Jun 9, 2021
Mike Isaacson: Da j00z!
[Theme song]
Nazi SSUFOs
Lizards wearing humanclothes
Hinduism’s secretcodes
These are nazi lies
Race and IQ are ingenes
Warfare keeps the nationclean
Whiteness is an AIDSvaccine
These are nazi lies
Hollow earth, whitegenocide
Muslim’s rampantfemicide
Shooting suspects named SamHyde
Hiter lived and no Jews died
Army, navy, and thecops
Secret service, specialops
They protect us, notsweatshops
These are nazi lies
Mike: At thecore of nazi lies is antisemitism. Since the Second World War ithas disguised itself in many guises–Rothschilds, Soros, Bildebergs,lizard people. At its core is an all-powerful entity controllingthe masses and aiming to destroy the nation through the corruptionof culture and politics, which remains at the heart of fascistconspiracy theory. One of the ur-texts of Jew hatred in the 21stcentury is David Duke’s book “Jewish Supremacism,” which makes theclaim that not only do Jews control the world, but that ourreligion teaches us to do so. Today, we’re joined by Ben Siegel whohas his master’s in Religion, the Hebrew Bible, and Ancient NearEastern Studies from the Claremont School of Theology. (Wow, that’sa mouthful.) Welcome to The Nazi Lies Podcast, Ben.
Ben Siegel: Thanks for having me Mike. I’m grateful for theopportunity to trash a Jew hater’s biblical scholarship.
Mike: [laughs]Very good. Okay, so before we get into Duke’s book, let’s talk abit about how Judaism works, because it’s very unlike Christianity.Can you give us a rundown of how Jewish law and Jewish moralityworks?
Ben: Sure. I’lldo my best. Now the Jewish legal system, known in Hebrew ashalakha, is a comprehensive framework that informs the behaviors ofreligious, and also frequently secular, Jews. It takes as itsstarting point the written text, the Torah, the biblical books ofGenesis through Deuteronomy, from which it derives 613 mitzvot,meaning laws or commandments, as authoritative God-giveninstruction on how to live an observant Jewish life. So from thosetexts, considered the written Torah, what’s called the oral Torahis derived. This comprises successive centuries worth ofinterpretation of the written Torah by rabbis. The earliest ofthese is the Mishnah, which was compiled early in the secondcentury of the common era, and the Gemara, rabbinical commentary onthe Mishnah that was put together between the second and fifthcenturies CE. These commentaries were collected to produce theTalmud. Now one in the Galilee region of Israel between 300 and 350CE, known as the Jerusalem Talmud, and the second far moreextensive Talmud compiled in Babylon in about 450 to 500 CE. Thisis the Babylonian Talmud. This is the one that people tend to citemost.
It’s really these long,extensive discourses weighing legal arguments on virtually everytopic that was relevant to Jews during these periods, from personaland communal religious devotion to economic regulations to lawsconcerning marriage, dietary restrictions, relations with non-Jews;you name it. Now the Talmud is upheld to this day by most Jewishcommunities across the world as the basis for living an appropriateJewish life in accordance with halakha and in accordance with God’swill and vision for the world.
Halakha informs Jewish ethics toa great deal as much as it undergirds legal and politicalconcerns–a concern for ethical treatment of one’s community andone’s neighbors, stemming from the collective memory of slavery inEgypt, an ethics of solidarity, really, righteousness, compassion,and justice, in effect.
Mike: Okay, soDuke takes aim at our self-description as the chosen people. Thisis commonly misinterpreted. What does it mean when the Jews say weare the chosen people?
Ben: As the oldsaying goes, “How odd of God to choose the Jews.” So there’s thisnotion that God selected the Israelites for a particulartheological mission, to live according to His laws, and to be alight unto nations, inspiring other people through their example.But there’s also this idea that the Jews chose God. That Abrahamand his descendents embraced monotheism through a special andunique relationship with the deity. Chosenness in this sense isn’tindicative of inherent ethnic or racial superiority, as Dukeargues. I’d feel safe saying he’s projecting his own whitesupremacist views onto the Jews here.
Mike: You don’tsay.
Ben: [laughs]Yeah, I do.
Mike: Okay, soanother thing that David Duke derides is our holidays.Specifically, he describes Purim and Pesach as a celebration of theslaughter of gentiles, which I find absolutely laughable. Do youwant to clear that one up?
Ben: This wouldabsolutely be hilarious if it weren’t so malicious. Pesachcelebrates the liberation of the Israelite people from slavery andoppression in Egypt. Recalling the ten plagues during the sederdoes recognize the suffering inflicted upon the Egyptians to makethis happen. But this isn’t a joyful moment. It’s typically somber.The recitation of each plague is followed by dripping a drop ofwine from our cups onto our plates to signify how we ourselves arediminished by the Egyptians’ suffering.
There’s also a similarly warpedmisinterpretation of Purim going on here, where we celebrate theprevention of genocide against us. So in the Purim story, Haman hadordered the Jews put to death. The Megillah Esther makes it clearthat the 70,000+ Persians killed at the end of the book are thosesent by Haman to slaughter the Jews. And the Jews were only able todefend themselves because king Ahasuerus gives them permission topick up swords. And to be frank, Mike, defense against genocideseems to a pretty legitimate cause formerrymaking.
Mike: Yeah, no,for sure. It’s a really fun holiday if you’ve ever celebrated it,you know. It’s a lot of dress up… I’ve heard it described asbasically a combination of Halloween and New Years all wrapped intoone. It’s really fun.
Ben: Sure, ifyou like to drink and scream, Purim is the holiday foryou.
Mike: There yougo. [laughs] Okay, so now let’s get into the nitty gritty. So,David Duke cites a whole bunch of scriptures to make the Jews outto be haters of all things goyishe, or non-Jewish, with scripturalreferences that appear to justify unscrupulous behavior towardsthem. First of all, before we get into that, what does the word“goy” mean?
Ben: Well itwould be prudent to acknowledge that the term “goy” changes meaningslightly over time. In the biblical text, it means nation orpeople, not nation in the modern sense of Westphaliannation-states, but more as a hom*ogenous ethnic identity. TheIsraelites were recognized as a goy here. Most notably, Exodus 19where God promises Abraham that he will make his people “goygadol,” a great people, Exodus 19:6. As we enter into the rabbinicperiod, where the Jews in the diaspora are negotiating Jewishidentity as a minority population, goy predominantly takes on themeaning of non-Jew as a distinguishing marker. This interpretationof “goy” has persisted to this day, and is perhaps the mostcommonly recognized usage of the term.
I have seen discussions amongantisemites who misinterpret it as meaning “cattle,” based onconnotations in Talmudic texts. But these texts offer a strictbinary worldview where “Jew” is seen as akin to human, whereasnon-Jews are aligned with animals. I think it’s important to makethe distinction that this framework is a legal one not necessarilya political one. Post exilic diaspora Jews did not have the kind ofsocial power needed to foster political programs that affected thedisenfranchisem*nt of other groups typically associated withrhetorics of dehumanization.
Mike: Okay, sokind of on that point, Duke points to a number of decontextualizedpassages from Jewish scripture which describe gentiles in variousnegative ways: barbarians, animals, animal-f*ckers. And I’ve got afew passages here which I’ve provided to you in advance. So there’sGemara Kiddushin 68a, Yebamoth (and correct me on any of thesepronunciations) Yebamoth 98a, Baba Mezia 114a-b, Abodah Zarah22a-b, and Baba Mezia 108b. Can you give us a littleexegesis?
Ben: I’d behappy to, but first I want to talk about how Duke sourced thesetexts. There’s been some commentary on him plagiarizing KevinMcDonald who is an evolutionary psychologist working out of CalState University-Long Beach. He uses the same arguments and thecitations. But it also appears that Duke took many of thetranslations of these texts from a book by Elizabeth Dilling, whowas a far-right political activist in the 1930s, noted antisemite,who went to Nazi Germany and spoke very highly of what she sawthere. So with these translations that he’s using, I think it’simportant that we take it with an enormous grain of salt, first ofall.
Mike: Right.
Ben: But alsothe thing I’ve noticed most about non-Jews who rage against theTalmud is that they haven’t read the damn thing. And frankly, Ihaven’t read all of it either. It’s an enormous body of text. Andin that body of text there are, you know, rabbis disagreeing witheach other. So one view may be held, and the exact opposite view isgoing to be upheld a line down. Just worth noting for when we’relooking at these texts that are obviously cherry-picked.
Mike: Right.
Ben: The firstone you mentioned, Kiddushin 68a, it’s from a tractate that dealswith rules pertaining to marriage and engagement laws. Now whatDuke says about this is the Talmud denotes gentiles as animals. Sohere it’s forbidding the betrothal of an Israelite to a Canaanitemaidservant. One thing, there’s no Canaanites in third centuryPersia at this time, so this is purely a hypotheticalsituation.
But it’s really this legaljustification for not marrying non-Jews because of the potentialfor them to influence a Jew’s worship in a negative way, so thatthey won’t follow halakha. And there’s definitely a discussion hereof identifying them as like an animal, but it’s not a similardehumanization that we see in typical nazi rhetoric of like “Jewsare co*ckroaches” or “Jews are vermin.” It’s like, here is thiscategory of thing that is not us, and we cannot mix with that. Doesthat make sense?
Mike Yeah, Iguess. Does the issue of her being a maidservant matter in asubordinate position to the person?
Ben: Somerabbis argue yes; some rabbis argue no. But really it’s more thatwho she is, based on this identity, is making the betrothalineffective. It’s not considered valid.
Mike: Okay, solike–
Ben: Yeah.
Mike: Goahead.
Ben: No, goright ahead.
Mike: Okay,yeah continuing right along, let’s go to Yebamoth 98a?
Ben: Yeah,Yebamoth deals with rules of yibbum. This is what’s commonly knownas levarite marriage, where the brother of a man who died withoutchildren is permitted and encouraged to marry the widow. What Dukehas this translated as is that all gentile children are animals. Itdoesn’t say anything of the sort here. It’s saying that thechildren of gentiles don’t have a father. They don’t have apatrilege. Like the offspring of a male gentile is considered nomore related to him than the offspring of donkeys or horses. It’sjust a way of saying that the rabbis don’t care who the kid’s dadis. It’s like, they couldn’t be bothered.
Mike: Isee.
Ben: They’renot interested in the patrilege of non-Jews. They’re really moreconcerned with Jewish family ties.
Mike: Okay, somoving along, there’s two passages from Baba Metzia, one is 114a-band one is 108b.
Ben: Mmhmm.Baba Metzia discusses civil matters. That is property, law ofusury, other issues such as lost property and damages done to it.So the issue here is again, categorizing– Duke takes issue with thecategorizing of goyim as non-human. And again, it comes down to thesame thing. It’s less that they are not recognized as human, andmore that it is an issue of ritual purity because they don’t adhereto the same religious standards. Therefore, they necessarily can’tcontaminate certain Jewish sacred spaces.
Mike: That’sprobably–
Ben: And–
Mike: Goahead.
Ben: Yeah,sorry go ahead.
Mike: I wasgonna say, it’s probably also worth noting that like many Jews, Iwould venture even to say most Jews, probably don’t follow a lot ofthese laws. [laughs]
Ben: Yeah, manyof them aren’t even aware of them. You know, you can spend yourentire life studying these texts and maybe come across it once. Youknow, there are thousands of these tractates.
Mike: And lastin this category was Abodah Zarah 22a-b.
Ben: Mmhmm.[laughs] This one’s funny. Duke says gentiles prefer sex with cows.What the text is actually saying is that the animal of a Jew ismore appealing to gentiles than their own wives. [laughs] So, Idon’t know if this intentionally, you know, throwing some shadegentiles and their own marriage relations, but it seems more inkeeping with a concern that’s held by the Talmudic sages of how doyou ensure that an animal that you are sacrificing is rituallypure. That means it has no blemishes; it is handicapped in any way;but very importantly, that it has not had any sexual relations withanybody.
So Abodah Zarah, literallymeaning “foreign worship” or “strange service,” it deals with howto live with people who don’t adhere to the same religiousconvictions. And the concern of beasti*al*ty is kind of a big,overarching theme in this text to the point that there are manydiscussions of concern about whether or not you can purchase asacrificial animal from a goy. Some rabbis say no; some sayyes.
