"Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

"Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby Mulegino1 » 4 years 5 months ago (Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:08 pm)

Carolyn Sturdy Colls and the resident Rebbe at Treblinka have claimed that "Jewish Burial Law" absolutely prohibits exhumation of human remains.

This is false:

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2008/07/reinternment.html

“As a general rule, it is forbidden to exhume the remains of a deceased for reinterment in another place.[1] This is true even if one's intention for doing so is in order to bestow honor to the deceased by the change of location. We are taught that the dead should never be disturbed because moving the remains of a deceased causes that person fear,[2] confusion, and reminds them of their judgment day.[3] In fact, it is forbidden to even open a coffin once it has been sealed and placed in the ground.[4] If, however, at the time the original burial took place it was done with the understanding that the current location would only be temporary, then it is permitted to exhume and reinter at a later date.[5]

[u]There are a number of exceptions to this rule, however. One is permitted is exhume a body when the relocation is done in order for the deceased to be reinterred among his family members.[6] Such a move, we are told, brings the deceased desired honor and pleasure.[7] Related to this is the dispensation to move the remains of a person who, for whatever reason, was buried in a Gentile cemetery to a permanent resting place within a Jewish cemetery.[8] So too, in the event that the cemetery where the dead are currently buried will be used disgracefully[9] or there is a concern that Gentiles will irreverently move the bodies[10] then the dead may be relocated some place else.

A well known application in connection with relocating the dead is doing so in order to bring a person to a permanent resting place in Eretz Yisrael.[11] The reason burial in Eretz Yisrael overrides the prohibition of exhumation is because the earth of Eretz Yisrael has the power to atone for the sins of the deceased.[12] In fact, some authorities suggest that it is permitted to exhume a body to bury it in Eretz Yisrael even if doing so is contrary to the explicit wishes of the deceased,[13] though in such a situation the move must be initiated by the children of the deceased.[14] Whenever a decision is made to exhume a body one must ensure that it does not appear that the disinterment is being done because others buried in the area are unworthy to lie with the one now being removed.[15][u]

Now, since Israel did not exist at the time of the alleged Treblinka exterminations and cremations, reburial of remains in Israel could not have been "contrary to the wishes of the deceased."

If the Jews go to the trouble of giving bars of soap a Jewish burial and reciting the Kaddish for them, it is almost certain that there would be a massive push to get human remains exhumed and reburied in Israel- probably at Yad Vashem itself.

Does anyone seriously belief that the Jews and Israeli government would pass up such an opportunity?
The favorable publicity and the worldwide sympathy would be unprecedented. Heads of state from around the world would flock to Yad Vashem on the Day of Remembrance, where amidst the mournful sounds of the Shofar, the world would hear the thunderous "Never Again!" like never before.

And it would all be brought to us by Stephen Spielberg's "Eternal Aliyah Project"!

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby Kingfisher » 4 years 5 months ago (Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:41 pm)

I understand what you are saying and why, but my principal concern here is that the prejudices of a religious group should override the public interest. We have an allegation of murder of 800,000 people. If it was a single murder case would the police be prevented from digging up a body because the victim's religion allegedly forbade it? Do we have any specific case or cases involving a Jewish murder victim?

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby Mulegino1 » 4 years 5 months ago (Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:17 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:I understand what you are saying and why, but my principal concern here is that the prejudices of a religious group should override the public interest. We have an allegation of murder of 800,000 people. If it was a single murder case would the police be prevented from digging up a body because the victim's religion allegedly forbade it? Do we have any specific case or cases involving a Jewish murder victim?


I agree with you completely, but the usual suspects just browbeat the political authorities or "investigators" into accepting the rules that they make up as they go along.

In this case, the Jewish Rabbinate knows very well that there exceptions to the prohibition on exhumation of human remains in the Halacha/Talmudic applied law. However, since they know that in all likelihood there are no enormous traces of human remains, say, at Treblinka, they just come up with the excuse of their deus ex machina "Jewish Burial Law".

