A Baron: What do you make of this quote, Rabbi?
“He who sheds the blood of the Goyim is offering a sacrifice to God.” Jalquit Simeoni
Rabbi Cohen: I’ve never come across a quote such as that; it’s quite possible that it’s slightly changed and taken out of context in order to suggest what it suggests here.
A Baron: Jalquit Simeoni exists? (23)
Rabbi Cohen: Yes.
A Baron: With that spelling?
Rabbi Cohen: Bearing in mind that this is a transliteration; there is a book called Jalquit Simeoni. (24)
A Baron: It’s not part of the Talmud?
Rabbi Cohen: Not really, no. It is a compendium of Midrashim, which were Rabbinic teachings of more or less the same era as the Talmud but a slightly different area. Jalquit Simeoni is a compendium of those which came about in the Middle Ages.
A Baron: So Jalquit Simeoni does exist but as far as you know, this quote does not?
Rabbi Cohen: Not only have I never seen such a quote but it doesn’t seem to be compatible with our faith at all.
A Baron: Along the same lines is “Even the best of the Goyim must be killed.” Abodah Zara 26b, Tosefoth
Alternatively, “Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.”
Rabbi Cohen: With this sort of thing, if you are quoting something, it’s best to quote the exact source, and when you do look it up you will invariably find that it is misquoted, taken out of context, and mistranslated to boot. I’m not too familiar with all of these quotes, but they do seem on the face of it to be taken out of context. If you were to check them, you would find that each of them has been torn out of context.
A Baron: I did check this, and it’s not there. (25)
Note: There is a lot of talk in Abodah Zarah about eating forbidden food and circumcision, but nothing as far as I could see about killing goyim.
The reference to Tosefoth (the correct spelling is Tosafoth) is far too vague to be of any use. The UJE, Vol 10, page 282, says that a Tosafoth is “general name for a number of notes to the Talmud which were made by the teachers from 12th cent. on.” Many Tosafists are unknown; the movement lasted two centuries.
On the subject of general references and misspellings, it is worth quoting from Talmudic Forgeries at length:
“It is not always easy to trace these quotations to their sources. The titles of the works cited are often so grossly misspelled that it is difficult to recognize them. Yalkut is cited as ‘Jektut;’ Yad as ‘Jak;’ Nedarim as ‘Nadarine.’ Occasionally, the titles cited appear altogether fictitious...Frequently, the works quoted are the well known but no volume, page, chapter or verse is indicated, such as a general reference to ‘Szaoloth-Utszabot, the Book of Jore Dia 17.’ Shaalot Utshubot simply means ‘responsa’ and it applies to the correspondence of the rabbis on religious questions. The New York Public Library lists in its catalogue hundreds of such volumes of responsa.
It is when the citations are specific and drawn from genuine sources that comparisons become possible. It is then that the falsification unfolds in all its brazenness.” (26)
The author is perhaps a little uncharitable with reference to gross misspellings; translations and transliterations are seldom consistent, for example, The Essential Talmud refers to Avodah Zarah; in some publications, Shulhan Aruch is spelled Shulhan Arukh and so on. However, the above brazen falsification has now been thoroughly exposed.
A Baron: “It is a good deed for every Jew to burn and destroy the non-Jewish Church or whatever belongs to it or is done for it, and to throw the ashes into the four winds...” Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 143
Rabbi Cohen: To me that sounds like something which is even more bizarre than the rest of them; it sounds like something some idiot or child dreamt up, and actually found its way into print.
A Baron: Are you saying there is nothing like that in the Shulhan Aruch?
Rabbi Cohen: I cannot imagine anything like that appearing anywhere in the Shulhan Aruch. You have to bear in mind that when I referred earlier to there having to be measures against idolatrous nations, in particular where there were religious and other persecutions, any such measures would have been made in Talmudic times, but in the times of the author of the Shulhan Aruch lived, Rabbi Joseph Caro (27), in those days, the whole of the Jewish nation was living in the Diaspora, and the need to be sensitive, to be unambiguous in one’s decrees and statements was even greater than it was in Talmudic times, so the author of the Shulhan Aruch would never have come out with anything like that.
Note: Shulhan Aruch means “prepared table”. It is “the authoritative code of Orthodox Judaism.” (28) Yore Deah or Yoreh Deah means teaching, knowledge.
[When I was unable to find English translations of certain Jewish religious texts, Rabbi Cohen suggested that I contact Jews College. I did and was informed by the librarian, Mr Ezra Kahn, that (to the best of his knowledge), there exists nowhere any English translation of either Jalquit Simeoni or the complete, unabridged Shulhan Aruch. Mr Kahn looked up the passages for me in the Hebrew and translated them with the same good humour and mild amusement as Rabbi Cohen. His verdict on the church burning passage is as follows.]
The nearest approximation to this is, “A Jew who is sentenced to death is permitted to take refuge in a house of idol worship in order to save himself.”
Mr Kahn also pointed out that the Schulhan Aruch, was written in a Moslem country; the usual understanding of the word “church” is that it refers specifically to the Christian religion.
“Those who do a good deed to Christians will never rise from the dead” Zohar I, 25b
[This should have been rendered “Those who do good to Christians will never rise from the dead”.]
Rabbi Cohen: Again, I’ve never come across anything like that. The Zohar is the major work of the mystics of our faith. I would have thought it was highly unlikely that there was anything like that in the Zohar, and I would have thought it was even more unlikely that anyone contributing to this sort of publication would have been qualified enough to quote from the Zohar. The Zohar is an area which many Jewish Talmudic scholars would feel unqualified to venture into, so for some lay person to suddenly come up with a quote like that is a little bit presumptuous. (29)
Note: In Jews College Library I turned to the Sperling and Simon Edition of the Zohar, published by Soncino Press (1949), where I found a lot of talk about the extermination of Amalek and the end of the world, but nothing remotely resembling the above.
A Baron: “God has given the Jews power the possessions and blood of all nations.” Seph. Jp. 92, 1
Rabbi Cohen: Not only have I not come across this but looking at what is purported to be the source, I would say that this an abridged way of saying Septagint. The Septagint is a translation of the Bible into Greek; it’s used as an historical text in the same way as the Vulgate and the Cyriac translations of the Bible are used as textual references.
A Baron: “All Israelites will have a part in the future world...The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to Hell.” Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah and Lekh-Lekha
Rabbi Cohen: That’s not part of our ideology; our ideology is that when the Messiah comes, the world will be judged and the good of the nations of the world will also live in that world to come in the Messianic era.
A Baron: A bit like the sheep and the goats?
Rabbi Cohen: Yes, essentially. The sinners will be wiped out, and the good and the righteous will live.
A Baron: Do Shemoth, Toldoth Noah and Lekh-Lekha exist?
[Mis-spelt Lekhekha in the first edition.]
Rabbi Cohen: Zohar, as I mentioned is the major work of Jewish mysticism. The other names that you mentioned are the names of the weekly readings telling you which part of the Zohar these references supposedly come under.
A Baron: “All non-Jewesses are whores” Eben Haezar
Rabbi Cohen: Again, I’ve never come across anything to that effect. The only thing I can think of that is remotely like that which may have been twisted and taken out of context is that there are certain rules about conduct as to how careful we have to be as to avoid any kind of situation arising which might end in any sort of illicit relationship. A Jewish Orthodox man would not be permitted to be in a closed room with a woman. That applies whether she is Jewish or not, but the rules as applied to non-Jewish women are a little bit stricter than with Jewish women. Presumably this is because, historically or, for whatever reason, certainly the Orthodox Jewish women, would be less likely to surrender to temptation, whereas if you’re dealing with a non-Jewish woman, you don’t know what her moral values are and so on. That’s the nearest I can think of to where this may have come from.
A Baron: “All things pertaining to the Goyim are like a desert; the first person to come along and take them can claim them for his own.” Babha Bathra, 54b
Alternatively, “Regarding any Gentile claims to property rights, their possessions are ’like unclaimed land in the desert’.” Baba Bathra, 54b
Rabbi Cohen: Again this sounds to me to be like a misquote. There are laws covering if say you find an item of property in the street, how far you are supposed to go to try to return it to its rightful owner.
Note: This is indeed a misquote; the actual text reads, “The property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land; whoever first occupies it acquires ownership. The reason is that as soon as the heathen receives the money, he ceases to be the owner, whereas the Jew does not become the owner till he obtains the deed of sale. Hence [in the interval] the land is like desert land and the first occupier becomes the owner.” [Emphasis added.]
In other words, this is a Talmudic code covering the buying and selling of land between a Jew and a Gentile.
A: Baron: “Jesus fornicated with his jackass.” Sanhedrin 105a-b
Rabbi Cohen: There is something to that effect to do with Balaam, but there is nothing like that to do with Jesus.
A Baron: Balaam was a false prophet?
Rabbi Cohen: That’s right.
Note: There is a reference here, (Sanhedrin 105a) to bestiality “The son of Beor [denotes] that he committed bestiality.” but this is a reference to the Old Testament so clearly does not refer to Jesus. (30)
And
105a-105b “He committed bestiality with his ass.” Again, this refers to the Old Testament so clearly does not refer to Jesus.
Note: The UJE states that Toledoth Yeshu which was written in Mediaeval times is definitely hostile but is the work of a single Jew which has never had any currency among the great mass of Jews, and that, “...the Talmudic statements about him are not about the real Jesus, but about an imagined originator of a hateful persecution.” (31)
A Baron: “Jews are human beings; the other peoples of the world are not human beings but beasts.” Baba Mezia
Rabbi Cohen: Again, you’ll find this is a misquote.
