Even though I'm Not Your Freakin' Secretary...

[Kathy_Baratta]

...here ya go since it appears you're not bright enough to do your own research.
There's lots more but like I said, I'm not your freakin' secretary. Do your own damn research. When I challenge someone I come armed with facts. Too bad you can't say the same.

KB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


GENTILE

GENTILE, non-Jew. It was only during the later Second Temple period that a sharp distinction and a barrier of separation was erected between the Jew and the gentile. The prohibition of marriage, which in the Bible was limited to the seven Canaanite nations (Deut. 7:1–4), was extended, following the reforms of Ezra, to include all non-Jews; the acceptance of monotheism was made the distinguishing mark of the Jew (Meg. 13a, Esth. R. 6:2); the Jews were regarded as having completely discarded*idolatry which was, however, uniformly characteristic of the non-Jew. In addition to that the low moral, social, and ethical standards of the surrounding gentiles were continuously emphasized, and social contact with them was regarded as being a pernicious social and moral influence. As a result, during this period the world was regarded as divided, insofar as peoples were concerned, into the Jewish people and the "nations of the world," and insofar as individuals were concerned, into "the Jew" and the idolater ("oved kokhavim u-mazzalot," usually abbreviated to "akkum," literally "a worshiper of stars and planets" but applied to all idolaters). Only considerations of humanity, such as relief of their poor, visiting their sick, affording them last rites (Git. 61a), and discretion ("one greets a gentile on their festivals for the sake of peace" – Tosef. Av. Zar. 1:3) were reasons for breaking the otherwise impenetrable barrier. As a result, the conception of and the attitude toward the non-Jew from the Talmudic period onward are strikingly different from that during the biblical period.

For the biblical period see *Stranger.
In the Talmud

Since talmudic literature spans over half a millennium, covering a wide geographic area, attitudes toward gentiles expressed in it vary considerably. In fact, it reveals a whole spectrum of opinions from the extreme antipathy of the tormented Jew of Hadrian's time – e.g., Simeon b. Yoḥai's statement: The best of gentiles should be killed (TJ, Kid. 4:11, 66c) – to the moderate views expressed in the more friendly atmosphere of early Sassanid Babylon – witness Samuel's making no distinction between Israel and the nations on the Day of Judgment (TJ, RH 1:3, 57a). Thus all such statements must be seen in their specific geographical-historical context. Nevertheless, in general it may be said that the Jew's attitude toward the gentile was largely conditioned by the gentile's attitude toward him (see Esth. R. 2:3), so that a gentile's friendship to a Jew would be warmly and uninhibitedly reciprocated (see BK 38a, and witness the relationships between Meir and Avnimos ha-Gardi, Judah ha-Nasi and Antoninus, Samuel and Sapor, etc.).

Jewish antipathy to the gentile in talmudic times stemmed from a number of causes and functioned on several levels. Thus, gentiles were condemned for their cruelty to Jews (see BK 117a; Av. Zar. 25b, etc.), their morals were considered reprehensible (Yev. 98a; Av. Zar. 22b; Song R. 6:8, etc.), and throughout the period one finds reiterated the (theological) accusation that though they were offered the Torah, they rejected it (Av. Zar. 2b; Tanḥ. B., Deut. 54, etc.). Thus, the Jewish antipathy to the gentile was not due to the fact that he was of non-Jewish stock, i.e., it was not a racial prejudice, but rather motivated by their idolatry, moral laxity, and other such faults (see Av. Zar. 17a–b). Those that were righteous (by Jewish standards), however, were fully entitled to the rewards of the world-to-come (Tosef., Sanh. 13:2; BB 10b), and a further distinction was made by Johanan who declared that gentiles outside Palestine were not really idolaters, but only blind followers of their ancestral customs (Ḥul. 13b).
Terms

In rabbinic literature the distinction between gentile (goi, akkum) and Christian (noẓeri) has frequently been obscured by textual alterations necessitated by the vigilance of censors. Thus "Egyptian," "Amalekite," "Zadokite" (= Sadducee) and kuti (Samaritan) often stand in place of the original noẓeri, as well as goi, akkum, etc. (see Paḥad Yiẓḥak, S.V. Goi). Probably when Resh Lakish stated that a gentile (akkum etc., in existing texts) who observed the Sabbath is punishable by death (Sanh. 58b), he had in mind Christians (see A. Weiss, in Bar Ilan, 1 (1963), 143–8, xxxi–ii). The same may be so in the case of R. Ammi who ruled that one may not teach a gentile Torah (Ḥag. 13a; cf. Sanh. 59a). Numerous anti-Christian polemic passages only make real sense after noẓeri has been restored in place of the spurious kuti or ẓedoki, etc.
In Law

The gentile figures very widely in talmudic law, in various legal categories, such as laws of personal status, marriage and inheritance, proselytization, laws of accession, contract, agency, evidence and damages, purity and impurity, laws concerning the types of property, and offerings he may present to the Temple, to name but a few. The basic assumption is that all non-Jews are subject to certain universal laws, religious, moral, and social (called the seven*Noachide laws ): (1) institution of courts of justice; (2) idolatry; (3) blasphemy; (4) incest; (5) homicide; (6) robbery; (7) eating the limb of a living animal, and according to other opinions, castration, mixing of breeds, witchcraft, etc. (Sanh. 56a–b, et al.).

Thus the gentile is a legal personality in Jewish law, and though sometimes discriminated against, is generally treated equitably. Thus, the Talmud relates that once the Roman government sent two officials to learn the Jewish law. After careful study, they said: "We have scrutinized all your laws and found them just (emet), except for the following instance. You say that if a Jew's ox gores that of a gentile, the owner is free from damages, while if a gentile's ox gores that of a Jew, he is obliged to pay damages. But if, as you say, 'neighbor' (in Ex. 21:35) excludes the gentile, then he should be free even when his ox gores that of a Jew. And if, on the other hand 'neighbor' includes the gentile, then the Jew should have to pay damages when his ox gores that of a gentile …" (BK 38a).

Where there is legal discrimination against a gentile, it is usually based on objective reasoning, such as the fact that he does not subscribe to the Jewish "social contract" (non-reciprocity). Thus, the Talmud rules that the commandment to restore lost property to its owner (Deut. 22:1–3) does not apply when the gentile is the owner (BK 113b). This is because gentiles do not act reciprocally in such cases. Similarly, a gentile cannot act as witness (BK 15a) because (according to one opinion) he is dishonest and unreliable (cf. Bek. 13b). Here it should be noted that Jews suspected of the same faults were liable to identical discrimination. Other apparently discriminating rulings were intended to discourage intimacy with the non-Jew, or, in other words, primarily to guard the Jews from the dangers of assimilation, such as the interdict against non-Jewish wines and cooked foods, etc. In practice discrimination against gentiles was frowned upon and even forbidden as it might jeopardize friendly relations (mi-penei darkhei shalom, Git. 5:8–9; mi-penei eivah, Av. Zar. 26a) and bring about a profanation of the Divine Name (ḥillul ha-Shem, BK 113b) – so much so, that the Talmud enjoins that gentile poor be supported with charity like Jewish poor (Git. 61a) and does not even tolerate the charging of interest to gentiles (BM 70b).

[Daniel Sperber]
In the Middle Ages

The talmudic laws, referred to above, whose purpose was to minimize contacts between Jews and idolaters ran counter to the social and economic realities of Jewish life in the Middle Ages. Unlike the talmudic period, Jews no longer lived in compact, economically self-sufficient communities. (This historical explanation for lifting many of the talmudic restrictions on Jewish-gentile relationships was already put forth by the tosafists; see Tos. to Av. Zar. 15a, beg. Eimor.) Economic – and, as a result, a measure of social – contact with non-Jews was an inevitable necessity. Hence, in daily life, many of the talmudic restrictions in this area simply became dead letters. Taking this fact into cognizance, R. Menahem Meiri could write: "In our times, no one observes these practices, neither gaon, rabbi, sage, pietist, nor pseudo-pietist" (Bet ha-Beḥirah, Av. Zar. introd.). Under the circumstances, the halakhists of the period were confronted with the problem of reconciling talmudic law with common practice that patently ignored it. Among the tosafists, this was accomplished by a process of dialectically reinterpreting the talmudic sources. Each specific law was reinterpreted so as to make it conform to the current practice. For example, the talmudic law prohibiting business dealings with gentiles on their festivals was construed as in consonance with doing business with Christians on Sundays (Tos. to Av. Zar. 2a, beg. Asur). Rashi (quoted in Or Zaru'a, Sanh. 2a) declares that such dealings are forbidden only on Christmas and Easter. A similar attitude is taken by the tosafist R. Elhanan in the matter of renting to a Christian a house owned by a Jew (Tos. to Av. Zar. 21a beg. Af; see also Tos. to Av. Zar 13a beg. Kal va-ḥomer). Occasionally the discrepancy between law and practice was overcome by drawing a distinction between idolaters referred to in the Talmud and Christians who reside outside the land of Israel (Maharam of Rothenburg, Resp., ed. Berlin, no. 386). While the tosafists declare that "we are certain that the Christians do not worship idols" (Tos. to Av. Zar. 2a beg. Asur), an attitude already adumbrated by R. Gershom, they fail to apply the principle categorically. The hesitation of the medieval halakhists to fully accept the implications of an absolute distinction between a Christian and an idolater is apparent in their legal discussions. The prominent tosafist R. Isaac of Dampierre held that since Christians could not be regarded as strict monotheists, according to the halakhah they come under the category of Noachides who are not enjoined against trinitarian belief (Tos. to San. 63b beg. Asur; Tos. to Bek. 2b beg. Shema). Confronted by the exigencies of daily life, the medieval halakhists tended toward leniency in such talmudic prohibitions as the use of gentile bread, butter, and wine. R. Menahem Meiri constitutes the single significant exception to the attitude of the halakhists. Strongly influenced by the rationalistic philosophy of his time, he drew a basic distinction between idolaters and between Christians and Muslims. The latter, he writes, are "peoples disciplined by religion" and, on principle, are to be regarded as Jews insofar as economic and social relations with them are concerned. In these matters, no invidious distinctions are to be made between Jews and Christians (Bet ha-Beḥirah, BK 113b; ibid., Av. Zar. 20a). He hesitates however in his practical decisions to waive all the ancient restrictions lest their total abolition lead to a loss of Jewish identity. Maimonides in his role as halakhist offers a position that is at odds both with that of the medieval decisors and with that of R. Menahem Meiri. He flatly states (Yad, Akum 9:4) – deleted by censors in the ordinary editions – that the talmudic limitations on Jewish-pagan relations are applicable in his own time. Moralistic literature of the period, notably, Sefer Ḥasidim, displays a marked ambivalence. In a number of instances, it goes far beyond talmudic law in warning against any contact with Christianity and its ritual objects. Thus, while the tosafists broadly qualify and virtually abolish the prohibition against dealing in the ritual objects of an alien faith, Sefer Ḥasidim makes the prohibition absolute. Yet, in its moral teachings, the book exhorts to an ethical scrupulosity in dealings with a gentile who observes the seven Noachide commandments. Such a person, it is averred, should be more honored than a Jew who does not engage in the study of Torah. However, such moral promptings were frequently motivated by considerations of expediency. Nevertheless, in a significant passage (no. 58), the book holds up a noble act performed by a Christian as one most worthy of emulation by Jews. A motive frequently invoked in warning against unethical acts committed by Jews toward Christians is that of ḥillul ha-Shem (desecration of God's name; no. 1080). Despite a social atmosphere saturated with Christian contempt, repression, and persecution of Jews, R. Moses of Coucy could write: "We have already explained concerning the remnant of Israel that they are not to deceive any one whether Christian or Muslim. Thus, the Holy One, Blessed be He, scatters Israel among the nations so that proselytes shall be gathered unto them; so long as they behave deceitfully toward them (non-Jews), who will cleave to them? Jews should not lie either to a Jew or to a gentile, nor mislead them in any matter" (Semag Asayim no. 82).

[Theodore Friedman]
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

IN THE TALMUD: G.F. Moore, Judaism, 1 (1946), 274–5, 339, 453; 2 (1946), 75; B.M.H. Uzid, in: Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, 4 (1952), 9–21; ET, 5 (1953), 286–366; E.E. Urbach, in: IEJ, 9 (1959), 149–65, 229–45; M.D. Herr, in: Sefer Zikkaron le-Binyamin De Vries (1968), 149–59; E.E. Urbach, Ḥazal (1969), 482–3, 488–9. IN THE MIDDLE AGES: J. Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (1961); Y.F. Baer, in: Zion, 3 (1937/38), 37–41; E.E. Urbach, Ba'alei ha-Tosafot (19552), index, S.V. Avodah Zarah; G. Tchernovitz, Ha-Yaḥas Bein Yisrael la-Goyim le-fi ha-Rambam (1950).

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07182.html

Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved.

[Kathy_Baratta]

So where is big mouth now? Why is it every time I prove one of them wrong they close up tighter than a duck's ass - and that's waterproof!

My favorite is, 'I tried, but I can't log on." If any one of them really were having a problem logging in they would send me an email and the problem would be rectified. (As so many on this Board already know. It's happened before and it will happen again. And you contact me, not Joe P. I am the sole owner of this site. You have a question or a request, you contact me.)

So what we really have is - "I'm not going back because she'll kick my ass with the facts!"     

Just remember BGold: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

And what's up with that? Why did I have to tell you about the tenets of your religion?

KB

[Ginger_Hoffmeier]

"I kind of dismissed it as anti-Semitic urban legend, similar to that thing about the hole in the sheet" -- BGold

Larry David asked a Hasidic woman about the hole in the sheet in an old episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm." (I'm sure Pat knows the episode by season and title.) Her answer was a puzzled "Whaaat?"

The hole in the sheet is actually practiced by some fundamentalist Mormons. (FLDS) I came across this in one of my summer reading books. I wonder if the FLDS got the idea from the urban legends or if the urban legends just got the wrong religion?

Anyone who wants to do some definitive first-hand research on this matter is welcome to do so. It won't be me though.

Do you think they sell sheets with different size holes? Or do you have to cut your own? I wonder how long it would take to find the hole in the dark. What if you put the sheet without the hole on the bed by mistake?

Soooo many questions! So few answers!

[Ginger_Hoffmeier]

"I kind of dismissed it as anti-Semitic urban legend, similar to that thing about the hole in the sheet" -- BGold

Larry David asked a Hasidic woman about the hole in the sheet in an old episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm." (I'm sure Pat knows the episode by season and title.) Her answer was a puzzled "Whaaat?"

The hole in the sheet is actually practiced by some fundamentalist Mormons. (FLDS) I came across this in one of my summer reading books. I wonder if the FLDS got the idea from the urban legends or if the urban legends just got the wrong religion?

Anyone who wants to do some definitive first-hand research on this matter is welcome to do so. It won't be me though.

Do you think they sell sheets with different size holes? Or do you have to cut your own? I wonder how long it would take to find the hole in the dark. What if you put the sheet without the hole on the bed by mistake?

Soooo many questions! So few answers!

[Joe Parente]

So where is big mouth now? Why is it every time I prove one of them wrong they close up tighter than a duck's ass - and that's waterproof!

My favorite is, 'I tried, but I can't log on." If any one of them really were having a problem logging in they would send me an email and the problem would be rectified. (As so many on this Board already know. It's happened before and it will happen again. And you contact me, not Joe P. I am the sole owner of this site. You have a question or a request, you contact me.)

So what we really have is - "I'm not going back because she'll kick my ass with the facts!"     

Just remember BGold: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

And what's up with that? Why did I have to tell you about the tenets of your religion?

KB

In response to the above, the owner of the other board posted this:

KB I have been trying to get on your board but YOU won't let me! Your running scared because I will put you in your place with my fact based arguments. Too Bad, all five of your posters know you would be put in your place and you know it too! Don't bark, Good Dog!

Um, you were banned from this board long before Kathy took it over for the same lying drivel you still practice.

And let's face it, if you could put her in her place with your "fact based arguments" (lmao), wouldn't you be doing it on your own stupid board instead of whining about rejoining here?  By the way, I just did a little database analysis and found that more than 30 people have posted here in the past month, so that's one more "fact" that you made up.

So Crude, if you can put KB in her place with your "fact based arguments", put up or shut up on your own board first. 

If you can that is. You're just like your buddy, the ex-mayor. The only "facts" you know are the ones you make up.

[Kathy_Baratta]

There's nothing to add to what Joe said about Gude and his desperation. To paraphrase David Byrne, "...Say it once, why say it again?"

However I am wondering what happened to Mr. BGold.  I guess he's hidin' in the clubhouse afraid to come out - "That mean ol' KB is waitin' out there for me."  

So his knight in rusted armor comes out in his place. Tell me my Gude man, did you carry her, I mean his, handkerchief with you when you came to joust?

Now that Joe has knocked you off your horse, limp back to your hideout where your two or three posters can lick your wounds or whatever it is you do there.

KB

[Kathy_Baratta]

Nice try, Mr. "Gold." (Too bad your first name isn't Fool's. How apt that would be.  ) Hate to point out the obvious but your little "duck and cover" wasn't a response to your challenge to my fact. That wasn't a "response" to the original post and you know it. You didn't address "it" because you couldn't but I am redundant. We all already know that!

KB

[Kathy_Baratta]

So someone that opens with, "Hey, Dumbass," is critiquing my people skills?

Now that's funny!     

KB

[Kathy_Baratta]

 
Robert Gude
Minerva


Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 3233
Location: Howell, NJ    

KB & Joe,

It's simple, you two wenches have been saying for years now that Gude does this and Gude does that with no proof what so ever and not giving me a chance to refute your BS claims in your forum. You two misfits know that I would lay waste to your BS you spew and everyone on both forums knows it too. So continue your little cabal of your hippie friends we all know that I could put both of you in your rightful places which is in the waste heap of history!
_________________
walk on the bright side of the road!

==================================================

There's only one thing to say to a man-child like you and that is - nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.        

And you're awful brave hidden there in Spring Lake Heights. Guess that's why you felt calling Joe a wench was a safe bet given the great distance and the likelihood of running into him being slim to none. Now of course, if you still lived in Howell and there was even the remotest chance of running into Joe, you wouldn't even leave the house without Overnight Depends on!      

Finally. Know this. As long as there is breath in my body, it will remain harder for you to get on this Board than it is for you to get a date. (The latter of course, while being slightly more probable, is just as unlikely. Buck up though. If the Mayans are right, the problem you have from being known - from the Latin - as Biggus Dickus* will no longer matter come 2012.   )

KB

* For those for whom my reference is obscure, I refer you to one of the funniest movies ever made - Monty Python's Life of Brian.

[Joe Parente]

Ok, if this wasn't so funny, it would be sad.

What the heck, it still is pretty sad, which makes it even funnier...

KB & Joe,

It's simple, you two wenches have been saying for years now that Gude does this and Gude does that with no proof what so ever and not giving me a chance to refute your BS claims in your forum. You two misfits know that I would lay waste to your BS you spew and everyone on both forums knows it too. So continue your little cabal of your hippie friends we all know that I could put both of you in your rightful places which is in the waste heap of history!

All the proof of your actions are right there on your own board for all to see. You think you can "lay waste" to MY "BS"? Go ahead, Crude. You can start by defending your profession's insistence that constant growth in a finite environment is not only possible, but desirable. Also, try to argue with your favorite blogger Mish that oil production hasn't peaked and what we're seeing now is the result of that peak, and what we're going to see in the near future is the result of the inexorable decline of oil extraction.

Of course, you can't. So you'll just ignore this like you always do, then in a week or two berate Kathy again. What's the matter, you think you can only beat up on girls?

Funny thing is, you can't even do that.