Judaism discovered

"...all permitted lies are really subsets of one sweeping permission found in Yevamot 65b..."

If one studies the rabbinic texts at length, one encounters an admission of the process of legitimating a gradually expanding grounds for prevarication, as the permission to lie creates an ever larger body of precedent for ever more situations under which falsehoods are sanctioned: "The Ritvah, possibly agreeing with Tosafot on Bava Metvia 23b, who said that all permitted lies are really subsets of one sweeping permission found in Yevamot 65b..." ⁷¹⁵ This is a key insight into how certain rabbinic decoy texts are constructed and why: "From a number of (rabbinic) sources it appears that if one must or may lie, it is preferable to do it in such a way that the statement can be interpreted in two ways, one true and one false. And though

⁷¹⁴ Zivotofsky, op. cit., p. 282. ™ Ibid., p. 279.

605

the false interpretation is the clearer of the two and is the way the listener will understand it, this somehow makes it less of a lie." ⁷¹⁶

Over hundreds of years, as this process unfolded, the categories broadened, the permission to lie eventually was granted for almost every occasion, a lie for all seasons. In the view of Rabbi Samuel Strashun, the posek esteemed as the RaShaSh, "...if no practical benefit is gained by telling the truth, and some form of emotional gain is attained with a lie, then the lie is permitted." ⁷¹⁷ Here we see grounds for an almost infinitely expanded category of lying: if there is a dearth of practical benefit and a prospect of emotional gain.⁷¹⁸

Judaism's teaching concerning the permissibility of lying has been well concealed from outsiders, with much flowery rhetoric in the pages of publications accessed by gentiles or even secular Judaics, from rabbis and their students concerning the need for honesty. But beneath the smokescreen, the Lord of Lies, the one that "abides not in the truth" manifests visibly. The famed Rabbi Yosef Hayim of Baghdad, in Torah Lishmah, section 364, writes: "Behold, I set for you a table full of many aspects of permissibility in the matter of lying and deceit which are mentioned in the words of the Sages. Carefully examine each case and extract conclusions from each of them."

Secrecy concerning what Judaism actually teaches and represents is not as necessary in these days of rabbinic supremacy as it once was, for the reason expressed in Shakespeare's Macbeth, "What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?" ( Macbeth, 5:1 ) In response to this book, Talmudists may attempt to deny everything, based on the invocation of their considerable clout and prestige: "Hoffman is lying about Judaism because we say he is lying about Judaism." That's one very familiar tactic. The other plays on the power of Judaism in the modern world. If Judaism is now nearly supremely powerful in the West, what need would Judaics have to fear revelations about their religion? The investigator of this

.

606

subject comes prepared to deal with both approaches: the meek-and-mild, poor-pitiful-eternal-victims-who-are-all-sweetness-and-light-and-love-and-humanitarianism; as well as the rabbinic books and lectures that purport to offer to gentiles formerly secret Kabbalah texts that hint that Judaism does indeed hold that gentiles do not have a soul — and then carefully situate the revelation in a rabbinic context of the Kabbalah as New Age liberation from formal religion. All angles are played. Every possible deceit is considered and in many cases implemented, depending on the circumstances prevailing in society as a whole at any given time.

The deceivers' gloss on Exodus 23:7

It is beyond the capabilities of most people to envision the full extent of Judaism's deceit, including self-deceit, and the deceiving of God, and of one another. At bottom, the religion of Judaism embodies the profound confusion of the insane. The Talmudic "sages," and their adherents often do not know what the truth is. The level of illusion that exists in Orthodox Judaism absolutely transcends our ability to comprehend it, to a degree that is mind-boggling. Take for example the injunction in Exodus 23:7: "From the word of a lie you shall keep far." The preceding is a conversational rabbinic translation; the closest published Judaic version reads, "From a false matter, you are to keep far!" in The Five Books of Moses: The Schocken Bible, volume 1 translated by Everett Fox,⁷¹⁹ which is close to the rendering from the 1560 edition of The Geneva Bible; also reflected in the 1611 King James. Another English version, The Jewish Study Bible, is based on the "Tanakh translation" by the Jewish Publication Society, and contains the startling admission that the translators (scribes might be a more apt term) inserted "conjectural emendations of their own" ⁷²⁰ into the books of the Prophets! The dutifully awed goy who approaches The Jewish Study Bible in the expectation that it, being eponymously "Jewish," and therefore more accurate, is actually going to be studying a falsified text. Nonetheless, this edition hews to the general consensus of the Geneva and King James versions for this particular passage: "Keep far from a false charge." The Latin Vulgate translates it as mendacium fugies ("flee from mendacity").

.

607

The rabbis glean from Exodus 23:7 what is, when properly translated, straight-forward Biblical plain speaking against telling a lie, permission to tell a lie, as long as the lie is of the double entendre variety! Where is the argument given in support of this crazed interpretation? As follows: "Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin, in Oznayim LaTorah, finds a hint for the permissibility of the dual-meaning lie by the seemingly superfluous word, d'var ("word," as used in 'From the word of a lie you shall keep far"). ⁷²¹ Because the rabbinic rendering of the passage from Exodus reads, "From the word of a lie," rather than simply "From a lie," the rabbis assume that God Himself is employing a double entendre which therefore makes a lie that contains a double-meaning permissible.

It is this sort of Scripture-twisting and rabbinic casuistry that makes a mockery of the Bible from start to finish. It also demonstrates how ridiculous is the claim that a Christian who studies the Scriptures with a rabbi obtains a better insight into God's Word. Reading a double-meaning into the divine admonition, "From the word of a lie you shall keep far," is not only groundless, it shows that the rabbis regard God as being as crooked as they are. Moreover, as previously noted, their English translation is contrived. We can locate no Bible passage in a recognized English translation that renders Exodus 23:7 From the word of a lie... We further observe that the key passage in this citation, in the original Hebrew, is sheqer, which denotes "deceitful, falsehood, to feign," from the Hebrew root shaqar, "to deal falsely." What does it say about the rabbis, that from a crystal-clear Biblical injunction against "feigning, deceit and dealing falsely," they derive "permissibility of the dual-meaning lie"? In the answer to this query may be found the hidden essence of Judaism.

Lying permeates the rabbinic mentality. It is part of the culture and heritage of Orthodox Judaism, not just the theology. In the letters section of the London Review of Books, this writer came across information regarding the deception technique of David Ben-Gurion and we recognized it as 100 proof Gemara: "Ben-Gurion was a consummate strategist and he understood that it would be unwise for the Zionists to talk openly about the need for 'brutal compulsion.' We quote a memorandum Ben-Gurion wrote prior to the Extraordinary Zionist Conference at the Biltmore Hotel in New York in May

.

608

1942. He wrote that 'it is impossible to imagine general evacuation' of the Arab population of Palestine 'without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.' (Alan) Dershowitz claims that Ben-Gurion's subsequent statement — 'we should in no way make it part of our program' — shows that he opposed the transfer of the Arab population and the 'brutal compulsion' it would entail. But Ben-Gurion was not rejecting this policy: he was simply noting that the Zionists should not openly proclaim it. Indeed, he said that they should not 'discourage other people, British or American, who favor transfer from advocating this course, but we should in no way make it part of our program." ⁷²²

Why Women Traditionally Have Not Been Allowed to Study the Talmud

According to the rabbis, one of the reasons why Judaic women are forbidden to study the Talmud is that such study will teach them how to be cunning deceivers like the men and gain the ability to perpetrate and advocate evil without getting caught:

"Rashi explained tiflut that 'through (Talmud study) she understands how to be crafty, and is able to sin without it being revealed.' This could account for the difference between teaching a woman Scripture and teaching her Talmud, for only the latter can equip her with the casuistic skills and the knowledge she would need in order to dissemble successfully." ⁷²³

(Tiflut is a reference to the result of teaching one's daughter the Talmud, alternately translated as "foolishness" [Maimonides] or sin [Rashi]).

