Examples of this material may be found at the following locations:

http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=374993479
http://www.gromit1.com/ssbootboys/jews.html
http://www.creator.org/facts!/

Uploaded 8-Sep-99 Last update 24-Sep-99

CLAIM
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

RESPONSE
The quote does not exist in the source. What it does say in Sanhedrin 59a: "Rabbi Meir would say: a non-Jew who studies [the laws of seven Noahide commandments] in Torah is worthy [of respect] as a High Priest". I.I.

CLAIM
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

RESPONSE
It actually states that a Jew who has converted to a pagan worship and is causing trouble to his fellow Jews may be left to die and one may abstain from giving him aid at the time of his need.

It should be noted that Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai did actually say, elsewhere in the Talmud, "Even the best of the goyim (gentiles) should all be killed", which seems to be re-hashed in this alleged quote. It should be noted that his statement is the opinion of just one person, the Talmud does not endorse it and he said this under the most extreme circumstances - after his friends and teachers had been persecuted, tortured and eventually murdered by the Romans in the Bar Kochbar revolt (135 CE). E.S./ David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

RESPONSE
The quote from Sanhedrin does say that a gentile may not study torah but the other sources do not exist. There is no practical death penalty for this offense the penalty stated is only a term of speech stated in order to indicate the severity of the sin. A gentile may study the laws regarding the 7 Noahide commandments as stated ibid. and he will merit great everlasting bliss for this, however he may not study the laws of Judaism. The basic reason for prohibiting the study of Torah is because it is a special covenant between G-d and his chosen people, any one who is not affiliated with the chosen people is regarded a thief. Rashi ibid. E.S.

CLAIM
4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."

RESPONSE
This is a fabrication. There is no such book and no such quote. There is also internal evidence that this is a fabrication – the word Libbre is probably corrupted from the Latin word "Libre" meaning "book" so Libre David means "Book of David" or, in Hebrew Tehillim, or Psalms as they are usually known. David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM
5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death.

RESPONSE
This is a fabrication. There is no such book and no such quote. There is also internal evidence that this is a fabrication – the word Libbre is probably corrupted from the Latin word "Libre" meaning "book" so Libre David means "Book of David" or, in Hebrew Tehillim, or Psalms as they are usually known. David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM
6. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

RESPONSE
(Kethuboth 11b?) Grossly out of context. The question is whether in such a case the girl can be considered a "virgin" later, when she comes to marry. The answer is, yes, as far as she's concerned what happened wasn't sex, it was just like getting poked with an inanimate object.

Really terrible, huh? Allowing a victim of child abuse to get on with her life, and be treated as if she were innocent? buehler@nospa.m.space.mit.edu (Royce Buehler) <5iroi7$1cv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

CLAIM
7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

RESPONSE
This section discusses the relief from unexecutable vows. It does not allow swearing falsely.

See http://www1.snunit.k12.il/kodesh/mtr/sbua006.html

CLAIM
8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

RESPONSE (1)
This is in Maimonides Hilchot Akum (Laws of Idolators) 10:1. It refers, in reality, to true idolators (i.e., not modern monotheists), only in circumstances where Jews have power over non-Jews, i.e., in the future Messianic state. It is based on the verse (Lev. 19:16) "Do not stand idly by while your colleage's (understood as co-religionist) life is in danger." In contemporary times, however, for a variety of reasons, this law does not apply.

Note, further, that

a) one is certainly forbidden to actively cause an idolator's death; and

b) one is enjoined to kill Jews who have gone over to the enemy, whether spiritually or politically. Much harsher treatment for one's own than for the other.

(Adapted from R' Eliyahu Touger's translation and commentary of Hilchot Akum, Brooklyn: Moznaim, 1990.)
J.J.B.

RESPONSE (2)
The reason that harsh treatment was given to idolators is because they were a danger to the surrounding society since they practiced rituals such as human sacrifice and gross immorality such as bestiality. There are few if any idolators left in modern times, therefore such laws do not apply for this reason, and others, as stated above.
David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM
9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

RESPONSE
Response to #9 is "only if you can't convince him to give up his idolatry, should you show him no mercy".

This applies only to members of the Seven Canaanite Nations, which we were commanded to destroy or disperse upon entry to the Land of Israel. These nations have died out (reading the books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel one can see what a poor job the Jews did in wiping out these nations - a Jew is merciful, even to his enemies), so this rule is inoperative.

(Adapted from R' Eliyahu Touger's translation and commentary of Hilchot Akum, Brooklyn: Moznaim, 1990.)
J.J.B.

CLAIM
10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

RESPONSE
This is relating to a Jew who is causing damage and endangering the lives of his brethren by false allegations in a medieval gentile court. The law ibid. states that when he is proven liar a few times he may be given over to the gentile court for execution. E.S.

CLAIM
11. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

RESPONSE
This statement relates to an article found in the street which according to gentile legislature does not have to be retrieved and according to Jewish law has to be returned. The law states that he does not have to retrieve it if the one who lost it is a gentile as according to his law there is no need to do so. However, the law adds on that one should return it anyhow, and that is the practical out come of the statement. E.S.

CLAIM
12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

RESPONSE
This is a forgery. The word "Sehelot Uteshubot" means Talmudic responsa, there is no such book at all. Besides, there is nothing in the Torah which may cause disturbance to a gentile. What can have been written is that one may take an oath that there is nothing against gentiles in Jewish law as it is a true oath. E.S.

CLAIM
13. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

RESPONSE (1)
Note that the numbering is fabricated. In the Talmud it is impossible to have a number like 114, 6. It probably refers to 114b and is discussed below. Also, the actual quote is fabricated.

RESPONSE (2)
Apparently a deliberate mistranslation. The passage deals with the technical rules of corpse-impurity which, according to the author of this text, apply to Jews and not to gentiles. In this connection Ezekiel 34:31 is cited: "And ye My sheep [referring to Israel], the sheep of My pasture, are _men [Hebrew: "adam"]_, and I am your God, saith the Lord God." From a careful midrashic reading of this Biblical verse, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai deduced "Only "ye" [i.e., Israel, not other nations] are designated "adam," in the sense that only Jewish corpses and graves generate impurity according to Numbers 19:14: "This is the law: when a _man ['adam']_ dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the tent...shall be unclean seven days..." The passage is legal and exegetical, not theological. If anything, it seems to put Jews on a lower footing than non-Jews. Typically, the words "but beasts" were added on by whoever put this list together. They do not appear in the original. From Usenet message: catamont-2305980759150001@ts003d13.den-co.concentric.net

CLAIM
14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

RESPONSE (1)
There is no such source. However, we find a talmudic statement relating to the spiritual afterlife allegorically that there will be no need for toil in the spiritual world, as one who has a large amount of slaves does not need to toil, thus so to speak angels will execute our errands. Another Talmudic statement which might have incited the ignoramus is that in the messianic times every Jew will have 2800 disciples from among the nations who will wish to learn from him the ways of the Torah. E.S.

RESPONSE (2)
The gemara Shabbat 32b has a discussion of the punishment for not following certain commandments and the reward for following them.  Raish Lakish says that the person who wears tzitzit (a four cornered fringed garment) at the time of the redemption will be given 2800 servants. He then quotes Zecharia 8:23 "Thus saith HaShem of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: 'We will go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you.' " (JPS translation)  

Rashi explains why 2800.  He states there are 70 nations and each nation contributes 10 men for a total of 700.  Since tzitzit are placed on a four cornered garment it brings the total to 2800. 

Mishna Brura Siman 8 S"K 26 after a long criticism of people who do not properly fulfill the commandment of tzitzit states that "whoever is diligent in fulfilling the commandment of tzitzit merits and sees the Divine presence pnai ha'shakhina)."  At this point it quotes the gemara in Shabbat 32b.  Yehuda R.

RESPONSE (3)
There is no such book as "Simeon Haddarsen" in the Talmud. This is actually the name of a 10th Century commentator of the Bible. David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM 15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.

RESPONSE (1)
I was unable to check this reference in my extensive Judaica library. The book "Midrash Talpiyyot" is appparently an obscure eighteenth-century Kabbalistic work that is little known and carries no authority whatsoever. Even if the citation were correct (which seems doubtful in light of the other examples on this list, and the fact that Jews never employ the designation "Jehovah"), it is hard to imagine what could be proven from it about Judaism or the Talmud. From Usenet message catamont-2305980759150001@ts003d13.den-co.concentric.net

RESPONSE (2)
In any case, the use of the term "Jehovah" should be an immediate indicator of a forgery since Jews don't write this term in books. The actual book in question is not part of the Talmud but was written by a Turkish Jew called Elijah ben Solomon Abraham, ha-Koen in the eighteenth century. David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM 16. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

RESPONSE
Apparently a deliberate misquote. The observation is a technical, physiological one, regarding the impurities related to genital "flows" as outlined in Leviticus chapter 15. The Talmudic source argues that since the tearing of the hymen at that age would be permanent (as distinct from a younger girl whose hymen the rabbis believed would grow back), she is considered to have reached a state of physical development that her discharges would be included under the category of impure flows according to the Biblical purity laws. (The same rule, by the way, would apply to a Jewish girl). This is of course not a permission to "violate" the girl, merely a legal definition of her age. From Usenet message catamont-2305980759150001@ts003d13.den-co.concentric.net

CLAIM 17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

RESPONSE
No such source at all, on the contrary any sexual contact with a gentile woman is strictly prohibited even without marriage, see Talmud Sanhedrin 82a and Avoda Zarah 36b E.S.

CLAIM 18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

RESPONSE
The quote above appears in various versions and different sources. It exists in none of them. There is no such thing in Shulchan Aruch, and the word "kill" appears in Tosefta only six times - none of them in Avoda Zara. I.I.

CLAIM 19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

RESPONSE
What on earth is wrong with this? A denunciator is one who will cause a fellow Jew harm that he does not deserve. The gentiles have already forgotten but less that a century ago if a Jew was caught breaking a trivial law it would caused an atrocity and/or massacre throughout the country, this is the reason for the prohibition of denouncing. Besides this law is not accepted practically see Remah ibid 10. E.S.

CLAIM 20. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

RESPONSE
The true statement is the precise opposite: "Anyone who thieves even the most minute amount is transgressing the law of thievery and has to repay the theft, being the money of a Jew or non Jew alike". E.S.

CLAIM 21. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

RESPONSE (1)
This Tosefta is dealing with the laws which have to be enforced by gentile law courts according to the Noahide law. It only says that a Jew has can't be judged and punished by a gentile court but by a Jewish court even though his offense was against a gentile. E.S.

RESPONSE (2)
Regarding the prohibition of stealing, it is also written in the Talmud, Tosefta B. Kamma, 10, that "If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his death is no atonement for his sin because of Chillul Hashem (desecration of G-d's name)". David S. Maddison (maddison@power.connexus.net.au)

CLAIM 22. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

RESPONSE
There is no such source at all, and the forged text disagrees with the Jewish law as stated above in (22). E.S. / David S. Maddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM 23. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."

RESPONSE
The stated scenario is when a gentile is transgressing the local legislature regarding business encroachment and the fellow Jew wishes to divert the gentiles business to another field in order for his friend not too lose his business. The stated ruling is the precise opposite, that it is severely prohibited even when done in a way the local gentile legislature permits it. E.S.

CLAIM 24. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

RESPONSE
What is at issue here is that wine is a substance that in the times of the Talmud was used in rites related to pagan idol worship. Since Jews are prohibited to use anything made or dedicated for the purposes of idol worship, a prohibition was made on wine not made or used specifically by Jews. A specific problem with wine was that ostensibly kosher wine could be dedicated to idol service by an idolator simply twirling it in a beaker and making some incantation. Therefore, the Sages decreed that only wine made and used by Jews was to be permitted by Jews.

The reasoning was that it could be assured that wine made by Jews was not made for the forbidden practice of idolatory since it was impossible to tell who was an idolator and who wasn't.

In modern times, Kosher wine is usually manufactured in a way that wine touched by any non-Jews, including idol worshippers can still be used by Jews. Recall that the prohibition is on wine that could be used for idol worship. Wine that can NOT be used for the purpose of idol worship is therefore perfectly acceptable. Such wine that idolators found unacceptable is that which has been heated or boiled according to certain specifications (mevushal) or wine that has had spices added to it (mevushin). Either of these wines are perfectly acceptable to be used or handled by anyone.

These days, idolatory is less common than it used to be, but the prohibition remains because rabbinical decrees enacted into Jewish law are not changed without very good reason.

There is no similar prohibitions relating to other alcoholic beverages such as vodka and beer because these were never used in idolatory. David S. Madddison (maddison@connexus.net.au)

CLAIM 25. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."

RESPONSE
This applies only to vows made between a man and himself (I will not eat apples any more etc.) and not between a man and his friend Jew or non Jew alike. E.S./Edited DSM