Opinion How the Talmud Can Change Your Life - It’s the greatest self-help book ever written. And isn’t that what we need right now?

L | A
By Liel Leibovitz
2425616140b7bdefabe7b6a39adba732.jpg

Like so many Jews, I’ve spent the last few weeks drowning in a torrent of terrors. The reports from Israel, documenting the worst single-day massacre of Jews since Hitler’s goons were stopped, are soul-crushing. Beheaded babies, families burned alive, women brutally raped: These stories haunt me, making it difficult to go about my day. And it doesn’t help much to step out in my own city, New York, and see pro-Hamas mobs flashing swastika signs and calling for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state.

But I’m lucky. I have the best guide ever written to getting through tough times. It’s 2,711 pages long and 1,500 years old, and it’s the greatest self-help book ever written.

It’s the Talmud.

Flip to any random page, and even if you get through the Talmud’s unique design—like an ancient precursor to the internet, it consists of intertwined links, with text and commentary presented together on the same folio—you’re not likely to walk away inspired. To the extent that it’s a book at all—my friend, the writer Jonathan Rosen, called it “a drift net for catching God”—it does much more than merely tell stories. Instead, it records arguments, often intricate ones, almost always without telling you who’s right.

Dive in, however, and you’ll find precisely the pearls of wisdom needed to make it through even the toughest of times. Here’s a taste, a tale of what you ought to do when it seems like your world has come to an end.

The Talmud tells us that when Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai—who lived in the first century CE and was widely considered his generation’s leading scholar—realized that the Romans were about to sack Jerusalem, he went to see the emperor. He didn’t ask for mercy; the holy city, he understood, was doomed. Instead, he made three seemingly strange wishes.

He asked the emperor to spare Yavneh, a town in central Israel known as a vibrant center of Torah study. He asked the emperor to protect the family of Rabban Gamliel, a communal leader and the scion of a celebrated rabbinic dynasty. And he asked the emperor to send doctors to heal a wise and righteous rabbi named Tzadok, who was so grief-stricken about the impending catastrophe that he’d stopped eating.

Pay close attention to these requests, and you’ll see principles that can still guide us all today. In times of great upheaval, Rabbi Yochanan knew, we needed to embrace three difficult but essential truths.

First, when the worst happens, we can always start again. Even when our institutions are gutted and our homes burned down, figuratively or literally, we have permission to pack up and find some other place to go, and other people who share our convictions. There’s always Yavneh, a place of refuge that may not be where we had hoped to end up but that would at least keep us safe and see to it that we survive.

But survival, Rabbi Yochanan knew, wasn’t as simple as merely setting up shop elsewhere and announcing that business continues as usual. When you lose something—or someone—you love, you often also lose hope, wondering how life could possibly go on in the face of so much devastation. This is where Rabbi Yochanan’s second request comes in: By insisting that the same rabbinic dynasty that had been in charge for decades remained in place, he tethered the Jews to tradition, giving them an ember to remind them of the great spiritual fires that once burned bright and making them believe that these same fires may burn bright once again.

The biggest piece of the puzzle, though, was still missing: Even with somewhere to live and someone to trust and something to connect them to their more storied past, people still needed concrete instruction on how to live. Enter request number three. Rather than worry about “the Jews,” a mass of people whose names and stories he didn’t and couldn’t know, Rabbi Yochanan made a point of singling out just one man, his suffering friend. By doing so, he set an example of what he wanted the society he was rebuilding to look like. In Rabbi Yochanan’s imagination, the perfect community didn’t prattle on about abstractions like virtue and justice as it stood by idly while its people suffered; it slowed down for long enough to listen to the sobs of just one elderly man, find them intolerable, and step in to help.

These principles guide us still, giving us strength even as so many feel despondent. And they’re preserved in a book—a manual for living with defeat, to quote another wise rabbi, Leonard Cohen—written for broken people in broken times. The Talmud came to be because the Temple in Jerusalem, Judaism’s beating heart for centuries, was burned down in 70 CE. The rabbis saved the old religion from extinction by capturing it in a book. They recorded their stories and their disagreements in 63 sprawling volumes; to read it today is to enter into a conversation uninterrupted by space and time, with one generation offering to the next some sound advice on how to live and asking in return not for obedience but for contemplation and then action.

So Jewish or not, heartbroken or otherwise, jump right in. More than any other book you might’ve read, the Talmud can change your life.
 
