How the Brooklyn DA Protects Orthodox Child Molesters

FALSE!

You can't misinterpret this.

...intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act...

-- Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth 11

While I understand why you protect these child molesters, I still find it disgusting.

 

There are some jews who speak out against child-rape in the jewish community, but they are an exception, and when they do speak out they are usually ostracized or even threatened by their fellow tribesmen. A good example of this is the rabbi and psychologist Benzion Twerski:

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/top_doc_scared_panel_rabbinic_sex_molesters_0

More articles:

Judge: Orthodox Protect Abusers, Not Victims

http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/judge_orthodox_protect_abusers_not_victims

Advocacy group: Israel is a pedophile's paradise

National Council for the Child: Justice Ministry must impose harsher penalties on online sex offenders.

http://www.haaretz.com/advocacy-group-israel-is-a-pedophile-s-paradise-1.262570

 

As long as victims and others are stepping down from testifying over pressure nothing will get done.

 

Do you include your social democrat religion in that?

 

law?????????

what you quote was an obscure opinion, not a law.

it has no legal bearing in any court.

all JEWS know this.

 

Off topic, Ron. This thread is exposing the Jewish molesters and the DA and the NYPD who have covered for them for decades.

Post this everywhere you can and let's together, end this madness.

 

funny how you don't call them "Satmar Hasidic Orthodox Jewish molesters" or "Hasidic Orthodox molesters" or even "Orthodox Jewish molesters".

you just call them "Jewish molesters", which reveals the intent and bigotry of the topic.

 

Off topic deflections aside, this thread is exposing the Jewish molesters and the DA and the NYPD who have covered for them for decades.

Post this everywhere you can and let's together, end this madness.

 

"Jewish" molesters???

I thought they were Satmar Hasidim Orthodox Jews in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

interesting how you just libel all Jews.

 

Take that back. I have never done that and never would.

 

in the OP, you call them "Orthodox child molesters".

now you call them "Jewish molesters".

why the sudden change?

 

Maybe it is me, but it sure looks like you are defending this and you certainly are not helping or even speaking for the victims. Do you think the Jews (orthodox or otherwise) are the victims here?

 

this topic is about Hasidic Orthodox Jews.

its not about secular Jews or even Modern Orthodox Jews.

why you insist on making this about ALL Jews, is very telling.

 

Never said ALL.

And why do you insist that the Jews are the victims? Everyone else (except for one) KNOWS that it are these children that are the victims.

Please stop this now. You are still off topic and derailing and I am about to puke.

 

very long string of threads and comments attacking Jews.

what are we supposed to think???????????????????????????

 

You never use the quote function when you go off topic and make these personal attacks. Is this not a form of covering for the molesters?

 

I am not covering for any child molesters.

child sexual abuse is a horrible crime, and should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

however, this thread is NOT about victims of child abuse.

its about Jews


the jig is up bro, and we all see right through it.

 

The Jews are not the victims here; the victims are the children they molest an they justify it with their belief in some very sick teachings in the talmud.

 

what you call "sick teachings in the Talmud", are actually misunderstandings, quotes taken out of context, and so-called "religious laws" that are not actually laws.

sex outside of marriage is a CRIME in the Talmud.

so obviously sex with children that you are not married to, is a crime.

jeeez.

 

Thanks for the 3 page circle, but as already shown, you can't misinterpret this.

...intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act...

-- Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth 11

 

Tractate Kethuboth 11 doesn't say this.

 

How is that not covering for these psychos?

Soncino edition, Babylonian talmud, Kethuboth 11b, footnote 1: http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_11.html

 

While those unused to these Talmudic discussions might be taken aback by the use of euphemisms, the discussion here relates to the dowry for virgins and non-virgins. It has nothing to do with what acts are allowed, encouraged, forbidden, or discouraged. It is, indeed, ironic that this passage has been manipulated from its original context of a financial discussion into one of a religious discussion. While there are numerous talmudic passages of a religious nature, this one discusses dowries and not forbidden and permitted relations!

The Talmud relates that a virgin is entitled a higher dowry. While the tell-tale sign of virginity is the release of blood due to the breaking of the hymen on the wedding night, there are occasions when the hymen has already been broken such as when the woman suffered an injury. The Talmud here quotes Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav that a sexual act with a male minor is not considered to be a loss of virginity because one of the participants is not fully active. While the female's hymen may have been broken, she has not engaged in what can be classified as a sexual act (although it is certainly child abuse).

The Talmud continues and quotes Rava as saying that a sexual act between a male adult and a female under the age of three is also not considered a loss of virginity (although it is child abuse). Since the girl is too young for her hymen to be broken, she is still considered a virgin.

Nowhere is the Talmud permitting such behavior. Sex outside of a marriage is strictly forbidden (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 1:4, Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 2:17; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 26:1, 177:5) as is this obvious case of child abuse. The Talmud is only discussing ex post facto what would happen if such a case arose.

That non-marital sexual relations is prohibited is stated explicitly by Maimonides in the following passage from his ground-breaking legal code Mishneh Torah:

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 1:4

Whoever has licentious relations with a woman without marriage bonds is lashed by biblical mandate.

The claim that the Talmud, or normative Judaism, permits sexual relations with a minor is almost entirely incorrect. The slight truth in it is that, in certain societies in history, people were sometimes married as young as ten. While this was most recently done in Czarist Russia in order to avoid being drafted into the Czar's army (which was made especially difficult for Jews), it is not currently done. However, even in that case, marriage is required before having sexual relations. Judaism as a religion prohibits sexual relations, indeed even minor touching such as holding hands, outside of marriage.

We leave it to others to deduce why some people would make baseless accusations against the Talmud and, by implication, Judaism and Jews.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/three.html

 

So now you admit that IT DOES, IN FACT SAY, EXACTLY WHAT I POSTED?

 

no, it does NOT say what you claim it says.

While those unused to these Talmudic discussions might be taken aback by the use of euphemisms, the discussion here relates to the dowry for virgins and non-virgins. It has nothing to do with what acts are allowed, encouraged, forbidden, or discouraged. It is, indeed, ironic that this passage has been manipulated from its original context of a financial discussion into one of a religious discussion. While there are numerous talmudic passages of a religious nature, this one discusses dowries and not forbidden and permitted relations!

The Talmud relates that a virgin is entitled a higher dowry. While the tell-tale sign of virginity is the release of blood due to the breaking of the hymen on the wedding night, there are occasions when the hymen has already been broken such as when the woman suffered an injury. The Talmud here quotes Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav that a sexual act with a male minor is not considered to be a loss of virginity because one of the participants is not fully active. While the female's hymen may have been broken, she has not engaged in what can be classified as a sexual act (although it is certainly child abuse).

The Talmud continues and quotes Rava as saying that a sexual act between a male adult and a female under the age of three is also not considered a loss of virginity (although it is child abuse). Since the girl is too young for her hymen to be broken, she is still considered a virgin.

Nowhere is the Talmud permitting such behavior. Sex outside of a marriage is strictly forbidden (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 1:4, Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 2:17; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 26:1, 177:5) as is this obvious case of child abuse. The Talmud is only discussing ex post facto what would happen if such a case arose.

That non-marital sexual relations is prohibited is stated explicitly by Maimonides in the following passage from his ground-breaking legal code Mishneh Torah:

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 1:4

Whoever has licentious relations with a woman without marriage bonds is lashed by biblical mandate.

The claim that the Talmud, or normative Judaism, permits sexual relations with a minor is almost entirely incorrect. The slight truth in it is that, in certain societies in history, people were sometimes married as young as ten. While this was most recently done in Czarist Russia in order to avoid being drafted into the Czar's army (which was made especially difficult for Jews), it is not currently done. However, even in that case, marriage is required before having sexual relations. Judaism as a religion prohibits sexual relations, indeed even minor touching such as holding hands, outside of marriage.

We leave it to others to deduce why some people would make baseless accusations against the Talmud and, by implication, Judaism and Jews.