Note: Baba Mezia is over 700 pages in length, so this is a deliberately vague reference. However, the UJE had the measure of this fabrication as long ago as 1943. I looked it up and what it actually says is: “R. Simeon b. Yohai said: The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men; 6 only ye are designated ‘men’. 7”
The note (7) says “Only, of course, from the point of view of ritual defilement.”
A Baron: “It is always a meritorious deed to get hold of a Gentile’s possessions.” Schulchan Aruch
Rabbi Cohen: That’s one precept I don’t seem to have been very diligent about following. No, that’s rubbish.
A Baron: Is it a quote taken out of context, perhaps?
Rabbi Cohen: Before I could answer that, I’d have to look it up, but it’s one of the two, certainly.
Note: The reference is too vague for one to look up, even if one reads Hebrew. Which is entirely the point!
A Baron: “God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations.” Seph. Jp. 92, 1
Rabbi Cohen: I’ve never seen anything like that, either.
A Baron: “A Jew may lie and perjure to condemn a Christian. The name of God is not profaned when lying to Christians.” Baba Kama, 113a, 113b
Rabbi Cohen: That seems to contradict quite a few of our laws.
A Baron: There is, I believe, something which says when you make a vow you must not just utter it with your lips.
Rabbi Cohen: What that means is that if someone is forced under duress, either to make a statement in court or a legal declaration of that nature, if it can be shown that it was under duress, then it’s not legally binding, and the person would not be considered to be in breech of a vow for not keeping that declaration.
A Baron: That seems common sense, really. The point about a vow is that if there is any coercion at all, even emotional blackmail, then it is meaningless.
Note: The actual passage referred to does exist, Baba Kamma [correct spelling]:
There is no reference to Christians – what the passage actually says is “...if a son of Israel knows some evidence for the benefit of a heathen, and without being called upon [by him] goes into a heathen court of law and bears testimony against a fellow Israelite he deserves to have a shamta pronounced against him, the reason being that heathens adjudicate the payment of money [even] on the evidence of one witness.”
According to Scripture, at least two witnesses were required. A shamta is an oral anathema.
In this context there is another quote:
“She [the mother of a Goy] said to him, ‘Swear to me.’ And Rabbi Akiba swore with his lips, but in his heart he invalidated his oath.” Halla 1b
Presumably the Halla referred to here means Hallah. A hallah is a portion of dough used in baking, the part which is separated and dedicated to God. Tractate Hallah deals with this; there is no reference to breaking oaths. However, although this quote is undoubtedly fabricated, it is true in spirit. (See above). The Talmudic code the Rabbi referred to is found in Yore Deah.
A Baron: “The seed [child] of a Christian is of no more value than that of a beast.” Kethuboth 3b
Also attributed thus:
“The seed of a Christian is of no more value than that of a beast.” Kethuboth 37b
Rabbi Cohen: I’ve never come across anything like that.
This quote is indeed a pure fabrication; it is not found in either of the given sections of Kethuboth.
A Baron: “A Jew is permitted to rape, cheat and perjure himself; but he must take care he is not found out, so that Israel may not suffer.” Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah
Rabbi Cohen: That’s a profanation of the holy author of the Shulhan Aruch to suggest that he would have written anything like that.
A Baron: “A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewess.” Gad. Shas. 2, 2
Rabbi Cohen: I can only begin to guess at what this may have been taken out of context from. A Jew may not marry a non-Jewess, yes, but nowhere would it say that a Jew is permitted to violate a non-Jewess. In fact, it is actually explicitly forbidden to have [sexual] relations with a non-Jewess in or out of marriage. It is also explicitly forbidden to violate any woman, Jewess or non-Jewess – I don’t see how you could put those two things together and come up something like this.
Note: The Talmud is also referred to as Shas (shishah sedarim = six orders), (32) though presumably the reference in the above means Gad Shab, ie Gad Shabboth. Gad means “fortune”; it refers also to a Biblical tribe. There is no Gad, Shab 2, 2, so perhaps this refers to “a or 2b”. I checked both. In this passage there is the usual inane Talmudic discussion about the proper way to carry out the most trivial of things, in this case it is transporting objects from the public to the private domain, but there is no reference here to the violating of shikses or of any women.
To Case For The Defence (3)
To Notes And References
Back To Case For The Defence (1)
Back To A Note On Slight Inconsistencies
Back To Case For The Prosecution
Back To A Note On Sources
Back To To The Reader
Back To Preface
Back To Foreword
Back To Frontispiece
Back To Author Credits
Back To Front Cover
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index