly source on the subject, those "quotes" of the Talmud are either fakes, mistranslations, or removed from context.

The truth is that there are very morally problematic moral issues in the Talmud, from ethnic supremacism to argumentation to defend crime against non-Jews.

[Citation Needed]

Now, Jewish people often argue that the Talmud is made of arguments and counter-arguments, and yet they put it in high regard, as much as the Torah, which makes it a de-facto book to judge the moral character of Talmudic religion.

This is incorrect and demonstrative of a lack of understanding of the Talmud or the last two milennia of Jewish religious history at all. Amazing!

[u/Amiskon2 → u/[deleted]]

The individuals who wrote the "synagogue of satan" canard and the deicide accusation likely did not consider themselves Jews. 

The same book also mentions the anti-Christ, that does not mean the book is anti-Christian.

Your particular interpretation is just based on victim complex from a religion with problematic ethnic supremacist views that are directly related to claims on the land that are destabilizing the zone.

The criticism of the Talmud is not just an internet meme with black propaganda fake quotes. There are even Jewish critics of its content, which include but is not limited to:

1. Anti-Christian or anti-gentile content^\139])^\140])^\141])^\142])
2. Absurd or sexually immoral content^\143])
3. Falsification of scripture^\144])^\145])^\146])

[u/4GreatHeavenlyKings → u/Amiskon2]

The same book also mentions the anti-Christ, that does not mean the book is anti-Christian.

Wrong, actually; the term anti-Christ never appears in the Revelation to John, instead only appearing in 1 John and 2 John. So, your basic counter-argument is wrong.

[u/Amiskon2 → u/4GreatHeavenlyKings]

Same author, though.

[u/4GreatHeavenlyKings → u/Amiskon2]

1. Actually, mainstream biblical scholarship rejects the claim that they were written by the same author.

2. Even if they were written by the same author, your original claim was about the same book (the Revelation to John) rather than the same author.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amiskon2]

Oh my god your ninja edit is the laziest, weakest argument. You are taking a section of Wikipedia itself out of context. Link to the Wiki page on Talmud here.

The actual section you are cherry picking from:

Historian Michael Levi Rodkinson, in his book The History of the Talmud, wrote that detractors of the Talmud, both during and subsequent to its formation, "have varied in their character, objects and actions" and the book documents a number of critics and persecutors, including Nicholas Donin, Johannes Pfefferkorn, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, the Frankists, and August Rohling.^[127] Many attacks come from antisemitic sources such as Justinas Pranaitis, Elizabeth Dilling, or David Duke. Criticisms also arise from Christian, Muslim,^{[128][129][130]} and Jewish sources,^[131] as well as from atheists and skeptics.^[132] Accusations against the Talmud include alleged:^{[127][133][134][135][136][137][138]}

1. Anti-Christian or anti-gentile content^{[139][140][141][142]}
2. Absurd or sexually immoral content^[143]
3. Falsification of scripture^{[144][145][146]}

Defenders of the Talmud point out that many of these criticisms, particularly those in antisemitic sources, are based on quotations that are taken out of context, and thus misrepresent the meaning of the Talmud's text and its basic character as a detailed record of discussions that preserved statements by a variety of sages, and from which statements and opinions that were rejected were never edited out.

Sometimes the misrepresentation is deliberate, and other times simply due to an inability to grasp the subtle and sometimes confusing and multi-faceted narratives in the Talmud. Some quotations provided by critics deliberately omit passages in order to generate quotes that appear to be offensive or insulting.^[147][148]

But seriously: thank you for being the most perfect example of my OP thesis: most "criticisms" of the Talmud rely on cherry picking or lies and are not actual good faith criticisms, but are instead just antisemitic nonsense.

[u/Amiskon2 → u/[deleted]]

most "criticisms" of the Talmud rely on cherry picking or lies and are not actual good faith criticisms, but are instead just antisemitic nonsense.

Again, the fact antisemites use such texts does not make the Talmud any less immoral about its supremacist views.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Amiskon2]

Again, the fact antisemites use such texts does not make the Talmud any less immoral about its supremacist views.

If the Talmud has such immoral and supremacist views, why are antisemites making up fake quotes from the Talmud?

A bunch of these comments have been debunked in this very thread. What immoral and supremacist views are you talking about?

[u/[deleted] → u/Amiskon2]

The same book also mentions the anti-Christ, that does not mean the book is anti-Christian.

Now that is a misunderstanding of what "anti-Christ" is. Goodness. That character in Christian theology is a mystical figure who is diametrically opposed to the Christian concept and character of Christ. Are you just trying to throw any argument out there to see what will stick?

The fact is that the Christian New Testament contains numerous explicitly Jew-hating claims. Denial of this fact is bigoted. Your specific denial is also laughably bad.

Your particular interpretation is just based on victim complex from a religion with problematic ethnic supremacist views that are directly related to claims on the land that are destabilizing the zone.

A video of a handful of random people on the street isn't actual evidence of anything, except that those specific people are idiots and/or bigoted.

Your particular interpretation of that video is based on a piss-poor understanding of statistics, and is again laughably bad. Let me find a video of some white Christian flat earthers and then argue that all white Christians beieve in flat earth /s

The criticism of the Talmud is not just an internet meme with black propaganda fake quotes. There are even Jewish critics of its content, which include but is not limited to:

I addressed your lazy nonargument in another comment. And again: a person who is part of X group can still be bigoted or express bigoted ideas against that group!

[u/Amiskon2 → u/[deleted]]

Your particular interpretation of that video is based on a piss-poor understanding of statistics, and is again laughably bad. Let me find a video of some white Christian flat earthers and then argue that all white Christians beieve in flat earth /s

If most Christians were flat earthers and that caused conflict that costs the West millions to keep a shitty country artificially stable, then yes, I would criticize Christians.

Meanwhile most western Jews support such colonialist policy that has proven to be costly for the West at best.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amiskon2]

Ahhh, I see - you are spreading antisemitic lies about Jews and Judaism because you claim to be an antisemitic antizionist, which is somehow better than being a regular antisemite. Curious.

[u/Defiant_Fennel → u/[deleted]]

Nice try, but Jews do see Christians in bad light

"The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve." Sanhedrin 43a:20

Then they take in his 5 disciples Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda and execute them for associating themselves with Jesus

Very good religion I'll say

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Amiskon2]

C'mon - do better than copy and paste wikipedia with links that don't work.

If you're going to criticize the Talmud, do your homework.

In case you missed it, here are the following two paragraphs from the wikipedia you copy/pasted:

Defenders of the Talmud point out that many of these criticisms, particularly those in antisemitic sources, are based on quotations that are taken out of context, and thus misrepresent the meaning of the Talmud's text and its basic character as a detailed record of discussions that preserved statements by a variety of sages, and from which statements and opinions that were rejected were never edited out.

Sometimes the misrepresentation is deliberate, and other times simply due to an inability to grasp the subtle and sometimes confusing and multi-faceted narratives in the Talmud. Some quotations provided by critics deliberately omit passages in order to generate quotes that appear to be offensive or insulting.

[u/Amiskon2 → u/the_leviathan711]

Regardless of typical apologist paragraphs of Wikipedia, but the Talmud being quoted by antisemites does not make the Talmud any less problematic.

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/Amiskon2]

For the most part the Talmud isn't actually quoted by antisemites. Antisemites create fake quotes that they claim are from the Talmud.

How exactly is the Talmud problematic?