News Ticker

Homosexual couple charged with using their adopted children to make child porn

By Patrick Reilly | 7 August 2022

NEW YORK POST — A Georgia couple has been charged with using their two adopted children to record child pornography, police said.

Walton County Sheriff’s Office raided a home in Loganville July 27 on reports that a man there was downloading child porn.

After interviewing the suspect, who was not identified, police said they learned there was another suspect in the county who was “producing homemade child sexual abuse material with at least one child who lived in the home,” the sheriff’s office said Thursday.

Around 11:30 p.m. that same night, executed a search warrant in Oxford at the home of William Dale Zulock, 32, and Zachary Jacoby Zulock, 35.

William and Zachary Zulock of PNC Bank have been charged with using their two adopted children to make child pornography. PHOTO: Walton County Sheriff’s Office

Walton County’s Division of Family and Child Services joined deputies in responding to the home to help protect the two brothers who lived there.

During their search, deputies found evidence the pair, who were the children’s adoptive fathers, “were engaging in sexually abusive acts and video documenting this abuse,” the sheriff’s office said. […]

4 Comments on Homosexual couple charged with using their adopted children to make child porn

  1. All the more reason to keep children out of the hands of Homosexuals. Children need a Mother(Female), and a Father(Male) for balance, not mentally ill Homosexuals.

  2. THE SOURCE OF THE POLLUTION:

    TALMUD SAYS GOD IS A HERMAPHRODITE
    The Babylonian Talmud states not only that the God of the Jews is a hermaphrodite, but that Adam had a double-face, or two faces, one male and one female. The Talmud explains this to mean, that its god separated the faces male and female from Adam to create Eve from Adam. Jana argues that to make things right, in the minds of Talmudists and Cabalists, human beings are being reverted back to this alleged original state of androgyny. For those who doubt the validity of her claim that the Talmud states that Adam was male and female, see the following proof from Tractate Berakoth, folio 61 a-b, and Tractate Eruvin, folio 18a: https://steinsaltz.org/daf/berakhot61/
    ט״ו בתשרי ה׳תשע״ג (October 1, 2012)
    Berakhot 61a-b: Creating Man…and Woman
    Because of an additional letter that appears in the Torah in the Creation story, the Gemara offers a variety of explanations – one of them suggesting that in the original creation of Man the creation was androgynous.

    Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, created two faces on Adam the first man; he was created both male and female in a single body, as it is stated: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before” (Tehillim 139:5); tzartani is derived from the word tzura [face]. God formed two faces on a single creation, back and front.

    In the Gemara in Ketubot (daf 8a), in the context of seeking to explain a dispute, the possibility is raised that there is a disagreement whether there was a single creation of Man or if there was a second Creation, as well. Most commentaries tie that dispute to the question in our Gemara, whether man was created with one face and the woman was subsequently an independent creation, or whether he was created with two faces and the creation of Eve was merely the separation the two faces from each other, i.e., not a creation at all. Another possible explanation of the dispute is based on the opinion in our Gemara: At first, the thought entered His mind to create two, but ultimately only one was created. On that basis, the dispute can be explained as a disagreement: Which is the determining factor, thought or action?

    Our Gemara continues discussing the creation of Man

    It is stated: “And the tzelah which the Lord, God, had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Bereshit 2:22). Rav and Shmuel disagree over the meaning of the word tzelah: One said: It means face. Eve was originally one face or side of Adam. And one said: It means tail, which he explains to mean that the tzelah was an appendage, i.e., one of the ribs in Adam’s chest.

    The Aruk explains that the word tail, here and in several other places in the Talmud, refers to an appendage that is unlike the object to which it is attached in appearance or size. The Rashba explains “tail” in this context as a limb of secondary importance, as a tail is to a body.

    This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim of Rabbi Steinsaltz, as published in the English version of the Koren Talmud Bavli with Commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, and edited and adapted by Rabbi Shalom Berger.

    Learn more about the Aleph Society’s Daf Yomi

    Daf Archives by Tractate | Daf Archives by Date | Glossary

    The Aleph Society’s digital Daf Yomi is available free to the public thanks to the generous support of readers like you. To dedicate future digital pages or tractates of the Steinsaltz Talmud, in honor of a special occasion or in memory of a loved one, please email us or call +1 (212) 840-1166.

