Slashdot Mirror
Theory-Affirming Evidence About the Universe
Bill Kendrick writes "Astronomers using a radio telescope at the South Pole have recorded a flicker of light from nearly 14 billion years ago that verifies most modern theory about the cosmos. Way back then, light and matter were only just beginning to separate from each other."
If a person read only the Bible, they would be one of the most ignorant on Earth as far as reality is concerned. Where is earth? Why, sitting on a firmament of course! With four corners! And you can see it all from one really tall mountain. Remember, Heaven is "up" and Hell is "down." Let's face it. Every Christian since the 1300s has been falling back on the "official" Christian outlook. Christianity has changed right along with humanity since day 1, except it always wants to be 75 years behind. If you wanna be spiritual, that's cool, but don't expect to find any useful information in there.
Oh, Christianity hasn't changed, blah, blah, blah... yea fucking right. So the reformation didn't happen? So the bible still has all the same books, even the Apocrypha found in the Catholic Bibles? So there aren't any women speaking in church? So all of you are still obeying the Sabbath? Or do you still believe in the 10 commandments?
Mod +1 Flame, +1 Offtopic, +1 Asshole
-Dean
PS Hey Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, et al: SUCK MY DICK! Stop ripping off the elderly with your gaudy, fake, materialistic bullshit! When's the last time anyone saw Jesus wearing a Rolex?!
Actually...
:)
Everyone should know that the Bible's purpose is salvation, not a history or science manual.
I find it interesting that your post is rated funny---it should be rated troll instead. I'm sure the Larry and Moe liberals out there enjoy such attacks on Christianity, but I don't find your attempt at humor amusing.
The more we learn about the universe, the more we see it all has an intelligent design, leading to a higher power (God).
Those of you who say "prove God" can whine all you want about how you can't see "this invisible being" but remember---prior to the discovery of other invisible realities such as viruses, we couldn't see them either. That doesn't mean they didn't exist just because our naked eyes couldn't see them.
Get back to me with a real debate, liberals, when scientists have determined all of what our brains can do, and cannot do, and the case is closed.
Until then, you're only arguing with 1/2 a brain, according to modern science.
oh, so weak sheeple, proletariat scum is what god wants, not free thinkers, those woh question, those who would do better for everyone. you know, Boeing has done a lot more to impress me than god LATELY. sure he migh have created everything, whatever, but what people are doing with that everything now is more interesting that reflecting on the awe of existence and the power of an absent god. i dont get why people need to be weak and bow thier heads in silence. i think vlad lenin was a jew. he liked people weak. easier to control. lenin took after the social democratic ideals of the Jewish BUND, and look how a religious oriented contruct backfired into a godless, atheist state. looking at both church and state, the weakest part of both these institutions are that PEOPLE are involved. robots would probably much better administrators. you shouldnt have feelings, according to you, my feeling to religions non western is somehow hedonistic. i say go fuck yourself you motherfucker, you dont know how i live. i probably lead a better life than you, but you dont care about right and wrong, or about karma, you would lie to yourself and do only what your god says is right, even though he doesnt speak to you so you blindly follow that which the hand of man has written. pathetic you are.
nah, dont worry aout him. you seem like a middle of the road conservative. big time conservative are closer to fascists. fascists are excellent at categorizing people, labeling them. hitlet was great at it, jews, gays, gypsies, negros, retards, the weak, the sick, and anyone who is an "enemy of the state," communists, all of them, in the gas chamber.
the hitler types always fuck up in the long run, if einstein had stayed in germany, he would have ended up oven fodder. its unfortunate that our friend here probaly lives in american yet has fascists conservative "values".
The main problem that I have with the theory of evolution is fossils. If there was such slow progression over millions of years, there should be millions of fossils all over the place with half man-half monkey, or half germ whatever. I think there is very little evidence to support evolution.
In my opinion it takes more faith to believe we came from organisms... than it does to believe we came from a God.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
I'm no physicist by any means, but I'm having problems accepting this.
1) If they've found light from 14 billion years ago from the supposed SOURCE of the universe (or general direction of), how is it just now getting to us?
That would suggest that the universe is expanding at a variable rate, because: a) It would suggest that the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light in the past, and b) the universe has stopped expanding fast enough for the original light to catch up. Sorry, I dont buy it.
2) How are they verifying the source of this light? It seems to me that if the universal expansion theory were true, then the direction of the originating explosion would be dark.
Sorry, just my thoughts. I'm probably going to get rocked by some Physics major here, but I just don't buy alot of the current -theories- (thats all they are!) in acceptance by the scientific community.
Cheers!
Dave
Those who back Science's standpoint on this forum are being equally as asinine as those who are backing Creationism.
You say that God is a cop-out by mankind. Immediately, you jump behind your sceince-shield. Science is no more a myth than God may or may not be.