Interestingly enough, there isone narrative in the text, where a goy named Dama– The rabbis go tohim, and purchase a red heifer which is like a really big omen inthe bible. It’s like huge. That’s like primo sacrifice. And he isupheld as a righteous goy and as someone who would never shtup hiscow. So what’s really interesting here is that you’ve got these twodifferent voices in the text that are both preserved asauthoritative. One, there is the concern that the goy will engagein beasti*al*ty. The other is this one goy Dama who is upheld as anexample of righteousness in regards to being able to buy, you know,a sacrificial animal for him.
Of course, Duke isn’t going tolook at this text because it doesn’t serve his overall purpose asvilifying the Jewish people as anti-goy.
Mike: Andbefore we continue, I want to inform our listeners that shtup is aYiddish word for “having sex with.”
Ben: Yeah,literally it means “push,” but yeah, it means sex.
Mike: Alrightso, Duke also makes the claim that there are different laws thatJews follow when it comes to dealing with the goyim. So hespecifically points to Gittin 57a, Abadoh Zarah 67b, Sanhendrin52b, Sanhedrin 105a-b and 106a-b. Can you explain what’s going onin those passages?
Ben: Sure, somy understanding of his gripe with Gittin 57a is what is thepunishment for Jesus in the next world, saying that he will beboiled in excrement. He’s going to be punished in boiling poop, andthat anyone who mocks the word of the sages will be sentenced toboiling excrement. This was his sin, as he mocked the words of thesages. And the Gemara comments come and see the difference betweenthese sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations of theworld as Balaam, who was a prophet, wished Israel harm whereasJesus the Nazarene, who was a Jewish sinner, sought theirwellbeing.
So there is this, kind of–There’s some antagonism towards Jesus in the text because of itsfunction as– Jesus’s function and Christianity’s function as acounter-claim to the inheritance of Abraham and of Isaac and Jacob.So there’s some theological competition going on here.
Mike: And whatabout Abodah Zarah 67b?
Ben: Mmhmm.“The halakha from the case of gentiles that require purging.Vessels that gentiles used for cooking that the Torah requires thatone purge through fire and ritually purify before they may be usedby Jews.” You know, he seems to be indicating that– Duke seems tobe indicating that the text is saying that goyim are dirty. Butthis isn’t an argument for, like, hygienic cleaning. The ancientIsraelites and Talmudic sages didn’t have a germ theory of disease.What they’re talking about is purifying these vessels for religiouspurposes, specifically. They have to be rededicated for theirsacred use because they may have come in contact with forbiddenfood, with non-kosher food.
Mike: Right, sothis is about the laws of kashrut, right?
Ben: Yeah,precisely. And again this is Abodah Zarah which is all about how dowe do our religion properly with all of these other influencesaround us.
Mike: Right,okay so Sanhendrin 52b.
Ben: Yeah, thisis another Jesus one. So Duke says that the person being punishedin this text is Jesus, and he sees this as an anti-Jesus text. Butthe text doesn’t mention Jesus whatsoever. It’s a general rule forcapital punishment by strangulation which is outlined in Leviticus.So this is one of your big nazi lies. He doesn’t mention– Theydon’t mention Jesus here.
Mike: Is thisone of the ones where he mentions Balaam or something?
Ben: I believeso.
Mike: Okay, canyou talk about who Balaam is, because Duke misidentifies him asJesus.
Ben: Yeah hedoes that a lot. So in the book of Numbers, Balaam is a propheticfigure, identified in the text as a false prophet, who goes to senda curse against the Israelite people, and he is himself cursed forit and put to death. So he’s kind of like this figure of those whowould seek the destruction the Jewish people. He’s a bigbad.
Mike: Right,and since he’s in the book of Numbers which is the Torah,right?
Ben: Yeah.
Mike: Yeah, Imean, that would mean that this is, like, well before Jesus’s time,right?
Ben: Absolutely.
Mike: Likethere’s no way this would have been Jesus.
Ben: For sure.Granted, there are certain Christian interpreters of the text whosee Hebrew bible references to Jesus throughout.
Mike: Right.
Ben: So theykind of see Jesus as foreshadowed in so much.
Mike: Alrightso, moving on, Sanhendrin 105a-b?
