2 Responses to “Why Amazon banned Hoffman’s book on Judaism”

1. shaul Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

   Praver did write to Hoffman in 2002 but Praver never endorsed him. Praver argued with Hoffman and told him that Hoffman had enough knowledge to know that he was willfully deceiving the general public. Hoffman was asked to produce the entire content of the e-mail he received from Praver but refused to do so. The reason why Hoffman refused is because the letter shows Praver in essence calling Hoffman a Fraud, not a scholar! And the manner in which Hoffman has manipulated the situation, is consistent with the Fraud contained in his books. The original Biblical and Talmudic sources do NOT bear out Hoffman’s allegations. For example, Hoffman alleges that Talmudists don’t consider Gentiles to be Human. The source of his allegation is based in a statement in the Talmud that says a person must be an “Ish” an {Israelite man} to own land in ancient Israel, Hoffman “extrapolates” said allegation, i.e. Gentiles are Not human, from these few words. Go and look at who may own land amongst the Medianites, Cannanites, Moabites,Philistines and such tribal peoples living in Mesopotamia in these ancient times, and you will find the same kind of law, which enables only Male members of their respective tribes to own land. The only possible pejorative is that they were all Patriarchal civilizations. It’s ridiculous and Hoffman is wasting all of our time with false statements. If the Ponca Indians had a rule that one must be a male member of their tribe to make use of certain hunting lands, does it mean that the Ponca’s just made a statement that they consider all the other tribes to be sub human? This is the kind of stuff Hoffman is trying to sell the general public who don’t have the ability to read the original sources in Hebrew and Aramaic. Because Hoffman presents his Fraud via a plethora of words, frankly people don’t know what to think; and if they have an ember of anti-Semitism within them, these allegations can stoke up a flame. It is this willful incitement of hatred directed towards the Jewish People that motivated Praver, a community Rabbi, to confront Hoffman.
   And concerning the matter of a young girl molested. The Sugia {the discussion} was not coming to say that the abuser was innocent, it was coming to protect the rights and dignity of the victim so that she could be married when she came of age, as a Betulah { virgin} with all of the rights pertaining to said status in biblical times. To construe that the Talmud regards the abuser innocent, while at the same time claiming to know the primary original text, is to be a vindictive Fraud –and that is what Hoffman is.
   Bottom line, Praver did not stop Hoffman from publishing his book; Praver has no such power. The strength of Praver’s argument is that his name is his intellectual property and Hoffman acted with malicious intent; meaning he full well knew that Praver was NOT an endorsee of his work and that is why Hoffman will NEVER reveal to anybody the full text of the letter that Praver sent him. The letter will prove without a shadow of doubt Hoffman’s malicious intent. Whereas, should Hoffman refuse to desist from proliferating the allegation that Praver is the endorsee of his work and alleged scholarship, Hoffman should be forewarned that there is a person that can reveal the full text of Praver’s letter? That person is Praver himself and said revelation can take place in a court of law in Idaho.

2. Terry Melanson Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 11:18 pm

   Thanks.

   Perhaps Praver should reveal the entire communication on the web.

   Why is the post at Hoffman’s site erased? This is not the first time this has happened either.

Leave a Reply