I read an argument a few posts up saying that "a few hundred years ago, any religious man worth his salt knew that witches floated." They sure did. Guess what? Any scientist a few hundred years ago also knew that the universe revolved around the earth.
Get a clue, people. Science fact is only as good as who currently believes it. The earth was flat until conclusive evidence arised saying it wasnt. Who knows whats next?
Step back and examine your argument and your method of conveying it before commenting on something. Immediately hiding behind science is just as equally a cop out.
There seems to be this correlation, to some degree, between how "educated" or "intellectual" a person is and how much "common sense" has to be ignored. Everything around us has "Intelligent Design" behind it.. EVERYTHING. From the table you eat breakfast. to the shoes you wear to work. How can we look at something as complex as the human body and say. "O yeah.. I can see how we came from soup! We recognize creation everyday w/out even realizing it.. When you look at a beautiful sunset, you see nature. When you look at mountains, you see nature.. When you see a car sitting on the road you don't say. Hmm.. over Billions and Billions of years all the pieces formed in just the right combination to build that car! How much more complex are we. Why is it that there is only one side of this "creation" / "evolution" debate. We've been taught, or should I say programmed, for so long that we evolved. If I say here is the evidence for evolution.. I'm dealing with science. If I say here is the evidence against evolution I'm an intolerant religious fanatic. Everyone says we should be tolerant of an individuals freedom to choose.. whatever. However, that tolerance does not apply to the Christian.
There are many things that point to a young earth. Meteoric dust on the moon, the fact that THERE IS MOUNTAINS after BILLIONS of years of erosion. The fossil record..
Through theory and education we can "prove" that an elephant can pass through a key-hole. But that just doesn't stand up to common-sense. Now I'm not saying that there are people with legitimate arguments. However, Lets put the evidence on the table.. and if metaphysical ramifications arise.. SO BE IT!!
Take your fucking Koran and cram it up your ass. The sooner the earth see Islam leave it, the better off it will be.
I hope if there is a God and a Hell, you have to drink the liquidy shit from a Pig's ass, and Jewish Rabbis urinate on you.
I don't hate Islam per se, I hate the stupid fucks who read into the trash they come up with. Saddam Hussein is higher on my sanity list than fucking Muslim "clerics." In fact, I like Saddam more than most of the other Arab leaders because he is secular. We should fucking nuke the Saudis and Mecca and Medina and turn it into rubble, then tell Saddam to remove the heads of all the buttfucking "royalty" in the area.
I want to wipe my ass with Mohammad's shroud. I want to grind his body up into bone meal and fertilize my garden with it.
Our tortured dead scream out in HORROR, asking for vengeance:
Nuke their countries to hell.
Nuke them again.
Death to Islam.
I piss on Mecca. I wipe my ass with the Koran. I shit upon Mohammed. I wipe the cum for a freshly fucked pussy with Mohammed's shroud then throw it in the pig sty so it can mire in pig shit as it decomposes.
oh piss of you fucking snarky mind fetus. you want to meet your maker, koresh? ill burn you fucking house down.
(i think janet reno is an ugly cunt, and i support koresh and the waco compound and that thier constitutional rights were denied) BUT
koresh was still a fucking childmolesting ZEALOT like you.
did you daddy fondle your ball bag? stickle the littel sack, suck your nuts? do you carry on that molesting torch, brandishing your member at little boys and retarxs, tell them to sit on the lap, exercise, and rape them in the name of christ.
do you have crucifixes with awell hung jesus disrobed with his penis nailed to the cross too?
why do you pony up some cash can go over to a college and take a religious studies class or some shit, you sound like a god damn fool. you know nothing, apprently, about Buddhism or Hinduism. Your retarded remarks are a testament to your ignorance.
About Buddha forsaking the rich life (unlike TV evangelists, and kiddie molesting cardlinals and bishops), going off and seeking nirvana. He deprecates this existence. He does not think of you, your bible, human civilization, he knows not of these things because they dont matter, they are not part of insight. You have no insight, so you take information from your proscriptive masters. Other people might be more enlightened than you can possibly imagine, you and your limited self have no capacity to understand.
The universe is 14 bn years old. you have been around for what seems like 13 years or so. You must accept this, you know nothing - sorry chief. In fact the total collective human knowledge is probably closer to nothing than not.
and about your stupid aryan skin color remark, its so off the wall, you dont understand that culture at all - do you? now, lets go over all the killings the christian church has caused, all the way up to burning people at the stake, and excocisms, collecting FAITH TAX.
