![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
цитаты из Талмуда: проверка
Цель этой записи - перенести в центральный источник (мой дневник) старое письмо из архива рассылки, где его трудно отыскать и неудобно читать.
Более подробно: эта запись содержит подробности проведенной мной примерно года два назад проверки достоверности типичных "цитат из Талмуда", которые можно встретить на разных антисемитских сайтах в сети (вот типичный пример). Эти цитаты обычно содержат всякие леденящие душу описания ужасных обычаев типа изнасилования маленьких девочек, которое якобы позволяется евреям; обычны также цитаты, показывающие, что евреям предписывается обманывать неевреев и всячески их обижать.
Контекст такой - разгорелся спор на почтовой рассылке СЕВЕР. В контексте этого спора я привёл ссылку на страницу (по-английски), содержающую опровержения большого кол-ва таких "цитат". Дима Каледин написал, что, невзирая на оговорки на этой странице, очевидно, что цитаты взяты буквально из Талмуда. Я решил проверить и провёл несколько часов в библиотеке с оригиналом Талмуда и английским переводом, сверяя цитаты. Результат приведен ниже, сначала письмо Каледина, потом моё. Я тогда писал транслитом, поэтому чтение этого дела требует некоторых усилий. Но если кому интересно - пожалуйста.
Письмо Каледина:
=============================================
From: kaledin@m... (Dimitry Kaledin)
Date: Sun Nov 21, 1999 8:08 pm
Subject: [cebep] Re: vopros!
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 01:59:26 +0200
From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@p...>
>You, Misha Verbitsky, were spotted writing this on Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at
11:53:11PM +0100:
>>
>> Пардон, а из чего следует, что (условно говоря) фашисты
>> понимают Талмуд хуже, чем авторы этого сайта?
>
>Iz togo, chto "fashisty" Talmud ne chitali - oni prosto kopiruyut
>ad nauseum odnu i tu zhe sborku tsitat. Avtory sajta vovse
>neobyazatel'no ponimayut Talmud ochen' horosho, no oni po krajnej
>mere ego chitali, i poetomu sposobny raspoznat' fabrikatsii/iskazheniya.
Анатолий! Ваш пафос борьбы с фабрикациями заслуживает лучшего
применения. Выполнить вашу рекомендацию -- пойти в библиотеку -- я
не могу. Здесь не Америка. У людей были более интересные дела в
последние 100 лет, чем скупать книги и сваливать их в кучу, чаще
всего не особенно и разобрав. В результате библиотек мало, и
работают они в недоступные для меня часы. На сети Талмуда тоже,
вроде бы, нет (есть только не менее 100 предложений его купить на CD
за 300 долларов). Поэтому лучшее, что могу я сделать, это
воспользоваться рекомендованным вами сайтом
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/.
Итак, оригинальных пассаж из моего постнига
http://www.egroups.com/group/cebep/1610.html? выглядел как:
> (Book)
> SANHEDRIN, 55b: "A maiden three years and a day may
>be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's
>brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery
>may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has
>connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he
>lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with
>gonorrhea)." (emphasis in original text of Soncino Edition, Ed.)
> (footnotes)
> "(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and
>hence there is no cleaving.
> (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there
>anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a
>heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew.
> (4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as
>illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the
>injunction 'to his wife but not to his neighbor's wife' is incurred
>only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse." (emphasis in
>original, Ed.)
>
Комментарий к нему в
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/exp01b.html утверждает,
что
>The passage in question states as follows: "A girl of three years
>and a day is [capable of being] married by an act of intercourse
>..." and the Talmud continues to list further legal consequences of
>an act of intercourse (laws of personal status, property etc.).
так же что
>CLAIM (47)
>Kethuboth 11b . "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little
>girl it is nothing."
>
>RESPONSE (1)
>Grossly out of context. The question is whether in such a case the
>girl can be considered a "virgin" later, when she comes to
>marry. The answer is, yes, as far as she's concerned what happened
>wasn't sex, it was just like getting poked with an inanimate
>object.
Более подробных цитат там нет. Тем не менее, приведенного -- на мой
взгляд -- достаточно: ясно, что весь пассаж -- как и написано
"фашистами" -- буквально взят из авторитетного перевода Талмуда.
Если вы продолжаете настаивать на "фальсификации", будьте добры
привести аргументы.
Цитирование вне контекста (имеющее место и не скрываемое) не
является фальсификацией.
Привет,
Дима.
=============================================
Мой ответ:
=============================================
From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@p...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 1999 7:54 pm
Subject: [cebep] Re: vopros!
Dima,
> Анатолий! Ваш пафос борьбы с фабрикациями заслуживает лучшего
> применения.
Boyus', Vy menya ne tak ponyali. Ya ne schitayu nuzhnym "borot'sya"
s fabrikaciyami, i tem bolee delat' eto s kakim-libo pafosom. T.e.
naprimer u menya net nichego obshego s motivatsiej avtorov
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/ , hot' ya i nahozhu
ih ob'yasneniya interesnymi i, vo mnogih sluchayah, pravdivymi. Vse
nachalos' s togo, chto ya nazval klinicheskim idiotizmom ubezhdenie
v tom, chto Talmud kakim-libo obrazom razreshayut ili pooshryaet incest.
Mne vozrazil Misha, a zatem i Yulya, i ya obyasnil v podrobnostyah
pochemu eto i podobnye ubezhdeniya - klinicheskij idiotizm, kakim obrazom
obychno sostavleny sborniki "tsitat" i kakim obrazom mozhno proverit'
ih istinnost'. U menya i v myslyah ne bylo _trebovat'_ ot kogo-libo
idti v biblioteku; eto lichnoe delo kazhdogo - bolee togo, idti v
biblioteku tol'ko dlya togo, chtoby sravnivat' eti tsitaty - delo skuchnoe
i neblagodarnoe, namnogo interesnej prosto chitat' ili izuchat' Talmud -
ves'ma, kstati, interesnuyu knigu.
> Выполнить вашу рекомендацию -- пойти в библиотеку -- я
> не могу. Здесь не Америка. У людей были более интересные дела в
> последние 100 лет, чем скупать книги и сваливать их в кучу, чаще
> всего не особенно и разобрав.
Mne ne sovsem yasno, pri chem zdes' Amerika. Vozmozhno, po kakim-to
neyasnym mne prichinam Vy reshili, chto ya tam zhivu.
> Более подробных цитат там нет. Тем не менее, приведенного -- на мой
> взгляд -- достаточно: ясно, что весь пассаж -- как и написано
> "фашистами" -- буквально взят из авторитетного перевода Талмуда.
> Если вы продолжаете настаивать на "фальсификации", будьте добры
> привести аргументы.
Horosho, ya privedu argumenty. No davajte uzh ogranichimsya etimi
konkretnymi primerami, kotorye Vy priveli, horosho? Razbirat' podrobno
kazhduyu "tsitatu", iz Vashego ili kakogo-nibud' drugogo istochnika,
u menya net ni vremeni, ni zhelaniya (see above). Etot konkretnyj primer
mne byl interesen, no na bol'shee menya ne hvatit. Ya nadeyus', Vam hvatit
odnogo tipichnogo primera dlya togo, chtoby ubeditsya v sostoyatel'nosti
moih utverzhdenij.
Neskol'ko slov o stroenii Talmuda. On delitsya na bol'shoe kol-vo knig,
kazhdaya iz kotoryh delitsya na glavy. Sam tekst razdelen na chasti pod
nazvaniem Mishna i Gemara. Mishna - eto "oral law", ustnaya tradiciya,
proistekayushaya po legende ot Moiseya i soprovozhdayushaya Bibliyu
(vernee, pervye pyat' knig Vethogo zaveta - Tora, ili Pyatiknizhie).
Gemara - eto "running commentary" o Mishne bol'shogo kol-va ravvinov,
i Gemara sostavlyaet bol'shinstvo sobstvenno Talmudicheskogo teksta.
Odnako Talmud vsegda pechataetsya v originale sleduyushim obrazom: v
seredine stranicy, zanimaya primerno chertvert' ploshadi, sobstvenno
Talmudicheskij tekst, Mishna i Gemara, krupnym shriftom; obramlyaya
etot tekst, bolee melkim shriftom, tak nazyvaemye Tosafot (doslovno
"dopolneniya") razlichnyh avtorov, obyasnyayushih i dopolnyayushih
tekst Talmuda; i eshe bolee melkim shriftom po krayam - dopolnitel'nye
kommentarii osobenno vazhnyh ravvinov srednevekov'ya i razlichnye
ssylki i poyasneniya. V takom vide Talmud pechataetsya nachinaya s ego
pervogo izdaniya, k-e v svoyu ochered' bylo osnovano na kanonizirovannyh
v takom vide k tomu vremeni rukopisnyh spiskah. Poetomu slovo "Talmud"
neodnozhnachno: ono mozhet oboznachat' sobstvenno tekst Talmudicheskih
ravvinov libo vsyu knigu.
V Soncino edition byl pereveden tol'ko sobstvenno Talmudicheskij tekst
(chto samo po sebe bylo ochen' nelegkim delom). Snoski v Soncino edition
ne yavlayutsya chast'yu Talmuda; oni poyasnyayut osobenno lakonichnye
mesta v tekste, predlagayut ssylki na drugie knigi Talmuda, i izredka
privodyat mnenie naibolee vazhnyh Tosafistov, kogda eto mnenie proyasnyaet
lozhny tekst. Eto ya govoryu ne k tomu, chtoby prinizit' ih status, a
tol'ko dlya togo, chtoby obyasnit' ih proishozhdenie.
Itak, ya zashel segodnya v biblioteku, vnimatel'no perechel i skopiroval
sootvetstvuyushie stranicy iz Soncino edition. Chtoby byt' uveren v tom,
chto ya ponimayu kontekst, ya skopiroval neskol'ko stranits vokrug
(Sanhedrin 55b, naprimer, oznachaet: kniga Sanhedrin, list nomer 55,
vtoraya sranitsa lista. U kazhdogo lista est' dve stranitsy, poetomy vsegda
a ili b. Odna takaya stranitsa original'nogo teksta zanimaet 3-4 stranicy
v Soncino edition). Krome togo, ya sveril glavnye tsitaty s original'nym
tekstom Talmuda chtoby proverit' chto oni nichego ne dobavlyayut ili
ne skryvayut, i eto dejstvitel'no tak.
(Book)
> SANHEDRIN, 55b: "A maiden three years and a day may
>be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's
>brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery
>may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has
>connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he
>lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with
>gonorrhea)." (emphasis in original text of Soncino Edition, Ed.)
> (footnotes)
> "(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and
>hence there is no cleaving.
> (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there
>anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a
>heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew.
> (4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as
>illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the
>injunction 'to his wife but not to his neighbor's wife' is incurred
>only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse." (emphasis in
>original, Ed.)
Tekst iz Sanhedrin, 55b skopirovan v tochnosti iz Soncino edition so
sleduyushim isklyucheniem: tekst v skobkah - (if a niddah) i
(a person afflicted with gonorrhea) - v Soccino edition nahoditsya
v kvadratnyh skobkah, ukazyvaya, chto eti slova otsutstvuyut v originale.
Oni neobhodimy iz-za otsutstviya anglijskih ekvivalentov slovam iz
originala: glagol, perevodumyj kak 'defiles', oznachaet na samom dele
osobennyj vid ritual'noj nechistoty, voznikayushij iz-za polovyh
otnoshenij s _niddah_. _Niddah_ - zhenshina vo vremya menstrual'nogo tsikla,
ili posle nego, no do togo, kak ona ochistilas' v ritual'nom bassejne _mikva_.
(o kontekste etoj tsitaty pozhe, no, zadumavshis' o menstruaciyah u
trehletnih devochek, Vy mozhete uzhe tut dogadat'sya, chto "three years
and a day" na samom dele oznachaet legal'nyj minimum, i rech' idet o
zhenshinah voobshe). Fraza pro gonoreyu neobhodima dlya proyasneniya, chto
rech' idet o pravile, soglasno kotoromu chelovek, zagryaznennyj polovoj
svyaz'yu s _nidah_, v voyu ochered' zagryaznit vse, chego on kasaetsya,
i t.d. - podobno tomu, kak kusok tkani, vozlozhennyj na bol'nogo
gonoreej, zagryaznit drugogo cheloveka, kotoryj posle k nemu prikosnetsya.
Odno upominanie tkani dostatochno v originale, napisannom ochen' uplotnenno
i lakonichno, no dolzhno byt' obyasneno dlya chitatelej perevoda.
Neponyatno, chto oznachaet "emphasis in original" - libo glupost', libo
lozh'. V originale Talmuda voobshe nichego ne vydeleno krome slov,
nachinayushih otdel Mishna ili idushej posle nee Gemara. V Soncino
edition, dlya udobstva, vydelyetsya ves' tekst Mishna, a takzhe tekst
Mishna, tsitiruemyj kakim-libo ravvinom vnutri Gemara. No etogo net v
tsitiruemom otryvke, i v Soncino edition nichego ne vydeleno.
Teper' o snoskah. Oni vse sfabrikovany, i v Soncino edition ih net.
Edinstvennaya snoska, svyazannaya s etim otryvkom na etoj stranitse
(stranitsa 376 knigi Sanhedrin) - eto snoska nomer dva, oznachennaya
srazu posle poslednego predlozheniya iz tsitaty. Vot ee soderzhanie:
(2) A man who had sexual connection with a _niddah_, defiles that upon
he lies, even if he does not actually touch it. But the degree of
uncleanliness it thereby acquires is not the same as bedding upon
which a _niddah_ herself, or a person afflicted with gonorrhea, lies.
For in the latter case, the defilement is so great that the bedding
in turn renders any person or utensil with which it comes into contact
unclean; while in the former, it can only defile foodstuff and liquids.
This is the same degree of uncleanliness possessed by a garment which
has lain upon, or been borne by a _zab_ (i.e. one afflicted with issue).
T.e. rech' idet o tochnom opredelenii rekursivnosti zarazheniya nechistotoj.
Chto zhe kasaetsya ssylok, protsitirovannyh Vami, oni ne nahodyatsya nigde
v Sanhedrin 55b ili okolo (provereno mnoj). Ssylka (2), vozmozhno, byla
skopirovana iz drugogo mesta v Sanhedrin. Ssylki (3) i (4) sfabrikovany
sovershenno tochno, t.k. voobshe nigde v dlinnoj diskussii v Sanhedrin
55b, vnutri k-j nahoditsya tsitata, ne govoritsya o razlichii v zapretah
mezhdu evreyami i yazychnikami (heathens), hotya yazychniki privodyatsya
kak primer dlya obsuzhdeniya v nekotoryh mestah.
S drugoj storony, prosmotr kontksta pozvolyaet obnaruzhit' dazhe kak _imenno_
byla sfabrikovana snoska (3). Fraza
>Is there
>anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a
>heathen.
na samom dele vsyata iz drugogo mesta, iz Sanhedrin 55a (stranitsa 374
Soncino edition). Tam eto ritoricheskij vopros, na kotoryj podrazumevaetsya
_rezko otritsatel'nyj_ otvet. Kontekst sleduyushij: voobshe govorya, zapresheno
bogotvorit' zhivotnyh, no sushestvuet sleduyushee strannoe isklyuchenie,
zapisannoe v drugom meste v Talmude: evreyu ne zapresheno
bogotvorit' svoyu korovu (vernee, ne zapresheno pol'zovat'sya tem, chto
kakoj-libo evrej etim zanimaetsa). Poetomu v Sanhedrin 55a zadaetsya vopros:
zapresheno li eto yazychniku? Na chto sleduet otvet ritoricheskim voprosom:
Is there anything which is not forbidden to an Israelite, yet forbidden
to a heaven?
Posle chego ravviny na protyazhenii neskol'kih predlozhenij pytayutsya
ponyat', na kakom osnovanii oni mogut razreshit' yazychniku bogotvorit'
korovu (oni obyazany iz-za togo, chto evreyu eto razresheno) i kak obyasnit'
to, chto eto razresheno evreyu. V etom meste Soncino edition privodit
sleduyushuyu ssylku:
(5) Surely not. [otvet na ritoricheskij vopros - AV). If a Jew worships
his cow, it is not forbidden to benefit therefrom (Tem. 29a). Hence we
cannot impose a prohibition if a heathen worships it. This is a general
principle in the Talmud. It is very instructive as showing quite clearly
the temper in which the Rabbis regarded the election of Israel
[izbrannost' naroda Izrailya - AV]. So far from conferring special
privileged dispensation, it could be taken as axiomatic that nothing
permitted to the Jew was forbidden to the heathen.
Takim obrazom, sostavitel' tsitaty soznatel'no skopiroval predlozhenie
iz drugoj chasti Sanhedrin, soznatel'no izmenil na _protivopolozhnyj_ ego
smysl, i vydal ego za snosku k drugomu tekstu.
Teper' o kontekste etoj tsitaty. Diskussiya v Sanhedrin 55b voobshe nikak
ne svyazana s seksom ili zamuzhestvom. Obsuzhdaetsya tam problema
skotolozhstva (bestiality), kotoroe strogo zapresheno i evreyam, i
yazychnikam (prichem evreyu za eto polagalas' smertnaya kazn', s nekotorymi
isklyucheniyami). V dannom sluchae obsuzhdaetsya problema teologicheskaya,
a ne prakticheskaya - kakie _imenno_ zaprety na skotolozhstvo sushestvuyut,
i mogut li oni sushestvovat' otdel'no drug ot druga? Dve osnovnyh prichiny
zapreta na skotolozhstvo - tak nazyvaemyj "stumbling block" (ochen' grubo
uproshaya, takoj vid greha, kogda chelovek kak by "spotykaetsya" na
puti k bozhestvennomu), i "degradation" - t.e. to, chto on budet preziraem
v svoej obshine. Ravviny zadayutsya voprosom - vsegda li eti dve prichiny
prisutstvuyut vmeste, a esli net, to v kakih sluchayah kakaya-to iz nih
prisutstvuet otdel'no? Pri etom oni privodyat raznye gipoteticheskie
sluchai, kogda odna iz nih mozhet prisutstvovat' otdel'no, i oni sporyat
o tom, dejstvitel'no li eti sluchai dokazyvayut sushestvovanie takih
isklyuchenij. Bolee togo, v zavisimosti ot togo, kakie prichiny sushestvuyut
v kakom-to konkretnom sluchae, zadaetsya vopros, neobhodimo li ubit'
zhivotnoe i mozhet li ono byt' prineseno v zhertvu.
Odin iz takih primerov - kogda yazychnik zanimaetsya skotolozhstvom,
vozmozhno, chto est' lish _stumbling block_, no net _degradation_ (potomu
chto, vozmozhno, chto sredi naroda etogo yazychnika skotolozhstvo delo
obychnoe i poetomu nikto ego prezirat' ne budet). Posle etogo oni sporyat
o tom, vozmozhen li obratnyj sluchaj - _degradation_ bez _stumbling block_.
I togda dva ravvina privodyat dva primera. Odin - nesovershennoletnaya
devochka (eto znachit men'she 13 let, pochemu - sm. dal'she).
Ona dolzhna byt' zhenshinoj dlya
togo, chtoby voobshe mozhno bylo govorit' o skotolozhstve, poetomu
zayavlyaetsya "a maiden aged three years old and a day" - technicheskij
minimum dlya togo, chtoby byt' zhenshinoj, kotoryj ustanovlen voobshe
ne zdes', a v drugih knigah Talmuda. Eto yavlyaetsya utverzdeniem minimuma,
v tipichnom lakonichnom stile Talmuda. Primernyj analog etogo - skazhem,
zayait' chto "v strane X chelovek mozhet golosovat', kogda emu ispolnyaetsya
21 god" - ne znachit, chto on ne mozhet golosovat', kogda emu 23 goda - a
prosto zayavlyaet o technicheskom minimume. Posle etogo kratko
perechislyayutsya nekotorye priznaki, vydelyayushie ee kak zhenshinu -
to, chto ona mozhet byt' vydana zamuzh putem polovogo akta, to, chto ona
mozhetzagryaznit' muzhchinu, nahodyas' v sostoyanii _niddah_, i t.p. Vse eto
zdes'
ne opredelyaetsya, a prosto napominaetsya. Posle chego zayavlyaetsya, chto
esli ona sovershila skotolozhstvo,
to est' _degradation_, no net _stumbling block_ - t.k. ona
nesovershennoletnaya, i poetomu eshe ne otvechaet pered Bogom za takie
svoi grehovnye postupki. Krome togo, utverzhdaetsya, chto zhivotnoe dolzhno
byt' ubito, nesmotrya na to, chto net _stumbling block_. Drugoj ravvin
ne soglashaetsya s etim i govorit, chto est' _stumbling block_, no
vsemilostivyj Gospod' proshaet ee, no ne zhivotnoe, poetomu zhivotnoe
nado ubit', a ee ne nado. Konechno, v tsitiruemoj tsitate etot kontekst
obrezan, i neponatno poetomu, chto devochka privoditsya kak primer
osobennoj situacii s zapretom na skotolozhstvo.