Ben: So thisone’s interesting because it says that Balaam was a diviner byusing his penis. [both laugh] And he’s one who engaged inbeasti*al*ty with his donkey. So what Duke takes to be acondemnation of Jesus, because he’s misidentified Jesus withBalaam, is really kind of like textbook Talmudic condemnation of abig bad goy. Now here’s a guy who sought the destruction of theJewish people. In the book of Numbers he’s got this talking donkeywho prevents him– who tries to stop him from going forward with hismission. And we know that he was bad because, according to theTalmud, he had sex with his donkey.
There’s this major preoccupationwith bestial*ty in the Talmud, and it is weird as hell. But it’sthere, and we’ve got to deal with it. [laughs]
Mike: Okay, andSanhendrin 106a-b.
Ben: Again,this one’s not about Jesus, but rather about Balaam who has beenmisidentified with Jesus. I think this is– this kind ofmisidentification is just indicative of Duke not doing hishomework. My understanding is that he took these from Dilling, andhe never fact-checked to see if, you know, this is what the textsays or this is what the text identifies. You know, this is badscholarship on his part which is probably to be expected from thisguy who defrauded his own his own white supremacist organizationand has a fake degree.
Mike: Right,and he even says in the book that he’s not doing anything original,that it’s just collected from other sources.
Ben: Right.
Mike: Well,since we’re on the subject of Jesus, we may as well go with therest of the passages that I have here. So Sanhendrin 90a. I’m kindof skipping around here.
Ben: Yeah thisone’s all about prohibition against idol worship. And you said thisone is Jesus-related?
Mike: That’swhat he said, yeah. About Christianity and Jesus, yeah.
Ben: I don’tfind much to do with Jesus in this text. Jesus isn’t mentioned inthis one. It’s primarily about idol worship and people whoprophesize with regards to it. Maybe he’s trying to say that, like,the preoccupation with idol worship is a condemnation ofChristianity, but I’m just not seeing where he’s getting Jesus outof this.
Mike: Okaythen, on that same subject Shabbat 116a.
Ben: Yeah, holybooks in Babylonian temples. Now is this the one where he says agoy can’t read the text?
Mike: It mightbe, yeah. Or a Christian can’t read the text.
Ben: Yeah, ohno, this is a really particular one. Again this one is just–There’s a lot of rhetorical violence against those who do thereligion improperly or don’t treat the sacred texts as they should.You know, these are practices and artifacts that are very importantto the Jewish people, so they hold them in very highregard.
Mike: So Iguess moving along, Duke refers to a number of passages in theBible that he takes to mean that Jews are preoccupied with racialintegrity. (Projection much?) He points specifically to Sanhendrin59a, Deuteronomy 7:2-6, Ezra 9:1-2 and 9:12, Leviticus 20:24, andNehemiah 13:3. So what do these passages say and what do theyactually mean?
Ben: WithSanhedrin 59a, which Sanhedrin primarily deals with criminal law,it says that “A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable toreceive the death penalty. As it is stated: ‘Moses commanded us alaw, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.’” This is fromDeuteronomy 33:4. “Indicating that it is an inheritance for us, andnot for them.”
So there is one sage, a rabbiYokhanon who is arguing that goyim who study Torah, you know,they’re liable to be put to death. You know, they expose themselvesto capital punishment. He’s arguing this because they view theTorah with such high esteem; it is their most sacred text. Theywant to preserve it.
Now this text is followed a lineor two down by a counterargument. It says, “You have thereforelearned that even a gentile who engages Torah study is consideredlike a high priest.” So you’ve got one argument saying that a goywho studies Torah is liable to be put to death, and another thatsays that they have an incredible status, that studying Torah givesthem very high regard. But this again is one of those instanceswhere Duke does not consider that might undermine his centralthesis that Jews are bad, are always bad, and will always bebad.
Mike: Okay, sowhat about the Deuteronomy passages?
Ben: Deuteronomy is fascinating. We could do a wholediscussion of that book in and of itself because it is–Deuteronomyin Greek means “second law”–but it is kind of a later law code thatis arguably the result of a very kind of reactionary sect ofIsraelite theology that does not see coexistence with people whodon’t worship YHWH as possible.