Of course, a person as gullible-"Look, a tile with a Star of David- proof of the Gas Chamber!"- Caroline Sturdy-Colls and her fellow "archaeologists" will probably take the "wise Rabbi" at his word and not check into the facts.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 726
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby Breker » 4 years 5 months ago (Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:22 pm)

Also please see this earlier thread on this topic.
The Big Excuse: 'excavation & exhumation of Jews forbidden'
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2353
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 4 years 5 months ago (Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:14 pm)

I've never thought about that before. The idea of "is this such a major law." Theodor Herzl's remains were taken to Israel 44 years after he died. But maybe there's a difference between moving a coffin, and moving remains like what believers think they would find at Treblinka.

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby Mulegino1 » 4 years 5 months ago (Tue Nov 11, 2014 7:14 pm)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:I've never thought about that before. The idea of "is this such a major law." Theodor Herzl's remains were taken to Israel 44 years after he died. But maybe there's a difference between moving a coffin, and moving remains like what believers think they would find at Treblinka.


I would venture to make an educated guess that if they gave bars of (allegedly human) soap a proper Jewish burial, then they would positively want to exhume the remains from the undignified venue of a German "extermination camp"- even if they are cremains- and reinter them in Israel at Yad Vashem or in some special "Forest of Remembrance"- amid great solemnity and pomp. Think of the implications of such an act-especially now that the pariah status of Israel grows by the day; this would be the most effective and the most vociferous "Never Again!" moment in Shoah Business history. Is there any aspect of the Holocaust legend that goes unexploited?

Of course, I could be wrong. But it appears obvious to me that the "Jewish Burial Law" ruse is simply a way of covering up the lack of any evidence for human remains and insulating the official version from real forensic scrutiny, using the cover of religion.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9710
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby Hannover » 4 years 5 months ago (Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:43 am)

Here's a case where allegations were made that 'holocausted' Jews would be found in a mass grave and exhumations were made. This blows away the commonly used excuse of Jewish law. And guess what ... the remains of perhaps a dozen POWs of the alleged 12,000 Jews were found and these POWs were executed by the Soviet NKVD. The rodoh link below gives the the background of another attempt to make 'holocaust' victims out of Soviet executions. From another thread.
Hannover wrote:BlackRabbit, excellent comment from https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php? ... lit=rostov:

A 2013 documentary staring Dr. Sturdy Colls and David Cesarani features Soviet film footage recently discovered by Dr. Jeremy Hicks that was reputedly shot in 1943 and shows a very public unearthing of a mass grave in a ravine called Zmiyevskaya Balka ("Snakes Valley", or "Snake Pit", or "the Ravine of the Snakes," apparently) in Rostov-on-Don, which, the documentary claims, contained the bodies of "12,000 Jews".

You can watch the footage from the 24 minute mark on the video. Don't let your lying eyes try to tell you they can only see a dozen-ish corpses, nor that the corpses and grave bare hallmarks of a NKVD execution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svARldKz3B0
The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.


- Hannover

edited for typo
Last edited by Hannover on Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2409
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby borjastick » 4 years 5 months ago (Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:05 pm)

Of course, I could be wrong. But it appears obvious to me that the "Jewish Burial Law" ruse is simply a way of covering up the lack of any evidence for human remains and insulating the official version from real forensic scrutiny, using the cover of religion.


Of course it is!

They have hidden behind some obscure jewish 'law' which most people would regard as foolish tosh, to prevent any legitimate requests from governments of Europe asking for a scenes of crime to be established so that things could be properly excavated and investigated. To see how it should have and could still be done one only has to look at the UN work in places like Serbia, Bosnia etc after similar atrocities. They had no problems doing a scientific dig with respect to all the dead in order to get to the truth, something of course the chosen bunch don't want.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 4 years 5 months ago (Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:23 pm)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:I've never thought about that before. The idea of "is this such a major law." Theodor Herzl's remains were taken to Israel 44 years after he died. But maybe there's a difference between moving a coffin, and moving remains like what believers think they would find at Treblinka.


