IN LIGHT OF TRUTH
Dr. Jakob Ecker,
proffessor-private of the royal academy of Munster. [*]
Translated to Russian by A.S. Smakov
[*] [Der "Judenspiegel" im
Lichte der Wahrheit, - eine wissenschaftliche Untersuchung, von Dr. Jakob
Ecker, Privatdocent an der Kgl. Akademie zu Munster. Paderborn. 1884.
(original source in German)
The Russian translation was made by me with the friendly help and advice of V.V. Feldt, a teacher of German in a gymnasium, to whom I consider a pleasant duty to express my deep gratitude.
"Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer
... - and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much alive."
-- Harold Wallace Rosenthal, a top Administrative Aide to one of this nation's ranking senators, Jacob Javits R-NY, in a tape recorded interview by Walter White, Jr., which was conducted in 1976. From the book "The Hidden Tyranny".
Harold Rosenthal was probably killed for giving this interview in 1976, in which he brags with pride about how a group of Jews manipulate and exploit the foolish and naive "goyim" (non-Jews).
This interview clearly reiterates "the program" of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", and, since it was tape recorded, it becomes the indisputable evidence not only of satanic conspiracy, but the "Protocols" themselves as well.
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.
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:
In the quietness of this enlightening conversation it became clear that the understanding poured forth did not come from a novice. Mr. Rosenthal was asked how Jews gain acceptance so easily among other races. His answer was long and thorough.
"At a very early date, urged on by the desire to make our way in the world, Jews began to look for a means whereby we might distract all attention from the racial aspect.
What could be more effective, and at the same time more above suspicion, than to borrow and utilize the idea of a religious community? We've been forced to borrow this idea from the Aryans.
We Jews never possessed any religious institution which developed out of our own consciousness, for we lack any kind of idealism. This means that a belief in life beyond this terrestrial existence is foreign to us.
As a matter of fact, the Talmud does not lay down principles with which to prepare the individual for a life to come, but furnishes only rules for a sumptuous life in this world.
It is a collection of instructions for maintaining the Jewish race and regulating: intercourses between us and the goy. Our teachings; are not concerned with moral problems, but rather with how to 'get.'
In regard to the moral value of the Jews' religious teaching, there exist quite exhaustive studies which show the kind of religion that we have in a light that makes it look uncanny to the Aryan mind.
We are the best example of the kind of product which religious training evolves. Our life is of this world only and our mentality is as foreign to the true spirits of Christianity as our character was to the Founder of this new creed 2,000 years ago.
The Founder of Christianity [Jesus] made no secret of his estimation of the Jews and the fact that he was not one of us. When he found it necessary he drove us out of the temple of God, because then, as always, we used religion as a means of advancing our commercial interest.
The Jewish Belief and Religion
(The Hidden Tyranny - Harold Wallace Rosenthal interview)
Furthermore, he states:
"Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer
... - and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much alive."
-- Harold Wallace Rosenthal, a top Administrative Aide to one of this nation's ranking senators, Jacob Javits R-NY, in a tape recorded interview by Walter White, Jr., which was conducted in 1976. From the book "The Hidden Tyranny".
Our god is Lucifer
(The Hidden Tyranny - Harold Wallace Rosenthal interview)
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.
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?
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:
The Truth can not die.
It NEVER died,
and it can NOT die
Because it is simply IMPOSSIBLE.
Only LIES die.
But the Truth REMAINS.
No matter what.
It never happened,
and it can not happen.
So, beware all those, who commit the highest crime there is, the crime against Truth. Because there is no bigger crime and to lie and delude and pervert the Truth, in FULL knowledge of doing so.
There is no mercy for hose!
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.
[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)
ПРИ СВЕТЕ ИСТИНЫ
Н А У Ч Н О Е И С С Л Е Д О В А Н И Е
Д-ра Карла Эккера,
приват-доцента королевской академии в Мюнстере. [*]
Перевод A.C. Шмакова.
[*] [Der "Judenspiegel" im Lichte der Wahrheit, - eine wissenschaftliche Untersuchung, von Dr. Jakob Ecker, Privatdocent an der Kgl. Akademie zu Munster. Paderborn. 1884. Перевод на русский язык сделан мною при дружеской помощи и совете В.В.Фельдта, учителя немецкого языка в гимназии, которому я считаю приятным долгом выразить свою глубокую благодарность.
Brafmann  to whom one owes informative revelations about (10) the rabbinate, was poisoned in accord with Talmudic murder-laws at the end of the previous century -- just as happened to a Chevalier Gougenot des Mousseaux, who was so "incautious" as to also mention some ritual-murders in his work: Der Jude, das Judentum and die Verjudung der christlichen Völker [The Jew, Judaism, and the Judafication of the Christian Peoples].
A "sudden death" overtook Doctor Pinner at the moment when he had translated the first part of the Talmud...Others, who could not be immediately eliminated for one reason or another, were nonetheless slowly harried to death with the same end result, with the support of authorities belonging to the Jews and by "Christian" theologians;
such was the case for Justus-Briman, who published his Judenspiegel oder 100 neuenthüllte, heutzutage noch geltende Gesetze der Juden
and also for the Orientalist at the University at Münster, Jakob Ecker, who completed and wrote commentaries for the Jewish-Mirror, and even beyond his death in 1912 -- he died as a highly respected Professor at the Bishop's Priest Seminary at Trier; he was slandered in shameless fashion by the Weimar Regional Rabbi Wiesen.
About the treatment which was accorded to the Prague University Professor August Rohling, a book hardly laudable to the situation obtaining in the Royal and Imperial Monarchy could be written, and even in the most recent times, 1933, the hospitality of Leiden University was withdrawn from Johann von Leers by the old Huizinga, because the German scholar had also written about Jewish ritual-murder...
With these names only a few striking examples have been emphasized -- they will be dealt with yet in another connection.
Jewry knew why it persecuted these men with downright satanic hatred, Maimonides knew why he taught:
"If an unbeliever reads the Talmud, so has he deserved death ...":
 Jacob Brafmann: Das Buch vom Kahal; published by Siegrfried Passarge (Leipzig, 1928).
Jewish Ritual Murder
von Hellmut Schramm, Ph. D.
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.]
Ut testimonium perhibeam veritati
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
СТА ЗАКОНОВ, ПО ШУЛХАН-АРУХУ,
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.
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 (...).*
[*] Точками в данном случае, как и затем далее, в тексте "Зерцала", заменены напечатанные в брошюре Эккера по-еврейски названия талмудических изданий, трактатов и комментариев, равно как и сами выражения талмуда (раввинский оригинал).]
Я рассматриваю здесь "Еврейское Зерцало" просто как литературное произведение. Моя цель - научная критика и ничего более.
In omni bonitate et justitia
(Посл. к Ефесян. V,9).
Мюнстер, март 1884 г.
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.
[*] [Талмуд, как известно, состоит из 63 трактатов (не считая 4-х дополнительных) и печатается стереотипно. Нумерация листов сделана только с одной стороны. Отсюда "Берахоф 5а" значит: трактат Берахоф лист 5 с лицевой стороны. Обратная же сторона листа означается литерой "б". Это замечание относится ко всему последующему.]
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.*
[*] [Всякий раввин наравне с Моисеем имеет право издавать законы (сравни: талмуд Шаббат 101, талм. Скка 39, талм. Хуалин 93 и талм. Бена 38).]
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.*
[*] [Немногие были так хорошо знакомы с талмудом, как английский богослов Лайт-фут (ум. в 1675 г.), учёный, автор сочинения "Horae Hebraicae". Это был человек необыкновенно и простой. Изучая талмуд в течение целой жизни, он дал ему такую характеристику: "Почти непреодолимые трудности слога, ужасная грубость языка, изумительная пустота и вопиющие лжемудствования по рассматриваемым вопросам мучают, раздражают и терзают того, кто читает эти единственные в своём роде трактаты".]
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
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:
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.
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.
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:
"Once the author of "Beth Josef" and "Shulchan Aruch", the sage, who was standing above the prophet, skinned all his cattle, prepared a magnificent table for everyone, but left no place for anyone where it was possible to do something extra, on the top of what he had already done himself, - perhaps with the exception of studies of the sayings of the later teachers or findings about the shades of customs that have gained the right to citizenship in this country (Poland) - then, dared to come after him, I can only spread out my table cloth on it, already prepared table, for the only reason - to bring to people some of the most valuable fruits and especially loved by them sweets.
It should be also noted that the table covered by him before the Lord, Joseph Caro had not prepared for the people living in this country, because many customs here are not as he describes them. For a long time our rabbis of blessed memory taught: "Do not live by the common rules and do not be guided even by those where above the rules there are exceptions present."
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.
[*] [Great teacher, a wise man. In this case - Joseph Karo.]
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:
"You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies, and anointed my head with oil, my cup runneth over. Happiness and mercy follow me all my life, and I will live forever in the temple of God! Amen."
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:
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:
"Out of unutterable mercy the Lord hath looked from his holy habitation, from heaven upon his people. He saw that in the later generations only a very few are worthy, with knowledge and understanding, to draw the living water from the highest source.
And He bestowed his mercy, and "The Lord was with Joseph" [*], and covered him with the abundance of wisdom and prudence, and pour over him the spirit from the above, so that he would teach the people on the shortest path, have foreseen all and taken care of everything; so he lit their eyes and prepared for them a meal that was good to themselves and to their children for ages.
And then approaches Moses, Gaon, our teacher - Moses Isserles; by this one, like by that other (ie Caro), the Lord is praised. He spread out his [table] cloth and sanctified the "set table". His source is the blessed - is a stream, sparkling from his great book "Darkhe Moshe"; and he wrote the correct notes, enlightened and tested, to all the "four parts". His name resounded throughout the land, and all Jews walk under the hand of Rabbi Moses Isserles. The face of Moses is equal to the face of the sun."
[*] [I.e. and Joseph Caro, of course.]
In the preface of the same author to the "Iore de'a", published in 5596, (1836) it says:
... "Clean table standing at the Lord's, strengthened and prepared in front of us on the pillars of those great lamps, that illuminate our way in life and wisdom, and without which we are like blind men, would go groping in darkness [*], - by our teachers of blessed memory of Rabbi Joseph Karo and Rabbi Moses Isserles."
[*] [Note: See Deuteronomy 28:29. The Talmud explains this expression as follows: a blind man can not see, but when he walks in broad daylight or at night with a candle, then people can see him and save him if he is close to the abyss; but the blind in the darkness perishes without help. (Megillah, 24b).]
29. And you shall grope at noonday, as a blind man gropes in darkness; you shall not prosper in your ways; you shall be only oppressed and plundered continually, and no one shall save you.
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. [*]
[*] [Besides the five, now referred to, in the Talmud there exists yet more than 50 equally contemptuous and vile names for non-Jews in general [as such], and for Christians in particular. These are, for example: [Heathen], Potserim, Mamzerim, Coferim, Obed gattaluim, Ke-lafim, Hazirim, Perits gahayof, Harelim, Malhuf, Edom be Amalek, Ibberim, Obed aboda zara, Hamorim, [foreigner], etc.
It would be outrageous to translate those awful words into Russian. Not defiling ourselves with such a translation, we recommend the inquisitive reader to make inquiries, at least in a great work of Constantine knight de Cholew Pawlikowski "Der Talmud in der Theorie und in der Praxis". (Pages 152-162). Regensburg. 1881. (transl. note).]
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.
[*] [From the Maimon "Poison of hezak", according to the latest Berlin.]
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.
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."
... it should always be forbidden [to transact business with idolaters because of] Sunday. 
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:
"Let us assume that here, in Munster, was found a capable Jew, who sat down and wrote a new set of laws. And in it would end up only two series of statutes: one - how the Jews must act towards the same Jews, and others - as to how they should act towards - let the author call them as he pleases, still it would mean the same thing, as "non-Jews." Relationship with non-Jews, say, would have been harsh and inhumane, and the author would be requested for an explanation on how would he dare he refer to Christians? ..
"Here, under the term non-Jew - suddenly would respond our learned Jew - it is not about you, Christians in Munster; these laws apply to the Hottentots"! Would not that kind of answer be obvious a mockery [gibe, ridicule]?
It is equally ridiculous to claim that in the XVI century, in Krakow, has appeared a body of law that was supposed to settle the attitude of Jews only towards "fans of the stars and planets", as if they did not have in mind Christians."
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".
OF HUNDRED LAWS OF SHULCHAN ARUCH
PRESENTED by JUSTUS
You shall have honest scales,
an honest ephah, and an honest bath.
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.
"Shulchan Aruch" also known as the Code of Jewish Law, is the most authoritative legal code of Judaism. It was compiled by Joseph Caro [Yosef Karo], a rabbi in the Palestinian city of Safed (Tsafet, Shafet) (b. 1488, d. 1577) in 1563 and published in Venice two years later.
"Shulchan Aruch" (translated as "Set Table") became a collection of laws which is enjoyed by the Jews with extreme honor and is universally applicable (regardless of the country of residence of the Jews) the legal code of laws, the imperative for every Jew.
[Keep in mind that these laws are the standing laws of Judaists regardless of where they reside or what is their citizenship and are to be followed regardless of anything else.
Furthermore, they supersede the laws of the land, and, in case there is some conflict between them and the law of the land, the law of the land is considered inapplicable and has no force or effect.
The punishment for not following them is excommunication and damnation, which is equivalent to the death sentence in Judaic tradition, and so anyone performs a good deed when he deprives such "violators" of their life.
Furthermore, Shulchan Aruch as such is what has been the main set of religious documents guiding the Judaists, for the last 300 years. The Talmud nowadays mostly belongs to archives as a historical document and is no longer considered as something current or widely used.
"At the present time, the Schulchan Arukh is regarded as the obligatory Law Code of the Jews, and they use it principally in their studies. Many commentaries have been written on each part of this book.
"An important point to note is that this work has always been regarded by the Jews as holy. They have always held it, and still hold it, as more important than the Sacred Scriptures. The Talmud itself shows this very clearly..."
The Talmud Unmasked
(The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians by Rev. I. B. Pranaitis)
The Talmud Unmasked
There is also a collection of teachings called Tanya, which is the Chabad's "bible" of sorts, used by the most extremist and racist/fascist ZioNazi sect called Chabad Lubavitch, the most influential, most evil, most rootless and destructive force on this planet today controlling all the governments of all the "civilized" countries of "free world". The evil, the likes of which the world has never know in its entire history.]
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.
"I think, wrote Fichte, that Judaism is so evil because it is based and built on a deep hatred of the entire humanity."
The racial, man-hating nature of the laws of Judaism can be compared only with some racist documents of Nazi Germany.
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.
[Here, in the German original, parallel with the literal translation into German runs the original Hebrew text. We restrict ourselves to the literal Russian translation.]
 "A Jew is not allowed to sell to Akum (Christian) the clothing that is Tzitzit (tzitsis in Yiddish) (brushes [tassels] on the edges of clothing worn during Jewish morning prayer, see Numbers 15:38).
 He should not give such clothes to Akum even for temporary storage, because when Akum will have such clothing, then we have to fear that he might deceive a Jew, saying that he too is a Jew, and, if trusting him, the Jew would travel alone with him, then the Akum would kill him."
 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 20, 2, taken from the Talmud Menahof, 43; hereafter in this chapter, all the notes belong to the translators of Shulchan Aruch.
 Ibid; taken from Nimmuk Joseph.
Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim 20:2 [*]
"It is forbidden  to sell Akum top dress with the (ritual), tassels [tzitzis]; he will use it as a disguise to accompany a traveling Jew so that he could kill him; even giving the top dress with tassels to Akum as a mortgage or a deposit is forbidden, except for the case when it is given for a short time, so there is no fear of that."
[*] In the original of the German edition of K. Ecker provides the original Hebrew text side by side with translation.
 Actually "Do not sell", however, the presentation of the second part this law: "even to give as a mortgage ... it is forbidden ..." shows clearly how to understand the said expression.
"2. One may not sell a talis with tzitzis to a gentile out of concern that he will use it as a disguise to accompany a traveling Jew so that he could kill him. Even to give it to the gentile as collateral or a deposit is prohibited unless it is temporary in which case there is no concern."
Old Testament: Numbers 15:38
38. "Speak to the children of Israel: Tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue thread in the tassels of the corners.
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.
Everything that is necessary for Jewish worship, as, for example, the above mentioned brushes, etc., can only be made by a Jew, not an Akum, because it must be made by people 
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.
Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim, 14:1
"Brushes made by Akum, are no good, because it is written:
"Speak unto the children of Israel" ( Numbers 15:38 ), ie except for Akum."
"1. Tzitzis made by a gentile are invalid since the pasuk states בני ישרא ל to exclude gentiles. ..."
Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim, 32:9
9. If the hide was treated by a gentile, according to Rambam it is invalid even if a Jew instructed him to treat it for the sake of the mitzvah whereas according to Rosh it is valid if a Jew stands nearby and assists (with some of the work.) And this is the custom.
( Orach-Chayim, 25-45 ). [Hilchot Tefillin Siman 25-45]
Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim, 33:4
4. It is preferable that the coloring is performed by a Jew for the sake of the mitzvah rather than a gentile. However, b’dieved the tefillin are valid if colored by a gentile but retzuos are invalid if colored by a gentile.
( Orach-Chayim, 25-45 ).
Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim, 39:1
1. Tefillin written by a slave, a woman, a child – even if he reached the age of chinuch – a Cuthean (non-Israelite, Gentile), or an apostate to idolatry or someone who informs on another person are invalid. The reason is that the Torah writes וקשרתם and וכתבתם to teach that one who does not don tefillin or doesn’t believe in them may not write them.
( Orach-Chayim, 25-45 ).
Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim, 39:2
2. Anyone who may not write tefillin may not participate in any part of the making of the tefillin.
( Orach-Chayim, 25-45 ).
Babylonian Talmud: Yebamoth 61a
"the graves of idolaters do not impart levitical uncleanness by an ohel,  for it is said,
 [H], lit., 'tent', i.e., on the man who stands on, or bends over such a grave, constituting his body, as it were, a tent.
 Ezek. XXXIV, 31.
 [H] (Adam), in respect of levitical uncleanness by ohel. The expression [H] is also used in the Pentateuchal text dealing with the laws of the uncleanness of objects found in a tent in which lay a corpse. V. Num, XIX, 14ff. [This is held by R. Simeon b. Yohai to denote, as distinct from the other terms for 'man' ([H]), only an Israelite who, as a worshipper of the true God, can be said to have been like Adam created in the image of God. (Cf. Gen. I, 27 and V, I, where the Heb. text has in each case Adam for 'man'). Idol worshippers having marred the Divine image forfeit all claim to this appelation. V. also B.M. Sonc. ed. p. 651, n. 6].
Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi'a 114b
The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men;  only ye are designated 'men'.
Old Testament: Ezekiel 34:31
31. And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men, and I am your God, saith the Lord God.
Old Testament: Ezekiel 34:31 (KJV and OJB)
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.
 "Prayer Kadish (it begins with the words: "Iifgaddal veyifkaddash", or "Exalted and sanctified" and that is the very meaning of "Kaddish") is allowed to be read only there where ten Jews have gathered together, and this should be done in such a way so that no unclean thing, such as manure or Akum, would separate them from each other.
 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 55:20, taken from the Talmud Tosfaof Pesachim, 85.
"If ten (Jews) are in the same place (together) and read the Kaddish, or prayer Kedusha, then even the one, who does not belong to them, may respond (say "Amen"). Some consider it necessary that (they) were not separated by the feces or Akum.
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.
"Even to think about the words of the Torah is forbidden in the outhouse, in the bath (bath house) or some place, dirtied by feces [crap or urine], ie ubi stercus et urina sunt)".
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.
[*] [In the original work of Ecker "Judenspiegel im Lichte der Wahrheit" all these words are presented literally in Hebrew. The difficulty of proof and the futility of the Jewish Hebrew text for most of our readers have led us to the replacement of these words with triple or multiple dots. Everyone, who is more interested in the subject, can refer to the original. This note applies to all further text of our translation. (Translator's note).]
 "When Jew meets an Akum with a cross, then a Jew is strictly forbidden to bow his head, even though he was in prayer at the moment.
Even while in prayer, he came to a place where he needs to bow his head (in the prayers of Jews there are some places where they are sure to bow the head, he must still avoid doing so."
 Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim, 113:8; taken from Hagahof Ascher and Zurua Op
"When someone (it goes without saying, of the Jews) prays and an Akum walks in his direction with a cross in his hands, and he (the Jew) came to the place (in prayer), where one must bow, then he should not bow, even though his thoughts were (exclusively) directed to God."
"8. If one is davening and is ready to bow and at that moment a person with a picture of an idol in his hand passes by, he should not bow even though his intent is for Hashem."
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.
"And now, when in Jerusalem, there is no longer a temple, or sacrifices, the sons of Aaron, the priest, must distinguish themselves among the scattered Jews via certain differences and honors over the rest of the Jews and always have the right to bless the (Jews) in every holiday.
But when someone from the children of such families become Akum, then the whole family is defiled, and is therefore deprived of the priestly law." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 128:41, Hagah; taken from Mordechai to the Talmud Sanhedrin.
Orach Chayim, 128:41, Hagah
"Some people say that when he (kohen) has a daughter who went to Akum or committed adultery, then no one is obliged to respect him, because she was defiled him."
"128:41. ... (Some say that a kohen who has a daughter who became an apostate for idolatry or had illicit relations is not accorded the sanctity of the kohanim since she defiled her father with her behavior.)"
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."
"A Jew who became an Akum, is cursed  to such an extent that even when he donates to the synagogue a candle or something like that, it is forbidden to accept it." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 154:11, Hagah; taken from Pisek Megara Veil 64.
 Cursed - the same thing as impeached by the Jews, expelled from the religious community.
Orach Chayim, 154:11, Hagah.
"If someone who became an Akum, gives some wax or candles as a present to the synagogue, it is forbidden to light them."
154:11. "Wax candles that were given by a Cuthean to idolaters and after their attendant extinguished the flame he gave it or sold it to a Jew, those candles may not be lit in the Bais HaKnesses even though it may be used for mundane purposes. It is prohibited to kindle wax or a lamp donated to a Bais HaKnesses by someone who is a mumar for idolatry, see Yoreh Deah siman 139 and 254 for more about these halachos."
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.
 "Prayer Simun (Jew reads it after dinner. At the end of prayer the landlord is blessed also) can not be read at the home of Akum to avoid blessing Akum as well."
Orach Chayim 193:3 Hagah
"Usually, the common table prayer  is not read in the house of Akum. And I think that the reason for this lies in the fact that it is impossible to have an approved dinner  in the house of Akum for fear of Akum. Hence, it appears that the dinner, even though it has happened, has not been approved. A further reason lies in the fact that it is possible to fear a retribution, if you change the text of gratitude prayer and do not say: 'Merciful God bless the master of this house!'"
 After dinner.
 The Rabbis distinguish the "approved meal" (lunch) from eating at random. Prayer Simun takes place only after the first.
"3. ... The custom is not to make a zimun [the common table prayer] in the house of a gentile. It appears to me that the reason is that they do not establish themselves in the Gentile's house out of fear of the gentile and it is as though they did not settle permanently. For these reasons they did not establish themselves and each one should recite the beracha for himself. One should not deviate from this custom even if the reasons are not sufficient, nevertheless, since this is the custom it is considered as though they did not establish themselves."
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.
"For every smell of fragrance a Jew is required to read Berachah brief prayer of gratitude, except when fragrance or some sweet spices have already been to the latrine to eliminate bad smell, or when the incense were in the hands of a prostitute, which uses the spirits in order to entice people to sin or, finally, when the sweet-smelling substances were brought from the temples (of Akum), then it is forbidden to pronounce Berachah for a fragrance because it was already defiled by latrines, prostitute or the temple (of Akum)." 
Shulchan Aruch, Orah Chaim 217:2.
"It is forbidden to read the Berachah on the spices to the bathroom or on oil used to counter a dirty smell." 
 Eg., from hands after a meal (comment...).
"2. One does not recite a beracha on spices unless they were designated for smell. Therefore, one does not recite a beracha on spices used for a corpse which are placed above the casket to counter the foul smell of the corpse. If it is placed below the bed one does recite the beracha since it is assumed that it is done to honor the living. One also does not recite a beracha on spices in a bathroom and oil used to counter a dirty smell."
Orach Chayim 217:4.
"4. Regarding spices of an ervah [prostitute], for example, a box of spices worn around her neck or held in her hand or mouth, one does not recite a beracha [the gratitude prayer] since it is prohibited [even] to smell it because it could lead to kissing or physical contact with her."
Orach Chayim 217:5.
"5. One does not recite the beracha on spices used for idolatry since it is prohibited to smell them."
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).
"Passing by the ruined temple of Akum, every Jew is obliged to say: "Glory to Thee, O Lord, for thou root out of here this house of idols".  When a Jew passes a temple that is still intact, then he should say: "Glory to Thee, O Lord, that Thou continue your anger toward the evil-doers." 
And when he sees the 600,000 [*] Jews gathered together, he must say: "Glory to Thee, Wise Lord"; But when he sees a gathering of Akum, then he must say: "Your mother will be greatly ashamed and blush for the fact she gave birth to you" ( Jeremiah 50:12 ). 
"Anyone who sees the graves of Israelis must say: "Praise be to Thee ... Who justly created you" etc., and over the graves of Akum, he should say: "The more shame to your mother ..." 
"Anyone who sees the house Akum, and someone lives there, has to say: "The house of arrogant shall be destroyed by the Lord" (Prov. 15, 25). And if these homes have been devastated, then: "God of vengeance, Lord, God of vengeance, shine forth!" (Ps. 93, 1). 
 Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim 224, 2, taken from the Talmud Berahof (Berachah) 54.
 Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim 224, 2, taken from the Talmud Berahof 58.
[*] [A sacramental number (that many of the Jews, capable of bearing arms, left Egypt, even though 400 years before only 70 people entered Egypt). This number is used in the sense of "a lot" or instead of expression "the people." Note by Transl.]
 Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim 224, 5, taken from the Talmud Berahof 59.
 Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim 224, 12, taken from the Talmud Berahof 58.
 Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim 224, 11.
Orach Chayim 224:1
"He who sees a statue of Mercury, or other object of idolatry, (he) is obliged say: 'Praise be to Thee, O Lord our God, King of the universe, for Your patience exercised to violators of Your will.'"
Quote: Orach Chayim 224:1:
"1. One who sees markulis or other idol should say: ברוך אתה ה’ וכו’ שנתן ארך אפים לעוברי רצונו ..."
Orach Chayim 224:2.
"He who visits the place where idolatry was eradicated, (he) is obliged to say, when in the land of Israel: "Praise be to Thee, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who uprooted idolatry from our country." But when this happens in a foreign country, he should say: "... who uprooted idolatry from this place!" And in both cases one declares (further): "As you rooted it out of this place, so root it out everywhere and turn the hearts of the idolaters to serve Thee!".
Quote: Orach Chayim 224:2:
"2. If one sees a place where idolatry was uprooted from Eretz Yisroel one recites ברוך אתה ה’ וכו’ שעקר עבודת כוכבים מארצנו . If one is outside of Eretz Yisroel he says: שעקר עבודת כוכבים מהמקום הזה. In both cases one declares: כשם שעקרת אותה מהמקום הזה כן תעקר אותה מכל המקומות והשב לב עובדיהם לעבדך. If an idol was uprooted from one place and set up elsewhere, in the place it was uprooted one recites: שעקר עבודת כוכבים and in the place where it resettled one recites: שנתן ארך אפים"
Orach Chayim 224:5
"He who sees 600,000  Israelis together, should say: "Praise be to Thee, O Lord our God, King of the universe in charge of the sacred secrets." But if it is idolatrous, then he should say: "The more shame to your mother, who shall blush for giving birth to you ; She will be the least of the nations — a wilderness, a dry land, a desert." (Jer. 50, 12). ( Jeremiah 50:12 ).
 The number of Israelis at the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 12, 37).
 The Talmud (Berachah [Berahof] 58a) yields about this the following explanation: "Because neither their minds nor their faces resemble each other." [*]
[*] [Remarkable motive. Evasive explanation of interpretations in our environment - even before the bloody unrests, treacherously perpetrated in our land by international kahal, all of whose members, on the contrary, act as one, - in both hemispheres. (Transl. note)]
Quote: Orach Chayim 224:5:
"5. If one sees 600,000 Jews in one place he recites: ברוך אתה ה’ וכו’ חכם הרזים . If they are gentiles one recites: בושה אמכם מאד חפרה יולדתכם הנה אחרית גוים מדבר ציה וערבה"
Orach Chayim 224:12
"Anyone who sees the graves of Israelis must say:
"Praise be to Thee ... Who justly created you" , etc., and over the graves of Akum, he should say:"
The more shame to your mother ..."
 Полный текст по талмуду (Берахоф 58б) гласит: "Да будет восхваляем Тот, Который справедливо сотворил вас, справедливо давал пищу, справедливо взрастил вас, справедливо собирал вас и справедливо воскресит вас"!
Quote: Orach Chayim 224:12:
"12. One who sees Jewish graves recites: ברוך אתה ה’ וכו’ אשר יצר אתכם בדין וכו’ . Upon seeing gentile graves one recites: בושה אמכם וגו’."
Orach Chayim 224:11
"Anyone who sees the house of Akum , and someone lives there, has to say:
"The house of arrogant shall be destroyed by the Lord [Yahweh]" (Proverbs 15:25).
And if these homes have been devastated, then: "God of vengeance, Lord, God of vengeance, shine forth!" (Psalm 94:1).
 If one sees the houses of the Israelis one is to say, when some people live there:
If they are devastated: "Praise be to judge of the truth!" (Cf: Orach Chayim 224:10 ).
Quote: Orach Chayim 224:11:
"224:11. One who sees gentile homes that are inhabited one recites: בית גאים יסח ה’ . If it is seen in a state of ruin one recites: ק-ל נקמות ה’"
Quote: Orach Chayim 224:10:
"224:10. One who see Jewish homes that are inhabited, for example from the time of the Second Bais HaMikdash recites: ברוך אתה ה’ וכו’ מציב גבול אלמנה . If it is seen in a state of ruin one recites: .ברוך דיו האמת"
Old Testament: Jeremiah 50:12
12. Your mother shall be sore confounded; she that bare you shall be ashamed: behold, the hindermost of the nations shall be a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert.
Old Testament: Proverbs 15:25
25. The LORD will destroy the house of the proud: but he will establish the border of the widow.
Old Testament: Psalm 94:1
1. God of vengeance, Lord Jehovah, God of vengeance, be revealed!
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.
 "The evening before the Sabbath, every Jew, seeing the lights, must say: "Glory to Thee, O Lord, who created light, but where the light comes out of the temple of Akum, it is forbidden to thank God for using such a light".
 Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 298:5, taken from Tur.
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.
 "During the Sabbath it is strictly forbidden to a Jew to buy or sell. However, it is allowed to buy a house in Palestine from Akum and in this case it is allowed to even write (an act) so that there would be one Akum less in Palestine, and one Jew more."
 Shulchan Aruch Orach-Chayim, 306:11, taken from the Talmud Baba kamma, 80, and the Talmud Gittin 8.
Orach Chayim, 306:11
"In the land of Israel is allowed to buy a house from Akum even during the Sabbath, and sign an act and submit it to the government offices , namely (Hagah) in their, ie akum's government offices, and (sign) in their language, because it (ie, generally signing any acts during Sabbath) is prohibited only by the rabbis ; but those things that help the land of Israel to be more populated, they did not prohibit."
 To commit the deed.
 The law prohibits to write on the Sabbath only in Hebrew, to write in another language is only prohibited by the rabbis.
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".
 "Any kind of work during the Sabbath, which may be performed to save Jews from death, is not only tolerated, but even obligatory. When, therefore, during the Sabbath, a house or a pile of stones will fall upon the Jew, then it is allowed to remove the pile and save the life of the Jew, lying under it.
Even when several Akum lie with the Jew under that heap and the Akum, if we had saved the the Jew, were also saved, (and this is, that the salvation of Akum from death, even in Boden, as we shall see later (cf. Law 50 ), is considered a great sin), yet, to save the Jew, it is necessary to remove the pile of stones." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 329:2, taken from the Talmud Iomma, 84.
Orach Chayim, 329:2
"If saving lives is not necessary to pay attention to (the fact who is in) majority."
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.
"Jewish midwife is not only permitted, but is obliged to assist the Jewess during the Sabbath, and to do all those things that in other circumstances would have desecrated the Sabbath.
On the contrary, to help the akum woman  (Christian) is prohibited, even  in those cases where it is possible to do it without desecrating the Sabbath, because she should only be considered an animal." 
Orach Chayim, 330:2
"It is forbidden to provide care to akum woman while she is giving birth on Sabbath, even with something that does not violate the sanctity of the Sabbath."
Orach Chayim, 332:1
332.1 "We do not deliver an animal [being born] on Shabbat".
Shulchan Aruch/Orach Chaim/332. (taken from wikisource.org)
Babylonian Talmud: Abodah Zarah 26a
AN ISRAELITE WOMAN SHOULD NOT SUCKLE etc. Our Rabbis taught: An Israelite woman should not suckle a child of a heathen, because she rears a child for idolatry; nor should a heathen woman [be allowed to] suckle a child of an Israelite woman, because she is liable to murder it .
This is the opinion of R. Meir. But the Sages say: A heathen may suckle a child of an Israelite woman, so long as there are others standing by her, but not if she is on her own. R. Meir, however, says: Not even while others are standing by her, for she may take the opportunity of rubbing in poison on her breast beforehand and so kill the child.
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.
"On the eve of Passover (the last evening before Easter), every Jew is obliged to read the Shefoh prayer (in which they appeal to God to pour out his wrath on the gentiles). And if the Jews read prayers with devotion, the Lord, no doubt, will hear them and send Messiah who will pour out his wrath on the gentiles." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 480, Hagah, taken from Mehar Brin.
Orach Chayim 480, Hagah
"Some people say that while reading (the prayer), 'Pour out thy wrath, etc.' it is necessary to add 'Not unto us, O Lord'  and to open the doors so as not to forget that this is the vigil night.'  As a reward for such faith the Messiah will come and shed his wrath at Akum."
Old Testament: Psalm 113:9
9. "He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the Lord.."
Old Testament: Exodus 12:42
12:42. It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations.
Horrible text of the prayer "Shefoh" consists of three biblical citations and reads as follows:
6. Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen (goyim, Gentiles) that have not known thee [Yahweh], and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.
7. For they have devoured Jacob, and laid waste his dwelling place.
24. Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them.
25. May their place be deserted; let there be no-one to dwell in their tents.
Old Testament: Psalms 69:24-25
(KJV and OJB)
66. Persecute and destroy them in anger from under the heavens of the Lord.
Old Testament: Lamentations 3:66
(KJV and OJB)
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:
New Testament: Luke 6:28
"28. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you."
New Testament: Luke 6:28
(KJV and OJB)
Compare this with the curse of the Judean prayer of the Catholic Church in the liturgy of Good Friday.
"Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster anferat velamen de cordibus eorum, ut et ipsi agnoscant Jesum Christum, Domi-num nostrum".
"Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui etiam judaicam pertidiam a tua misericordia non repellis; exaudi praeces nostras, quas pro illius populi ob-caecatione deferimus; ut agnita veritatis tuae luce, quae Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. Per eundem Dominum..."
"On holidays, when all work is prohibited, including cooking, everyone is allowed to make only as much as he needs to eat. 
Nevertheless, when one had to cook for himself, it is allowed to add more food in the same pot than is necessary for himself, even if the added amount is designated for dogs, because we are obliged to let live the dogs also." 
But to add the food for Akum is strictly prohibited, as we are not obliged to let him live."
Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 512:1.
"During the holidays  it is not allowed to cook for Akum. And so it is prohibited to invite him: maybe because of him one would have to cook more food. But (it is forbidden) to invite him (Hagah) in his own (Jewish) home, but to send him (Akum) something to his house through the Akum is permitted."