Hey I believe a MONK who asks for NOTHING and vales being POOR more than money than a evangelist thief asking for money.
are you a programmer of slashcode or some shit? fuck you with regards to relling people who to moderate. any and all +1 moderations are in vast short supply, most of the stuff here that gets +1 is crap, and the funny stuff is censored by flaming idiot moderators. and as far as whateverthing means, ask boylusting rob the fag molda. MOLD. he runs this place with an iron fist, totalitarian. and he randomly chancges shit that makes this place even fucking gayer. lameness filters, junk characters, compression, WPL, CPL, names instead of numbers for karma, karma caps, moderators that suck, no section for community chosen stories, no tolerance.
death to this system, its so fucked up.
ashkenazi fascist. lets whip out the talmud to find an excuse to fuck some shiksa if you outside of 30 miles from your home.
The Talmud and the Koran (and the Bible too ) COMPETE for first place in the asshole hall of fame. if any of you read the shit in there, and I will quote, you would be SHOCKED. dont buy into Ashkenazi crap.
SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: "What is meant by this? - 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 guilty (upon the actual 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: Scriptures 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 beastally abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5)."
(footnotes)
"(1) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated in supra 54a, guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor; i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn.
(2) 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.
(3) At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
(4) Lev XVIII, 22
(5) Rashi reads ("xxx") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) instead of ("zzz") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) 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." (emphasis in original, Ed.)
SANHEDRIN, 55b: "A maiden 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. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea)." (emphasis in original text of Soncino Edition, Ed.)
(footnotes)
"(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving.
(3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew.
(4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction 'to his wife but not to his neighbor's wife' is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse." (emphasis in original, Ed.)
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 69a " 'A man'; from this I know the law only with respect to a man: whence do I know it of one aged nine years and a day who is capable of intercourse? From the verse, And 'if a man'? (2)-He replied: Such a minor can produce semen, but cannot beget therewith; for it is like the seed of cereals less than a third grown (3)."
(footnotes)
(2) 'And' (') indicates an extension of the law, and is here interpreted to include a minor aged nine years and a day.
(3) Such cereals contain seed, which if sown, however, will not grow."
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 69b "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 for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declare her fit...All agree that the connection of a boy 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.
(footnotes)
(1) i.e., she becomes a harlot whom a priest may not marry (Lev XXL,7.).
(2) 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 than eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 5b. "The question was asked: Is it allowed (15) to perform the first marital act on the Sabbath? (16). Is the blood (in the womb) stored up (17), or is it the result of a wound? (18).
(footnotes)
"(15) Lit., 'how is it'?
(16) When the intercourse could not take place before the Sabbath (Tosaf)
(17) And the intercourse would be allowed, since the blood flows out of its own accord, no would having been made.
(18) Lit., or is it wounded? And the intercourse would be forbidden."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 10a-10b. "Someone came before Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi (and) said to him, 'my master I have had intercourse (with my newly wedded wife) and I have not found any blood (7). She (the wife) to him, 'My master, I am still a virgin'. He (then) said to them; Bring me two handmaids, one (who is) a virgin and one who had intercourse with a man. They brought to him (two such handmaids), and he placed them on a cask of wine. (In the case of ) the one who was no more a virgin its smell (1) went through (2), (in the case of) the virgin the smell did not go through (3). He (then) placed this one (the young wife) also (on the cask of wine), and its smell (4) did not go through. He (then) said to him: Go, be happy with thy bargain (7). But he should have examined her from the beginning (8)."
(footnotes)
"(1) i.e., the smell of wine.
(2) One could smell the wine from the mouth (Rashi).
(3) One could not smell the wine from the mouth.
(4) i.e., the smell of wine.
(5) Rabban Gamaliel
(6) To the husband.
(7) The test showed that the wife was a virgin.
(8) Why did he first have to experiment with the two handmaids."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. "Rabba 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 in 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'".
(footnotes)
"(5). Lit., 'says'.
(6) Lit., 'here', that is, less than three years old.
(7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. "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). 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."
(footnotes)
"(1) 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."
(Book)
HAYORATH, 4a. "We learnt: (THE LAW CONCERNING THE MENSTRUANT OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN THAT A WAITS A DAY CORRESPONDING TO A DAY HE IS EXEMPT. But why? Surely (the law concerning) a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day is mentioned in the Scriptures: He hath made naked her fountain. But, surely it is written, (1)- They might rule that in the natural way even the first stage of contact is forbidden; and in an unnatural way, however, is (that the ruling might have been permitted) (3) even in the natural way (4) alleging (that the prohibition of) the first stage (5) has reference to a menstruant woman only (6). And if you prefer I might say: The ruling may have been that a woman is not regarded as a zabah (7) except during the daytime because it is written, all the days of her issue (8)." (emphasis appears in Soncino Edition original, Ed.)
(footnotes)
"(13) Lev. XV, 28.
(14) Cf. supra p. 17, n. 10. Since she is thus Biblically considered unclean how could a court rule that one having intercourse with her is exempt?