Vse eto, takim obrazom, predstavlyaetsya kak nekij gipoteticheskij
sluchaj dlya resheniya teologicheskogo voprosa; bolee togo, skotolozhstvo
ne pooshryaetsya, a pryamo zapreshaetsya, hotya i ne vedet k kazni, esli
devochke men'she 13 let. Srazu posle etogo rasbiraetsya takoj zhe sluchaj
dlya mal'chika, kotoromu dolzhno byt' 9 let i odin den' ili bol'she.
Takim obrazom vse eto voobshe otnositsya k sovsem drugomu kontekstu
(skotolozhstva), a fraza "may be acquired in marriage by coition..."
otnositsya k korotkomu ritoricheskomu bloku, kotoryj podtverzhdaet ee
prava kak zhenshiny, nesmotrya na to, chto ej eshe net 13 let. Konechno,
nikakogo razesheniya ili pooshreniya takogo _coition_ libo skotolozhstva
zdes' net.
Vse eto vyshlo namnogo dlinee, chem mne by hotelos', poetomu uzhe ochen'
vkratze o tsitate iz _Kethuboth_. Vo-pervyh, Kethuboth - mnozhestvennoe
chislo ot _Kethuba_ - chto oznachaet na ivrite "brachnyj kontrakt", a
takzhe summa, zaplachennaya zhenihom za nevestu v ramkah brahcnogo
kontrakta. Takim obrazom, vsya kniga _Kethuboth_ zanimaetsya brahcnymi
kontraktami i tem, skol'ko deneg nado platit' za tu ili inuyu zhenshinu
(v nashe vremya eta plata - vsego lish simvol, no neyasno, kogda imenno ona
prevratilas' v simvol). Vot, kstati, interesnyj passazh iz Kethubot 10b:
Someone came before Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi [and] said to him,
'My master, I have had intercourse [with my newly-wedded wife] and I
have not found any blood.' She [the wife] said to him, 'My master, I
am still a virgin.' He [then] said to them: Bring me two handmaids,
one [who is] a virgin and one who had intercourse with a man. They
brought to him [two such handmaids], and he placed them upon a cask
of wine. [In the case of] the one who was no more a virgin its smell
{of wine - a footnote} went through {i.e. one could smell the wine from
her mouth - footnote, Rashi}, [in case of] the virgin the smell did not
go through. He [then] placed this one [the young wife] also [on a cask
of wine], and its smell did not go through. He [then] said to him: Go,
be happy with thy bargain.
Izobilie kvadratnyh skobok daet nekotoroe predstavlenie o plotnosti i
lakonichnosti originala. Eshe odin primer etogo: vsya fraza "I have had
intercourse [with my newly-wedded wife]" zanimaet v originale odno slovo:
_baal'ti_ (s udareniem na vtorom sloge, ot baal' = muzh, chto-to vrode
"ya muzhnul").
Tsitata iz Kethuboth 11b protsitirovana v Vashem istochnike pravil'no.
Vot, odnako, ee tochnyj kontekst.
Rabbi Oshaia objected: _When a grown-up man has had intercourse with a
little girl, or when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up
woman, or when a girl was accidentally injured by a piece of wood -
[in all these cases] their kethubah is three hundred [zuz]; so
according to Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: a girl who was injured
accidentally by a piece of wood - her kethubah is a maneh!_
Zdes' vse, krome pervyh treh slov, vydeleno v Soncino edition, tak kak
eto pryamaya tsitata iz Mishna. Razbirayutsya tri sluchaya, i ih
posledstviya na _kethubah_ zhenshiny. V sluchae vzroslyj muzhchina -
malen'kaya devochka (zdes' ne upominaetsya predel, no rech' idet o
devochke molozhe chem 3 goda i 1 den') vse soglashayutsya,
chto kethubah (devochki ili vzrosloj zhenshiny) ostaetsya dvesti denezhnyh
edinits (zuz), chto yavlyaetsya standartnym znacheniem, t.e. ih status ne
stradaet ot etogo greha, t.k. devochka men'she 3h let ne schitaetsya
zhenshinoj, i sootvetstvenno s mal'chikom. V sluchae zhe, kogda devochka
(neobyazatel'no uzhe malen'kaya) sluchajno poranila devstvennuyu plevu,
mneniya rashodyatsya: rabbi Meir schitaet chto ee kethubah ostaetsya
dvesti (t.e. ona ne vinovata), a "sages" schitayut chto ee kethubah
_maneh_ - 100 zuz, t.e. ona sogreshila.
"Vzroslaya zhenshina" oznachaet starshe chem 12.5 let, i predpolagaetsya
chto ona devstvennitsa do etogo.
Posle chego rabbi Raba poyasnyaet etot otryvok iz Mishna. Eto edinstvennoe,
chto ohranilos' v tsitate iz Vashego istochnika:
Raba said. It means this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a
little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is
as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has an
intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured
by a piece of wood', and [with regard to the case of] 'a girl injured
by a piece of wood' itself, there is the difference of opinion between
R. Meir and the sages.
Yasno, takim obrazom, chto 'nothing' otnositsya v dannom sluchae k tomu,
chto _kethubah_ devochki ne stadaet ot etogo proishestviya, i voobshe
ne otnositsya k tomu muzhchine, k-j ego sovershal. Takim obrazom, tsitata
special'no vyrvana iz konteksta dlya togo, chtoby iskazit' ee smysl.
Posle etogo v Kethuboth 11b idet dolgaya diskussiya o tom, dejstvitelno
li eta kethubah dolzhna byt' _maneh_, ili v nekotoryh sluchayah ona
mozhet ostavat'sya 200 zuz, i kak primirit' tochki zreiya Rabbi Meira
i "sages".
Nadeyus', eti dva primera Vas ubezhdayut?
S uvazheniem,
Anatoly.
==============================================
Более подробно: эта запись содержит подробности проведенной мной примерно года два назад проверки достоверности типичных "цитат из Талмуда", которые можно встретить на разных антисемитских сайтах в сети (вот типичный пример). Эти цитаты обычно содержат всякие леденящие душу описания ужасных обычаев типа изнасилования маленьких девочек, которое якобы позволяется евреям; обычны также цитаты, показывающие, что евреям предписывается обманывать неевреев и всячески их обижать.
Контекст такой - разгорелся спор на почтовой рассылке СЕВЕР. В контексте этого спора я привёл ссылку на страницу (по-английски), содержающую опровержения большого кол-ва таких "цитат". Дима Каледин написал, что, невзирая на оговорки на этой странице, очевидно, что цитаты взяты буквально из Талмуда. Я решил проверить и провёл несколько часов в библиотеке с оригиналом Талмуда и английским переводом, сверяя цитаты. Результат приведен ниже, сначала письмо Каледина, потом моё. Я тогда писал транслитом, поэтому чтение этого дела требует некоторых усилий. Но если кому интересно - пожалуйста.
Письмо Каледина:
=============================================
From: kaledin@m... (Dimitry Kaledin)
Date: Sun Nov 21, 1999 8:08 pm
Subject: [cebep] Re: vopros!
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 01:59:26 +0200
From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@p...>
>You, Misha Verbitsky, were spotted writing this on Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at
11:53:11PM +0100:
>>
>> Пардон, а из чего следует, что (условно говоря) фашисты
>> понимают Талмуд хуже, чем авторы этого сайта?
>
>Iz togo, chto "fashisty" Talmud ne chitali - oni prosto kopiruyut
>ad nauseum odnu i tu zhe sborku tsitat. Avtory sajta vovse
>neobyazatel'no ponimayut Talmud ochen' horosho, no oni po krajnej
>mere ego chitali, i poetomu sposobny raspoznat' fabrikatsii/iskazheniya.
Анатолий! Ваш пафос борьбы с фабрикациями заслуживает лучшего
применения. Выполнить вашу рекомендацию -- пойти в библиотеку -- я
не могу. Здесь не Америка. У людей были более интересные дела в
последние 100 лет, чем скупать книги и сваливать их в кучу, чаще
всего не особенно и разобрав. В результате библиотек мало, и
работают они в недоступные для меня часы. На сети Талмуда тоже,
вроде бы, нет (есть только не менее 100 предложений его купить на CD
за 300 долларов). Поэтому лучшее, что могу я сделать, это
воспользоваться рекомендованным вами сайтом
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/.
Итак, оригинальных пассаж из моего постнига
http://www.egroups.com/group/cebep/1610.html? выглядел как:
> (Book)
> SANHEDRIN, 55b: "A maiden three years and a day may
>be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's
>brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery
>may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has
>connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he
>lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with
>gonorrhea)." (emphasis in original text of Soncino Edition, Ed.)
> (footnotes)
> "(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and
>hence there is no cleaving.
> (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there
>anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a
>heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew.
> (4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as
>illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the
>injunction 'to his wife but not to his neighbor's wife' is incurred
>only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse." (emphasis in
>original, Ed.)
>
Комментарий к нему в
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/exp01b.html утверждает,
что
>The passage in question states as follows: "A girl of three years
>and a day is [capable of being] married by an act of intercourse
>..." and the Talmud continues to list further legal consequences of
>an act of intercourse (laws of personal status, property etc.).
так же что
>CLAIM (47)
>Kethuboth 11b . "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little
>girl it is nothing."
>
>RESPONSE (1)
>Grossly out of context. The question is whether in such a case the
>girl can be considered a "virgin" later, when she comes to
>marry. The answer is, yes, as far as she's concerned what happened
>wasn't sex, it was just like getting poked with an inanimate
>object.
Более подробных цитат там нет. Тем не менее, приведенного -- на мой
взгляд -- достаточно: ясно, что весь пассаж -- как и написано
"фашистами" -- буквально взят из авторитетного перевода Талмуда.
Если вы продолжаете настаивать на "фальсификации", будьте добры
привести аргументы.
Цитирование вне контекста (имеющее место и не скрываемое) не
является фальсификацией.
Привет,
Дима.
=============================================
Мой ответ:
=============================================
From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@p...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 1999 7:54 pm
Subject: [cebep] Re: vopros!
Dima,
> Анатолий! Ваш пафос борьбы с фабрикациями заслуживает лучшего
> применения.
Boyus', Vy menya ne tak ponyali. Ya ne schitayu nuzhnym "borot'sya"
s fabrikaciyami, i tem bolee delat' eto s kakim-libo pafosom. T.e.
naprimer u menya net nichego obshego s motivatsiej avtorov
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/ , hot' ya i nahozhu
ih ob'yasneniya interesnymi i, vo mnogih sluchayah, pravdivymi. Vse
nachalos' s togo, chto ya nazval klinicheskim idiotizmom ubezhdenie
v tom, chto Talmud kakim-libo obrazom razreshayut ili pooshryaet incest.
Mne vozrazil Misha, a zatem i Yulya, i ya obyasnil v podrobnostyah
pochemu eto i podobnye ubezhdeniya - klinicheskij idiotizm, kakim obrazom
obychno sostavleny sborniki "tsitat" i kakim obrazom mozhno proverit'
ih istinnost'. U menya i v myslyah ne bylo _trebovat'_ ot kogo-libo
idti v biblioteku; eto lichnoe delo kazhdogo - bolee togo, idti v
biblioteku tol'ko dlya togo, chtoby sravnivat' eti tsitaty - delo skuchnoe
i neblagodarnoe, namnogo interesnej prosto chitat' ili izuchat' Talmud -
ves'ma, kstati, interesnuyu knigu.
> Выполнить вашу рекомендацию -- пойти в библиотеку -- я
> не могу. Здесь не Америка. У людей были более интересные дела в
> последние 100 лет, чем скупать книги и сваливать их в кучу, чаще
> всего не особенно и разобрав.
Mne ne sovsem yasno, pri chem zdes' Amerika. Vozmozhno, po kakim-to
neyasnym mne prichinam Vy reshili, chto ya tam zhivu.
> Более подробных цитат там нет. Тем не менее, приведенного -- на мой
> взгляд -- достаточно: ясно, что весь пассаж -- как и написано
> "фашистами" -- буквально взят из авторитетного перевода Талмуда.
> Если вы продолжаете настаивать на "фальсификации", будьте добры
> привести аргументы.
Horosho, ya privedu argumenty. No davajte uzh ogranichimsya etimi
konkretnymi primerami, kotorye Vy priveli, horosho? Razbirat' podrobno
kazhduyu "tsitatu", iz Vashego ili kakogo-nibud' drugogo istochnika,
u menya net ni vremeni, ni zhelaniya (see above). Etot konkretnyj primer
mne byl interesen, no na bol'shee menya ne hvatit. Ya nadeyus', Vam hvatit
odnogo tipichnogo primera dlya togo, chtoby ubeditsya v sostoyatel'nosti
moih utverzhdenij.