There's a few other famous Jews whose mortal remains were dug up and moved to the "Holy Land."

Moses Hess

Theodor Herzl's wife, son, and daughter

Mr and Mrs Edmond James de Rothschild

Ze'ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky

It never happened, but in 1963/4 Hasidic Jews wanted to dig-up the remains of two Kabbalastic mega-rabbis, the Baal Shem Tov (d.1760) and the Vilna Gaon (d.1797) and move them to Israel!



If you want to know what Jewish Law has to say on exhuming the bodies of Jews, you should read the following tracts in the Babylonian Talmud:
Baba Bathra 101b, 102b and Nazir 64b, 65a, 65b, which all cite Oholoth, Chapter 16, Mishnah 3. The Mishnah is considered the Word of God; the Oral Law that was given to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the Torah.

The rule of exhuming dead Jews is complicated, but I can summarise it as follows, if the reader bears in mind that these laws were created to protect the priest class, the kohanim, who are forbidden from entering Hebrew cemeteries or going near dead Hebrews (close relatives are an exception, and gentiles don't even count), and that the Talmud suggests these laws were introduced due to discovery of bodies during construction projects in ancient Israel.

1. Jews should not desecrate Jewish graveyards, if the rabbinate rules an area was an old Jewish graveyard, the remains can not be removed.

2. Jewish graveyards only contain Jews buried with in Jewish rite, the Talmud specifically excludes an area where Jews were killed and buried for "convenience" from becoming Jewish graveyards.

3. If Jews chance across a corpse which was obviously buried in Jewish rite, they can remove it and the soil which immediately surrounds it for reburial elsewhere. If they find two corpses near each other and both were obviously buried in Jewish rite, they can remove them both and the soil (like before), but if they find three together, things get complicated and they have to do searches for others to find out whether the land was ever a Jewish graveyard.


I read once, although I can't recall where now, that Rashi (a hugely influential 11th century French rabbi), effectively took the mickey out of how seldom the rabbinate in ancient Israel would declare an area as a Jewish cemetery following the discovery of buried remains, because doing so would result in an area (of prime real estate, possibly) becoming a no go zone for the priestly class: the Kohens.

On a final note before I quote the cited Talmud passages; the following teaching states that the discovery of any Hebrew corpse or skeleton which is not complete, will not count toward the minimum of three corpses needed for an area to even be considered as a graveyard. The remains of Jews which are buried in Treblinka 2, would of course fall into this category, even if they had been buried in Jewish rite, which of course they weren't:

'Ulla b. Hanina taught: A defective corpse8 does not acquire the ground it occupies, nor does it help to form a graveyard site.

8. A corpse lacking a member essential to life. (Tosef. Oh. XVI, 2).

- Talmud, Nazir 65a



All quotes are from the online edition of the Soncino edition of the B. Talmud.
http://halakhah.com/



MISHNAH 3. IF ONE FINDS14 A CORPSE UNEXPECTEDLY.15 LYING IN ITS NATURAL POSITION,16 HE MAY REMOVE IT ALONG WITH THE [BLOOD-] SATURATED EARTH17 [ROUND ABOUT].18 IF HE FINDS TWO, HE MAY REMOVE THEM ALONG WITH THE [BLOOD-] SATURATED EARTH [ROUND ABOUT]. [IN THE CASE WHERE] HE FINDS THREE, IF THERE IS A SPACE OF FROM FOUR TO EIGHT CUBITS BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE LAST, THAT IS, THE SPACE OF A BIER AND ITS BEARERS,19 THEN IT MUST BE ACCOUNTED A GRAVEYARD,20 AND HE MUST SEARCH [THE GROUND] FOR TWENTY CUBITS21 FROM THAT POINT. IF HE FOUND [ANOTHER CORPSE] AT THE END OF THOSE TWENTY CUBITS, HE MUST SEARCH FOR A FURTHER TWENTY CUBITS FROM THAT PLACE, SINCE THERE ARE ALREADY GROUNDS FOR BELIEF22 [THAT THIS IS A GRAVEYARD], IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IF HE HAD FOUND THIS [LONE GRAVE] IN THE FIRST CASE, HE COULD NAVE REMOVED IT WITH THE [BLOOD-] SATURATED EARTH [ROUND ABOUT].

