What The Jews Believe and Teach
This study is about Judaism and what the Jewish Rabbi�s actually teach about non-Jews, especially Christians. It is not exhaustive because such a book would take literally volumes to present all the teachings of Judaism, but is our attempt at putting it into a small compressed booklet form.
This is necessary because our people have been taught in the public (fools) school system to read only one or two pages of something and dismiss everything else. Or to read a small pamphlet or booklet and accept that as written proof of a subject instead of a complete study. We will start with the origin of the word anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism: The word anti-Semitism was an invention; H.H. Beamish, in a New York address, October 30 ‑ November 1, 1937: "In 1848 the word �anti‑Semitic� was invented by the Jews to prevent the use of the word �Jew.� The right word for them is �Jew�"
����������� We are told by Jewish authorities the same thing: "It was (is) the instinctive policy with the mass of the Jewish nation, a deliberate policy with most of its leaders, not only to use ridicule against anti-Semitism but to label as 'anti-Semitic' any discussion of the Jewish problem at all, or, for that matter, any information even on the Jewish problem...If a man alluded to the presence of a Jewish financial power in any region, for instance, in India, he was an anti-Semite.
If he interested himself in the peculiar character of Jewish philosophical discussions, especially in matters concerning religion, he was an anti-Semite. If the emigrations of the Jewish masses from country to country, the vast modern invasion of the United States, for instance (which has been organized and controlled like an army on the march), interested him as an historian, he could not speak of it under pain of being called an anti-Semite.
If he exposed a financial swindler who was a Jew, he was an anti-Semite. If he exposed a group of Parliamentarians taking money from the Jews, he was called an anti-Semite. If he did no more than call a Jew a Jew, he was an anti-Semite. You cannot long confuse interest with hatred, the statement of plain and important truths with mania, the discussion of fundamental questions with silly enthusiasm, for the same reason that you cannot long confuse truth with falsehood.
Sooner or later people are bound to remark that the defendant seems curiously anxious to avoid all investigation of his case...I say it was a fatal policy; but it was deliberately undertaken by the Jews. Christians must face them in this country (America). The Jew should be satisfied here. I was here forty‑seven years ago; your doors were thrown open to the Jews and they were free. No he has got you absolutely by the throat;� that is your reward." (Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, pp. 160-161)
If you have ever had any business dealings with the Jews you probably noticed that they very seldom kept their word, even a written contract, in the business you conducted with them. Well the reason that their word is not worth a plug nickel, so-to-speak, is because of the Kol Nidre Oath they take every year when they celebrate the Day of Atonement.
Kol Nidre: It is the prologue of the Day of Atonement services in the synagogues. It is recited three times by the standing congregation in concert with chanting rabbis at the alter. After the recital of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer the Day of Atonement religious ceremonies follow immediately. The Day of Atonement religious observances are the highest holy days of the "Jews" and are celebrated as such throughout the world. The official translation into English of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer is as follows: "All vows, obligations, oaths, anathemas, 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 unto the next, (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths."
The implications, inferences and innuendoes of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer are referred to in the Talmud in the Book of Nedarim, 23a‑23b as follows: "And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, every vow which I make in the future shall be null (1). (HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID) providing that he remembers this at the time of the vow." (Emphasis in original) A footnote (1) relates: "(1)...The Law of Revocation in advance was not made public." (Emphasis in original text)
The greatest study of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer was made by Theodor Reik, a pupil of the [I]nfamous Jewish Dr. Sigmund Freud. The analysis of the historic, religious and psychological background of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer by Professor Reik presents the Talmud in its true perspective.
This study is contained in "The Ritual, Psycho‑Analytical Studies." In the chapter on the Talmud, page 163, he states: "The text was to the effect that all oaths which believers take between one Day of Atonement and the next Day of Atonement are declared invalid."
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia confirms that the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer has no spiritual value as might be believed because it is recited in synagogues on the Day of Atonement as the prologue of the religious ceremonies which follow it. The secular significance of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer is forcefully indicated by the analysis in Vol. VI, page 441: "The Kol Nidre has nothing whatever to do with the actual idea of the Day of Atonement...it attained to extraordinary solemnity and popularity by reason of the fact that it was The first Prayer recited on this holiest of days."
Being amazed at this revelation on about the Kol Nidre, I happened to notice in the index the "Star of David." So I decided to look it up and see what the Jewish Encyclopedia had to say about it and found the following.
YThe �Sacred� Star of David: Non‑Jews have been drenched with propaganda that the six‑pointed "Star of David" is a sacred symbol of Jewry, dating from David and Solomon, in Biblical times, and signifying the pure "monotheism" of the Jewish religion. In actuality, the six‑pointed star, called "David's Shield," or "Magen David," was only adopted as a Jewish device in 1873, by the American Jewish Publication Society, it is not even mentioned in rabbinical literature.
YMagen Dawid ("David�s Shield" - The Star of David): �The hexagram formed by the combination of two equilateral trianglesY; used as the symbol of Judaism. It is placed upon synagogues, sacred vessels, and the like, and was adopted as a device by the American Publication Society in 1873, the Zionist Congress of Basel, hence by 'Die Welt (Vienna), the official organ of Zionism, and by other bodies.
�The hebra kaddisha of the Jewish community of Johannesburg, South Africa, calls itself 'Hebra Kaddisha zum Rothn Magen David,' following the designation of the 'red cross' societies...It is noteworthy, moreover, that the shield of David is not mentioned in Rabbinical Literature.
�The 'Magen Dawid,' therefore, probably did not originate within Rabbinism, the official and dominant Judaism for more than 2,000 years. Nevertheless a David's shield has recently been noted on a Jewish tombstone at Tarentum, in southern Italy, which may date as early as the third century of the common era. The earliest Jewish literary source which mentions it, the 'Eshkol ha‑Kofer' of the karaite Judah Hadassi (middle of the 12th cent.) says, inch. 242: 'Seven names of angels precede the mezuzah: Michael, Garield, etc...Tetragrammation protect thee!
�And likewise the sign called 'David's shield' is placed besides the name of each angel.' It was therefore, at this time a sign on amulets. In the magic papyri of antiquity, pentagrams, together with stars and other signs, are frequently found on amulets bearing the Jewish names of God, 'Sabaoth,' 'Adonai,' 'Eloai,' and used to guard against fever and other diseases. Curiously enough, only the pentacle appears, not the hexagram. In the great magic papyrus at Paris and London there are twenty‑two signs sided by side, and a circle with twelve signs, but neither a Pentacle nor a Hexagram (Wessely, i.e. pp. 31, 112), although there is a triangle, perhaps in place of the latter.
�In the many illustrations of amulets given by Budge in his 'Egyptian Magic' (London, 1899) not a single Pentacle or Hexagram appears. The Syncretism of Hellenistic, Jewish, and Coptic influences did not therefore, originate the symbol. It is probable that it was the Cabala that derived the symbol from the Templars.
The Cabala, in fact, makes use of this sign, arranging the Ten Sefirot, or spheres, in it, and placing in on Amulets. The pentagram, called Solomon's seal, is also used as a talisman, and Henry thinks that the Hindus derived it from the Semites [Here is another case where the Jews admit they are not Semites. Can you not see it? The Jew Henry thinks it was derived originally FROM THE SEMITES! Here is a Jew admitting that The Jews are not Semites!] ('Magic dans l'lude Antique,' p. 93, Paris, 1904), although the name by no means proves the Jewish or Semitic origin of the sign.
The Hindus likewise employed the hexagram as a means of protection, and as such it is mentioned in the earliest source, quoted above. In the synagogues, perhaps, it took the place of the mezuzah, and the name 'Shield of David� may have been given it in virtue of its protective powers.
The hexagram may have been employed originally also as an architectural ornament on synagogues, as it is, for example, on the cathedrals of Brandenburg and Stendal, and on the Marktkirche at Hanover.
�A pentacle in this form, (a five pointed star is shown here), is found on the ancient synagogue at Tell Hum. Charles IV, prescribed for the Jews of Prague, in 1354, a Red Flag with both David�s Shield and Solomon�s Seal, while the Red Flag with which the Jews met King Matthias of Hungary in the fifteenth century showed two pentacles with two golden stars. The pentacle, therefore, may also have been used among the Jews. It occurs in a manuscript as early as the year 1073. However, the six‑pointed star has been used for centuries for magic amulets and cabalistic sorcery." (See pages 548, 549 and 550 of the Jewish Encyclopedia)
The religion practiced by the Pharisees in Jesus' time was based exclusively on the Babylonian Talmud. This, according to Rabbi Morris Kertzer,
"The Talmud consists of 63 books of legal, ethical and historical writings of the ancient rabbis. It was edited five centuries after the birth of Jesus. It is a compendium of law and lore. It is the legal code which forms the basis of Jewish Religious Law and it is the textbook used in the Training of Rabbis."
The Talmud: In his lifetime Michael Rodkinson, the assumed name of a "Jew" who was one of the world's great authorities on the Talmud, wrote "History of the Talmud." This classic on the subject was written by Michael Rodkinson in collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi Isaac M. Wise.
History of the Talmud: In his "History of the Talmud" Michael Rodkinson, on page 70, states:
"Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, on moral and religious subjects, which were current in his time, and must have been evaluated by him during those thirty silent years when he was pondering his future mission (Christ, during these thirty years, had sailed to England with His uncle, Joseph of Armatheia, where He built the first church in England. It is known today as Glastonbury and the land it sits on has never been taxed by the British Government. The Jews tried to destroy it many years ago, but failed. Although badly damaged it still stands today)? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis answer by holding up The Talmud...and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one to every Christian. What is the Talmud? The Talmud, then, is the written form of that which, in the time of Christ, was called the Traditions of the Elders and to which he makes frequent allusions."
Arsene Darmester in the book "The Talmud" states:
"Judaism finds its expression in the Talmud, it is not a remote suggestion and a faint echo thereof, but it...has become incarnate, in which it has taken form, passing from a state of abstraction into the domain of real things. The study of Judaism is that of the Talmud, as the study of the Talmud is that of Judaism...they are two inseparable things...they are one and the same... the Talmud, is a complete expression of religious movement, and this code of endless presumptions and minute ceremonials represents in its perfection the total work of the religious idea...
�The miracle was accomplished by a book, The Talmud...The Talmud is composed of two distinct parts the Mishna and the Gemara; the former the text, the latter a commentary upon the text...term Mishna we designate a collection of decisions and traditional laws embracing all departments of legislation, civil and religious...
�This code, the work of several generations of rabbis...nothing can equal the importance of the Talmud unless it be the ignorance that prevails concerning it...This explains how it happens that a single page of the Talmud contains three or four different languages, or rather specimens of one language at three or four stages of degeneracy...many a Mishna of five or six lines is accompanied by fifty or sixty pages of explanation...is law in all its authority; it constitutes dogma and cult; it is the fundamental element of the Talmud...The daily study of the Talmud which among Jews begins with the age of ten to end with life itself necessarily was a severe gymnastic for the mind, thinks to which it acquired incomparable subtlety and acumen. To establish for Judaism a 'Corpus Juris Eccleiastict!'"�
For years we have studied and researched as much as possible so as to know about Satan's schemes and the methodologies he employs for each deception. And these studies encompassed the history of mankind's seduction of Satan, from its genesis to our modern times. Without doubt, and with a high degree of certainty I believed there were no more dark mysteries that needed uncovering.
We came across some interesting material. Material, which reeks blasphemy and even till this day has bewildered my ability to comprehend how for the most part, that such blasphemous information had remained hidden from public viewing.
And more astounding except for a short period during the medieval times and a few other rare occurrences this material also has for the past two thousand years been kept hidden from the Christian community.
This material which is of Jewish origin is known as the Babylonian Talmud (oral law) and Zohar (hidden mysteries/wisdom). And contrary to that, which is commonly taught throughout Christianity that the Torah (written law, which consist of the five books of Moses, also known as the Pentateuch) is the primary teaching of Judaism is a Deliberate Deceptive Lie, the two ancient Jewish Teachings (Babylonian Talmud and Zohar) are the true essence of Judaism. At the time of Christ, the Talmudic teachings, which were taught by the Scribes and Pharisees, was known as the 'Traditions of the Elders'. And the Zoharic teachings were then known as 'Merkabah.'
The rabbis of Judaism teach that Moses received three teachings from God on Mount Sania. Which are, the written law (the Torah), the commandments or oral law (the Talmud, Mishnah) and the hidden mysteries/wisdom (the Zohar). Perspectively, the rabbi reads or recites passages from the Torah.
Yet the Jews say:
"There never was a time when any Jew believed that Jehovah spoke to Moses or to the Prophets in any other sense than we believe today that God - that is, existence - reveals himself through the minds of a Spinoza, a Hegel, a Marx, an Einstein and the like." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 217)
The Talmud, on the other hand is the interpretation of the Torah. And the Zohar is the hidden or deeper meaning of the Torah. In essence, when a rabbi teaches Torah, he expounds from the Talmud. And when a rabbi or an elite (Tzadik) of Judaism, Hassidic (ultra orthodox) want to understand the deeper meaning of Torah, they study or contemplate Zohar.
The scope of these two ancient teachings is voluminous. Where the Hebrew version of the Talmud encompasses 26 volumes and the English translation known as the Soncino edition contains 16 volumes. And the Zohar (which is also known as the 'Book of Splendor') is not as large as the Talmudic work, but also is quite extensive with the English Soncino edition covering 4 volumes.
Note, within the scope of this article it would be impossible to expound on the teachings of the Talmud to great length. Notwithstanding, it is my hope that from this article, the reader would at least ascertain a key that could open the door to understanding the grandest of all the hidden mysteries' of Satan. And more importantly, because a large percentage of the New Testament writings warn us of these blasphemous teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees (Rabbinical Judaism), it is also my hope that the reader attain a greater understanding of the Truth which the Gospel contains.
Prior to my present knowledge of the true teachings of Judaism, we perceived Judaism as a religious body, who had failed to emulate the teachings and writings of the Old Testament. However, from my own research reviewing large segments from both the Talmud and Zohar writings, we now know that my earlier perception of Judaism was immensely off based.
In other words, we now know that the Jews did not fail in their efforts to live accordingly to the written law, instead what they did, by the Talmudic teachings they rewrote God's commandments in such away and to such a degree that God's commandments became corrupt and non effective. Also, we now have a better understanding why Jesus was so adamant in declaring judgment and condemnation upon the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees:
NKJV Luke 11:52; "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."
���� Comparing The Talmud With The Scriptures
KJV Matthew 16:6; Then Jesus said unto them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."
In order to grasp the significance and depth of these heretical teachings; let us examine excerpts from the Babylonian Talmud.
Note: Warning, the following material to some may be repulsive and disillusioning. Nevertheless, as incredible and shocking it is, the following are excerpts verbatim taken from my own private collection of Soncino's English edition of the Babylonian Talmud.
The Talmud:
The Bible:
EXODUS 20:3; "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Thus saith the LORD�!
Yet, Rabbi Says; Regarding Devotion to Other gods, There are Ways that are Permissible � "Mishnah. He who gives of his seed (His children) to Molech incurs no punishment unless he delivers it to Molech and causes it to pass through the fire. If he gave it to Molech but did not cause it to pass through the fire, or the reverse, he incurs no penalty, unless he does both."
"GEMARA. The Mishnah teaches idolatry and giving to Molech. R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, [if one causes his seed to pass through the fire,] whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable [to death]. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 64a)
��������������������������������������� *******
EXODUS 20:7; "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Thus saith the LORD�!
�
Yet, Rabbi Says; If Your Anger is not Directed towards God, it is Permissible to Profane God's name �� "For blasphemy is an indictable offence only if it is mentally directed against God. If however, one reviles the Divine Name, whilst mentally employing it to denote some other object, he is not punished. Consequently, since the essence of the offence is mental, the slight action is disregarded." (Footnote #17, Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 65a).
��������������������������
EXODUS 20:4; "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" Thus saith the LORD�!
Yet, Rabbi Says; Only when the Last Stroke is made is the Thing Considered an Idol � "When, however, he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed [He must not build]. Said R. Eleazar in the name of R. Johanan: If, however, he did build, the pay he received is permitted. This surely is obvious: it is a case of appurtenances of idols, and appurtenances of idols, whether according to R. Ishmael or according to R. Akiba, are not forbidden till actually worshiped! � Said R. Jeremiah: It is necessary in the case of the idol itself. This would be right according to the one who holds that [to derive any benefit from] the making of an idol for an Israelite is forbidden forthwith, but from the making of one for an idolater, not until it is worshiped. In that case this is very well; but according to the one who holds that even when made for an idolater [any benefit] is forbidden forthwith, what is there to be said?;� But, said Rabbah b. �Ulla, the statement is necessary in regard to the last stroke of work; for what is it that makes the idol fit for worship? It is its completion; and when is the completion brought about? With the last stroke. But the last stroke does not constitute the value of a perutah! Consequently, he holds the opinion that the wage is earned from the beginning to the end [of the work]." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Avodah Zarah 19b)
EXODUS 20:8‑10; "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it 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:" Thus saith the LORD�!
Yet, Rabbi Says; Only for the Purpose of Destruction, is work Permissible during Sabbath � "One is not liable for desecrating the Sabbath when his work is destructive; but if he demolishes a house in order to rebuild, it is regarded as constructive. Now, extinguishing a wick, thereby destroying its light, is the equivalent of demolishing a house; if the purpose is to save the wick to be used again later, it is analogous to demolishing a house to build on the same site, since it is the wick which is extinguished and the wick which is to be relit. But if the purpose is to save the oil or the lamp, it is analogous to demolishing a house in order to rebuild elsewhere, for whereas the wick is extinguished, it is the oil or lamp that is saved for subsequent use." (footnote: Talmud ‑ Mas. Shabbath 31b).
��������������������������������������� *******
EXODUS 20:12; "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." Thus saith the LORD�!�
Yet, Rabbi Says; It is Permissible to Strike Parents As long as You do not Wound Them � "Mishnah. He who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than smiting, for, he who curses [his parents] after death is liable, whilst he who smites them after death is not." (Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 85b)
Yet, Rabbi Says; it is Permissible to Curse Parents As long as You do not use God's name � "Mishnah. One who curses his father or his mother is not punished unless he curses them by the divine name. If he cursed them by an attribute, R. Meir held him liable, but the sages ruled that he is exempt." (Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 66a).
EXODUS 20:13; "Thou shalt not kill." Thus saith the LORD�!
Yet, Rabbi Says; Only if the Assailant directly Caused the Death is he Responsible � "Mishnah. The following are decapitated: a murderer, and the inhabitants of a seduced city. A murderer who slew his fellow with a stone or an iron, or kept him down under water or in fire, so that he could not ascend thence, is executed. If he pushed him into water or fire, but so that he could ascend, yet he died, he is free [From Death]. If he set on a dog or a snake against him [And they killed him], he is free from death. But if he caused a snake to bite him [By putting his jaws against him] � R. Judah ruled that he is executed; the sages, that he is not."
"Or kept him down under water. The first clause teaches the extreme limit of the law, and so does the last. Thus, the first clause teaches the extreme limit of the law, that though he himself did not push him [into the water], yet since he could not ascend, [through being held down], and so died, he is executed. The last clause likewise teaches the extreme limit, that though he actually pushed him into the water, yet since he could have ascended, but died, he is free from death." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 76b)
"Raba said: If one bound his neighbor and he died of starvation, he is not liable to execution. Raba also said: If he bound him in the sun, and he died, or in a place of intense cold and he died, he is liable; but if the sun was yet to appear, or the cold to make itself felt, he is not. Raba also said: If he bound him before a lion, he is not liable: before mosquitoes, [who stung him to death] he is. R. Ashi said: Even before mosquitoes, he is not liable, because these go and others come." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 77a)
�
"It has been stated: If one overturned a vat upon a man [who then died of suffocation], or broke open a ceiling above him, � Raba and R. Zera [differ]: One ruled that he is liable, the other that he is not. It can be proved that it was Raba who ruled that he is not liable, for he said: If one bound his neighbor and he dies of starvation, he is not liable." "Raba said: If one thrust his neighbor into a pit, in which there was a ladder [so that he could have climbed out], and then another came and removed it, or even if himself hastened to remove it, he is not liable [for the victim's death], because when he threw him in he could have climbed out. Raba also said: If one shot an arrow at his neighbor, who was� holding a shield, but another came and snatched it away, or even if he himself [the thrower] hastened to do so, he is not liable, because when he shot the arrow its force was spent." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 77a)
�
"Our Rabbis taught: If ten men smote a man with ten staves, whether simultaneously or successively, and he died, they are exempt. R. Judah b. Bathyra said: If successively, the last is liable, because he struck the actual death blow. R. Johanan said: Both derive [their rulings] from the same verse, And he that killeth kol nefesh [lit., �all life�] of man shall surely be put to death. The Rabbis maintain that kol nefesh implies the whole life; but R. Judah b. Bathyra holds that� kol nefesh implies whatever there is of life." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 78a)
�
"If he set on a dog or a snake against him, etc."
"R. Aha b. Jacob said: If you will investigate [the grounds of the dispute, you will learn that] in R. Judah's opinion the snake's poison is lodged in its fangs, therefore, one who causes it to bite [by placing its fangs against the victim's flesh] is decapitated, whilst the snake itself is exempt. But in the view of the Sages the snake emits the poison of its own accord; therefore the snake is stoned, whilst he who caused it to bite is exempt."� (Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 78a).
��������������������������������������� *******
EXODUS 20:14; "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Thus saith the LORD�!
Yet, Rabbi Says; When a Woman has Sexual Intercourse with a Boy the Degree of Wrong is as Being Injured by a Piece of Wood;�
"GEMARA. Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown‑up woman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood. When I said it before Samuel he said: �Injured by a piece of wood� does not apply to flesh. Some teach this teaching by itself: [As to] a small boy who has intercourse with a grown‑up woman. Rab said, he makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood; whereas Samuel said: �Injured by a piece of wood� does not apply to flesh. R." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Kethuboth 11b)
Yet, Rabbi Says; When a man has Intercourse with a Little Girl it is Nothing �
"Raba said. It means this: When a grown‑up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown‑up woman he makes her as �a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.� and [with regard to the case of] �a girl injured by a piece of wood.� itself, there is the difference of opinion between R. Meir and the Sages." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Kethuboth 11b)
Yet, Rabbi Says; A LITTLE GIRL MUST BE THREE YEARS OLD TO HAVE INTERCOURSE;
"An objection was raised: A GIRL OF THE AGE OF THREE YEARS AND EVEN ONE OF THE AGE OF TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED BY INTERCOURSE; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Nidah 44b)
Yet, Rabbi Says; If A LITTLE GIRL IS FORCED TO HAVE INTERCOURSE BEFORE SHE IS THREE, NO PROBLEM, ON THE THIRD TIME IT IS AS THOUGH A FINGER BEING DIPPED IN HONEY;�
"Our Rabbis taught: A story is told of a certain woman who came before R. Akiba and said to him, �Master, intercourse has been forced upon me when I was under three years of age; what is my position towards the priesthood?� �You are fit for the priesthood�, he replied. �Master�, she continued, �I will give you a comparison; to what may the incident be compared? To a babe whose finger was submerged in honey. The first time and the second time he cries about it, but the third time he sucks it�." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Nidah 45a)
Intercourse with Animals...
"This represents the view of R. Meir, while Rab holds the same view as R. Eleazar. If [Rab holds the same view] as R. Eleazar, what was the object of pointing to her previous carnal intercourse when [her prohibition] could have been inferred from the fact that she was a harlot, R. Eleazar having stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with an unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot!
R. Joseph replied: When, for instance, the woman was subjected to intercourse with a beast, where the reason of �previous carnal intercourse may be applied but not that of harlot. Said Abaye to him: Whatever you prefer [your reply cannot be upheld], If she is a be'ulah she must also be a harlot; and if she is not a harlot she cannot be a be'ulah either! And were you to reply: This case is similar to that of a wounded woman, [it may be pointed out] that if [the disqualification should be extended to] unnatural intercourse also, you will find no woman eligible to marry a [High Priest [since there is not one] who has not been in some way wounded by a splinter! No, said R. Zera, in respect of a minor who made a declaration of refusal."
Yet, Rabbi Says; A Women who had Intercourse with an Animal is Eligible to Marry a Priest � "R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest. Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being, though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning, is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest." "When R. Dimi came he related: It once happened at Haitalu that while a young woman was sweeping the floor a village dog covered her from the rear, and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest. But was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi? � Rather, [Samuel meant]: Fit for a High Priest."
"Raba of Parzakaia said to R. Ashi: Whence is derived the following statement which the Rabbis made: Harlotry is not applicable to bestial intercourse? � It is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, and yet we learned that the hire of a dog and the price of a harlot are permitted because it is said, Even both these, two only but not four." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Yevamoth 59b).
��������������������������������������� *******
EXODUS 20:15; "Thou shalt not steal." Thus saith the LORD�!
Yet, Rabbi Says; "Scripturally, Only the Abduction of Human Beings is to be Considered Stealing � "R. Josiah said: From Thou shalt not steal. R. Johanan said: From They shall not be sold as bondsmen. Now, there is no dispute: one Master states the prohibition for stealing [i.e., abduction], the other Master for selling [the kidnaped person]. "
"Our Rabbis taught: Thou shalt not steal;� Scripture refers to the stealing of human beings. You say, Scripture refers to the stealing of human beings; but perhaps it is not so, the theft of property [lit., �money�] being meant? � I will tell you: Go forth and learn from the thirteen principles whereby the Torah is interpreted. [one of which is that] a law is interpreted by its general context: of what does the text speak? of [crimes involving] capital punishment: hence this too refers [to a crime involving] capital punishment."
"Another [Baraitha] taught: Ye shall not steal: The Writ refers to theft of property. You say thus, but perhaps it is not so, Scripture referring to the theft of human beings? I will tell you: Go forth and learn from the thirteen principles whereby the Torah is interpreted,[one of which is that] a law is interpreted by its general context. Of what does the text speak? of money matters; therefore this too refuse to a money [theft]." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 86a)
"It was taught: R. Phinehas b. Yair said that where there was a danger of causing a profanation of the Name, even the retaining of a lost article of a heathen is a crime. Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were supposed to be a hundred while he similarly left him minus one zuz and said to him: �See that I am relying upon you.� Rabina together with a heathen bought a palm‑tree to chop up [and divide]. He thereupon said to his attendant: Quick, bring to me the parts near to the roots, for the heathen is interested only in the number [but not in the quality].
R. Ashi was once walking on the road when he noticed branches of vines outside a vineyard upon which ripe clusters of grapes were hanging. He said to his attendant: �Go and see, if they belong to a heathen bring them to me, but if to an Israelite do not bring them to me.�
The heathen happened to be then sitting in the vineyard and thus overheard this conversation, so he said to him: �If of a heathen would they be permitted?� � He replied: �A heathen is usually prepared to [dispose of his grapes and] accept payment, whereas an Israelite is generally not prepared to [do so and] accept payment." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Baba Kama 113b).
EXODUS 20:16; "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Thus saith the LORD�!
Yet Rabbi Says; Burn the books of the Minim (pseudonym for Christians) � "The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim (Christians), we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them, and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand. For even if one pursued me to slay me, or a snake pursued me to bite me, I would enter a heathen Temple [for refuge], but not the houses of these [people] (Christians), for the latter know (of God] yet deny [Him], whereas the former are ignorant and deny [Him], and of them the Writ saith, and behind the doors and the posts hast thou set up thy memorial. R. Ishmael said: [One can reason] a minori: If in order to make peace between man and wife the Torah decreed, Let my Name, written in sanctity, be blotted out in water, these, who stir up jealousy, enmity, and wrath between Israel and their Father in Heaven, how much more so; and of them David said, Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate then with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. And just as we may not rescue them from a fire, so may we not rescue them from a collapse [of debris] or from water or from anything that may destroy them" (alluding to Christians). (Talmud ‑ Mas. Shabbath 116a).
��������������������������������������� *******
EXODUS 20:17; "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Saith the LORD�!
Yet Rabbi Says; It is Permissible to Steal a heathen's (Gentile) Lost Property � "R. Bibi b. Giddal said that R. Simeon the pious stated: The robbery of a heathen is prohibited, though an article lost by him is permissible. His robbery is prohibited, for R. Huna said: Whence do we learn that the robbery of a heathen is prohibited? Because it says: �And thou shalt consume all the peoples that the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee�; only in the time [of war] when they were delivered in thy hand [as enemies] this is permitted, whereas this is not so in the time [of peace] when they are not delivered in thy hand [as enemies]. His lost article is permissible, for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible? Because it says: And with all lost thing of thy brother's: it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen. But why not say that this applies only where the lost article has not yet come into the possession of the finder, in which case he is under no obligation to look round for it, whereas if it had already entered his possession, why not say that he should return it. � Said Rabina: And thou hast found it surely implies that the lost article has already come into his possession." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Baba Kama 113b).
Rabbi Says, Heathens (Gentiles) are not Considered as Man, but Instead are on a Level as Animals � "�Or uses oil of anointing. Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over heathens or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: Upon the flesh of man [adam] shall it not be poured; and cattle and vessels are not man. Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called corpse and not man. But why is one exempt in the case of heathens; are they not in the category of adam? � No, it is written: And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are adam [man]: Ye are called adam but heathens are not called �adam. But is it not written: And the persons [adam] were sixteen thousand? � Because it is used in opposition to cattle. But is it not written: And should I not have pity on Nineveh [that great city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons [adam]? � This too is used in opposition to cattle. Or, if you wish, I might explain it in the light of what a Tanna recited before R. Eleazar: Whosoever is subject to the prohibition �he shall not pour� is subject to [the law] �it shall not be poured [over him]�; but he who is not subject to �he shall not pour� is not subject to �it shall not be poured [over him]�." (Talmud ‑ Mas. K'rithoth 6b).
Rabbi Says, Heathen's Prefer having Intercourse with Israelite Cattle over Their Own Wives � "Said Mar �Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens (Gentiles/Cutherans) frequent their neighbors� wives, and should one by chance not find her in, and find the cattle there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he should find her in he might use the animal, as a Master has said: Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives, for R. Johanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her. If that be so [the same should apply] also to Israel! �" (Talmud ‑ Mas. Avodah Zarah 22b).
Note, the passages which follow are those which the Talmudic Rabbis portray Jesus Christ. The pseudonym Balaam, is used in place of Jesus' name. The reason the Jewish editors used the pseudonym is because of earlier persecutions and censorship from the secular‑Christian communities over the past 2,000 years. Furthermore, it is extremely important to note that even though the Talmud advocates a coming Messiah, the Messiah that is advocated is not Jesus Christ but an entirely different Messiah.
We mentioned this because throughout Christendom today, many false Judeo-Christian teachers are teaching that the Talmudic writings allude to the coming Messiah. Yes, it is true that a Messiah is coming. However, as Christians we are taught that the Messiah has come already, and the next coming we await is His second coming. Therefore, since we are waiting for Messiah's second coming, the Messia which the Talmud alludes to obviously differs from the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
What The Talmud Teaches About Christ and Christians
This is how the articles look in the Talmud itself:
Sanhedrin, 55b-55a: "What is meant by this? - Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilty (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be beastally abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5)."
(footnotes)��� ����������
"(1) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated in supra 54a, guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor; i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn.� ��
(2) Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
(3) At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
(4) Lev XVIII, 22
(5) Rashi reads ("xxx") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) instead of ("zzz") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day, who commits etc.
There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first-a male aged nine years and a day - refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning: because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day?
Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable."
Sanhedrin, 55b: "A Maiden three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition (Sexual Intercourse), and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea)."
(footnotes) ��
"(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving. �������
(3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew.
(4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction 'to his wife but not to his neighbor's wife' is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse."
Sanhedrin, 69a: "'A man'; from this I know the law only with respect to a man: whence do I know it of one aged nine years and a day who is capable of intercourse? From the verse, And 'if a man'? (2)-He replied: such a minor can produce semen, but cannot beget therewith; for it is like the seed of cereals less than a third grown (3)."
(footnotes)���
(2) 'And' (') indicates an extension of the law, and is here interpreted to include a minor aged nine years and a day.�
(3) Such cereals contain seed, which if sown, however, will not grow."
Sanhedrin, 69b: "Our rabbis taught: 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 for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declare her fit...All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.
(footnotes)
(1) i.e., she becomes a harlot whom a priest may not marry (Lev XXL,7.). ����������
(2) 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 Shammai agree that she is not."
Kethuboth, 5b: "The question was asked: Is it allowed (15) to perform the first marital act on the Sabbath? (16). Is the blood (in the womb) stored up (17), or is it the result of a wound? (18).
(footnotes)
"(15) Lit., 'how is it'? �������
(16) When the intercourse could not take place before the Sabbath (Tosaf)
(17) And the intercourse would be allowed, since the blood flows out of its own accord, no would having been made.�
(18) Lit., or is it wounded? And the intercourse would be forbidden."
Kethuboth, 10a-10b: "Someone came before Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi (and) said to him, 'my master I have had intercourse (with my newly wedded wife) and I have not found any blood (7). She (the wife) to him, 'My master, I am still a virgin'. He (then) said to them;
Bring me two handmaids, one (who is) a virgin and one who had intercourse with a man. They brought to him (two such handmaids), and he placed them on a cask of wine. (In the case of) the one who was no more a virgin its smell (1) went through (2), (in the case of) the virgin the smell did not go through (3). He (then) placed this one (the young wife) also (on the cask of wine), and its smell (4) did not go through. He (then) said to him: Go, be happy with thy bargain (7). But he should have examined her from the beginning (8)."
(footnotes) ��
"(1) i.e., the smell of wine.
(2) One could smell the wine from the mouth (Rashi).
(3) One could not smell the wine from the mouth.
(4) i.e., the smell of wine.
(5) Rabban Gamaliel
(6) To the husband.
(7) The test showed that the wife was a virgin.
(8) Why did he first have to experiment with the two handmaids."
Kethuboth, 11a-11b: "Rabba said, It means (5) this: WHEN A GROWN UP MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A LITTLE GIRL IT IS NOTHING, FOR WHEN THE GIRL IS LESS THAN THIS (6), IT IS AS IF ONE PUTS THE FINGER IN THE EYE (7), BUT WHEN A SMALL BOY HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN UP WOMAN, HE MAKES HER AS �A GIRL WHO IS INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD.'"
(footnotes) ��
"(5). Lit., 'says.' ����
(6) Lit., 'here,' that is, less than three years old.
(7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years."
Kethuboth, 11a-11b: "Rab Judah said that Rab said: A SMALL BOY WHO HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A� GROWN UP WOMAN MAKES HER (as though she were ) INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood."
(footnotes)���
"(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood." �
Hayorath, 4a: "We learnt: (The law concerning the menstruan occurs in the Torah but if a man has intercourse with a woman that a waits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt. But why? Surely (the law concerning) a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day is mentioned in the Scriptures: He hath made naked her fountain. But, surely it is written, (1) They might rule that in the natural way even the first stage of contact is forbidden; and in an unnatural way, however, is (that the ruling might have been permitted) (3) even in the natural way (4) alleging (that the prohibition of) the first stage (5) has reference to a menstruant woman only (6). And if you prefer I might say: The ruling may have been that a woman is not regarded as a zabah (7) except during the daytime because it is written, all the days of her issue (8)."
(footnotes) ��
"(13) Lev. XV, 28.�
(14) Cf. supra p. 17, n. 10. Since she is thus Biblically considered unclean how could a court rule that one having intercourse with her is exempt?
(15) Lev XX, 18.
(1) Ibid. 13. The plural "xxxx" (Hebrew characters, Ed.) implies natural, and unnatural intercourse.
(2) Why then was the case of 'a woman who awaits a day corresponding to a day' given as an illustration when the case of a menstruant, already mentioned, would apply the same illustration.
(3) The first stage of contact.
(4) In the case of one 'who awaits a day corresponding to a day'; only consummation of coition being forbidden in her case.
(5) Cf. Lev XX, 18.
(6) Thus permitting a forbidden act which the Sadducees do not admit.
(7) A woman who has an issue of blood not in the time of her menstruation, and is subject to certain laws of uncleanness and purification (Lev XV, 25ff).
(8) Lev XV, 26. Emphasis being laid on days."
Abodah Zarah, 36b-37a: R. Na"ham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it...From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.
(footnotes) ��
(2). Even through he suffered from no issue. �
Sotah, 26b: "R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is no adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no 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.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)...As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?"
(footnotes)���
"(4) She would not be prohibited to her husband for such an act.����
(5) farausag near Baghdad v. BB. (Sonc. Ed.) p. 15, n.4. He is thus distinguished from the earlier Rabbi of that name.
(6) Deut. XXIII, 19.
(7) Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal a adultery.
(8) If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be offered.
(9) Are an abomination unto the Lord (ibid).
(10) Viz., the other two mentioned by the Rabbi.
(11) In Num. V. 13. since the law applies to a man who is incapable.
(12) Lev. XVIII, 22. The word for 'lying' is in the plural and is explained as denoting also unnatural intercourse.
(13) With the other man, although there is no actual coition."
Yebamoth, 55b: "Raba said; for what purpose did the All- Merciful write 'carnally' in connection with the designated bondmaid (9), a married woman (10) and a sotah (11)? That in connection with the designated bondmaid (is required) as has just been explained (12).
That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum (13). 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 (14); what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains (that for such an act one is) guilty? The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman (15). Since it might have been assumed that, as (a wife), even after her death, is described as his kin (16), one should be guilty for (intercourse with) her (as for that) with a married woman, hence we are taught (that one is exonerated).
(footnotes) ��
(9) Lev. XIX,20.���
(10) Ibid. XVIII,20.
(11) Num. V, 13.
(12) SUPRA 55a.
(13) Since no fertilization can possibly occur.
(14) Shebu., 18a, Sanh. 55a.
(15) Even though she dies as a married woman.
(16) In Lev. XXI, 2. where the text enumerates the dead relatives for whom a priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin refers to one's wife."
Yebamoth, 103a-103b: "When the serpent copulated with Eve (14) with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai (16) came to an end, the lust of idolaters who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end."
(footnotes) ��
"(14) In the Garden of Eden, according to tradition.
(15) i.e., the human species.��������
(16) And experienced the purifying influence of divine Revelation."
Yebamoth, 63a: "R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (5)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.
(footnotes)���
"(5) Gen. II, 23. emphasis on This is now." ����
Yebamoth, 60b: "As R. Joshua b. Levi related: 'There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day (14), and rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest (15)."
(footnotes)���
"(13) A proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.
(14) And was married to a priest.
(15) i.e., permitted to continue to live with her husband."
Yebamoth, 59b: "R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest (4). Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being (5), though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning (6), is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest (7).
(footnotes)
"(4) Even a High Priest. 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 so regard such an intercourse either.��������
(5) A beast.
(6) If the offense was committed in the presence of witnesses after due warning.
(7) In the absence of witnesses and warning."
Yebamoth, 12b: "R. Bebai recited before R. Naham: Three (categories of) woman may (7) use an absorbent (8) in their marital intercourse (9), a minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. THE MINOR (10) BECAUSE (otherwise) she might (11) become pregnant, and as a result (11) might die...and what is the age of such a minor? (14). From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day, one who is under (15), or over this age (16) must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner."
(footnotes)���
"(7) (so Rashi. R. Tam; Should use, v. Tosaf s.v.)�������
(8) Hackled wool or flax.
(9) To prevent conception.
(10) May use an absorbent.
(11) Lit., 'perhaps.'
(14) Who is capable of conception but exposed thereby to the danger of death.
(15) When no conception is possible.
(16) When pregnancy involves no fatal consequences."
Yebamoth, 59b: "When R. Dimi came (8) he related: It once happened at Haitalu (9) that while a young woman was sweeping the floor (10) a village dog (11) covered her from the rear (12) and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest.
(footnotes)���
"(8) From Palestine to Babylon��
(9) (Babylonian form for Aitulu, modern Aiterun N.W. of Kadesh, v. S. Klein, Beitrage, p. 47).
(10) Lit., 'house.'
(11) Or 'big hunting dog' (Rashi), 'ferocious dog' (Jast.), 'small wild dog' (Aruk).
(12) A case of unnatural intercourse.
Kethuboth, 6b: "Said he to him: Not like those Babylonians who are not skilled in moving aside (This means a man who has intercourse with a virgin in such a way that he does not destroy her maiden head). (7), but there are some who are skilled in moving aside (8). If so, why (give the reason of) 'anxious.? (10) for one who is not skilled. (Then) let the[m] say: One who is skilled is allowed (to perform the first intercourse on Sabbath), one who is not skilled is forbidden? Most (people) are skilled (11). Said Raba the son of R. Hanan to Abaye' If this were so, then why (have) groomsmen (12) why (have) a sheet? (13)- He (Abaye) said to him: There (the groomsmen and the sheet are necessary) perhaps he will see and destroy (the tokens of her virginity) (14).
(footnotes)���
"(7) i.e., having intercourse with a virgin without causing a bleeding.��������
(8) Thus no blood need come out, and 'Let his head be cut off and let him not die!' does not apply.
(9) If the bridegroom is skilled in 'moving sideways.'
(10) He need not be anxious about the intercourse and should not be free from reading Shema' on account of such anxiety.
(11) Therefor the principle regarding 'Let his head be cut off and let him not die!' does not, as a rule, apply.
(12) The groomsmen testify in case of need to the virginity of the bride. V. infra 12a. If the bridegroom will act in a manner that will cause no bleeding, the groomsmen will not be able to testify on the question of virginity.
(13) To provide evidence of the virginity of the bride. Cf. Deut.XXII,17.
(14) It may happen that he will act in the normal manner and cause bleeding but he will destroy the tokens and maintain that the bride was not a virgin; for this reason the above mentioned provisions are necessary. Where however he moved aside and made a false charge as to her virginity, the bride can plead that she is still a virgin (Rashi)."
Rabbi Says, Jesus was a has‑been Prophet that was Cursed by God, Thereafter Lowered to the Status of Soothsayer � "Balaam (Jesus) also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the sword].40 A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! � R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer.41 R. Papa observed: This is what men say, �She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.�42"� (Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 106a)� parenthesis mine
Sanhedrin 106a footnotes:
(38) V. ibid, XXV, 1‑9: since Israel was thus seduced and punished through his advice, as stated above, he demanded payment.
(39) So Balaam, demanding a reward, lost his life.
(40) Joshua XIII, 22.
(41) As a punishment for wishing to curse Israel he was degraded from a prophet to a soothsayer.
(42) �Shipdraggers,� (v. Rashi). Herford, Christianity in the Talmud, p. 48, suggests that Balaam is frequently used in the Talmud as a type for Jesus (v. also pp. 64‑70). Though no name is mentioned to shew which woman is meant, the mother of Jesus may be alluded to, which theory is strengthened by the statement that she mated with a carpenter. (The Munich MS. has rcd in the margin instead of hrcd, i.e., singular instead of plural.).
Rabbi Says, regarding Talmud pseudonyms, Balaam alludes to Jesus, and Considered anti‑Christian � "A certain min3 (Christian) said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was? � He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days,4 [it follows that] he was thirty‑ three or thirty‑four years old.5 He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's Chronicle, in which it is stated, �Balaam (Jesus) the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.�6 Mar, the son of Rabina, said to his sons: In the case of all [those mentioned as having no portion in the future world] you should not take [the Biblical passages dealing with them] to expound them [to their discredit], excepting in the case of the wicked Balaam (Jesus): whatever you find [written] about him, lecture upon it [to his disadvantage]. (Talmud ‑ Mas. Sanhedrin 106b)� parenthesis mine
Sanhedrin 106b footnotes:
(3) Heretic, v. Glos.
(4) Ps. LV, 24.
(5) cf. p.471. n. 1.
(6) [According to the view that all the Balaam passages are anti‑Christian in tendency, Balaam being used as an alias for Jesus, Phinehas the Robber is thus taken to represent Pontius Pilatus, and the Chronicle of Balaam probably to denote a Gospel (v. Herford op. cit. 72ff.). This view is however disputed by Bacher and others: cf. Ginzberg, Journal of Biblical Literature, XLI, 121.].
Rabbi converses with Onkelos, who allegedly via magical arts (altered state of consciousness) spoke to Jesus in Hell � "Onkelos son of Kolonikos was the son of Titus's sister. He had a mind to convert himself to Judaism. He went and raised Titus from the dead by magical arts, and asked him; �Who is most in repute in the [other] world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He said: Their observances are burdensome and you will not be able to carry them out. Go and attack them in that world and you will be at the top as it is written, Her adversaries are become the head etc.; whoever harasses Israel becomes head. He asked him..." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Gittin 56b)
Rabbi Says, Jesus is in Hell, Boiling in Semen ��� Continuing from Gittin 56b "...what is your punishment [in the other world]? He replied: What decreed for myself. Every day my ashes are collected and sentence is passed on me and I am burnt and my ashes are scattered over the seven seas. He then went and raised Balaam by incantations. He asked him: Who is in repute in the other world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He replied: Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.1 He then asked: What is your punishment? He (Jesus) replied: With boiling hot semen.2 He then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel.3 He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement. Observe the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the other nations who worship idols. It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for God espoused the cause of Bar Kamza and destroyed His House and burnt His Temple." (Talmud ‑ Mas. Gittin 57a) parenthesis mine
Mas. Gittin 57a footnotes:
(1) Deut. XXIII, 7.
(2) Because he enticed Israel to go astray after the daughters of Moab. V. Sanh. 106a.
(3) [MS.M. Jesus].
Author's note: The 'he' in item (2) is alluding to Jesus Christ..
��������������������������������������� *******
From having read the above material, if we could tell you that this material was no longer in vogue, you might find relief from the nauseous feeling you may now have. Unfortunately that is not the case, for the Talmud even in our modern times is still the most important learning aid in equipping Jews who want to become rabbis, and the most popular study aid for any Jew who feels the need to become acquainted with their religious roots and heritage (Judaism).
However, do not take our word of the popularity and importance of the Babylonian Talmud in modern day Jewry...! Yet, consider the words of one of the most honored scholars in Israel today, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. Who in 1988 received Israel's highest honor, 'The Israel Prize.' Adin Steinsaltz, made the following statement in his book titled, 'The Essential Talmud' page 3: "If the Bible is the cornerstone of Judaism, then the Talmud is the central pillar, soaring up from the foundations and supporting the entire spiritual and intellectual edifice. In many ways the Talmud is the most important book in Jewish culture, the backbone of creativity and of national life. No other work has had a comparable influence on the theory and practice of Jewish life, shaping spiritual content and serving as a guide to conduct."��
A spiritual war between forces of darkness (Satan's devilish army) and the forces of Light (God's Angelic army).� The war is to determine whether God's Truth will be proclaimed, or Satan's lies will continue to hold many victims in bondage. Should God's Angels prevail, eyes will see that could not see, and ears which could not hear will hear. Thus exposing the lies, blasphemous writings and teachings which Satan began incorporating into the religious belief system of God's chosen people, three thousand years ago. Which encompass a total of 1500 years of compiling and formulating. Lies that even from the beginning corrupted God's chosen people.
The following is a summary of references to Jesus in the Talmud:
Sanhedrin 67a: Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier. Mother a prostitute.
Kallah 1b. (18b): Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation. Mother a Prostitute.
Sanhedrin 67a: Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover.
Toldath Jeschu: The Birth of Christ related in most shameful expressions.
Hilkhoth Akum(X,2): Baptized Jews are to be put to death
����� Iore Dea(158,2)Hag: Kill renegades who turn to Christian rituals.
Choschen Ham(425,5): Those who do not believe in Torah are to be killed.
Hilkhoth tesch.III,8: Christians and others deny the "Law" of the Torah.
Zohar (I,25a): Christians are to be destroyed as idolators.
Zohar (II,19a): Captivity of Jews end when Christian princes die.
Zohar (I,219b): Princes of Christians are idolators, must die.
Abhodah Zarah II: Christ referred to as the son of Pandira, a Roman soldier, a Prostitute Mother.
Schabbath XIV: Christ again referred to as the son of Padira the Roman soldier.
Sanhedrin 43a: On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.
Schabbath 104b: Called a fool and no one pays attention to fools.
Toldoth Jeschu: Says Judas and Jesus engaged in a quarrel with human excrement.
Sanhedrin 103a: Suggested corrupts his morals and dishonors self.
Zohar III (282): Died like a beast and buried in animal's dung heap.
Hilkoth Melakhim: Attempt to prove Christians err in worship of Jesus.
Abhodah Zarah 21a: Reference to worship of Jesus in homes unwanted.
Orach Chaiim 113: Avoid appearance of paying respect to Jesus.
Iore Dea 150, 2: Do not appear to pay respect to Jesus by accident.
Abhodah Zarah (6a): False teaching to worship on the first day of Sabbath.
Following are references to Christians:
Kerithuth (6b p. 78): Jews called men, Christians are not called men.
Makkoth (7b): Innocent of murder if intent was to kill Christian.
Sohar (II 64b): Christian birth rate must be diminished materially.
Schabbath (116a) Tos: Gospels called volumes of iniquity, heretical books.
Schabbath (116a): Talmudists agree that the books of Christians are to be burned.
Chullin (91b): Jews possess dignity even an angel cannot share.
Hilkoth Akum (V. 12): Quote Scriptures forbid mentioning the Christian God.
Choschen Ham (226 1): Jew may keep lost property of Christian found by Jew.
Babha Kama (113b): It is permitted to deceive Christians; Jew may lie and perjure to Condemn a Christian; Name of God not profaned when lying to Christians.
Kallah (1b p. 18): Jew may perjure himself with a clear conscience.
Schabbouth Hag. (d): Jews may swear falsely with subterfuge wording.
Zohar (1 160a): Jews must always try to deceive Christians.
Choschen Ham (425 5): Jews are not to prevent the death of a Christian.
Hilkkoth Akum (x,1): Do not save Christians in danger of death, instructed to let die.
Abhodah Zarah (25b)T: Even the best of the Goim [Christians] should be killed.
Sepher Or Israel 177b: If Jew kills a Christian he commits no sin.
Zohar (11 43a): Extermination of Christians necessary.
Hilkhoth Akum (x,1): Make no agreements and show no mercy to Christians.
Vayidra Rabba 36: �Heaven and earth were created only for the sake of the Jews.
Baba Mezia 114a-114b: Only Jews are human (Only ye are desiganted men�). �The Jews are human beings; but the goyim are not human beings; they are only beasts.�
Menahoth 43b-44a: A Jewish man is obligated to say the following rayer every day: �Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman or a slave.�
Kethuboth 11b: �When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing.�
Sanhedrin 106a: Jesus� mother was a whore.
Sanhedrin 58b: If a heathen (Christian) hits a Jew, it is the same as hitting God.
Sanhedrin 57a: A Jew need not pay a Gentile (�Cuthean� - Christian) it does not have to be returned.
Midrash Talpioth 225: Yahweh created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently as animal in human form and is condemned to serve the Jew dan and night.
Hilkhoth Maakhaloth: Christians are idolaters.
Abhodah Zarah (22a): Do not associate with gentiles, they shed blood.
Abhodah Zarah (22a): Christians have intercourse with animals.
Iore Dea (198, 48): Female Jews contaminated when meeting Christians.
Makkoth (7b): Innocent of murder if intent was to kill a Christian.
Zohar II (64b): Christian likened to cows and asses.
Kethuboth (110b): Psalmist compares Christians to beasts.
Sanhedrin (74b) Tos: Sexual intercourse with Christian same as intercourse with beast.
Kethuboth (3b): The seed [children] of Christians valued same as the seed of a beast.
Iore Dea (337, 1): Replace dead Christians like you would a lost cow or ass.
Schabbath (116a) Tos: Gospels called the volumes of iniquity, and heretical books.
Schabbath (116a): Talmudists agree the books of Christians are to be burned.
Chullin (91b): Jews possess dignity even an angel cannot share.
Sanhedrin (58b): To strike a Jew is the same as slapping the face of God.
Zohar (1, 25b): Those Jews who do good to Christians never rise when dead.
Iore Dea (148, 12H): Jews are to hide their hatred for Christians.
Babha Bathra (54b): Christian property belongs to the first Jew claiming it.
Choschen Ham (193, 7): Keep any overpayment Christians make in error.
Babha Kama (113b): It is permitted for a Jew to deceive Christians.
Iore Dea (157, 2) H: Jew may deceive Christians.
Babha Kama (113a): Jew may lie and perjure himself to condemn a Christian.
Babha Kama (113b): The name of God is not profaned when a Jew lies to Christians.
Kallah (1b, p. 18): Jew may perjure himself when lying about Christians.
Schabbouth Hag (6d): Jews may swear falsely by the use of subterfuge wording.
Zohar (1, 160a): Jews must always try to deceive Christians.
Choschen Ham (425, 5): Do not prevent a Christians death.
Iore Dea (158, 1): Christians who are not Jews' enemies must also die.
Hilkkoth Akum (X,1): Jews are not to save Christians in danger of death.
Sanhedrin (59a): Christians who study the Jews' "Laws" {Talmud} to be put to death.
Zohar (1, 25a): Christians are to be destroyed when no danger of discovery.
Abhodah Zarah (26b)T: Even the best of the Goim [non‑Jews] should be killed.
Sepher Or Israel (177b): If a Jew kills a Christian he commits no sin. He has done God a service.
Alkut Simoni (245c): A Jew shedding the blood of a Christian is offering a sacrifice to God.
Zohar (II, 43a): Extermination of Christians is a necessary sacrifice to God.
Zohar (L, 38b, 39a): A Jew to receive a high place in heaven if he kills a Christian.
Hilkhoth Akum (X,1): Jews are to show no mercy to a Christian.
Kallah, 1b, (18b): "Jesus was illegitimate and conceived during menstruation."
Scabbath XIV: "Jesus is referred to as the son of a Roman soldier and a Jewish Prostitute."
Sanhedrin, 103a: "This passage suggests that Christ corrupted His morals and dishonored Himself."
Sanhedrin, 107b: "This passage states that Christ seduced and destroyed Israel."
Hilkoth Melakhim: Suggests that Christians sin by worshiping Jesus Christ.
Hilkoth Maakhaloth: "Christians are idolaters."
Abhodah Zorah (15b): Suggests that Christians have sexual relations with animals.
Chaggigah, (15b): "A Jew is considered to be good in the eyes of God, in spite of Any sins he may commit."
Babha Kama (113b): "The name of God not profaned, if a Jew lies to a Christian."
Kelhubath (11a‑11b): "When a grown‑up man has had intercourse with a little girl...It means this: When a GROWN UP MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A LITTLE GIRL IT IS NOTHING, for when the girl is less than this [See Footnote] THREE YEARS OLD it is as if one puts the finger into the eye [Again See Footnote] tears come to the eye again and again, SO DOES VIRGINITY COME BACK TO THE LITTLE GIRL THREE YEARS OLD."
Tract Mechilla: "Almighty God studies the Talmud standing, because He has such respect for that book."
Sanhedrin (59a) & Abohodah Zarah 8‑6: "Every goy [non‑Jew] who studies the Talmud and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die."
Szaaloth-Utszabot The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim [non‑Jew] asks if our books contain anything against them."
Simeon Haddarsen fol. 56‑D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."
Midrasch Talpioth 225‑L: "Jehovah created the non‑Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non‑Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."
Nadarine, 20, B; Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "A Jew may do to a non‑Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat."
Josiah 60, 6, Rabbi Abarbanel to Daniel 7, 13: "As soon as the King Messiah will declare himself, and He will destroy Rome and make a wilderness of it. Thorns and weeds will grow in the Pope's palace. The He will start a merciless war on non‑Jews and will overpower them. He will slay them in masses, kill their kings and lay waste the whole Roman land. He will say to the Jews: 'I am the King Messiah for whom you have been waiting. Take the silver and gold from the goyim."
Schulchan Aruch Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "A Jew may rob a goy [non‑Jew] that is, he may cheat him in a bill, if unlikely to be perceived by him."
Schulchan Aruch Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples [This is what the Jews use for justification to steal the land of the Palestinians]. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to mortality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general."
Tosefta, Erubin VIII, 1: "On the house of the goy [non‑Jew] one looks as on the fold of cattle."
Tosefta, Abhodah Zarah VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy [non‑Jew] is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is not forbidden to do all this to a goy."
Schulchan Aruch Edit, I, 136: "All vows, oaths, promises, engagements, and swearing, which, beginning this very day of reconciliation till the next day of reconciliation, we intend to vow, promise, swear, and bind ourselves to fulfill, we repent of� before-hand; let them be illegalized, acquitted, annihilated, abolished, valueless, unimportant. Our vows shall be no vows, and our oaths no oaths at all."
Schulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 539: "At the time of the Cholhamoed the transaction of any kind of� business is forbidden. But it is permitted to cheat a goy [non‑Jew], because cheating of goyi at any time pleases the Lord."
Schulchan Aruch Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."
Livore David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."
Abhodah Zarah 26b Tosephoth: "A Jew who kills a Christian commits no sin, but offers an acceptable sacrifice to God."
After reading these verbatim quotations from the countless other similar quotations which you will find in the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud in the English language are you of the opinion, that the Talmud was the "sort of book" from which Jesus "drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious subjects"? You have read here verbatim quotations and official footnotes on a few of the many other subjects covered by the "63 books" of the Talmud. And on and on, and on it goes, for 63 volumes of filth and blasphemy. This is what the Jews are taught in their synagogues. Do you after reading these words, believe the Christian religion got its start from this kind of blasphemy and filth?
These are just a few selected from a very complicated arrangement in which many references are obscured by intricate reasonings. Speaking of the "Tradition of the Elders," Jesus said: "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?...But he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?...ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Matthew 15:3‑6)
Jesus said a second time:
"Then the Pharisees and scribes [The Jews] asked him [Jesus], Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders...He [Jesus] answered and said unto them...Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:5‑9)
Paul said of the "Tradition of the Elders."
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8)
Peter also spoke of them.
"Forasmuch as ye know that ye [Jews] were not redeemed ...from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers." (1 Peter 1:18)
So Jesus' teaching could not have possibly come from this blasphemous book. The Babylonian Talmud is the Jewish holy book, used in the training of rabbis, taught in the synagogues by the rabbis and studied by the Jews from an early age until death.
Without any question, The Talmud (Known to Jesus in His time on earth in a flesh body as "The Tradition of The Elders") stands as the Supreme Authority of Jewish Law [Their lies to the contrary notwithstanding], philosophy and ethics; it contains the unchanging moral code by which the religious and social life of the Jews has been regulated to this day. The Jews believe in the teachings of the Talmud and act in accordance with its commands. Whereas the teachings of the Christian Bible are available to all, for it is to be found everywhere.
On the other hand, only a very few non‑Jews have even so much as heard of the Talmud, and still fewer know of its teachings, for it is scores of volumes in length and shrouded in secrecy by the Jews. Are you naive enough to believe that a religious book which encourages incest, such as the Sanhedrin volume of the Talmud does, or unnatural intercourse, or rape of non‑Jews; or bestiality, as found in this filthy book; do you believe this could be the basis of Jesus' teaching?
This is what the Judeo-Christian ["Minister"] teach, when he tells you that we have a Judeo‑ Christian culture. "It is highly probable that the bulk of the Jew's ancestors 'never' lived in Palestine 'at all,' Which Witnesses the Power of Historical Assertion Over Fact." (H. G. Wells, The Outline of History)����
In addition, under the heading of "A brief History of the Terms for Jew" in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: "Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a �Jew� or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." (1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3)