But the LORD answered Moses, “If her father had but
spit in her face, would she not have been in disgrace for seven days? Let her
be confined outside the camp for seven days; after that she may be brought back
in.” (Numbers 12:14)
Interesting, “If her father had but spit in her face, would she not have been in disgrace for seven days?" This ruling seems to have already been applied prior to this incident, but the question is, where in the previous 4 books is such ruling found? Why say "would she not have been in disgrace for seven days" indicating it was a known ruling from before. Can Christians show us an example of father spitting on his daughter face which would defile her?
----------
A proclamation was then issued in Judah and Jerusalem that they should bring to the LORD the tax that Moses the servant of God had required of Israel in the wilderness. (2 chronicles 24:9)
From where did the author of Kings gets this information that God ordered Moses tax the Israelites in the wilderness? Since there is no written text the only other alternative is oral information.
Wont you agree?
Women are to
be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in
submission, as the law says. (1 Corinthians 14:34)
We know the
oral law has something to say
“A woman’s
voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative” (Talmud, Berachot 24a)
I do not
permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (1
Timothy 2:12)
The Law of Moses means the oral law of Moses,
Talmud Bavli Ketubot 72a, Talmud Yerushalmi Ketubot 7.6.1
When Jesus said law of Moses in Luke 24:44, he was referring to the oral law of Moses. as a matter of fact whenever law of Moses is mentioned its referring to the oral law
The Gemara
continues to discuss methods of Torah study. The Sages taught the following
baraita: What was the order of teaching the Oral Law? How was the
Oral Law first taught? Moses
learned directly from the mouth of the Almighty. Aaron entered and sat before him, and
Moses taught him his lesson
as he had learned it from God. Aaron
moved aside and sat to the left of Moses.
Aaron’s sons entered, and Moses taught them their lesson
while Aaron listened. Aaron’s sons moved aside; Elazar sat to the right of Moses and Itamar sat to the left of Aaron. Rabbi Yehuda disagreed
with the first tanna with regard to the seating arrangements and said:
Actually, Aaron would return to
sit to the right of Moses.
The elders entered and Moses
taught them their lesson. The elders moved aside, and the entire nation
entered and Moses taught them
their lesson. Therefore, Aaron
had heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three
times, the elders heard it twice, and the entire nation heard it once.
(Talmud Eruvin 54b)
From a Roof
The Talmud book of Yebamoth also concerns the duty to marry a brother's widow who is childless. Two volumes of junk and obscenity for its own sake carry the title, Yebamoth. Another illustration of the "reprobate mind" is the teaching that [Yebamoth 54a] if a man falls from a roof "and his fall resulted in accidental insertion," as [Ybamoth 54a footnote] "When in a state of erection the levir fell from a raised bench upon his sister-in-law who happened to be below." Here the great Talmudic "saint" Rashi is cited as authority. "His commentary on the Talmud is a consummate masterpiece, a remarkable and gigantic work," says the 1943 Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. Rashi was born in Troyes, France, 1040, and died there in 1105.
The above Talmud passage is not reproduced here. It is in Yebamoth 53b-54a (page 356 of the Soncino edition) and continues the above with the responsibility of a "levir" or brother-in-law "when, for instance, his intention was intercourse with his wife and his sister-in-law seized him and he cohabited with her." [Yebamoth 54a] The passage is merely an excuse to indulge the "reprobate mind" in uncleanness. (Romans 1:28) Is it any wonder that Christ likened Pharisees to "unseen graves" (Luke 11) and "whited sepulchres" (Matt. 23)?
Although Moses commanded that if a woman have intercourse with a beast, both should be killed (Leviticus 20:16), and that a priest must not marry a harlot or woman who is profane (Lev. 21:7), the Talmud teaches that "unnatural intercourse does not cause a woman to be forbidden to marry a High Priest," since then "you will find no woman eligible … ." (See Exhibit 157, from the Talmud book of Yebamoth, Folios 59a-59b)
Rulings of the "sages" follow: "A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest — even a High Priest." Unless specifically warned in advance and the act seen by two witnesses, she is acceptable also. If she had intercourse with a dog while sweeping the floor, she is likewise reckoned to be pure, and suitable. For, "The result of such intercourse being regarded as a mere wound, and the opinion that does not regard an accidentally injured hymen as a disqualification does not regard such as intercourse either." (See Exhibit 158)
This alone gives a fair idea of the systematic deformation of Scripture by the Pharisees and the truthfulness of Christ's denunciations about their making God's commandments of none effect by their Tradition. (Matthew 15:6)
Baby boys may always be used as subjects for sodomy by grown men, according to the Talmud. (See Exhibit 54) The Pharisaic subterfuge here is that until a child reaches sexual maturity, capable of sexual intercourse, he or she does not rank as a person, hence Biblical laws against sodomy (pederasty) do not apply. Throughout the Talmud "nine years and one day" is the fictitious age of male maturity.
Likewise, under "nine years and one day," the "first stage of intercourse" of a boy with the mother, or any grown woman, is harmless, Talmudically. Shammai, to seem more "strict," lowers the age to eight years in some cases. (See Exhibit 82 from Sanhedrin 69b of the Talmud)
A long harangue about the amount of the Kethubah (payment if divorced) a woman gets if her virginity was removed by a young boy, fills Kethuboth 11b of the Talmud. [page 23] (See Exhibit 136 and Exhibit 137) And here, the foul mother may be reckoned "pure," depending on the age of the child. Such degrading use of children was typical of paganism throughout the ancient world.
"When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this — that is, less than three years old — it is as if one puts the finger into the eye — tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years." (See Exhibit 136, Kethuboth 11b of the Talmud)
This is the standard doctrine of the whole Talmud on baby girls. Sodomy and intercourse with babies is the prerogative of the adult Talmudic man, in contrast to Christ's beautiful teachings concerning little children.
The following is also typical concerning the fictitious age of sexual maturity of baby girls set by the Pharisee "sages:" "A maiden aged three years and one day may be acquired in marriage by coition …" See Exhibit 55 (Sanhedrin 55b), Exhibit 81 (Sanhedrin 69a-69b), Exhibit 156 (Yebamoth 57b), and Exhibit 159 (Yebamoth 60b); also Niddah 44b.
Baby girls of three can invoke sadistic punishments on those who have intercourse with them when they are "Niddahs" (menstruating), a physical impossibility, of course. (Talmud, Sanhedrin 55b - Exhibit 55; Sanhedrin 69a - Exhibit 81)
And, at three, a baby girl is always rated as "one who is fit for cohabitation — that is one who has attained the age of three years and one day." (Talmud, Yebamoth 60b, Exhibit 159) But, in the case of a baby girl who is not Jewish-born, or a so-called "proselyte," she may be "married" thus by a grown priest: "A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest;" although "one who is fit for cohabitation," as stated on the same page, is "one who has attained the age of three years and one day." (See Exhibit 159)
This Talmud Yebamoth passage continues with the ruling in the case of a baby under three married to a grown man priest, and declared eligible to continue as his wife. (See Exhibit 160) The baby girl was a "proselyte," of course, so age did not matter. But "under eleven years and one day" a little girl "carries on her marital intercourse in the usual manner." (See Exhibit 152, Yebamoth 12b of the Talmud)
Adultery is permitted with the wife of a minor, and wife of a non-Jew. (See Exhibit 53) The pretense is that a minor not being a "man" yet, and the non-Jew having non-human status, Talmudically, the Biblical law does not apply.
Thus, once again do the Pharisees make the commandments of God of "none effect" as Christ said. (Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:13)
Incest
Moses ordered the priests that: "They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane … for he is holy unto his God." (Leviticus 21:7) The laws against incest are most vehement: "The nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother … (Leviticus 18:7) And in the Talmud the Pharisee "sages" reverse these Biblical injunctions:
"If a woman sported lewdly with her young son, a minor and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her — Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit to the Priesthood." Here a footnote explains that she could not marry a priest, if this made her profane and the above Leviticus 21:7 is cited precisely. (See Exhibit 82)
We then learn that the dispute concerns only the age of the son, not the lewdness of the foul mother: "All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and one day is a real connection whilst that of one less than eight years is not [Footnote: "So that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood, whilst if he was less than eight, Beth Shamnmai agree that she is not."] Here silliness reigns supreme, and one understands why Christ called the Pharisees "fools and blind:" "Beth Shammai maintaining, we must base our ruling on the earlier generations" [Footnote states: "When a boy of that age could cause conception."] "but Hillel holds that we do not."
The supposition that boys became fathers at eight is the silly excuse for the Shammai school to argue that the boy must be under eight to leave the mother pure. The standard throughout the Jewish Talmud is that a little boy becomes a person, "sexually mature," at nine years and one day, — another asininity. The whole argument strains at the "gnat" of age and "swallows the camel" of incest between mother and son. (Matthew 23:24)
The Bible tells us that after the destruction of Sodom with all of its inhabitants, except Lot and his two daughters who took refuge in a cave: "The firstborn said unto the younger, our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us … . Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose." The next night the same events took place for the younger: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." (Genesis 19:31-8) The abominating tribes of Moabiteg and Ammonites were the products of these two sons, at first spared, then demolished by the fourth king of Judah, Jehosaphat. (11 Chron. 20)
But the Talmudic "Sages" take anything but a critical view of this incest:
"A man should always be as alert as possible to perform a precept, for as a reward for anticipating the younger by one night, the elder daughter of Lot was privileged to appear in the genealogical record of the royal household of Israel four generations earlier." (See Exhibit 166, Nazir 23b-24a of the Talmud)
The Jewish press in 1954 reported attempts to alter state laws so as to legalize marriages between uncle and niece, which is common in rabbinical circles. The Bible prohibits marriages between uncles and aunts, and with nieces and nephews, as incest. (Lev. 18:13,14).
Under "Talmudic Eugenics" in Baron's A Social and Religious History of the Jews (Jewish Publication Society, 1952), is this on incest: "In Egypt the Ptolemaic rulers themselves, for the most part, married their own sisters. In Parthia-Persia, marriages between parents and children were valid, and those among brothers and sisters were quite customary. [page 24] The Parsee religion … encouraged such marriages as the fittest means of preserving family purity [cf. 'Yasna' 12, 9] … . Artaxerxes 11 had married his two daughters, and … Mithraidates I had married his mother. Ardea Viraz is said to have married his seven sisters." (page 229, Volume 11) This was not harmful, we are told!
"On one point, particularly, Roman law differed from Jewish: marriages between an uncle and a niece. We recall that both Rabbi Eliezer and Abba married nieces, as did Rabbi Jose the Galilean … Rabbi Ishmael made a special effort to overrule his vow [not to marry his own niece] and to make the niece more attractive to him by improving her teeth … ." (page 230, same)
Moses commanded in God's name, that a woman should not marry her uncle, or a man his aunt. (Lev. 18:14) Nevertheless, today these "People of the Book" are striving to modify American state laws against such marriages, and have actually been successful in some states, on the ground that their "religion" requires such latitude.
The creative powers were worshipped in all ancient pagan countries as the procreative powers of male and female, with sex rites to match. Men who became priests to the female goddess Venus, Mylitta, Astarte, or by whatever name, in a wild orgy of drugged frenzy would castrate themselves with "sacred swords" and then contribute part of their earnings as sodomists to the upkeep of the pagan cult and temple, and would train, sell and rent dogs for immoral purposes. Girls who became priestesses to the pagan temples earned their keep and contributed to a cult's upkeep through their earnings as "sacred prostitutes."
But Moses taught that the worship of God was not to be maintained on such earnings. "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both of these are abomination unto the Lord thy God." (Deuteronomy 23:18)
The Talmud, citing Deuteronomy 23:19, makes this out of the ruling: "There is not adultery in connection with an animal, because it is written, 'Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog,' etc., and it has been taught: 'The hire of a dog and the wages of a harlot' are permissible, as it is said, 'Even both of these are an abomination unto the Lord' —the two specified in the text are abominations but not four." Then the permission is given to use for the temple: "Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal adultery. If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be offered." (Sotah 26b Talmud, Exhibit 168)
Abodah Zarah of the Talmud takes up this same "matter of a harlot's hire which is permitted — To be devoted to the Temple, in spite of the Law of Deut. XXIII, 19." (actually, verse 18) The man is permitted to do this: "If he gave her it [the money] and subsequently had intercourse with her, or had intercourse with her and subsequently gave it to her, the hire is permitted. The two matters are regarded as separate and what she received is legally a gift." This argument goes on for two pages. (See Exhibit 190 and Exhibit 191)
No wonder that Christ charged that the Pharisees nullified the commandments of God by their Tradition, which now, in written form, has become the Talmud.
"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord," says the Book (Lev. 18:6). Scripture references are also cited which denounce a married woman who lies "carnally" with a man not her husband. But say the sages: "That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum since no fertilization can possibly result. This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated." And other Talmud sources are cited. "The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman [Footnote 15] even though she died as a married woman." Thus one is "exonerated" for, or permitted, intercourse with dead relatives or with relatives, married or single, "with a relaxed membrum," because "no fertilization can possibly result." (Talmud, Yebamoth 55b, See Exhibit 163)
Intercourse with dead bodies was an old pagan practice. The above is echoed with some variation in "the chief repository of the criminal law of the Talmud," the book of Sanhedrin. (See Exhibit 89)
There the act of sodomy with one suffering with an incurable disease, hence regarded as already dead, or a "terefah," is held to be merely "as one who abuses a dead person, and hence exempt." The explanation, which continues on the next page (not reproduced) is: "Punishment is generally imposed because of the forbidden pleasure derived — [footnote] Whereas there is no sexual gratification in abusing the dead."
How apt it was when Christ called the Talmudic Pharisees "whited sepulchres … full of all uncleanness." (Matt. 23) Yet some of His followers call these abominators of every decency "God's Chosen People" and "People of the Book"!
There is nothing now, as formerly, in Talmudic doctrine, against polygamy. It is practiced by Jews in countries where it is allowed.
A 1952 book by Salo Wittmayer Baron, Professor of Jewish History, Literature and Institutions of the Miller Foundation, Columbia University, is entitled, A Social and Religious History of the Jews and is published by the American Jewish Committee's Jewish Publication Society of America. The chapter, "The World of the Talmud," cites the harem of King Solomon (which finished him morally and otherwise), saying its "memory kindled the imagination of polygamous Jews in subsequent ages." Although we are told [page 25] that there was no real difference between Palestinian and Babylonian Jewries fundamentally, the book states "there are indications that Babylonian Jewish society had more polygamous features than did that of Palestine."
And: "Anecdotes like those current in regard to Rab and Rabbi Nahman [who] after arriving in a foreign city they used to advertise for women ready to marry them for the time of their sojourn ('man havya le-yoma') … . In law, too, the Babylonian emphasis lay upon the Jew's right to 'marry as many wives as he is able to support.'"
It was Rabbi Gershorn Ben Judah (bom Metz, 960; died Mayence, France 1040), whose edicts were accepted by European Jewry as final for all time, who commanded Jews in Christian countries to stop getting into trouble with the law by polygamy.
Israel first proposed extra allowances for plural wives but now seems to be screening polygamy from Christian eyes.
After the period of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and before this, in the case of Adam and Noah, monogamy ruled. The Prophets were monogamists. Moses commanded regarding a man of God that: "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away. …" (Deuteronomy 17:17) And, admittedly, the polygamy of David and his son Solomon ended the Israel twelve-tribe united Kingdom. Their hordes of pagan wives, and foul, pagan altars broke down any Godly spirit which had formerly united them. However, reversing the Bible once again, Pharisee "Sages" embroider upon the above words of Moses against polygamy, their permission to have 18, 24, or 48 wives. (Talmud, Sanhedrin 20b-21a) The Mishna asks: "Why then is it written, neither shall he multiply wives to himself … Rabbi Simeon said: He must not marry even one who may turn away his heart — From which it might be inferred that he may marry a lesser number even if they should corrupt him."
As noted elsewhere, regarding murder of the non-Jew, it is good and meritorious, providing you do not get caught and thus get the Talmudic religion exposed for what it is.
However, permissible murder in Judaism embraces more than just killing Gentiles. Murder by suffocation is permissible. Here shyster hairsplitting is inserted in the Talmud, it being permissible to seal up a neighbor in an airtight "alabaster chamber," providing one does not put in a lighted candle to help eat up the oxygen, but merely allowing the victim to expire by breathing the oxygen up himself unaided, this is acceptable. (See Exhibit 86 from Sanhedrin 77a-77b of the Talmud)
Under Talmudic "law" other forms of murder are also permissible:
- Binding up your neighbor so that he dies of starvation. Just bind up the neighbor before it is hot or cold enough to kill him and all is well — you are guiltless of what follows. (See Exhibit 85)
- Binding up your neighbor so that he dies of sunstroke. (See Exhibit 85)
- Binding up your neighbor so that he dies of cold. (See Exhibit 85)
- Binding up your neighbor so that a lion may kill him. (See Exhibit 85) He could not have fought the lion anyway, so, it is acceptable, says the Talmud.
- Letting mosquitoes bite your neighbor to death. As for the mosquitoes, they come and go, so, since the ones which bit him when you tied the victim go away and others end his life, you are pure and blameless. (See Exhibit 85)
- Throwing your neighbor into a pit and leaving him to die there. (See Exhibit 86)
- Killing your neighbor with arrow wounds. (See Exhibit 86) Shooting the neighbor with an arrow is acceptable, since if there is balsam for sale somewhere, he presumably could have sent for some and thus have been cured instead of dying. (See Exhibit 86)
You can also drown your neighbor and yet be "guiltless" of his death! Remember to follow Talmudic law, however, and cause the water to travel a little distance before it drowns the neighbor — then you are guiltless of his death! (See Exhibit 87)
It is granted in the Talmud that the Bible forbids taking a man's life — but that merely means taking his life all by yourself. In other words, you must not take the whole of his life all alone, which permits you, nevertheless, to help nine other men to take a life.
Thus, it is stated in the Talmud: "If ten men smote a man with ten staves whether simultaneously or successively, and he died, they are exempt." Answering the Rabbi who suggests that killing whatever is left of a man's life might be wrong, we are also told: "If ten men assailed him successively, he was already nearly dead when the last smote him: therefore the last, too, is exempt." (See Exhibit 88)
Elaborate pains were taken, rather recently, by Rabbis to deny that "mercy" killings are permitted in Judaism — because they are. The public discussion was on whether or not a hopelessly sick person should be put out of his misery. The Rabbis denied that would be proper, necessarily know ng that the Talmud states otherwise. The Talmud, Sanhedrin 77b-78a, contains these rabbinical edicts:
"Both agree that if he killed a Terefah [explained in a footnote as 'a person suffering from some fatal organic disease, recovery from which is impossible'] — he is exempt." And: "If one kills a Terefah, he is exempt; whilst if a Terefah committed murder: if in the presence of a Beth Din [i.e. a Talmudic law court] he is liable; otherwise he is exempt." (See Exhibit 88 and Exhibit 89)
"Honor thy Father and thy Mother." So states the Commandment.
[page 26] The Bible, through Moses, teaches that anyone who strikes or curses his parents is worthy of death.
But the Pharisee "Sages" have nullified that. One may strike parents without wounding them, while they are alive, but there are no limitations upon striking them after death! (See Exhibit 94)
Jews may curse their parents providing they use any term meaning God. (See Exhibit 74) Excepted are the Y-H-W-H consonants of the word Jehovah, called the Tetragrammaton, and which is reserved for use in summoning demons.
As for the "sacredness" of the Tetragrammaton word for Jehovah, the word God is frequently written "G-d." The Tetragrammaton written in full is reserved for the use of Rabbinical potentates, the Hassidist Baal (Master) Shem (of the Name of God), who by using 14, 42, 72 letter combinations of the name is supposedly able to invoke spirits. At the beginning of the century, according to authorities, about half of Jewry was Hassidist.
The word "God" is not supposed to be written or spoken even today, and the California Jewish Voice, for example, carries articles in which the word is spelled "G-D" throughout. Not piety but sheer superstition governs this.
One of Christ's major "crimes" was that He pronounced the Name as spelled. (See Exhibit 56, from Sanhedrin 55b-56a of the Talmud) It is there explained in a footnote that "Bless" is used in the text instead of the right term "Curse," typifying Talmudic double-talk.
Moses said that anyone who cursed or struck mother or father should be put to death. (Exodus 21:15,17; Leviticus 20:9; Deuteronomy 27:16)
"But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say a gift (Or I have dedicated to God that which would relieve your need) … ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother: making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have … delivered, and many such like things ye do." (Mark 7:1-13) Matthew 15 contains like denunciations.
In Matthew 13 and Mark 7, Christ asked the Pharisees: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and thy mother and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
Then Christ reminded them of the Pharisee custom of dedicating their goods to the Temple, then telling their needy parents that what they might have given them is now the property of God and they must do without, although they themselves went on using the proceeds of their wealth for themselves.
Christ was hated by the pagan Pharisees for such teachings as:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven … except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-20)
This Talmud book is about divorce. Reproduced herein are the title page (Exhibit 199) and part of the introduction (Exhibit 200). The book also deals with the fate of Christians in Hell. (See, for example, Exhibit 201 and Exhibit 202.) Following are also various dog and dung health remedies. Exhibit 205, Exhibit 206, Exhibit 207, Exhibit 208, and Exhibit 209 are reproductions from Gittin, Folios 69a-70b, devoted to these dung and dog remedies almost too fantastic to believe. The privy, demons and privates are mingled in insane array.
The funny thing about the horrendous and silly "remedies" of the Talmud book of Gittin, is not the asininity of the remedies themselves so much as the commentary, in English, by a British doctor with a string of alleged degrees, which appears in the Appendix to the Soncino edition of this Talmud book. He actually attempts to justify and praise these nutty things! The wrong people, it is often said, are in asylums.
The "Appendix" (not reproduced) is entitled: "Notes On The Various Remedies Recommended in Folios 68b-70b," by W. M. Feldman, MD, FRCP, Lond., FRAS, FRS."
For the "Charms, Amulets, Incantations, Astrological associations," he finds the benefits of "suggestion" with "profound effect," and for whatever he cannot evolve a "rational physical basis," he invents imagined benefits. He points out that "animal excrements as remedial agents" are ancient and we "shall not lightly dismiss the ancient folk remedies — however absurd they may appear." He extolls the incantations and lauds these Rabbis' "knowledge of all parts of theoretical and practical medicine, in which they surpassed their contemporaries … ." He refers to several works to study the glories of "Talmudic Medicine" in five pages of whitewash, professing to look down upon "the probable sneers of the sophisticated, but untutored reader," which should include just about everyone except a Talmudist zealot.
One is enlightened as to Christ's denunciations of the Pharisees as "fools and blind" (Matthew 23, etc.) by the following so-called "wisdom of the sages:
Adam's words about Eve are cited in the Bible: "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh …" a statement Christ used in His teachings about marriage. (Matthew 19:3-6) But the Jewish Talmud teaches:
"What is meant by the Scriptural text, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my fleshT (Genesis 2:23) This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with [page 27] Eve." (See Exhibit 161, Yebamoth 63a, of the Talmud)
David's 6th psalm is a plea by David for forgiveness: "Return, 0, Lord, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies sake … in the grave who shall give thee thanks?"
"I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears." Citing the above verse, Psalm 6:7, the Talmud "sages" make this to be the meaning: "Even during David's illness he fulfilled the conjugal rights of his eighteen wives, as it is written, 'I am weary with my groaning: all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears.'" (See Exhibit 116, from Sanhedrin 107a of the Talmud)
Women who are "unclean" (menstruating) are to remain separate, said Moses, "all the days of her issue," and this verse (Leviticus 15:26) is cited in the Jewish Talmud, which states, "that a woman is not regarded as a 'zabah' [one with a discharge] except during the daytime because it is written, 'all the days of her issue.'" (See Exhibit 194, from Horayoth 4a of the Talmud)
Typical of the Talmud misuse of the Bible for purposes of inventing obscenity and then giving it a Biblical coating, is the Biblical account about Sisera, head of the Canaanite army, who fights all day and is the only man left alive. He flees to the tent of a supposed friend of the Canaanites, Heber the Kenite. Jael, Heber's wife, welcomes him in but as soon as he falls into exhausted sleep drives a tent nail through his temple and he dies. She boasts of this to his pursuing captors. Next, Deborah makes up a song of rejoicing in which she embroiders on Sisera's actual death in his sleep (Judges 4:2 1) and with poetic license sings: "When she had stricken through his temples — at her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell, where he bowed, there he fell down dead." (Judges 5:27) The verbs "bowed" and "fell" are used three times each, and "lay" is used once. This makes seven verbs used in this verse.
The standard Talmud use of this verse is to indicate it as meaning "seven sexual connections." The same Biblical verse is used thus about Christ. The words: "at her feet he bowed, he fell" are explained as: "Judges 5:27. This is taken to refer to sexual intercourse …" (See Exhibit 108, San hedrin 105a-b of the Talmud)
This is rehashed in Yebarnoth 103a-103b of the Jewish Talmud: "That profligate — Sisera — had seven sexual connections on that day for it is said, 'Between her feet he sunk, he fell, he lay: at her feet he sunk, he fell; where he sunk, there he fell down dead," with the footnote giving the Talmudic reasoning: "Each of the expressions 'he sunk,' and 'he fell,' occurs three times, and 'he lay' occurs once." (See Exhibit 162)
The Talmud book of Nazir reiterates the same Biblical misuse for no reason whatever: "That wicked wretch, Sisera, had sevenfold intercourse with Jael at that time, as it says, 'At her feet he sunk, he fell, he lay,' etc. — The words 'he sunk,' 'he fell' occur three times, and the words 'he lay,' once. Judges V,27." (Exhibit 165, from Nazir 23b, of the Talmud)
The Talmud book of Horayoth repeats the same obscenity. (See Exhibit 195)
In the course of a terrible prophecy against Tyre, the New York of the ancient world, and reprobate with sodomy, lesbianism, child-burning, and other abominations, is a Bible verse foretelling that "all that handle the oar, the mariners, and all the pilots of the sea, shall come down from their ships; they shall stand upon the land." (Ezekiel 27:29) The prophecy, including all the details of the preceding chapter were literally fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander the Great. Nebuchadnezzar pounded down the walls of Tyre and Alexander made a causeway of the rocks, killing or selling into slavery the inhabitants, who had taken refuge on an island off shore.
However, the Talmud nullifies and twists these Biblical words, and out of the words foretelling the end of the seagoing trading power, coming "down from their ships they shall stand upon the land," the Pharisee Talmud "sages" state: "No occupation is inferior to that of agricultural labor, for it is said, 'they shall come down." (From Yebamoth 63a of the Talmud - See Exhibit 161)
No Talmud book illustrates Christ's depictions of Pharisaism better than the book of Sabbath. He said: "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." (Matthew 23:24)
One way to go raving crazy is to study the Talmud book of Sabbath with its rules on what is or what is not permissible on the Sabbath.
Concerning the Sabbath, even the digested laws, or Talmud Mishna in the Schulhan Aruch, take up 82 pages of Volume 2 (pages 63-145). The sum and substance of all of them is a game of subversion. A rule is set up. "How many ways are there to get around it and nullify it?" That is the problem, leading to almost endless trivia and discussion.
One gem concerns the weighty problem of the door key which the "shabbos goy," or a Sabbath gentile, is carrying home for you so that the Jew is spared that "labor. "
The Talmud rule is that you cannot move goods from one category of property to another; from private to public property or from what is neither public or private, on the Sabbath. Your doorstep is neither public nor private. The street or sidewalk outside the doorstep is public; your house inside is private. Therefore, says the Talmud, you must have the "goy" not only insert your key in the lock, but push the door in as, otherwise, if you pushed the door in with the key in it, you would be moving the key from property neither public nor private (the sill) to the inside of the house (private property).
"One who searches his garments and finds a louse shall not crack it, but simply rub it with his fingers and throw it away on the Sabbath." (See Exhibit 6) Throwing away lice is not "labor." Cracking a louse is to be avoided at all costs, however.
The bloody, the sadistic, and the obscene are the darlings of the Talmudic "synagogue of Satan" mentality, the appetite for which is seemingly never sated. To illustrate, eight running pages have been reproduced here on the popular Talmud subjects of blood and intercourse. This discourse concerns whether or not the first intercourse on the Sabbath would constitute Sabbath "labor." "Is it performed to see if she was a virgin?", is discussed at length, for example. But the rule which governs is the dominant Talmud rule of the Sabbath on the subject of labor, namely that an act of injury never ranks as "labor." So, if the intent is to injure the wife the act is permissible. (See Exhibit 122, Talmud book of Kethuboth 5b-6a)
The eighth page ends with the thought that intercourse is permitted anyway. Then a new line of needless, senseless "religious" discussions about women and blood starts in. These longwinded, silly pages of Pharisee "wisdom" are but a sample of the bent of the whole Talmud. (See Exhibit 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, and 141)
In Matthew 5:34-6, and in Matthew 23:16-22 are recorded the lambastings Christ gave the Pharisees for vowings: "ye blind guides which say, whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for which is greater the gift or the altar that sanctified the gift?" Christ goes on to illustrate Pharisee silliness. Do not swear by anything, is the gist of the Matthew 5:34 passage, not by your head for you cannot "make one hair white or black."
One can only appreciate His words after reading hundreds of pages of drivel about vows in the Talmud books of Nazir and Nedarim. (Title pages, Exhibit 164 and Exhibit 170)
The Talmud Mishna on the Heifer and the Door is illustrative (not reproduced). The Mishna opens with the Door saying if the man doesn't open it, and the heifer saying if the man does not make it stand up, he must be a "Nazir." (A Nazirite [to vow] was one who had vowed not to cut his hair or drink or eat any product of the grape for a certain time.) Three pages of haranguing "Gemara" following the Talmud . . "Mishna" discuss the fact that the heifer then got up of its own volition. The door is quiet, apparently, for nothing more is said by it. The Jewish school of Shammai holds that since the man did not of his own power force the heifer up, he must be a "Nazir," but the Hillel Jews say that the essence of the vow is the upping of the heifer which was "recumbent" and is now standing up, so the man does not have to be a "Nazir." The schools of the Hillel and Shammai were in full flower in the Holy Land when Christ lived and, no doubt, this and other nonsense presently preserved for the Jewish religion, existed then.
The Talmud, Yebamoth 12b, harangues about the ages when female birth control may be exercised, namely from "the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day," with a child "under or over" these ages to "carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner." The recommended birth control is to be followed because otherwise the pregnant female might have a "second conception" which would make her fetus a "sandal" or "flat fish." Read the nonsense, followed by the "two hairs" test. (See Exhibit 152)
Read the asinine harangue in the Talmud, Yebamoth 12b 13a (See Exhibit 153), about two hairs proving puberty, or not proving it, as the child may have lost the two hairs through childbirth, also, the calling for an examination by the Rabbis. In the Soncino edition of the Talmud, reference is made to three similar messes of muck in Kethuboth 36a, Baba Bathra 156a and Niddah 52a of the Talmud.
To be unable to tell whether a little girl is as yet adolescent, or has borne a child or not, by counting two pubic hairs, is too idiotic to credit to anything except the Talmudic love of sub-sewer subjects — "the reprobate mind," as Paul called it, "Who changed the truth of God into a lie." (Romans 1:25, 28)
To deal in unnatural filth and sex matters is the core of Talmudic "scholarship."
Pretensions of "wisdom" by Talmudic Pharisee "sages" are perhaps the most incredible. No pompous dissertation seems complete without mention of a privy. Sons of "sages" and scholars, we read may "enter and sit down before their father, with their backs to the people."
When, however, they do not possess the capability of understanding the discourses, "they enter and sit down before their father with their faces toward the public … if he went out to ease himself he may re-enter and sit down in this place. … This applies only to the minor functions of the body but not to the major functions since he should have examined himself before … A man should always make a habit of easing himself early in the morning and late in the evening in order that there be no need for him to go far …" (See Exhibit 197 and Exhibit 198)
Jewish Talmud "remedies" are foolish to say the least. The above passage from Horayoth 13a-b of the Talmud is replete with learning such as: "As the olive causes one to forget seventy years of study, so does olive oil restore seventy years of study. … Wine and spices have made me wise." (Exhibit 96)
The Talmud "sages" then dispute whether dipping one or two fingers in salt makes one wise; whether passing under the [page 29] bit of a camel, or under the camel itself, interferes most with mentality. The text then returns to the required protocol for the "Nasi, head of the Sanhedrin, and the head of a Talmud school, the Ab-Beth Din," and how many rows have to rise in honor when each one enters. (Exhibit 197)
The Talmud also has "wisdom about eating dates." "They remove three things: evil thoughts, stress of the bowels, and abdominal trouble." This leads to a play on words, door, ladder and bed, where "one is fruitful and multiplies on it" — back to the old subjects. This is from Kethuboth 10b-11a of the Talmud.
On this same page is the Mishnah (law) that a baby girl under three years and one day old is always reckoned as a virgin: "If they had intercourse before they were three years and one day old the hymen would grow."
Do not just the few illustrations above from the Pharisee Talmud show the justness of Christ's excoriations of the Pharisees as: "Full of all uncleanness;" their love of the "uppermost rooms at feasts. . . all their works they do for to be seen of men" — "full of hypocrisy and iniquity?" (Matthew 23:5-6, 27-8, etc.)
And, illustrating their hairsplitting paraded as "wisdom," He called them "fools and blind." (Matthew 23:17-19)
The Kethuboth book of the Babylonian Talmud (See Exhibit 119 for title page) is supposed to set down rules relating to married life.
The Kethubah is a contract promising to pay a wife a certain sum of money if the husband divorces her, which he can do at will, according to Talmudic doctrine. Perhaps urged on by the growing Christian propaganda against divorce, the Hillelite Jewish school stressed the husband's freedom to divorce his wife even for some culinary deficiency, or, as Rabbi Aquiba taught, because he had found a better looking woman.
The Kethubah need not be paid if the wife can be proven not to have been a virgin when married. Hence the Jewish custom of the groomsmen waiting outside the bridal chamber door for the bloody sheet to be witnessed, proving the wife's virginity. Elaborate cuts of these Kethuboth appear in the 1943 Universal Jewish Encyclopedia.
Chicago physician and hospital owner, Dr. A.A. Whamond, used to relate to a member of my family about the money he made by putting in false cat-gut hymens for Jewish girls who were not virgins before they were to be married.
The Talmud price for getting rid of a wife who had been a virgin, is "200 zuz," given by the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia as being 200 denarii or about $30.00.
"If the wife refuses sexual intercourse, she can be threatened with a reduction of her claims in the Kethubah, and this threat can be carried out." (Same Encyclopedia) If the husband can contend that the wife had not been a virgin, she gets only "a maneh," or the smallest coin, says the Talmud.
All of this talk about blood and virginity is a favorite Talmudic subject, and seemingly endless. Note, for example, Exhibit 121, Exhibit 122, Exhibit 123, Exhibit 124, Exhibit 125, Exhibit 126, Exhibit 127, Exhibit 128, Exhibit 129, Exhibit 130, Exhibit 131, Exhibit 132, Exhibit 133, Exhibit 134, Exhibit 135, Exhibit 136, Exhibit 137, Exhibit 138, Exhibit 139, Exhibit 140, Exhibit 141, Exhibit 142, Exhibit 143, Exhibit 144, and Exhibit 145 herein, all from the book of Kethuboth.
And, as always in the Talmud, in the book of Kethuboth, asininity is combined with filth. For example, the controlling "Mishnah" or overall rule in Folio 61b (See Exhibit 145) doles out by trades the proper number of relations between husband and wife as: "men of independence, every day; for laborers, twice a week; for ass-drivers, once a week; for camel-drivers, once in thirty days; for sailors, once in six months."
Despite the thunderings and prohibitions of the Bible, sodomy in general, and specifically with little children, dead bodies, neighbors' wives and one's own wife is permitted by the Talmud.
The argument for this last is in Nedarim 20b of the Talmud (page 58 of Soncino translation): "Our Sages said … a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife at intercourse: Meat which comes from the abbatoir [stockyards] may be eaten salted, roasted, cooked or seethed; so with fish from the fishmonger. … A woman came before Rab and complained [of her husband's sodomy with her], "Rabi replied: 'Wherein does it differ from fish?"
All of this is made Jewish religious doctrine with full Luciferian knowledge of the Bible's laws against it.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind" and the Biblical verse, Leviticus 18:22, is actually cited in the same Talmud section where sodomy with boys under nine or baby girls under three is permitted. (See Exhibit 54) The full text of this verse states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."
Small wonder that Christ denounced the Pharisees as nullifying the word of God and violating every concept of human decency.
After reciting the denunciations and condemnation of the Talmud down throught the centuries, Rodkinson, in his in troduction to the Talmud, states:
"Such was the past of the Talmud which we hope will never be repeated. Now a glance at the end of the last century and the beginning of this one.
"The colleges for the study of the Talmud are increasing almost in every place where Israel dwells, especially in this country where millions are gathered for the funds of the two great colleges, the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York, in which the chief study is the Talmud and its post-Talmudical literature."
This was written early in the present century. Is what Rodkinson wrote true today?
The answer is "yes." Not only are Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America more active than ever, but a network of schools to teach the Talmud to young Jews now exists from coast to coast.
[page 30] For example, in the Chicago area, the Associated Talmud Torahs of Chicago oversees some 57 schools where the Talmud is taught to young Jews, commencing with their tender years.
If you are told by anyone that the Jewish Talmud is merely ancient history concerning Judaism, don't be fooled. The Talmud is present-day Judaism and without it so-called Judaism would not exist.
Nevertheless, for the sake of usage only, we refer herein to non-Talmudists as "Gentiles."
Under "Gentiles" the Jewish Encyclopedia sums up the Pharisee Talmudist attitude: "The Pharisees held that only Israelites are men … Gentiles classed not as men but as barbarians." (See Exhibit 268)
Further on, and misusing Scripture shamelessly and characteristically, the Scriptural lines about God shining are misinterpreted to mean that God shined His laws to Moses on all the nations, but since only the Israelites accepted them: "He withdrew His 'shining' legal protection from them and transferred their property rights to Israel." (Exhibit 269 , upper left column)
Then, "It follows that the Gentiles were excepted from the general civil laws of Moses." Talmud law from the book of Baba Kamma, on ox-goring, is then cited.
Here Moses is flouted. He taught again and again that the stranger is to be treated the same as the "home born," or the Israelites: "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt … . Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard. in weight, or in measure." (Lev. 19:34-5) "Love ye therefore the stranger …" (Deut. 10:19)
Numbers 9:14; 15:29; "One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you." (Nu. 15: 15-16, 29)
Bear in mind that the oral law, or the Traditions of the Pharisees, as recorded in the Talmud, completely reverses each teaching of Moses, who time and again taught that the non-Israelite, the "stranger," must be treated, be loved, as one's self! No wonder Christ said, "The Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, and by their Tradition make the commandments of God of none effect." (Matt. 15:3, 6; Mark 7:13)
The Jewish Encyclopedia reference noted above (Exhibit 268) states that, "The Pharisees … held that only Israelites are men … . Gentiles they classed not as men but as barbarians." After the word men in the above passage, you will note in the original: "quoting the prophet, 'Ye my flock, the flock of my pasture are men,'" with Ezekiel 34:31 given as the Biblical, and Baba Mezia l08b [see: Bab Mezia 114b] as the Talmudic basis, for this abhorrent doctrine.
The Ezekiel verse ends the 34th chapter, a parable about good and bad cattle, promised justice and a Redeemer, being addressed as a "flock:" "And I will judge between cattle and cattle. And I will set up one shepherd over them, even my servant David" (Christ) — the whole ending with the explanation of the parable: "And ye my flock … are men and I am your God, saith the Lord God."
However, the Talmud invents and adds to the above words in a Baba Mezia 108b [see: Baba Mezia 114b] passage (not reproduced here): "Only ye are designated as 'men.'" This Ezekiel verse is a popular quotation in the Talmud, always misused to infer that Talmudists are men but non-Talmudists are on the level of mere beasts or cattle.
The Baba Mezia passage is about the graves of Gentiles which rank like the graves of animals. "The graves of Gentiles do not defile," is the edict based upon this same Ezekiel verse: "Ye my flock … are men," and reference is made to Numbers 19:14 which lays out the rule that when a man has died in his tent, those who come into the tent are suspect for seven days — as they may have perhaps caught a communicable disease, which killed the deceased. But that rule does not apply to Gentiles. They do not rank as human carcasses. The "Sage" who mouths this last choice thought is the above mentioned Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai (Talmud, Page 651, Soncino edition, book of Baba Mezia, 1l4a-114b, not reproduced here).
According to the Talmud book of Baba Kamma, a lost article need not be restored to a heathen (non-Jew). (See Exhibit 40)
The Talmud always quotes the Bible in order to reverse it. Here Moses' admonition about returning lost articles, whether or not one knew the "brother" who had lost them, is [page 17] cited once again to justify the reverse.
Elsewhere in the Talmud (see Exhibit 84) returning a lost article to a non-Jew is stated to be a "sin."
Wine touched by a non-Jew would be poisoned and unfit to drink, from the contact alone. So, in the first Talmud English translation (Rodkinson) we see that the matter of using the wine after thieves had broken into a house, and who might have touched it, is taken up with the Rabbi "who allowed the wine [to be used] on the ground that the majority of thieves in that city are Jews." In a similar case that occurred in Nehardea, Samuel (a top "sage"), "too, allowed the wine." Both of these Babylonian towns of Pumbeditha and Nehardea were Talmud-Cabala centers for centuries. (See Exhibit 8)
The Talmudic "Sages" even provide reasons for letting a Gentile die in a pit. In general, according to the Talmud book of Abodah Zara, non-Jews are not to be thrown down a pit to die — that would make bad feelings against Jews — except in the case of "minim" (Christians), "apostates" (from Talmudism) and "informers" (about the Jewish religion) — these "may be cast in and need not be brought up." (See Exhibit 186)
However, the same Talmud reference notes that, for payment "one is obliged to bring them up on account of ill feeling." But another "Sage," Abaye, is referred to as urging:
"He could offer such excuses as, 'I have to run to my boy who is standing on the roof,' or, 'I have to keep my appointment at the court.'" Then, presumably, the Gentile should be happy to die in the pit and no blame could be attached to the Jew.
In a footnote, reference is made to the Talmud, Abodah Zarah 13b (not reproduced), where it is reiterated — "As to idolators … even throw them in" (that is, if they are Christians or minim). [Exact wording found in Abodah Zarah 26b, cited in Exhibit 186.]
Reference is also made to the Talmud, Sanhedrin 57a [see: Sanhedrin 57b], where, ridiculously, sentencing non-Jews to death with only one witness, even a relative, is permitted. Don't try to use your intelligence at this point. Genesis 9:5 is cited. There, God is ordering men not to eat living animals: "Surely your blood of your lives will I require …" However, according to the Talmud, the "reason" why only one witness need testify against a non-Jew to cause him to be put to death is twisted thus:
"The interpretation is based on the use of the singular, 'I will require.'" Thus, God not being "plural," witnesses need not be plural.
In Talmudism the Bible is used as a "grab-bag" to justify the "whited sepulchre" of Pharasaism referred to by Christ.
The utterly mad way in which the Bible is tossed about to make a "whited sepulchre" for Talmudic Babylonian filth and criminality is illustrated by the Talmud, Kethuboth 111a. A reach here, and a grab there, and the Pharisee "Sages" make their own Satanic meaning out of unrelated scriptural verses, plays on words, and other childish devices. We thus see in Exhibit 148: "It is written, 'Unto the people upon it,' and elsewhere it is written, 'Abide ye here with the ass' which may be rendered 'people that are like an ass — slaves who are considered the property of the master.'"
This is linked to Isaiah 42:5 in a footnote. Isaiah 42:5 in actuality refers to God as: "He that spread forth the earth … he that giveth breath unto the people upon it," and which has nothing to do with what is in the Talmud. The reference is to the Gentile Canaanite, the "Canaanite bond-woman." The source given by the Talmud for the phrase, "Abide ye here with the ass," is Genesis 22:5, which actually concerns Abraham going off to pray: "And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again unto you." Which once again has nothing whatsoever to do with the anti-Gentile doctrine above.
Sly little verses are put in as a code in the above such as "Now according to Eliezer — Who based his view on Ezekiel 26:20 …" This Bible verse actually refers to the fall of Tyre, with a fate such as the Talmudists wish to inflict on Gentiles: "I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit … in the lower parts of the earth …"
The Talmud book of Abodah Zara, which concerns relations with the non-Jew, is a series of Contortions aimed to keep the "human" Jew separate from the "non-human" Gentile, while still making money off the Gentile. Christians in particular are designated as "idolators," with Jesus as the "idol." A Mishnah of Abodah Zara 11b-12a (see Exhibit 174 and Exhibit 175) attempts to circumvent the question of how to go to an "idolatrous festival" and do business without technically being there at all. A long-winded exposition about the road leading to it is ludicrous:
"IF THE ROAD LEADS SOLELY TO THAT PLACE, IT IS FORBIDDEN, BUT IF ONE CAN GO BY IT TO ANY OTHER PLACE, IT IS PERMITTED."
Of course, a road which went only one place would only be outside of one place. Every road goes past one place after another or it is not a road at all.
But the essence of it all is this: "The Sages should not mind the possibility of receiving money of an idolator." A footnote follows to confuse the non-Jewish reader.
"The Torah [Talmud] outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast," Ezekiel 23:20 being given as the basis. (See Exhibit 270) This Bible chapter actually likens the whoring Judah and Israel kingdoms to two sisters, Aholah and Aholibah, both prostitutes, the grossness of whose paramours is likened to that of asses and their illegitimate [page 18] offspring to the "issue of horses." Public mass sex-perversions, sadism, and child burning voodoo practices of these sex-worshippers, in which offspring were spawned, was the subject of Ezekiel's lambasting. He promised the Judaites the same fate their "sister" whore, the Israel kingdom, had experienced at the hand of God for the same crimes, the Assyrians having killed and deported the ten-tribe kingdom in 721 B.C.
The amazing hypocrisy of Talmudic Judaism is that while condoning or endorsing such execrable practices as the burning of children to Molech, sodomy, rape, incest, murder or perjury, sins condemned by the Bible, Biblical condemnation for the perpetrators voiced by Ezekiel and other Prophets (as in Isaiah 57:3, 5 and elsewhere) is distorted by Talmudists and turned instead against the anti-Talmudists who condemn such sins. Small wonder Christ so excoriated and denounced Pharisaism.
The Talmud teaches that non-Jews have no property rights. Their possessions are "like unclaimed land in the desert." (See Jewish Encyclopedia, Exhibit 270) The illustration is given of the 4th Century notable Rabbi Ashi who, knowing this, acted accordingly and gave "an adroit and evasive answer" when questioned by the Gentile owner of a vineyard who overheard Ashi tell his slave to go into his vineyard and get him some grapes if the vineyard belonged to a Gentile, but not to take any if the owner be a Jew. "Is it permitted to take from a Gentile?" the owner asked. Ashi's evasive answer is given with the explanation that: "In truth Ashi coincided with the opinion of the authority stated above: namely, that … Gentile … property is considered public property, like unclaimed land in the desert." (See Exhibit 270)
The Talmudic authority which holds that Gentile property is like unclaimed land in the desert is the Talmud Book of Baba Bathra, Folio 54b, there cited. The passage actually appears on page 222 of the Soncino edition: "Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land; whoever first occupies it acquires ownership."
There are no labor union laws for Gentiles under Talmudic "religious" doctrine.
The Jewish Encyclopedia states, quoting the Talmud, Sanhedrin 58b:
"A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death … not even on Mondays is the Gentile allowed to rest — probably to discourage general idleness." (See Exhibit 272)
Another passage (not reproduced, page 399 of the Talmud, Soncino edition) states:
"A heathen who keeps a day of rest, deserves death … Their prohibition is their death sentence."
One wonders how these so-called "People of the Book" could ring the Bible in on that. However, after the word "death" in the above quotation from the Talmud is this: "For it is written, 'And a day and a night they shall not rest' (Genesis 8:22)."
But here is the actual Genesis verse:
"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and Summer and Winter, and day and night shall not cease."
No bearing whatsoever!
The above Talmudic "precepts" are certainly at variance with the fourth of the Ten Commandments, concerning the Sabbath day, in which this appears: "Thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." (Ex.20: 10) Obviously a "stranger" would be a human being, and even cattle get to rest on the Sabbath, under the Commandment. However, under Judaism, Gentiles rank even lower than cattle. And, this twisting of the Bible by the Pharasaical Judaists once again illustrates how they "follow Moses," in reverse.
The Jewish Encyclopedia (See Exhibit 269, left column) makes reference to the laws of Moses, Exodus xxi 35-36 Hebrews, providing for payment of damages if a man's ox gores and kills a neighbors ox, but states:
"Here the Gentile is excepted as he is not a neighbor …"
Perhaps the saying about right and wrong depending upon "whose ox is gored" originates with the Talmud, Baba Kamma 37b, which in any event aptly summarizes the doctrine of all Talmudism in terms of injury done by oxen.
Thus, if a Canaanite's (Gentile's) ox gores another Canaanite's ox or an Israelite's ox gores that of another Israelite, damages must be paid. But, if an Israelite's ox gores the ox of a non-Jew, or Canaanite, "There is no liability!" It makes no difference whether the animal was or was not fierce or a menace which should have been kept shut up. Injury done to the property of a "non-human Canaanite" by the property of a human is held to be perfectly legitimate. After all, one does not reimburse "non-humans" for their loss of property. (See Exhibit 39)
The Jewish Encyclopedia states (See Exhibit 269): "The Mishnah … declares that if a Gentile sued an Israelite, the verdict is for the defendant [the Jew]; If the Israelite is the plaintiff, he obtains full damages."
The Talmud, Book of Baba Kamma, 4th chapter and 3rd Mishnah, is then cited, which deals with ox-goring being acceptable if the ox belongs to a Jew and gores the ox of a non-Jew. (See Exhibit 39)
And in Baba Kamma, Folio 113b (not reproduced, page 664 of Soncino edition) is this:
"Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law;' so also if you can [page 19] justify him by the laws of the heathens, justify him and say to the other party: 'This is your law;' but if this cannot be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him."
Rabbi Akiba warns, however, against these subterfuges when there is a danger of exposing the true nature of Talmudic law, it being called a danger to the "sanctification of the Name" (of the Jewish god and religion). The same Talmud reference continues:
"Now, according to Rabbi Akiba the whole reason appears to be because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name we could circumvent him!" (Baba Kamma 113b)
A Gentile must not be taught the Torah (i.e. Talmudic precepts), because to "reveal their laws to Gentiles" might have operated against the Jews "in their opponents' Courts," states the Jewish Encyclopedia (see Exhibit 272). Furthermore, notes the same authority, a Jew who teaches a Gentile the Torah "deserves death."
Although some Jews look for a War Lord type of individual to help place Jewry on the throne of the World, the actual view of Judaism is that the Jewish people themselves comprise the Messiah, and their reign is the Messianic reign (actually foretold for Christ in the Bible). The tribulation foretold to precede the reign of Christ, in which Satanism strives to subdue the world, is scoffed at by the Talmud and called "fictitious." Babylonian power will not fall, says Judaism. The tribulation will be but "the throes of mother Zion which is in labor to bring forth the Messiah — without metaphor, the Jewish people." (See Exhibit 147, from the Talmud, Kethuboth 111a) In other words, to call the Jewish people the Messiah is no metaphor; they are literally just that; they are the "Messiah," says the Talmud.
A passage in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b (See Exhibit 100) records the exulting words of the Pharisee rabbis: "The Jews are destined to eat their fill in the days of messiah." Above these words is this: "When the ox runs and falls, the horse is put into his stall," which is explained thus: "It will be difficult to remove the Gentiles from their position without inflicting much suffering." And then: "The years of plenty which the Messiah will usher in will be enjoyed by the Israelites."
Bear in mind, once again, that the pagan Babylonian Talmudists have always stolen the Biblical names which should designate the followers of the Holy One of Israel (Christ), and who believe in Him and in the Israel prophets who foretold Him. Biblically and as previously noted, they are the sex-worshipping "Gentiles" and we are spiritually "Israel." But for better understanding of matters discussed herein, let them reverse these terms.
Of course, as more fully set out elsewhere in this book, the "Congregation of Israel" was never a racial entity, any more than is Catholicism or Protestantism. The Bible testifies to that.
A Talmud passage reads: "A Min [Christian] said to Rabbi Abbahu, 'When will the Messiah come?' He replied, 'When darkness covers those people' — Alluding to the questioner and his companions — 'You curse me,' he exclaimed." Concerning the "darkness" it is also stated: "The cock said to the bat, 'I look forward to the light, because I have sight; but of what use is the light to thee?'" And all this is explained in a footnote:
"Thus Israel should hope for the redemption, because it will be a day of light to them, but why should the Gentiles, seeing that for them it will be a day of darkness?" (See Exhibit 101)
Sodomy is an accepted privilege in Judaistic Talmudism, and we learn from the Talmud, Abodah Zara, 36b, 37a, (see Exhibit 188 and Exhibit 189) that the exception may be if the subject is a Gentile baby, and then only on the ground of alleged defilement. The "Sages" decree that a heathen child causes "defilement by seminal emission, so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty [i.e. sodomy] with him." Then a harangue commences as to the age when a heathen child starts defiling by discharges (which, in fact, are only possible after adolescence).
The standard idiotic Talmud doctrine is then repeated that a male is "capable of the sexual act" at "nine years and one day" and a female from the age of "three years and one day." From those ages on they can "defile" the Jew, goes the argument in this passage.
The Bible teaches:
"And ye shall not swear by name falsely … neither lie one to another … I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:11,12, etc.).
One of the handiest devices provided by the Talmudic "Sages" to offset Moses' laws against swearing falsely, is found in the Talmud book of Nedarim (Vows), and is put into practice yearly in every synagogue across the world as the "Kol Nidre" (all vows). (See Exhibit 171)
The text of the Kol Nidre may be found in the Jewish Encyclopedia [Exhibit 303]. Three times the Cantor, to a tune that sounds like the melodious grief of all ages, pompously intones the words: "All vows, obligations, oaths … whether called 'konam,' 'konas,' or by any other name, which we may vow or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void and made of no effect … . The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths."
The confirming reply of the Congregation is typical of blasphemous Judaistic misuse of the Bible. Three times a verse from Numbers is chanted. It actually concerns the duty of a congregation which has violated the laws of God, in ignorance, to repent, and states:
"And it shall be forgiven, all the congregation of Israel, [page 20] and the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance." (Numbers 15:26)
Here is a typical Talmudic situation: Knowingly, in advance, every shred of truth is to be cast away, with religious support. A Scriptural verse of no relevance whatsoever is used as justification.
With the Jewish Kol Nidre, not only is there no repentance involved, as in the Bible itself, but forthright, blatant disavowal and annulment of solemn oaths an entire year in advance.
The text of the Kol Nidre also appears in the Talmud, Book of Nedarim, 23a. (See Exhibit 171 and Exhibit 172)
The Talmud Mishna states: "EVERY VOW WHICH I MAY MAKE IN THE FUTURE SHALL BE NULL. HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID PROVIDING THAT HE REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW." The Kol Nidre is repeated on the following page. Discounting the irrelevant "filler" about a man eating with his friend, we see in a footnote (Exhibit 172):
"This may have provided support for the custom of reciting Kol Nidre (a formula for dispensation of vows) prior to the Evening Service of the Day of Atonement … . But Kol Nidre as part of the ritual is later than the Talmud … [as] the law of revocation in advance was not made public."
However, this advance disavowal of oaths, and sanction of perjury, did become known at various times. The Jewish Encyclopedia account [Exhibit 303] concerning Kol Nidre relates how this practice of revoking all vows to be made, a year in advance, was used in European countries to bar the oath of a Jew as of no value. Contemporaneously, however, as we have been in ignorance of the Kol Nidre and what it means, such oaths, no matter how valueless, are foolishly accepted in our Courts.
The "chief repository of the criminal law of the Talmud" (together with Makkoth or "beatings") is the book of Sanhedin (See Exhibit 43). The non-human status of the non-Jew so far as legal or human rights are concerned is reiterated in Sanhedrin 57a. (See Exhibit 57)
A footnote explains that the Talmudist censor inserted the word "Cuthean" in the text for the word goy or Gentile, thus deceiving a possible non-Jewish reader as to the real meaning.
To quote: (Exhibit 57):
"With respect to robbery — if one stole or robbed [Footnote: "by secret stealing or by open violence"] or seized a beautiful woman, or committed similar offenses, if these were perpetrated by one Cuthean against another, the theft, etc., must not be kept, and likewise the theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained."
Sufficient filler is then inserted in the footnotes to confuse the "goy" reader, with a reference to the footnote concerning Baba Kamma 37b (See Exhibit 39). There, the false supposition that non-Jews have no "laws of social justice" is said to justify an inhuman standard of immorality taught by the "ox-goring" Talmud reference previously mentioned herein, a standard repeated elsewhere throughout the whole Talmud.
On murder of Gentiles (Exhibit 57):
"For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred: but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty."
The same doctrine abides throughout the whole Talmud. Glancing at the Jewish Encyclopedia section on "Gentiles" we see that Rabbi Simon ben Yohai's edict is: "The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed."
Elsewhere, three and a half large pages are devoted to this Rabbi, whose black magic voodoo is venerated by the Cabalists in Talmudism. (See Jewish Encyclopedia under "Simeon ben Yohai.")
Exhibit 58 reproduces other Talmudic "religious" teachings about Gentiles. Applying it to "withholding of a laborer's wage. One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted," says the Talmud text.
Illustrating the twisted and tortured thinking of the Talmud "sages" a footnote states:
"This only borders on a robbery, for actual robbery means depriving a person of what he already possesses."
So, if a laborer never gets his wages, he cannot be robbed of what he never received! The "shyster mind" at work!
Sanhednn 58b of the Talmud (Exhibit 59) states that sodomy or: "Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew" and permits sodomy with a "neighbor's wife."
It also teaches that "If a heathen smites a Jew he is worthy of death." Then follows: "Rabbi Hanina also said: 'He who smites an Israelite on the jaw, is as though he had thus assaulted the Divine Presence.'"
By turning one word into another, and without rhyme or reason picking out a verse in Proverbs 20:25 ("It is a snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy …"), the precept is somehow then evolved that "One who smiteth man — that is an Israelite — attacketh the Holy One."
Throughout the Talmud it is basic Pharisee teaching that only Pharisee Jews are "men."
"A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death … it is our inheritance, not theirs … he is as guilty as one who violates a bethrothed maiden." (See Exhibit 60) This is sound Talmudic thinking, since knowledge of the anti-human criminality of the Talmud Torah must inevitably put non-Jews on their guard. The footnote explains (Exhibit 60):
"This seems a very strong expression … it is suggested that Rabbi Johanan feared the knowledge of Gentiles in matters of Jurisprudence, as they would use it against the Jews in their opponents' courts … the Talmud places R. [page 21] Johanan's dictum … immediately after the passage dealing with the setting up of law courts by Gentiles."
It is further explained that study of the Oral Law (Talmud) is what is feared and that the same R. Johanan said "God's covenant with Israel was only for the sake of the Oral Law [ie. Talmud]."
The overall Talmudic philosophy is that killing Gentiles is no more serious than merely killing wild animals.
Suppose, however, a Jew intends killing a Gentile, and accidently kills a Jew? Is he criminally liable? By Talmud standards the attempt to kill a Gentile so "sanctifies" a Jew that if he kills another "human," or Jew, in the attempt, the sin is washed away and there is no penalty.
The core of a long harangue in Sanhedrin, 78b-79a, is that if a Jew "intended killing … a heathen and he killed an Israelite … he is not liable." (See the Mishnah, Exhibit 90). After typical twaddle, this is repeated in the Gemara. (See Exhibit 91)
However (same Exhibit), if he intended killing one Israelite and killed another, he is liable.
On the next page of Sanhedrin (Exhibit 91) and weighing the "purity" of the killer's heart, it states if a Jew "threw a stone into a company of Israelites and heathens … . Shall we say the company consisted of nine heathens and one Israelite … his non-liability can be inferred from the fact that the majority were heathens … even if half and half … Since … we do not know whether he aimed at an Israelite or a heathen … he is not liable."
A footnote confirms that this "verse under discussion teaches that the murderer is not liable."
The American public has been drenched with propaganda concerning "brotherhood" between Christians and Jews, and Jew and non-Jew. Such propaganda could never be effective if the true nature of Talmudic Judaism were known.
My son, be careful to fulfill the words of the Sages [soferim] even more than the words of the Torah. For the words of the Torah include positive and negative commandments, and even with regard to the negative commandments, the violation of many of them is punishable only by lashes. Whereas with respect to the words of the Sages, anyone who transgresses the words of the Sages is liable to receive the death penalty [Talmud Eruvin 21b]
"be more careful in [the observance of] the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah"