Neskol'ko slov o stroenii Talmuda. On delitsya na bol'shoe kol-vo knig,
kazhdaya iz kotoryh delitsya na glavy. Sam tekst razdelen na chasti pod
nazvaniem Mishna i Gemara. Mishna - eto "oral law", ustnaya tradiciya,
proistekayushaya po legende ot Moiseya i soprovozhdayushaya Bibliyu
(vernee, pervye pyat' knig Vethogo zaveta - Tora, ili Pyatiknizhie).
Gemara - eto "running commentary" o Mishne bol'shogo kol-va ravvinov,
i Gemara sostavlyaet bol'shinstvo sobstvenno Talmudicheskogo teksta.
Odnako Talmud vsegda pechataetsya v originale sleduyushim obrazom: v
seredine stranicy, zanimaya primerno chertvert' ploshadi, sobstvenno
Talmudicheskij tekst, Mishna i Gemara, krupnym shriftom; obramlyaya
etot tekst, bolee melkim shriftom, tak nazyvaemye Tosafot (doslovno
"dopolneniya") razlichnyh avtorov, obyasnyayushih i dopolnyayushih
tekst Talmuda; i eshe bolee melkim shriftom po krayam - dopolnitel'nye
kommentarii osobenno vazhnyh ravvinov srednevekov'ya i razlichnye
ssylki i poyasneniya. V takom vide Talmud pechataetsya nachinaya s ego
pervogo izdaniya, k-e v svoyu ochered' bylo osnovano na kanonizirovannyh
v takom vide k tomu vremeni rukopisnyh spiskah. Poetomu slovo "Talmud"
neodnozhnachno: ono mozhet oboznachat' sobstvenno tekst Talmudicheskih
ravvinov libo vsyu knigu.
V Soncino edition byl pereveden tol'ko sobstvenno Talmudicheskij tekst
(chto samo po sebe bylo ochen' nelegkim delom). Snoski v Soncino edition
ne yavlayutsya chast'yu Talmuda; oni poyasnyayut osobenno lakonichnye
mesta v tekste, predlagayut ssylki na drugie knigi Talmuda, i izredka
privodyat mnenie naibolee vazhnyh Tosafistov, kogda eto mnenie proyasnyaet
lozhny tekst. Eto ya govoryu ne k tomu, chtoby prinizit' ih status, a
tol'ko dlya togo, chtoby obyasnit' ih proishozhdenie.
Itak, ya zashel segodnya v biblioteku, vnimatel'no perechel i skopiroval
sootvetstvuyushie stranicy iz Soncino edition. Chtoby byt' uveren v tom,
chto ya ponimayu kontekst, ya skopiroval neskol'ko stranits vokrug
(Sanhedrin 55b, naprimer, oznachaet: kniga Sanhedrin, list nomer 55,
vtoraya sranitsa lista. U kazhdogo lista est' dve stranitsy, poetomy vsegda
a ili b. Odna takaya stranitsa original'nogo teksta zanimaet 3-4 stranicy
v Soncino edition). Krome togo, ya sveril glavnye tsitaty s original'nym
tekstom Talmuda chtoby proverit' chto oni nichego ne dobavlyayut ili
ne skryvayut, i eto dejstvitel'no tak.
(Book)
> SANHEDRIN, 55b: "A maiden three years and a day may
>be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's
>brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery
>may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has
>connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he
>lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with
>gonorrhea)." (emphasis in original text of Soncino Edition, Ed.)
> (footnotes)
> "(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and
>hence there is no cleaving.
> (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there
>anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a
>heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew.
> (4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as
>illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the
>injunction 'to his wife but not to his neighbor's wife' is incurred
>only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse." (emphasis in
>original, Ed.)
Tekst iz Sanhedrin, 55b skopirovan v tochnosti iz Soncino edition so
sleduyushim isklyucheniem: tekst v skobkah - (if a niddah) i
(a person afflicted with gonorrhea) - v Soccino edition nahoditsya
v kvadratnyh skobkah, ukazyvaya, chto eti slova otsutstvuyut v originale.
Oni neobhodimy iz-za otsutstviya anglijskih ekvivalentov slovam iz
originala: glagol, perevodumyj kak 'defiles', oznachaet na samom dele
osobennyj vid ritual'noj nechistoty, voznikayushij iz-za polovyh
otnoshenij s _niddah_. _Niddah_ - zhenshina vo vremya menstrual'nogo tsikla,
ili posle nego, no do togo, kak ona ochistilas' v ritual'nom bassejne _mikva_.
(o kontekste etoj tsitaty pozhe, no, zadumavshis' o menstruaciyah u
trehletnih devochek, Vy mozhete uzhe tut dogadat'sya, chto "three years
and a day" na samom dele oznachaet legal'nyj minimum, i rech' idet o
zhenshinah voobshe). Fraza pro gonoreyu neobhodima dlya proyasneniya, chto
rech' idet o pravile, soglasno kotoromu chelovek, zagryaznennyj polovoj
svyaz'yu s _nidah_, v voyu ochered' zagryaznit vse, chego on kasaetsya,
i t.d. - podobno tomu, kak kusok tkani, vozlozhennyj na bol'nogo
gonoreej, zagryaznit drugogo cheloveka, kotoryj posle k nemu prikosnetsya.
Odno upominanie tkani dostatochno v originale, napisannom ochen' uplotnenno
i lakonichno, no dolzhno byt' obyasneno dlya chitatelej perevoda.
Neponyatno, chto oznachaet "emphasis in original" - libo glupost', libo
lozh'. V originale Talmuda voobshe nichego ne vydeleno krome slov,
nachinayushih otdel Mishna ili idushej posle nee Gemara. V Soncino
edition, dlya udobstva, vydelyetsya ves' tekst Mishna, a takzhe tekst
Mishna, tsitiruemyj kakim-libo ravvinom vnutri Gemara. No etogo net v
tsitiruemom otryvke, i v Soncino edition nichego ne vydeleno.
Teper' o snoskah. Oni vse sfabrikovany, i v Soncino edition ih net.
Edinstvennaya snoska, svyazannaya s etim otryvkom na etoj stranitse
(stranitsa 376 knigi Sanhedrin) - eto snoska nomer dva, oznachennaya
srazu posle poslednego predlozheniya iz tsitaty. Vot ee soderzhanie:
(2) A man who had sexual connection with a _niddah_, defiles that upon
he lies, even if he does not actually touch it. But the degree of
uncleanliness it thereby acquires is not the same as bedding upon
which a _niddah_ herself, or a person afflicted with gonorrhea, lies.
For in the latter case, the defilement is so great that the bedding
in turn renders any person or utensil with which it comes into contact
unclean; while in the former, it can only defile foodstuff and liquids.
This is the same degree of uncleanliness possessed by a garment which
has lain upon, or been borne by a _zab_ (i.e. one afflicted with issue).
T.e. rech' idet o tochnom opredelenii rekursivnosti zarazheniya nechistotoj.
Chto zhe kasaetsya ssylok, protsitirovannyh Vami, oni ne nahodyatsya nigde
v Sanhedrin 55b ili okolo (provereno mnoj). Ssylka (2), vozmozhno, byla
skopirovana iz drugogo mesta v Sanhedrin. Ssylki (3) i (4) sfabrikovany
sovershenno tochno, t.k. voobshe nigde v dlinnoj diskussii v Sanhedrin
55b, vnutri k-j nahoditsya tsitata, ne govoritsya o razlichii v zapretah
mezhdu evreyami i yazychnikami (heathens), hotya yazychniki privodyatsya
kak primer dlya obsuzhdeniya v nekotoryh mestah.
S drugoj storony, prosmotr kontksta pozvolyaet obnaruzhit' dazhe kak _imenno_
byla sfabrikovana snoska (3). Fraza
>Is there
>anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a
>heathen.
na samom dele vsyata iz drugogo mesta, iz Sanhedrin 55a (stranitsa 374
Soncino edition). Tam eto ritoricheskij vopros, na kotoryj podrazumevaetsya
_rezko otritsatel'nyj_ otvet. Kontekst sleduyushij: voobshe govorya, zapresheno
bogotvorit' zhivotnyh, no sushestvuet sleduyushee strannoe isklyuchenie,
zapisannoe v drugom meste v Talmude: evreyu ne zapresheno
bogotvorit' svoyu korovu (vernee, ne zapresheno pol'zovat'sya tem, chto
kakoj-libo evrej etim zanimaetsa). Poetomu v Sanhedrin 55a zadaetsya vopros:
zapresheno li eto yazychniku? Na chto sleduet otvet ritoricheskim voprosom:
Is there anything which is not forbidden to an Israelite, yet forbidden
to a heaven?
Posle chego ravviny na protyazhenii neskol'kih predlozhenij pytayutsya
ponyat', na kakom osnovanii oni mogut razreshit' yazychniku bogotvorit'
korovu (oni obyazany iz-za togo, chto evreyu eto razresheno) i kak obyasnit'
to, chto eto razresheno evreyu. V etom meste Soncino edition privodit
sleduyushuyu ssylku:
(5) Surely not. [otvet na ritoricheskij vopros - AV). If a Jew worships
his cow, it is not forbidden to benefit therefrom (Tem. 29a). Hence we
cannot impose a prohibition if a heathen worships it. This is a general
principle in the Talmud. It is very instructive as showing quite clearly
the temper in which the Rabbis regarded the election of Israel
[izbrannost' naroda Izrailya - AV]. So far from conferring special
privileged dispensation, it could be taken as axiomatic that nothing
permitted to the Jew was forbidden to the heathen.
Takim obrazom, sostavitel' tsitaty soznatel'no skopiroval predlozhenie
iz drugoj chasti Sanhedrin, soznatel'no izmenil na _protivopolozhnyj_ ego
smysl, i vydal ego za snosku k drugomu tekstu.
Teper' o kontekste etoj tsitaty. Diskussiya v Sanhedrin 55b voobshe nikak
ne svyazana s seksom ili zamuzhestvom. Obsuzhdaetsya tam problema
skotolozhstva (bestiality), kotoroe strogo zapresheno i evreyam, i
yazychnikam (prichem evreyu za eto polagalas' smertnaya kazn', s nekotorymi
isklyucheniyami). V dannom sluchae obsuzhdaetsya problema teologicheskaya,
a ne prakticheskaya - kakie _imenno_ zaprety na skotolozhstvo sushestvuyut,
i mogut li oni sushestvovat' otdel'no drug ot druga? Dve osnovnyh prichiny
zapreta na skotolozhstvo - tak nazyvaemyj "stumbling block" (ochen' grubo
uproshaya, takoj vid greha, kogda chelovek kak by "spotykaetsya" na
puti k bozhestvennomu), i "degradation" - t.e. to, chto on budet preziraem
v svoej obshine. Ravviny zadayutsya voprosom - vsegda li eti dve prichiny
prisutstvuyut vmeste, a esli net, to v kakih sluchayah kakaya-to iz nih
prisutstvuet otdel'no? Pri etom oni privodyat raznye gipoteticheskie
sluchai, kogda odna iz nih mozhet prisutstvovat' otdel'no, i oni sporyat
o tom, dejstvitel'no li eti sluchai dokazyvayut sushestvovanie takih
isklyuchenij. Bolee togo, v zavisimosti ot togo, kakie prichiny sushestvuyut
v kakom-to konkretnom sluchae, zadaetsya vopros, neobhodimo li ubit'
zhivotnoe i mozhet li ono byt' prineseno v zhertvu.
Odin iz takih primerov - kogda yazychnik zanimaetsya skotolozhstvom,
vozmozhno, chto est' lish _stumbling block_, no net _degradation_ (potomu
chto, vozmozhno, chto sredi naroda etogo yazychnika skotolozhstvo delo
obychnoe i poetomu nikto ego prezirat' ne budet). Posle etogo oni sporyat
o tom, vozmozhen li obratnyj sluchaj - _degradation_ bez _stumbling block_.
I togda dva ravvina privodyat dva primera. Odin - nesovershennoletnaya
devochka (eto znachit men'she 13 let, pochemu - sm. dal'she).
Ona dolzhna byt' zhenshinoj dlya
togo, chtoby voobshe mozhno bylo govorit' o skotolozhstve, poetomu
zayavlyaetsya "a maiden aged three years old and a day" - technicheskij
minimum dlya togo, chtoby byt' zhenshinoj, kotoryj ustanovlen voobshe
ne zdes', a v drugih knigah Talmuda. Eto yavlyaetsya utverzdeniem minimuma,
v tipichnom lakonichnom stile Talmuda. Primernyj analog etogo - skazhem,
zayait' chto "v strane X chelovek mozhet golosovat', kogda emu ispolnyaetsya
21 god" - ne znachit, chto on ne mozhet golosovat', kogda emu 23 goda - a
prosto zayavlyaet o technicheskom minimume. Posle etogo kratko
perechislyayutsya nekotorye priznaki, vydelyayushie ee kak zhenshinu -
to, chto ona mozhet byt' vydana zamuzh putem polovogo akta, to, chto ona
mozhetzagryaznit' muzhchinu, nahodyas' v sostoyanii _niddah_, i t.p. Vse eto
zdes'
ne opredelyaetsya, a prosto napominaetsya. Posle chego zayavlyaetsya, chto
esli ona sovershila skotolozhstvo,
to est' _degradation_, no net _stumbling block_ - t.k. ona
nesovershennoletnaya, i poetomu eshe ne otvechaet pered Bogom za takie
svoi grehovnye postupki. Krome togo, utverzhdaetsya, chto zhivotnoe dolzhno
byt' ubito, nesmotrya na to, chto net _stumbling block_. Drugoj ravvin
ne soglashaetsya s etim i govorit, chto est' _stumbling block_, no
vsemilostivyj Gospod' proshaet ee, no ne zhivotnoe, poetomu zhivotnoe
nado ubit', a ee ne nado. Konechno, v tsitiruemoj tsitate etot kontekst
obrezan, i neponatno poetomu, chto devochka privoditsya kak primer
osobennoj situacii s zapretom na skotolozhstvo.