There was another one that says that says that a person will not be killed for having intercourse if a child is old enough
And how old is that? What age exactly?
That specific one is argument about whether a girl that is violated before coming of age is considered a virgin,
That’s not what it says though. It says it’s OK to do it. It doesn’t say ‘if the child is raped killed the perp and the child should not be considered unclean or guilty.’ It says it’s Ok.
These are very hard verses to justify aren’t they?
 
That Libbre David thing needs to be removed from the memes. There is no need to lie about the vileness of the rabbis when the truth is damning enough.

And of course dishonest Jews won't admit which parts of the memes are simply true.
 
That’s not what it says though. It says it’s OK to do it. It doesn’t say ‘if the child is raped killed the perp and the child should not be considered unclean or guilty.’ It says it’s Ok.
Quoting my last explanation:

Rav Yosef says: Come and hear a resolution from a mishna (Nidda 44b): A girl who is three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal is betrothed with intercourse, as the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl who is three years and one day old dies, if his brother, the yavam, engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife; and if she is married, a man other than her husband is liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman.

The mishna continues: And if she is impure due to menstruation, she transmits impurity to one who engages in intercourse with her, who then renders all the items designated for lying beneath him impure like the items designated for lying above him.

The mishna continues: And if one of any of those with whom relations are forbidden, who are stated in the Torah, engaged in intercourse with her, e.g., her father or father-in-law, they are executed by the court for engaging in intercourse with her, and she is exempt because she is a minor.


It's a thought experiment as evidenced by the question of what if the 3 year old is menstruating which is an impossibility. Additionally there are 3 places that say that this is not allowed.

Kiddushin 12b states:

The Gemara explains that Rav would flog a man for betrothing a woman in the marketplace, because this is disrespectful and crude, and for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse, as it is unsavory to invite witnesses to observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse. And he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman without an arrangement [shiddukhei], i.e., if he did not discuss betrothal with the woman before betrothing her. Each of these acts is considered indecent behavior.


Yebamot 44a advises against age gap relationships

The baraita explains: Appropriate advice means that if he was a young man and she an elderly woman or if he was an elderly man and she a young woman, they say to him: What do you want with a young woman when you are elderly? Or: What do you want with an elderly woman when you are young? Go after your own kind, i.e., a woman of a similar age, and do not place discord in your household that could be caused by marrying a woman of a significantly different age.

Sanhedrin 76a explicitly says that age gap relationships will cause the woman to cheat and the father of a girl who marries her off young to an old man is considered to be responsible for her cheating:

“Do not profane your daughter by causing her to act licentiously”? Rabbi Mani says: This verse is referring to one who marries his daughter to an old man. Since she will not be satisfied with him, it will ultimately lead her to engage in adultery, and her father is responsible for causing that situation.

Marriage to an old man or a minor leaves the woman unsatisfied and is apt to lead to licentiousness.

Also you can't be married in Judaism as a woman at younger than 12 years old since you cannot sign the marriage contract due to being under the age of majority. When they bring up the childless husband of a 3 year old who dies, that's a logical impossibility.
 
And how old is that? What age exactly?

That’s not what it says though. It says it’s OK to do it. It doesn’t say ‘if the child is raped killed the perp and the child should not be considered unclean or guilty.’ It says it’s Ok.
These are very hard verses to justify aren’t they?
I'm beginning to get the impression this shit is where Islam gets its "oh no, it doesn't mean thaaaaaaaaat" from.
 
And that the point of being "chosen" was to provide a light to enlighten the world, not to consider the goyim as "animal souls" meant to be eternally enslaved.
They were chosen to be the place the messiah came from, that's it. That didn't mean they weren't the most awful people on the planet.
Nope, it's in the Oral law. The Torah directly references the Oral law when it instructs the Jews to slaughter animals in a kosher way but doesn't define the kosher way to do it.
If your mom tells you to clean the kitchen you don't need a written procedure for it. The only reason you'd ask for one is because you are a petulant child trying to worm their way out of doing what they are told.
Why don't you tell them what the "origin" of this alleged "oral law" is?
If you start trying to make them answer hard questions, they just ignore it or pretend like they don't know what you are talking about. For example: the polytheistic nature of the Jewish faith. It's all over the old testament when you realize what you are actually reading.
Is there actually a sentence about baby rape? Sounds like the usual misinterpretation of a text for a meme.
Why would anyone need to make up stuff to make jews look bad? They do that on their own well enough. Literally the first big news event this year was Jewish rape tunnels and sewer jews.
Only people like Christian monks should have the worldview to criticise rules lawyering, not people like us who at best do the bare minimum of practicing faith.
Lmao, nice defense of jews. "We (you stupid goy) aren't smart or educated enough to know what books ACTUALLY say" it's literally all there in plain text.
As for cheating goys, Maybe? Considering the format you'd probably have one person arguing for it and another arguing against it. Of course with the context of the same goys burning down their ghetto a year previously.
What like when jews poison wells? Or literally opened doors for Moorish invaders in Spain? Or continue to push open boarder policies letting in untold numbers of immigrants? Those goys always subverting and perverting everyone.
That Libbre David thing needs to be removed from the memes. There is no need to lie about the vileness of the rabbis when the truth is damning enough.

And of course dishonest Jews won't admit which parts of the memes are simply true.
There's also parts of the Talmud that aren't translated into other languages outside of Hebrew. Since they know how damning it is. Just like they ignore, lie, and deny about large parts of their faith that they keep practicing. You know like ritual child sacrifice?

Notice how he says one part is made up and ignores the rest, its all dishonest pilpul with jews. As I pointed out on the first page.
It's a thought experiment as evidenced by the question of what if the 3 year old is menstruating which is an impossibility. Additionally there are 3 places that say that this is not allowed.
Except tumors and pollution can cause precocious menstruation, see the world's youngest mother at 5.

If it's such a weird thought experiment, then where is the part explaining such? Or do you need to know the external nonexistent context again? I know when I talk about fucking babies I leave it open to interpretation.
Also you can't be married in Judaism as a woman at younger than 12 years old since you cannot sign the marriage contract due to being under the age of majority. When they bring up the childless husband of a 3 year old who dies, that's a logical impossibility.
Then why bring it up at all? We don't have laws about people marrying their dogs because we don't need to.
I'm beginning to get the impression this shit is where Islam gets its "oh no, it doesn't mean thaaaaaaaaat" from.
You'll never guess who helped create and push Islam.
 
That specific one is argument about whether a girl that is violated before coming of age is considered a virgin, which is autistic but doesn't actually condone the act.
A girl who is three years and one day old, whose father arranged her betrothal, is betrothed through intercourse, as the halakhic status of intercourse with her is that of intercourse in all halakhic senses.

"Betrothed through intercourse" and it's halakhic (legal) in all senses. It's not referred to as rape or violation. We understand it to be such, but they clearly weren't bothered in the same way.
 
"Betrothed through intercourse" and it's halakhic (legal) in all senses. It's not referred to as rape or violation. We understand it to be such, but they clearly weren't bothered in the same way.
Addressed why that's not a valid argument above.
 
Nope you didn't address it at all. You also clearly don't understand what thought experiments are. How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast today?
How would you feel if an old Rabbi didn't molest you as a child? Would you support the same asinine discussions? You address nothing of what I say, because you are an ignorant coward. You don't have intellectual discussions about child rape unless it's an issue. You just want us to think that's not what the text in front of us clearly says. It's why you get real quiet and disappear every time I ask you about Judaism and it's polytheistic beliefs.

If I didn't eat breakfast I would feel hungry, then I would nourish myself on Jewish tears just by existing. Seethe and cope pedophile lover.
 

Which one God? Why you still "pretending" to sacrifice babies to whatever fake god this is supposed to be? Why did god explicitly say you weren't doing it to him? Who's the insane one?
It was a pagent play called romance of a people that showed 3000 years of Jewish history. In one of the scenes they showed how some Jews used to sacrifice babies to moloch. As this article discussing the play writes:


Regardless of, or perhaps due to, the diversity of the audience, the pageant itself was both a dramatic and edifying affair, chronicling notable events in Jewish history. The pageant depicted “forty centuries of religion” in the form of six episodes with two interludes, starting with a dramatization of the religion’s formation.[26] A 27-foot idol of the god Moloch surrounded by 500 slaves and worshippers set the scene for Judaism’s rejection of the false god, thereby depicting “the birth of true religious concepts.”[27]
Furthermore, this attempt at monotheistic universality is mentioned in the pageant’s program “Greeting and Tribute” penned by producer and script-writer Meyer Weisgal. Hailing the presumed diversity of the crowd, Weisgal declaimed, “Among you are representatives of all the races and creeds which are incorporated in the structure of the American Republic. The composition of this assembly bears equal witness, therefore, to the spirit of fellowship and mutual respect among diversities of faith and race.”[28] While his program greeting closes with a reminder of the pageant’s Zionist cause, Weisgal’s preamble anticipates what would later be the American Jewish Tercentenary’s purpose: realigning Jewishness within an American historical context and within a multiethnic community.

