This is perhaps an apt place to expound upon the amazing fact that those people who really believe in the Book of Books, the Bible, and accept the Holy One of Israel, Christ, and the Israel prophets who foretold Him, meekly accept the designation "Gentiles," a term which in the Bible refers to pagan sex-worshippers, demon invokers and the like (I Thes. 4:5; I Cor. 10:20, etc.). Metatron-venerating, demon-invoking Talmudists who revile every teaching, every respected character in the Old Testament, we give these the name of "Israelites," and "Jews."
Nevertheless, for the sake of usage only, we refer herein to non-Talmudists as "Gentiles."
Under "Gentiles" the Jewish Encyclopedia sums up the Pharisee Talmudist attitude: "The Pharisees held that only Israelites are men ... Gentiles classed not as men but as barbarians." (See Exhibit 268)
Further on, and misusing Scripture shamelessly and characteristically, the Scriptural lines about God shining are misinterpreted to mean that God shined His laws to Moses on all the nations, but since only the Israelites accepted them: "He withdrew His 'shining' legal protection from them and transferred their property rights to Israel." (Exhibit 269, upper left column)
Then, "It follows that the Gentiles were excepted from the general civil laws of Moses." Talmud law from the book of Baba Kamma, on ox-goring, is then cited.
Here Moses is flouted. He taught again and again that the stranger is to be treated the same as the "home born," or the Israelites: "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt ... . Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard. in weight, or in measure." (Lev. 19:34-5) "Love ye therefore the stranger ..." (Deut. 10:19)
Bear in mind that the oral law, or the Traditions of the Pharisees, as recorded in the Talmud, completely reverses each teaching of Moses, who time and again taught that the non-Israelite, the "stranger," must be treated, be loved, as one's self! No wonder Christ said,
The Jewish Encyclopedia reference noted above (Exhibit 268) states that,
"The Pharisees ... held that only Israelites are men ... Gentiles they classed not as men but as barbarians."
After the word men in the above passage, you will note in the original: "quoting the prophet, 'Ye my flock, the flock of my pasture are men,'" with Ezekiel 34:31 given as the Biblical, and Baba Mezia l08b [see: Bab Mezia 114b] as the Talmudic basis, for this abhorrent doctrine.
The Ezekiel verse ends the 34th chapter, a parable about good and bad cattle, promised justice and a Redeemer, being addressed as a "flock:" "And I will judge between cattle and cattle. And I will set up one shepherd over them, even my servant David" (Christ) - the whole ending with the explanation of the parable: "And ye my flock ... are men and I am your God, saith the Lord God."
However, the Talmud invents and adds to the above words in a Baba Mezia 108b [see: Baba Mezia 114b] passage (not reproduced here): "Only ye are designated as 'men.'" This Ezekiel verse is a popular quotation in the Talmud, always misused to infer that Talmudists are men but non-Talmudists are on the level of mere beasts or cattle.
The Baba Mezia passage is about the graves of Gentiles which rank like the graves of animals. "The graves of Gentiles do not defile," is the edict based upon this same Ezekiel verse: "Ye my flock ... are men," and reference is made to Numbers 19:14 which lays out the rule that when a man has died in his tent, those who come into the tent are suspect for seven days - as they may have perhaps caught a communicable disease, which killed the deceased. But that rule does not apply to Gentiles. They do not rank as human carcasses. The "Sage" who mouths this last choice thought is the above mentioned Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai (Talmud, Page 651, Soncino edition, book of Baba Mezia, 1l4a-114b, not reproduced here).
According to the Talmud book of Baba Kamma, a lost article need not be restored to a heathen (non-Jew). (See Exhibit 40)
The Talmud always quotes the Bible in order to reverse it. Here Moses' admonition about returning lost articles, whether or not one knew the "brother" who had lost them, is [page 17] cited once again to justify the reverse.
Elsewhere in the Talmud (see Exhibit 84) returning a lost article to a non-Jew is stated to be a "sin."
Wine touched by a non-Jew would be poisoned and unfit to drink, from the contact alone. So, in the first Talmud English translation (Rodkinson) we see that the matter of using the wine after thieves had broken into a house, and who might have touched it, is taken up with the Rabbi "who allowed the wine [to be used] on the ground that the majority of thieves in that city are Jews." In a similar case that occurred in Nehardea, Samuel (a top "sage"), "too, allowed the wine." Both of these Babylonian towns of Pumbeditha and Nehardea were Talmud-Cabala centers for centuries. (See Exhibit 8)
The Talmudic "Sages" even provide reasons for letting a Gentile die in a pit. In general, according to the Talmud book of Abodah Zara, non-Jews are not to be thrown down a pit to die - that would make bad feelings against Jews - except in the case of "minim" (Christians), "apostates" (from Talmudism) and "informers" (about the Jewish religion) - these "may be cast in and need not be brought up." (See Exhibit 186)
However, the same Talmud reference notes that, for payment "one is obliged to bring them up on account of ill feeling." But another "Sage," Abaye, is referred to as urging:
"He could offer such excuses as, 'I have to run to my boy who is standing on the roof,' or, 'I have to keep my appointment at the court.'"
Then, presumably, the Gentile should be happy to die in the pit and no blame could be attached to the Jew.
In a footnote, reference is made to the Talmud, Abodah Zarah 13b (not reproduced), where it is reiterated - "As to idolators ... even throw them in" (that is, if they are Christians or minim). [Exact wording found in Abodah Zarah 26b, cited in Exhibit 186.]
Reference is also made to the Talmud, Sanhedrin 57a [see: Sanhedrin 57b], where, ridiculously, sentencing non-Jews to death with only one witness, even a relative, is permitted. Don't try to use your intelligence at this point. Genesis 9:5 is cited. There, God is ordering men not to eat living animals: "Surely your blood of your lives will I require ..." However, according to the Talmud, the "reason" why only one witness need testify against a non-Jew to cause him to be put to death is twisted thus:
"The interpretation is based on the use of the singular, 'I will require.'" Thus, God not being "plural," witnesses need not be plural.
In Talmudism the Bible is used as a "grab-bag" to justify the "whited sepulchre" of Pharasaism referred to by Christ.
The utterly mad way in which the Bible is tossed about to make a "whited sepulchre" for Talmudic Babylonian filth and criminality is illustrated by the Talmud, Kethuboth 111a. A reach here, and a grab there, and the Pharisee "Sages" make their own Satanic meaning out of unrelated scriptural verses, plays on words, and other childish devices. We thus see in Exhibit 148:
"It is written, 'Unto the people upon it,' and elsewhere it is written, 'Abide ye here with the ass' which may be rendered 'people that are like an ass - slaves who are considered the property of the master.'"
This is linked to Isaiah 42:5 in a footnote. Isaiah 42:5 in actuality refers to God as: "He that spread forth the earth ... he that giveth breath unto the people upon it," and which has nothing to do with what is in the Talmud. The reference is to the Gentile Canaanite, the "Canaanite bond-woman." The source given by the Talmud for the phrase, "Abide ye here with the ass," is Genesis 22:5, which actually concerns Abraham going off to pray: "And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again unto you." Which once again has nothing whatsoever to do with the anti-Gentile doctrine above.
Sly little verses are put in as a code in the above such as "Now according to Eliezer - Who based his view on Ezekiel 26:20 ..." This Bible verse actually refers to the fall of Tyre, with a fate such as the Talmudists wish to inflict on Gentiles: "I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit ... in the lower parts of the earth ..."
The Talmud book of Abodah Zara, which concerns relations with the non-Jew, is a series of Contortions aimed to keep the "human" Jew separate from the "non-human" Gentile, while still making money off the Gentile. Christians in particular are designated as "idolators," with Jesus as the "idol." A Mishnah of Abodah Zara 11b-12a (see Exhibit 174 and Exhibit 175) attempts to circumvent the question of how to go to an "idolatrous festival" and do business without technically being there at all. A long-winded exposition about the road leading to it is ludicrous:
"IF THE ROAD LEADS SOLELY TO THAT PLACE, IT IS FORBIDDEN, BUT IF ONE CAN GO BY IT TO ANY OTHER PLACE, IT IS PERMITTED."