14. Whilst ploughing the field. This Mishnah occurs in Naz. (Nazir) 64b, Sonc. ed., p. 244. where it is discussed in the ensuing Gemara. V. loc. cit. for notes: v. also B.B. 101b.
15. vkj,c , Lit ‘in the first place’. I.e without knowing before that there was a corpse lying there. The word is missing in the version of B B. loc. cit.
16. Showing that there had been a normal burial.
17. C.f. supra III, 5.
18. The field being thereby restored to a state of cleanliness.
19. This explanation of the distance is missing from Naz. loc. cit. but appears in the B.B. version. The size of the intervening space is evidence of a regular graveyard.
20. The graves must then not he disturbed.
21. The reason for this size is given in B.B.
22. Lit., ‘the matter has legs’.

http://halakhah.com/pdf/taharoth/Oholoth.pdf




We have learnt elsewhere [in a Mishnah]:14 If a corpse is found15 lying [in a grave] in the usual manner.16 both the corpse and the earth surrounding it are to be removed.17 [If] two [corpses, in similar conditions, are found], they and the earth surrounding them are to be removed. (A)

If three [corpses] were [similarly] found, [then], if [the distance] between them1 is from four, to eight [cubits], the area] is [to be considered] a grave-yard;2 and a search3 must [also] be made [over a distance of] twenty cubits,4 from that spot onwards. [If] at the end of twenty cubits a corpse is found, a search of [another] twenty cubits from that spot onwards must be made; for there is reasonable ground5 for the assumption6 [that even the single grave is an indication of the existence there of other graves]; although if [the single corpse] had been found first7 it should have been removed together with the earth surrounding it.8 (B)


14. Oh. XVI, 3. (Oholoth, Chapter 16, Mishnah 3)
15. In an area which is not known to be a graveyard and, therefore, Levitically clean.
16. Showing that Israelites had buried it and that death was due to natural causes; and the question, therefore, arises whether that area was not once used as a regular graveyard. In the case of a mutilated corpse or non-Jewish mode of burial, that question does not arise, since it is obvious that the corpse was buried in that spot by mere accident.
17. If the area is to remain Levitically clean. The discovery of one corpse does not establish the area as a graveyard, and the removal of the corpse in the manner prescribed, renders the area again Levitically clean.
(all A)

1. Between the first and the third.
2. According to this Tanna, a grotto which forms part of a family grave contains an area of four by eight cubits. If the three corpses were found within four cubits, it is assumed that the wide side of such a grotto had been found. If within eight cubits, the long side of such a grotto is assumed to have been discovered. In either case, the discovery points to the existence of a family grave in that area which is, therefore, to be regarded as a grave. yard, the extent of which must be ascertained.
3. To ascertain whether any other graves are to be found in the vicinity, and to determine the extent of the area that is henceforward to be regarded as Levitically unclean.
4. I.e., the approximate length of the court (six cubits) and of the two grottos that open out from its opposite sides (eight cubits each, according to the Tanna.) The actual length is, of course, twenty two cubits and the discrepancy is discussed in the Gemara.
5. Lit., 'feet' on which to stand.
6. Since one group of graves had already been discovered within twenty cubits.
7. Before the other three corpses, without any further search having had to be made.
8. V, supra n. 1.
(all B)

(A) Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra 101b
http://halakhah.com/bababathra/bababath ... html#PARTb

(A) Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra 102a
http://halakhah.com/bababathra/bababathra_102.html



MISHNAH. IF A MAN FINDS A CORPSE FOR THE FIRST TIME18 LYING IN THE USUAL POSITION,19 HE MAY REMOVE IT TOGETHER WITH THE SOIL THAT IT OCCUPIES.20 [IF HE FINDS] TWO, HE MAY REMOVE THEM TOGETHER WITH THE GROUND THEY OCCUPY. IF HE FINDS THREE, THEN IF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE LAST IS FROM FOUR TO EIGHT CUBITS,21 THIS IS A GRAVEYARD SITE.22 (A)

HE MUST THEN SEARCH BEYOND FOR A DISTANCE OF TWENTY CUBITS.1 IF HE FINDS A SINGLE [CORPSE] AT THE END OF TWENTY CUBITS, HE MUST SEARCH BEYOND FOR ANOTHER TWENTY CUBITS. THE REASON2 IS THAT THERE IS [NOW] A PRESUMPTION,3 WHEREAS IF HE HAD FOUND IT FIRST, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REMOVE IT TOGETHER WITH THE SOIL IT OCCUPIES.4

GEMARA. Rab Judah said: IF A MAN FINDS, but not if [he knows] it is to be found there;5 A CORPSE, but not one who had been killed;6 LYING, but not seated;7 IN THE USUAL POSITION, but not with its head lying between its thighs.7 'Ulla b. Hanina taught: A defective corpse8 does not acquire the ground it occupies, nor does it help to form a graveyard site.

Why does not [the law of the Mishnah] apply to all these? — Because we say that perhaps it is [the body of] a heathen.9

If he finds two [corpses] with the head of one beside the feet of the second, and the head of the second beside the feet of the first, they do not acquire the soil which they occupy and do not help to form a graveyard site.10 If he finds three [corpses] one of which was known to be there while the others [were found] for the first time, or if two [were found] for the first time and two were known [to be there] they do not acquire the soil they occupy11 and do not form a graveyard site.

It is related that R. Yeshobab once searched [a certain spot] and found two [bodies] which were known to be there and one [which was discovered] for the first time, and he wanted to declare them a graveyard site.12 R. Akiba said to him: All your trouble was for nothing. [The Rabbis] did not declare a graveyard site save where three [corpses] were known to be there, or three [were found] for the first time.13

[IF HE FINDS] TWO, HE MAY REMOVE THEM TOGETHER WITH THE SOIL THEY OCCUPY: Where is this law of the soil [a corpse] occupies to be found?14 — R. Judah said: The verse says, Thou shalt carry me out of Egypt,15 [signifying] carry with me [some Egyptian soil].16 And what is the quantity of earth] which it occupies? — R. Eleazar17 explained that he takes the loose earth18 and digs up three finger-breadths of the virgin soil.19

The following objection was raised — [It has been taught:] And what quantity [of earth] are we to understand by 'the ground which it occupies?' R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok explained that he takes the chips [of the coffin]20 and the lumps of earth,21 discarding what certainly [did not belong to the body] and leaving whatever was doubtful [for removal].22 The remainder adds together to form the major part of the structure of the corpse, the quarter [kab] of bones and the spoonful of corpse — mould?23 — [R. Eleazar] agrees with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: What quantity of [earth is meant by] 'the ground which it occupies?' R. Johanan,24 citing Ben 'Azzai, said: He takes the loose earth and digs up three finger-breadths of virgin soil.