.

609

Judaism's "escape clauses"

The gullible gentile or Christian is typically presented with a sweetness-and-light rabbinic statement intended to show that Judaism is a religion of humanitarianism, compassion, justice, decency etc. Thus, we read in the article on "Hatred" in the Encyclopedia Judaica: "The Talmud is emphatic in its denunciation of hatred. Hillel taught that the essence of the entire Torah is, 'What is hateful to you, do not do to others,' all else being 'commentary' (Shab. 31a)...[T]he rabbis stress the obligation of loving all men: 'Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace..."

Yet, the Encyclopedia Judaica article also contains legalistic escape clauses, which one always has to watch for in this literature: "Permissible Hatred. It is proper to hate the wicked...Jewish law does in a general sense condemn intragroup hostility, based upon Leviticus 19:17: 'Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart."

In fact, as is so often the case with this source, it is what the Encyclopedia Judaica has omitted that is most important. The operant phrase in Leviticus 19:17 is 'thy brother,' and as we have noted in these pages and has been revealed by Prof. Shahak, "...the prohibitions against...hating other people...apply only to fellow Jews." Here we glimpse the slippery lawyer's artifice that pervades Judaism. Things are not what they seem. Objective declarations are, upon deeper investigation, loaded with internal modifications and loopholes and escape clauses. These are made possible because Judaism is two-tiered: the face it presents to the gentile world and the face it presents to fellow Judaics. Prof. Yehezkel Cohen of Ben-Gurion University in his 1975 treatise, The Status of the Gentile in Jewish Law of the Tannaite Era, offers the following escape clause for Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai who said: "Even the best of the gentiles should be killed." Says Cohen, "This should not be interpreted literally. This Tanna (rabbi of the Ta'nnaitic era) was an extraordinary personality who tended to express himself sharply and wittily regarding the Jews as well. He probably did not intend this saying to be taken literally, but exaggerated in order to show his strict attitude towards the Gentiles."

Cohen's escape clause is built on two premises: 1. Rabbi Yoahi had a tendency to be "sharp" and "witty" toward Jews as well. 2. Rabbi Yohai's statement is not to be taken literally because he deliberately exaggerated it

610

so as to show his strict attitude toward gentiles. With regard to point no. 1, the record shows that Rabbi Yohai never said anything remotely so hostile or homicidal about his fellow pious Judaics.

What is more, calling for the murder of all gentiles including those who are the best among them, is not a case of just being "sharp" or "witty." It is a chilling call to genocide; a call to slaughter all gentiles, even those who in the past have proved to be friends of the Judaics. It is a ferocious declaration of racial and religious war to the hilt that is beyond "wit" or "sharpness."

Point no. 2 of Cohen's escape clause is equally foolish and fallacious, perhaps more so. Cohen is spinning a fantasy on zero evidence about Yohai not wanting to be taken literally: "...he only wanted to show his strict attitude toward the Gentiles." Exactly. He did a pretty good job of it too. Why was it necessary for the esteemed rabbi to have to demonstrate a "strict" attitude toward gentiles? What was it in Judaism that required such a statement? Where does Rabbi Yohai mention that it is any thing other than an accurate reflection of his views? Was the man an imbecile? Senile? Hardly. He is revered as the architect of the Kabbalah. Cohen can't leave the stark statement by Shimon ben Yohai to stand uncontradicted before the eyes of the world, so it becomes necessary for him to create an escape clause for the benefit of naive goyim who would otherwise be shocked to learn that one of the founders of Judaism wanted to wipe out all the gentiles, good and bad. No, no, kiddies. It simply isn't so. Take Prof. Cohen's word for it.