Of course, a road which went only one place would only be outside of one place. Every road goes past one place after another or it is not a road at all.
But the essence of it all is this: "The Sages should not mind the possibility of receiving money of an idolator." A footnote follows to confuse the non-Jewish reader.
"The Torah [Talmud] outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast," Ezekiel 23:20 being given as the basis. (See Exhibit 270) This Bible chapter actually likens the whoring Judah and Israel kingdoms to two sisters, Aholah and Aholibah, both prostitutes, the grossness of whose paramours is likened to that of asses and their illegitimate [page 18] offspring to the "issue of horses." Public mass sex-perversions, sadism, and child burning voodoo practices of these sex-worshippers, in which offspring were spawned, was the subject of Ezekiel's lambasting. He promised the Judaites the same fate their "sister" whore, the Israel kingdom, had experienced at the hand of God for the same crimes, the Assyrians having killed and deported the ten-tribe kingdom in 721 B.C.
The amazing hypocrisy of Talmudic Judaism is that while condoning or endorsing such execrable practices as the burning of children to Molech, sodomy, rape, incest, murder or perjury, sins condemned by the Bible, Biblical condemnation for the perpetrators voiced by Ezekiel and other Prophets (as in Isaiah 57:3, 5 and elsewhere) is distorted by Talmudists and turned instead against the anti-Talmudists who condemn such sins. Small wonder Christ so excoriated and denounced Pharisaism.
The Talmud teaches that non-Jews have no property rights. Their possessions are "like unclaimed land in the desert." (See Jewish Encyclopedia, Exhibit 270) The illustration is given of the 4th Century notable Rabbi Ashi who, knowing this, acted accordingly and gave "an adroit and evasive answer" when questioned by the Gentile owner of a vineyard who overheard Ashi tell his slave to go into his vineyard and get him some grapes if the vineyard belonged to a Gentile, but not to take any if the owner be a Jew. "Is it permitted to take from a Gentile?" the owner asked. Ashi's evasive answer is given with the explanation that: "In truth Ashi coincided with the opinion of the authority stated above: namely, that ... Gentile ... property is considered public property, like unclaimed land in the desert." (See Exhibit 270)
The Talmudic authority which holds that Gentile property is like unclaimed land in the desert is the Talmud Book of Baba Bathra, Folio 54b, there cited. The passage actually appears on page 222 of the Soncino edition: "Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land; whoever first occupies it acquires ownership."
There are no labor union laws for Gentiles under Talmudic "religious" doctrine.
The Jewish Encyclopedia states, quoting the Talmud, Sanhedrin 58b:
"A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death ... not even on Mondays is the Gentile allowed to rest - probably to discourage general idleness." (See Exhibit 272)
Another passage (not reproduced, page 399 of the Talmud, Soncino edition) states:
"A heathen who keeps a day of rest, deserves death ... Their prohibition is their death sentence."
One wonders how these so-called "People of the Book" could ring the Bible in on that. However, after the word "death" in the above quotation from the Talmud is this: "For it is written, 'And a day and a night they shall not rest' (Genesis 8:22)."
But here is the actual Genesis verse:
"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and Summer and Winter, and day and night shall not cease."
No bearing whatsoever!
The above Talmudic "precepts" are certainly at variance with the fourth of the Ten Commandments, concerning the Sabbath day, in which this appears:
"Thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." (Ex.20: 10)
Obviously a "stranger" would be a human being, and even cattle get to rest on the Sabbath, under the Commandment. However, under Judaism, Gentiles rank even lower than cattle. And, this twisting of the Bible by the Pharasaical Judaists once again illustrates how they "follow Moses," in reverse.
The Jewish Encyclopedia (See Exhibit 269, left column) makes reference to the laws of Moses, Exodus xxi 35-36 Hebrews, providing for payment of damages if a man's ox gores and kills a neighbors ox, but states:
"Here the Gentile is excepted as he is not a neighbor ..."
Perhaps the saying about right and wrong depending upon "whose ox is gored" originates with the Talmud, Baba Kamma 37b, which in any event aptly summarizes the doctrine of all Talmudism in terms of injury done by oxen.
Thus, if a Canaanite's (Gentile's) ox gores another Canaanite's ox or an Israelite's ox gores that of another Israelite, damages must be paid. But, if an Israelite's ox gores the ox of a non-Jew, or Canaanite, "There is no liability!" It makes no difference whether the animal was or was not fierce or a menace which should have been kept shut up. Injury done to the property of a "non-human Canaanite" by the property of a human is held to be perfectly legitimate. After all, one does not reimburse "non-humans" for their loss of property. (See Exhibit 39)
The Jewish Encyclopedia states (See Exhibit 269): "The Mishnah ... declares that if a Gentile sued an Israelite, the verdict is for the defendant [the Jew]; If the Israelite is the plaintiff, he obtains full damages."
The Talmud, Book of Baba Kamma, 4th chapter and 3rd Mishnah, is then cited, which deals with ox-goring being acceptable if the ox belongs to a Jew and gores the ox of a non-Jew. (See Exhibit 39)
And in Baba Kamma, Folio 113b (not reproduced, page 664 of Soncino edition) is this:
"Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law;' so also if you can [page 19] justify him by the laws of the heathens, justify him and say to the other party: 'This is your law;' but if this cannot be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him."
Rabbi Akiba warns, however, against these subterfuges when there is a danger of exposing the true nature of Talmudic law, it being called a danger to the "sanctification of the Name" (of the Jewish god and religion). The same Talmud reference continues:
"Now, according to Rabbi Akiba the whole reason appears to be because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name we could circumvent him!" (Baba Kamma 113b)
A Gentile must not be taught the Torah (i.e. Talmudic precepts), because to "reveal their laws to Gentiles" might have operated against the Jews "in their opponents' Courts," states the Jewish Encyclopedia (see Exhibit 272). Furthermore, notes the same authority, a Jew who teaches a Gentile the Torah "deserves death."
Although some Jews look for a War Lord type of individual to help place Jewry on the throne of the World, the actual view of Judaism is that the Jewish people themselves comprise the Messiah, and their reign is the Messianic reign (actually foretold for Christ in the Bible). The tribulation foretold to precede the reign of Christ, in which Satanism strives to subdue the world, is scoffed at by the Talmud and called "fictitious." Babylonian power will not fall, says Judaism. The tribulation will be but "the throes of mother Zion which is in labor to bring forth the Messiah - without metaphor, the Jewish people." (See Exhibit 147, from the Talmud, Kethuboth 111a) In other words, to call the Jewish people the Messiah is no metaphor; they are literally just that; they are the "Messiah," says the Talmud.
A passage in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b (See Exhibit 100) records the exulting words of the Pharisee rabbis: "The Jews are destined to eat their fill in the days of messiah." Above these words is this: "When the ox runs and falls, the horse is put into his stall," which is explained thus: "It will be difficult to remove the Gentiles from their position without inflicting much suffering." And then: "The years of plenty which the Messiah will usher in will be enjoyed by the Israelites."
Bear in mind, once again, that the pagan Babylonian Talmudists have always stolen the Biblical names which should designate the followers of the Holy One of Israel (Christ), and who believe in Him and in the Israel prophets who foretold Him. Biblically and as previously noted, they are the sex-worshipping "Gentiles" and we are spiritually "Israel." But for better understanding of matters discussed herein, let them reverse these terms.
Of course, as more fully set out elsewhere in this book, the "Congregation of Israel" was never a racial entity, any more than is Catholicism or Protestantism. The Bible testifies to that.
A Talmud passage reads: "A Min [Christian] said to Rabbi Abbahu, 'When will the Messiah come?' He replied, 'When darkness covers those people' - Alluding to the questioner and his companions - 'You curse me,' he exclaimed." Concerning the "darkness" it is also stated: "The cock said to the bat, 'I look forward to the light, because I have sight; but of what use is the light to thee?'" And all this is explained in a footnote:
"Thus Israel should hope for the redemption, because it will be a day of light to them, but why should the Gentiles, seeing that for them it will be a day of darkness?" (See Exhibit 101)
Sodomy is an accepted privilege in Judaistic Talmudism, and we learn from the Talmud, Abodah Zara, 36b, 37a, (see Exhibit 188 and Exhibit 189) that the exception may be if the subject is a Gentile baby, and then only on the ground of alleged defilement. The "Sages" decree that a heathen child causes "defilement by seminal emission, so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty [i.e. sodomy] with him." Then a harangue commences as to the age when a heathen child starts defiling by discharges (which, in fact, are only possible after adolescence).
The standard idiotic Talmud doctrine is then repeated that a male is "capable of the sexual act" at "nine years and one day" and a female from the age of "three years and one day." From those ages on they can "defile" the Jew, goes the argument in this passage.
The Bible teaches:
"And ye shall not swear by name falsely ... neither lie one to another ... I am the Lord" ( Leviticus 19:11,12, etc.).
One of the handiest devices provided by the Talmudic "Sages" to offset Moses' laws against swearing falsely, is found in the Talmud book of Nedarim (Vows), and is put into practice yearly in every synagogue across the world as the "Kol Nidre" (all vows). (See Exhibit 171)
The text of the Kol Nidre may be found in the Jewish Encyclopedia [Exhibit 303]. Three times the Cantor, to a tune that sounds like the melodious grief of all ages, pompously intones the words: "All vows, obligations, oaths ... whether called 'konam,' 'konas,' or by any other name, which we may vow or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void and made of no effect ... . The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths."
The confirming reply of the Congregation is typical of blasphemous Judaistic misuse of the Bible. Three times a verse from Numbers is chanted. It actually concerns the duty of a congregation which has violated the laws of God, in ignorance, to repent, and states:
Here is a typical Talmudic situation: Knowingly, in advance, every shred of truth is to be cast away, with religious support. A Scriptural verse of no relevance whatsoever is used as justification.
With the Jewish Kol Nidre, not only is there no repentance involved, as in the Bible itself, but forthright, blatant disavowal and annulment of solemn oaths an entire year in advance.
The Talmud Mishna states: "EVERY VOW WHICH I MAY MAKE IN THE FUTURE SHALL BE NULL. HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID PROVIDING THAT HE REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW." The Kol Nidre is repeated on the following page. Discounting the irrelevant "filler" about a man eating with his friend, we see in a footnote (Exhibit 172):
"This may have provided support for the custom of reciting Kol Nidre (a formula for dispensation of vows) prior to the Evening Service of the Day of Atonement ... . But Kol Nidre as part of the ritual is later than the Talmud ... [as] the law of revocation in advance was not made public."
However, this advance disavowal of oaths, and sanction of perjury, did become known at various times. The Jewish Encyclopedia account [Exhibit 303] concerning Kol Nidre relates how this practice of revoking all vows to be made, a year in advance, was used in European countries to bar the oath of a Jew as of no value. Contemporaneously, however, as we have been in ignorance of the Kol Nidre and what it means, such oaths, no matter how valueless, are foolishly accepted in our Courts.
The "chief repository of the criminal law of the Talmud" (together with Makkoth or "beatings") is the book of Sanhedin (See Exhibit 43). The non-human status of the non-Jew so far as legal or human rights are concerned is reiterated in Sanhedrin 57a. (See Exhibit 57)
A footnote explains that the Talmudist censor inserted the word "Cuthean" in the text for the word goy or Gentile, thus deceiving a possible non-Jewish reader as to the real meaning.
To quote: (Exhibit 57):
"With respect to robbery - if one stole or robbed [Footnote: "by secret stealing or by open violence"] or seized a beautiful woman, or committed similar offenses, if these were perpetrated by one Cuthean against another, the theft, etc., must not be kept, and likewise the theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained."