HE MUST THEN SEARCH BEYOND IT: (B) (continued in Talmud, Nazir 65b see below)

18. Without previously having found a corpse in the same spot, and without knowing that it was there.
19. Prostrate: the only way Jews were buried.
20. For reburial elsewhere, v. Gemara.
21. Which is an indication that he has stumbled on an old burial vault.
22. The bodies must not be removed, but have to be reburied where found.
(All A)

1. For other vaults.
2. That he must continue to search if he finds one only.
3. That the field is a graveyard site; since twenty cubits would not be an abnormal distance between two vaults; cf. supra p. 237, n. 5.
4. Oh. XVI, 3. On the measurements v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 426 and notes.
5. In that case he may not remove it (Tosaf.).
6. In which case it is assumed that it was buried there for convenience and not that there was an old cemetery there.
7. Jewish bodies were always buried prostrate; hence this cannot be an old Jewish cemetery. In these last three cases, he removes the body for reburial elsewhere.
8. A corpse lacking a member essential to life. (Tosef. Oh. XVI, 2).
9. Hence the site is not declared a Jewish cemetery and the bodies can be removed for burial elsewhere.
10. Jews were not buried in this manner.
11. Thus our text and Rashbam in B.B. 101b; but this as it stands contradicts our Mishnah, and it is therefore better to read with Tosef. Oh. XVI, 2 'Or if one (was found) for the first time and two were known, they are entitled to the ground they occupy, but do not form a graveyard site'.
12. This would entail examining for twenty cubits.
13. And whilst they may not be removed, they do not form a graveyard site. V. Tosef. Oh. XVI, 2 where the last paragraph occurs with variations.
14. [So Aruch; cur. edd. 'What means the ground it occupies'?]
15. Gen. XLVII, 30; spoken by Jacob to Joseph.
16. Interpreting the verse, 'carry with me of Egypt'.
17. R. Eleazar b. Pedath. Our texts have in error R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok.
18. Formed through the decomposition of the body.
19. This being the depth to which any blood etc., coming from the body would penetrate.
20. Which was usually of stone (Tosaf.). Aliter The chips of spices put in with the body; cf. II Chronicles XVI, 14.
21. Into which the decomposing corpse congealed.
22. When the body was removed. Hence the part to be removed contained no virgin soil, contrary to the opinion of R. Eleazar.
23. Required to propagate uncleanness in a tent. (V. supra 49b, 50a). Tosef. Oh. II, 2 with variations.
24. R. Johanan b. Nuri.
(All B)

(A) Talmud, Nazir 64b
http://halakhah.com/nazir/nazir_64.html

(B) Talmud, Nazir 65a
http://halakhah.com/nazir/nazir_65.html


(cont.) Raba said: If he searched, [found a corpse]1 and removed it, searched [again and found another] and removed it, [and then] searched [again] and found [a third corpse], he must not remove this one [for reburial] with the other two,2 nor the other two [for reburial] with this one.3

Others say that Raba said: As permission had been given to remove [the others],4 he may remove them [all].5 But why should not [the field] become a graveyard site?6 — Resh Lakish said: [The Rabbis] seized upon any pretext to declare the Land of Israel clean.7

Suppose he searched [beyond it]8 for twenty cubits [in one direction only]9 and did not find [another corpse], what is the law?10 — R. Monashya b. Jeremiah, citing Rab, replied: This is the graveyard site.11 What is the reason [that we say this?]12 — Resh Lakish said: They seized on any pretext to declare the Land of Israel clean.

1. For the first time.
2. Since the region is now revealed as a graveyard site.
3. Once removed legally they need not be brought back.
4. I.e., since the removal of the two was legal.
5. The third corpse counts as newly found.
6. Since three bodies have been uncovered in it.
7. I.e. in order to declare a region in the land of Israel clean, the least pretext was considered sufficient. Rashi suggests another rendering, viz.: 'They found a rib and declared the Land of Israel clean'; i.e., the Jews on entering Palestine found a human rib buried and thereupon declared the whole of the rest of Palestine clean, no further search after graveyard sites being necessary. Hence any pretext to avoid declaring parts of Palestine unclean will do.
8. Referring to the Mishnah that he must search beyond the three corpses found to a distance of twenty cubits.
9. Tosaf. v. next note.
10. Must he search in other directions or not? (Tosaf.). Aliter. Do these three alone form a graveyard site or not? (Rashi). Aliter: If he has searched in all directions and found nothing, must he search more thoroughly and dig more deeply? (Asheri).
11. But no other part of the field.
12. I.e., why are we not stricter in our requirements?