And rhetorically, what they aresaying is when the Israelites get to the promised land, they are tocommit genocide against the peoples of the land. Don’t intermarrywith them because that could lead to apostasy, that could lead toillicit worship. You know, their daughters will lead you to serveother gods. The sense here is that Israel is a holy people, God haschosen them to be special unto him, and if they allow this foreigninfluence to affect them, that will be undermined.
Mike: Okay, andwhat about the Ezra text? Ezra 9:1-2 and 9:12.
Ben: Yeah,there’s some scholarship to indicate that Ezra and Nehemiahrepresent one scholarly tradition. So after the Babylonian empirewas defeated by the Persian empire, the Persians allowed thecommunity of Israelites that had been taken into exile, the golahcommunity, to return to the land, to rebuild the temple, and toreestablish rule.
So one of the concerns of thereturning community is this very specific idea that the reason theywere exiled in the first place is because God is punishing them forworshipping other gods. And that sense also undergirds the theologyof the book of Deuteronomy. So their solution is that, to preventthat from ever happening again, they have to divorce from thenon-Israelite wives that they had married that might lead them intotemptation.
Now this is the view of thereturning community, not the community that had stayed in the landof Israel during that time. So these would have been theintelligentsia, the priestly class, the aristocracy, skilledlaborers, so it’s not a normative view, but it kind of becomesnormative because it becomes the dominant voice of the text, ifthat makes any sense. But they are saying that for the sake notjust of religious purity but also to establish power forthemselves, you know, the returning community has a claim to powerin the land, not just because they have, you know, they have aconnection to it where they are before the exile, but they aresupported by the Persian imperial power. They’re making this newclaim of identity and religiosity to assert that power.
Mike: Okay andwhat about Leviticus 20:24?
Ben: “You shallinherit their land” (“Them” being the Canaanites.) “that I willgive unto you to possess it, a land that flows with milk and honey.I am the Lord your God that separated you from other people.” Sothis is God telling the Israelites that they will be given thepromised land because God has chosen them, has separated them. Theword “kodesh,” to be holy, also means separate. So it’s really atheological category, not an ethnic one. You know, the Israelitesare separate from these people and are given the land because oftheir adherence to the covenant at Sinai, not because they are of aparticular ethnic or racial background.
Mike: Okay, sowe talked a little bit about kind of the somewhat genocidaltendencies I guess. And so David Duke talks about massacresperpetrated by Jews in the bible. He points to Deuteronomy20:10-18, Isaiah 34:2-3. and Joshua 6:21 and 10:28-41. And when Imentioned Joshua to you, you kind of rolled your eyes atit.
Ben: Yeah.
Mike: So Iguess let’s start with Joshua then.
Ben: Yeah, Ido. Good. Joshua’s a fascinating text. Scholars pretty much agreethat it has no, or little to no, basis in historical fact. Youknow, one of these is that, these texts Joshua 6:21, is thedestruction of the city of Jericho which according to archeologicalrecords happened several hundred years prior to when this narrativeis supposed to have taken place. But what’s being discussed here in21 is the devotion of the city to the Lord, the destruction ofevery living thing in it. So, you know, this is absolutely agenocidal text. It’s a purification of the land by the sword and byflame.
So typically in war in theancient near east, you could take slaves, you could take cattle aswar booty. But what is being done here is the destruction of all ofthat, saying that everything belongs to God, and as such it must bedestroyed and sacrificed unto him. But it’s also seen as a kind ofjustice because here are these, for lack of a better word, paganswho stand in the way of the Israelite mission, and who may alsotempt the Israelites to turn away from the path of God. So it’sabsolutely this violent, theologically motivated holy war,genocidal slaughter, maintained in the text.
And I do think it’s important towrestle with these notions. You know, whether or not it actuallyhappened, it’s still– It’s there, and it informs a great deal ofthinking. It informed the colonization of the New World, wherebysettlers from Europe saw themselves as Israelites and theindigenous people here as Canaanites. Robert Allen Warrior is anindigenous scholar who’s done a lot of work on this. But then, theJoshua narrative also informed many of the early Zionists, and theysaw themselves as, as Rachel Haverlock called the Joshuageneration. Like, Ben Gurion assembled a number of different peopleto do bible studies on the book of Joshua. It is a text of settlercolonialism and can be used to justify that kind of politicalprogramme.