Sufficient filler is then inserted in the footnotes to confuse the "goy" reader, with a reference to the footnote concerning Baba Kamma 37b (See Exhibit 39). There, the false supposition that non-Jews have no "laws of social justice" is said to justify an inhuman standard of immorality taught by the "ox-goring" Talmud reference previously mentioned herein, a standard repeated elsewhere throughout the whole Talmud.
On murder of Gentiles (Exhibit 57):
"For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred: but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty."
The same doctrine abides throughout the whole Talmud. Glancing at the Jewish Encyclopedia section on "Gentiles" we see that Rabbi Simon ben Yohai's edict is: "The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed."
Exhibit 58 reproduces other Talmudic "religious" teachings about Gentiles. Applying it to "withholding of a laborer's wage. One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted," says the Talmud text.
Illustrating the twisted and tortured thinking of the Talmud "sages" a footnote states:
"This only borders on a robbery, for actual robbery means depriving a person of what he already possesses."
So, if a laborer never gets his wages, he cannot be robbed of what he never received! The "shyster mind" at work!
Sanhednn 58b of the Talmud (Exhibit 59) states that sodomy or: "Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew" and permits sodomy with a "neighbor's wife."
It also teaches that "If a heathen smites a Jew he is worthy of death." Then follows: "Rabbi Hanina also said: 'He who smites an Israelite on the jaw, is as though he had thus assaulted the Divine Presence.'"
By turning one word into another, and without rhyme or reason picking out a verse in Proverbs 20:25 ("It is a snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy ..."), the precept is somehow then evolved that "One who smiteth man - that is an Israelite - attacketh the Holy One."
Throughout the Talmud it is basic Pharisee teaching that only Pharisee Jews are "men."
"A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death ... it is our inheritance, not theirs ... he is as guilty as one who violates a bethrothed maiden." (See Exhibit 60) This is sound Talmudic thinking, since knowledge of the anti-human criminality of the Talmud Torah must inevitably put non-Jews on their guard. The footnote explains (Exhibit 60):
"This seems a very strong expression ... it is suggested that Rabbi Johanan feared the knowledge of Gentiles in matters of Jurisprudence, as they would use it against the Jews in their opponents' courts ... the Talmud places R. [page 21] Johanan's dictum ... immediately after the passage dealing with the setting up of law courts by Gentiles."
It is further explained that study of the Oral Law (Talmud) is what is feared and that the same R. Johanan said "God's covenant with Israel was only for the sake of the Oral Law [ie. Talmud]."
The overall Talmudic philosophy is that killing Gentiles is no more serious than merely killing wild animals.
Suppose, however, a Jew intends killing a Gentile, and accidently kills a Jew? Is he criminally liable? By Talmud standards the attempt to kill a Gentile so "sanctifies" a Jew that if he kills another "human," or Jew, in the attempt, the sin is washed away and there is no penalty.
The core of a long harangue in Sanhedrin, 78b-79a, is that if a Jew "intended killing ... a heathen and he killed an Israelite ... he is not liable." (See the Mishnah, Exhibit 90). After typical twaddle, this is repeated in the Gemara. (See Exhibit 91)
However (same Exhibit), if he intended killing one Israelite and killed another, he is liable.
On the next page of Sanhedrin (Exhibit 91) and weighing the "purity" of the killer's heart, it states if a Jew "threw a stone into a company of Israelites and heathens ... . Shall we say the company consisted of nine heathens and one Israelite ... his non-liability can be inferred from the fact that the majority were heathens ... even if half and half ... Since ... we do not know whether he aimed at an Israelite or a heathen ... he is not liable."
A footnote confirms that this "verse under discussion teaches that the murderer is not liable."
The American public has been drenched with propaganda concerning "brotherhood" between Christians and Jews, and Jew and non-Jew. Such propaganda could never be effective if the true nature of Talmudic Judaism were known.