Historian Michael Hoffman discusses his article “The missing link to comprehending Israeli mass murder and racism.” He points out that “both the left and the “conservative” right fail to point out that the racist disparity (“a prism in which [Israeli] lives are invaluable …while [Palestinian] deaths…are regrettable”] is due to the influence of the Talmudic theology in Zionism. This is the missing link to comprehending Israeli mass murder and racism.” So what specific aspects and passages of the Talmud are responsible, according to the former AP reporter and author of nine books? Tune in and find out.
I was very interested in what Michael Hoffman had to say on The Talmud as I have had along curiosity towards many of the negative comments on this text.
However, I cannot wrap my head around a single person being able to make such statements against a text that is comprised of extensive, multiple volumes and which has been added to and revised over centuries. And with the publication of two distinct Talmuds, the Palestinian and Babylonian texts, one has to be careful as to which one is being referred and why there are such differences as exist.
This is not to say that one cannot find whatever they want in such a text to support their interpretations of both the good and the bad and then subsequently take such interpretations and use them in such a way as to inflict violence and pain on people such as what is currently being done in Gaza to the Palestinians.
This can also be equally true for both the Old and New Testaments and the Quran as people have used these texts for their own nefarious purposes (ie: the genocide of the American Indian based upon the Christian Doctrine of Discovery).
However, at the same time, the author implies that one cannot condemn the entire set of Talmud volumes to the same dustbin that people such as Michael Hoffman and others appear to want to do. In order to do this legitimately, one would have to take the entire Talmud and provide an in depth research as to how such views could be considered legitimate; a task that is more appropriate for a group of scholars and not a single individual.
As a result, I cannot accept Hoffman's interpretation of this text as a legitimate viewpoint on the subject.
Just looking at his books on Amazon, I noticed that he wrote a book about Adolf Hitler in which he pillories the Revisionist histories on this personage. However, I have studied quite a bit on The Third Reich, which included quite a number of diplomatic histories of the Inter-War Period and none of these texts promote an idea that Adolf Hitler was some type of psychopathic madman whose only interest was in power. On the contrary, all these texts demonstrated a very intelligent man who was well educated and a very skilled political leader whose primary interest was in rebuilding Germany. And if one follows his achievements in the 1930s it is easy to see that this depiction is quite accurate.
A number of reviewers of Hoffman's book said the same.
As a result, if Michael Hoffman can write such nonsense on such a controversial person there is no reason to not see him as writing similar arguments on The Talmud...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer / Military Historian-Analyst
I generally agree, Steve. I too notice that the Talmud (somewhat like the Hadith literature) includes a vast array of material that allows scholars to pick and choose to form their interpretations. I think the Jewish Supremacy problem stems from the flawed (tahrif) Torah as well as the way it has been interpreted in the Talmudic literature and elsewhere.
It would be interesting to see if these darker tracts are in both the Palestinian and the Babylonian Talmuds, or simply the latter, which was written, I believe, around 200 years later...
Hello Kevin...
I was very interested in what Michael Hoffman had to say on The Talmud as I have had along curiosity towards many of the negative comments on this text.
However, I cannot wrap my head around a single person being able to make such statements against a text that is comprised of extensive, multiple volumes and which has been added to and revised over centuries. And with the publication of two distinct Talmuds, the Palestinian and Babylonian texts, one has to be careful as to which one is being referred and why there are such differences as exist.
This is not to say that one cannot find whatever they want in such a text to support their interpretations of both the good and the bad and then subsequently take such interpretations and use them in such a way as to inflict violence and pain on people such as what is currently being done in Gaza to the Palestinians.
This can also be equally true for both the Old and New Testaments and the Quran as people have used these texts for their own nefarious purposes (ie: the genocide of the American Indian based upon the Christian Doctrine of Discovery).
If we look at a positing from the My Jewish Learning site, https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/israel-and-anti-gentile-traditions/, we find that the author who uses Israel Shahak's works as a basis for the discussion, agrees that the The Talmud does in fact hold terrible tracts against non-Jews.
However, at the same time, the author implies that one cannot condemn the entire set of Talmud volumes to the same dustbin that people such as Michael Hoffman and others appear to want to do. In order to do this legitimately, one would have to take the entire Talmud and provide an in depth research as to how such views could be considered legitimate; a task that is more appropriate for a group of scholars and not a single individual.
As a result, I cannot accept Hoffman's interpretation of this text as a legitimate viewpoint on the subject.
Just looking at his books on Amazon, I noticed that he wrote a book about Adolf Hitler in which he pillories the Revisionist histories on this personage. However, I have studied quite a bit on The Third Reich, which included quite a number of diplomatic histories of the Inter-War Period and none of these texts promote an idea that Adolf Hitler was some type of psychopathic madman whose only interest was in power. On the contrary, all these texts demonstrated a very intelligent man who was well educated and a very skilled political leader whose primary interest was in rebuilding Germany. And if one follows his achievements in the 1930s it is easy to see that this depiction is quite accurate.
A number of reviewers of Hoffman's book said the same.
As a result, if Michael Hoffman can write such nonsense on such a controversial person there is no reason to not see him as writing similar arguments on The Talmud...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer / Military Historian-Analyst
I generally agree, Steve. I too notice that the Talmud (somewhat like the Hadith literature) includes a vast array of material that allows scholars to pick and choose to form their interpretations. I think the Jewish Supremacy problem stems from the flawed (tahrif) Torah as well as the way it has been interpreted in the Talmudic literature and elsewhere.
It would be interesting to see if these darker tracts are in both the Palestinian and the Babylonian Talmuds, or simply the latter, which was written, I believe, around 200 years later...