Vse eto, takim obrazom, predstavlyaetsya kak nekij gipoteticheskij
sluchaj dlya resheniya teologicheskogo voprosa; bolee togo, skotolozhstvo
ne pooshryaetsya, a pryamo zapreshaetsya, hotya i ne vedet k kazni, esli
devochke men'she 13 let. Srazu posle etogo rasbiraetsya takoj zhe sluchaj
dlya mal'chika, kotoromu dolzhno byt' 9 let i odin den' ili bol'she.
Takim obrazom vse eto voobshe otnositsya k sovsem drugomu kontekstu
(skotolozhstva), a fraza "may be acquired in marriage by coition..."
otnositsya k korotkomu ritoricheskomu bloku, kotoryj podtverzhdaet ee
prava kak zhenshiny, nesmotrya na to, chto ej eshe net 13 let. Konechno,
nikakogo razesheniya ili pooshreniya takogo _coition_ libo skotolozhstva
zdes' net.
Vse eto vyshlo namnogo dlinee, chem mne by hotelos', poetomu uzhe ochen'
vkratze o tsitate iz _Kethuboth_. Vo-pervyh, Kethuboth - mnozhestvennoe
chislo ot _Kethuba_ - chto oznachaet na ivrite "brachnyj kontrakt", a
takzhe summa, zaplachennaya zhenihom za nevestu v ramkah brahcnogo
kontrakta. Takim obrazom, vsya kniga _Kethuboth_ zanimaetsya brahcnymi
kontraktami i tem, skol'ko deneg nado platit' za tu ili inuyu zhenshinu
(v nashe vremya eta plata - vsego lish simvol, no neyasno, kogda imenno ona
prevratilas' v simvol). Vot, kstati, interesnyj passazh iz Kethubot 10b:
Someone came before Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi [and] said to him,
'My master, I have had intercourse [with my newly-wedded wife] and I
have not found any blood.' She [the wife] said to him, 'My master, I
am still a virgin.' He [then] said to them: Bring me two handmaids,
one [who is] a virgin and one who had intercourse with a man. They
brought to him [two such handmaids], and he placed them upon a cask
of wine. [In the case of] the one who was no more a virgin its smell
{of wine - a footnote} went through {i.e. one could smell the wine from
her mouth - footnote, Rashi}, [in case of] the virgin the smell did not
go through. He [then] placed this one [the young wife] also [on a cask
of wine], and its smell did not go through. He [then] said to him: Go,
be happy with thy bargain.
Izobilie kvadratnyh skobok daet nekotoroe predstavlenie o plotnosti i
lakonichnosti originala. Eshe odin primer etogo: vsya fraza "I have had
intercourse [with my newly-wedded wife]" zanimaet v originale odno slovo:
_baal'ti_ (s udareniem na vtorom sloge, ot baal' = muzh, chto-to vrode
"ya muzhnul").
Tsitata iz Kethuboth 11b protsitirovana v Vashem istochnike pravil'no.
Vot, odnako, ee tochnyj kontekst.
Rabbi Oshaia objected: _When a grown-up man has had intercourse with a
little girl, or when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up
woman, or when a girl was accidentally injured by a piece of wood -
[in all these cases] their kethubah is three hundred [zuz]; so
according to Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: a girl who was injured
accidentally by a piece of wood - her kethubah is a maneh!_
Zdes' vse, krome pervyh treh slov, vydeleno v Soncino edition, tak kak
eto pryamaya tsitata iz Mishna. Razbirayutsya tri sluchaya, i ih
posledstviya na _kethubah_ zhenshiny. V sluchae vzroslyj muzhchina -
malen'kaya devochka (zdes' ne upominaetsya predel, no rech' idet o
devochke molozhe chem 3 goda i 1 den') vse soglashayutsya,
chto kethubah (devochki ili vzrosloj zhenshiny) ostaetsya dvesti denezhnyh
edinits (zuz), chto yavlyaetsya standartnym znacheniem, t.e. ih status ne
stradaet ot etogo greha, t.k. devochka men'she 3h let ne schitaetsya
zhenshinoj, i sootvetstvenno s mal'chikom. V sluchae zhe, kogda devochka
(neobyazatel'no uzhe malen'kaya) sluchajno poranila devstvennuyu plevu,
mneniya rashodyatsya: rabbi Meir schitaet chto ee kethubah ostaetsya
dvesti (t.e. ona ne vinovata), a "sages" schitayut chto ee kethubah
_maneh_ - 100 zuz, t.e. ona sogreshila.
"Vzroslaya zhenshina" oznachaet starshe chem 12.5 let, i predpolagaetsya
chto ona devstvennitsa do etogo.
Posle chego rabbi Raba poyasnyaet etot otryvok iz Mishna. Eto edinstvennoe,
chto ohranilos' v tsitate iz Vashego istochnika:
Raba said. It means this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a
little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is
as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has an
intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured
by a piece of wood', and [with regard to the case of] 'a girl injured
by a piece of wood' itself, there is the difference of opinion between
R. Meir and the sages.
Yasno, takim obrazom, chto 'nothing' otnositsya v dannom sluchae k tomu,
chto _kethubah_ devochki ne stadaet ot etogo proishestviya, i voobshe
ne otnositsya k tomu muzhchine, k-j ego sovershal. Takim obrazom, tsitata
special'no vyrvana iz konteksta dlya togo, chtoby iskazit' ee smysl.
Posle etogo v Kethuboth 11b idet dolgaya diskussiya o tom, dejstvitelno
li eta kethubah dolzhna byt' _maneh_, ili v nekotoryh sluchayah ona
mozhet ostavat'sya 200 zuz, i kak primirit' tochki zreiya Rabbi Meira
i "sages".
Nadeyus', eti dva primera Vas ubezhdayut?
S uvazheniem,
Anatoly.
==============================================
no subject
no subject
Îíà, ðîäèìàÿ.
Íå óòîìèòåëüíî âñ¸ ýòî áûëî?
Íåò, íå óòîìèòåëüíî. Âñå ðàâíî ãîñòè â äîìå.
ß, ïîæàëóé, áîëüøå êîììåíòèòü íå áóäó, à ëó÷øå âñå ñîåäèíþ â îäèí ôàéë.
Ïðèâåò!
no subject
http://www.geocities.com/frantsuzik/lj/talmud.html
no subject
Ñåé÷àñ çàãîíþ â îòäåëüíóþ çàïèñü.
no subject