Judaism discovered

First, a few Words from the Rabbi

We thought it prudent to publish some representative detritus from a prominent Orthodox rabbi who writes a regular column for the Israeli flagship newspaper, Jerusalem Post. Most readers who first begin to seriously study Judaism will encounter similar camouflage, recycled to fit the particular situation, audience or challenge which Judaism is faced with at a particular time. But in its essentials, it is safe to say that the following statement by Rabbi Boteach is the formula disinformation issued by the rabbinate in our time. Almost every word he writes in the following essay from the Jerusalem Post is untrue. It is a time-tested exercise in the famous, brazen chutzpah. It plays on the ignorance of the reader and uses the authority of the rabbi who wrote it to render palatable some exceedingly outrageous and palpable falsehoods.

Can a Jew rescue a non-Jew on Shabbat? by Shmuley Boteach, The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 19, 2007

...The light of Judaism is meant to illuminate the earth and it cannot do so if it teaches reprehensible racism, something which is and should forever be an abomination to our faith. Is the Jewish religion really so heartless as to give a Jew pause before rescuing a non-Jewish life on the Sabbath? Could it be possible that a religion that so courageously declares, at the very beginning of its Bible, that all humans are equally created in the image of God suddenly reverses itself and declares a non-Jewish life to be not only inferior to that of a Jew, but scarcely worth saving? Of course not.

The Talmud was written at the time of the vicious Roman occupation of the Holy Land. The unbearable cruelty of the Romans led to two Jewish rebellions that were quashed so mercilessly by Rome's mighty legions that millions of Jews were slaughtered in cold blood. Indeed, the utter ruthlessness of the Romans is something clearly evident to any non-Jew through the horrible and gruesome death by crucifixion they inflicted upon an innocent Jesus and approximately 250,000 other Jews.

The Talmud's discussion, therefore, centered on whether brutal, gentile oppressors like Roman centurions, who were the principal non-Jews with whom the Jews had contact at the time, ought to be saved on the Sabbath. It

116

is in the context of the fate of deadly, sworn enemies of the Jewish people that the Talmud's debate must be considered.

If the rabbis alive at the time of the Holocaust had debated whether Germans — who democratically elected Hitler into power and then remained silent while he exterminated millions of innocent people — ought to have the Sabbath violated for their physical salvation, we would perhaps be forgiving of their slight feelings of contempt for their German neighbors. While this has always been my understanding of this talmudic pronouncement, it was Rabbi Menahem Genack, one of American Orthodoxy's leading lights, who recently shared with me something very similar said by the great talmudic exegete Rabbi Menahem Meiri (1249-1310): that the Talmud's reference is to a pagan defiler of the faith.

During World War II, great and moral men like Franklin Roosevelt and Winston.Churchill, who saved the world from Nazi tyranny, decided that it was moral to bomb German cities, especially Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden, in raids that killed hundreds of thousands of civilian non-combatants. Harry Truman then authorized the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thereby killing hundreds of thousands more.

Now, few would construe these actions as proof that these great Western leaders believed that a German or a Japanese life was inferior to an American or British life. Rather, these decisions were made in the context of Germany and Japan being the sworn enemies of the West, who were dedicated to democracy's destruction. The same is true of why the Talmud questioned whether the Romans, who were similarly committed to the enslavement of the earth, were worth saving.

But when it came to everyday non-Jews, the Talmud was emphatic about their equal place before God and the equality and sanctity of every human life. Indeed, talmudic pronouncements on non-Jewish life are a model of universalism and egalitarian thinking that preceded Western ideas of equality of all races by nearly two millennia.

The sages of the Talmud declared in their most important ethical tract, Ethics of the Fathers, "Do not despise any man" (4:3). They went further. In a pronouncement that is as astonishing as it is inspiring, they declared, "Even a gentile who studies God's law is equal to a high priest." Incredible.

At a time when ecumenical thinking was absolutely unheard of and nearly every religion declared that only members of its own faith would go to

117

heaven, the greatest rabbis were declaring that a righteous non-Jew is as holy as the Jewish high priest. The rabbis of the Talmud further declared that any righteous individual — Jew or gentile — is guaranteed a place in eternity just so long as he has led an ethical life: "The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13).

The same thing applied to the question of proximity with God. It was righteousness, rather than Jewishness, that granted us a relationship with the creator: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses: Any individual, whether gentile of Jew, man or woman, servant or maid, can bring the Divine Presence upon himself in accordance with his deeds" (Tanna Devei Eliahu Rabba 9).

Witness the fact that Judaism is the only religion that does not actively proselytize people outside the faith, because we do not believe that a non-Jew upgrades his existence by becoming a Jew.

That this attitude is true not only in a legal sense but a practical one is demonstrated in how the tiny State of Israel, with its extremely limited resources, is always at the forefront of sending doctors and medical personnel to regions hit by natural disasters, most notably the December 2004 tsunami. This commitment to the welfare of non-Jews is the direct result of Judaism's advocacy of the equal sanctity of every human life, notwithstanding race, color or creed. (End quote from Shmuley Boteach).

We are not going to deconstruct Rabbi Boteach's imposture line by line, since our book should accomplish that feat over the course of the next several hundred pages. We will expose this supposed holy man, however, who years ago was rock singer Michael Jackson's "spiritual advisor" and is the author of self-help manuals on "sacred sex" in the Talmudic tradition.

The raison d'etre of the Talmud and Orthodox Judaism is the essential spiritual and racial superiority of the Judaic over the non-Judaic. Boteach and countless frontmen like him, claim for Judaism everything that it is not: that it possesses "universality" (the same law for everyone, whether Judaic or gentile; a pretense so blatantly preposterous on its face that it could only be made to an audience of peasant donkeys, one step below the Am ha'aretz).

Boteach conflates the Bible with Orthodox Judaism, making reference to the Pentateuch and pretending that it is not contradicted by the Talmud. "Could the religion of Judaism be so heartless as to be reluctant to save non-

118

Judaic life?," Boteach asks. We're delighted that he admits that if this proposition were true, it would indeed be "heartless." Since it is undeniably true, we have Boteach making our case for us.

The loophole Shmuley Boteach has devised to extricate Judaism from this dilemma is to claim that its proscriptions mainly apply to the Romans: "... the Talmud questioned whether the Romans, who were similarly committed to the enslavement of the earth, were worth saving...The Talmud's discussion, therefore, centered on whether brutal, gentile oppressors like Roman centurions, who were the principal non-Jews with whom the Jews had contact at the time, ought to be saved on the Sabbath. It is in the context of the fate of deadly, sworn enemies of the Jewish people that the Talmud's debate must be considered."

Boteach wants to assure his Christian readers that the Talmud's dreadful, homicidal bigotry is not directed principally at Christians, but rather at the brutal, oppressor Romans. He can get away with this by capitalizing on the abysmal ignorance of Christians regarding the actual contents of the Talmud and the long tradition of censoring and encrypting its contents. When the Talmud was first translated into English much of it was translated in code, using euphemisms for Christians. Subtract the footnotes from the Soncino English version of the Talmud and the reader will imagine that the Talmud is extremely hostile mainly to the "Cutheans," the "Akum" and the Romans of yesteryear. The misperception is fostered that the Talmud's hatred is mostly aimed at long dead or long-lost tribes, nations and empires. Even students of the Talmud working only or predominantly with English sources long ago penetrated this ruse, however. The Talmud in uncensored English versions like the partially completed Steinsaltz edition, excoriates Christians (and in other passages, gentiles in general). Prior to Steinsaltz and a handful of candid modern translators like him, "Cutheans," "Akum" and the "Romans" of yesteryear, were the code-words imposed on the text by translators seeking to mislead the "prying" eyes of Christians. Boteach exploits that old tradition of encrypted, deceptive rendering of rabbinic texts in his Jerusalem Post column, which is an insult to the intelligence of any scholar of Judaism.

119

and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord. — This statement appears to label Christianity as the worship of false gods. That view is clearly stated in Hilchot Avodah Zarah 9:4. (In some texts, that Halachah reads "Canaanites" but that is a censored version. The original text reads "Romans" and refers to the Christians.)