Pious of "The Nations" Will Be Saved - The Escape Clause Another example of an escape clause is demonstrated by Dr. Alexander McCaul. Dr. McCaul was Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at King's College, London. In his book The Old Paths (London, 1846), he writes: "Judaism teaches that Christians cannot be saved" (p. 6). Dr. McCaul here cites correctly and truthfully the doctrine of Judaism but this is a hard doctrine to be made known to Christians. So the rabbis created an escape clause, "The Pious of the Nations" loophole. Dr. McCaul: "...there is another sentence in this same oral law, which says, 'that the pious among the nations of the world have a part in the world to come."

It is this latter view that is sedulously conveyed to Christians and gentiles, whenever they are confronted by documentation which exposes Judaism's doctrinal hatred for gentiles. When the gentiles and Christians are

611

moved to inquire about the legal and spiritual status accorded to them in Orthodox Judaism, they are told by the rabbis, "Don't worry, you're included among those who have a blessed place in the afterlife because righteous Christians are numbered among the 'pious of the nations." This is the bromide that allows them to evade having to take responsibility for what their bigoted religion actually teaches — that Christians have no place in the world to come, except to be punished. Dr. McCaul challenges the bromide: "...can they prove, by any citation of the oral law, that Christians are included 'among the pious of the nations of the world'?...If they cannot produce any such citation, then the general declaration that 'the pious of the nations of the world' may be saved, is nothing to the purpose; for the same law which makes this general declaration, does also explicitly lay down the particular exception in the case of Christians." The general statement is:

'■

"All Israel has a share in the world to come...and also the pious of the nations of the world have a share in the world to come."

According to a complex set of hermeneutical rules, which we reviewed previously, the preceding is understood by Orthodox Judaics to be a decoy statement intended for gentile consumption. The loophole, which immediately follows the preceding declaration, in this case works in the opposite direction: it is an escape clause that nullifies the law which was created solely for the benefit of public relations with the gentiles:

'■

"But these are they which have no part in the world to come."

Prof. McCaul: "This exception is therefore plainly made in order to guard against any false inference from the general statement and therefore, according to the oral law, Christians cannot be saved."⁷²⁴

.
612

This convoluted system of cunning dissimulation is institutionalized within Judaism and has proved very successful in that one finds the goyim parroting these various escape clauses and loopholes to counter all claims that there is anything deceptive about Judaism. Shimon ben Yohai decreed that even the best of the gentiles should all be killed? He didn't mean it literally. Judaism says Christians have no spiritual future? That's an antisemitic lie. The Talmud states that the pious of the nations do have a share!

And so forth, ad nauseum.

Unfortunately it is necessary that the reader should be nauseated a bit more, so that accurate knowledge of how this rabbinic deception system operates, may be gained. As we noted at the beginning of this book, Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin makes the statement that a gentile who employs himself in the study of the Talmud deserves death. That is the law of Judaism. But now comes the escape clause: "This is the law taken from the Talmudical treatise Sanhedrin, where it is followed by an apparently contradictory statement, 'that a gentile who employs himself in the law is as good as a high priest." ⁷²⁵ If one reads one part of the Talmud we see the truth that a gentile who studies the law (of the rabbis) deserves death. But the next sentence retails an escape clause which seemingly overthrows this pronouncement, to declare that a gentile studying the law is equivalent in prestige to a Judaic high priest. How to resolve the two poles of opposition? There is a third sentence not quoted to gentiles, which involves word-play predicated on the cunning question, which "law" are gentiles allowed to study? Not the Talmud (law of the rabbis). The "law" the gentiles may study is the Noachide law, consisting of seven precepts for "righteous" gentiles, not the Talmud. So profound is the deceit built into Judaism that this ambiguity is a deliberate construction of Judaism's system of deception.

.

613

The Talmud: A Book of Love for One's Fellow Man?

As we have seen with regard to Elie Wiesel's lecture at the 92nd Street Y in New York, one of the most common rabbinic public relations scams is the notion that the Talmud professes the doctrine of love for one's fellow man. This myth has been foisted on the non-Judaic world down through the centuries. The example at hand is from the Napoleonic era, as brilliantly elucidated by Dr. McCaul, in an analysis as relevant as today's press release from the American Jewish Committee:

"...in the authorized Jewish Catechism used in Bavaria, after the explanation of the moral duties, we find the following question: 'Are these laws and duties, affirmative and negative commandments, binding, with respect to a non-Israelite?' Answer: 'By all means, for the fundamental law of all these duties, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself/ is expressly laid down by the Holy Scriptures in reference to the non-Israelite...'

"The representatives of the Jewish people in France, and the teachers of the Jewish youth in Bavaria, declare, that in the scriptural command, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' neighbor means fellow-man, without distinction of nation or religion. Where then did they learn this interpretation? From the Talmud or from the New Testament? The Jewish deputies say, from the former. On the page cited above they add, 'This doctrine is also professed by the Talmud.' The Bavarian Catechism is more cautious. It makes no such bold assertion respecting the Talmud. It only intimates that the oral law teaches this doctrine, by subjoining to the passage from Leviticus the same extract from Maimonides, alluded to by the Jewish deputies. The Catechism gives the extract a little more at length, and as follows: 'We are bound in everything to treat the non-Israelite, who sojourns with us, with justice and with love... (Maimonides, Hilchoth Melachim 10, 12.)'

"No doubt the passage as here given, both by the French deputies and the Bavarian Catechism, is very plausible; and if it could be found verbatim, either in the Talmud or any of its compendium^, would go far to justify the bold assertion of the former, and the cautious insinuation of the latter. But unfortunately the original passage is very different. In the above citations, it

614

is mutilated in order to suit the purpose of the citers. In the Jad Hachasakah^72e it stands as follows:

"And thus it appears to me, that the proselytes allowed to sojourn are to be treated with the same courtesy and benevolence as the Israelites; for behold, we are commanded to maintain them, as it is written, 'Thou shalt give it to the stranger (proselyte) that is in thy gates, that he may eat it.' As to that saying of our wise men not to return their salute, it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselyte allowed to sojourn. But even with regard to the heathen, the wise men have commanded us to visit their sick, and to bury their dead with the dead of Israel, and to feed their poor along with the poor of Israel, for the sake of the ways of peace; for it is written, 'The Lord is good to all, and his mercies are over all his works;' and again, 'Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. (Prov. iii. 17.)'

"The reader will observe that there are several striking differences between this translation and that of the Bavarian Catechism; and these differences prove that, by the word 'neighbor,' the oral law does not understand a fellow-man, without any regard to his religious opinions. First, the Bavarian Catechism says, 'We are bound in everything to treat the non-Israelite who sojourns with us with justice and with love, and as we would treat an Israelite.' The original says, 'And thus it appears to me,' that the proselytes allowed to sojourn are to be treated with the same courtesy and

More commonly spelled Yad HaChazakah; halacha derived from the Code of Maimonides.
615

benevolence as the Israelites'...Maimonides speaks of only one particular class, the proselytes who had permission to sojourn in the land of Israel...'

"The important omission made by the Bavarian Catechism: in citing the words of Maimonides, the compilers have omitted the whole sentence, 'As to the saying of our wise men not to return their salute, it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.'

"To this sentence, the French Jewish deputies have also made no allusion; and yet this sentence is found in the very middle of the passage quoted. What goes before and what follows is quoted by both, but both have with one common consent omitted this passage....The Jewish deputies in Paris, and the compilers of the Jewish Catechism in Bavaria, had one common object —they wished to prove, or to intimate, that the Talmud teaches us to love as ourselves all our fellow-men, without any respect to religious differences. In order to prove this, they both refer to one and the same passage and from the middle of that passage they both omit one important sentence.

"What conclusion will be drawn by any man of common understanding? Just this, that as they both quote one and the same passage, there must be a great scarcity of proof from the Talmud: and that, as they both make the same omission, the sentence omitted must be unfavorable to that proof; and that, therefore, this one passage does not prove that the Talmud teaches any such doctrine. Such is the conclusion to which we are led by considering the facts of the case. An examination of the omitted passage will show that this conclusion is most just: 'As to the saying of our wise men, not to return their salute, it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.'

"In plain English, this passage restricts 'the courtesy and benevolence' to those proselytes who, by taking upon them the seven commandments of Noah, obtained the privilege of sojourning in the land of Israel; and consequently excludes 'the Gentiles' — and consequently disproves the assertion that the Talmud teaches us to love as ourselves all our fellowmen, without any respect to religious differences. On the contrary, this passage tells us that the salutation of the Gentiles is not to be returned. It prescribes two different lines of conduct to be pursued towards different religionists, and makes the difference of religious persuasion the basis of the rule. But some readers may say, that the difference is very small — that the command not to return the salute of the Gentiles,' is a mere matter of etiquette — whereas the command

616

to visit the sick of the Gentiles, to bury their dead, and to feed their poor, is a substantial kindness. This we should admit, if the reason assigned for such conduct, 'for the sake of the ways of peace,' did not utterly remove all the apparent kindness. And this brings us to the third misrepresentation of the Bavarian Catechism.
"It (mis)translates the (Talmudic) words (for the sake of the ways of peace) 'for the good of society.' Here, then, there is an evident difference between us....Maimonides here refers to another passage of the oral law, where this expression is fully explained, and where the command 'not to return the salutation of the Gentiles' is also found. We will give this passage, and then the unlearned can judge for themselves:

"The poor of the idolaters are to be fed with the poor of Israel for the sake of the ways of peace. They are also permitted to have part of the gleaning, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner of the field, for the sake of the ways of peace. It is also lawful to ask after their health, even on their feast-day, for the sake of the ways of peace; but never to return (literally, reiterate) the salutation, nor to enter the house of an idolater on the day of his festival, to salute him. If, he be met in the street, he is to be saluted in a low tone of voice, and with a heavy head. But all these things are said only of the time that Israel is in captivity among the nations, or that the hand of the idolaters is strong upon Israel. But when the hand of Israel is strong upon them, we are forbidden to suffer an idolater amongst us, even so much as to sojourn incidentally, or to pass from place to place with merchandise. He is not to pass through our land until he take upon him the seven commandments given to the children of Noah, for it is said, 'They shall not dwell in thy land,' (Exod. xxiii. 33,) not even for an hour. But if he take upon himself the seven commandments, then he is a proselyte permitted to sojourn."

617

Hilchoth Accum., c. x. 5, &c.

"This is the passage alluded to, and the reader may now judge whether the words, 'For the sake of the ways of peace,' can be interpreted as the Bavarian Catechism renders them, 'for the good of society.' If so: then 'the good of society' is to be consulted only while the Jews are in captivity, and the Gentiles' have got the power: but as soon as the Jews get the power, 'the good of society' may safely be disregarded.

"The meaning plainly is, that in the present position of affairs it is advisable to keep the peace between Jews and Gentiles, inasmuch as the Gentiles are at present the strongest. Now, then, it is expedient to visit the sick; and feed the poor, and bury the dead of the Gentiles, for this will promote that object; but when the tables are turned, and the Gentiles are the weakest, there will be no necessity 'for the ways of peace,' or, as the Bavarian Catechism has it, 'for the good of society.'

"It is plain, therefore, that the passage cited by the French deputies and the Bavarian Catechism, does not answer the purpose for which it is cited. It does not prove that the Talmud teaches us to love our fellow-men as ourselves, whatever be their religious opinions. On the contrary, it teaches that a wide distinction is to be made between one class of religionists and another...

"We are inquiring whether their religious system, the oral law, is or is not from God, and whether this religious system teaches Jews to love all their fellow-men as themselves? We have shown that the evidence adduced on this point by the French and Bavarian Jews, proves the contrary...We say, then, that the Talmud...does not teach us to love our fellow-men..." ⁷²⁷

.
618

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a multi-million dollar rabbinical propaganda center, dispatched Rabbi Daniel Landes in 1995 to deny that the Talmud dehumanizes non-Jews. "This is utter rot," he said. His proof? Why, his word, of course. ⁷²⁸