(15) Lev XX, 18.
(1) Ibid. 13. The plural "xxxx" (Hebrew characters, Ed.) implies natural, and unnatural intercourse.
(2) Why then was the case of 'a woman who awaits a day
corresponding to a day' given as an illustration when the case of a menstruant, already mentioned, would apply the same illustration. (3) The first stage of contact.
(4) In the case of one 'who awaits a day corresponding to a day'; only consummation of coition being forbidden in her case. (5) Cf. Lev XX, 18.
(6) Thus permitting a forbidden act which the Sadducees do not admit.
(7) A woman who has an issue of blood not in the time of her menstruation, and is subject to certain laws of uncleanness and purification (Lev XV, 25ff).
(8) Lev XV, 26. Emphasis being laid on days."
(Book)
ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a. "R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it...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.
(footnotes)
(2). Even through he suffered from no issue.
(Book)
SOTAH, 26b. "R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) - the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)...As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?" (emphasis in the original text, Ed.)
(footnotes)
"(4) She would not be prohibited to her husband for such an act.
(5) farausag near Baghdad v. BB. (Sonc. Ed.) p. 15, n.4. He is thus distinguished from the earlier Rabbi of that name.
(6) Deut. XXIII, 19.
(7) Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal adultery.
(8) If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be offered.
(9) Are an abomination unto the Lord (ibid).
(10) Viz., the other two mentioned by the Rabbi.
(11) In Num. V. 13. since the law applies to a man who is incapable.
(12) Lev. XVIII, 22. The word for 'lying' is in the plural and is explained as denoting also unnatural intercourse.
(13) With the other man, although there is no actual coition." (emphasis appears in original Soncino Edition, Ed.)
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 55b. "Raba said; for what purpose did the All- Merciful write 'carnally' in connection with the designated bondmaid (9), a married woman (10 and a sotah (11)? That in connection with the designated bondmaid (is required) as has just been explained (12). That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum (13). This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated (14); what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains (that for such an act one is) guilty? The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman (15). Since it might have been assumed that, as (a wife), even after her death, is described as his kin (16), one should be guilty for (intercourse with) her (as for that) with a married woman, hence we are taught (that one is exonerated).
(footnotes)
(9) Lev. XIX,20.
(10) Ibid. XVIII,20
(11) Num. V, 13.
(12) SUPRA 55a.
(13) Since no fertilization can possibly occur.
(14) Shebu., 18a, Sanh. 55a
(15) Even though she dies as a married woman.
(16) In Lev. XXI, 2. where the text enumerates the dead relatives for whom a priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin refers to one's wife." (emphasis in Soncino Edition original, Ed.)
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 103a-103b. "When the serpent copulated with Eve (14) with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai (16) came to an end, the lust of idolators who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end."
(footnotes)
"(14) In the Garden of Eden, according to tradition.
(15) i.e., the human species.
(16) And experienced the purifying influence of divine Revelation."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 63a. "R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (5)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.
(footnotes)
"(5) Gen. II, 23. emphasis on This is now." (emphasis appears in original soncina Edition, Ed.)
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 60b. "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. Ramanos 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)."
(footnotes)
"(13) A proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.
(14) And was married to a priest.
(15) i.e., permitted to continue to live with her husband."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 59b. "R. 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).
(footnotes)
"(4) Even a High Priest. The result of such intercourse being regarded as a mere wound, and the opinion that does not regard an accidentally injured hymen as a disqualification does not so regard such an intercourse either.
(5) A beast.
(6) If the offense was committed in the presence of witnesses after due warning.
(7) In the absence of witnesses and warning."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 12b "R. Bebai recited before R. Naham: Three (categories of) woman may (7) use an absorbent (8) in their marital intercourse (9), a minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. The minor (10) because (otherwise) she might (11) become pregnant, and as a result (11) might die...And what is the age of such a minor? (14). From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under (15), or over this age (16) must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner."
(footnotes)
"(7) (so Rashi. R. Tam; Should use, v.Tosaf s.v.)
(8) Hackled wool or flax
(9) To prevent conception
(10) May use an absorbent.
(11) Lit., 'perhaps'.
(14) Who is capable of conception but exposed thereby to the danger of death.
(15) When no conception is possible.
(16) When pregnancy involves no fatal consequences."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 59b. "When R. 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)
"(8) From Palestine to Babylon
(9) (Babylonian form for Aitulu, 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.
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 6b. "Said he to him: Not like those Babylonians who are not skilled in moving aside. (7), but there are some who are skilled in moving aside (8). If so, why (give the reason of) 'anxious.? (10)- for one who is not skilled. (Then) let the[m] say: One who is skilled is allowed (to perform the first intercourse on Sabbath), one who is not skilled is forbidden? -Most (people) are skilled (11). Said Raba the son of R. Hanan to Abaye' If this were so, then why (have) groomsmen (12) why (have) a sheet? (13)- He (Abaye) said to him: There (the groomsmen and the sheet are necessary) perhaps he will see and destroy (the tokens of her virginity) (14).
(footnotes)
"(7) i.e., having intercourse with a virgin without causing a bleeding.
(8) Thus no blood need come out, and 'Let his head be cut off and let him not die!' does not apply.
(9) If the bridegroom is skilled in 'moving sideways'.
(10) He need not be anxious about the intercourse and should not be free from reading Shema' on account of such anxiety.
(11) Therefor the principle regarding 'Let his head be cut off and let him not die!' does not, as a rule, apply.
(12) The groomsmen testify in case of need to the virginity of the bride. V. infra 12a. If the bridegroom will act in a manner that will cause no bleeding, the groomsmen will not be able to testify on the question of virginity.
(13) To provide evidence of the virginity of the bride. Cf. Deut. XXII,17.
(14) It may happen that he will act in the normal manner and cause bleeding but he will destroy the tokens and maintain that the bride was not a virgin; for this reason the above mentioned provisions are necessary. Where however he moved aside and made a false charge as to her virginity, the bride can plead that she is still a virgin (Rashi)."
FACTS are FACTS
The Truth About the Khazars
What is the Talmud?
In case you have never had the opportunity to investigate the contents of the "63 books" of the Talmud so well summarized by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer in his illuminated article "What is a Jew", previously quoted, may I here impose upon your precious time to quote a few passages for you until you find the time to conveniently investigate the Talmud's contents personally. If I can be of any assistance to you in doing so please do not hesitate to let me know in what manner you can use my help.
From the Birth of Jesus until this day there have never been recorded more vicious and vile libelous blasphemies of Jesus, or Christians and the Christian faith by anyone, anywhere or anytime than you will find between the covers of the infamous "63 books" which are "the legal code which forms the basis of Jewish religious law" as well as the "textbook used in the training of rabbis". The explicit and implicit irreligious character and implications of the contents of the Talmud will open your eyes as they have never been opened before. The Talmud reviles Jesus, Christians and the Christian faith as the priceless spiritual and cultural heritage of Christians has never been reviled before or since the Talmud was completed in the 5th century. You will have to excuse the foul, obscene, indecent, lewd and vile language you will see here as verbatim quotations from the official unabridged translation of the Talmud into English. Be prepared for a surprise.
In the year 1935 the international hierarchy of so-called or self-styled "Jews" for the first time in history published an official unabridged translation of the complete Talmud in the English language with complete footnotes. What possessed them to make this translation into English is one of the unsolved mysteries. It was probably done because so many so-called or self-styled "Jews" of the younger generation were unable to read the Talmud in the many ancient languages in which the original "63 books" of the Talmud were first composed by their authors in many lands between 200 B.C. and 500 A.D.
The international hierarchy of so-called or self-styled "Jews" selected the most learned scholars to make this official translation of the Talmud into English. These famous scholars also prepared official footnotes explaining unabridged translation of the Talmud into English where they were required. This official unabridged translation of the Talmud into English with the official footnotes was printed in London in 1935 by the Soncino Press. It has been always referred to as the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. A very limited number of the Soncino Edition were printed. They were not made available to any purchaser. The Soncino Edition of the Talmud is to be found in the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library. A set of the Soncino Edition of the Talmud has been available to me for many years. They have become rare "collector's items" by now.
The Soncino Edition of the Talmud with its footnotes is like a double-edged sword. It teaches the Talmud to countless millions of the younger generation of so-called or self-styled "Jews" who are not able to read the Talmud in the many ancient languages in which the Talmud was written by its authors between 200 B.C. and 500 A.D. It also teaches Christians what the Talmud has to say about Jesus, About Christians and about the Christian faith. Someday this is bound to back-fire. Christians will some day challenge the assertion that the Talmud is the "sort of book" from which Jesus allegedly "drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious subjects". The rumbling is already heard in places.
Verbatim quotations from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud are required to illustrate the enormity of the Talmud's iniquity. My comments with verbatim quotations will prove inadequate to do that. In spite of the low language I will of necessity therefore include in this letter to you I have no compunctions in the matter because the United States Post Office authorities do not bar the Soncino Edition of the Talmud from the mails. Nevertheless I apologize in advance for the language which will of necessity appear in this letter to you. You now understand.
The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 was "Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices" by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A.', Ph.D., Maurice Simon, M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz wrote the "Foreword" for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.
The following are but a few of the many similar quotations with footnotes from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud, the "sort of book" from which Jesus allegedly "drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious" subjects:
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: "What is meant by this? - 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 guilty (upon the actual 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: Scriptures 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 beastally abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5)."
(footnotes)
"(1) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated in supra 54a, guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor; i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn.
(2) 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.
(3) At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
(4) Lev XVIII, 22
(5) Rashi reads ("xxx") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) instead of ("zzz") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) 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." (emphasis in original, Ed.)
Before giving any more verbatim quotations from the "sort of book" from which it is falsely alleged Jesus "drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious subjects" I wish to here again recall to your attention the official statement by Rabbi Marris N. Kertzer in Look Magazine for June 17, 1952. In that official statement made by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer on behalf of The American Jewish Committee, self- styled "The Vatican of Judaism", informed the 20,000,000 readers of "Look' magazine that the Talmud is "THE LEGAL CODE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW AND IT IS THE TEXTBOOK USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS". Please bear this in mind as you read further.
Before continuing I wish also to call your attention to another feature. Confirming the official view of Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, the New York 'Times' on May 20, 1954 ran a news item under the headline "Rabbis Plan a Fund to Endow Two Chairs". The news item itself ran as follows:
"Special to the New York Times, Uniontown, Pa. May 19 - Plans for raising $500,000, for the creation of two endowed chairs at the 'Jewish Theological Seminary of America' were announced today at the fifty-forth annual convention of the 'Rabbinical Assembly of America'. THE PROFESSORSHIPS WOULD BE KNOWN AS THE LOUIS GINSBERG CHAIR IN TALMUD..."
This is further proof that the Talmud is not yet quite a dead-letter in the "TRAINING OF RABBIS". Is further proof needed on that question?
The world's leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic "The History of the Talmud Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise states:
With the conclusion of the first volume of this work at the beginning of the twentieth century, we would invite the reader to take a glance over the past of the Talmud, in which he will see... that not only was the Talmud not destroyed, but was so saved that NOT A SINGLE LETTER OF IT IS MISSING; and now IT IS FLOURISHING TO SUCH A DEGREE AS CANNOT BE FOUND IN ITS PAST HISTORY...THE TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence...IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time. IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH... The colleges for the study of the Talmud are increasing almost in every place where Israel dwells, especially in this country where millions are gathered for the funds of the two colleges, the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York, in which the chief study is the Talmud... There are also in our city houses of learning (Jeshibath) for the study of the Talmud in the lower East Side, where many young men are studying the Talmud every day."
This "divine truth" which "a whole people venerate" of which "not a single letter of it is missing" and today "is flourishing to such a degree as cannot be found in its history" is illustrated by the additional verbatim quotations which follow:
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 55b: "A maiden 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. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea)." (emphasis in original text of Soncino Edition, Ed.)
(footnotes)
"(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving.
(3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew.
(4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction 'to his wife but not to his neighbor's wife' is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse." (emphasis in original, Ed.)
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 69a " 'A man'; from this I know the law only with respect to a man: whence do I know it of one aged nine years and a day who is capable of intercourse? From the verse, And 'if a man'? (2)-He replied: Such a minor can produce semen, but cannot beget therewith; for it is like the seed of cereals less than a third grown (3)."
(footnotes)
(2) 'And' (') indicates an extension of the law, and is here interpreted to include a minor aged nine years and a day.
(3) Such cereals contain seed, which if sown, however, will not grow."
(Book)
SANHEDRIN, 69b "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 for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declare her fit...All agree that the connection of a boy 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.
(footnotes)
(1) i.e., she becomes a harlot whom a priest may not marry (Lev XXL,7.).
(2) 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 than eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 5b. "The question was asked: Is it allowed (15) to perform the first marital act on the Sabbath? (16). Is the blood (in the womb) stored up (17), or is it the result of a wound? (18).
(footnotes)
"(15) Lit., 'how is it'?
(16) When the intercourse could not take place before the Sabbath (Tosaf)
(17) And the intercourse would be allowed, since the blood flows out of its own accord, no would having been made.
(18) Lit., or is it wounded? And the intercourse would be forbidden."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 10a-10b. "Someone came before Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi (and) said to him, 'my master I have had intercourse (with my newly wedded wife) and I have not found any blood (7). She (the wife) to him, 'My master, I am still a virgin'. He (then) said to them; Bring me two handmaids, one (who is) a virgin and one who had intercourse with a man. They brought to him (two such handmaids), and he placed them on a cask of wine. (In the case of ) the one who was no more a virgin its smell (1) went through (2), (in the case of) the virgin the smell did not go through (3). He (then) placed this one (the young wife) also (on the cask of wine), and its smell (4) did not go through. He (then) said to him: Go, be happy with thy bargain (7). But he should have examined her from the beginning (8)."
(footnotes)
"(1) i.e., the smell of wine.
(2) One could smell the wine from the mouth (Rashi).
(3) One could not smell the wine from the mouth.
(4) i.e., the smell of wine.
(5) Rabban Gamaliel
(6) To the husband.
(7) The test showed that the wife was a virgin.
(8) Why did he first have to experiment with the two handmaids."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. "Rabba 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 in 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'".
(footnotes)
"(5). Lit., 'says'.
(6) Lit., 'here', that is, less than three years old.
(7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years."
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. "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). 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."
(footnotes)
"(1) 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."
(Book)
HAYORATH, 4a. "We learnt: (THE LAW CONCERNING THE MENSTRUANT OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN THAT A WAITS A DAY CORRESPONDING TO A DAY HE IS EXEMPT. But why? Surely (the law concerning) a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day is mentioned in the Scriptures: He hath made naked her fountain. But, surely it is written, (1)- They might rule that in the natural way even the first stage of contact is forbidden; and in an unnatural way, however, is (that the ruling might have been permitted) (3) even in the natural way (4) alleging (that the prohibition of) the first stage (5) has reference to a menstruant woman only (6). And if you prefer I might say: The ruling may have been that a woman is not regarded as a zabah (7) except during the daytime because it is written, all the days of her issue (8)." (emphasis appears in Soncino Edition original, Ed.)
(footnotes)
"(13) Lev. XV, 28.
(14) Cf. supra p. 17, n. 10. Since she is thus Biblically considered unclean how could a court rule that one having intercourse with her is exempt?
(15) Lev XX, 18.
(1) Ibid. 13. The plural "xxxx" (Hebrew characters, Ed.) implies natural, and unnatural intercourse.
(2) Why then was the case of 'a woman who awaits a day
corresponding to a day' given as an illustration when the case of a menstruant, already mentioned, would apply the same illustration. (3) The first stage of contact.
(4) In the case of one 'who awaits a day corresponding to a day'; only consummation of coition being forbidden in her case. (5) Cf. Lev XX, 18.
(6) Thus permitting a forbidden act which the Sadducees do not admit.
(7) A woman who has an issue of blood not in the time of her menstruation, and is subject to certain laws of uncleanness and purification (Lev XV, 25ff).
(8) Lev XV, 26. Emphasis being laid on days."
(Book)
ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a. "R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it...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.
(footnotes)
(2). Even through he suffered from no issue.
(Book)
SOTAH, 26b. "R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) - the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)...As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?" (emphasis in the original text, Ed.)
(footnotes)
"(4) She would not be prohibited to her husband for such an act.
(5) farausag near Baghdad v. BB. (Sonc. Ed.) p. 15, n.4. He is thus distinguished from the earlier Rabbi of that name.
(6) Deut. XXIII, 19.
(7) Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal adultery.
(8) If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be offered.
(9) Are an abomination unto the Lord (ibid).
(10) Viz., the other two mentioned by the Rabbi.
(11) In Num. V. 13. since the law applies to a man who is incapable.
(12) Lev. XVIII, 22. The word for 'lying' is in the plural and is explained as denoting also unnatural intercourse.
(13) With the other man, although there is no actual coition." (emphasis appears in original Soncino Edition, Ed.)
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 55b. "Raba said; for what purpose did the All- Merciful write 'carnally' in connection with the designated bondmaid (9), a married woman (10 and a sotah (11)? That in connection with the designated bondmaid (is required) as has just been explained (12). That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum (13). This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated (14); what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains (that for such an act one is) guilty? The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman (15). Since it might have been assumed that, as (a wife), even after her death, is described as his kin (16), one should be guilty for (intercourse with) her (as for that) with a married woman, hence we are taught (that one is exonerated).
(footnotes)
(9) Lev. XIX,20.
(10) Ibid. XVIII,20
(11) Num. V, 13.
(12) SUPRA 55a.
(13) Since no fertilization can possibly occur.
(14) Shebu., 18a, Sanh. 55a
(15) Even though she dies as a married woman.
(16) In Lev. XXI, 2. where the text enumerates the dead relatives for whom a priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin refers to one's wife." (emphasis in Soncino Edition original, Ed.)
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 103a-103b. "When the serpent copulated with Eve (14) with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai (16) came to an end, the lust of idolators who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end."
(footnotes)
"(14) In the Garden of Eden, according to tradition.
(15) i.e., the human species.
(16) And experienced the purifying influence of divine Revelation."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 63a. "R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (5)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.
(footnotes)
"(5) Gen. II, 23. emphasis on This is now." (emphasis appears in original soncina Edition, Ed.)
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 60b. "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. Ramanos 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)."
(footnotes)
"(13) A proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.
(14) And was married to a priest.
(15) i.e., permitted to continue to live with her husband."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 59b. "R. 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).
(footnotes)
"(4) Even a High Priest. The result of such intercourse being regarded as a mere wound, and the opinion that does not regard an accidentally injured hymen as a disqualification does not so regard such an intercourse either.
(5) A beast.
(6) If the offense was committed in the presence of witnesses after due warning.
(7) In the absence of witnesses and warning."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 12b "R. Bebai recited before R. Naham: Three (categories of) woman may (7) use an absorbent (8) in their marital intercourse (9), a minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. The minor (10) because (otherwise) she might (11) become pregnant, and as a result (11) might die...And what is the age of such a minor? (14). From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under (15), or over this age (16) must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner."
(footnotes)
"(7) (so Rashi. R. Tam; Should use, v.Tosaf s.v.)
(8) Hackled wool or flax
(9) To prevent conception
(10) May use an absorbent.
(11) Lit., 'perhaps'.
(14) Who is capable of conception but exposed thereby to the danger of death.
(15) When no conception is possible.
(16) When pregnancy involves no fatal consequences."
(Book)
YEBAMOTH, 59b. "When R. 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)
"(8) From Palestine to Babylon
(9) (Babylonian form for Aitulu, 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.
(Book)
KETHUBOTH, 6b. "Said he to him: Not like those Babylonians who are not skilled in moving aside. (7), but there are some who are skilled in moving aside (8). If so, why (give the reason of) 'anxious.? (10)- for one who is not skilled. (Then) let the[m] say: One who is skilled is allowed (to perform the first intercourse on Sabbath), one who is not skilled is forbidden? -Most (people) are skilled (11). Said Raba the son of R. Hanan to Abaye' If this were so, then why (have) groomsmen (12) why (have) a sheet? (13)- He (Abaye) said to him: There (the groomsmen and the sheet are necessary) perhaps he will see and destroy (the tokens of her virginity) (14).
(footnotes)
"(7) i.e., having intercourse with a virgin without causing a bleeding.
(8) Thus no blood need come out, and 'Let his head be cut off and let him not die!' does not apply.
(9) If the bridegroom is skilled in 'moving sideways'.
(10) He need not be anxious about the intercourse and should not be free from reading Shema' on account of such anxiety.
(11) Therefor the principle regarding 'Let his head be cut off and let him not die!' does not, as a rule, apply.
(12) The groomsmen testify in case of need to the virginity of the bride. V. infra 12a. If the bridegroom will act in a manner that will cause no bleeding, the groomsmen will not be able to testify on the question of virginity.
(13) To provide evidence of the virginity of the bride. Cf. Deut. XXII,17.
(14) It may happen that he will act in the normal manner and cause bleeding but he will destroy the tokens and maintain that the bride was not a virgin; for this reason the above mentioned provisions are necessary. Where however he moved aside and made a false charge as to her virginity, the bride can plead that she is still a virgin (Rashi)."
After reading these verbatim quotations from the countless other similar quotations which you will find in the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud in the English language are you of the opinion, my dear Dr. Goldstein, that the Talmud was the "sort of book" from which Jesus "drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious subjects"? You have read here verbatim quotations and official footnotes on a few of the many other subjects covered by the "63 books" of the Talmud. When you read them you must be prepared for a shock. I am surprised that the United States Post Office does not bar the Talmud from the mails. I hesitate to quote them in this letter.
It's better to BURN out , than to fade away!!!
HAHAHHAHAHA. Bwahahahahaha. MUHAHAHAHAHA.
FORGIVE ME FATHER FOR I HAVE SINNED
HAHAHHAHAHA. Bwahahahahaha. MUHAHAHAHAHA. *cough*.
Kurgan rules.
ALGERNON, can I get you flowers?
;p =) :0) :o)
Can I act like a mongoloid retard?
I just brushed away the final layers of dirt on a skeleton in Africa! And he had died while trying to fellate himself. And this Skeleton is OLD!! He also had a bow an arrow, because monkies do self fellate. But I would say this ancient skeleton was a self aware person, mentally and sexually. I estimate this skeleton to be about the time of austrlophithecus man, a meta human for sure.
I wonder if he had a wad in his mouth at the time of death or not. We will do forensics on his remais to find out.
I love being an archeologist. Sometimes I fuck underage native African girls and tell them "akuma motada!" as I climax, and make monkey noises and talk about being THE Lion king. They are just glad I just want to fuck them, usually when thier dads fuck them they talk about carving thier clitoris off with broken glass in order to be a pure fuck according to the tenants of Islam. Islamic niggers tend to be the nastiest, but even though the plains are dry, and the life is hard, underage cooch is nice, soft and pink on the inside, oh so nice. My wife's ass isn't as tight.
piss off towel lover. i cant believe you infect new york. i know you helped al queda. i know you did. have you visted the WTC and seen what your religions does, it not only attacks the west but a symbol of the world. good job death bringers. we defend our right to life! death to islam, the death bringing cult.