For those really interested in the truth, and not just some perverted sound bite:
Nine Years Old vs. Three Years Old
The Gemora cites a braisa: In the case of a sodomized male, a young male is not regarded as being on par with an old one; but regarding a sodomized animal, a young animal is equal to an old one.
The Gemora cites a dispute amongst Amoraim to explain the braisa: Rav said: In the case of a sodomized male, a male less than nine years old is not regarded as being on par with a male who is nine years old (and therefore the sodomizer will not be liable). Shmuel said: In the case of a sodomized male, a male less than three years old is not regarded as being on par with a male who is three years old,
The Gemora explains the basis of their dispute: Rav maintains that only he who is able to commit the copulative act, may, as the passive subject of a copulative act throw guilt upon the active offender; while he who is unable to commit the copulative act cannot be a passive subject of a copulative act. But Shmuel maintains: The Torah writes: the copulations of a woman. [We therefore derive that just as a copulative act with a girl of three years old has legal significance, so too regarding a male – if he is at least three years old, copulation with him will have legal significance.]
http://daf-yomi.org/english_dafyomi/sanhedrin/Sanhedrin_54.pdf
3) RELATIONS OF A MINOR
(a) (Beraisa): A boy is not considered like a man, a small animal is considered like a grown animal.
(b) (Rav): This means that we do not consider relations with a boy less than nine years old like relations with a boy above nine.
(c) (Shmuel): It means that we do not consider relations with a boy less than three like relations with a boy above three.
(d) Question: On what do they argue?
(e) Answer: Rav holds that only one who can be Shochev (i.e. a nine-year old, his Shechivah is considered relations) can be Nishkav;
1. Shmuel learns from "Mishkevei Ishah" (a boy that is Nishkav is like a girl - if a three-year old girl is Nishkeves, it is considered relations).
http://www.shemayisrael.com/dafyomi2/sanhedrin/points/sn-ps-054.htm
or, if you like:
Talmud is a very complex document to study. It can take years just to
learn how to read it. Here we have a discusion which revolves around two
Torah commands: One against Sodomites in general and another against a man
lying with a man as he would with a woman. The Rabbis break this down into
two basic kinds of Sodomy: asctive sodomy and passive sodomy. Active sdomy
is to sodomize someone else, while passive sodomy is to subject oneself to
being sodomized. The argument goes into great detail to point out that
while he who sodomizes a child below the age of nine is obviously guilty of
active sodomy he cannot be guilty of passive sodomy because the child is
not capable of actively sodomizing him. The issue is a technical issoue of
whether he is guilty of one sin or two. The passage simply means that the
man who sodomizes a child under the age of nine is only guilty of active
sodomy but not guilty of passive sodomy (allowing the child to sodomize
him) which is actually a no-brainer which we would all agree with. If the
Sodmite had committed the act with a concenting adult he would be guilty
both of active sodomy in that he had sodomized another man and passive
sodomy in allowing himself to be sodomized.
This is just one example of how anti-semites take Talmud passages out of
context. This passage is often quoted out of context by anti-semites to
falsely make people think that Jews advocate sodomizing children below the
age of nine. The goal is to cause people to hate Jews. The Nazis of
Germany quoted the same passage out of context with the same goal, to cause
people to hate Jews and in this case to think that Jews sodmize young
children.
This is just sick and propogated by sick hateful anti semites.
There is no place for such sick propaganda.
You did not get this passage from studying the Talmud because had you done
so you could plainly see that you were quoting it out of context.
(actually you misquoted it also). Unless you deliberately took it out of
context.
I can only reach one of two conclusions. Either:
1. You read the Talmud and DELIBERATELY took it out of context. or:
2. You got it by studying anti-Semitic literature through which this
out-of context passage can be traced back at least to Nazi Germany.
Now feel free to make me best answer and then add derogatory comments.