If you think this is real you think Jesus actually gets crucified in Easter pagent plays
 
It was a pagent play called romance of a people that showed 3000 years of Jewish history. In one of the scenes they showed how some Jews used to sacrifice babies to moloch. As this article discussing the play writes:
As always there's some external context that explains how innocent it all is. You just don't understand being a dumb goy and all.


"A 27-foot idol of the god Moloch surrounded by 500 slaves and worshippers set the scene for Judaism’s rejection of the false god, thereby depicting “the birth of true religious concepts.”[27]"

Except at no part did they do that, thats why Esau lost his birthright for marrying a Canaanite. You keep playing ignorant to the basics. Next youll pretend like jews weren't exsanguinating children and sacrificing them throughout the middle ages, despite bring caught red-handed.
If you think this is real you think Jesus actually gets crucified in Easter pagent plays
You do know some places actually do real crucifixion? Of course you don't.
 
thats why Esau lost his birthright for marrying a Canaanite.
it very clearly states he traded his birthright for lentil soup. There's no problem with marrying a Canaanite with both Isaac/Jacob marrying Canaanites.

Next youll pretend like jews weren't exsanguinating children and sacrificing them throughout the middle ages, despite bring caught red-handed.
there's literally a letter from a pope declaring these accusations bullshit

Pope Gregory X wrote:

Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, extends greetings and the apostolic benediction to the beloved sons in Christ, the faithful Christians, to those here now and to those in the future. Even as it is not allowed to the Jews in their assemblies presumptuously to undertake for themselves more than that which is permitted them by law, even so they ought not to suffer any disadvantage in those [privileges] which have been granted them. Although they prefer to persist in their stubbornness rather than to recognize the words of their prophets and the mysteries of the Scriptures, and thus to arrive at a knowledge of Christian faith and salvation; nevertheless, inasmuch as they have made an appeal for our protection and help, we therefore admit their petition and offer them the shield of our protection through the clemency of Christian piety. In so doing we follow in the footsteps of our predecessors of blessed memory, the popes of Rome Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, Celestine, Innocent, and Honorius....

Inasmuch as thejews are not able to bear witness against the Christians, we decree furthermore that the testimony of Christians against Jews shall not be valid unless there is among these Christians some Jew who is there for the purpose of offering testimony.

Since it happens occasionally that some Christians lose their Christian children, the Jews are accused by their enemies of secretly carrying off and killing these same Christian children and of making sacrifices of the heart and blood of these very children. It happens, too, that the parents of these children or some other Christian enemies of these Jews, secretly hide these very children in order that they may be able to injure these Jews, and in order that they may be able to extort from them a certain amount of money by redeeming them from their straits.

And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifice from the heart and blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this. We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless-which we do not believe-they be caught in the commission of the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now.​

 
it very clearly states he traded his birthright for lentil soup. There's no problem with marrying a Canaanite with both Isaac/Jacob marrying Canaanites.
Rebekah wasn't a Canaanite. So good job lying.
there's literally a letter from a pope declaring these accusations bullshit
Yeah there's paperwork saying Leo Frank was aquitted but we all know that's not true. As in the book Blood Passover, there's plenty of factual basis to prove it did happen.

Also trying to appeal to a pope as an authority is hilarious.


Inasmuch as thejews are not able to bear witness against the Christians, we decree furthermore that the testimony of Christians against Jews shall not be valid unless there is among these Christians some Jew who is there for the purpose of offering testimony."

Doesn't apply, since jews offered testimony to it happening.

Since it happens occasionally that some Christians lose their Christian children, the Jews are accused by their enemies of secretly carrying off and killing these same Christian children and of making sacrifices of the heart and blood of these very children. It happens, too, that the parents of these children or some other Christian enemies of these Jews, secretly hide these very children in order that they may be able to injure these Jews, and in order that they may be able to extort from them a certain amount of money by redeeming them from their straits."

So when kids were found drained of blood, it's just their parents imagining. See it's an extortion plot against jews.

And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifice from the heart and blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws."
Human's don't have claws so it doesn't apply.

"This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this."

Guys these Jewish converts said the jews are innocent. That makes it totally OK.

We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless-which we do not believe-they be caught in the commission of the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now."

It's definitely not happening because we say it's not happening, even if you prove otherwise it's still not happening. Lmao what a bunch of Jewish bullshit. Papists get the rope.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo