The
Conversation of The Sages is Naught but Lewdness…
"Rabbi Samuel the son of Nachmani said: It is
written, 'A loving doe, a graceful mountain goat. [Let her breasts satisfy you
at all times, be infatuated with love of her always' (Proverbs 5:19)]. Why were
the words of the Torah likened to a doe? To tell you that as the womb [vagina]
of the doe is tight, and her mate enjoys it each time as though it were the
first [for the sexual act is more enjoyable when the vagina remains tight], so
are the words of the Torah always enjoyable to their students as though it were
the first time" (Eiruvin 54b).
Chazal said (Minor Tractates, Tractate Derech Eretz,
chapter arayot, halacha 13): "Do not speak excessively with women, for
all women's conversations are lewdness. R' Achi the son of R' Josiah said
all who look at women will in the end come to sin."
But we will show you who seeks truth that a great
deal of the sages' conversations are naught but lewdness, and about them we can
say (Kiddushin 70a): "One who seeks to disqualify another projects his own
defects upon him."
One of the puzzling things about our rabbis is their
world of sexual fantasy. To make the Torah enjoyable to its students they chose
to use expressions from animal sexuality... even though they were no experts on
the animal world: they never did, after all, ask the ram if he enjoys his
mating with a doe more
than other animals enjo their own matings – they just made it all up.
For example, see what else our rabbis have said
about this doe: "'Can you mark the time when the does calve?' (Job
39:1)--the doe has a narrow womb. When she is about to birth I send her a
dragon [snake--Rashi] to bite her and her womb expands. If it were a moment
sooner or a moment later she would immediately die" (Bava Batra 16a).
With your own eyes you see how our rabbis make up
"natural phenomena" which never actually happened, like G-d sending a
snake to the doe, to bite her at just the right time so her womb will expand
and she can give birth.
Do not think that these things are mere Aggadah, for
the Gemara makes Halachic rulings based on this picture of things (Bechorot
7b): "Cheli d'yachmorta--the Sages tended to say that they are eggs
and [therefore] forbidden. Rav Safra said, [however]: They are the sperm of a
ram, who wanted to mate with a doe--but since her womb is tight, he could not;
so he went to a she-roebuck, and these were left [in her vagina after their
mating]." This is the explanation of it, according to the commentaries of
Rashi and Rabbeynu Gershom: Cheli d'yachmorta are things resembling
testicles dropping from a female roebuck's vagina. The Sages tended to forbid
eating them as limbs of a living being, thinking that these are indeed a male
roebuck's testicles, which he had dropped while fertilizing the female. Rav
Safra, however, came along and permitted them--for in his view, they were not
testicles but the sperm of a ram, which coagulated after he mated with a
she-roebuck (!) because he could not mate with a doe of his own species, whose
vagina is tight and she didn't consent. So he went to a she-roebuck (an animal
which looks similar to a doe), and mated. Now, since he had waited for a long
time before this mating he emitted a lot of sperm, which coagulated in the
roebuck's womb until it looked like testicles.
This picture of animal world lays at the foundation of a Halachic
ruling formulated by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah section 71, paragraph 3:
"The eggs which a she-roebuck drops from her womb are permitted." The
Taz [Turei Zahav] explained in paragraph
6: "What has coagulated from the ram's sperm and looks like eggs is only
secretions [and is not forbidden as the limbs of a living being, so it is
permitted for eating]."
All who hear this will laugh and wonder at this
nonsense, which has not a single correct fact about it. Our rabbis come along
and make up a whole story about rams, does, roebucks and the sexual relations
they are involved in--until they even permitted eating the "eggs"
which a she-roebuck drops because they are coagulated ram sperm, nothing more
and nothing less. (We will say, as an aside, that we have often heard from our
rabbis that eating forbidden foods influences one's soul. What would these
rabbis say about one who is scrupulous to eat permitted foods and eats
coagulated ram sperm? What will his soul resemble?!)
Not only has the doe merited miracles when she
births. The mountain goat has, too. (Bava Batra 16a): "'Do you know the
season when the mountain goats give birth? Can you mark the time when the does
calve?' (Job 39:1). The mountain goat is cruel to her children. When it comes
time for her to give birth she goes up to the top of the mountain so the babies
will fall and die. [But] I send an eagle to her to take them in his wings and
place them before her." Did the Sages never see a mountain goat give
birth? What is all this nonsense?
If so, it is no wonder that Rabbi Joseph Elbo wrote,
in Sefer HaIkarim (fourth essay, chapter 11): "So we have found
that G-d watches wondrously over each animal, to give each one a purpose he can
fulfill...the animals and birds of prey get no food from plant growth, so
nature gave them tools through which they could live off prey, including claws
with poison to use while killing, to cook the food and make it better, for the
power of the poison and its heat serves them instead of cooking the meat...
[See what we wrote in pamphlet 2,
that all this is nonsense, for they have no poison in their claws at all.]
And the mountain goat is watched to guard
them during their birth, to the extent that none are hidden from this
supervision when it is born, as our rabbis OBM said: 'Since her womb is tight
[Rabbi Joseph Elbo gets confused here between the mountain goat, ya’elah,
and the doe, ayalah], the holy One, blessed be He, sends her a snake to
bite her, and for each and every species in its own way."
So there, student who seeks knowledge, you have it:
a peep into the virtual reality of our rabbis. They make up "natural
phenomena" and from that draw conclusions about His supervision...
Since we have
been dealing with does whose vaginas are tight, we will cite what is written
(Yoma 29a): "Rav Zeira said: Why was Esther compared to a doe? To tell you
that just as the doe, whose vagina is tight, is always delightful to her mate
as the first time, so was Esther always delightful to Achashverosh as the first
time."
This is an example of Chazal's strange aggadot about
the Jewish prophetesses. It is not at all clear why they chose to attribute all
kinds of sex, unmentioned by the Scriptures, to our prophetesses. (Megillah
14a: "There were seven prophetesses. Who were they? Sarah, Miriam,
Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Hulda, and Esther.") What is this mania they
have about sex?
See what our rabbis wrote of the sexual relations between Esther and
Achashverosh (Megillah 13a): "'And the king loved Esther more than all the
women and favored her above all the virgins' (Esther 2:17). Rav said: When he
wanted to be with a virgin, she was like a virgin, and when he wanted to be
with an experienced woman, she was so [therefore it says 'more than all the
women and...all the virgins--Rashi]."
Now see what Chazal wrote about Yael, the wife of
Chever the Keini (Yevamot 103a): "Rabbi Jochanan said: [Sisra] had sex seven
times with Yael, as is said [in the song of Deborah, Judges 5:27], 'Between her
legs he bowed, he fell, he lay down; at her feet he bowed,
he fell; where he bowed, there he fell down dead' (there
are seven instances of bowing, falling, or laying down in the verse)]... Radak
(on Judges 5:27), who kept to the plain meaning of the text, contradicts this
odd agaddah: "Between her legs he bowed, he fell--this is a literary
custom, to repeat words in order to emphasize them. 'He lay down'--a laying down
from which there is no return, and this is why it says 'there he fell down
dead.' There is a midrashic explication of this [verse], but it is far out.
Since there are seven iterations of bowing, falling, and laying down, they said
that the evil one had sex with Yael seven times that day, but what we wrote
above, on the word 'coverlet' [in his commentary on Judges 4:18], refutes
it."
We will also ask: The Scriptures describe in detail
how Yael killed Sisra (Judges 4:20-21): "Again [Sisra] said to [Yael],
'Stand at the door of the tent, and it shall be when any man comes and inquires
of you, saying: Is there any man here? that you will say No.' Then Yael, Chever's wife, took a nail of the
tent and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and smote
the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast
asleep and weary. So he died." According to Chazal he fell down dead after
having sex multiple times, so why did the Scriptures testify "[she] went
softly to him"?
Now come see what our rabbis said about Abigail
(Megillah 14b): "...this teaches us that [Abigail] revealed her thigh [and
David desired her and demanded, but she did not listen to him--Rashi] and he
followed its light for three parsaot. He said to her: Heed me! [he
demanded sex]. She said to him: (I Samuel 25:31) 'This shall not be an obstacle
to you,' implying David would stumble elsewhere--where? The incident with
Bathsheba."
What do Chazal attribute to the prophetess Abigail?
That she raised her dress and showed her thigh to tempt David. The Tosafot,
Megillah 14b, s.v. shegiltah, wondered how it is possible that a
righteous woman like Abigail would act so loose: "It is puzzling how that
righteous woman [Abigail] showed her thigh to David; and it seems to be an
exaggeration to say that he followed its light for three parsaot [12
km]. But it should be said...that David desired her and followed that heat for
three parsaot." That is,
David did not actually follow Abigail's uncovered thigh, he followed his own
desire. We do not understand how the Tosafot settle their question about
Abigail, who uncovered her thigh. Again we see that our rabbis confuse their
commentators and they can't tell what is parable, what is exaggeration, and
what is reality [see our essay: Scriptures and
Talmud: What is Reality and What is Parable?].
See, for example, how the Maharsha explains the
words of the Talmud in his Aggadah commentary: "[Abigail uncovered her
thigh;] she was 3 parsaot from him and did not know of him nor he of
her. She uncovered her thigh and it lit his way in the night for three parsaot
until she came to him..." How miraculous. According to the Maharsha the
righteous Abigail uncovered her thigh when she was far from King David and the
light of her desirable thigh lit David's night for 12 kilometers! How far did
our rabbis the commentators' imaginations go?
We will add that for some reason the Tosafot did not
wonder how King David, "G-d's anointed one," desired a married woman
and did not control his desires. This question was asked in the Responsa of the
Ridbaz, part seven, paragraph 29: "I have been asked about the matter of
Abigail and David, as related in chapter one of Megillah and in the Jerusalem
Talmud in Sanhedrin, that David desired her and she produced a stain and said
that she was a niddah...How can we imagine that David, chosen by G-d,
wanted to sleep with a married woman...and if about Bathsheba they said that
all who state David sinned are mistaken, how can they say he desired a married
woman and so sinned?
The answer: ...it can be said that David supposed that since Nabal had
been deserving capital punishment--for he rebelled against the king--his wife
had rightly belonged to the king (see Bereshit Rabbah, chapter 35 [correctly,
chapter 32, Vilna edition--DE]), as did all his other property; and just as all
other property is passed over while the guilty man is alive, he thought the
wife is as well. But in this [David] erred, for though all other property is
forfeit [even before the criminal is executed], the prohibition against
sleeping with a married woman lapses only when she is divorced or widowed....I
have written all this to show that we must turn to all possible sides and sides
of sides to vindicate G-d's anointed one, as our rabbis OBM did on the issue of
Bathsheba."
We learn two things from the Ridbaz's words. One is that David,
"G-d's anointed one," treated Abigail (the wife of Nabal) as another
item of Nabal's property (and only erred in calculating that this
"property" would pass to him before Nabal's death) and the other is
that the Radbaz freely admits his interpretation to be a product of his own
mind, motivated by the desire to interpret the Scripture apologetically in
order to to look for the good in the Scriptural "saints."
Now we will return to the sexual fantasies of our
rabbis: "Our rabbis taught: Rahab's lewdness was through her name;
Yael's--through her voice; Abigail's--through thinking of her; and
Michal's--through seeing her. Rabbi Isaac said: One who [merely] says 'Rahab,
Rahab' has [a seminal emission] immediately [because of excessive desire].
Rabbi Nachman said: I keep saying 'Rahab, Rahab' and nothing happens to me. To
which Rabbi Isaac replied: What I said concerns only [a woman] with whom one is
well acquanited" (Megillah 15a).
Based on this gemara Rabbi Obadiah Yossef permitted
hearing a woman sing when the listener does not know the woman. In responsa
Yabiah Omer, part one, Orach Chayim, paragraph six: "It seems that 'a woman's
voice is lewdness' only applies when one sees her face or is acquainted with
her, as it says in Megillah (15a), 'Rahab's lewdness was through her name,
Yael's--through her voice... [and that] concerns only [a woman] with whom one
is well acquainted'." Woe to the generation which rules halacha based on
the imaginations of our rabbis and forbids hearing the voice of any familiar
woman lest he inappropriately desire her. How do the contemporary rabbis seal
their hearts and not realize that the sages of the Talmud showed unmitigated
contempt for women, contempt that should not be given a toehold in our days?
Go see how our rabbis showed contempt for even the
Scriptural prophetesses (Megillah 14b): "Rav Nachman said: Eminence does
not become a woman. There were two eminent women and both their names are
loathsome. One was a bee [Deborah] and the other was a rat [Chuldah]." But
"Shafan [Rabbit] the scribe" and "Achbor [Mouse] the son of
Mikiah" (II Kings 22) were not ridiculed for their names.
It should be said that our rabbis in the Talmud, in
all honesty, did admit that the desire for women was an inseparable part of
their lives and they needed the fear of flesh and blood to help control their
desires (Kiddushin 81a): "[An incident when] captive women were brought to
Nahrdea and brought to the house of Rav Amram the Pious. They put them in the
attic and took away the ladder which led to the attic. When one of the captives
was walking in the attic, light fell across the opening, and since Rav Amram's
desires overwhelmed him, he raised the ladder, which ten men together could not
raise, and began climbing the ladder towards the captives. When he got halfway
up the ladder, he spread his legs [to hold on tight so that he could control
his desire] and screamed, 'Fire in Rav Amram's house!' [so that people would
respond to his call and rush in, and of shame before them he would leave off
his desire]. The sages [who thought there was a fire indeed] came [and saw
there was none]. They said to him: 'You shamed us.' Rav Amram answered them:
'Better to be shamed in this world than to be shamed in the next'."
Also (Sukkah 52a): "Abaye heard a man saying to
a woman, 'Come, let us go on our way together." Abaye said: let me follow
them to keep them from sin. They went some three parsaot until they came
to a marsh [where their ways should have parted]. He heard them say: 'A journey
is long and the company was nice [meaning that they had to part].' Abayeh said:
'Were I in his place I would not have conquered my desires.' In his sorrow he
leaned on the door latch until the old man came to him and said, 'Any who is
greater than his fellows has greater desires'."
Come see how far the lewd talk of our rabbis, the authors of the
Talmud, goes. The Scriptures say: "He [Asa] also deposed his mother Maacah
from the rank of queen mother because she had made an abominable thing [mifletzet]
for Asherah. Asa cut down her abominable thing and burnt it in the Wadi
Kidron" (I Kings 15:13, II Chronicles 15:16). What is this abomination
that Maacah had made? Radak gave a reasonable explanation (I Kings 15:13):
"The abomination is idolatry. It is called mifletzet--something,
which makes one fear and tremble, as in 'I shudder in panic [pelatzot]'
(Isaiah 21:4)--because of the panic it casts on its worshippers." But this
did not occur to our rabbis the Amoraim, who instead interpreted the verse the
following way (Avodah Zarah 44a): "What is mifletzet? Rav Judah
said: a super-mockery [maflei leitzanuta], as Rav Joseph taught: she
made a male figure and impaled herself on it each day." That is, Maacah's
"abomindation" was nothing more than a dildo she used each day!
If so, it is no wonder that when the Sages of the
Talmud came to describe the evil Pharaoh they gave his measurements thus (Moed
Katan 18a): "Abitul the scribe said in the name of Rav (Pappa): 'The
Pharaoh who reigned in Moses' days was one cubit tall [about half a
meter!], his beard was a cubit long, and his sexual organ was a cubit and a
finger-length, to fulfill what is written (Daniel 4:14) 'And set up over it the
basest of men'."
You learn that according to our rabbis in the
Talmud, by whose light we live, the evil Pharaoh king of Egypt was half a meter
tall, his beard was half a meter long, and his penis was slightly more than
half a meter long...
To this we have nothing to add, and there is nothing
more to be said!