Mike: Okay soback to Deutero–
Ben: If that’swhat you’re trying to do, Joshua is a good place to pullfrom.
Mike: Okay soback to Deuteronomy, 20:10-18. What’s being said inthere?
Ben: “When youmarch up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. Ifthey accept and open its gates, all the people shall be subject toforced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peaceand they engage in battle, lay siege to the city.” And the ban, orkherem, is in effect there. So destroy, destroy, destroy, and leavenothing because everything is for God. It’s the same scenario– Inthis instance, the people in the land are given the opportunity tosurrender, otherwise they are subject to the sword.
It’s very similar to the kind ofwarfare described in other texts from the ancient near east,whether they’re Assyrian or Babylonian. So it’s not uncommon to seethis kind of siege warfare described, and it’s not necessarilyunique to the Israelite people.
Mike: Right, Imean, yeah, I mean that was one of the things that happened to theIsraelite people, at least in engaging the Romans,right?
Ben: Yeah,precisely.
Mike: Okay,what about Isaiah 34:2-3?
Ben: This one’sinteresting because it’s not actually a narrative of slaughter.It’s a prophetic oracle delivered against the people of Edom, theEdomites, for betraying the Israelites to the Babylonians andassisting in their imperial endeavors. It’s saying that, you know,you will be destroyed. You know, the corpses of your people willlay in the street. So it’s not an actual thing thathappened.
It’s part of a type of propheticl*terature called oracles against the nations where the prophet ofa particular book will condemn a specific people on God’s behalf.Keep in mind that the prophets aren’t really seen as their ownagents. They’re the agents of God; they speak God’s word. So Godthrough Isaiah is saying, here’s what’s going to happen to youbecause of your betrayal.
Mike:Okay, so this next part is probably going to need a trigger warningor something. So there’s some really strange passages that he citesabout rape and virginity that I honestly haven’t looked at becauseby the time I got to these passages I was just tired of him beingwrong every time I checked the passages he cited. So he citesKethuboth 11b, Sanhedrin 55b and 69a-b, Yebamoth 57b, 58a, and 60b.So let’s start with Kethuboth.
Ben: Right,yeah, so here he’s– The issue is Bath Sheeba, when she gave birthto Solomon, whether or not she was six years old, or whether or notshe was an earlier age. It’s not saying that six-year-olds areappropriate– or that six is an appropriate age for sexual relationswith a girl. It’s arguing at what age a child can conceive. Likewhen is conception possible? And it’s saying that because BathSheeba gave birth to Solomon when she was six, it’s somewherearound that time. Yeah, this whole discourse is reallygnarly.
Mike: Okay, sowhat about Sanhendrin 55b?
Ben: So hereit’s about a girl who is three years and one day whose father hasarranged for her to be married, and betrothal is throughintercourse. It’s concerning the legal status of the intercoursewith her, if it’s like full-fledged sex. Really here the text isexamining forbidden sexual acts that cause ritual impurity andcalamity. And prior to this specific quotation is a broader contextof unwitting beasti*al*ty, like beasti*al*ty that you didn’t know youdid. It’s not justifying sex with minors; it says that the actrenders the man ritually impure and liable to be put to death.Lucky for the child, I guess lucky, is that they’re exempt fromexecution because they’re a minor. Small condolence Iguess.
Mike: Okay soit’s basically saying the opposite of what David Dukesaid.
Ben: Yeah.
Mike: Okay,what about 69a-b?
Ben: I mean,this is probably a discussion of the legal ramifications of thisact.
Mike: Yeah thisis actually, this says exactly what you were talking about earlier.So “A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriageby coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabitated withher, she becomes his.” Blah blah blah.
Ben: Yeah,because it’s Yebamoth– It’s Yebamoth, right?
Mike: No thisis Sanhendrin.
Ben: OhSanhendrin. So this is, yeah, criminal law. So this is theliability of criminal punishment, but also these rabbis debatedeverything. What is the likelihood that a three-year-old is goingto be married to someone who then dies and then has to be– Againthey have the option to be married to their brother so that thedead brother’s lineage doesn’t end. They’re really negotiating,like, every possible eventuality that might happen just in case.You know, all of these are hypothetical situations. And, you know,they’re gross. Some of them are just really f*cked up.