"The original text reads 'Romans' and refers to the Christians." ⁹³

Boteach reanimates a tired scam with his shady allegation that when the Talmud speaks against saving gentile lives, it is referring mainly to Roman lives. This bigotry is supposedly justified because the Romans were vicious persecutors of the eternal victims, the Judaics, which brings us to scam no. 2: when outright denials — "The Talmud contains nothing bigoted against other peoples" — are no longer credible, the fall-back position is that, if there is indeed a "little bit" of hatred for non-Judaics in the Talmud, it is due to "vicious persecution by the Romans." This has been the classic rejoinder whenever gentiles learned that the revered Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai really did teach that, "Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed."

120

In Yohai's case it can't be said that he was referring "mainly to the Romans," but his co-religionists do claim that Yohai made his savage call for the extermination of the gentiles, because of the Romans; because they allegedly "persecuted" him so viciously.

A similar self-exculpatory alibi is used in the case of the Golem stories, a collection of "colorful legends" about Judah Loew, the Chief Rabbi of Prague who marshals a non-Judaic monster for "protection" against the gentiles. It is clear that in these stories of the monster triumphing over "deceitful Catholic priests" and slaughtering "antisemites," considerable satisfaction is taken by the Judaic student of these stories. The Golem stories contain elements of sadistic violence, cruelty and Judeo-nationalism. Stories with those themes in Christian and German folklore are almost always the subject of considerable finger-pointing by morally superior Judaics. But in the case of the Golem and the 16th century "Maharal" (Loew), the slaughter and sadism he commits are excused on the basis that the Golem is "the protector of the Jewish people during times of persecution." The Golem "help the Jews fight false accusations of ritual murder~the infamous blood libel." It's not violence, you see, it's just self-defense. A similar tack is taken with Israeli army violence against Palestinians. It is never an Israeli war crime or an atrocity; it's always retribution — a "retaliatory" raid in response to violence by those wicked antisemites.

Note that rabbis don't take responsibility for any of the evil. It's always the other guy's fault. Boteach wants his cake and eat it too. He wants to say that Judaism is a creed of universality; everyone is equal before God. At the same time, Boteach's mentality gives sub-rosa evidence of his belief in the superiority of the Judaic, when, in the course of exhibiting his mental state, we see that he assumes immunity from responsibility for any evil Judaism perpetuates. If Judaism does commit evil, it's the gentiles' fault (in this case, the Romans). His own mindset reveals the untenability and hypocrisy of his claim that Judaism is equalitarian.

Therefore, according to Rabbi Boteach, it was brutal gentile oppressors like the Romans at which the Talmud was directing its hateful invective; certainly not at Christians. He subtly implies that Christians and Judaics are on the same side: the Romans slaughtered Judaics and, remarkably, Rabbi

121

Boteach announces that they killed "an innocent Jesus." Here Rabbi Boteach's mind begins to divide before our very eyes. He is defending the Talmud and Jesus, yet the Talmud says Jesus was a sorcerer and an idolater who deserved to be killed. Is the Talmud wrong? It can't be, since Boteach is using it as the basis of his argument. If it was wrong about Jesus could it have been wrong about the Romans? If it was correct about Jesus, what is Boteach doing declaring Jesus innocent?

He makes this declaration because he wants us to believe in the Judeo-Christian myth: Judaies and Christians united against paganism. Too bad his Talmud doesn't believe that. What does it say about Boteach that he doesn't tell us what the Talmud really teaches about Jesus? Apparently he imagines that his gentile readers are so far beneath contempt, and any level of literacy worth considering, that they are ignorant of not only the Talmud but the New Testament. Before the Apostle Paul became a Christian on the road to Damascus, he was a Pharisee, a member of Orthodox Judaism as it was emerging at that time. As such, he attacked and persecuted Christians, possibly even killing them if, as it is sometimes surmised, he had a hand in the murder of Stephen.

But do our eyes deceive us? Is it not true, by the light of Shmuley Boteach, that it was the Romans who were the awful persecutors, while the meek-as-lambs Judaies were the pure as snow, innocent victims? How then can we reconcile Paul's testimony that he, as a Jew and a Pharisee, had persecuted Christians, with Boteach's myth of sole Roman responsibility? We can't, of course, and he doesn't even bother to make a gesture at reconciling the contradiction. In fact, the Romans are not regarded as wholly evil in the New Testament. They protected Paul against those Jews who would have killed him had it not been for his Roman citizenship. Jesus Christ meanwhile, prophesied the destruction of the Temple as a punishment for the sins of degenerate, carnal Israel, and the Romans were the instruments of God's wrath in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, a fact Boteach dare not mention.

Roman persecution of Jews and Judaism has been much exaggerated: "...the broad brush employment of'antisemitism' obscures the high degree of tolerance (by the standards of the times) that the post-70 (A.D.) Jews received from the Roman authorities until the time of Constantine. Granted, there were special taxes on the Jews, but under most Roman administrations they were able to hold some public offices and were exempted from

122

performing non-Jewish civic rituals that offended their religious sensibilities. It is clear that the Jews of several diaspora cities suffered because of the revolts of 115-117 CE and, following the ill-fated Bar Kokhba revolt in Palestine in 132-135 CE, Jerusalem was plowed under and Jews were banned. Harsh as these occurrences were, they were part of the maintenance of civil order (as perceived by the Roman authorities) and were not religiously motivated. They were not part of any plan to exterminate the Jews. This situation stands in sharp contrast to the various persecutions of Christians in the first three centuries of their existence, the goal of which seems to have been their extirpation as a religious group. As late as 303 C.E., Diocletion instituted a war of annihilation against the Christians." In addition to this little known rapproachment between the Roman Empire and the Jews, the heirs of the Jewish Pharisees were actively involved in persecuting and killing Christians in this era: "...during the Bar Kokhba revolt...it appears that significant numbers of Christians who lived in the region of Jerusalem refused to join the revolt (wherein Bar Kokhba was declared to be the Messiah) and were tortured and probably put to death."

From the Romans, Boteach jumps to the Germans. Judaics are justified in hating Romans and they are justified in hating Germans. Who wouldn't deny medical care to injured Romans and Germans, asserts Boteach. German women and children were rightly burned alive in World War II due to the fact that they "remained silent while millions were exterminated."

Only the most deranged Talmudic fantasist would claim that millions of Germans had knowledge of the alleged Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers during WWII. The vast majority learned about it after the war, from the Allies. The German government and media never admitted the allegation during the war, so how would millions of German civilians become worthy of being burned alive in their schools, homes, hospitals and churches by the firebombs of Churchill and Roosevelt? With that excuse gone, all Boteach has to justify mass murder of German civilians is that they voted for Hitler in 1933, at a time when Hitler gave the impression of being a peace-loving patriot seeking to rebuild the shattered German economy. Since democratic elections were suspended after that, the Germans never had an electoral

123

opportunity to repudiate Hitler. For their mistaken vote in 1933, 600,000 women and children (some of whom weren't even alive in 1933), deserved to be burned to death? Here is the sadistic Talmudic mentality of pure vengeance, unmediated by compassion of any kind, justifying itself with a wicked twisting of the facts.

The rest of Rabbi Boteach's column is devoted to disgraceful dissembling about Judaism, claiming that it teaches the fundamental equality of Jews and non-Jews. In the following pages we hope to put paid to that perennial lie, recycled from newspaper to newspaper, newscast to newscast, Spielberg movie to Spielberg movie, church pulpit to church pulpit, university lecture hall to university lecture hall. It is the predominant myth about Orthodox Judaism and it has no sand or substance, being invented out of whole cloth and promulgated solely on the ipse dixit ("I told you so") basis of rabbinic authority and prestige.⁹⁷

Rabbi Boteach writes, "In a pronouncement that is as astonishing as it is inspiring, they declared, 'Even a gentile who studies God's law is equal to a high priest.' Incredible."

What's so incredible about equality? Equality is only "incredible" in a belief system that is so extraordinarily racist that equality is an anomaly compared with what the rest of the belief system teaches. If it were indeed true that a gentile who studies the law is equal to a (Judaic) high priest, this would be incredible. What is incredible, however, is that this decoy text appears credible in the eyes of its intended victim audience of gentiles, most of whom accept it at face value, on no corroborating evidence; just as they accept the public claim (or at the very least, the insinuation), of those who call themselves "Jews" that they are in fact the genetic descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Evidence? Proof? Not required. The Zionist's ipse dixit is sufficient.

The Virgin Birth? The Resurrection of Christ? Unscientific twaddle, according to the modernists.

Judaism's assertion that twenty-first century Israelis and Judaics from the shetls of Eastern Europe are indeed descended from Abraham, Isaac and

124

Jacob — this is both an empiricism not to be denied, and the grounds upon which these self-proclaimed "Jews" are to be accorded deference by the mentally incapacitated, among whom we numbers million of Americans in the misnamed "Bible Belt."

Decoy Text

When apologists for Judaism quote the saying of R. Meir in BT Abodah Zara 3a ("a gentile who studies God's law is equal to a high priest")⁹⁸ they do so in the expectation that their target audience has never heard of BT Sanhedrin 59a, "A non-Jew who engages in the study of the Torah is liable for execution." Most goyim are too ignorant to perceive that only those gentiles who study the rabbinic text ("God's law") with a view to praising its virtues and enhancing its reputation are "equal to a high priest" and even in that case, the "equality" is tightly circumscribed by the rabbinic doctrine in Tanya 1:1 that decrees "any good done by the gentiles is for selfish motives." Actually, the supposed equality of divine-law student gentiles proffered in the decoy text BT Abodah Zara 3a, is overthrown entirely by BT Bava Batra 10b: "Even the kindness of gentiles toward Jews is a sin."

As we hope to demonstrate in the following pages, we have discovered that Orthodox Judaism teaches a sophisticated exegetical system of cues and codes that signals to the Talmudic insider which rabbinic text is a decoy intended to deceive gentiles and which is the authentic rabbinic directive intended for Judaic Talmudists. Prior to the publication of our work, most of the goyim knew nothing of this, so that the presentation to them of a humanitarian-sounding, one-line "proof-text" purporting to expose as liars those who assert that the rabbinic sacred books teach a savagely racist doctrine about non-Judaics, has indeed managed to persuade gentiles that this is not the case.

There is a second "proof-text" the rabbis like to put on display for public consumption, as Boteach does, Tosefta Sanhedrin 13: "The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come." The gullible imagine that the rabbinic definition of "righteous gentile" is one who adheres to Biblical standards of honesty, charity and so forth. But nothing is considered "righteous" by the rabbis which does not advance Klal Yisroel and the traditions of Chazal. Hence a "righteous among the nations" who has a place

A parallel text is found at BT Bava Kama 38a.
125

reserved for him or herself in the rabbinic heaven ("the world to come"), is that person who upholds the divine nature of the Mishnah and Gemara along with the prerogatives to dominion of God's chosen Israeli real estate dealer in the Middle East. Even then, the promises to gentiles of "the world to come" are highly negotiable, as established within the larger halachic framework of the "Noachide" obligations. These "Noachide laws" have nothing to do with the Biblical patriarch Noah. They are rather, part of the elaborate masquerading function and counterfeiting apparatus of rabbinic Judaism, wherein the "Noah" being referenced in "Noachide" as used by Judaism, is the Noah of the Midrash, a most problematic patron saint for gentiles who are aspiring to anything approaching conditional tolerance or acceptance by the "sages" of Judaism.

Nowhere in Orthodox Judaism does any non-Judaic have an inalienable, non-negotiable right to be treated equally with a Judaic before the law derived from the Torah SheBeal Peh. Yet for many gentiles, no amount of evidence to the contrary will be sufficient to offset the credibility of the duplicitous equalitarian platitudes put forth by an Orthodox rabbi writing in the Jerusalem Post. For them, if the rabbi wrote it, then it must be true, Almighty God does not receive as much faith and credit as many rabbis receive from obsequious or dim-witted gentiles.

126