    The Eight Genders in the Talmud
    Judaism has recognized nonbinary persons for millennia.

    BY RACHEL SCHEINERMAN

    YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

    Sex and Sexuality 101
    GENDER & SEXUALITY

    Thought nonbinary gender was a modern concept? Think again. The ancient Jewish understanding of gender was far more nuanced than many assume.

    The Talmud, a huge and authoritative compendium of Jewish legal traditions, contains in fact no less than eight gender designations including:

    Zachar, male.
    Nekevah, female.
    Androgynos, having both male and female characteristics.
    Tumtum, lacking sexual characteristics.
    Aylonit hamah, identified female at birth but later naturally developing male characteristics.
    Aylonit adam, identified female at birth but later developing male characteristics through human intervention.
    Saris hamah, identified male at birth but later naturally developing female characteristics.
    Saris adam, identified male at birth and later developing female characteristics through human intervention.
    In fact, not only did the rabbis recognize six genders that were neither male nor female, they had a tradition that the first human being was both. Versions of this midrash are found throughout rabbinic literature, including in the Talmud:

    Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Adam was first created with two faces (one male and the other female). As it is stated: “You have formed me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me.” (Psalms 139:5)

    Eruvin 19a
    Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar imagines that the first human was created both male and female — with two faces. Later, this original human being was separated and became two distinct people, Adam and Eve. According to this midrash then, the first human being was, to use contemporary parlance, nonbinary. Genesis Rabbah 8:1 offers a slightly different version of Rabbi Yirmeya’s teaching:

    Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created him as an androgynos (one having both male and female sexual characteristics), as it is said, “male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27)

    Said Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created for him a double face, and sawed him and made him backs, a back here and a back there, as it is said, “Behind and before, You formed me” (Psalms 139:5).

    Genesis Rabbah 8:1
    In this version of the teaching, Rabbi Yirmeya is not focusing on the first human’s face (or, rather, faces) but on their sex organs — they have both. The midrash imagines this original human looked something like a man and woman conjoined at the back so that one side has a women’s face and a woman’s sex organs and the other side has a man’s face and sex organs. Then God split this original person in half, creating the first man and woman. Ancient history buffs will recognize this image as similar to the character Aristophanes’ description of the first humans as both male and female, eventually sundered to create lone males and females forever madly seeking one another for the purposes of reuniting to experience that primordial state. (Plato, Symposium, 189ff)

    For the rabbis, the androgynos wasn’t just a thing of the mythic past. The androgynos was in fact a recognized gender category in their present — though not with two heads, only both kinds of sex organs. The term appears no less than 32 times in the Mishnah and 283 times in the Talmud. Most of these citations are not variations on this myth, but rather discussions that consider how Jewish law (halakhah) applies to one who has both male and female sexual characteristics.

    That the androgynos is, from a halakhic perspective, neither male nor female, is confirmed by Mishnah Bikkurim 4:1, which states this explicitly:

    The androgynos is in some ways like men, and in other ways like women. In other ways he is like men and women, and in others he is like neither men nor women.

    Mishnah Bikkurim 4:1
    Because Hebrew has no gender neutral pronoun, the Mishnah uses a male pronoun for the androgynos, though this is obviously insufficient given the rabbinic descriptions of this person. Reading on we find that the androgynos is, for the rabbis, in many ways like a man — they dress like a man, they are obligated in all commandments like a man, they marry women and their “white emissions” lead to impurity. However, in other ways, the androgynos is like a woman — they do not share in inheritance like sons, they do not eat of sacrifices that are reserved only for men and their “red discharge” leads to impurity.

    The Mishnah goes on to list ways in which an androgynos is just like any other person. Like any human being, “one who strikes him or curses him is liable.” (Bikkurim 4:3) Similarly, one who murders an androgynos is, well, a murderer. But the androgynos is also unlike a man or a woman in other important legal respects — for instance, such a person is not liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity as both a man and woman would be.

    As should now be clear, the rabbinic interest in these gender ambiguous categories is largely legal. Since halakhah was structured for a world in which most people were either male or female, applying the law to individuals who didn’t fall neatly into one of those two categories was challenging. As Rabbi Yose remarks in this same chapter of the Mishnah: “The androgynos is a unique creature, and the sages could not decide about him.” (Bikkurim 4:5)

    In many cases, the androgynos is lumped together with other kinds of nonbinary persons as well as other marginalized populations, including women, slaves, the disabled and minors. For example, concerning participation in the three pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot) during which the Jews of antiquity would travel to the Temple in Jerusalem, the mishnah of Chagigah opens:

    All are obligated on the three pilgrimage festivals to appear in the Temple and sacrifice an offering, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor; and a tumtum, an androgynos, women, and slaves who are not emancipated; and the lame, the blind, the sick, and the old, and one who is unable to ascend to Jerusalem on his own legs.

    Chagigah 1:1
    As this mishnah indicates, it is only healthy, free adult men who are obligated to appear at the Temple to observe the pilgrimage festivals. People who are not adult men, and men who are enslaved or too old or unwell to make the journey, are exempt.

    As we have already stated, the androgynos was not the only person of ambiguous gender identified by the rabbis. Similarly, the rabbis recognized one whose sexual characteristics are lacking or difficult to determine, called a tumtum. In the mishnah from Bikkurim we cited earlier, Rabbi Yose, who said the androgynos was legally challenging for the sages, said the tumtum was much easier to figure out.

    The rabbis also recognized that some people’s sexual characteristics can change with puberty — either naturally or through intervention. Less common than the androgynos and tumtum, but still found throughout rabbinic texts, are the aylonit, who is born with organs identified as female at birth but develops male characteristics at puberty or no sex characteristics at all, and the saris, who is born with male-identified organs and later develops features recognized as female (or no sex characteristics). These changes can happen naturally over time (saris hamah) or with human intervention (saris adam).

    For the rabbis, what is most significant about the aylonit and the saris is that they are presumed infertile — the latter is sometimes translated as “eunuch.” Their inability to have offspring creates legal complications the rabbis address, for example:

    A woman who is 20 years old who did not grow two pubic hairs shall bring proof that she is twenty years old, and from that point forward she assumes the status of an aylonit. If she marries and her husband dies childless, she neither performs halitzah nor does she enter into levirate marriage.

    Mishnah Niddah 5:9
    A woman who reaches the age of 20 without visible signs of puberty, in particular pubic hair, is deemed an aylonit who is infertile. According to this mishnah, she may still marry, but it is not expected that she will bear children. Therefore, if her husband dies and the couple is in fact childless, his brother is not obligated to marry her, as would normally be required by the law of levirate marriage.

    A nonbinary person who does not have the same halakhic status as a male or female, but is something else that is best described as ambiguous or in between, presented a halakhic challenge that was not particularly foreign for the rabbis, who discuss analogs in the animal and plant kingdoms. For example, the rabbinic texts describe a koi as an animal that is somewhere between wild and domesticated (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:8) and an etrog — yes, that beautiful citron that is essential for Sukkot — as between a fruit and a vegetable (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:6, see also Rosh Hashanah 14). Because they don’t fit neatly into common categories, the koi and the etrog require special halakhic consideration. The rabbinic understanding of the world was that most categories — be they animal, vegetable or mineral — are imperfect descriptors of the world, either as it is or as it should be.

    In recent decades, queer Jews and allies have sought to reinterpret these eight genders of the Talmud as a way of reclaiming a positive space for nonbinary Jews in the tradition. The starting point is that while it is true that the Talmud understands gender to largely operate on a binary axis, the rabbis clearly understood that not everyone fits these categories.

    ANDROGYNOS (Hermaphrodite):
    By: Moses Gaster
    Table of Contents
    • In the Haggadah.
    • In the Halakah.
    Rabbinical literature knows both the mythical and the real hermaphrodite: the former in the Haggadah, the latter in the Halakah. The notion of bisexuality must have been derived from Hellenic sources, as the Greek form of the word proves. The other form, “hermaphrodite,” never occurs in rabbinical writings. The principle of the sexual generation of the world is not of Greek origin: its phallic character pointing to India as its birthplace. Plato, who shows much more intimate acquaintance with the Orient than is supposed, speaks in his “Symposion” (190 B) of three generations: the masculine, the feminine, and the androgynous, which had been created by “sun, earth, and moon respectively.”
    In the Haggadah.
    Transmitted and developed through dualistic Gnosticism in the East, the notion of an androgynous creation was adopted by the Haggadists in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of the Bible. In Gen. ii. 7 and 18 et seq., the separate creations of man and of woman are described, while in chap. i. 27, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them,” their creation is described as coincident. In connection with the latter verse the Midrash states (Gen. R. viii.): “Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, says: God created Adam androgynous, but Samuel, son of Naḥman, says, He created him ‘double-faced,’ then cutting him in twain and forming two backs, one to the one and the other to the second” (see Bacher, “Ag. Pal. Amor.” i. 547, iii. 585). The same statement is given in Moses ha-Darshan’s Bereshit Rabbati (“Pugio Fidei,” p. 446, Paris, 1651). The difference in the interpretation is that, according to Jeremiah’s opinion, Adam had both sexes, and was thus a real hermaphrodite in the old mythical sense, identical with that conception of Hermes in which he is understood to be the “logos alethinos,” the son of Maya, the bisexual primeval man of the East. The Greek Hermaphroditus —represented by statues and on old gems, in which representations, however, bisexuality is scarcely indicated—has remained strange to the East and totally unknown to the Jews. In all the parallel passages in the Talmud, the opinion of Samuel b. Naḥman alone prevails, for we find regularly Adam (bifrons, double-fronted), as, for example: ‘Er. 18a, Ber. 61a, etc. (Jastrow, “Dict.” s.v., p. 304, 1).
    The opinion expressed by Jeremiah is, however, very old and wide-spread, for we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this “Jewish fable”; Augustine writes against it in his commentary on Genesis, ad loc. ch. 22. Strabos,agreeing with Augustine, declares this opinion to be one of the “damnatæ Judæorum fabulæ.” Others revive the question, and Sixtus Senensis in his “Bibliotheca Sacra” devotes to it a special chapter (ed. Colon. 1586, fol. 344, 345). An alchemic interpretation has been given to “Adam androgynus,” by Guil. Menens, “Aurei Velleris libri tres, Theatrum chemicum,” vol. v., p. 275, Argent., 1660.
    In the Halakah.
    In the halakic writings only “Androgynos” is used, never “duoprosopin” (bifrons), and always in the physiological sense of “bisexual.” In the Mishnah Bikkurim, the whole of section iv. is devoted to the minute description of the legal position and abnormities of the Androgynos. In some particulars he is to be treated as a man, in others as a woman, as he partakes of both natures; not so the “ṭum-ṭum,” an individual whose sex can not be determined. This Androgynos is a common figure in classical tradition. Pliny mentions him (“Historia Naturalis,” vii. 34), and Gellius (“Noctes Atticæ,” ix. 4, 16). Special attention was paid to the Androgynos in the old writers on physiognomy. Compare “Scriptores Physiognomonici Græci et Latini,” ed. Foerster, Leipsic, 1893, under “Androgynos,” in Index Græcus (ii. 368). For the further legal treatment of the Androgynos in Hebrew law, see Isaac Lampronti in his “Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ,” s.v., and Löw, “Lebensalter.”

    About Jewish Encyclopedia
    • Literary Directorate Listing

    The Chumash (Five Books of Moses)

    Adam and Eve story
    Adam, a Hermaphrodite?
    This is a strange question, but I’ve been curious about the syntax of the sentence in Genesis (1:27) where it states that “God created man, in His image he created them; male and female he created them.” Is the Hebrew any clearer, as the syntax in English suggests the possibility that God created man as both male and female?

    Your intuition is correct. There is an opinion in the Talmud that states that God originally created Adam as a hermaphrodite and then split that one being into two separate bodies. Besides the verse that you cite, there is another a bit further on in Genesis that alludes to this concept: “Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and called THEIR name Adam on the day they were being created.” (Genesis 5:2)
    Sincerely,
    Rabbi Ari Lobel

    • Yes and the name for their androgynous delusional Kabbalah version of Adam is “Adam Kadmon”! The Talmud also promotes “gender fluidity” promoting up to 8 genders. The Talmud promotes infants aren’t human until 18-24 months old so okay to kill them.

Post a Comment

Winter Watch
%d bloggers like this: