Moral Intelligence Test for Gentiles Who Presume to Criticize Jewish Law

Want to take a quick moral intelligence test that will show the difference between how Jews and gentiles think?



What are the Rabbis talking about in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yevamot 59b (scroll down for 59b)


http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_59.html


If one is like most presumptuous gentiles who attempt to understand and pass judgment on Jewish Law, you might interpret the teaching together with the Xian who wrote this repulsive passage:


"A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to many a priest - even a High


Priest, unless specifically warned in advance, and the act had been seen by two witnesses.


(What is meant by "beast" we are not quite sure since this may not have referred to


four-footed beasts, but to those humans who were known as "goy" and were considered to be human beasts.)"


http://www.samliquidation.com/talmud.htm


The discussion of the Rabbis in Yevamot 59 is the correct and incorrect application of a fortiori reasoning.


While there most certainly is a fortiori reasoning in Talmudic interpretation of Torah, and it is used to arrive at deep understandings of that which is just and that which is not, the use of it to heap up blame is not one of them.


There is no doubt from the passage given originally that the Rabbis viewed bestiality as a very, very grave sin. She is, if she did this of her own consent, to be stoned.


What is stoning? The Hebrew word for stoning is skilah. Do you see that it looks like the word school? It is actually related to that. One who committed these offenses needs to be *schooled*. There is no evidence in Jewish history that actual stoning *ever* took place. The conditions under which one would be stoned are so physically impossible that to carry it out is extremely unlikely. But the Rabbis are also speaking of the heaping up of stones against a person. They are saying: You may NOT assume that a person committed a lesser offense because they committed a graver one.


What the Rabbis are saying is: you may NOT infer that if someone committed witting bestiality that they also committed other sexual offenses. A woman who committed willing bestiality is not to be assumed to be a harlot as well.


The following passage shows this clearly.


"This1 represents the view of2 R. Meir,3 while Rab holds the same view as R. Eleazar.4 If [Rab holds the same view] as R. Eleazar, what was the object of pointing to her previous carnal intercourse5 when [her prohibition] could have been inferred from the fact that she was a harlot,6 R. Eleazar having stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with an unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot!7 — R. Joseph replied:8 When, for instance, the woman was subjected to intercourse with a beast, where the reason of 'previous carnal intercourse' may be applied but not that of harlot.9 Said Abaye to him: Whatever you prefer [your reply cannot be upheld], If she is a be'ulah10 she must also be a harlot; and if she is not a harlot11 she cannot be a be'ulah either! And were you to reply: This case is similar to that of a wounded woman,12 [it may be pointed out] that if [the disqualification should be extended to] unnatural intercourse also,13 you will find no woman eligible to marry a [High Priest [since there is not one] who has not been in some way wounded14 by a splinter!"


http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_59.html


The gentiles, in interpreting Jewish Law as they do, prove the truth of another Jewish teaching: "Everyone who finds fault in another is projecting his own fault."


Perhaps it would be wiser for gentiles not to attempt to understand Jewish Law and, in so doing, project the depravity that exists in their own troubled psyches for all the world to see.


Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com