Talmud, Nazir 65b
http://halakhah.com/nazir/nazir_65.html#PARTb
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney

User avatar
Jurgen
Member
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:17 am

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby Jurgen » 4 years 5 months ago (Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:59 pm)

Yeah, plus the forget the plain fact that one burial custom the Jews had 2000 years ago was the use of an ossurie. They would inter a body into a tomb. One year later they would re-enter the tomb and place the bones into an ossurie.
"The Holocaust narrative actually breaks down on a discrete, factual level, and is only tenable when it is presented as some vague or nebulous larger than life metahistorical event" Mulegino1

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 726
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby Breker » 4 years 5 months ago (Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:59 pm)

The commonly used narrative is that not all of these alleged remains are of Jews. What is the excuse in that case? And aren't Israeli police allowed to exhume corpses of Jews for forensic purposes?
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby hermod » 4 years 4 months ago (Tue Dec 23, 2014 11:02 am)

Wanna attend an exhumation party with Jewish DP's? :drunken:

Image
http://www.jta.org/1946/10/27/archive/u ... zi-victims
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby hermod » 4 years 3 months ago (Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:46 am)

Late 1948: The [Zionist] leader of Jewish "Displaced Persons" Josef Rosensaft requesting the exhumation of Jewish dead bodies in Germany and their reburial in Israël.

Jewish telegraphic Agency:
Dp Leader in Germany Wants Bodies of Jewish Victims of Nazis Transported to Israel *

November 5, 1948

NEW YORK (Nov. 4)

A plan to transport to Israel as many as possible of the Jewish dead in Germany for reburial in a permanent memorial ceremony will soon be discussed in Jewish circles in Europe and Israel, it was learned here today. The plan will shortly be broached by Josef Rosensaft, chairman of the Central Jewish Committee of the British zone, who originated the idea.


http://www.jta.org/1948/11/05/archive/d ... -to-israel


Related topic: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9010

* [typo in JTA doc. 'Warts' corrected to 'Wants'. Moderator]
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby Mulegino1 » 4 years 3 months ago (Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:40 pm)

hermod wrote:Late 1948: The [Zionist] leader of Jewish "Displaced Persons" Josef Rosensaft requesting the exhumation of Jewish dead bodies in Germany and their reburial in Israël.

Jewish telegraphic Agency:
Dp Leader in Germany Wants Bodies of Jewish Victims of Nazis Transported to Israel *

November 5, 1948

NEW YORK (Nov. 4)

A plan to transport to Israel as many as possible of the Jewish dead in Germany for reburial in a permanent memorial ceremony will soon be discussed in Jewish circles in Europe and Israel, it was learned here today. The plan will shortly be broached by Josef Rosensaft, chairman of the Central Jewish Committee of the British zone, who originated the idea.


http://www.jta.org/1948/11/05/archive/d ... -to-israel


Related topic: June 45: "Holocaust survivor" J. Rosensaft's lil' oversight

* [typo in JTA doc. 'Warts' corrected to 'Wants'. Moderator]


Checkmate, Hermod! :cheers:

User avatar
Jurgen
Member
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:17 am

Re: "Jewish Burial Law" as excuse

Postby Jurgen » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:29 am)

Wow. Checkmate alright! How do we get in contact with Coles with this information and get her response, or maybe a comment from the Rabbi who stopped her?
"The Holocaust narrative actually breaks down on a discrete, factual level, and is only tenable when it is presented as some vague or nebulous larger than life metahistorical event" Mulegino1


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests