Foundations of fascism and racism of "god-chosen" people (ZioNazis)

Note: this book was first translated from German to Russian, and then from Russian to English.

Detailed Contents

Laws

Is this a forgery?

If you find some reference to "100 Laws of Shulchan Aruch" on the net and they lead you to major ZioNazi disinformation outlets, such as Wikipedia, they will be foaming at their mouth in their futile attempts to somehow show it to be a "forgery", which is a lie, and a big one.

They will be telling you that no such quotes exist in Shulchan Aruch and this is all fabrications, sucked out of one's finger. But...

What Dr. Justus did in his research is to summarize what is said in several different major sources, such as Shulchan Aruch, the Talmud, Deuteronomy and other parts of the Old Testament, etc. And then he constructed these, what could be called MAIN laws of Judiaism, referring primarily to Shulchan Aruch, which is what has been used for the last 300 years.

His interpretations can not be considered as direct quotes from Shulchan Aruch or any other source even though he sometimes puts the quotes around some things that are not really literal quotes which may make it confusing for some. His version of "laws" is a DIGEST, a summary which represents the essence of the issues he chose to investigate, and he did quite a remarkable job at that and showed his profound understanding of the very essence of it all.

Shulchan Aruch was created because the Talmud was too big (over 60 volumes) and there are several versions and interpretations of various "laws" and many, if not most, opinions and comments and arguments by rabbis contradicted each other to such an extent that it made it virtually impossible to determine the "right answer". Thus, Shulchan Aruch was an attempt to reduce the volume of the material and condense the most essential "laws" to a digestible level and try to reconcile the contradictions by saying things like "but some say" or "but rabbi so and so has just an opposite opinion" and so on.

The "bottom line" is: anybody who claims that work of Justus is nothing more than a collection of fabrications are lying, and they know they do, assuming they are competent enough to even comprehend the issues to such a degree as it is presented by Justus.

Is this a proof?

Well, how should we say this? Considering the fact that if charges and interpretations given by Justus and Dr. Ecker are invalid and clearly false, and, combining with the fact that if the work of Justus and a pretty unprejudiced and at times quite pointed analysis by Dr. Ecker, criticizing Justus, is in fact valid and true, then what we have is an undeniable EVIDENCE, not an ugly concoction of a "conspiracy theory" type, evidence of a racist and Nazi nature of not only Shulchan Aruch, but of the Talmud and the entire Judaism concoction, which several brilliant researchers call not a religion, but Cabbalism, at best, which means the occult and satanism, in quite a literal sense.

Furthermore, as Harold Wallace Rosenthal states, and mind you, in a tape recorded interview, the soundtrack of which was not released because of explicit threat by Rosenthal:

Furthermore, he states:

Our god is Lucifer

Harold Rosenthal was supposedly murdered for giving this interview in 1976 during which he boasted about how a group of Jews are manipulating the stupid and gullible Goyim.

It would not be a bad idea to read that interview in its entirety, and not only read, but STUDY it. Because it is all exactly as it is in reality. And you will see it one day, even if that day is not today or even tomorrow.

The document you are reading and the consequences, if this is found to be correct, has such profound consequences that it is hard to even begin to imagine what this might do as a result.

So, what you have in this edition is interpretations of the "law" by Justus, and pay attention: INTERPRETATIONS, and not the direct citations as some disinformation agents make it look like, and we have the LITERAL, word by word, well, as much as possible under the circumstance, translation and word by word analysis, and a meticulous one, with full knowledge of the subject, and then we have the direct EVIDENCE, and pay attention to this: EVIDENCE, substantiated by the direct quotes and citations from widely available sources, such as the Talmud and Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy and other sources, including the Jewish sites, that try to obscure the laws by publishing the most sensitive ideas and phrases in Hebrew, hoping that no one will understand where they cover up the open and documented HATE to all non-Jews, whom they call Akum, goy, nohri, heaten, foreigners and so on.

Unfortunately, you can not find all of Shulchan Aruch on the net. There are only bits available, and even there, they are provided by the people who knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly, support the prejudiced and biased position and censor and misinterpret the true meaning of the original text. And even more than that, even if you find a version in English, it will most likely be a highly sanitized version, where all sensitive places were either muted our outright corrupted and perverted and the meaning is distorted to the point of the opposite.

Basically, in order to get the original meaning, you have to work with as oldest version as possible, which goes back about 300 years. With time and wide discontent, the later versions were sanitized, and the latest versions are sanitized to the point of obscene.

For example, in a study of the Talmud by Elizabeth Dilling she mentions that the more recent versions were modified and some sensitive words were left with blank space in the text. But those who know the subject also know which word is to use to fill the blanks.

See: The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

But at least the Babylonian Talmud and the Old Testament are widely available, and they verify the statements by Justus and Dr. Ecker with certainty that can not be denied, no matter what and who and why and when. Furthermore, the oldest versions of the Bible before King James, such as William Tindale translation, which was done in 1526, are available and they contain the ORIGINAL texts, even more original than the Talmud upon which the Shulchan Aruch is based.

The corruption of the Bible began somewhere in the 15th century, and guess by whom. Interestingly enough, more recently, Jacob Schiff ordered and financed the corruption and a rewrite of the Bible, so the later versions are distorted in very subtle, but profoundly significant ways in order to distort the original meaning and the ideas. We don't even need to bother about this satanic Shulchan Aruch, one of the most secret documents ever. You can just read the Deuteronomy. See the Appendix.

Appendix (some quotes from Deuteronomy and Old Testament that will shake your roots)

So we, in fact, have the most original material predating the Talmud by 2000 years, right in Deuteronomy, which was written in 1400 BC. What can be more original than that?

Bible Tindale Translation

And this particular edition which you are reading makes it so easy and fast to investigate the issues and verify then for yourselves, that you can do the tremendous amount of research in hours if not minutes while before it would take you days if not weeks.

Now, is this all Truth or even true? - Well YOU decide. Only God knows it on such a level as Truth.

But when these mouth foaming satanists tried to disgrace the dead people, such as Justus and Dr. Ecker, and lied and fabricated all sorts of concoctions in futile hope that it will all go away, let them know this:

Appeal to the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation

Table of Contents

February 24, 2005 From the Editor. After publication of the "Appeal to the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation Vladimir Ustinov" and, especially, after the signing of it by about 500 persons, including 19 members of the Duma, nearly every day the editor receives the puzzled letters which essentially boil down to this:

"We have heard of the "letter of 500" and that the authors and signatories are accused of "anti-Semitism" because that letter demands from the Attorney General "to officially begin a criminal process in order to prohibit in our country all the religious and national Jewish organizations as extremist."

In the "Letter of 500" this demand is motivated by the opinion of the authors and, therefore, the signatories, that the existing Jewish law, according to which such entities conduct their work, and summarized in the book "Shulchan Aruch", published in Russia in 2001 in Russian language, is subject to the relevant articles of the Criminal Code, the Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" (2002) and Art. 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation ("the establishment and the functioning of public associations whose objectives are aimed at inciting social, racial, national and religious hatred"). The "Letter of 500" also refers to a work of certain Dr. K. Ecker, who allegedly interprets the laws of the Shulchan Aruch. Where can I find this work?"

In view of the fact that neither the work of Professor Ecker, "The Jewish Mirror", referred to in the "Letter 500", nor, especially, the "Shulchan Aruch" are available to the vast majority of readers, the editors decided to bring "The Jewish Mirror" below.

---

NWO Mechanics - Interview with Rabbi Abe Finkelstein about Jewish control of the world

[Note: this information is not a part of the original document and does not come from S.A. Sall. It was added for informational purposes.]

This could be the most mind shattering thing you have ever heard of. If this won't blow your mind, nothing will, or you don't have anything to blow, just as ZioNazis openly state it about "goyim" - non-"Jews".

An audio recording of an interview with Chabad Lubavich Rabbi Finkelstein outlining the doctrine of ZioNazis and their "father", Lucifer.

According to Finkelstein, you are nothing but a cattle to be slaughtered and sacrificed to their "god", Lucifer, and milked by "god chosen people" for all you have as long as you last.

This is an outline of what they call the "NWO" nowadays - a ZioNazi Luciferian doctrine of world domination and world takeover. The authority with which rabbi Finkelstein speaks is quite something indeed. He speaks as though he knows it all in and out, down to the last dot and comma.

Basically, it outlines their entire doctrine of evil most profound, world domination, parasitism unlimited, wars and revolutions, puppet governments and how they are controlled, ritual sacrifice of hundreds of thousand of children each year and the rest of it. This is pretty much their entire doctrine. Nothing much to be added to it. And it is pronounced clearly by someone of ultimate authority, pretty much clear on its face value.

Finkelstein is quite casual in this interview and tells it all bluntly, in a semi-humorous manner how "goyim" (non-Jews) are being exploited and destroy each other during all the wars and revolutions staged and managed by "god chosen people".

"Rabbi Finkelstein amazingly gives honest answers about world Jewry's control of banking, media and governments, their creation of communism, their founding of the Jesuits, their holocaust hoax, their human sacrifice rituals and many more jaw-dropping subjects. I find the only things more shocking than Rabbi Finkelstein's blunt admissions are his complete callous disregard and playful disdain for us lowly "goyim." What do you guys think of this?"

https://antimatrix.org/Convert/Books/Rabbi_Abe_Finkelstein_Interview/Rabbi_Abe_Finkelstein_Interview.html - Interview text transcript

Or: Rabbi Abe Finkelstein interview (Audio recording)

https://antimatrix.org/Convert/Books/Audio/Rabbi_Abe_Finkelstein_Interview/Rabbi_Abe_Finkelstein_Interview.mp3

Introduction

По поводу же самой брошюры "Judenspiegel", разошедшейся в Германии во многих десятках тысяч экземпляров, необходимо заметить следующее. Крещёный еврей Бриман под псевдонимом "Юстус" взял из Шулхан-аруха и под заглавием "Judenspiegel" напечатал сто характерных законов талмуда. По своему обыкновению евреи подняли гвалт, уверяя, что всё напечатанное Юстусом - ложь и подлог; затем не преминули они возбудить и уголовное преследование против редактора "Вестфальского Меркурия" Гофмана. Однако, на основании заключения экспертов приговором суда Гофман был оправдан. Что же касается экспертизы, то в лице профессора Эккера они изложили своё заключение отдельной брошюрой - "Judenspiegel" im Lichte der Wahrheit", полный перевод которой предлагается читателям. Алексей Шмаков.]

Оглавление
(сетевой версии)

В переводе брошюры д-ра К. Эккера оглавления не было. Однако в сетевую версию, с целью использования возможностей Интернета, а также для максимального удобства читателя, было решено включить оглавление. Из него, щёлкая мышкой название любого раздела или конкретного закона, читатель мгновенно может посмотреть желаемый раздел и/или закон.

Предисловие -- сразу после оглавления

Введение

I. Jewish Code of Law

"Shulchan Aruch"

II. Instructive Preface to Shulchan Aruch

III. Inhuman Jewish laws against against "idolaters" are directed against Christians as well

General Conclusion

Appeal to all the Jews of the Universe

КРИТИКА
СТА ЗАКОНОВ, ПО ШУЛХАН-АРУХУ,

ПРИВЕДЕННЫХ ЮСТУСОМ
в "Judenspiegel"

Порядковые номера 100 законов, приведенных Юстусом в "Judenspiegel", для удобства читателя размещены ниже в таблице. Чтобы посмотреть любой закон, читатель должен щёлкнуть мышкой его номер. При упоминании законов в тексте, читатель также может их смотреть, щёлкнув ссылку мышкой.

01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75
76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100

В начало

ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ

16 января 1883 года в "Вестфальском Меркурии" ("Westfalische Mercur") была напечатана статья о "Еврейском Зерцале" - исследовании Юстуса (Бримана), появившемся в издании падерборнской типографии св. Бонифация.

Главный редактор "Меркурия" И.Гофман был привлечён к ответственности за опасное для общественного спокойствия возбуждение одного класса населения против другого (христиан против евреев).

Этот "процесс Еврейского Зерцала" разбирался 10 декабря того же года в уголовном отделении ландгерихта в Мюнстере. Против воли меня пригласили вместе с тамошним еврейским учителем семинарии Трёем в качестве экспертов. Таким образом я оказался вынужденным тщательно рассмотреть 100 законов доктора Юстуса.

По разрешении дела, было напечатано в газетах "Меркурий", "Германия" и др. наряду с оправдательным приговором и моё заключение. Через редакцию "Меркурия" я, кстати, заметил, что в случае появления нападков на мою экспертизу, я не намерен вступать ни в какую полемику. При этом я объяснил, что травля евреев мне противна, и что до сих пор я не участвовал ни в каком антисемитском движении. Такой же точки зрения я стану придерживаться и в будущем, не желая быть увлечённым в это пагубное течение.

Тем не менее, что предвидели, то и случилось. Я сделал укол в осиное гнездо семитического вопроса. Куда ни приходил я, везде жужжали и брюзжали вокруг моей головы на всевозможные лады. Здесь была радость, там - горе; этот мной доволен, тот ругает вовсю; кто сделался моим другом, а кто и свирепым врагом; один хвалит, другой беснуется.

Так как в окончательном результате моё заключение не содержало ни исключительной похвалы, ни абсолюного одобрения текстов "Еврейского Зерцала", то некоторые горячие атисемиты даже заподозрили меня в тайной дружбе с евреями. Но я и это предвидел, и подобным христианам я прощаю охотно. Это, без сомнения, люди, не имеющие никакого понятия о сути дела; нельзя же требовать от каждого, чтобы он знал различие между словами "семит" и "семитолог".

Независимо от сего, тот факт, что на меня нападали с обеих сторон, уже сам по себе убеждает, насколько я был беспристрастен в оценке "Еврейского Зерцала".

Кричали против меня, разумеется, больше всего со стороны Израиля. Атака велась с большим усердием в письмах и газетах, в листках и брошюрах, по-немецки и по-еврейски. Но так как эти нападки представляли лишь все новые и новые ругательства, подчас весьма непристойные, а по существу дела не содеражали ничего такого, благодаря чему мне следовало бы изменить своё мнение хотя бы отчасти, то я остаюсь верен своему принципу и сохраняю золотое молчание.

Да и вообще говоря, этот гвалт произвёл на меня мало впечатления. Своим заключением в качестве эксперта я не хотел ни обижать, ни льстить; для меня главным делом было действовать по совести. Что же могло бы побудить меня стать на стороне евреев или же на стороне Юстуса?

Хотя я и не одобряю происков некоторых "антисемитов", тем не менее, я не друг евреев, ибо я знаком с талмудом.

С другой стороны, я никогда не видел обвиняемого - редактора Гофмана и даже не знал настоящего имени автора "Еврейского Зерцала", а чтобы защищать дело только потому, что в нём участвуют католики, нет, для этого я слишком честен и достаточно понимаю значение христианской присяги.

Всё, что я сказал суду, то повторю и ныне. Я глубоко и основательно обдумал всю суть дела прежде, чем высказать своё мнение по столь важному вопросу.

Итак, я не сторонник каких-либо гонений, однако же, я твёрдо стою на своём. Всякий, кто прочитает это исследование и хладнокровно его обсудит, должен будет согласиться с тем, что доказательства, приведённые мной, неопровержимы ни научным путём, ни тем более бранью.

Для того же, чтобы открыть каждому возможность судить самостоятельно, насколько тексты "Еврейского Зерцала" верны по существу и с по-дленником согласны, я привожу раввинский оригинал всех законов "Зерцала" параллельно с их переводом, а затем даю необходимые объяснения.

Я пользуюсь четвёртым изданием "Еврейского Зерцала"; тексты же подлинника "Шулхан-аруха" перепечатаны из амстердамского издания (...).*

Я рассматриваю здесь "Еврейское Зерцало" просто как литературное произведение. Моя цель - научная критика и ничего более.

In omni bonitate et justitia et veritate.
(Посл. к Ефесян. V,9).

Мюнстер, март 1884 г.
Д-р Эккер.

В начало

ВВЕДЕНИЕ.
I. Источники еврейского права.

Библия, в смысле правового источника, едва ли, для евреев имеет ещё значение. Как истолковать и исполнить находившиеся в ней предписания и законы, этому учит талмуд. С другой стороны Библия содержит лишь часть законов талмуда. Таким образом талмуд является главным источником еврейского права.

1. Раввины рассказывают, будто Моисей получил к Торе, т.е. закону, написанному им по приказанию Иеговы, ещё объяснения и дополнения, которые, не будучи записаны, должны были устно передаваться из рода в род.

В доказательство этого они злоупотребляют следующим местом Библии - Исход XXIV, 12: "И сказал Господь Моисею: "Взойди ко Мне на гору и будь там; и дам тебе скрижали каменные и закон, и заповеди, которые Я написал для научения их". Эти простые и ясные слова талмуд (Берахоф 5а)* извращает следующим образом: "Скрижали" - это десять заповедей; "закон" - пятикнижие Моисея; "заповеди" - Мишна; "которые Я написал" - это пророки и гагиографы; "для изучения" - Гемара. Всё же сказанное вместе означает, что все они (т.е. составные части законодательства) даны Моисею на горе Синае.

Ср. талмуд Мегилла 19б. "Что значит это место: "...", а на них (каменных скрижалях) все слова, которые изрек вам Господь на горе"? (Второз. IX, 10). Оно имеет тот смысл, что Иегова показал Моисею всю глубину Торы, как равно и все тонкости учения законников (раввинов) и вообще всё то, что когда-либо будет предписано раввинами.*

2. По уверению талмуда, закон во всём его объёме записан быть не мог уже потому, что ни одна книга не вместила бы всего материала. Кроме того, лишь столь незначительная часть изложена на письме ещё и с такой целью, чтобы все остальные народы не списывали для себя законов Израиля.

Талмуд Эрубин 216: "Ты, может быть, скажешь: если они (слова раввинов) настолько важны, зачем же они не записаны?" - "(Чтобы не) составлять много книг - конца не будет" (Экклезиаст XII, 12).

Насколько велик должен быть полный свиток законов, это с совершенной точностью вычисляется в том же талмуде (Эрубин 21а). Там говорится: мы читаем (Захарии V,2): "И сказал Он мне: что видишь ты? Я отвечал: вижу летящий свиток, длина его двадцать локтей, а ширина его десять локтей". Если развернуть свиток (нужно его представить себе сложенным вдвое), то мера его будет 20x20. Но он исписан с обеих сторон (см. Иезекииль II,10): "И Он развернул его передо мною, и вот свиток исписан был внутри и снаружи". Если же представить себе свиток исписанным только с одной стороны, то его мера была бы 40x20 локтей. А как велик мир? Лишь одна пядь, потому что Исайя XL, 12 гласит: "Кто пядью измерил небеса?" Одна пядь равняется полулоктю. Стало быть, весь мир величиной с поллоктя в квадрате, а свиток законов занимал бы 40x20=800 квадратных локтей.

Отсюда ясно, что свиток был бы в 3.200 раз больше целого мира. И кто бы мог сомневаться в этом после столь убедительных математических вычислений?..

А что записано так мало именно из опасения, как бы остальные народы не позаимствовали слишком многого, об этом говорится также и в Тозефофе к талмуду Гиттин 60б.

3. Так как уразуметь Библию возможно не иначе, как по разъяснениям и извивам талмуда, а большинство еврейских законов находится исключительно в талмуде, то, по учению ортодоксальных евреев, талмуд стоит неизмеримо выше Библии. В качестве источника права, являясь стало быть последней по очереди, Библия едва ли может иметь теперь какое-нибудь для еврейства значение.

Талмуд Эрубин 21б: "Сын мой, обращай больше внимания на слова писателей (раввинов в талмуде), нежели на слова Библии, так как в словах Библии имеются лишь предписания и запреты; каждый же, отступающий от слов раввинов, заслуживает смерти. "..." Кто издевается над словами раввинов, тот будет терзаем в кипящих испражнениях".

В оправдание этого ужасного изречения, раввины осмеливаются ссылаться на Библию. Эклизиаст XII, 12 гласит "...много учиться - утомительно для тела". "Lahag" - "изучать" талмуд превращает в "la'ag" - "издеваться", а выражение "jegiath" он читает как "jegioth" и толкует как "человеческие испражнения (должно быть, quod multo labore ex carne (corpore) exprimatur). Очень уж тонко.

Талмуд Соферим XV,7: "Библия походит на воду, Мишна на вино, а шесть отделов (Гемары) - на "пейсахувку"? (особая пасхальная настойка).

"Талмуд Баба Меция ЗЗа": Раввины поучают: "Когда кто-нибудь занимается Библией, то это будто составляет кое-что, но и в то же время ничего! А если кто трудится над Мишной, это уже нечто положительное, и он получает награду. Когда же кто изучает Гемару, то для него не может быть высшей награды".

Талмуд Сота 22а: "Безбожен тот, кто читает лишь Библию и Мишну и не пользуется мудрецами" (в Гемаре).

4. В талмуде законы излагаются без всякой системы; кроме того, они разбросаны среди длиннейших пререканий, коварных софизмов, нелепых ухищрений, пустой болтовни, ребяческих сказок и басен.*

Когда после разрушения Иерусалима евреи рассеялись по всему свету, то было признано необходимым собрать и записать богатейший материал - так называемые "предания". Под конец II христианского столетия рабби Иегуда Га-нази ("князь"), прозванный также "Раббену га-кадош" ("наш святой учитель") или просто "рабби" (учитель), окончил Мишну, т.е. "Повторение" (закона). Она содержит в шести отделах 63 трактата с 523 главами.

Вслед за изданием Мишны законы, помещённые в ней, обсуждались в синагогах неутомимо, что и дало повод к новым, весьма пространным словопрениям и к самым лукавым выводам. Таким образом материал талмуда расширялся всё более и более. Однако, школы в Палестине и Вавилонии шли каждая своей дорогой. В последней стране как исконном средоточении еврейства школы или академии - "иешибофы" (в Пумбадите, Суре и Негареде) пользовались гораздо большей славой, чем находившиеся в первой (в Тивериаде, Ямнии и Лилле), почти совсем оставленной евреями. Отсюда возникла двойная "Гемара" (т.е. "Довершение"): а) палестинская (к 39 трактатам Мишны), составленная рабби Иохананом под конец третьего столетия после Р.Х. и законченная в Тивериаде около 350 г., и б) вавилонская (к 36 трактата Мишны) под редакцией Раб-Аши и Рабины и законченная последним около 500 г. Вместе с Мишной обе Гемары порознь образуют, с одной стороны - иерусалимский, а с другой - более обширный - вавилонский талмуды ("Талмуд Ерушалми" и "Талмуд Бавли").

Тогда как в Мишне царствовал ещё некоторый порядок по существу материала, во всех трактатах Гемары говорится о чём угодно. Привязываясь к какому-нибудь, случайно встретившемуся слову, толкуют и спорят, делают заключения, проводят параллели, умствуют и хитрят без конца. Этот рабби говорит "да", а тот - "нет"; один даёт такие мотивы, другой совершенно иные. Все возможные и невозможные случаи выворачиваются на всякие лады, пережёвываются до пресыщения и только затем, наконец, разрешаются так или иначе, а подчас и вовсе не приводят ни к какому результату. Для примера достаточно указать хотя бы на то, что в одном первом трактате вавилонского талмуда - Берахоф, т.е. "благословения", сотни раз толкуется об отхожем месте со всеми его принадлежностями.

5. Вавилонский и иерусалимский талмуды, однако, не единственные источники еврейского права. И другие, более древние сочинения (прежде всего книги, появившиеся между составлением Мишны и Гемары) употребляются как источники второстепенные.

Таковы: Тозефоа, т.е. "Дополнение к Мишне"; Зифра - комментарии к кн. Левит; Зифре - комментарии к кн. Чисел и Второзаконию и др.

I. Jewish Code of Law

By compelling practical reasons, the need to attend to the selection and compilation of guidance to all the essential, that is contained in the infinite, voluminous and difficult to comprehend for most the Talmudic literature has been long realized.

1. Meanwhile, even after the completion of Gemara they embarked on a new interpretation of its own text. From this emerged the so-called "Tozefof" [Tozefoth], ie "Addedum" (the most important of them are placed in the additional volumes of a complete edition of the Talmud). But the more material accumulates, the more the need for such a manual was felt, which would contain all the laws in the proper order. And so, in order to facilitate the study of the Talmud, as well as to learn from evasive and extensive discussions the practical results, Rabbi Isaac, the son of Jacob Alfazi, compiled the abstract of the Talmud under the title "Gilhof", ie "Laws" ​​in 1032. This "little Talmud" was much easier to study; but, being deprived of the system, it could not survive for long.

2. The first systematic exposition of the Jewish law was made ​​by great scientist and philosopher Rabbi Moshe Bar Maimon (nicknamed by the Jews by the initial letters of his name as "Rambam", and by Christians - Maimonides). Encompassing four volumes under the title "Mishne-Toire", ie "Repetition of the Law," or as "Gayad ha-hazaka", ie "Strong hand", this work appeared in 1169 AD. Here, at least for the most important laws, Maimonides was trying to find the philosophical justifications for which he was suspected of heresy by many rabbis. However, his book has gained great fame gradually.

3. Maimonides book contains all the laws of the Talmud, and hence much so that which since the destruction of the temple could no longer find the application. On the other hand, his exposition is partly dry and generally a little bit poor [absent of brightness], so that it could not fully meet the new requirements, because in Talmudic environment constantly appeared more and more controversy [debates] and questions. Therefore, in 1321 Jacob ben Asher in Toledo compiled the "Arba'a turim", ie "Four rows." By eliminating all the obsolete laws, and totally avoiding the philosophical philosophizing, he carried out a matter in strictly rabbinic spirit.

Thus appeared three independent guides to the Talmud. Regardless of this, Alfazi Maimon and Asher, each in his own way deriving practical results from the Talmudic nebulae, ended up as different [differing] opinions in many respects. Hence, as a result, there appeared much controversy among Jewish communities. In view of this situation a need for a better collection [compilation] was expressed everywhere, such, that it would contain everything recognized as correct from the existing books and all outdated material would be removed, and the necessary legislation would be formulated in brief and clear paragraphs. In short, one way or another, but the main task - to compile the actual [real, acting] code of laws still had to be solved in its entirety. And then, finally, there appeared

"Shulchan Aruch"

This book has satisfied everything, which one can only require from the present legal code. Throwing back the antiquated regulations, it formulated the existing laws in a concise manner, in clear and certain terms and in the short formulas.

1. The Shulchan Aruch was compiled by Joseph Caro, a rabbi from the Palestinian town Safed (Tsafet, Shafet) (b. 1488, d. 1577), who even earlier wrote the commentary to "Arba'a turimu" by Jacob ben Asher. Caro worked for more than 20 years on his Shulchan Aruch, representing the quintessence of "Arba'a turima". The first edition was published in Venice in 1565. Like Arba'a turimu Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch, ie "Set Table" (cf. Ps. XXII, 5), is divided into four sections:

I. Shulchan Aruch, Orach-Hayyim [Orach Chaim] - "The way of Life." (Cf. Ps. XV, 11).

This section contains the legal regulations regarding as relatively ordinary, home as well as the synagogue Jewish life throughout the year. It is divided into 27 chapters with 697 paragraphs, each of which has several parts:

• 1. Getting up from a bed, getting dressed, washing, needs (par. 1-7);
• 2. Fringe of prayer Amice (par. 8-24);
• 3. Prayer belts (25-45);
• 4. Blessing (46-88);
• 5. Prayers (89-127);
• 6. Priestly Blessing (128-134);
• 7. Reading of Torah (135-149);
• 8. Synagogue (150-156);
• 9. Food (158-201);
• 10. Blessings during enjoyment (202-231);
• 11. Evening Prayer (232-241);
• 12. Sabbath (242-356);
• 13. How and what can be worn on the Sabbath? (366-395);
• 14. About prohibition to walk far on the Sabbath (396-407);
• 15. The means allowing to go far on the Sabbath (408-416);
• 16. New Moon (417-428);
• 17. Easter (429-494);
• 18. Solemn days (495-529);
• 19. Semi-holidays (# 530-548);
• 20. Fasting in Day 9 of m-tsa Ab (549-561);
• 21. Other fasting days (562-580);
• 22. The New Year (581-602);
• 23. Holidays purification [cleansing] (603-624);
• 24. Feast of Tabernacles (625-644);
• 25. Gala bunch in the Feast of Tabernacles (645-669);
• 26. Holiday consecration (640-685);
• 27. Purim (# 686-697).

II. Iore dea, ie "He teaches the knowledge," or "Teacher of knowing" (see Isaiah XXVIII, 9). In 35 chapters with 403 paragraphs it interprets the laws of nutrition and cleansing, and many other religious precepts up to the laws of mourning inclusive.

• 1. Cutting (par. 1-28);
• 2. Animals with deficiencies (#29-61);
• 3. The meat from live animals (#62);
• 4. Meat, formerly passed through Gentile [non-Jew] (#63);
• 5. Fat (#64);
• 6. Blood (#65-68);
• 7. Salting a meat (#69-78);
• 8. Clean and unclean animals (#79-85);
• 9. Eggs (#86);
• 10. Meat and milk (#87-99);
• 11. The mixing (#100-111);
• 12. Fod of non-Jews (#112-122);
• 13. The wine from non-Jews (#123-138);
• 14. Idolatry (#139-158);
• 15. Extortion (#159-177);
• 16. Magic (#178-182);
• 17. Women's uncleanness (#183-202);
• 18. Omens (#203-235);
• 19. Vows (#236-239);
• 20. Respect for parents (#240-241);
• 21. Respect to the rabbis (#242-246);
• 22. Alms (#247-259);
• 23. Circumcision (#260-266);
• 24. Slaves (#267);
• 25. Proselytes (#268-269);
• 26. About the Scriptures of the Torah (#270-284);
• 27. On Writing on poles (#285-291);
• 28. Bird's Nests (#292-294);
• 29. Mixing of plants (#295-304);
• 30. Redemption [buying out] of first-born (#305);
• 31. The first-born among animals (#306-321);
• 32. Gifts of the clergy (#322-333);
• 33. Expulsion and anathema (#334);
• 34. About visit the patients [sick] (#335-339);
• 35. Handling of the dead (#340-403).

III. Eben ha'Etzer, ie "Stone of care" (see 1 Kings 7:12) interprets the marriage laws in 5 chapters with 178 paragraphs.

1. Prescription to reproduction (#1-6); 2. Which women one can not marry (# 7-25); 3. Execution of marriage (# 26-118); 4. Divorce (# 119-155); 5. Marriage of Levites (# 156-178).

IV. Choshen ha-Mishpat, ie "Breastplate of judgment" (see Exodus XXVIII, 15, 30). It contains 29 chapters with 427 paragraphs of all civil and criminal law.

• 1. Judges (#1-27);
• 2. Witnesses (#28-38);
• 3. About loaning money (#39-96);
• 4. On debt collection (#97-106);
• 5. Debt collection from the orphans (#107-120);
• 6. Recovery through messengers sent or authorized (#121-128);
• 7. Guarantee (#129-132);
• 8. Ownership of movable (#133-139);
• 9. Ownership of real estate (#140-152);
• 10. About causing loss to neighbors (#153-156);
• 11.Common ownership (#157-175);
• 12. Partnership (#176-181);
• 13. Sent, brokers (#182-188);
• 14. Purchase and Sale (#189-226);
• 15. Cheating (#227-240);
• 16. Giving gifts (#241-249);
• 17. Gifts by the patient (#250-258);
• 18. Lost and found items (#259-271);
• 19. Unloading and loading of fallen animals (#272);
• 20. Goods, no one owns (#273-275);
• 21. Inheritance (#276-290);
• 22. Keeping things [storage] (#291-330);
• 23. Workers (#331-339);
• 24. Chattel loan (#340-347);
• 25. Theft (#348-358);
• 26. Robbery (#359-377);
• 27. On losses (#378-388);
• 28. Causing losses (#389-419);
• 29. Concerning Hits [beating] (#420-427).

In relation to the plan and purpose of this book the following is instructive:

Instructive Preface to Shulchan Aruch

"I praise Jehovah with my mouth and among many want to praise Him, and I praise Him with my song. With what should I stand before the Lord, and bow myself before the Lord of Heaven, who in His great and ineffable mercy from heaven - his holy throne, has shed His bright light upon me, such an insignificant person, and allowed me to compose this book containing such excellent words.

Great is my work, written about the "Four rows" and called "The house of Joseph" - "Beth Joseph." I have collected all the laws which are in the collections, old and new with the exact designation of places where they can be found: in the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud, in Tozeff in Zifra and Zifrah in Melilt in the comments and collections of laws, as well as in the "questions and answers", old and new.

Here, every separate law is presented clearly and every subject is discussed with particular reasoning and every palace is inhabited in its own way. And everywhere were hung the shields of giants, these "famous people from ancient times" (cf. Genesis 6:4). I thought it necessary to collect the shiny lilies of words of this book in a concise manner and in a bright syllable, choosing only the best and the finest, that the law of the Lord was full of, and did not cause trouble in the mouth of every Jew - so that the rabbi, when asked about some law would not falter, but freely speaketh wisdom: "You are my sister!"

In other words, as is obvious to everyone that you can not marry your own sister, as should be clear to him every practical law as well, about which he is proposed the question, since his mouth can freely read this book, as a pillar erected as a weapon, upon which turned all the eyes.

On the other hand, I found it necessary to divide the book into 30 parts, so that each day had its own part of the course [of study], and so in every month you could repeat your own Talmud and, therefore, belong to the people of whom it is said, "Blessed is the man who comes here with the Talmud in his hands" (Talm. tr. Mo'ed Katan 28a, Ke-tubof 77b, Baba Bafra 10b).

And the little school children must relentlessly learn from this very book and memorize it by heart, so that from the earliest youth, they comprehend well the practical laws and do not forget about them in old age. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament of heaven, when, resting from their business and works, they will refresh their soul by the study of this book, for it is the purest pleasure and precisely-defined law against which to argue is unthinkable.

I gave the book the name "Set Table", because he who is involved with it, finds in all sorts of perfectly cooked and the most selected dishes.

I put my trust in the mercy of the Most High that, thanks to this book, all the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord: and the small and the great, and the students and the wise men, and the famous and the humble people.

And so, I stretch out my hands to the Lord, that for the sake of the greatness of his Name He deigned to help me to become, and stand along with those who turn many to justice. Heavenly Lord, make me worthy to start and finish my work, so it was good and decent, tested and trustworthy, helpful and healing! I proceed to fulfill my mission. Be my helper, oh Lord! Amen!"

2. Since over time in some minor respects between the Eastern and Western traditions of the Jews formed the differences, Rabbi Moses Isserles in Krakow (b. 1540, d. 1573), who in turn composed the comment to Arba'a turimu under the title "Darkhe Moshe", wrote the additions and corrections to all the four parts of the Shulchan. Among the Western Jews, they shall enjoy the same glory with the text of the Karo.

In modern editions, these supplements are marked with the word "Haga", ie "Note" (or brackets), and are printed in small type.

Foreword by Rabbi Moses Isserles says:

How much less intelligible are the general regulations that the above mentioned Gaon [*] have composed by himself personally or blindly obeying Alfazi and Rambam, despite the fact that many of the latter teachers rebel against them. In his works we find a lot of things that are not consistent with the sources of the wise men, whose water we drink. In claiming this, we mean the legal codes, common among the residents of Germany.

These codes from ancient times were companions to all of us, and according to them our ancestors as well have decreed their decisions. These are: Or tsaru'a, Mordechai, Asher, Zafer mitsvof Gadol, Zafer mitsvof Cato and Hagahof Maimon. All of them are based on the text of Tozef and sayings of the great rabbis of France, the direct descendants of whom we are a part. This subject I treated in detail in the preface to my book, where I argued with gaon Caro on questionable points.

Taking also into account that his words in Shulchan Aruch delivered in such a manner, as though they come from Moses himself, as he heard them from the mouth of Jehovah, it is hard not to fear that the students who come after him, would not drink his speeches, no longer making any distinctions, and because of this, all the customs of entire countries would not be destroyed.

Meanwhile, our rabbis have taught numerous times that in many respects there is a difference between the eastern and western (Jews), and that if this was true with our remote ancestors, then in the newest generations this difference should be even more tactile. So I thought it best, wherever I disagree with the words of Caro, to add as side notes the views of the later (scientists) in order to draw students' attention to the fact that his views are controversial.

Regardless of this, whenever I was aware that the practice is not as it is describes by Caro, I checked the exact information and finding out the truth, expressed it on the side of his text ...

Although my words are closed and pinned (ie, without debate, and motives) and can not go to any comparison with the delivery of the Gaon, because his thoughts are already in his great work, "Beth Yosef", yet I walked along his own way, writing down things in a simple way(without showing the reasons), because my own point of view, in most cases, you can find in his own book (Beth Joseph). Whereupon let the reader choose.

If he does not find (my opinion) in the book "Beth Joseph," then let him seek for it in such pointed by me sayings of the later teachers that are prevalent in our country - here, and there. In any case, he will find what he is looking for, since only very little was added by me personally and, besides, it is always accompanied by the note "I think so", to show that these are my own personal words.

I put my trust in God that my detailed instructions will disperse among all Israel, for in them you can find a variety of reasons, evidence, arguments and explanations for each point, since it was possible to mention them..

Anyone who is able to reason independently, sort out among the various arguments yourself, and do not rely on others. Those, who are not able to achieve this, do not back down from the prevailing custom, as both teaches and preaches said Gaon in the preface to his great creation.

So I thank the Lord for the help rendered to me, and praise His Name for He has granted me a great favor. I ask him not to leave and not reject me in the future, from now on and throughout ages.

May He be with my mouth when my speech will pour from it, and may He deliver me from the errors, according to the Scripture: "The Lord protects the simple hearted."

May He point me the way that I need to follow, for to Him the One I lift up my soul.

May descend upon us mercy of our Lord, our God and upon the work of our hands, may He bless it! Who reigns in the unseen, may He protect and grant us to be worthy of what is praying the singer for:

3. At the time, when the original Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Joseph Caro acquired full citizenship in the East, the extended version the Shulchan Aruch of Moses Isserles was adopted in the West as the genuine code of Jewish law, and was recognized everywhere as an authentic set of laws of Israel.

The fact that Shulchan Aruch, from the very appearance gained much honor - is proved by the large number of commentaries on it. The first in line belong to the disciples of Isserles:

• 1. Zafer me'irof'znayim (abbreviated "SMA") - an explanation to the "Choshen ha-Mishpat"; and
• 2. Helkof mehokek - an explanation for "Eben ha-Ezer". After them came
• 3. Toure tsahab - to all 4 parts (more detailed to "Orah Hayyim" [Orach Chaim] and "Iore de'a" [Iore dea])
• 4. Ziffe Cohen (abbreviated "Shah") to the Iore dea and Choshen ha-Mishnat
• 5. Magen Abraham - an explanation to the "Orah Hayyim", and
• 6. Beth Samuel - to "Eben ha-Ezer".

Then, up to this time, there appeared countless other interpretations to the Shulchan Aruch.

In the preface to a commentary written by the Gaon, Rabbi Hirsch Eisenstadt in 5617, (1857) to the Eber ha-Ezer, it says:

In the preface of the same author to the "Iore de'a", published in 5596, (1836) it says:

But the Shulchan Aruch, not only enjoys extraordinary honor, but is also the current [acting] set of Jewish laws.

1. Code of Laws is a book by which the legal issues are resolved. Questions of this kind proposed by the rabbis for the resolution of specific cases, were published together with the answers for many centuries in the so-called "Shaalof utshubov" (Jews pronouce it as - "Shaales Utsheves"), ie the "Questions and Answers".

There are now not just hundreds but thousands of such casuistic solutions [decisions]. But with the advent of the Shulchan Aruch, all such similar solutions are invariably based precisely on it. Therefore, the Shulchan Aruch is the Code recognized by all, - this is doubtless.

2. Shulchan Aruch is the only collection of laws for our Jews, because they consider legitimate and perform only those rituals that are prescribed in the Shulchan Aruch. For example, a Jewish groom puts on a wedding ring on the index finger of his bride with the words: "Look, with this ring, you shall be married with me under the law of Moses and Israel". Meanwhile, this ceremony is not prescribed by the Bible, but exclusively by the Shulchan Aruch (Eben ha-Ezer, XXVII, 1, Hagah).

3. The Shulchan Aruch acts [is enforced, in force] universally. It is, needless to say, understood from everything stated. In addition, the proof could be provided by as many direct instructions of the very same Shulchan.

In the Shaalof utshubof Hafam Sofer (author - Rabbi Moses Schreiber, a rabbi in Pressburg, the father of the late parliamentary deputy in Vienna, Rabbi Simon Schreiber, a rabbi in Cracow), in the Iore de'a, we read the negative answer [reply] (59) about the intentions of one Rabbi to hold such a thought, that the words of Rma (Rabbi Moses Isserles) in the Iore de'a LVII, 18 Hagah, are valid [applicable] only in Poland.

To this, author even adds: "I can not believe that such speeches came from the lips of some teacher that has the casting [decisive] vote in Israel." In the end of unmentioned question: "This law does not exist here, but is effective only in the countries of Isserles"; here again the author notes: "After reading this, I shuddered and thought: could such words come out of the mouth of the old teacher"?

In the question 61 it reads: "Who dares after the opinion os Issreles to solve [decide] anything nicer [more pleasantly]?"

A whole book could be filled with such sayings.

4. Recognized by all as the present and the only set of laws, the Shulchan Aruch as such remains in force to this today.

This is already clear from what has been said above. It would be easy to add yet many other evidences. And since the matter is quite clarified, we will refer only to a single, but perfectly intelligible testimony.

The book published in Lemberg in 1873, Loeb ga'ibri (Part 2 pesak Beth Din) contains the final determination of the "holiest" assembly of rabbis, held in Hungary in autumn 1866. This document, signed by 94 rabbis, states: "All this is forbidden based on the Shulchan Aruch and commentaries."

However, we can consider the issue not from a rabbinic point of view, and, nevertheless, establish that our Jews did not try to deny the power of the laws of the Shulchan Aruch by any means.

Dr. Ramer, a rabbi in Magdeburg, wrote in an encyclopedic dictionary Pirer - Volume XVI (1879), in the article "Shulchan Aruch" - the following: "Shulchan Aruch is accepted by the Israelite communities as the legal basis and the measure of their religious practice"."

It adds further: "We can not however deny that a thorough review of the Shulchan Aruch, from the point of view of modern science, is the imperative need of our time, as much of it already does not conform [correspond] to the views of present-day", and it only shows that Rabbi Dr. Ramer belongs the Jews-reformers. But the orthodox Jew will not allow violations of the Shulchan Aruch in a single letter.

Let us listen to any of these orthodox Jews.

Henry Ellenberg in his "Historical Guide" (Budapest, 1883), defines the concept of the Shulchan Aruch clearly and distinctly: "In this book we find an addition. Here, with minted succinct, it explains how from abundant crop - the Talmud, formed a noble fruit - the Shulchan Aruch, ie correctly, in strict paragraphs is set out a theological code of laws" (it literally says so on page 43).

In the same manual (page 47), we read the following: "In order to create a balanced code of laws that can [is capable], if possible, answer all the questions of life, and, in light of irreconcilable contradictions, to give solutions according to majority of authorities, Joseph Caro published his work "Shulchan Aruch". After its appearance, this work has been recognized by all the rabbis as the only acceptable set of laws, and, thanks to the invention of printing, through many editions received a universal distribution.

Since the times when the Shulchan Aruch has taken roots and in all countries has been assessed and approved by the Jews as the sole legislative guide, the Talmud has lost its original meaning and in many places has been placed into the archives.

Here it, just as the Catholic "Holy Fathers" are studied only by clergy, serves as the subject of research only for rabbis and Jewish theologians, solely for the sake of acquiring knowledge of sources.

The secular Jew of our time knows the Talmud, except by its name, since he is able to even read it. Shulchan Aruch for the past three centuries, is the only theological book of laws for Jews and is our catechism.

In view of the above, it is necessary to conclude that the term "Jew-Talmudist", strictly speaking, is meaningless now, for such is almost non-existent for the past three hundred years. But the Jews of the present day, at least in the vast majority, are exclusively [merely] the Shulchan Aruchists."

III. Inhuman Jewish laws against against "idolaters" are directed against Christians as well

We are well aware that a some rabbi had a good laugh in the shower, while we worked on the evidence that the Shulchan Aruch is for certain [real, original, genuine] the code of Jewish law.

However, we were forced to do so in order to convince the Christians, almost entirely ignorant of our rabbinic Judaism. But then we have to prove again that "there is the sun", in other words, to certify once more, that, which is clear in itself, as the sun, and yet by crafty [cunning, lying] Jews is presented as a lie, and that, however, which we intend to establish in full clarity.

А. The words Goy, Nohri, Akum, Obed-Elilim and Kuti in rabbinical language indicate non-Jew. [*]

I. Fundamentals of the meaning of these expressions:

II. According to rabbinic use of language, there is no difference of any kind between all of these expressions. This is evident even from the fact that in different books of the Talmud, in the text of the same law the expressions mentioned are used interchangeably.

On the other hand, all the legalization [laws] have moved into a variety of the collections of the Talmud, in part already specified above, and, notably, they are expressed everywhere literally, and if they differ from one another in any respect, that would be the terms [ways] to express the concept of "non-Jew."

To prove this, we take from the first 50 laws of the "Jewish Mirror" (ie, therefore, from the Shulchan Aruch) those that illustrate our claim.

III. All these expressions mean the same thing as "non-Jew".

1. That the word Goy means precisely any non-Jew, this has never been denied by any Jew. And, as we have just proved, Goy is identical with an Akum and Nohri.

2. In enactments of the law, "Jew" is always contrasted [opposed] with a goy and Akum. It Always says, with a Jew act this way, with Akum - that way; only a Jew is permitted to fabricate [make, produce] it, but not a goy etc.

3. In the latest editions of the Shulchan Aruch, for example, in Vilna edition, in many places instead of the word "Akum," is placed one particular abbreviation meaning "non-Jew."

Everything said is so clear that there is no need to stay on this subject longer.

B. But rabbinism also issued such inhumane laws that are aimed solely against the Christians. This is quite evident from all of the above, because nobody would doubt that Christians belong to non-Jews. However, for greater accuracy, and we will prove it as well.

I. Talmudic-rabbinical Judaism regards Christians as true idolaters:

a) From all the above, of course, one can not conclude that the Jews want to treat Christians more humanely than to the actual idolaters. Divine Founder of our religion was crucified on the cross by their forefathers in a terrible blindness, and the craziest fantasy of the rabbis to this day still invent for him the most incredible punishment in the afterworld.

How, then, could His disciples receive more honor than the Master?

After all, in Christianity, Judaism was to recognize and truly saw the incomparably more dangerous enemy than the awkward Gentile idolatry. And, suddenly, Jewish laws would allow such incongruity as to treat Christians better than other non-Jews?!..

b) That the Jews rank Christians as idolaters, and this they expressed clearly and intelligibly in their writings. Let us take just few places for testing:

1) In the Talmud Aboda zara 7b Christian Sunday is ranked as "celebrations of idolaters."

2) In the same Talmud (27b) it tells how the disciple of Jesus, by the name of Jacob, wanted in His Name to heal the son of sister of Rabbi Ishmael, bitten by a snake, but Rabbi Ishmael did not allow it, because you can not be treated by a heretic. One sheet before (Talmud 26b) states: "Who is min [heretic]? - One who actually worships idols."

3) The Talmud Sabbath 116a says: "Rabbi Meir calls the books of heretics Avon gillayon, ie "The trouble on an empty paper" because they themselves call it "the gospel."

4) In Maimonides Aboda zarah 1:3 it says: "Know that the Nazarenes, wandering in the footsteps of Jesus, - though their dogmas vary, - yet all are idolaters, and that one should do to them as one would do to idolaters ... Thus teaches the Talmud."

5) In Shaalof Utshubof Havam Zofer, section Iore de'a CXXXI, we read: "There is no doubt that his (the modern goy) worship is idolatry." The same says Rambam in the "Gilhof Maahalof az'urof" XI:4. In our publications it is absent, but it is present in the Amsterdam and Venice editions.

6) In the Hagahof Asher Aboda zarah III:5 it states bluntly: "The cross belongs to idolatry."

7) Rabbenu Asher writes to Aboda zarah IV:1. "The silver bowl, which a Christian priest holds in his hands, and a censer [with incense], with which he spreads a smoke, belong to idolatry."

II. That in the Shulchan Aruch specifically what is called Akum, should be understood to include Christians as well, this is not subject to any doubt.

At the trial about the "Jewish Mirror" we have made the following comparison:

With all said above we would already resolve the issue fully and completely. However, we were do not have any difficulty to go even deeper. Even from the very text of the Shulchan Aruch one can conclusively prove that Christians are called "Akum":

1. Act 4 of the "Jewish Mirror@ states: "When someone (of the Jews) prays and towards him walks an Akum with a cross in his hands and he (the Jew) came to the place (in prayer), where they usually bow, then he should not do bows, even though his thoughts were directed to God."

2. According to the Law 71 it is prohibited to bow or take off ones hat to the kings and priests, if they have a cross on their chest.

3. Act 59 prohibits a Jew to derive any benefits from the cross, which is used for worship.

From these three laws it is abundantly clear that, in the opinion of the Jews, veneration of the cross is idolatry, and that the Christians worshiping the cross are [in essence] "Akums."

4. According to the Law 58, no Jew dares to give water to the Akum, if he knows that they desire to use it for baptizing. Therefore, the baptized are in essence Akums.

5. Iore de'a CXLVIII, Haga (cf. Law 94) says: "And the same thing - if a Jew today is sending a gift to the Akum on the eighth day after the "Nital", which day they call the "New Year", Nital is obviously identical with the Latin Natale, ie the day of birth of our Savior [Christmas]. The entire paragraph CXLVIII interprets precisely the idolatrous holidays. It seems impossible to say more precisely and more frankly that Christmas - is a pagan holiday, and Christians are Akums.

6. In a comment ... to Iore de'a 139:15 (cf. Law 58), note 11, it says: "Rabbenu Ieruham teaches that it is also prohibited to sell them, "Twenty-four books" written in Greek or another of their languages, because the translator of those translated them incorrectly in order to mislead them (Akums) and strengthened them in their faith." "Twenty-four books" is an unusual name of the Old Testament; and from the Bible no other Akum, except for a Christian can become stronger in his faith.

7. In the Supplements to the Shulchan Aruch of Moses Peserles, written, therefore, in the XVI century in [the city of] Krakow, author says bluntly that he lives among the Akum. It is said precisely this way in the Choshen ha-Mishpat 409:3, Haga "Today, when we live among Akums" (cf. Law 49). In Iore dea 148:12 Haga we read: "We live among them (Akums) and have to do business with them the entire year."

8. Every Christian knows that the Jew does not eat the animal that was slaughtered by a Christian; and yet in the Shulchan Aruch (Iore dea 2:1 in the "Jewish Mirror", Law 51) it only says that it is not allowed to eat from the animal, killed by Nohri (in the Talmud Hullin 13a it is written - Akum).

9. A Jew can not take the interest [percentages in money loans] from a Jew (Iore dea CLX), but only from the Akum (Iore dea CLIX). And that the Jews are taking interest from the Christians - it does not seem to require evidence.

10. How many Christians are in essence the "shabbes goyim", how many of the Christian girls - "shabbes shiskel" [shiksa] (Sabbath abomination [whore, prostitute]), and yet it says in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach-Hayyim CCXLIV: "In the Sabbath is allowed to perform ones work through the Akum." In the comment to this paragraph in the Shulchan Aruch ... note 8 it notes: "Here in our city, it is usually allowed to hire an Akum for a known amount in order to remove the manure from the street, and it is not forbidden to performed this work on the Sabbath by Akum". The author of this comment (d. 1775) was a rabbi in Kalisz (Russian Poland). Could it be that for sweeping the streets 100 years ago, the Polish Jews would bring in the "star gazers"(Akumas) from Babylon!? ..

 

Translator's note: Thus, having introduced the Shulchan Aruch to the reader, as a set of laws currently in force among the Jews, Professor Ecker proceeds to criticizing the 100 laws of Justus' "Judenspiegel".

CRITIQUE
OF HUNDRED LAWS OF SHULCHAN ARUCH

PRESENTED by JUSTUS
in "Judenspiegel"

100 laws Shulchan Aruch: the fundamentals of ZioNazism and Fascism

The most evil document of the entire history of the world. Hatred of the human race. Jews - the "higher beings". Goyim are animals. "Right" to rule the world. Enemies of the Judeans will be destroyed.

"Probably the most evil document of the entire history of the world"

Let us proceed directly to analysis of perhaps the most evil document in the entire history of the world, the basic laws of the Talmud, as collected in the Shulchan Aruch.

These anti-human laws have caused many tragedies for the Jewish people because, in essence, they turned a part of them into an informal criminal organization, opposing on the basis of racial considerations the rest of humanity.

The racial, man-hating nature of the laws of Judaism can be compared only with some racist documents of Nazi Germany.

Two versions of translation of the Shulchan Aruch

For completeness and accuracy of the picture and the subsequent analysis of these laws, we shall present them in two translations (from Hebrew) - the generalized (and sometimes just rephrasing) by Briman (Justus), and literal by Dr. K. Ecker [*1], which corrects some inaccuracies of the translation by Briman. In general, both these versions are complementary and give an idea about the Judaic-Talmudic ideology.

Act 1:
Jew is not allowed to sell clothing that is Tzitzit to Akum (Christian)

Literal translation

Analysis:

The words added by Justus in the second half of the law (strictly speaking they should be put in braces) are required for complete understanding. As for the latter exception, of course, it is omitted by Justus without intent, so as it is likewise proves that this prohibition came exclusively as a result of distrust to Akums.

Act 2:
Akum are not to be considered by Jews as people

The remaining citations of Justus interpret the prayer straps. Similar provisions concerning the Passover bread and the writings of the Torah, are placed: the first in Orah Hayyim, 406.1, and the second in Iore Dea 181.1.

Literal translation

Analysis:

As far as the Talmud perverting into a laughable meaning the biblical text ( The Old Testament: Ezekiel 34:31), it is proved by the contrary: "I am your God".

As for the presentation of the Justus, the first part of it, ie a ritual prescription itself, it must be admitted to correspond to the Shulchan-Aruch. Furthermore, judging by the quotes, it would be necessary to believe that further motivation is also found in the Shulchan Aruch, or at least in the Talmud. Meanwhile, upon verification it turns out that a similar reasoning is not present in the Shulchan Aruch, and in the Talmud, although it exists, but in a different order of thought. So, Justus allowed certain arbitrariness here.

And generally speaking, we ourselves could hardly find anything hateful in rabbinic injunction that the items needed for worship, have to be manufactured only by Jews. The simple reason is implied in the text itself, presented in Orah-Hayyim 14.1, where the God commanded the Israelites to make the brushes, from which the rabbis made the logical conclusion that non-Israelites are deprived of the right to make such. But it must be noted that if the ritual prescription in Shulchan is literal and does not contain the same rudeness that sees Justus, however, the statements with the same evil sense clearly are present in the complete Talmud. "What are we then if we are not men"? ... However, about this, we will still have the pleasure of hearing more than once. This issue is perfectly known to the Talmud.

Act 3:
Kaddish prayer is permitted to be read only there where ten Jews have gathered together ... in such a way so that no unclean thing, such as manure or Akum, would separate them from each other

Literal translation

Analysis:

According to our literal translation, it is about something impure between the individual and others [of the gathering], and not the way it is understood by Justus. But we have no doubt that he is right in the substance as well; however, we will let rabbis to argue with him about it.

For us, much more important and interesting is combination of two words ... The first means stercus (comp. Orach-Hayyim 85:2.

In the Vilna edition it says "the unclean thing". It is hardly necessary to remind that the publisher (who, of course, had excellent knowledge of the Talmud, where this delicate subject is interpreted, I do not know how many hundreds of times; if there were not present so sensitive, and other even more "delicate" matters, I'm sure, the voluminous Talmud would end up as a "fairly" thinner volume) - had woven-in this milder expression not so much because of politeness, but rather as a result of fear of the censors.

Regarding the second of the above mentioned words (combined) ... it is a shortening (abbreviation) and can mean either a face [personality] of (Akum), ie idolater, or the thing itself (ie, idolatry, and everything belonging to it). Whereupon, as the latest editions read ..., guided by the commentary ..., which directly says that ... "identity" of Akum is not a hindrance, however, the translation of Justus is justifiable by other comments ..., [*] where the same exact expression is related precisely to the "face" of an Akum, wherein it further states that it does not matter whether Akum is male or a female. Our opinion is that it speaks about both - a thing, and about the face [person]. In the final conclusion it should be recognized that Justus here deserves no reproach.

Law 4:
When one meets the Akum with a cross, then a Jew is strictly prohibited to bow his head

Literal translation

Analysis:

Even though not fully agreeable with this and yet, entirely correct formulation of the law by Justus only explains the matter more clearly. Throughout the "Jewish mirror" this prescription, is the most intelligible to us, as it proves conclusively that the term "Akum" is understood precisely as a Christian.

This explains why the Jews falsified the text in the latest editions. For example, in the Vilna edition instead of "Akum" it says "man"; in Stettin, instead of ... (actually a "sign of the Cross") stands ...... (ie "something idolatrous"). However, by similar rabbinical evasions poisonous Justus may not be exposed as telling untruth.

Law 5:
When some child becomes Akum, then the whole family is defiled

Literal translation

Analysis:

If Justus puts a general term "child" instead of "daughter", it is still not inaccurate, because "Beer heteb" (note 71) says specifically that in this case there is no difference between a son and a daughter. The words "or (if she commits) adultery" are omitted in the "Jewish mirror". Of course, without intention. Finally, that the "family" is defiled does not appear in the text; it only talks about the "father."

Law 6:
Jew, who became an Akum, is cursed

Literal translation

Analysis:

In the text of the Justus "to light" is identical in meaning with "to take" [accept] (see the opposite in the comment ..., which says ..., that is, "it should be taken from the Akum"). However, such a ban is hardly practical. And, generally speaking, should a Christian to be offended by this conduct of the Jews? Isn't in the Shulchan Aruch there exists nothing worse?!.. Author of "The Jewish Mirror" without any doubt, could find something "hotter" than this.

Law 7:
Prayer Simun is forbidden to be read in a house of Akum

Literal translation

Analysis:

The interpretation of this law is almost flawless. Everyone is obliged to keep the accepted "custom". Thus, the translation of Justus "prayers ... may not be read in the home of Akum" is not to be considered mistaken.

Law 8:
Over the incense of idolatry it is forbidden to read the prayer of gratitude

Literal translation

Analysis:

The fact that ..., ie "idolatry", is understood to include the temple of Akum as well, according to our introduction, is beyond all doubt. Thus, law 8 of Justus is correct in its essence.

It should be noted, however, that due to the close convergence of these three paragraphs, ie, combination latrine [bathroom], a whore, or a temple of Akum in the same text (as presented by Justus), a rabbinical injunction is even more hateful than it is in reality.

For our part, we should note that in the same paragraph, which refers to an outhouse, thanksgiving prayer is also prohibited over fragrant substances from Jewish corpses (as in both cases, this eliminates the bad smell). The individual prescriptions should be judged according to the general law, "a thanksgiving prayer should be read only over such spices that are prepared to be smelled [for sniffing]" (Shulchan Aruch 217:2).

Law 9:
Passing by the ruined temple of Akum, every Jew must say: "Glory to Thee, O Lord, for thou root out of here this house of idols"

Literal translation

Analysis:

The law 9 primarily uses the incorrect expression: "that Thou continue your anger toward the evil-doers [wicked]". In our opinion, with it can be said something opposite of what is stated in the Hebrew text ... "The length of the continuation or anger" expresses here not the extension of wrath in time, but slowing down the anger, ie "a fit of rage". This corresponds to the German word "Langmut" (forbearance, patience) (comp. Rashi on Exodus XXXIV, 16).

Justus directly translates - "temple" (Christian), although such a translation is not devoid of accuracy, but it can not be entirely approved, because the Berachah itself just uses the expression "a house of idols" - "temple" (of idolatry). And this is "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord." (Proverbs XX, 10).

In addition, both the words mentioned are printed in italics (in Justus), and so someone ignorant might conclude that, in this Talmudic law "Christian temple" is openly called "the house of idols". And others, perhaps, reading Justus, would see all the sharpness of the law precisely in this, which is not true.

Law 10:
It is forbidden to read a prayer of gratitude over the lights of idolatry

Literal translation

Analysis:

The main thing in this law is stated by Justus correctly. We only note that, from another point of view, Berachah is pronounced over lighting, not because it is used (because the candles could not lighted on the Sabbath), but in memory of the fact that the light was created just before the Sabbath (cf. comment ... ). However, for this law also one can not expect to recover a lot from the Jews.

Law 11:
In the land of Israel it is allowed to buy a house from Akum even on the Sabbath

Literal translation

Analysis:

The above law in the "Jewish Mirror" totally agrees with the text of the original. As to the very essence of the matter, it is likely that many will think to themselves: "Oh, if only the Jews would use this law as often as possible!". In any case, this law can hardly upset any "Akum".

Law 12:
When saving lives it is not necessary to pay attention to (the fact of who is in) majority

Literal translation

Analysis:

The subsequent presentation of Justus we can find in the Talmud Iomma 84b. However, in this law, we do not see anything hostile to the Akum (Christian). If during the Sabbath there would be nine Christians with a Jew under the pile and they would be saved by another Jew, we think that they would even be grateful to this Jew, even if they knew that it was done to them only for the sake of saving his co-religionists.

Law 13:
It is forbidden to assist an Akum woman while she is giving birth during sabbath because she is to be considered an animal

Literal translation

Analysis:

By comparing this inhuman ban with the prohibition of helping the animals giving birth (Orah Chaim 332:1) on the Sabbath, it is necessary to come to the conclusion that the reason, pointed by Justus in law 13 is quite close to truth. For the details about the comparison see the law 98.

Law 14:
On the eve of Passover, every Jew must read the Shefoh prayer (in which they appeal to God to pour out his wrath on the gentiles)

Literal translation

Analysis:

Horrible text of the prayer "Shefoh" consists of three biblical citations and reads as follows:

Not a bad selection of biblical texts! Of course, in regard to prayer "Shefoh" crafty and tenacious sons of Judah are ready to repeat that the name "goyim" does not imply Christians. But be that as it may, we are not afraid of such a "good wishes", and are not even angry at the Jews, we who "wander in the footsteps of the Nazarene," who commanded us:

Compare this with the curse of the Judean prayer of the Catholic Church in the liturgy of Good Friday.

Law 15:
During the holidays one can not cook for Akum and dogs

Literal translation

Analysis:

The expression "Leben lassen" (let live), used by Justus twice, needs to be understood as "faire", a not "Laisser" (vivre).

In this extremely inhumane law the issue in addition, as perhaps some would think at first sight, is not about some beloved dog or some backyard dog; this kind of limitation is not implied in the texts. Even in Orah Chaim, 324:11, which describes what kind of animals should be given food to eat on the Sabbath, and where it is said that it was necessary to throw the food to the dogs because "you must feed them", all the comments notice directly that it is not only about their own dogs.

Law 16:
During Holgamoeda any trading activities are strictly forbidden, but loaning to Akum is allowed

Literal translation

Analysis:

"The Jewish Mirror" brings as the main reason, "because extortion [taking advantage, making money] from Akum is pleasing to the Lord God at all times." This is an addition of Justus. In the Shulchan Aruch it states only "because a Jew otherwise would have lost this opportunity to profit". Is it permissible for Jews to charge interest to Akum (which is not allowed to be taken from the Jews), or are Jews obligated to do so - is a question about which even the most crafty of Jewish Talmudic commentators disagree with each other.

Law 17:
If there is a plague among pigs or Akum, but not among the Jews, then we must accept it

Literal translation

Analysis:

The expression "and also" can not be justified in the translation of Justus, by which the motive itself - "because their body is like a human body" appears in a somewhat different light. The literal text of the law does not have such sharpness. However, there remains a kind of out of place and inappropriate fact that in the same short paragraph of Shulchan Aruch as well as in the complete Talmud it speaks of the pigs and an Akuma [in the same place].

Law 18:
During the celebration of Aman one should pray: "Cursed be Haman and all of Akum and Blessed be Mordecai and all the Jews"

Literal translation

Analysis:

It is precisely during the feast of "Purim" (Aman), one can sooner have some leniency towards Jews. Shulchan Aruch (Orah Hayyim, 695:2 and the Talmud Megillah 7b) lecture that every Jew during the holiday of Purim must get drunk and get his head cloudy to the point of being unaware of the difference between "Cursed be Haman!" and "Blessed be Mordecai!"

With regard to this commandment Buxtorf in his book "Ju-den-Schul" (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1737.) observes: "It says here: a Jew is to get drunk to the point of not being able to count five fingers on his hand. And this commandment is executed with the utmost diligence."

Law 19:
Any Beth Din could sentence to death even if the crime did not deserve the death penalty

Literal translation

Analysis:

This last act is presented by Justus correctly, especially if we are able to justify the last part of it, "even if the crime itself is not deserving of the death penalty." On this occasion, it should be noted that even if the said words do not appear in the text of the Shulchan Aruch literally, they are present in the comment "...". It says literally: "...": "even if this offense is not (punishable according to the law) by capital punishment."

But in order to eliminate any doubt, we consider it necessary to point out that the application of the law, and precisely as interpreted by Justus, can be seen from the specific cases cited in the Talmud itself.

For example, Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob, said: "I heard that the Beth Din beats and is punished not as prescribed by the laws of the Torah; but this (is) not to violate the Torah, but just the other way around, with the goal to build a fence around the very Torah.

It happened that in Greek times (ie, during the reign of the Greeks over the Jews) some man on the Sabbath rode atop the horse; he was taken to Beth-Din, who sentenced him to stoning, not because he deserved it, but because that was required at that time [required by the times]" (Sanhedrin 46a).

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin 46а

Law 20:
Anyone who expresses an intention to resolve their case with them (Akum judges) is a villain

Literal translation

Analysis:

By expression "Beth Din must curse him", Justus somewhat exaggerated; in the original text it only states "has power (in its hand)", ie, it has the power to do so.

Law 21:
It is not proper for a Jew to be a witness for the Akum against another Jew

Literal translation

Analysis:

In a comment ... (Note 15) it is noted that the witness is not subject to anathema (herim) if he returns the money (ie, awarded to him by the court in this way) to a Jew defendant.

Law 22:
The one who (openly) begs from Akum can not (testify as) witnesses, but the one who is suspected of adultery is [nevertheless] eligible as a witness, and the one who steals in Nisan, and in Tishri is not regarded as a thief

Literal translation

Analysis:

On the content it is correct, except for the proposal in braces: "ie, arrange things without publicity, as needed", which is not contained in the text.

Law 23:
A Goy and a slave are not able to testify because they are not people

Literal translation

Analysis:

Since the motive of the law, as presented by Justus, is not mentioned in the original sources, it can be perceived as arbitrary, especially if one refers to the fact that Akuma deemed incapable of evidence only for the strength of the fact that the Jews doubt their love for truth.

However, such a conclusion would be entirely incorrect. On the contrary, the statement made in the "Jewish Mirror" finds a strong reinforcement in the comments... which literally means that even Akuma "about which there exist a firm conviction that they will not lie", still are not able (to witness) because they do not belong to the notion of a "brother" and are "not better than a slave" in any way (note 24).

Law 24:
Money of Akum is ownerless (owned by nobody) property, and everyone who came first, seizes it

Literal translation

Analysis:

Here we find the word ... which is used exclusively in relation to Akuma and should in no way be understood in a good sense, which is plentifully pointed out in the entire citation now cited.

The comment ..... derives the same word from ..... "shower" [pour out] (cf. Deuteronomy. XXXII, 2. "Pour down like a dew, my speech"; XXXIII, 28: "The heavens shall drop down a dew"). He explains it as "the Jew is constantly sucking the Akuma and lives on them."

Others derive the said word from the ...... "nape" [back of the head]; in that case it means a kind of "grab him by the back of his head" (neck).

Without changing the essence, the expression in the "Jewish Mirror" to "hold him in his claws" is perhaps still too strong. However, disagreement on this point is hardly of great importance when discussing the meaning of the law, as its center of gravity is undeniable and indisputable ruling that the property of non-Jew is considered to be "goods, that do not belong to anybody."

Law 25:
Citizens (ie the Jews) of the same community have the right to prohibit the merchants from other places to come to them and sell some goods more cheaply

Literal translation

Analysis:

The first part of the law as set forth by Justus is not entirely accurate. The word "cheaper" should be stricken out, and after the word "better" inserted "or cheaper", so that the text would read "and to sell goods, except in the case where goods from other cities are better or cheaper than from the locals." However, this error does not in any way soften the sharpness of the Talmudic law, directed against non-Jews.

On the other hand, the motives of the law are not taken from a text of the Shulchan Aruch, but presented by the author of the "Jewish Mirror" himself. However, to justify the author it does not hurt to compare the expression: "because permission to do good to the Akum is considered a sin", the laws 33, 34, 81, etc.; the final part of the same law was taken by Justus literally from esteemed Jewish exegete Rashi (on Exodus 22:31).

In Deuteronomy 14:21 we read:

To the last words Rashi notes:

Generally speaking, we do not feel justified in reproaching Justus in that for better illustration of the law 25 and others, he cites the rabbinical commentaries on this text.

Law 26:
Benefit from the fraud against Christian belongs to the Jewish owner

Literal translation

Analysis:

The phrase "or cheated the Akum," should be crossed out as 176:38 deals with the joint "friendly" Gesheft.

Law 27:
When a Jew sends a clerk to Akum for the money and he cheats the Akum and takes more, then it belongs to the clerk

Literal translation

Analysis:

To this, Haga also concludes:

Here [in the original text] stands "made a mistake", and not "cheats"; but if Justus uses the word "cheats", then even in this case it can by justified by the comment ... from which it is clear that it is not only about the Akum's own mistake.

Law 28:
When a Jew is conducting business with Akum and another Jew comes and deceives Akum, no matter how, then both Jews should share in such profits

Literal translation

Analysis:

"Oh, this godless Justus"! some readers might think, checking his laws against the latest editions of the Shulchan Aruch. Justus uses the expression "..." 'and deceives Akum ', while in the text it says clearly "and Akum makes a mistake", and this is not a small difference! For our part, we also treat Justus without any tenderness, however, to pervert what was done by him, well, we absolutely refuse - it would not be forgivable.

In the phrase mentioned "..." in the newest editions is nothing else than the rabbinical subterfuge [cunning trick]; a good old text contains "..." "and he mislead the Akum", ie deceived him. So wrote Joseph Caro, and no printer in the world has the right to falsify his text. And the expression "grist [profit, dishonest earning] sent down from Jehovah" is really the addition of Justus himself. But apart from this, the essence remains the same.

Regardless of the seemingly accidental nature of this law, it is precisely giving that advantage to the Jews which makes them invincible when they act together [collaborate]. Having conceived a criminal or even a slippery matter, several Russians, Germans or Englishmen, perhaps will not conspire, will not dare to, for fear of each other, or will not share [the profit among themselves], and die.

Nothing like that threatens the Jews. Among the well-known circumstances, they conspire quickly. Loving treason [betrayal], they are merciless to traitors (See Law 45 and 46).

As for the cheating in calculation [or paying the incorrect amount], there is hardly a chance of that, because it is punished, first of all as a crime against the state of Israel, for its power is in unity; and secondly, as a blasphemy, because the Talmud was given on Mount Sinai by Jehovah himself. (translator's note).

Law 29:
When Jew sends a clerk to Akum to pay the debt, and Akum forgot about the debt, then the money should be returned to the Jew, who sent him

Literal translation

Analysis:

Text in "Jewish Mirror" is perfectly OK. The words "so that the Akum would say: 'say, the Jews are still decent people'" are essentially the true explanation of the previous ones. The conclusion "something like it he could do only with his own money; as he has no right to throw around someone else's money" is taken from the comments ...., where it says "his own property, he may sanctify the Name of the Lord, but not with someone else's goods."

Law 30:
When a Jew sold to another Jew the things he stole, and the owner took them back, then the seller is obliged to return the money to the buyer

Literal translation

Analysis:

The reason pointed by Justus: "because he did not have to steal" seems inadequate, because from it one could only conclude that "it is permitted to steal from Akum" (Choshen ha-Mishpat, 348:1).

Meanwhile, the real reason lies much deeper: the thief must return the money to the buyer only in case when the thing, which appeared in his possession, but stolen from another Jew, is taken away from him by legal means, ie based on the decision of the Jewish court; but when the thing was stolen from the Akum, then the buyer himself should have (taken his own measures against the trial of Akuma) to prevent the confiscation of it from himself; otherwise all the losses fall on himself, and the seller, who stole the thing, of course, has no reason to return him the money.

Law 31:
It is strictly forbidden for a Jew to cheat his fellow Jew, but towards Akum there is no such a thing as deception

Literal translation

Analysis:

The phrase "he is not obliged to return to Akum the amount of cheating" does not appear right in the law; however, from unquestionable legalization of "there exists no deception in relation to the Akum" it follows that Jew is not obliged to return anything to the Akum.

Law 32:
Under threat of damnation from Rabbi Gershon it is prohibited to make a competition while renting property from Akum

Literal translation

Analysis:

The text contains not "menuda" (or, more precisely, menudda), but herem. There is, however, no significant difference between the two expressions.

Law 33:
It is forbidden to listen to a sick one when he wishes to give a gift to Akum

Literal translation

Analysis:

Therefore, it is not "as we shall see later", but in this very law it literally says that it is a sin to give something to the Akum.

Law 34:
The thing lost by Akum, is allowed to be kept (without giving it back)

Literal translation

Analysis:

At the end of the law, Justus would have the right to also add: "It is praiseworthy, even when someone returns a thing [he] found to Akum precisely with that intention." However, hardly anyone would recognize such an addition as particularly important. The law itself is inhumane and unjust.

Law 35:
When an animal belongs to a Jew, and a load to Akum, you have to unload and load, because a Jew is in a difficulty. But when the animal and the load is owned by Akum, then you are not obliged to do so

Literal translation

Analysis:

The words of the "Jewish Mirror" "and the cabby is Akum" should be crossed out; furthermore, it should be noted that, as can be seen from the above, it is forbidden to help also in the case where the load belongs to a Jew, and Akum is himself the driver of his animal. Therefore, the text of the law, as expressed by Justus, does not say it all.

Law 36:
Jew, who owes something to Akum and Akum dies, and none of the Akum know about debt, is not obliged to pay the inheritance to Akum's heirs

Literal translation

Analysis:

Thus, the original text only contains "not obliged"; therefore, in the "Jewish Mirror" with term "forbidden" is said too much. The conclusion "but when (at least) one Akum knows about it" - is not only the correct conclusion, but is directly mentioned in the commentary ... ".

Law 37:
A Jew is forbidden to steal something either from another Jew or from a goy, but to cheat the goy, or not pay him ones debt is permitted, but with caution

Literal translation

Analysis:

Therefore, it is forbidden by law to rob [steal from] a goy, and, under certain circumstances, it is even prescribed to return what was stolen. However, it would be interesting to see the real reason closer. In the Eben-ha-Ezer 28:1 it is said that the betrothal (collusion [conspiracy] during marriage) is not valid when the dowry money was robbed or stolen.

However, Haga in this case observes: "But when he got married, accepting money stolen or robbed from the Akum, then marriage is valid, because (such money), he was obliged to return only out of fear that without doing so the Lord's name would be defiled."

Law 38:
When a Jew buys something from a thief and sells it to another Jew, and Akum comes and declares it stolen from him and takes it away (stolen) from the buyer, then, if the thief is known as such, the first Jew is obliged to return the money to the second one

Literal translation

Analysis:

The law in that regard is inaccurately interpreted in the "Jewish Mirror", in that the distinction should made, whether the thief is known as such or not; only in the latter case, the law as presented by Justus is correct.

Law 39:
If a Jew has bought the rights to collect the customs duty from the King, then those engaged in smuggling are considered robbers of the Jew

Literal translation

Law 40:
Where the officer is a Jew, and he collects for the king, though it is forbidden to engage in smuggling, when someone imports the illicit goods, then the collector should not force him (the smuggler) to pay (the customs fees)

Literal translation

Law 41:
State laws need to be complied with, but only those that cause the State to receive a revenue

Literal translation

Analysis:

From the above stated, it is clear that in order for "all the laws of the Jews were not redundant", the rule "the state law is the law (for the Jews)" may find its application ONLY if it is not inconsistent with ANY law of the Shulchan Aruch.

Law 42:
It is forbidden to play the games of cubes with a Jew, ie to deceive him in the game of cards or dice or other games that allow cheating, because all this is robbery, but robbing the Jews is forbidden. But with Akum it is allowed.

Literal translation

Analysis:

Each win in the game of bones [cubes] is considered a robbery [rip-off], and not only the winnings by deceit; therefore, the expression "deceive" in the "Jewish mirror" has no basis.

Law 43:
When Reuben sold anything to Akum, and comes Shimon and tells Akum that the thing he bought should not be so expensive, then he is guilty and has to compensate (Reuben)

Literal translation

Analysis:

In the first part of the law of the "Jewish Mirror" intention of Justus to note the fact that the first Jew takes more than a thing is really worth seems insufficiently motivated. The main thing here is not that, but exclusively in that the second Jew allowed himself to say that the item is not worth that money which, in any case, were "legitimately" taken by the first Jew from an Akum.

But if we compare the second part of the law with our translation of the original text, then one might think that Justus says the opposite; he claims that Simon must return Reuben his lost money, while in the text is says that he is free.

Both texts should be used together with the need to distinguish whether Simon went to Akum on his own initiative and persuaded him to not keep any money of Reuben, or Akum himself went to Simon because he thought Reuben takes too high of interest rates. In the first case, Simon is obliged to compensate Reuben for the losses, and in the last - he doesn't.

Law 44:
When the law requires payment of taxes to the king, and some Jew evades this duty, and yet another Jew informs the authorities about it, then Jewish informer is obliged to compensate all the losses to the first Jew

Literal translation

Analysis:

Instead of "whereupon he was forced to pay duties" it should say "and take away his produce." In our opinion, the case here is not about any ordinary, ie legislated taxes, but only on a random request imposing an emergency compliance on the owners. In view of this it would seem that the whole law needs to be explained differently than it was done by Justus. In the latest editions instead of "..." "King," it says "..." "an oppressor, a tyrant"; and this, of course, is falsification of the letters of the text, although it may indeed represent, perhaps, the true expression of its meaning.

Law 45:
It is allowed to kill a traitor at any place, even in our time. It is permissible to kill him before he manages to snitch.

Literal translation

Analysis:

This law is translated in the "Jewish mirror" not only correctly, but also almost verbatim. For our part, we consider it our duty to note the fact that in the original text it says in addition, "at any place". Therefore, the killing of the traitor is a must everywhere, no matter where he was found.

Law 46:
When someone snitched on a Jew to Akum thrice, then it is necessary find ways and means to get rid off him

Literal translation

Analysis:

The addition of Justus "even though he promised to change and not to continue to tell on someone", we find insufficiently motivated. Murder is not done out of revenge for the betrayal (comp. 388:11), but primarily for the sake of security in the future, according to this consideration: who did something three times, he will do it a greater number of times. [*]

Law 47:
When the ox of a Jew injures an ox of Akum, then a Jew is not obliged to compensate Akum for his loss. But, when the ox of Akum injures the ox of a Jew, then Akum is obliged to compensate the Jew for the loss because he is Akum

Literal translation

Analysis:

The reason given by Justus in his last sentence - "because he is Akum" seems somewhat naive, but it is absolutely true. At the base of this interesting law, the comment "........", without any ado, provides that a Jew has the right to oblige the Akum to compensate for the loss, while the Akum can not oblige a Jew . Basta! ..

Law 48:
One should not keep the small livestock in Palestine, because it has a habit of grazing on others' fields causing damage

Literal translation

Analysis:

The words of Justus "as elsewhere, where the fields do not belong to the Jews", even though they are added in excess of the original text, nevertheless are essentially correct.

Law 49:
It is forbidden for a Jew to keep the vicious dog that bites people, without the dog being tied on a chain, but it is applicable only where the Jews are the only residents

Literal translation

Analysis:

As the part of Haga shows, omitted to no avail by Justus, this "vicious dog" (for his chain) is not yet so bad.

This law is apparently given as a precaution against the (dangerous) Akum.

If someone wanted to be cunning, then perhaps it would not be difficult to say that the word "people" is understood only to mean Jews (compare Law 2). But even for the Jewish dogs, despite their sensitive noses, it is hardly possible to expect that they sensed who is a gentile every time, and would bite those only.

Whereupon worthy of note is the fact that in the Vilna edition the addition of "when we live among Akum" is omitted.

Law 50:
Jewish free-thinker, as well as those who reject the Torah and the prophets of Israel, to kill all such is a good deed. It is not allowed to a Jew to save Akum from death

Literal translation

Analysis:

Thus, there is nothing to complain about in the text of the Justus. Everything he said, word for word is written in the Shulchan Aruch, as our translation certifies. For a perfect satiation, this entire story is repeated again in another section of the same Shulchan Aruch - Iore de'a 158:2.

Jews are well aware that the law may turn out to be extremely uncomfortable when Christian scholars bring it into the light. The proof of this are the numerous inserts "..." (ie, "this was in the past", "doing something like that in the past"), "bonded" [glued in] in the latest editions, printed in Russia. Why did the authors themselves, Caro and Isserles, did not write in this way? Answer is quite simple - they had no fear of Russian censorship!

And those who agree with their clearly expressed words, to those the entire Shulchan Aruch should be thrown overboard. But no rabbi in the world has a right to falsify their text. However, the current text itself convinces us that such "corrections" - an obvious nonsense, since it is directly stated [as] "........" - " even in our time."

Law 51:
An animal killed by Akum, or a Jew who became an Akum, must be regarded by Jews as carrion

Literal translation

Analysis:

Did Justus allow himself the inaccuracy in translation, by using the word "Akum," while in the original it says "nohri"? Not at all! We have proved in the introduction that "Akum" and "nohri" - are identical expressions.

But above that, we can not fail to notice that in the original place in the Talmud, from which the above stated law of the Shulchan Aruch was taken, it is not written "nohri", but precisely "Akum" (Hullin 13.8); and the same is stated by Rambam in his Gilhot shehita, par. 4:18.

Even in the latest editions of the Shulchan Aruch, in which, as we know, the Jews acted quite cautiously (ie in Vilna and Stettin [editions]), in this place stands precisely such expression ....... which is used by Jews all over the place instead of the original one ...... "Akum."

Law 52:
It is forbidden to a Jew to cut the animal, which is not yet 8 days old. One can not rely on Akum in regard to animals which were bought from him, and (which) he claimed to be 8 days old

Literal translation

Analysis:

The reason given by Justus - "because Akum are liars and deceivers", does not actually appear in this particular text.

Law 53:
It is not allowed for nohrif (Christian) to breast feed the child, when you can have a Jewess, because the milk of nohrif closes the heart and creates an evil nature in it

Literal translation

Law 54:
Rabbis have forbidden to eat bread baked by Akum, or anything cooked by Akum, or drink his liquor, as it may lead to socially friendly relations

Literal translation

Analysis:

"Socially-friendly relationships", of course, are not limited to nepotism (or matchmaking); in spite of this, Haga, nevertheless, notices that the prohibition is in force, even where you can not be afraid of matchmaking. According to the "Haga" it is allowed to buy some bread, from the Christian baker even in the area, where there exists a Jewish baker.

Law 55:
It is always a good deed to snatch something from Akum

Literal translation

Analysis:

Regarding the text of the law given in the "the Jewish mirror", only something regarding the explanation in parentheses should be noticed. The first parentheses is essentially true; however, a direct comparison of "pigs" and "things of the Christian temple" gives the matter too harsh of an interpretation. In the second parentheses one can not endorse the expression "a fictitious [invented] debt"; even though it is taken from a comment ..., but, in our opinion, it speaks only of the "questionable" debt.

Law 56:
When a Jew has bought some dishes from Akum, then he should wash it clean because Akum is (in the Jewish sense) impure

Literal translation

Analysis:

The law [as presented] in "Jewish mirror" is correct. The addition in parentheses, "This is how wicked of a creation Akum is", I think, the author may be forgiven for. However, it would be more accurate to say "unclean" instead of "wicked" as is presented in the Talmud literally.

Let, however, the "pure" Jews wash themselves forever - what does it matter to us? Our Divine Savior used, as is known, this ritual prescription, so vibrantly executed by ancient Pharisees, to utterly clearly speak the truth to them:

Law 57:
Jew is forbidden to drink wine from a bottle or glass, which was touched by Akum, because of such a touch by Akum wine is defiled

Literal translation

Analysis:

Thus, the law of Justus agrees with the motive, presented by him. In the interest of accuracy, it can, perhaps, be added that drinking wine, even if it was touched by Akum, is allowed to a Jew when the bottle (or a barrel) is sealed. (Cf. 125:9 and a comment .... footnote 14).

Law 58:
A Jew is forbidden to derive any pleasures or benefits that he might enjoy from the temples of Akum

Literal translation

Analysis:

The reasons, given in the second part of the law in the "Jewish mirror" - "in order to prevent Akum from making money on it" is not present in the text. Jew should not sell these things in order to interfere with [the acts of] "idolatry"; but if you can buy them elsewhere, and, therefore, the interference to idolatry turns out to be impossible, then the Jew is allowed to sell the things mentioned, and thus make money on it.

Of all the regulations mentioned, the most notable for us, of course, is the prohibition to deliver the water for baptizing to "Akum".

Law 59:
All the images in the villages are prohibited because they are, without doubt, made for idols

Literal translation

Analysis:

The text in "Jewish Mirror" does not deserve reproach. Justus could, perhaps, add that a Jew is permitted to trade crosses that are "broken", for example, When the "handle is broken off".

Law 60:
A Jew is strictly forbidden to derive any pleasure or benefit from the temple of Akum, such as having a walk in its shadow during summer, listen to organ music, or to look at one of its beautiful paintings in order to enjoy it

Literal translation

Analysis:

Since our translation of the last sentence of the first quote - "Some even prohibit it unconditionally" according to a comment ... (Note 21), applies to the first sentence of Justus as well, the law of the "Jewish Mirror" in its first part is justified. But the images or the pictures, the sight of which you are not allowed to enjoy, are the only ones that are placed there for worship, and not as simple decorations of the temple (cf. ...... Note 26).

Law 61:
It is strictly forbidden for a Jew to build a house next to the Akum temple

Literal translation

Analysis:

Consequently, at the end of the law Justus had to say, "fill with thorns or human eruptions."

Law 62:
Jew is not allowed to have fun or profit from the temple-owned property of Akum when the income goes to the liturgical purposes

Literal translation

Analysis:

Therefore, at the end of the law it is necessary to add: "and when this property is not located at the very court of house of idols" (otherwise, using them is always prohibited).

Law 63:
Strictly forbidden for a Jew to participate in donation collection for the temple of Akum

Literal translation

Analysis:

For clarity, Justus delivered text in somewhat lengthier manner, but there is no reason to object.

Law 64:
It is a good deed to be done to Akum temples, as well as all their belongings or made for them, by every Jew, as much as possible, is to try to destroy and burn them, and to scatter the ashes in all winds, or throw them into the water

Literal translation

Analysis:

Thus, in addition it is necessary to "grind" [rub down] the ashes, and comment ..... does make, of course, of extreme importance such an observation that it is necessary to rub the ashes only when they are thrown into the river, on which the ships sail, because otherwise something could easily stick and hang at the side; but if discarding the ashes in a "sea of ​​salt", rubbing is not required. However, the citation of ..... that, for the sake of safety, you should always rub (note 14). (That is one of the many thousands of examples of what the rabbis argue about!).

Law 65:
A Jew who vows anything in the name of the temple of Akum should be given 39 strokes with the stick, and furthermore it is forbidden to even use the name of such a temple; with respect thereto, only the embarrassing nicknames must be used

Literal translation

Analysis:

In general, we have nothing to object to the fact that Justus sometimes translates "idols" with "Christian Church" ("house of Akuma").

However, in this particular law, "church" would have been too narrow of a term; in this case, crosses, statues of saints, image, hallowed things, etc. are equally implied.

As for the often mentioned 39 strokes, then, to note the uninitiated people, we note the following:

For bodily punishment the law has established 40 strokes (Deut. XXV, 3). Rabbis have lowered the number of strokes to 39. Cf. II Cor. XI, 24: "From the Jews five times have I received forty stripes save one."

At the base of this practice in the interpretation of the Bible it mentions the usual Pharisees scruples - as if by mistake in the counting not to exceed the statutory number 40.

But according to the Talmud, the question is resolved on the basis of a different interpretation of the same biblical text (Deut. XXV, 3); the previous verse (XXV, 2) ends with the words ..... "Forty" and then explains, "at the count of forty", ie the count, which stands close to 40, so, thus - 39 (see Talmud Makkot 22a).

Yet another reason is provided by Rabbah (Makkot 226); this place is too interesting not to familiarize our readers with it. It reads:

According to the statements of rabbis, therefore, it appears that they did so out of mercy.

Law 66:
A Jew is forbidden to lend money to Akum, or to even conduct any business with him for three days before one of his (Akum) holidays, because Akum could use it to please himself during holidays. However, for excessively high interest rates loaning to Akum is allowed

Literal translation

Analysis:

Thus, the current practice of the Jews proves that they are now applying a more lenient interpretation of the law not so much for the sake of peace, but because of a much more sonorous reasons.

If Justus translated ... "exorbitant" [excessive] interest, then we would have nothing against it; but when he takes the "high exorbitant interest," and the word "high" is printed in a special font, giving to mentioned word even greater importance, then it turns out that what he says is stronger than what is said in the text, for the legal 5 percent in essence as well ...

As for the motive mentioned in the "Jewish Mirror" - "so the very pleasure would be bittered because of the coming pains of paying it back", he borrowed it from Tozefof [Tozefoth] and Aboda Zarah 2a where the law itself, that allows to lend money to Akuma for interest and in the above mentioned holidays, was pronounced for the first time.

Law 67:
A Jew is forbidden to give any gifts to Akum on one of his (Akum) holidays, as it is allowed only when he knows that Akum is unbeliever. Similarly, a Jew is forbidden to accept gifts from Akum on his holiday

Literal translation

Analysis:

The main disagreement between the texts of the "Jewish Mirror" and our translation is in the process of receiving and throwing. Justus says "secretly" and we translate "under hand in his presence." This disagreement is motivated as follows:

Expression ...... "in his presence" the author of Shulchan Aruch explains in his commentary on Maymonides ... "Gilhof Akum par. 9:2": "in the presence of himself, that is with him personally", or when (a gift received) sent through a messenger [clerk], then in the presence of this latter. On the contrary, Rashi refers it only to the very Akum who gives it as a present (cf. Aboda zarah 66). The first view is a bit far-fetched; the motive, obviously, is the assumption that the Jew is even making more fun [insults] a good-natured Akum when he throws the gift right before his eyes, than if he did not accept the gift.

Meanwhile, the center of gravity of the issue lies precisely in the term ..., and this latter, in fact, means "as if from the back of the hand", ie, not in an ordinary way, but pretending it was an accident.

Cf. Talmud Aboda zarah 66: "Some kind of heretic sent Rabbi Yehuda Nazia the imperial coin on his (pagan) holiday, and, moreover, just at the time when he was visited by Riesch Lavish. Yehuda asked Lavish: "What should I do? If the coin is taken, then the heretic will go and give thanks to his idols; but if it is not taken, then a dislike is created." Riesch Lavish told him: "Throw the coin into a well in front of the messenger". "But if I do that, would not he (heretic) become even more hostile to me!" "Do it as though from the back of the hand."

Law 68:
It is forbidden to a Jew to go to Akum's house during the Akum holiday so as not to be obliged to shake hands with him

Literal translation

Analysis:

So, in this case, a Jew should greet reluctantly and without affection. He shall do so only as much as necessary to avoid hostility.

Law 69:
Always forbidden to respond to a bow of Akum, so it is advised to bow first, so that the Akum would not (bow) first, and thus force one to respond to his bow

Literal translation

Analysis:

Consequently, there is no friendship in that the Jews are so forthcoming in bows to Akums. Quite interesting also is the note in the Talmud (Gittin 62a): "The servant of Kagan usually greeted Akum with the words: ... "Peace to Mr.!". On this occasion, Rashi notes: "He did not even mean to bless him (Akum), but his intention was directed to his [own] rabbi (teacher)."

The fact that Justus added to the words of the Shulchan Aruch, only clarifies the issue.

Law 70:
It is considered a holy good deed, when a Jew stays away from the temple of Akum, at by least 4 cubits. Very strictly prohibited for a Jew to bow his head in front of mentioned temple, when, for example, a splinter has gotten into his leg or when he drops his money down

Literal translation

Analysis:

Since in the Shulchan Aruch the expression "Christian" is not explicitly mentioned, Justus should have in the second part of the law put the adjective "Christian" in parentheses.

Law 71:
A Jew is forbidden to take off his hat before the kings or priests, who have a cross on their dress or a cross worn on the chest, so it does not look like he makes a bow before the cross

Literal translation

Analysis:

Who wears a cross on his chest, if not Christian rulers and priests? And we certainly understand why the cautious publisher of the text in Vilna [edition], instead the word "cross" has put ...... "the image of idolatry". But then, unfortunately, there are also fraudulent - the old texts!

Law 72:
It is forbidden to Jews in the neighborhood or on the street where they live, to rent or sell houses to three Akum, to prevent that street from becoming Christian

Literal translation

Analysis:

Since the crosses, images, etc., from the point of view of the Jews, of course, fit the concept of "idolatry", then perhaps someone would want to conclude from the last sentence that, according to the author of Hagah, Catholics do not count as idolatrous. In view of this, we need to notice that comment ...... (Note 13), about this place, includes the following:

Law 73:
It is considered a great sin to give something to Akum as a present. Prohibited (to a Jew) to give a gift to Akum, whom he does not know

Literal translation

Analysis:

At first glance it may seem that Justus missed here a very important addition to the Shulchan Aruch, namely, that a Jew who is familiar with the Akum, is quite allowed to give presents to the latter. We, on our part, note that neither in the Talmud itself (Aboda Zara 20a) nor in Maimon (Gilhof Akum, par. 10:4) there exists such limitation. Rather, it comes from Tozefof [Tozefoth] to Aboda zara 20a. And here is the reason for which it is permitted to give presents to a familiar Akum. Tozefof says literally the following:

It's like saying, "Jew hopes that the Akum will not fail to give him a present in return."

As for the ending of the law in the "Jewish Mirror", it is only a more detailed explanation of the words in the text: "for the sake of peace and harmony."

Law 74:
Jew is forbidden to praise Akum in his absence, such as saying: "What a handsome man," but still a thousand times more strictly forbidden to praise his virtues

Literal translation

Analysis:

In the comments ....... it says that is allowed only to glance at Akum, to peer at him is not allowed. The reason is found in the ...... "Because generally not allowed to examine [to look carefully, with attention] an infidel" (note 20).

Against the rest of the text of Justus in the "Jewish Mirror" we essentially have nothing.

Law 75:
A Jew is forbidden to take part in a wedding feast of Akum, even if there is an opportunity to bring with him his own food and his own waiter

Literal translation

Analysis:

In the comments ...... it is complemented that the food sent by Akum, should not be consumed as a meal by several Jews together, otherwise it is like they would eat in the house of the Akum.

Law 76:
A Jew is forbidden to send his child to a Christian school or to take him to a Christian craftsman to learn some skill, because Akum (Christians) would tempt him to do evil

Literal translation

Analysis:

In the first part of the law of the "Jewish Mirror", again, twice had to be used "Akum," and "Christian" - to be in parentheses. Instead of "tempt him to do evil" it would be better to put "would tempt to heresy" (Christianity).

Law 77:
A Jewish midwife is forbidden to breast feed a baby of an Akum, even if she is paid, because she would help to raise an Akum

Literal translation

Analysis:

The cause missing in the Shulchan Aruch "because it would help to grow an Akum" is contained in the Talmud Aboda zara 26a. Not only if the milk becomes "harmful" for Jewess, but even when it only "causing her pains", she is allowed to breastfeed a baby of an Akum.

Law 78:
It is forbidden to a Jew to be treated for free by the doctor or a pharmacist of Akum, because, we must assume that in this case the doctor or pharmacist would have poisoned him

Literal translation

Analysis:

In the "Jewish mirror" it is not mentioned that a Jew is allowed to be treated by Akum even for free, in case the latter is a well known physician.

Law 79:
It is permitted to a Jew with a life-threatening illnesses to use the unclean when he thinks he can expect to be healed by it

Literal translation

Analysis:

We do not have any objections against the presentation of the text of the law by Justus, except that the cause he added at the end, is so sharpened, that the law might seem more hateful than it actually is. The uninitiated, perhaps, might think that the original text says it bluntly: "the Christian church is in fact the most impure thing". But in reality, this matter is such, that all that belongs to the "idolatry", is recognized as even a worse thing than the unclean things, according to the Jewish own ritual.

Law 80:
Strictly forbidden to a Jew to let an Akum cut his hair

Literal translation

Analysis:

The motif, presented by Justus, is obviously true, although one can not imagine where could the unfortunate Jew escape when he noticed in the mirror that the evil Akum has intention to cut his throat?!..

Law 81:
It is not a direct duty for a Jew to kill an Akum with whom he lives in peace; but it is strictly prohibited to save an Akum from death. Furthermore, a Jew is forbidden to provide a medical treatment to Akum even if he is paid

Literal translation

Law 82:
It is strictly forbidden to a Jew to lend money to another Jew at high interest rates, and, conversely, it is allowed to lend money to Akum or a Jew who became Akum at excessively high interest rates

Literal translation

Analysis:

The unmentioned in the text of Shulchan Aruch reason was taken (by Justus) from the commentary ...

Law 83:
It is forbidden to a Jew to assimilate among Akum, on the contrary, he must make every effort to ensure that he is different from them. And, least of all, is allowed to him to wear such clothes that contain anything specifically Christian

Literal translation

Analysis:

That a Jew should not wear anything specifically-Christian, is quite natural. But the original text of the Shulchan Aruch is not limited to this, as it, by the way, is evident from the Haga that follows, the subject of which is again something idolatrous in general.

Law 84:
The Jews have a law according to which at a certain time they need to perform a purification through bathing in water. When, having made such cleaning, they come across something unclean, excitatory, disgusting, or Akum, then they should perform the cleansing all over again.

Literal translation

Analysis:

Not without interest is the list of unclean things in the comments ....... "A woman has to wash herself all over again, when she (first) sees something unclean: for example, a dog, a donkey, a non-Jew, an idolater, a camel, a pig, a horse, or a leper."

In the Vilna edition, instead of "Akum" stands ...... ie "an animal or a beast". Therefore, both notions - "Akum" and "an animal or a beast" are identical.

Law 85:
When a Jew has stolen something from Akum, but in the court rejects it, and he is asked to take an oath, then other Jews, who are aware of the theft, are required to mediate and do all they can to bring the matter to an amicable agreement between the Jew and the Akum. He is allowed to swear falsely, but at heart to deny this perjury, thinking to himself that he could not do otherwise

Literal translation

Analysis:

See the following (separate decree number 14 in Haga):

Someone who will compare the text of Justus with our translation, perhaps, will think that he had found a large discrepancy in the "Jewish mirror", because it says (at the end) "where exist a threat of bodily punishment", while in our translation it says - "the death penalty". However, this difference can not be considered particularly important. According to the Talmudic interpretation, beating is considered worse than a murder, because in the former, a man is tormented for long, and the latter can be accomplished in an instant.

So says the Talmud of the three youths in the fiery furnace, "If they were beaten, they would have bowed down to the golden image [idol]". (Kefubof 33b. Compare Iore de'a 232 Haga, in the end).

Law 86:
A Jew is forbidden to give a donation or to lend something to someone who rejects even a single law of Torah, let alone to such a Jew who became an Akum

Literal translation

Analysis:

To this, the comment notices ... (Note 2). "In the same manner it is forbidden to feed him or give him alms."

In this case, first of all it is not a matter of some theoretical "denier", but the real "violator of the law". And only with those it is necessary to do it so rigorously, to those, who willfully violate the commandment, but not to the one who is doing it for the sake of evil joke.

Law 87:
A Jew is strictly forbidden from accepting a charity from an Akum

Literal translation

Analysis:

To this notices the comment ..... (Note 3): "and it (the Talmud) gives here the following as the reason: "when the branches are withered, they are broken off" (Isaiah XXVII, 11), ie "when their lot run out and the juice of their alms dries out, then they will be broken off."

Analysis:

It is strictly forbidden to a Jew to take alms [to take charity, to beg] from the Akum only publicly (cf. Law 22), but this should not be done even in secret, -- could not he survive with the alms from the Jews.

Law 88:
Marriages among Akum have no binding force, ie their cohabitation is equivalent to mating horses. Therefore, their children do not relate to their parents in any human way, like relatives, and when parents and children became Jews, for example, a son can marry his own mother

Literal translation

Analysis:

In the grounds that the proselyte may marry his (equally with him converted into Jewish faith) mother Justus is not quite logical to put forward the position that "the marriage of Akum has no binding (mandatory) force." As can be seen from the motive that lies at the base of the latter legitimation, the real reason for the rule, that is now presented, is following:

non-Jews, basically, are nothing more than animals, and that is why the human relationship between them is out of the question. A proselyte is like a newborn (see Talmud Yebamoth 22a: Maimon Gilhof Issurebia, par. 14:11). However, this inaccuracy in the "Jewish mirror" has essentially no significance whatsoever. As for the comparison of Akum with "horses", then see Law 98.

Law 89:
Jews have a law: during harvest leave some of it on the edges of the fields. But we no longer do it, because (now) the majority are Akum, and if (some harvest) was left, then the Akum would come and harvest it for themselves

Literal translation

Analysis:

Since the changes in the accepted customs should not be done by Jews, then the expression of Justus "forbidden" can be called correct.

Law 90:
In 24 cases, the Beth Din is obliged to expose a Jew to anathema ... For example, when someone sold their land to Akum, then you have to exclude him until he takes the responsibility for any potential violence that the Akum may cause to his Jewish neighbor

Literal translation

Analysis:

The original text does not contain that a Jew is obliged to give a pledge "in writing".

Law 91:
No need to be sad about Akum and slaves, and no need to conduct a send off for them when they die

Literal translation

Analysis:

That a Jew should be glad when Akum dies, in view of all of the above, is entirely natural. Comment ...... notes in addition that it's such a joy that is not worth a penny (note 40).

Law 92:
The clergy should be cautious and not go visit the graves of Akum, although the (rabbis) (in this regard) are not so strict. Akum should not be regarded as humans, but as animals

Literal translation

Analysis:

As for the house, in which lays the dead one, than on the issue of desecration in this case the same regulations are in force as for graves (cf. Iore de'a 371:1). As for the reason provided by Justus - "because Akum can not be considered as humans", is present in this context and, moreover, literally in the Talmud Iebamof [Yebamoth] 61a, as we have already seen in Act 2.

Law 93:
When a Jew has some Akum as his servants, and one of them dies in his home, then another Jew is forbidden to console him for the deaths as though it were the death of a human

Literal translation

Analysis:

The last sentence of the law in "the Jewish Mirror," in which lays the center of gravity, was translated not only correctly, reflecting the substance, but also literally.

Law 94:
A Jew is strictly forbidden to give gifts to Akum during his New Year's celebrations, because the Akum consider it as a happy omen for the New Year and enjoy it

Literal translation

Analysis:

This law is very important as direct evidence that Christians are the Akum.

Law 95:
At the cemetery, do not behave indecently. It is prohibited to let the cattle graze on the graves, or dig the drainage canals, or make the walkways, or mow the grass on the graves, or relieve oneself or to allow the Akuma in there

Literal translation

Analysis:

The fact that Akum should not be allowed in the cemetery - stands in the comments ..... (note 1). That it is a "shame" when Jews are buried on the property of a non-Jew, does not appear in the original text; it says only that one pays tribute to the dead, when the cemetery was made the property of the Jews.

Law 96:
When Akum (Christian) marries an Akumess (Christian), or when a Jew, who converted to Christianity, marries a Jewess, who also became a Christian, then their marriages have no legal force

Literal translation

Analysis:

"20 years" of Justus - is an arbitrary number; but fundamentally, of course, it does not change the matter.

Law 97:
It is strictly forbidden for a Jew to beat his fellow Jew, even if he is a sinner. However, only a Jew should be considered as a neighbor or a fellow, but beating an Akum is not a sin of any kind

Literal translation

Analysis:

That an Akum does not fit the concept of "co-man", "co-brother", we have already seen from other laws. As for the words of Justus about the differences as to the proselytes, be it a Jew who hits a proselyte, should only reward [compensate] him for the injury, but is not excluded from the community, this is not present in the specified by Justus Choshen ha-Mishpat 420:37, neither in the Shulchan Aruch as such, nor in the Talmud. Therefore, the entire end of the law, starting with the words "Further, when Akum became a Jew" etc., has to be crossed out.

Law 98:
When a Jew has married an Akumess, then he should be given 39 strokes and the marriage is considered to be null and void, and Beth Din is required in addition to subject him to anathema. Because the Akum should be regarded not as people but as horses

Literal translation

Analysis:

As prove this and other places (in the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch), Israel has every reason not to complain about the motivation added by Justus to the law. As for the curse, then cf. Iore dea 334:43, art. 4.

Law 99:
For high interest rate it is permissible to lend to such an Akum who usually borrows money from the grieving one because it is something he could lose an opportunity to gain from

Literal translation

Analysis:

Regarding the text in the "Jewish mirror" it should be noted that in the days of mourning a Jew is allowed to charge interest not to every Akum, but only to those with whom he did do some business in the past.

The restriction "by others" has absolutely no significance here, because when a Jew has no one else, then all that has to be done, he is allowed to do himself (Iore Dea 380:5 Haga). The reason given at the end of the law, was added by Justus. However, regarding the term "good deed", see Law 16.

Law 100:
If one had children while being an Akum, and (then) he became a Jew, then he has fulfilled the commandment

Literal translation

Analysis:

The expression of Justus "only when the wife has the money" is somewhat exaggerated, since in the original text followed by "when his heart was tied to her either." From all of it combined it follows that now it is not required unconditionally at all that the marriage beforehand already be known to be non-sterile.

As for the second part of the law, the Shulchan Aruch says only affirmatively that Akum, who converted to Jewish faith, did his duty, when his children also become Jews. The reverse premise, as is the case as presented by Justus, of course, is also true, and the comments themselves say so explicitly. Finally, although at the end of the law the motif turns out to be an addition by Justus, in essence, however, there is nothing there to object to as well.

General Conclusion

In "Judenspiegel", without a doubt, there is a lot of evil about Jews. However, being invited to examine the accuracy of this small in size, but a substantial on the content brochure, we have just performed our duty. Imposing on nobody, and without encroaching on anyone, we, in conscience, and our utmost understanding, arrive at the following result.

As there is no man without fault and there is no book without errors, and so in the "Jewish Mirror" some mistakes and failures are noticeable, and even, and we have to point this out, in greater numbers than one would expect from a publication, so fraught with consequences.

Dr. Justus - a thorough expert in Talmudic Judaism, and yet, his present work, here and there, carries traces of the surface [shallowness]. Since in its introduction it is stated that the "laws" are transferred [translated] directly from the Shulchan Aruch, then we should hope that they will be reproduced literally, especially when you take into account that they are printed in quotation marks.

Such important texts, of course, must be translatable word for word, and the necessary explanations and justifications can not be placed except in brackets or in the notes, so that everyone could identify and judge that which is documentally [factually, documented] true, and that which is only the author's view.

However, from the fact that Justus combined different texts together and even combined their motives with them, the legitimizations themselves have not become wrong; however, by virtue of the fact that they have not been translated literally, we should throw out all the quotation marks at the beginning and at the end of the laws of "Mirror".

In the mode of presentation itself, we also find the inaccuracies and exaggerations, but they are unintentional, as proved with such problems in the texts of Justus that lean not to the detriment of, but in favor of the Jews. From thoughtful and careful study, we have acquired the conviction that the misses in the "Mirror" are not the result on ill will, but were merely a result of a lack of calm analysis.

Regardless of this, justice demands to note with a special brightness the fact that the defects of the brochure only apply to minor subjects [points], but even the worst places in the "Jewish Mirror" are [still] accurately translated from the rabbinical original.

Then, if, on the one hand, some "laws" differ in innocent character [manner] and do not contain that sharpness, which Justus expects to find in them, then, on the other hand, in order not to sin before the author, we recognize our duty to state categorically that he could cite yet various other "laws" as well, the publication of which would be much more unpleasant [nastier] to the Jews than some of what is contained in the "Mirror".

Thus, Israel has nothing to complain about when it is said that the Shulchan Aruch does indeed contain those inhuman regulations, that are set out in "Judenspiegel".

We have subjected the work of Dr. Justus to strict criticism. And even if some of our Christian brethren have thought that we had crossed the border of what is necessary, we still believe that Justus himself is not going cry at our verdict. He, without a doubt, wants only to bring the truth to light, and therefore can not but be grateful for our aim to enlighten the audience exactly about those places where he is mistaken.

Regardless, however, of the whole severity [of our judgment] regarding Justus, our final conclusion is less [too little] comforting for Israel as well.

As well-versed and well-familiar with Judaism Jew Henry El-Lenberger writes in his "Historical Guide" (Budapest, 1883, p. 47): "There exist only the "Jews-Shulchan-aruchists".

Who said it, must carry further responsibility as well.

Be that as it may, this is what is obvious:

Every Jew Shulchan-aruhist, which still has any shame left in his eyes, should turn red when in the "Mirror" he will see his own reflection.

Viro consideranti vultum nativitatis suae in speculo!..

Dr. Ecker.

Appeal to all the Jews of the Universe

Alliance Israelite Universelle
Habur NUMBER IZROEL Haveri

JEWISH WORLD UNION

APPEAL
of Adolphe Cremieux as founder
of The Universal Jewish Alliance.

Appendix

Roots of genocide

"Tyranny of Usury" - the main key to world domination via economic means

The other people are nothing, but like a spit

Roots of parasitism, exploitation and ideas of world domination

And this is why they crucified Jesus in ritual sacrifice:

Roots of barbaric religious intolerance, hatred and bestiality

World Dictator - Lord of the World

Ideological Background of Genocide and Terror