"However, it is permitted to let one's servant dine with oneself, or a messenger, sent (to Jew), and so to the Akum, who came by himself (without invitation), for there is no need for us to fear that there was more food cooked for him" (Hagah).
"And it is allowed to cook more for ones servants and maids in the same pot, used to cook for oneself, but (to cook) for another Akum is prohibited in any case."
"When a Jew bakes some bread in the oven of Akum and one of the loaves should be given to him, then it is not allowed to bake a specific kind of bread for Akum, because then he (a Jew) would be baking (it) for Akum, whereas he is guilty of not first baking without designation (some bread to Akum), and only then to give it to him (Akum).
 Ie in the days of Passover, the feast of Pentecost, New Year and the Feast of Tabernacles (the day of repentance, during which the Jews themselves do not eat anything, of course, this does not count).
Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 512,2.
"When the soldiers (Akum) give some flour a Jew, so that he baked them some bread, then it is allowed to bake for them, if they have nothing against the fact that he gave away a little bit to (Jewish) child." 
 Then, it looks as if he actually baked bread "for the Jewish child."
Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 512:3.
"It is forbidden to cook and bake (specifically) for dogs, but it is allowed to take some food and give it to them."
Furthermore, it is permitted in the same pot, which is used to cook for oneself, to add some food for dogs, even if one has something else to give to the dogs if one had the desire."
Talmud Betz 21b.
"Why do you consider it necessary to count the dogs with "you" (ie those for which you can cook), and exclude the Akum? I consider dogs because you have to feed them, and I exclude Akum because you are not required to feed them."
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.
"During Holgamoeda (Jewish holiday, celebrated on the spring and fall) any trading activities are strictly forbidden, but loaning to Akum is allowed, because loaning to Akum [ed: at high interest rates] pleased the Lord God at all times." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 539:13, taken from the Tur, and Rabbi Ascher.
Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim, 539:13
"Money lending for interest is allowed only (to Akum) that usually takes loans from him (Jew), because it is something, from which he would otherwise not profit.
To the other (Akum), whom he usually does not lend to, it is also allowed, but under the condition that he (a Jew) took the interest [ed: percentage] only for the first week and spent it for bringing his pleasure during a holiday."
"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.
"When the plague strikes somewhere, and, as a result, many people (of course, Jews) become victims of the epidemic, then the healthy Jews must gather in the synagogue and, without eating and drinking pray all day to Jehovah to have compassion on them and deliver them from the plague.
"But when the plague appeared among the animals, then there is no need to do it, except in the case where it happened to pigs, because their insides are like the insides of people, and also when the plague strikes the Akum, because their body structure looks like a human body." 
 Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim, 576:3, taken from the Talmud Ta'anif, 21.
Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim, 576:3
"When there is a plague among pigs, then we must accept it, because their (pigs) insides are like the insides of a man, and moreover we must accept it, when the plague appears among the Akum, but not among the Jews."
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].
"During the celebration of Haman [*ed] all Jews should read the prayer of gratitude 'Arouri Haman', which states: "'Cursed be Haman and all of Akum and Blessed be Mordecai and all Jews'." 
[*ed] Purim, celebrating the murder of Haman, hanging 10 of his sons and a massacre of 75,000 innocent civilians. Jews eat with great pleasure the [triangular] pastries called the "ears of Haman" and pies stuffed with minced meat symbolizing "the body of Haman", [thus celebrating the revenge].
 Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim, 690:16, taken from the Talmud of Megillah-Yerushalmi.
Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim, 690:16.
"You have to say:" Accursed be Haman, blessed be Mordecai, let him be accursed Zeresh , blessed be Esther, let them be cursed all the Akum, but shall be blessed all the Jews!" 
 Wife of Haman.
 To us, Christians, this curse, perhaps, will not cause much harm; "maledi-cimur et benedicimus ("Being reviled, we bless" - Old Testament: 1 Corinthians 4:12) for children of Israel we do not wish "God's blessings in Kogan" (an untranslatable play on words - a game of chance in Germany" Gottes Segen bei Kohn ". Actually: "God's blessing from Kogan". The fact is that every Kogan as a descendant of Aaron has the right to bless the people in the synagogue ... So , Kogan, Kang, Cohen, Cohn - not a name, but the sacred dignity ... The the German game noticed this humorous detail of Jewish ritual. [Transl. note], and something precious: for the Lord to open their eyes, so that they may know Him who was crucified by their forefathers, and who even on the cross, prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." ( New Testament: Luke 23:34 ).
Old Testament, 1 Corinthians 4:12
12. And we labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure;
New Testament: Luke 23:34
34. Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
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."
"Any Beth Din (ie, legal proceeding, chaired by the Chief Rabbi) may sentence to death , even in our time, furthermore , any time it considers it necessary, even though the crime itself  did not deserve the death penalty."
 To sentence to the death penalty could only Sanhedrin (members or judges of Sanhedrion); therefore since no Sanhedrin, nor temple exist any longer, strictly speaking, there exists no such a power that would have been entitled to pronounce the death sentence. However, in the case where the oldest rabbis consider death of the person is necessary, they are required to sentence him to death even in our time.
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 2.1; taken from Maimon Gilhof Sanhedrin, Perek. 24.
Choshen Mishpat 2:1
"Any Bet Din , even if they (judges) were appointed not in Palestine, when he sees that the people have become bad tempered (Hagah), and the moment requires it, has the power to sentence to death, to a fine or to any other punishment, even in the case where there is no clear evidence (Hagah).
They (ie Bet Din judges) have the power to do as they please, in order to put an end to distemper of the people."
 Bet Din, ie court place - their own and the national mock trial of the Jews. It consists of at least three judges, over whom shall preside a lawyer [specialist on the law] (see Choshen Mishpat 3:1).
On the other hand, the chairman is the senior rabbi, his comrades, for the most part are also rabbis, but in extreme cases he may choose others.
Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 46a
It has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: I have heard [from my teachers] that the Beth din may, [when necessary,] impose flagellation and pronounce [capital] sentences even where not [warranted] by the Torah; yet not with the intention of disregarding the Torah but [on the contrary] in order to safeguard it .
It once happened that a man rode a horse on the Sabbath in the Greek period and he was brought before the Court and stoned, not because he was liable thereto,  but because it was [practically] required by the times.
 Again it happened that a man once had intercourse with his wife under a fig tree.  He was brought before the Beth din and flogged, not because he merited it,  but because the times required it. 
 During the time that Palestine was under Greek rule there was great laxity in the Jews' adherence to their religion, and stringent measures had to be adopted to enforce observance (Rashi). [Cf. Derenbourg, Essai, p. 107.]
Bet Din and judges
It has been authoritatively said that the Great Court of Jerusalem was the essential source of all Oral Law (Yad, Mamrim 1:1). The law as laid down (or as interpreted) by the Great Sanhedrin is binding on everybody, and any person contravening or repudiating it was liable to the death penalty (Deut. 17:12; Sif. Deut. 155; Yad, Mamrim 1:2), even where the law as laid down (or interpreted) by the court might appear misconceived: "even though they show you as right what in your eyes is left or as left what is right – you must obey them" (Sif. Deut. 155; but cf. Hor. 1:1 and TJ, Hor. 1:1, 45d; and see *Rabbinical Authority).
As a corollary of their legislative powers, the Great Sanhedrin also exercised advisory functions: wherever in any court any question of law was in doubt, the final and binding opinion of the Great Court at Jerusalem would have to be taken (Sanh. 88b; Yad, Sanh. 1:4)
Bet Din and judges
12. Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel.
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).
When two Jews have a dispute with one another because of money or other things and will be forced to address the court, then they should go to the Beth Din (rabbinical presence) and submit to his decision. 
But they are not allowed to appeal to Akum or seek their rights before the royal court, where judges are Akum.
Even if their (Akum) law is identical with the law of rabbis, even in that case it is a grave sin and a terrible blasphemy.
Who nonetheless violates that requirement in search of justice, along with other Jew in court of Akum, Beth Din must expel from the community (ie to curse him) as long as he will not release his neighbor (the Jew) from his complaint. 
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat, 26:1
It is forbidden to litigate before the Akum judges and in their courts, even in a case where their decision corresponds to the Jewish law; it is prohibited even in case when both parties agree to litigate before them (Akum).
Thus, anyone who expresses an intention to litigate their case in front of them (Akum judges), is a villain and is treated exactly as if he were reviled and defamed, or raised a hand against the Torah of Moses, our teacher, peace be upon him!"
(Hagah): And Beth Din has power (in its hand) to put a curse on him and subject him to anathema until he takes the Akum's hand off his neighbor [fellow-Jew].
Babylonian Talmud Gittin 88b
MISHNAH. A GET GIVEN UNDER COMPULSION [EXERCISED] BY AN ISRAELITE COURT IS VALID, BUT BY A HEATHEN COURT IS INVALID. A HEATHEN COURT, HOWEVER, MAY FLOG A MAN AND SAY TO HIM, DO WHAT THE ISRAELITE [AUTHORITIES] COMMAND YOU, (AND IT IS VALID).
"7. Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 26:1. One, unfortunately, of many examples of Chilul Hashem resulting from civil litigation in secular court is found in a recent Washington Post editorial which publicized how two factions within a synagogue sued each other under the Racketeer Influenced and Conupt Organizations Act (RICO). Cases of this nature are regularly published in State and federal law reporters. See, e.g., Grunwald v. Bornfreund, 696 F. Supp. 838 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)".
Notes on Jewish law
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.
It is not proper for a Jew to be a witness for the Akum against another Jew.  Therefore, when Akum wants to recover some money from a Jew, and a Jew denies his debt to Akum, while another Jew, who knows that Akum is right, he is prohibited from being a witness in his favor.
In case when a Jew has violated this requirement and became a witness for the Akum against the Jew, then Beth Din is obliged to exclude him from the community (ie, expose him to anathema).
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 28:3
"When some Akum has a claim against a Jew and there is (another) Jew who can testify for Akum vs. Jew, and, besides him, no witnesses exist, and Akum invites a Jew to give a testimony for him, then, if it occurs in a place where by the Akum's law, the money can be awarded on the basis of a testimony of a single witness the (cited) Jew is forbidden to testify for him (Akum); but if a Jew is nonetheless willing to testify, then he must be cursed."
Babylonian Talmud Baba kamma, 113a
'Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him. This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name.
Now according to R. Akiba the whole reason [appears to be,] because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him! Is then the robbery of a heathen permissible?  Has it not been taught  that R. Simeon stated that the following matter was expounded by R. Akiba when he arrived from Zifirin:  'Whence can we learn that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden? From the significant words: After that he is sold  he may be redeemed again, 
Babylonian Talmud Baba kamma, 113b
R. Bibi b. Giddal said that R. Simeon the pious stated: The robbery of a heathen is prohibited,  though an article lost by him is permissible. His robbery is prohibited, for R. Huna said: Whence do we learn that the robbery of a heathen is prohibited? Because it says: 'And thou shalt consume all the peoples that the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee';  only in the time [of war] when they were delivered in thy hand [as enemies] this is permitted, whereas this is not so in the time [of peace] when they are not delivered in thy hand [as enemies].
His lost article is permissible,  for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible?  Because it says: And with all lost thing of thy brother's:  it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen.
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.
"Only someone who has some humanity and honor may be a witness; but he who throws away his dignity, such as the one who goes out naked into the street or the one who (openly) begs from Akum, when it can be done in secret (ie, arrange things without publicity, as needed), he is likened to a dog as he disregards his dignity, hence not able to be a witness." 
Choshen Mishpat 34:18.
According to the rabbis, the despicable are not able to testify as witnesses. Such, for example, are those who eat in public on the street in front of all, or those who walk down the street naked, doing some dirty work, and so are similar people who do not feel ashamed of anything.
All of them are treated as dogs, and it does not cost them anything to give a false testimony.
To this category belong all those who publicly accept charity from Akum, though they have the ability to feed themselves in secret;
they become contemptible and do not pay any attention to it. All of these can not (testify as) witnesses, in the opinion of the rabbis.
Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 26b
R. Nahman said: Those who accept charity from Gentiles  are incompetent as witnesses;  provided, however, that they accept it publicly, but not if they accept it in private. And even if publicly [accepted], the law is applicable only if, when it was possible for them to obtain it privately they yet degraded themselves by open acceptance. But where [private receipt] is impossible, it [public acceptance] is vitally necessary. 
R. Nahman said: One who is suspected of adultery is [nevertheless] eligible as a witness. Said R. Shesheth: Answer me,  Master; forty stripes on his shoulders,  and yet [you say] he is eligible! 
Raba observed: Even R. Nahman admits that he is incompetent to testify in matrimonial matters. Rabina — others state R. Papa — said: That is only where his evidence is to free her;  but if it is to bind her,  there is no objection [to him]. But is this not obvious?  — I might think that he would prefer this,  even as it is written, Stolen waters are sweet;  therefore he teaches us that as long as she is in her present [unmarried] state, she is even more within his reach. 
R. Nahman said further: One who steals [produce from the fields] in Nisan, and [fruit from the orchards] in Tishri  is not regarded as a thief.
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.
"Witnesses may be only those who are called beings [people]. 
As for Akum, or a Jew, who became the Akum and who is even worse than (the natural) Akum, then they can not be regarded as human beings, hence, their testimony is devoid of any value" .
Choshen Mishpat 34:19
Goy and slave are unable to testify [as a witness].
Traitors,  freethinkers  and apostates are even worse than goyim are not able to testify.
Babylonian Talmud: Baba Kamma 14b
MISHNAH. THE VALUATION [IS MADE] IN MONEY [BUT MAY BE PAID] BY MONEY'S WORTH, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT AND ON THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES WHO ARE FREE MEN AND PERSONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW. WOMEN ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF TORTS. [BOTH] THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE INVOLVED IN THE PAYMENT.
Babylonian Talmud: Baba Kamma 15a
FREE MEN AND PERSONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW. 'FREE MAN' excludes slaves; 
'PERSONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW'  excludes heathens [gentiles, non-Israelites]. Moreover, it was essential to exclude each of them. For if the exemption had been stated only in reference to a slave, we would have thought it was on account of his lack of [legal] pedigree  whereas a heathen who possesses a [legal] pedigree  might perhaps have been thought not to have been excluded. Had, on the other hand, the exemption been referred only to a heathen, we should have thought it was on account of his not being subject to the commandments [of the Law], whereas a slave who is subject to the commandments  might have been thought not to have been excluded. It was thus essential to exclude each of them independently.
 From giving evidence,
 V. supra p. 36. n. 3.
 As his issue were considered the property of the owner, there being no parental relationship between him and them; cf. infra p. 508.
 Applicable to females; v. Hag. 4a.
Babylonian Talmud: Yebamoth 62a
Babylonian Talmud: Yebamoth 62a
(an idolater who became a proselyte is like a child newly born)
[*] See: Genesis 22:5
Babylonian Talmud: Yebamoth 62a
(a slave has no legally recognized relatives because he is like the ass)
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).
"When a Jew holds an Akum in his claws (in Chaldee version there is the expression "ma'arufiya", ie, to rip off, continually deceive, not letting one out of the claws), then it is allowed for another Jew to go to the same Akum, to lend him money and, in his turn, to deceive him so that the Akum would finally loose all his money. 
The basis is  that the money of Akum are the goods no one owns, and the first one who wishes has full right to seize it."
Choschen Hamm 156:5 Hagah
"If a Jew is doing good business with an Akum it is not allowed to other Jews, in certain places, to come and do business with the same Akum. In other places, however, it is different, where another Jews is allowed to go to the same Akum, lead him on, do business with him and to deceive him and take his money. For the wealth of the Akum is to be regarded as common property (belongs to no one) and belongs to the first who can get it. There are some, however, who say that this should not be done. (ie to compete with the other Jew)"
Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 54b
Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The property of a heathen  is on the same footing as desert land; whoever first occupies it acquires ownership. The reason is that as soon as the heathen receives the money he ceases to be the owner [because he is not human], whereas the Jew does not become the owner till he obtains the deed of sale.  Hence [in the interval] the land is like desert land and the first occupier becomes the owner. 
 The reference, as appears from what follows, is to property sold by a heathen to an Israelite who has paid the money but not yet received the deed of sale.
 The rule was that if a Jew bought land from a Jew, it remained in the ownership of the seller until the purchaser had received the title-deed, and either could retract until that time. But if a heathen sold land to a Jew, neither could retract so soon as the money had been paid, though in this case too the Jew did not become owner till he had received the title-deed.
 He must, however, reimburse the purchaser (v. Rashb. and R. Gersh.).
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."
"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, except in the case where goods from other cities are better than from the locals. 
Whereas the latter can not prohibit it, because the buyers would receive the better product. But it may be, of course, tolerated only where the buyers are also Jews. 
However, where buyers are Akum, then the merchants from other cities may not be allowed, and that's because the permission to do good to Akum is considered a sin, because we (the Jews) have the basic rule , that says you can throw a piece of meat to a dog, but can not give it to nohri (Christian), as the dog is better than nohri (Christian)."
Choshen ha-Mishpat 156:7, Hagah
"Some say the law, under which the citizens of one city may prohibit the citizens of another city (to come to them with the goods), is effective only where the buyers do not suffer losses, namely, when they (nonresidents) sell, like the rest of the traders in the city, and when their product is not better than from the latter.
But when they sell cheaper, or when their product is better, so that customers profit from them (nonresidents), then the merchants of the city can not prohibit it, but only on condition that the buyers were Jews;
If, however, the Akum would have benefited from it, then it is not allowed (ie, the locals, of course, may prohibit it to nonresidents)."
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:
21. "You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien  who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the Lord your God.
 "Alien" means any non-Jew regardless of race or nationality, ie "goy".
Old Testament, Exodus 22:31
31. "And you shall be holy men to Me: you shall not eat meat torn by beasts in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs".
Old Testament: Exodus 22:29-30
Ritual sacrifice of firstborn babies
29. "You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me . [means ritual sacrifice of firstborn]
30. 30. Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep. It shall be with its mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me.
To the last words Rashi notes:
"And he  should be regarded as a dog. Doesn't it imply only dog in the true sense? (No, because) the Scripture teaches about the carrion ... "or sell it to the stranger"; how much more is it related to torn, from which it was possible to extract all sorts of benefits. And if so, then why in the Holy Scriptures it says: to the dogs (throw him)? In order to teach you that a dog deserves more respect than he does; and Holy Scripture teaches you that Almighty - Glory be to Him, does not maintain his share in any creature, because it is said: "against none of the children of Israel shall a dog move its tongue" (Old Testament: Exodus 11:7). So says the All-Holy, praise be to Him - "Give him (the dog) his share!"
 The text is not preceded by any name, to which this pronoun might apply. By "him" must understand only nohri [non-Jew]; yes, in all likelihood, this was the word that stood in the text originally, but then, because of easily understandable reasons, the publishers replaced it with transparent pronoun.
Old Testament: Exodus 11:7
7. But against none of the children of Israel shall a dog move its tongue, against man or beast, that you may know that the Lord does make a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.
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.
"When a Jew employs a clerk, with whom he signed a deal so that everything he finds, belonged to the owner, and the clerk tricked some Akum by by involving him in a secondary payment of previously repaid by the same Akum debt, or cheated the Akum, etc., then this profit belongs to the owner, because such profits should be regarded as found objects  (property of Christians according to Jews is goods, no one owns, - therefore, the Jews can take as much as they can grab). 
Choshen Mishpat 176:12, Hagah
"When someone made an agreement with someone that he traded his money and that everything found by the latter belonged to him (the owner), and he (the clerk) receives from the Akum the debt already paid, then it belongs to the category of "found items", for each paid bill is nothing more like a piece of paper.
Thus, who returned such money to Akum, is not obliged to reward their master for it, and such is even explicitly permitted (ie to return his money to non-Jew)."
The phrase "or cheated the Akum," should be crossed out as 176:38 deals with the joint "friendly" Gesheft.
"When a Jew sends a clerk to Akum for the money and he cheats [deceives] the Akum, taking more than he should, then it belongs to the clerk." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 183:7, Hagah; taken from Mordechai in the Talmud Ketubot.
Choshen Mishpat 183:7
"When someone sends a clerk to get the money from Akum and (Akum) makes a mistake and gives him more than he should, then everything  belongs to clerk, but only if the clerk knew about the error before he passed the money, received as a result of the mistake, to his owner;
But when he did not know about it and (already) passed it to the one who sent him, then all of it belongs to the latter."
 All the extra money.
To this, Haga also concludes:
"But only in the case where the clerk knew about the error before he passed the money, he received as a result of the mistake, to its owner; but when he did not know about it and (already) passed it to the sender, then all of it belongs to this last."
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.
"When a Jew is conducting some business with Akum and another Jew comes and deceives Akum, no matter how, be it wrong weight, incorrect measurement, or incorrect amount, then both Jews should share in such profits". 
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 183:7, Hagah; taken from Mordechai in the Talmud Ketubot.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 183:7, Hagah
"When someone does some business with Akum and comes another Jew and helps him to deceive Akum in measure, weight or count, then they share the profit among themselves, regardless of whether the help was provided for a fee or not."
"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.
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).
"When a Jew sends a clerk to Akum to pay the debt, and the latter, right upon arrival, notices that Akum had forgotten about the debt, then the clerk should return the money to the Jew, who sent him, and the one who was sent can not be excused, as though by doing this (ie e. payment of money to Christian), he wanted to honor the name of God, so that the Akum would say:
'say, the Jews are still decent people'. Something like it he could do only with his own money; as he has no right to throw around someone else's money." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, 183:8; taken from Shaalof Utshubof Megara Rothenburg.
Choshen ha-Mishpat 183:8
"Reuben had sent Shimon to buy him a dress on credit, but when the payment become due, he gave him money to pay; meanwhile it was found that the seller had forgotten about it, then he (Shimon) should return Reuben his money and has no right to say:
"I want to keep the money for now until, maybe a little later, Akum remembers about it"; it is also forbidden to say:
"I want to sanctify the name of the Lord and return the money to Akum".
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."
"When a Jew to sell something to another Jew, movable or immovable, and it turns out that the seller had stolen these things, so that the owner took them back, then the seller is obliged to return the money to the buyer,  because he did not have to steal.
But if he stole these things from Akum and Akum takes them back, then the seller is not obliged to return the money to the buyer." 
Choshen Mishpat 225:1
"Anyone selling land, a slave or something movable is responsible to meet the obligations (encumbering the mentioned objects), for example, if someone came and, for the fault of the salesman, took away from the hands of the salesman the item the buyer has bought, then the buyer goes back and takes back the the full amount he paid to the salesman, because the item purchased was taken away as a result of the fault of the latter."
Choshen Mishpat 225:2
"But when Akum took away the item from the buyer, whether it be by royal decree or by a decision of their judges, then the seller is not obliged to return the money paid.
Even if Akum claims that the seller had stolen or robbed him, and would refer to the evidence from other Akum witnesses, then no obligations arises for the seller, because it is a coercion, and the seller is not obliged to compensate for that, which was taken away by force."
Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra 45a
if an Israelite sells an ass to a fellow-Israelite and a Gentile comes and forcibly takes it from him [on the ground that it was stolen from him], it is the duty of the first to help him to rescue It....
... Even without all these qualifications he need not help him, because generally speaking the heathen is a grabber,  and so Scripture says of them, Their mouth speaketh vanity and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood. 
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.
"It is strictly forbidden for a Jew to cheat his fellow Jew, and it is classified as deception when he deprives him of the sixth of the value.  He, who deceived his fellow, must return everything back. 
It goes without saying that all this takes place only among the Jews.
But it is permitted for a Jew to deceive an Akum, and he is not obliged to return to Akum the amount of cheating, because in the Holy Scripture it says:
"Do not deceive your neighbor brother;
But Akum are not our brothers, but on the contrary, as has already been stated higher (Law 25) , they are worse than dogs!"
Choshen Mishpat 227:1
"It is forbidden to cheat your neighbor as when buying and when selling, and everyone who cheated, whether buyer or seller, has violated the prohibition."
Choshen Mishpat 227:2
"What size should be the amount of cheating to create an obligation to return? One-sixth the cost. For example, if someone is selling something worth 6 for 5, or worth 7 for 6, or worth 5 for 6, or worth 6 for 7 - is a fraud.
Although the purchase is valid, but the cheat is liable to pay the money in the amount of cheating, and to return all of it to the deceived."
Choshen Mishpat 227:26
"But in relation to Akum no cheating (in the over-enrichment) exists, because it says: "He should not deceive one of his brothers!" 
Nevertheless, Akum, who deceived a Jew is obliged according to our (Jewish) law to return the entire amount of cheating, so that he did not have any advantage over Jew." 
 Ie another Jew, according to rabbinic interpretation. It is not applicable to Akum.
 Because the Jews must return the money to another Jew.
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.
"When a Jew rented a house from another Jew, then it is allowed to the third Jew to come and give more than the first renter gave and rent a house for himself.
But when the owner is Akum, then let him be accursed (the expression for it in Chaldean is "menuda", ie, he can not walk into the synagogue for as long as the rabbi does not free him from the shackles of a curse), the one who is to blame for Akum getting more profit". 
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 237:1, Hagah; taken from Mehar Padua, 41.
Choshen Mishpat 237:1
"And there is someone, who writes that under the pain of damnation from Rabbi Gershon it is prohibited from competing in the renting a house from Akum."
The text contains not "menuda" (or, more precisely, menudda), but herem. There is, however, no significant difference between the two expressions.
"It is an obligation (for Jews) to comply with the written will by a sick man, except in the case when he ordered to do something sinful.
According to this, if the patient in his will gives something as a present to Akum, then it should not be executable, because, as we shall see later, it is considered a great sin to give anything to Akum." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 256:3; taken from Maimon Hilhof Sehiyya par. 9.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 256:3
"You can not listen to the patient when he orders [wills] to give a gift to Akum, because it is the same as if he orders to commit a sin with his money."
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.
"A Jew who has found something, be it animate or inanimate objects, is obliged to return them to the owner. Needless to say  that it applies only to the Jew, who has lost something.
But when the item found belongs to Akum, then a Jew is not only not obliged to return it, but on the contrary, it is considered a grievous sin to return anything to Akum, unless it is done for the purpose to make Akum say: "The Jews are decent people". 
Choshen ha-Mishpat 259:1
"Anyone who sees a lost thing of a Jew, (he) must try to return it to its owner because it is written: "You have to return it back". 
 Deuteronomy 22:1:
"You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother."
Choshen Mishpat 266, 1.
"The thing that was lost by Akum, is allowed to be kept (without returning) because it is said: "Lost by your brother" ; hence he, who returns it, commits a great sin.
But if he returns it to sanctify the Name (of God) so that the Jews are praised and thought to be honest people, then it is commendable."
 Deuteronomy 22:3
Baba Metzia, 25-26 argument
This is a pretty convoluted and quite perverted argument, but it centers primarily on a distinction between the Jews (Israelites) and "heathen" or "foreigners", ie non-Jews. The entire two folios - 25 and 26 are dealing with subtleties and implications of a racist nature, Jew and non-Jew, even though some, if not most of it, will not be noticed by anyone who is not an expert on such illusive and hidden subtleties.
The very argument dealing with a knife, found in a wall crack, depending on which way it points - inside the house, where there is a Jew, or the outside of the house, is simply insane, not to be insulting, with all due respect to its utilitarian and mechanical nature of it. What does it matter which way the knife points - towards a Jew or non-Jew? In Mishna for 25b it distinguishes between the new wall and an old wall and it goes even more convoluted in all those nitpicking distinctions, which signify nothing in essence.
And that is precisely how Jesus caught them every time they have presented their arguments against him and all of those arguments came from these kinds of "scriptures" which He knew, or better said, - SAW, in and out, better than the pharisees themselves. Because there is a difference between SEEING and "knowing" something, or thinking about something, especially if it is learned from a book and not via direct knowledge from the highest level sources there are.
They argue about utterly meaningless things, making mountains of significance out of mosquito droppings. And ALL of it means NOTHING of substance, which is honesty. If you find something, it means it is not yours, no matter which way the knife points or whether the wall is new or old. You have to return it BACK to its source.
That is is the Law of Balance in the name of Life itself. Otherwise, the end result will be death and self-destruction, and INEVITABLY so, just as this nitpicking shows in no uncertain terms. It was said:
"Blind leading the blind will fall into a ditch".
They never mention Honesty even ONCE in these entire two folios, filled with such a mountain of garbage of micky-mouse level that it is hard to believe. And what did they find as a result?
Actually, the clearest statement as to the whole argument, which is clearly racist in its very essence, is contained in the previous folio (Baba Metzia 25b), where it states:
Babylonian Talmud Baba Metzia, 25b
One of the interesting things about the Talmud is that the arguments on sensitive points in terms of racism are split between consecutive folios. One part of the argument is in one folio and the other is in the previous one. This way, you can not quote the Talmud without destroying the very essence of the whole argument, which is what happened to Justus in his citation. But, nevertheless, the folio 26 contains the additional details, which would be pretty hard to see to someone who does not understand the mindset of these people. You won't notice anything unless you really get into the hidden meaning of it. But here it is, try:
1. You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother.
"3. You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself."
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.
"When a Jew meets a saddled animal, which fell under the weight of a load, or a loaded cart in front of which, exhausted from the weight of the load, had fallen animals harnessed to it, then he must come to the aid of a cabby [driver] or help him, and, depending on the need, to help to remove the load or to load it up again, for every Jew must provide such assistance as to his brother, and so to the animals. 
He is obliged to do so even when a load belongs to a Jew, but an animal to Akum, or conversely, when the animal belongs to a Jew, and the cargo to Akum, and the cabby is Akum. 
But when the animals belong to Akum and and so the luggage is his property, then we are not talking of compassion, nor of charity with respect to both, the owner of the luggage, and with respect to animals, and in this case, no Jew is obliged to provide any assistance neither to the owner of the cargo nor the animals."
Choshen Mishpat 272:1
"He who meets his fellow on the road and his (fellow's) animal, which fell under its load, whether it is proportionate or excessive weight, he is obliged to release an animal of burden, because it is written: 'You must help him'."
Choshen Mishpat 272:8
"But when an animal belongs Akum, and a luggage to the Jew, then, if Akum himself is a cabby [drover] of his animal, it does not commit to anything. But when (he) is not (himself a cabby), then there is a duty to unload and reload because in that case we have a Jew in a quandary."
Choshen Mishpat 272:9
"And in exactly the same way, when the animal belongs to a Jew, and the load to Akum, you have to unload and load, because a Jew is in a quandary. But when the animal, and the load is owned by Akum, then you are not obliged to do this unless it is done to avoid hatred."
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.
"When a Jew owes money to Akum and that Akum had died, then a Jew is forbidden to return the money to his heirs, - of course, provided that no other Akum knows that a Jew is indebted to the dead Akum.
But when (even) one Akum knows about it, then a Jew is obliged to pay money to the heirs, so that Akum would not say:
"Jews are deceivers'." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 283:1, Hagah; taken from Mordechai Talmud Kiddushin.
Choshen ha-Mishpat 283:1, Hagah
"A Jew who owes something to Akum, when this latter one has died, and none of the Akum know of that debt, is not obliged to pay his heirs."
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 ... ".
"A Jew is forbidden to steal something either from another Jew or from a goy, but to cheat a goy, for example, via miscalculation (in Chaldee the same term as "ta'uf" above - to deceive), or not to pay him back the debt is permitted, but with caution, so that the offense would not get discovered, and the name of the Lord were not defiled." 
 Shulchan Aruch Choshen ha-Mishpat, 348:1 Hagah 2; taken from the Talmud Baba kamma, 113, and from the Tur.
Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 348:1
"Anyone who steals, even though the price of what was stolen a was penny, breaks the commandment: "Thou shalt not steal" and must give it back, and it does not matter, whether it is money of a Jew or a goy, important or insignificant person" (Hagah).
Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 348:1, Hagah 2
"To mislead Akum, such as to deceive him during payment [via miscalculation] or not to pay him the debt is permitted, but only under the condition that he did not suspect this, so as not to desecrate the name of (the Lord).
Some say it is illegal to directly deceive him, but is allowed only (to be used) when he himself makes a mistake."
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."
"When a Jew buys something from a thief and sells it to another Jew, and then comes the third Jew and argues that what was bought was his property, and takes it back, then the seller must return the buyer's money. But if Akum comes to the buyer and says that what was purchased is his property, then it is not returned to him.
But if he complains to their (Akum) court and would get his thing returned by judicial order, the seller is not obliged to return the money to the buyer  (for those who bought from the thief did not make a mistake, since the goods that were bought were stolen from Akum)".
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 356:10; taken from Mordechai Talmud Baba kamma.
Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 356:10, Hagah
"When a Jew buys something from the thief, and sells it to another Jew, and Akum comes and declares it stolen from him, and takes away (the stolen) from the Jewish buyer according to their (Akum) laws, then, if the thief is known as such, the first Jew must return the second one his money;
but if the thief is not known as such, (the first Jew) is not obliged to return the second one the money, because he has the right to say: "But it could be that Akum lies".
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.
"When a Jew, a monopoly customs fee collector (who bought the rights to collect the customs fee from the state for the entire city or even a broader region for a certain amount), then another Jew can not cause him harm (eg, through smuggling);
but when the customs fee collector is Akum, then it is allowed, because it is the same as not paying ones debts , and the latter is allowed, as we have seen above (Act 37)."
 Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, 369:6; taken from the Tur.
Shulchan Aruch Choshen ha-Mishpat 369:6.
"And also if a Jew has bought the rights to collect the customs fee from the King, then those engaged in smuggling are considered to be robbers of the Jew. 
But when the customs fee leasehold was bought by Akum, then it is allowed (to smuggle), because it is the same as not paying ones debts, and is permissible in a place where there is no (fear of) desecration of the Name (of God)."
 By this, Hagah notes, that it is forbidden to cheat [deceive] even in case when it is known that the Jewish tax collector collects more than is prescribed by law, since it is the same, as to rob [steal from] a (Jewish) robber, which is still forbidden.
"When a Jew serves as muhasa (ie, public tax collector or a customs inspector), in other words, when he bought the rights (to collect taxes for himself), but collects it for the state, then it is forbidden for him to use violence against another Jew. Why?
Because the King (for whom he collects) is a Goy, and so failure to pay the taxes is the same as a default on paying debts to Goy, but this very thing is allowed, as we have seen (cf. Law 37), hence, one Jew should not force to that another Jew.
But, when the aforesaid officer (a Jew) is afraid that the king may learn about it, then he can use violence even against another Jew." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 369:6, Hagah; taken from Rabbenu Nizim in the Talmud Nedarim, par. 4.
Choshen ha-Mishpat 369:6, Hagah
"There are those [*] who say that even where an official is a Jew, but if he did not buy out the rights (to collect the customs duty) for himself, and collects for the king , though it is forbidden to engage in smuggling on the basis of local laws, yet when someone imports the banned items, then the collector shall not force him (the smuggler) to pay (custom fees), because this is the same as if he does not pay his debts, which is allowed.
But when it is done out of fear of the king, then he (the collector), of course, can force (the smuggler) to pay."
[*] [Of course, the sages of the Talmud - mentors in Israel. This notice applies to other similar expressions. (transl. note)]
 This king, of course, is Akum. The latest Warsaw edition tries in vain to disguise this fact by adding to the word "..." "king" word "..." of "idolaters." Yet with even a more naive cunningness seeks to deceive those who do not know, in Vilna edition, plugging in instead of "..." (King), the expression "..." "King of Akum." However, despite all these evasions of the rabbis, the thing remains the same as it is.
State laws need to be complied with; here, however, we are talking about such laws that bring revenue to the state. 
But even among the tax laws not all of them should be complied with, but only those , that deal with land (ie taxes on land and taxes on buildings);
As for all other tax and excise laws, they do not have to be complied with.
But the land related taxes and taxes on buildings must be complied with because the land belongs to the state, and it may declare that it allows us to live on its land only if we were to pay taxes on real estate."
 Shulchan Aruch, 369:11, Hagah; taken from Ry Colon, 18 [188?].
 Shulchan Aruch, 369:8, Hagah; taken from Rabbenu Ascher Talmud Nedarim and Mordechai Talmud Baba kamma.
Arguing against this ruling in the Talmud, Tozefof [Tozefoth] says that there are no obstacles to the compliance of all the other (state) statutes as well, and, as proof, refers to the fact that the money lender against collateral, has the right to sell the collateral at the end of the year, as determined by local (non-Jewish) law. therefore, even this item alone, already allows for the distortion of local laws at all, even if they they are not applicable to the tax on land.
However, imaginative approval of all the Talmudic compilations quite agrees not with sly commandment of Tozefof, but with cited here ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, the power of which shall be complied with by Jews only for such laws of the country, that bring monetary gain to the sovereign [the ruler, the king] or the state.
Shulchan Aruch 369:11, Hagah
"When in the area, where cases are adjudged by the laws of Akum, if anyone were married and his wife died, even in that case, her father or her other heirs are not entitled to claim:
"Anyone who has a wife, has agreed with the laws and regulations (of that country), and we decide the case under the laws of Akum, so that the husband is not the wife's heir, etc."
Here, the state law has no application because, as we say, this is the law only when the Emperor receives the income or when it comes to civic issues, but you can not judge (the private matter) under the laws of Akum, because otherwise all the laws of the Jews would have become superfluous."
Shulchan Aruch 369, 8, Hagah
"There are those who say: "State law is the law", as we argue, is true only in respect to the land taxes, because the emperor allows us to live in that state only if we comply with this condition.
But this rule does not apply to any other matter or affairs.
And yet others say, and tell us that we in all matters say: "State law is the law".
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.
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, robbing the Jews is forbidden.
But it is permitted to play the games of cubes with Akum. 
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 370:3; taken from Maimon Gilhof Gezel par. 6.
Choshen ha-Mishpat 370:1
"There are things that are forbidden by the rabbis, because (they fall under the classification) of "robbery", and anyone, who acts in violation, (he), according to rabbinical decision, is a robber: (for example) those that throw the pigeons [in the air], and those who play the game of cubes."
Choshen ha-Mishpat 370:3
"There is also someone who said that the game of cubes with the Akum is not a robbery, but is still a sin, because (doing it) one is involved with trivial things."
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.
"When a Jew sold something to Akum and took more than it is worth, and another Jew comes to Akum and tells him that the purchase is not worth it, and Akum returns the purchase as a result, then the second Jew is obliged to pay the first (the seller) the difference between value and a price for which the thing was sold to Akum. 
Similarly, when a Jew lent some money to Akum at high interest rate, and other Jew comes to Akum and offers him money for less interest, the second Jew is a rusha (ie an ungodly man [atheist]) and must compensate the first Jew for all of that surplus money [profit], which he [the fist Jew] would have made from Akum, if this latter [Akum] would not take the money from the second Jew." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 386:3; taken from Mehar Merseburg.
 Ibid; taken from Rabbenu Ieruham Netub, 31, Part II. II.
Choshen ha-Mishpat 386, 3, Haga.
"There is someone who writes that when Reuben sold anything to Akum, and comes Shimon to Akum and says that the thing should not be so expensive, then he is guilty and must compensate (Reuben)"
"When Reuben has lent some money to Akum on bail [collateral] and comes Shimon to Akum and says that he wants to lend at a more moderate interest, and he (Akum) gives Reuben his money back, then he (Shimon) is free (to do it) as it is (only) a loss (loss of profits). Nevertheless, he is considered to be godless."
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.
"When the law requires payment of taxes to the king in kind (wine, straw, etc.) and some Jew evades this duty, and yet another Jew informs the authorities about it, whereupon he was forced to pay duties, then Jewish informer must compensate the first Jew for all the confiscated natural products (and, of course, other damages, as well as any fines)." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 388:2; taken from Maimon Gilhof Umatstsik Hobel, par. 8.
Choshen ha-Mishpat 388:2
"When the emperor has ordered to deliver him the wine or straw, or things like that and goes some snitch and say:
'Such-and-such have stocks of wine or a straw in such and such a place', and they go there and take (this stock), then he (the informer) is obliged to compensate."
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.
Even in our time it is allowed to kill a moser, ie a man who brags that he intends to go snitch on someone else, so that the accused could be punished physically (prison) or materially (fine), regardless of how much money is involved. He is first told:
"Do not snitch."
But when he resists, and repeats:
"But I'm still going to snitch", then not only it is permissible, but is considered a good deed to kill him, and he, who is the first one to give him a fatal blow, will be blessed. 
And when there is no time to warn him, then it is allowed to kill him immediately and without any warning." 
 A particular indication of the law "even in our time ", has the following meaning: a death sentence could only be pronounced by the Sanhedrin (judges of the Supreme Council); so, since those times, as there is no Sanhedrin and no temple, the [governing] power itself to issue a death verdict has disappeared as well; in accordance with this, the rabbis do not have the power [authority] to impose the death penalty, but can only punish with fines and put a curse, ie expulsion from the commune. However, in this case, i.e. in fear of denunciation [snitching], it is a must, and it should be, even today, to execute the punishment by death.
Choshen ha-Mishpat 388:10
It is allowed to kill a traitor at any place, even in our time. It is permissible to kill him before he can snitch, as he himself had condemned himself to death as soon as he said: "I will snitch on such and such (so that) he (would suffer a loss) either to his body, or in money, even though the amount was not that much".
We must warn him and say: "do not snitch!" But if he is stubborn and says: "No, I am still going to snitch", then killing him is a good deed, and anyone who kills him first, earns a credit for it (Hagah).
And if you do not have time to warn him, then (of course) a warning is not necessary.
There are also those who say that a traitor should be killed only when there is no way to prevent it through some of his (body) organs.
However, when it is possible to prevent it through some of his (body) organs, for example, cutting out his tongue or gouging out his eyes, then it is forbidden to kill him, because such a traitor is no longer more harmful than the other persecutors."
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.
"When someone snitched on a Jew to Akum thrice, then, even though he promised to change and not to continue to tell on someone from then on, yet one should seek for ways and means to get rid off him (deprive him of his life). 
Costs spent on getting rid of him, must be paid by those Jews who live in (this) city (where it happened)." 
Choshen ha-Mishpat, 388:15
"When it has been determined that somebody  had betrayed a Jew or his money by telling on him to Akum trice, then it is necessary to look for ways and means to get rid of him [the source in Russian means: making his life a nightmare, so he no longer exists, could imply commits suicide, but the meaning is vague]." 
 It is necessary to question the witnesses in his absence, furthermore, their testimonies may not quite agree with each other.
 Therefore, the direct killing may not be necessary.
Choshen ha-Mishpat, 388:16
"The expenditures made in order to get rid of a traitor, are to be paid by all the people of (this) area, even those who pay their taxes elsewhere."
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. [*]
[*] Translator's note. Of course - a betrayal and snitching deserve retribution. But in the laws 45 and 46 these actions are given a completely different meaning. This is evident from a comparison of the statutes mentioned with the laws: 2, 6, 19-24, 26, 28, 29-31, 34, 36-41, 50, 64, 65, 81, 85, 86, 88 and 97, as well as from everyday observations of Jewish life.
In most cases, there is no judgment on them, and no retribution [punishment]. It is almost impossible to get at the truth, where Jews are involved. Perjury of witnesses from among them, in case the interests of Kahal are affected, is ineradicable because, in addition to fear of being "treasonous", the Jew is doing wrong as a feat [heroic act]. After all, Akums are not even people. Determined as provided by the laws of the Talmud the impunity deprives the [governmental] power of "Akums" of hopes to curb Jewish [power and influence] and intentionally causes its own tyranny.
"When the ox of a Jew injures an ox of Akum, then a Jew is not obliged to compensate Akum for his loss,  because the Bible says (Exodus 21:35): "When a man's ox injures his neighbor's ox," etc., and Akum is not a neighbor to me (in the sense of being my fellow).
But when, on the contrary, the ox of Akum injures the ox of a Jew, then Akum is obliged to compensate the losses of the Jew because he is Akum." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 406:1; taken from the Talmud Baba kamma, 37.
 Ibid; taken from Maimon Gilhof Hobel Umatstsik par., 8, 5.
Choshen ha-Mishpat 406:1
"When the bull of a Jew injures the bull of Akum, then he (the Jew-owner) is free;
but when the ox of Akum injures the ox of a Jew, regardless of whether he (the ox of Akum) was in the habit of goring or not , then he (the owner) must compensate for the injury."
 "Tame, harmless" ........ "punish a bull who caused the damage (with their head-butting, trampling) only once or twice; but when the bull has caused damage three times already, and the victim informed its owner about it, then a bull is called "..." "announced [reported]", "marked".
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! ..
"When the fields of Palestine belonged to the Jews, at that time it was not allowed to keep small livestock, because as a consequence ones fellow might suffer, because such animals usually look for food on the fields of others.
But in Syria, as elsewhere, where the fields do not belong to the Jews, every Jew could also freely keep small livestock. 
On the contrary, in our time,  when the fields in Palestine no longer belong to the Jews, they are allowed to keep small livestock here (in Palestine) as well."
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 409; taken from the Talmud Baba Kamma, 79.
 Ibid, taken from the Tur.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 409:1
"One should not keep small livestock in Palestine, because it has a habit of grazing on others' fields and causing damage.
In Syria, and in the deserts of Palestine it is allowed to keep (small livestock). And now, when Jews no longer own the fields in Palestine, it seems it is allowed (there also)."
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.
"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 
On the contrary, where Akum reside also , then it is allowed for a Jew to keep such a vicious dog (without a chain)."
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat, 409:3; taken from the Talmud Baba kamma, 82 [79?].
 Ibid, Hagah; taken from Hagahof Alfazi.
Choshen ha-Mishpat 409:3
"It is forbidden to keep a vicious dog, unless it is tied on an iron chain. But in a city that is close to the border, it is permissible; the dog is tied during the day and is released at night" (Hagah).
"Some people say that now, when we live among Akum, it is permitted, in any case, go and look to see what other people usually do. However, if the dog is so vicious that it is possible to fear of harm to people, this, it seems, is prohibited, except for such cases when dog is tied with an iron chain."
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.
"Since the time when Sanhedrin and the Temple (in Jerusalem) no longer exist, the death penalty can not be pronounced (by the Sanhedrin, the judges of the Supreme Council), as it was before.
But the Rabbinical inquisition still can pronounce the death sentence, but only according to the law 19.
Regardless of this, except for permission to kill a moser law 45, a murder, even without rabbinical presence, is a good deed in the following cases :
a) It primarily indicates the case, which, due to the requirements of decency, we can not present here.
b) a Jew commits a good deed when he kills an Apikores.  When a Jew could commit such a murder in public, yes, let him do it!
But, when for fear of public authorities, it can not be done, then he should think about the means to secretly deprive the Apikores of his life. 
Whereupon the Jew is not directly obliged to kill Akum, with whom he lives in peace, nevertheless, it is not allowed to save Akum from death."
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 425:5 Hagah; taken from the Talmud Abodah Zarahh, 26.
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 425:5; Apikores is recognized as a freethinker, unbeliever, scoffer and the like, who denies the doctrine of Israel and brags about his unfaithfulness, as well as the one who becomes Akum.
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 425:5; taken from the Talmud Kiddushin, 82.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 425:5, Hagah
"Above all those, who, according to bet din deserve death, we now no longer have authority to give them 39 hits (with a whip or thory branch), to expel them, to kill or beat them, but can only demit and exclude them from the community. But this is according to law.
If, nevertheless, Beth Din finds that the moment requires it in order to protect the (known) project or affair, then they (the Jewish Judges) can punish in any way they want ..., as it says in par. 2.
However, this applies only to such executions when the presence of Beth Din is necessary. On the contrary, over those who may be killed without authorization of Beth Din, the executions are performed even nowadays, as we now shall present."
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 425:5
"A Jew free-thinker, ie, one who commits a sin of joining the Akum's worshiping, or commits a sin just to oppose, even if he only ate some meat of a cattle that died by itself, or wore some clothes made of wool and flax, in spite of prohibition, then this is what a rebellious one is, as well as those who reject the Torah  and the prophets of Israel. To kill all of these is a good deed.
When one has the authority to kill them publicly with the sword, then let it be accomplished; but if there is no such authority, then they have to be entrapped in every way, in order to inflict death.
For example, when you see that one of them has fallen into a well, and there is a ladder in it, then hurry up and pull it out, saying:
'I have a problem. I have to take my son from the roof, and I will bring it (ladder) back very soon,' etc.
But to Akum, with whom we do not live in a [state of] war, or those who are herding the Israeli sheep to graze on the fields belonging to the Jews, etc., there is no need to cause them death. However, it is forbidden to save them (from death)."
 Who is precisely "the denier of the Torah", is clearly defined by Maimonides in "Gilhof Teshub, par. 3.8." It says [in the following quote]:
"There are three (classes) of those, who are the deniers of the Torah:
I. Those who says that the Torah is not from God, or even one verse, even one (her) word; when he says that Moses told this from himself, he is a denier Torah.
II. Those who reject her statements, ie oral teaching  and does not recognize her teachers, such as Saddok  and Boefos. 
III. Those who claims that the Lord has replaced the law by another law, and that the Torah is no longer in force, even though it came from God, as, for example, Christians and Turks say. Each of these three is a denier of the Torah."
 The Talmud is called the oral doctrine or tradition as opposed to the written law - the Torah; for it is only later, when there was fear of losing the Talmud, it was allowed to record it [to write it down] (see Gittin 6Oa).
 His followers were known to the Sadducees.
 From the Greek. savior, help - also the founder of a religious sect in Judaism (boefacians).
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."
"An animal killed by Akum, or a Jew who became an Akum, must be regarded by Jews as carrion". 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 2:1, taken from the Talmud Hullin, 13.
Iore Dea 2:1
"An animal killed by nohri (non-Jew) is regarded by Jews as a carrion [died either from disease or from old age], even if he (nohri) is a youngster or not an idolator, ie ger toshab  and even if others (Jews) watched him."
 "..... ger toshab - "settled foreigner" is opposed to ...... ger tzedek - "foreigner of justice". The latter is such a proselyte, who entirely adopted Judaism; the first one, on the contrary, who pledged to perform the so-called 7 Commandments of Noah (called so because, they say, they have already been given to Noah), namely: I. to obey the Jewish authorities; II. do not insult the Name of God; III. avoid idolatry; IV. abstain from profligacy [immorality]; V. do not kill; VI. do not rob; VII. do not use the blood for food (cf. Sanhedrin 57a)."
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."
"A Jew is forbidden to cut the animal, which is not yet 8 days old. And when comes Akum to sell the animal to a Jew and claims that the latter is already 8 days old, then a Jew should not believe him, because Akum are liars and deceivers". 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 15; taken from Shaalof Utshubof Rashba; something similar appears in the Shulchan Aruch, endless number of times.
Iore Dea 15:3
"One can not trust Akum in regard to young sheep, being bought from him, and (of which) he said that they are 8 days old."
The reason given by Justus - "because Akum are liars and deceivers", does not actually appear in this particular text.
"It is forbidden to take a nohrif (Christian) as a midwife because the nature and character of the nurse usually transfer to the child; from nohrif the child becomes stupid and receives bad qualities." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 81:7, Hagah; taken from the Talmud Rabbenu Nizim Abodah Zarahh.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 81:7, Hagah
"It is not allowed for nohrif to breast feed the child when you can have a Jewess, because milk of nohrif closes the heart  and creates an evil nature in it. Therefore the midwife, even if she is a Jewess, should not eat any forbidden foods and the child himself (should not do it), because it would all hurt him later."
 To "close", "lock" the heart is to make it inaccessible to any science (cf. Rashi in the Talmud Iomma 39a), and especially to the knowledge of God.
As for the words ........ "And it creates evil nature in it", then for some reason, they disappeared from the Vilna edition. Instead of "nohrif" in Stettin edition it is written .......... "Kuteyan". How much work, when you think of it, these rabbis create for themselves, and all in vain!
"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.
"However, where there is no Jewish baker, then it is allowed to purchase it from Christian baker , but not a private person, because then there is no serious reason for such fears.
"Nevertheless, the Jew is allowed to employ the Akuma (Christian) as a cook , when she cooks under supervision, guidance and in the presence of a Jewess, and therefore, in collaboration with her."
Iore Dea 112:1
"The rabbis have forbidden to eat bread of Akum, so as not to woo [not to make a finance with] them" (Hagah). "It is forbidden even in situations where there is no fear of matchmaking."
Iore Dea 114:1.
"All the alcohol beverages of Akum are banned, so as not to woo them (Akum);
but (to consume them) is prohibited only in the very place where they are sold;
but when it is allowed to take the beverages with you, bring them home and drink there, then it is not prohibited."
Iore Dea 112:2
"There are some countries where things are simplified and where people buy some bread from the Akum baker, (namely) in those places where there is no Jewish baker, because there is a necessity for it" (Hagah).
"And there are those who say that even in area where you can get some bread from a Jew it is allowed to (buy from a Christian baker).
But no one allows to (buy) bread from private individuals, because the reason for the prohibition lies (in prevention) of creating a situation for wooing (matchmaking), and if anyone would eat some bread from private individuals, he would finally begin to eat together with them.
Iore Dea 113, 4.
"There is also a (teacher of the Talmud), who permits to eat the food already prepared by our (non-Jewish) maid;
but there is someone who prohibits it, even when it is already cooked (Hagah). "However, if it is already cooked, then you can rely on those who allow it; and usually even directly permit (non-Jewish) maids to cook in a Jewish home, since there is no possibility that someone from the (Jewish) family would bump around with them by the fireplace."
"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.
"A Jew is not allowed to sell [trade] impure objects (such as pigs, the things from the Christian temple, etc., as we shall see later), but to take them away from Akum (ie, not buying, but taking them under the guise of a fictitious debt payment) is allowed, because it is always a good thing to snatch [or cheat out] something from Akum." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 117:1, Hagah; with regard to trade, taken from the Mishna Shebuof par. 7, Mishna 3; that which applies to the confiscation [taking away] of items from Akum, then it is taken from the Rashba.
Iore Dea 117:1
"Even when it is allowed to use (such a) thing which is prohibited (to be eaten) by law, then (even in that case) it is forbidden to sell [trade] it, since this thing is meant to be eaten" (Hagah).
"And it is also permitted to take the unclean things of Akum in the payment of a debt, because it is the same as if you are saving something out of their hands."
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.
"When a Jew has bought some dishes from Akum, whether made of metal or clay, then he should wash it clean because Akum (in the Jewish sense) are unclean. 
Even when a Jew sells his dish to Akum  and Akum brings it back, the Jew is obliged to wash is clean again, because through touch of Akum it was defiled." (This is how wicked [ungodly] of a creation Akum is.)
Iore Dea 120:1
"When someone buys some tableware from Akum made of metal or glass, or dishes plated on the inside, even if it is new, then he should wash it in (large) water reservoir or a well, containing 40 measures."
Iore Dea 120,11.
"A Jew who sold some dishes to Akum and then bought it back from him must wash it."
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.
"Why are Akum dirty? Because they eat meat of the animals forbidden to be eaten by Jews."
"Why are Akum dirty? Because they did not stand at Mount of Sinai. Nam, cum serpens cum Eva concumberet, sordem in eam infudit; from Jews standing at the Mount of Sinai, the dirt has disappeared; but on Akum, not being under the Sinai, the dirt was left."
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:
New Testament: Matthew 23:25
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion (greed) and excess (lust)."
New Testament: Matthew 23:25
(KJV and OJB)
"It is forbidden to a Jew to drink wine from a bottle or a glass, which was touched by Akum, because by such a touch by Akum wine is defiled." 
(This law also has a particular goal - to protect the Jews from the social interactions with Christians. )
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 123:1, Hagah; taken from the Tur.
 Ibid; taken from the Talmud Tozefot Abodah Zarah, 2.
Iore Dea 123:1
"It is forbidden to benefit from the wine, about which is not known whether it comes from the people who worship idols or not. The same is valid in respect to them touching our wine".
(Hagah) "Because we need to be afraid that the wine was intended for sacrifice to the idol. But nowadays, when people usually do not pour wine in sacrifice to the idol, some say that when Goy touches our wine, (then) is not prohibited to take advantage of (this) latter, but only (forbidden) to drink (it)."
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).
"The Jew is prohibited any pleasure or benefit that he might derive from the temples of Akum; for example, he can not use the wax candles, carpets or clothes, which the priest wears at a service (not that which he usually wears as a private person) when these items have already been to a temple of Akum or were used at all. 
He is not allowed to sell the priest, the liturgical  chants books, but to sell the same to secular people is allowed; but if, however, a Jew will abstain from it and will not do even this latter, he will be blessed.
Further, a Jew is forbidden from lending money for construction or for interior decoration of the Akum temple  and even less is allowed to sell  the objects, which are used in such a temple."
"Whereupon the Jew should not give or sell water to Akum , when he knows that it will be used to baptize with;
In addition, he is forbidden to sell incense, intended for use in the temple.
When, however, in the same locality Akum already sells , the items that are used in his temple, then a Jew is also permitted to sell them in order to prevent Akum from making money on it.
Even when some of the items mentioned, which Jews consider unclean, are mixed with  thousands of other objects of the same kind, even in that case it is prohibited to a Jew to take any pleasure or benefit from that thousand of items.
He is equally prohibited to derive any benefit even from the ashes  of such things or from the burned temple of Akum."
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 139:1; taken from the Talmud Abodah Zarah, 40.
 Iore Dea, 139:15, Hagah; taken from Zepher Mitzvot Gadol.
 Ibid; taken from the Talmud Nedarim, 62.
 Ibid, 151:1; taken from the Talmud Abodah Zarah, 73.
 Iore Dea, 151:1, Hagah; taken from Toraf Adam Vehavva Netib (Istib?), 17.
 Iore Dea, 151:1, Hagah; taken from Mordechai, the Talmud Abodah Zarah.
 Iore Dea, 140; taken from the Talmud Abodah Zarah, 74.
 Ibid, ch. 142:1; taken from the Talmud Betz, 39.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 139:1
"Any benefit from use of idols is forbidden, and, moreover, both, from themselves and so from things that belong to worship, as well as their decorations and offerings, whether they (the objects) are made by Akum or a Jew."
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 139:11.
"The clothes worn by priests, when they go into the house of idols [Christian temples], is their own dress and not decorations of idols, and so its destruction is not required; 
another (teacher of Talmud), however, thinks the destruction is necessary in that case also (Hagah).
But the dress they put on for idolation itself is considered to be a decoration (of idols) and requires the destruction."
  The term "destruction" ... here is meant not the complete destruction of things, but mutilation (crosses, icons), or mixing them with other things of the same kind in such a way, that the prohibited [items] can no longer be recognized.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 139:15, Hagah
"Some say that it is forbidden to sell them, ie, (books) to Akum if they are the books used for singing during idolatry;
while others say it is illegal to sell (these books) only to the priests and not the rest of the Akum. But the one who is strict (ie, does not sell these books even to the other Akum), he shall be blessed.
Some also prohibit even selling of parchment and ink used to write their religious books.
And yet another says that it is forbidden to give a loan (money) to build the temples for Akum, or for decoration thereof, or for expenses on their maids. It is even more forbidden to sell to them (temples) the items used in their service, such as frying pans;
who does not do this, he will be happy.
One should not bind the books of Akum, except of books by Judges and writers, but when there exists the danger of hostility, then we have to avoid it (at least) as much as possible."
Iore Dea, 151:1.
"Things that are used for idolatry in known area, may not be sold to local idolaters".
(Hagah) "It is forbidden to sell water to Akum, when you know he he is going to make the water for baptizing out of it."
Iore Dea, 151:1, Hagah.
"Not only the priest, but another Akum, with respect to which there is the likelihood that he will bring the incense as the ritual sacrifice of idolatry (you can not sell such); as to any other Akum, it is allowed to sell it.
The prohibition to sell them things pertaining to their idolatry, is effective only when they have no other things of the same kind, or when they can not purchase them elsewhere; but when they can buy them elsewhere, then it is allowed to sell them everything."
Iore Dea 140.
"The idols of the worship, as well as objects of sacrifice to them, no matter how insignificant they were, are prohibited;
so that when some of them are mixed with thousands of other objects (of the same kind), then all (of these items) are prohibited.
Iore Dea 142:1.
"According to what is forbidden to derive some benefits from the idols, it includes all the pleasures they bring;
even when they are burned, it is forbidden to use their charcoal or ashes;
but (to enjoy) their flame is permitted."
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".
"A Jew is forbidden to derive any pleasure or benefit from any kind of the cross, or religious images, which he finds in the villages, by the roads or in small towns, because they are placed there for worship and are unclean for a Jew.
But when he finds them in the big cities, where they were not made for worship, but only for decoration, then it is not necessary to apply the law.
But on the other hand, this prohibition applies to every cross, before which they kneel." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 141:1; taken from the Talmud Abodah Zarah, 40.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 141:1
"All the images located in the villages are prohibited because they are, without doubt, made for idols;
but those that are found in large cities, are permissible because they were probably created only for decoration;
excluded, however, is the case when they are located by the gates of the city, and when in the hands of the images we see the stick, bird, balloon, sword, a crown or a ring.
(Hagah) "The image of the cross, before which they fall down, we must consider to be the idol, and it is forbidden without a destrution (ie destrution is not required), but the cross that is hung on the neck, or as a souvenir, is not called an idol, and allowed".
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".
"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.
Iore Dea 142:10.
"A shadow of the house of idols is forbidden as within it, and within four cubits in front of its door, but the shadow behind it is permitted.
It is even allowed to walk on the shadows inside the temple, if that place was taken away from the public, and there used to be a road there before, where they have built a house of idols.
But when the idol's house stands right by the road, then (walking on it) is prohibited. Some even prohibit it unconditionally."
Iore Dea 142:15.
"It is forbidden to listen to the musical instruments of idolatry, or to look at their decorations, when you find some pleasure in seeing them; (Hagah) but when you do not want it, then it is permitted."
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).
"It is strictly forbidden for a Jew to build a house next to the Akum temple.
But when he already owns a house that stands next to the said temple, and the house collapses, then, for new construction Jew should step back a little from the temple, and fill the gap with human excrements." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 143:1; taken from the Talmud Abodah Zarah, 47.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 143:1
"When someone owns a house, which is leaning against the house of idols, and his house is falling apart, then it is forbidden to build it again.
What should he do? Let him move it away a little and build a house again, and let him fill the gap with thorn bushes or human excrement, not to yield to the house of idols more space."
Consequently, at the end of the law Justus had to say, "fill with thorns or human eruptions."
"A Jew is not allowed to derive any pleasure or profit from the templs-owned property (real estates, lands, houses, etc.) of Akum, when the income goes to the liturgical purpose. When, however, the income is benefiting the clergy personally, then a Jew is permitted to extract benefits from it, but under the condition that it did not cost him anything." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 143:3; taken from the Talmud Abodah Zarah, 54.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 143:3.
"When a garden or a swimming pool belongs to the idols and the income from it goes to the priests, then it is allowed to use them for free; but to extract some benefit from it for a fee is prohibited ".
(Hagah) "Some say it's not forbidden to have benefited from them, when the income goes to the priests, except when they (the garden or swimming pool) are located in the yard of the house of idols.
When they are located not in front of this very house, then, even if income went to the priests it is allowed to use them, as long as the income does not belong to the very temple of idols.
And on this, as a milder interpretation of the Act (Law), we can settle down."
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).
"A Jew is strictly forbidden to take part in donation collection for the temple of Akum.
However, it is in effect only where the temple independently decides how to use its property and, therefore, spends donations only on itself.
But when the spiritual property is controlled by the state itself, then it is allowed to participate in donation collection, since in that case one can think to himself that he gives it to the state, as if any donation might be used for other purposes as well." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 143:6; taken from Yerushalmi Abodah Zarah, par. 4.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 143:6.
"It is forbidden to give anything to collectors, collecting donations for the idols (Hagah). "However, it is prohibited only when the revenue is used directly on the needs of the temple; but when it goes (first) to the treasury, and that is from where the funds were dispersed for the purchases on the temple needs, then it is allowed."
For clarity, Justus delivered text in somewhat lengthier manner, but there is no reason to object.
"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.
Further, is the duty of every Jew to eradicate every temple of Akum and call it the shameful names." 
Iore Dea, 146:14.
"It is a good deed for everyone who sees the idols to burn and destroy them. But how? Let him burn them down and then and grind them to ashes, and (ash) he may scatter in the wind or throw into the sea".
(Hagah) "The same applies to the utensils and so to everything that has been made for them because it says: "Destroy all the places...". 
 Deuteronomy 12:2-3.
2. You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree.
3. And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place.
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!).
"A Jew who vows anything in the name of the temple (Christian church) of Akum should be given 39 hits with the stick; and furthermore it is forbidden to even use the name of such a temple; with respect thereto, only the embarrassing [shameful] nicknames must be used.
"Even the Akum holidays can not be called their own names, except for those that are named after names of people (eg holiday of Peter and Paul, Andrew, etc.). 
"A Jew is permitted to mock an Akum, saying: 'May your God help you!' or 'May He (God) bless your deeds!'
"While Jew is thinking to himself: "God of Akum (ie, in the eyes of a Jew, idolaters) can not do anything, therefore, Akum will not be blessed."
(It is clear from this that the Jewish wish of Grace to Akum is a mockery and humiliation)." 
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 147:1.
"He, who gives a vow or an oath in the name the idols, receives 39 strokes; it is also forbidden to call them by their name, whether it is necessary or not."
Iore Dea 147:2.
"(Such) names of their (Akum) holidays, that are identical with the names of people could be used without attaching any significance to it."
Iore Dea 147:5.
"It is allowed to make fun of idols".
(Hagah) "It is allowed to say to Akum:
"Your God help you!" or "May He bless your deeds!"
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:
"As to the majority, people are stupid! They stand up before some Pentateuch, and do not stand up in front of a rabbi; meanwhile, it is stated in the Torah, that it is necessary to give 40 (strokes), but here come the rabbis and reduced it by one."
According to the statements of rabbis, therefore, it appears that they did so out of mercy.
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 permitted, so the very pleasure would be bittered because of the coming pains of paying it back."
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 148:1; taken from the Talmud Abodah Zarah, 6, Tozefot and Rashba.
However, the opinion now is that in our time the Jews are allowed to do all their Gesheft in this case as well.
 Ibid, taken from the Tur.
Iore Dea, 148:1.
"For three days before the holiday it is forbidden to buy or sell to the idolaters any things that do not perish;
nevertheless, it is allowed to sell them things that that can not be saved until the holiday, such as vegetables or anything cooked.
It is also forbidden to lend them something or take the loans from them (as well as) to give them money without interest or take such that are mutually enriching, and, finally, to pay them or to take any payments from them if you have a receipt or a bail in your hands.
However, one is permitted to pay on a verbal agreement, because it (is the same as) as saving something from their (Akum) hands.
But nowadays, when their hands are strong, (you can allow) them to (pay) even the debts acknowledged in writing, because it looks like something rescued from their hands.
But when a loan is interest bearing, particularly on bail, then it is directly allowed, because (without doubt), it must be regarded as something rescued from their hands."
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.
"A Jew is forbidden to give any gifts to an Akum on one of his (Akum) holidays; it is allowed only if it is known that he is not a believer.
"Similarly, a Jew is forbidden to accept any gifts from Akum on his holiday. But when a Jew is afraid that his rejection may cause some bad consequences, then he may accept it, but then secretly throw a gift away." 
"The day on which Akum get the new king (regnal day or election), the Jews should consider it just like any other ordinary holiday of Akum (ie, Jews should not give them any presents or perform any gesheft with them, except if they have the opportunity to cheat Akum etc.)".
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 148:5.
"It is forbidden to send gifts to an Akum on their holiday, except if it is known that he does not believe in idols and does not serve them.
"And it is also forbidden to accept any gifts from an Akum, when he sends it on his holiday.
"But, when we can expect a dislike, then let the (Jew) take it and under hand, in his (Akum) presence, throw a gift into a pit or into some other (appropriate) place, where it will perish."
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 148:6.
"The day on which Akum are going to elect a king, and perform a sacrifice, and praise their God, is considered (only) their holiday and is equivalent to any other holidays of Akum."
"It is also wrong to send a gift to a Goi on their feast days unless it is certain that he does not believe in the worship of Christian idols, and does not serve them."
Maimonides has the same in Hilkhoth Akum (IX, 2)
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."
"It is forbidden to a Jew to go to Akum's house during the Akum holiday so as not to be obliged to to give him greetings.
"But when a Jew meets an Akum on the street, then allowed to shake hands with him, but in a constrained manner, sullenly (in the original text - "with weak lips and a heavy head")." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 148:9; taken from the Talmud Gittin 62.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 148:9.
"It is forbidden to go into the house of Akum during his holiday and bow down to him;
but when he walks in your direction outside the home, then it is allowed, but only in a low voice and with a heavy head."
So, in this case, a Jew should greet reluctantly and without affection. He shall do so only as much as necessary to avoid hostility.
"A Jew is unconditionally forbidden to answer to Akum's greeting with: "Peace be with you!", or something of that kind (as the Jews think that the one who gets the greeting "Peace be with you!" in response to his own greeting, then peace will be his.)
According to this, the Jew is inculcated with the idea that when he meets an Akum, he must bow first, in order not to give the Akum any time to bow first, and would not have forced a Jew to respond, and, therefore, contribute to that, which, God forbid, would allow the Akum to receive a blessing." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 148:10; taken from the Talmud Gittin 62.
Iore Dea, 148:10.
"A Jew is always forbidden to respond to a bow of an 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."
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.
"It is considered a holy good deed, when a Jew stays away from the temple of Akum, by at least 4 cubits (for example, when his way lies past it). 
"According to this, is very strictly forbidden to a Jew to bow his head before mentioned church, for example, when a splinter  has gotten into his leg or when he dropped the money down, so he had to bend, in which case he should turn his back to the temple.
"When by the hole at a water source there are Christian imagery or symbols , then a Jew is prohibited to drink from that source, because it would look as if, by bending down to the hole, he would like to kiss the image or a symbol."
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 150:1.
"It is a Good deed is to keep away from the path of idols at 4 cubits."
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 150:2.
"If someone has gotten a splinter into his leg before the images of idols, or he dropped some money in front of them, then he should not bend to remove the splinter, or pick up the money, because it looks as if he bends down in front of them (idols); instead, he should squat or turn his back or sideways to the idols, and then he can take (a splinter out from his foot, or money from the ground)."
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 150:3.
"When the water flows out from the very face of an idol, then do not apply your mouth to his mouth, because it looks as if you kiss the idol."
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.
"A Jew is forbidden to take off his hat before the kings or priests, who have a cross on their dress or worn on their chest, so it does not look like he makes a bow before the cross. 
"However, in order not to violate the external decorum, he should remove his hat before he sees the individuals mentioned, (consequently, the cross), or, seemingly accidentally, to drop the money and bend down to pick it up (his behavior therefore, must have looked as if he pays his respect for that person, but in fact, he has a very different intent)."
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 150:3 Hagah; taken from Terumof Gadeshen section 197.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 150:3 Hagah.
"Before the sovereigns, or priests, which have a cross on their dress, or an image worn on the chest, as required by the custom of the rulers, it is not allowed to bow or take off a hat, unless it is done in such a way that it can not be determined (for which purpose one bends down);
for example, deliberately dropping money (and then picking it up), or one can stand up before they come; in general, one needs to remove his hat and bow down before their approach."
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!
"It is forbidden to Jews to rent or sell houses to three Akum in the neighborhood or on the street where they (Jews) live to prevent that street from becoming Christian. 
"Selling a house to one or two Akum was previously tolerated only in order 'to be used as barns, but not as residence, because otherwise the Akum would keep their idols in them.' 
"However, now that this case no longer occurs, Jews are allowed to rent or sell houses to one or two Akum for housing also."
Iore Dea 151:9.
"One does not sell or rent a house on the Jewish street to three Akum simultaneously; but it is permitted to rent or sell a house to one or two Akum, as much as you want, if there is no fear that he would sell the house or rent it out to others [of his kind]."
Iore Dea 151:10.
"But even there, where it is allowed to rent, it is allowed to rent (a house) as a warehouse, but not for residence, because he (Akum) always keeps the idols in his house (Hagah).
"Nevertheless, nowadays it is the custom to rent to Akum even as a residence, because they no longer tend to bring the idols into their homes."
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:
"Shah  writes: "It's amazing! We can clearly see that they (Akuma-Catholics) still keep the idols in their homes. Maybe in times of Rab  they did not keep the idols at home; however, I think, as Raaban writes,  that even when they keep the idols in their homes, it (ie, renting of these homes to Akuma for housing), however, is allowed, for since a Jew has, for their land, to pay  44 tribute to the Akum, , then the house itself is no longer the exclusive possession of a Jew."
 Short for .... "The priest's lips", a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch Iore de'a.
 Author of "Hagah," M. Isserles.
 Rabbi Eliis, the son of Nathan.
 The tax on real estate.
"It is a great sin to give something to Akum as a present. 
Nevertheless, for the sake of peace  it is allowed to give some alms [money to the beggars] to the poor Akum, to visit their patients, to give last respects to their dead, and to comfort the relatives of the dying one, so that the Akum might think that the Jews are their friends since they express participation."
Iore Dea, 151:11.
"a Jew is forbidden to give a free [without compensation, getting something in return] gift to Akum, whom he does not know."
Iore Dea, 151:12.
"It is permissible to give the alms [charity money] to the poor, to visit their (Akum) sick, to bury their dead, mourn over their dead and to comfort those wearing the mourning signs for him for the sake of peace and harmony."
"It is allowed to give to an Akum, with whom you are acquainted, because it (appears) as if (you are) selling it to him." 
 Tozefot to the Abodah of Zara, 20a.
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:
"To Akum with whom you are familiar, it is allowed to give presents, because it is (turns out) as if (you) are selling it to him."
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."
"Jew is forbidden to praise Akum in his absence, such as saying: "What a handsome man!," (when a person is beautiful in appearance),  but still a thousand times more strictly forbidden to praise his virtues, for example by saying:
"'What a good man he is!' or 'What a great scientist!' or 'What a smart man!' etc.
"But when, however, praising the beauty of the body of an Akum, Jew intends it to praise God for He has created such a beautiful creature, then it is permitted , because the Jew can praise God for the beauty of an animal, and hence the Akum."
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 151:14.
"While telling a story about them (Akum) it is prohibited to even use the expressions like: 'how beautiful is this Akum'; but to the same degree it is forbidden to mention his actions with praise or to mention his qualities, worthy of love.
"But, when with such an approval you are just going to praise the Holy Spirit (God), by saying: 'praise the Lord, for He has created such a beautiful creature', then it is allowed."
Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 225:10.
"He, who looks at the beautiful trees or the beautiful creatures, whether it is even an Akum or animal, has to say:
"Praise be to Thee, O Lord our God, King of the universe that You have something like this in Your world".
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.
"A Jew is forbidden to take part in a wedding feast of Akum, even if there is a opportunity to bring with him his own food and his own waiter (that is in a kosher way), because it could lead to socially friendly relationships (which is exactly what a Jew should avoid by any means);
but when an Akum sends to a Jew a live bird or something slaughtered by some Jew, then a Jew is allowed to eat it in his own home." 
Iore Dea 152:1.
"When an Akum arranges a dinner at the wedding of his son or his daughter, then a Jew is forbidden to eat there, even when he eats his own (kosher) meal and his own waiter stands before him, and serves him."
Iore Dea 152:2.
"When some Akum, celebrating a wedding, sends some poultry or fish to a Jew at his home, then it is allowed to (eat it)".
(Hagah) "And it is also permitted (to eat) when he (Akum) sends him some beef from a cattle, killed according to the (Jewish, of course) law, to his house."
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.
"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. Whereupon the Jew should never be left alone with the Akum, because the Akum are bloodthirsty.
When a Jew and an Akum are walking the stairs up or down, then, in the former case the Jew must strive to be the first, and in the second case, to be behind (hence, he is always higher than a Christian), else the Akum could kill a Jew, if the latter was lower.
Further, a Jew can not bend down in the presence of an Akum, because otherwise Akum could chop off his head.
Similarly, a Jew is forbidden to tell the truth, if Akum asked where he goes, so the Akum would not creep up to him and kill him." 
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 153:1 Hagah.
"You can not trust them (Akum) with a child to teach him some science or to learn some trade, because they would seduce him to heresy (Christianity)."
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 153:2.
"A Jew can not be alone with an Akum, because they are suspected of bloodshed."
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 153:3.
"When a Jew meets an Akum with a sword on his way, then let him walk by on your right side;"
(Hagah): but when Akum has a stick in his hand, then let him pass on the left side.
If they go up or down the stairs, a Jew should never be lower and Akum higher;
(Hagah): and he (the Jew) must always keep him (Akum) slightly to the right and should never bend down in front of him.
and if he asks: "Where are you going?", the the Jew, if he goes a mile, should say: 'Two miles'".
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).
"A Jewish midwife is forbidden to breastfeed a baby of an Akum, even if she is paid, because she would help to raise an Akum. 
Only when she felt severe pain from an excess of milk and it could be harmful to her, then it is allowed. 
Also, it is prohibited to a Jew to teach an Akum some trade, which he could subsist on."
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 154:2; taken from the Talmud Abodah Zarah, 26.
 Ibid, Hagah 2; taken from Hagahof Ascher in the Talmud Abodah Zarah.
Iore Dea, 154:2.
"A Jewess should not breastfeed a baby of an Akum, even for a fee. Only when she has a surplus of milk and it is causing her pain, then it is allowed to feed the baby.
It is forbidden to teach an Akum any kind of craft."
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.
"It is forbidden to a Jew to be treated for a free by the doctor or a pharmacist of Akum, because, we must assume that in this case the doctor or the pharmacist would have poisoned him;
but for a fee it is allowed to use an Akum as a doctor or a pharmacist, because in this case the latter would be cautious of poisoning the Jew in order not to damage his reputation." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 155:1; taken from the Talmud Abodah Zarah, 27.
Iore Dea 155:1.
"A wound or illness, even as dangerous that in order to take care of it would cause profaning the sabbath, should not be allowed to be treated by an Akum whose experience has not been universally recognized, because we are to be afraid of bloodshed.
Even when there is doubt whether (the patient) would remain alive or die, still one should not be treated by him;
but when it is certain the patient is going to die, then you can allow him (Akum) to treat the patient, because an (extra) hour of life is not worth the bother.
But when he (Akum) only reports that some medicine is helpful or not, then you can rely on him, but not to purchase it from him directly".
(Hagah): "And some say that all this is prohibited only when Akum does it for free, but when he takes a fee for it, then it is permitted, because he fears for the damage to his income."
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.
"It is permitted to a Jew with a life-threatening illnesses to use the unclean (ie the fact that by law it must be considered unclean, the use of which is generally prohibited) when he thinks he can expect to be healed by it.
But even in this case it remains prohibited to consume, even for your healing, that which belongs (in the Jewish sense) to the most unclean thing, namely, the temple of Akum (Christian Church)." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 155:3 Hagah; taken from the Aruch Kela [Kelal], 32.
Iore Dea 155:3.
"Where life is in danger, one can be treated with forbidden things, even in such a way as they are usually used; but when there is no danger to life, then it is forbidden to use these things in such a way as they are usually used;
but it is allowed to consume them in an unusual way" .
(Hagah): "It is allowed to burn an unclean animal or any other prohibited thing and eat it in order to get healed, even to such a patient who is in no danger, except of the wood of idolatry. 
 This means: out of the things that are commonly eaten, it is allowed to a Jew, when the disease is not dangerous to his life, to make a patch and put it on the wound;
He can even eat them, but adding something bitter to it, so that his mouth would no longer taste this thing (see: Maimon, Gilhof iezode ha-tora, sect. 5b).
 Therefore, he can not even use the ashes of things that belong to idolatry.
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.
"It is strictly forbidden to a Jew to let an Akum cut his hair (on the head or beard) because Akum could cut his throat;
it is permitted only if there are few Jews present, or when there is a mirror in front of him, so that he could immediately notice the evil intent of the Akum to cut his throat and quickly run away." 
Iore Dea 156:1.
"It is forbidden to get a haircut at Akum, except when there are people (Jews) present".
(Hagah): "But some make (the law) stricter, so that even if there are few people present, it is permitted to shave with a blade  at Akum only when you look in the mirror."
 Here, of course, it is not about the beard, because every Jew, shaving his beard with a razor, commits five sins at once - two for each cheek and one - for his chin (see Talmud Makkot, 20a); it is a matter perhaps about the hair on his neck.
The Babylonian Talmud Abodah Zarah, 27a.
MISHNAH. WE MAY ALLOW THEM TO HEAL US WHEN THE HEALING RELATES TO MONEY, BUT NOT PERSONAL HEALING;  NOR SHOULD WE HAVE OUR HAIR CUT BY THEM IN ANY PLACE.  THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. MEIR; BUT THE SAGES SAID, IN A PUBLIC PLACE IT IS PERMITTED, BUT NOT WHEN THE TWO PERSONS ARE ALONE.
The (Babylonian) Talmud Abodah Zarah, 27, and Tozefot, ibid.
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?!..
"A Jew is not charged with direct responsibility to kill an Akum with whom he lives in peace;
however, it is strictly prohibited to save an Akum from death, for example, if this latter fell into the water and even promised his entire fortune as a reward if he is saved. 
Further, a Jew is forbidden to provide a medical treatment to an Akum even for money, except in the case when we can expect that as a consequence there would arise hatred among Akum against the Jews. In this case, it is allowed to treat the Akum even for free if a Jew can not evade providing that treatment. 
Still further, the Jew is allowed to test some medication on the Akum, to see whether it brings a cure or causes death.
Finally, a Jew is directly obliged to kill such a Jew  , who has converted to Christianity and went to Akum, and certainly it is most strictly forbidden to save such a Jew from death."
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 158:1; taken from Maimon and the Talmud Abodah Zarah, 26.
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 158:1, Hagah, taken from Tozefot and Mordechai in the Talmud Abodah Zarah, as well as from Zepher Mitzvot Gadol.
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 158:2, Hagah 2, taken from Tozefot and Mordechai in the Talmud Abodah Zarah, as well as from Zepher Mitzvot Gadol.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 158:1.
"Those of Akum, with whom we are not at war, as well, and those that graze out the sheep of Israel in Palestine, when the fields are for the most part belong to Israel, etc. are not caused death;
however it is forbidden to save them when they are close to death.
For example, when you see that one of them has fallen into the sea, do not save him, even if he is willing to pay for it.
According to this, they can not be given a medical treatment even for money, except in the case when we can expect some hostility (Hagah), because then it is allowed, even free of charge, if you can not evade it.
And it is also allowed to test some medicine on Akum, to see whether it is helpful."
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 158:2, Hagah.
"The departed ones, who have fallen [dropped out, changed their faith, moved] to Akum and who are profaned by idolatry along with the Akum, as are the Akum themselves, are equated to those who drop out for [to cause] the evil (to Israel), and those are thrown in, not pulled out." 
 The reason for this is quite clear from the Law 45.
"It is strictly forbidden for a Jew to lend money to another Jew at interest (especially at high interest rates), and, conversely, it is allowed to lend money at excessive interest rates to an Akum, or to any Jew who became an Akum, because the Holy Scripture says:
"You have to allow your brother to live with thee." However, Akum is not considered a brother." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 159:1; taken from the Talmud Baba Metzia, 70.
Iore Dea 159:1.
"According to Torah law it is allowed to lend to Akum for interest; but the rabbis allowed to take only as much (percents) as necessary to get by...
In our time it is permissible in all possible ways."
Iore Dea 159:2.
"It is allowed to charge interest to the apostate, but it is prohibited to take a loan from him."
The unmentioned in the text of Shulchan Aruch reason was taken (by Justus) from the commentary ...
"It is forbidden to a Jew to adopt the way of life of [assimilate among] Akum, on the contrary, he must make every effort to ensure that he is different from them, such as clothes, haircut, household items, etc.
And, least of all, is allowed to him to wear such clothes that contain anything specifically Christian (with crosses, etc.). 
But when some Christian associations have their own clothing, such as doctors or craftsmen, then the Jewish doctor or craftsman is allowed  to wear such clothes, if he can profit from it."
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 178:8; taken from (Babylonian) Talmud: the Talmud Abodah Zarah, 29, as well as from Zifra Ahre mof and Maimon Gilhof Abodah Zarah, par. 1.
 Ibid, Hagah; taken from Shaalof Utshubof Mehar Koolon, 88.
Iore Dea, 178:8.
"One should not live by customs of Akum; (Hagah): and should not become like them;
one should not wear the same kind of dress as they wear, or to have the same hair style as theirs......; it is prohibited to build the buildings that look like temples of Akum (Hagah).
...Hagah ....... "Nevertheless, when they have something that is useful for specific purpose, such as when they have an experienced physician wearing a specific kind of a dress, by which he is identified as a good doctor, then (the Jewish doctors as well) are allowed to wear a similar dress."
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.
"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 this cleaning, they come across something unclean, bothersome or disgusting, or an Akum, then they should cleanse themselves all over again, because just seeing some impure thing or Akum, even without touching them, is enough to defile." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 198:48, Hagah; taken from the Shaar Dura.
Iore Dea 198:48, Hagah.
"Women need to take care of that when they exit the bath, they (first) meet their friend and not some unclean thing or Akum.
If something like this happens, then God-fearing woman should be cleansed once again."
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.
"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
If that fails and a Jew does not want to lose the case, and it is impossible to evade the oath, then he is permitted to swear falsely, but at heart to deny this perjury, thinking to himself that he could not do otherwise.
However, this law remains in force only if Akum can not find out about the theft in any other way; but if he could learn about it via other means, then a Jew should not commit a perjury, as not to defile the name of the Lord. 
There is a rule that when a Jew is facing a threat of bodily punishment, then he is allowed to swear falsely, even if there was a risk of incrimination of perjury, and (therefore) the very name of the Lord might be defiled.
However, if there is only a threat of a fine, then to make a perjury is permitted only under the condition that it is impossible to discover perjury, and, (therefore) the Name of the Lord will not be defiled." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea, 329:1, Hagah; taken from Hagahof Ascher in the talmud Shebuof.
 Baar Hagola, ibid; taken from Hagah 232:14.
Iore Dea, 329:1, Hagah.
"When a Jew has stolen something from an Akum and he (Jew) is made to take an oath in the presence of other Jews, and they know that he intends to take a false oath, then they should force him to make peace with Akum and not to swear falsely, even if he is forced (to swear), because his oath will defile the name (of the Lord).
But when he is forced to take (an oath), and when the circumstances of the case indicate that there is no possibility of desecration of the Name (of God), then he must in his heart declare an oath invalid, because he was forced to do it, as already mentioned above, in section 232".
See the following (separate decree number 14 in Haga):
"When facing the death penalty, then it is called the oath of necessity and no distinction is made on whether this is the desecration of the Name (of God) or not; but if the penalties are monetary, he writes, one (can) only take a false oath, when there is no danger to profanation of the Name (of God)."
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).
"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, because a Jew is not obliged to let this (renegade) live.
However, to give alms [money to the beggars] to Akum is permitted in order to avoid hatred against Jews." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 251:1; taken from the Talmud Gittin, 45 and 61.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 251:1.
"When someone violates even a single law of the Torah with the intent and does not repent of it, then you are not obliged to feed him or to lend to him; (Hagah); but to give donations to the poor nohrim [non-Jew] is allowed just as to the poor Jews - for the sake of peace and quiet."
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 251:2.
"Whoever violates the law with intent, even if only one law; for example, he who eats the meat an animal that died where it is possible to get some kosher meat, then it is forbidden to buy him out when he was taken prisoner."
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.
"A Jew is strictly forbidden from accepting charity from Akum , because, according to the view of Jews, blessed  by the Lord is the one who gives tzedakah, ie charity to a Jew.
Therefore, an Akum would blessed also, if a Jew took some charity from him (the Jews believe that Christians still exist only because through them the Jews would benefit as well, as if the Jews would deprive them of this opportunity, they would soon be broken as "fragile dishes", ie, would have perished completely).
Therefore, when the king or other ruler of the Goyim (Christians) would sent some money to the Jews to distribute among their poor, then, even though it is prohibited to return the money back, so as not to offend the king, but it is not allowed to distribute it to the poor of the Jews, and instead, it should be quietly given to the poor of Christians."
"But when the Emperor gives something to the synagogue, then it is allowed to accept it, because the blessing arising from it is not important. 
However, from a Jew who became a Christian, you can not take even in that case." 
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."
Iore Dea 254:2.
"When a gentile king or prince sends money to the Jews, then they are not sent back for the sake of peace with the king, but secretly distributed to the poor Akum, but in such a way that the king would not learn about it".
(Hagah): "And all this is valid only when they (Akum) give money as charity;
but when they give a present to the synagogue, then it is allowed to take it from them, but not from a Jew who became an Akum."
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.
"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, a son, for example, may marry his own mother.
However, the rabbis spoke against the application of this rule in real life, 'so that the Akum, who became Jews, would not say that the Akum are more devoutly than Jews, since it is not allowed for a son to marry his own mother in their tradition.' "
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 269:1.
"By law, a proselyte may marry his own mother or a sister of his mother, who became Jewish;
but the rabbis have forbidden it, so that they (proselytes) would not say:
'Our previous religion was more strict than the present one'".
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.
"Jews have a law: 'during the harvest leave some of it on the edges of the fields, or do not harvest some part of it at all for the poor of the Jews'.
But since the times when the Jews have been scattered among the Akum and their fields lay in the midst of the fields of Akum, this is forbidden, because (continuing to use the former customs [rules]) would cause the poor of Akum to harvest it. 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 332, Hagah; taken from the Tur.
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 332, Hagah.
"But now it is not done any longer (do not leave some spikes on the fringes of the fields), because (now) the majority are Akum, and if (they) were left, then the Akum would come and collect them."
Since the changes in the accepted customs should not be done by Jews, then the expression of Justus "forbidden" can be called correct.
"Among the 24 cases, when the Beth Din is obliged to pronounce anathema to a Jew, there are these two, that are not quite indifferent to the Christians:
a) Assuming to sell his parcel of land to an Akum, a Jew, when his neighbor is also a Jew, is obliged to give to this latter one a written obligation that he takes the responsibility for all the troubles that may arise for a Jew from such a new neighborhood.
But if he is not willing to take such a responsibility, then the rabbi must impose a curse on him, that is, to exclude him from the community. 
b) The second case has already been described in the Law 21.
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 334:48; taken from the Talmud Baba kamma, 114.
Iore Dea 334:48.
"In 24 cases, the Beth Din is obliged to expose a Jew to anathema ... VIII. When someone sold their land to Akum, then you have to exclude him (from the community) until he takes the responsibility for any violence that the Akum may cause to his Jewish neighbor."
The original text does not contain that a Jew is obliged to give a pledge "in writing".
"If, in the presence of a Jew dies another Jew, at the moment when the soul departs the body, he must, in recognition of his sadness, tear off a piece of his dress, even if the dying person was a sinner.
But when he was present at the death of an Akum, or a Jew, who has become an Akum, then this expression of sadness is forbidden because a Jew should be happy on this occasion." 
Next, a Jew is forbidden to pay his last respects to Akum , for example to accompany his remains to the grave or to pronounce a send off speech , and it is permitted only where it is done for the sake of peace and tranquility."
Iore Dea 340:5.
"Who is present when a man or woman of Israel is dying, (he) must tear off (a piece from his dress), even if he (the dying man) has sinned many times, even with intent, or if he missed an opportunity to do good deeds, because they were a burden to him.
(Hagah): But about a notorious sinner one can not feel sad, not to mention a Jew who has became an Akum."
Иоре де'а 344:8.
"One does not feel sad about the Akum and the slaves and does not pay his last respects to them."
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).
"It is forbidden to the Jewish priest (cf. Act 5) to touch a dead person or even to be present in the house of the dead one.
However, only a Jew is considered to be human, because it is said:
"If a person dies in a tent, then anyone who enters the tent is unclean" (Numbers 19:14).
But to enter the house where Akum died is permitted to a Jewish priest because an Akum should not be regarded as human, but as animals." 
Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 372:2.
"The clergy should be cautious and not to go to the graves of Akum, (Hagah): although the (rabbis) (in this regard) are not as strict."
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.
"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, but he is quite free to say:
"Let thy God reimburse you for your loss", just as they say to a man, whose bull or a donkey died." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 377:1, taken from the Talmud Berachah, 16.
Iore Dea 377:1.
"Because of (those who died) servants and maids... one does not speak the words of consolation to those who remain after them (their masters), but one must say to him (the owner):
"Shall God compensate you for your loss", in exactly the same way as they would say to a man whose ox or an ass dies."
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.
"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.
But when a Jew can not escape from this custom, then he should send his gifts in advance. If, however, due to the fact that he sends them not on the day of celebration, but before it, he may incur the enmity or losses, he is permitted to give gifts on the New Year's day." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 148:12, Hagah; taken from Terumof Gadeshen section 195.
Iore Dea 148:5.
"It is forbidden to send a gift to Akum on their holiday, except when you know that he (Akum) does not believe in idols and does not serve them."
Iore Dea 148:12, Hagah.
"Thus, when you come into town and find that they (Akum) rejoice on their holiday, then rejoice with them as to avoid animosity, because that is the same as a sham [pretense].
But he who cares about saving his soul, try not to be happy with them. and, if possible, do it without attracting the enmity.
Also, in our time, when you wish to send a gift to an Akum on the eighth day after Christmas, which they call the New Year, then, since they see a good omen when they receive gifts on this holiday, you must send him a gift, as much as possible, before that day;
if not possible, then you can send it on the day of celebration." 
This law is very important as direct evidence that Christians are the Akum.
"It is strictly forbidden to a Jew to desecrate his cemetery, such as to relieve oneself or to allow the Akum in there.
Generally, it is not allowed to the Jews to have any pleasure or gain from the Jewish cemetery; but when the land of a Jewish cemetery belongs to an Akum, then it is allowed to sell those things that could bring gain (such as grass or trees), so from the proceeds, little by little to acquire it [cemetery] as ones property, because it is a shame [disgrace] for the dead Israelites to rest on the land of Akum." 
 Shulchan Aruch, Iore Dea 368:1; taken from Mehar Veil, 50.
Iore Dea 368:1.
"One does not behave indecently at the cemetery. (Hagah): For example, 'ne exoneres alvum ibi'. It is prohibited to let the cattle graze on the graves, or to dig the drainage canals, or to make the walkways, or to mow the grass on the graves.
And when someone rumpled it or it is necessary to remove [mow] it in order to dig the graves, then it has to be burned in the same place".
(Hagah): "One may sell the items in order to save the cemetery from the hands of Akum, because it is a honor to the dead."
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.
"When Akum (Christian) marries an Akum (Christian) female, or when a Jew, who converted to Christianity, marries a Jewess, who also became a Christian, then their marriages are null and void. 
In light of this, if an Akum (Christian) or Akum female (Christian) have converted to a Jew[ish faith], then they are allowed to remarry, without requiring them to divorce, even if they have lived together for twenty years , because married life of Akum should not be considered as anything but fornication."
Shulchan Aruch, Eben ha-Ezer, 26:1, Hagah.
"When an Akum or a Jew, who became an Akum, has married according to his religion to Akum female or a Jewish woman who became an Akum, and they subsequently switched to become Jews, then there is no need to pay any attention to their (former) marriage and it is allowed to her (his wife) to leave him without a divorce [letter]; even if he had lived with her for many years, because it was just fornication."
"20 years" of Justus - is an arbitrary number; but fundamentally, of course, it does not change the matter.
"It is strictly forbidden to beat ones fellow-man (ie a Jew), even if this latter is a sinner. 
And whosoever shall smite his neighbor fellow co-man, then he is considered to be Rusha, that is, an atheist, and is subject to anathema for as long as he does not ask for forgiveness from his fellow.
However, only a Jew is to be considered a neighbor, but beating an Akum is not not a sin at all. 
Further, when Akum became a Jew and another Jew hits him, then the offender must compensate him only for the losses (on treatment), but he is not subject to anathema, and the very act is not considered such a sin as if he hit a natural Jew."
 Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 420:1; taken from the Talmud Ketuboth, 32, and Sanhedrin, 58.
 Ibid, 37; taken from the Talmud Baba kamma, 86.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 420:1.
"It is forbidden for a Jew to beat his fellow, and when he beats him, he breaks the commandment... He who even raises his hand against his fellow to hit him, even if he does not hit him, he is called the godless".
(Hagah): 'Some say that the ancients were subjecting to the anathema a man who beats his neighbor, and before he could be counted as one of ten [a number of people necessary to be present in order to conduct a religious ceremony] the curse must be removed'. 
 See Law 3.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen ha-Mishpat 422:1.
"When someone hits his neighbor, then, even if he paid him five things,  he is still not forgiven until he asks for forgiveness and is forgiven."
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.
"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.
Even when a Jew is married to a Jewess, if the latter became an Akum, then he is allowed to take another wife without a divorce, because Akum should be regarded not as people but as horses."
Shulchan Aruch, Eben ha-Ezer, 16:1.
"A Jew who married an Akum female, or a Jewess, who married an Akum, gets 39 strokes according to the law, because it is said: 'not to enter in family relationships with them'."
"Еврей, женившись на акумке, или еврейка, вышедшая за акума, получает 39 ударов, по закону, потому что сказано: "Не вступай с ними в родство" (Old Testament: Deuteronomy 7:3).
Shulchan Aruch, Eben ha-Ezer 44:8.
"When a Jew marries an Akum female or a slave, then (the marriage) is not considered negligible [has no legal force], because they are not capable (of marriage); and also (marriage) is considered negligible [illegitimate] if an Akum or a slave marries a Jewess."
Talmud Kiddushin, 68a.
"How do we know? Rab Guna says: in the Scripture it says:
'Remain here with a donkey' (Genesis 22:5), (ie) with the people, that are equal to the donkey. Hence we can see that they are not able to marry."
The Talmud Yebamoth, 98a
"Torah has made his children free  from him , because it is said: "Those who are in flesh - their flesh is of an ass, and their lust is of a horse".  (Ezekiel 23:20).
Tozefoth to the Talmud Sanhedrin 74b.
"Concubitus akum - is the same as concubitus bestiae" [animal, beast].
3. Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son.
The entire Deuteronomy 7 is worth a careful reading and study as this is the basis for many things you see in the world today.
5. And Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the lad [or young man] and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.”
20. For she lusted for her paramours, Whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys, And whose issue is like the issue of horses.
12. Now therefore, do not give your daughters as wives for their sons, nor take their daughters to your sons; and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong and eat the good of the land, and leave it as an inheritance to your children forever.
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.
"When a member of a Jewish family dies, for whom it is necessary to grieve, then for seven days one can not leave his house and even to conduct some business (at home) in order to make some profit. 
But when one has a chance to lend to Akum for high interest rate, then he is allowed to go out and interrupt the mourning, because it is a good deed, which should not be missed, as one may not have another chance for it in the future." 
Iore Dea 380:3.
"Along with the fact that he (the mourning for the dead) is forbidden to do some work, it is also forbidden for him to trade or go with the items for trade from one city to another."
Iore Dea 380:5.
"It is forbidden to perform ones work even via others, (Hagah): even through an Akum, except when there is something which he (the grieving one) would lose [by missing an opportunity], because it is permitted to do via others (that), which you can lose".
(Hagah): 'And some say that when he can not do it through others, and this is something (that) he could lose, (then) it is allowed to the grieving one to do it himself.'
Iore Dea 380:7.
"For interest, through others, it is permissible to lend to such an Akum to whom he (the grieving one) usually lends (money), because it is such a matter that he could miss [lose from]."
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.
"Every Jew is obliged to marry for the continuation and propagation of the human race.  Therefore, he must take a wife from whom he can still have children, which means she must not be old, and, in general, for whom it is not possible.
Only when the wife  has the money and he wants to marry her for money, then it is allowed, and the Beth Din has no right to forbid him to marry her even if she could not have children.
But when a Jew already has children, even illegitimate  or stupid, then he performed his duty to propagate the human race.
But when his children are Akum, if, for example, he was an Akum before and had children, and then became a Jew, then the children are still Akum , in which case he has not fulfilled his duty to promote the continuation and proliferation of the human race, because the children of Akum are not comparable even with illegitimate or the idiots of Jewish origin."
 Shulchan Aruch, Eben ha-Ezer, 1:1; taken from the Talmud Yebamoth, 63.
 Shulchan Aruch, Eben ha-Ezer, 1:3, Hagah 1 and 2; taken from Ry Bar Sheshef, 15.
 Shulchan Aruch, Eben ha-Ezer, 1:6, Hagah, taken from the Rashba.
 Shulchan Aruch, Eben ha-Ezer, 1:7, Hagah, taken from the Talmud Yebamoth, 62.
Shulchan Aruch, Eben ha-Ezer, 1:1.
"Every Jew is obliged to marry for the continuation and reproduction (of human race)."
Eben ha-Ezer, 1:3, Hagah
"When a Jew, because his heart is tied to her or because of the money has not yet fulfilled the law of reproduction, and (but) has an intention to marry a woman who can not have children, for example when she is barren, too old or too young, then it should not be allowed according to the law; but for many generations no one particularly pays any attention to such marriages."
Eben ha-Ezer, 1:6, Hagah.
"Even if his son is illegitimate, or deaf and dumb, insane or small (dwarf), he (Jewish father) still has fulfilled the commandment."
Eben ha-Ezer, 1:7, Hagah
"If he had children while being an Akum, and (then) he and they became Jews, then he fulfilled the commandment."
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.
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!..
Alliance Israelite Universelle
Habur NUMBER IZROEL Haveri
JEWISH WORLD UNION
of Adolphe Cremieux as founder
of The Universal Jewish Alliance.
Emblem: Above - the Mosaic tablets,
slightly lower - stretched and shaking
one other hands, and at the base of all this - the globe.
Motto: "All the Jews for one and one for all".
Note: this exact document, word by word, with the exception of using "Jews" instead of "Israelis", is also known as "James Rothschild III: Manifesto to all the Jews of the Universe". It was published in "The Morning Post" of London, on Sept. 6, 1920.
J. ROTHSCHILD'S APPEAL TO THE JEWS (1860)
(THE SECRET WORLD GOVERNMENT by Maj.-Gen., Count Cherep-Spiridovich)
[*] [This Appeal was made in 1860. This is the same Cremieux, being the grand master of French Masonic Lodges, offered in 1870, 1,000,000 francs for the head of Wilhelm I.
He also became famous with three following acts:
1). About Gambetta, who was once his assistant (at his lawyer's title), Cremieux ordered: "nothing good will come out of this flower child."
2). Taking advantage of unprecedented turmoil and trauma of war, treacherously gave equal rights to Israeli Jews, which became the cause of a rebellion valiantly fought in 1870 for France, but the remaining not having the equal rights Arabs in Algeria.
3). Neglecting all his other titles and even the title of the supreme head of the French government, bequeathed to himself such an epitaph: "Here lies Adolphe Cremieux - the founder of the World Jewish Union."]
Roots of genocide
9. Only do not rebel against the Lord, nor fear the people of the land, for they are our bread; their protection has departed from them, and the Lord is with us. Do not fear them.
34. We took all his cities at that time, and we utterly destroyed the men, women, and little ones of every city; we left none remaining.
16. But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive,
17. but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the Lord your God has commanded you,
17. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately.
18. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
1. These are the statutes and judgments which you shall be careful to observe in the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth.
2. You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree.
3. And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place.
Deuteronomy 7:16, 22-26
16. Also you shall destroy all the peoples whom the Lord your God delivers over to you; your eye shall have no pity on them; nor shall you serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.
22. And the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you little by little; you will be unable to destroy them at once, lest the beasts of the field become too numerous for you.
23. But the Lord your God will deliver them over to you, and will inflict defeat upon them until they are destroyed.
24. And He will deliver their kings into your hand, and you will destroy their name from under heaven; no one shall be able to stand against you until you have destroyed them.
25. You shall burn the carved images of their gods with fire; you shall not covet the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it for yourselves, lest you be snared by it; for it is an abomination to the Lord your God.
26. Nor shall you bring an abomination into your house, lest you be doomed to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is an accursed thing.
"Tyranny of Usury" - the main key to world domination via economic means
6. For the Lord your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you.
19. You shall not charge interest to your brother—interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest.
20. To a foreigner [goy, non-Jew] you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess.
The other people are nothing, but like a spit
2 Esdras 6:56-57
56. As for the other people, which also come of Adam, thou hast said that they are nothing, but be like unto spittle [spit]: and hast likened the abundance of them unto a drop that falleth from a vessel.
57. And now, O Lord, behold, these heathen [non-Jews], which have ever been reputed as nothing, have begun to be lords over us, and to devour us.
2 Esdras 6:56-57
12. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever:
[(2 Ездры, 8:81-82)]
Roots of parasitism, exploitation and ideas of world domination
10. So it shall be, when the Lord your God brings you into the land of which He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give you large and beautiful cities which you did not build,
11. houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, hewn-out wells which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant — when you have eaten and are full,
23. then the Lord will drive out all these nations from before you, and you will dispossess greater and mightier nations than yourselves.
24. Every place on which the sole of your foot treads shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the River Euphrates, even to the Western Sea, shall be your territory.
25. No man shall be able to stand against you; the Lord your God will put the dread of you and the fear of you upon all the land where you tread, just as He has said to you.
10. The sons of foreigners [non-Jews] shall build up your walls,
And their kings shall minister to you; ...
11. Therefore your gates shall be open continually;
They shall not be shut day or night,
That men may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles [non-Jews],
And their kings in procession.
12. For the nation and kingdom which will not serve you shall perish,
And those nations shall be utterly ruined.
And this is why they crucified Jesus in ritual sacrifice:
But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God...
Roots of barbaric religious intolerance, hatred and bestiality
6. If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods', ..
9. but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.
10. And you shall stone him with stones until he dies...
25. You shall burn the carved images of their gods with fire; you shall not covet the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it for yourselves, lest you be snared by it; for it is an abomination to the Lord your God.
12. If you hear someone in one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you to dwell in, saying,
13. 'Corrupt men have gone out from among you and enticed the inhabitants of their city, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods"' — which you have not known —
15. [then] you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying it, all that is in it and its livestock — with the edge of the sword.
16. And you shall gather all its plunder into the middle of the street, and completely burn with fire the city and all its plunder, for the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever; it shall not be built again.
5. So Moses said to the judges of Israel, "Every one of you kill his men who were joined to Baal of Peor."
2. If there is found among you, ... a man or a woman ...
3. who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded,
5. then you ... shall stone to death that man or woman with stones.
52. then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their engraved stones, destroy all their molded images, and demolish all their high places;
53. you shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land and dwell in it, for I have given you the land to possess.
8. Take heed in an outbreak of leprosy, that you carefully observe and do according to all that the priests, the Levites, shall teach you; just as I commanded them...
5. Then the priests, the SONS OF LEVI, shall come near, for the Lord your God has chosen them to minister to Him and to bless in the name of the Lord; by their word every controversy and every assault shall be settled.
World Dictator - Lord of the World
18. ... when he sits on the throne of his kingdom,
that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book,
from the one before the priests, the LEVITES.
19. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes,
Ideological Background of Genocide and Terror
2 Samuel 12:31
31. And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.
(2 Samuel 12:31)
[Библия. Ветхий Завет: Вторая книга Царств 12:31
(У евреев «Вторая Самуила»)]
1 Chronicles 20:3
3. And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.
(1 Chronicles 20:3)
[Библия. Ветхий Завет: Первая книга Паралипоменон 20:03
(У евреев «Хроники»)]
Serious crimes of Jewish extremists in Russia were committed in the true spirit of the Old Testament (King James Bible):
Ideological Background of Terror
(Under the Sign of the Scorpion - Yuri Lina)