Mike: [laughs]Yeah Jews like to talk about a lot of weird hypotheticals. Alrightso now onto the Yebamoth one. So 57b.
Ben: Yeah,Yebamoth 57b. This one I’ve got, “A maiden aged three years and aday may be acquired by marriage in coition.” So yeah, the sex actis technically allowed. It’s not condoning it. But becausethree-year-old girls cannot become pregnant, it’s still technicallyforbidden because it’s a waste of seed in non-procreative sex. Soit’s saying that she can’t conceive via sexual intercourse, so it’sreally forbidden because sex in this worldview is not for pleasure;it’s purely for procreation. So if you are wasting sperm engagingin this sex act, it’s a bad thing. Not going to lie, this one’sf*cked up.
Mike: Yeah,what about 58a?
Ben: Um,doesn’t say anything about minors.
Mike: Really?
Ben: Just,yeah, I didn’t see anything about minors in this one.
Mike: Whatabout rape?
Ben: Mostlikely. Let me just take a closer look.
Mike: Orvirginity or something?
Ben: Yeah, doyou have a quote on this one?
Mike: Not sure.I mean, I don’t have quotes on any of these because again I stoppedlooking at them.
Ben: Yeah, anda lot of it is just like– It’s kind of he said, she said. I don’tknow. I don’t take David Duke’s reading of these in good faith, andI don’t think we can.
Mike: This is aweird passage. There’s something about “Through betrothal alone awoman is not entitled to eat.” This is so strange.
Ben: I mean Iwould lie if I said that I understood the majority of Talmudicl*terature.
Mike: Right.
Ben: You know,people can spend seven years reading this entire work all the waythrough. The law of tamurah.
Mike: Yeah,and, I mean, even– David Duke doesn’t even necessarily quote thesepassages. He just references them. And I guess, like you said, heprobably pulls them from other sources without readingthem.
Ben: Yeah, I–With this, I can’t even tell, like, what he’s arguing. Like, whatis the– What issue is he taking here?
Mike: Yeah, Iwould suggest that our listeners read this passage and try tofigure out what the f*ck David Duke has a problem with.
Ben: Yeahexactly. Yeah [sarcastically] read David Duke’s book. You’ll havefun.
Mike: Yeah, nodon’t read David Duke’s book, but you can read the Talmud, that’spretty good.
Ben: Spendseven years reading the whole thing. You can do it, a daf aday.
Mike: Alright,do you have any notes on Yebamoth 60b?
Ben: So this iswhere the Gemara cites another ruling related to who is considereda virgin. And it’s not condoning sex with a three-year-old. It saysthat in the event of that happening, she remains a virgin becauseher hymen grows back. Like if it’s through a sex act with an adultman or if her hymen is ruptured by wood. You know, she’s stillconsidered a virgin because it grows back. I don’t know if that’smedically true.
Mike: Yeah, Iwas–
Ben: Soundslike bullsh*t, but the issue here is virginity as it relates tobeing able to determine paternity in the long run.
Mike: Okay,alright, so Judaism has changed a lot since these texts werewritten. So what can we say about the ethos of Judaism now as itrelates to these texts?
Ben: Right,obviously most Jews aren’t concerned with the majority of theissues we’ve addressed here today. You know, they don’t spend a lotof time thinking about beasti*al*ty, thank goodness. But I think ifthere is a single Jewish ethos, it’s an affirmation of being thepeople of Israel, literally meaning “to wrestle with God,”Yis-ra-el. Engagement in argument over Torah are so central to ourpeople’s identity that even secular atheist Jews still contend withthese issues. So as many different types of Jews as there are andhow many different ways they approach the text, there stillprofoundly, proudly participating in a longstanding traditionthat’s engaging with and arguing with the tradition. I think that’sthe modern Jewish ethos, and it’s much the same as the ancient butadapted to the current context: How do we live a goodlife?
Mike: Word,well Ben Siegel, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi LiesPodcast and taking the time to do the tedious work of debunkingDavid f*cking Duke. [both laugh] You can catch Ben on Twitter andFacebook at Anarcho-Judaism.
Ben: Mike ithas been an absolute pleasure. Thank you for having me.
[Theme song]
