A Baron: While we’re talking about sex, is it true about the hole in the sheet? (33)
Rabbi Cohen: No. That is a classic perversion of something taken out of context. All it says is that a certain saintly sage who is mentioned in the Talmud who was so above anything in this world, so completely spiritual, that when he did have relations with his wife, he wanted to do it only for the loftiest of reasons. It was said of him that that was the kind of thing he would do. But that is a very, exceptional, one-off incident if you want. There is no one that I know of, no matter how Orthodox he may be, who has relations in that way.
A Baron: What about the so-called doctrine of anti-Goyism: all goyim always eat pork, all goyim are always drunk etc?
Rabbi Cohen: That sounds to me like a total fabrication, it’s just totally senseless. No respectable Jew, certainly no Talmudic scholar, could come out with anything as stupid as that. I’ve never heard of it or seen it, either verbally or in writing.
A Baron: “Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being boiled in hot semen. Christians are boiled in s--t.” Gittin 57a
Rabbi Cohen: The last phrase of that I haven’t come across anywhere, but the first phrase is taken out of context from Balaam. Balaam caused the Israelites to sin with the daughters of Midian (34), and for that reason his punishment in Hell bears some relation to the kind of sin he caused others to do.
A: Baron: The contents of this first bit of filth, there is such a passage in Gittin?
Rabbi Cohen: That’s right, in relation to Onkelos [a Roman pagan] who wanted to [and did] convert to Judaism, and he conjured up these ghosts: Titus, Jesus and Balaam to consult them. There’s a bit about Balaam being punished in the Underworld by being boiled in hot semen. Titus had actually desecrated the temple in the Holy of Holies and had relations with a whore on a scroll of the Torah in the Holy of Holies, just to sort of really rub it in as it were. According to our tradition, when Titus was coming to his end and he knew he was going to be punished, he left instructions in his will that he should be cremated and that his body and the ashes should be scattered in different seas. He thought in that way that God would never be able to punish him because he’d never be able to get all the bits together again in order to conjure up his soul to punish him.
There’s nothing in that passage which is derogatory of Jesus. Having been in the position that he tried to cause people to deviate from the traditions of the sages of Israel, he was consulted by Onkelos, and he said, (words to the effect) that anyone who tries to cause them harm is really, in effect, harming the pupil of his own eye, in other words, himself. His words were, if not complimentary, then the most positive of all those consulted. The Talmud actually says in his praise that even though he went against the sages he was far more positive than the others were.
Note: This section actually refers to the Old Testament, but there is a curious footnote...(4) [MS.M. Jesus]...However, the text does not actually say that Jesus is in hell, nor that he is being boiled. The actual quote is:
He then asked: What is your punishment? He replied: With boiling hot semen. He then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel.
“A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated.” Aboda Shara, 37a
Rabbi: That is a total misquote.
Note: This “quote” manufactured from Abodah Zarah 37a, is actually part of a long discussion about how old children can be before they can cause defilement by seminal emission (in the case of boys).
And
“...a heathen girl [communicates defilement] from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act, she likewise defiles by a flux.”
“Inasmuch as a non-Jewish child at three years and a day is suitable for copultion, [sic] her raper is only unclean until the evening, when he is clean again after taking a dip in the water.” Choschen Ha’mischpat
Rabbi Cohen: Again, I’ve never come across anything like that. I’m only speculating here, but if there were something like this, it would actually read, “If a person did commit rape and has since repented for his crime, how far would he have to go to purge himself of the defilement?” If it did say anything at all, then it would be along those lines.
A Baron: This is supposedly taken from Yore Deah; how big is Yore Deah?
Rabbi Cohen: Shulhan Aruch is divided into four parts, one of which is Yore Deah. In most editions, each of those parts could have two or three volumes. It’s a supplement to the Talmud; it attempts to try to get to the law as directly as possible.
A Baron: “If a Jew has raped a non-Jewish girl and another who saw it is called as a witness, that Jew must, without compunction, swear falsely.” Jore Deah
Rabbi Cohen: That’s ridiculous, that is a total fabrication, not just something which is taken out of context.
Note: Mr Kahn also pointed out that under the Torah, sex is prohibited with a non-Jewess at all times, and outside of marriage at all times.
A Baron: “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” Sanhedrin 69a
Note: As stated, this “quote” manufactured from Abodah Zarah 37a, is actually part of a long discussion about how old boys can be before they can cause defilement by seminal emission.
A Baron: “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than three years old it is as if one puts the finger into the eye – tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years. When a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as ‘a girl who is injured by a piece of wood’.” Kethuboth 11b
Rabbi Cohen: This quote does exist but it is taken grossly out of context. If for example a girl has been raped, there are certain situations in which you have to know if she is a virgin or not because there are technical differences in the way the marriage contract is written. If anything like that were to happen below a certain age, because the hymen would grow back again, she would not have to be classified as not being a virgin.
Note: This quote is indeed genuine, although the wording is slightly but not significantly different. [The reference to virginity returning appears in a footnote]. Grimstad and “Edward First” infer that this is an unnatural reference to the sexual act, ie latent paedophilia. In reality it is no such thing. Kethuboth means “marriage settlements” (35), so one would expect all aspects of marriage, sex and carnal relations to be discussed here with the usual Talmudic thoroughness. There is even a reference to a girl being “injured” with a piece of wood, but there is no suggestion in the actual text that the Talmud condones or approves of paedophilia.
A Baron: “When one finds that evil appetites are taking hold of his senses, let him repair to some place where he is unknown, let him dress himself in black and follow the impulses of his heart.” Mo’ed Katan 17a
“Edward First” comments that this is “...the most sinister quote of the lot – an injunction to do evil that Jack the Ripper might have found inspirational”! (36)
Rabbi Cohen: Yes, this quote does in fact exist but it’s taken out of context. Actually the Talmud is very, very strict about morality, sexual morality and this sort of thing. All it is saying is that we know people are human, and after all you’ve read, it may be that there comes a time in your life that you cannot control yourself and you need to visit a prostitute. If that does happen – we’re not going to pretend it never happens, like some people would – but if it does happen, and you know you cannot stop yourself, rather than make a big scandal out of it, it’s better to do it discreetly and not make a big public issue out of it.
Note: Perhaps Sir Allan Green should have read this!
A Baron: Still on the subject of sex, what does the Talmud say about homosexuality?
Rabbi Cohen: There is a concept of kreitut. It’s difficult to describe exactly what it means, but loosely it means that someone who is liable to kreitut will, after he dies, be cut off and his soul won’t go to Heaven unless he under certain circumstances he really does repent. Now, there is a Talmudic list of people who will suffer kreitut, and one of them is someone who has homosexual relationships, so you can see it’s quite a serious offence. (37)
A Baron: “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.” Sanhedrin 57a.
Rabbi Cohen: That is something which exists but again is quoted out of context. In fact, it’s not as simple as it looks, there is a concept of an Israelite slave and a non-Israelite slave, and if a person injures the limb of a non-Israelite slave, he could have incurred the death penalty for that. If the suggestion of this quote is that you can go around killing non-Jews and no one’s going to bat an eyelid, that is complete nonsense. It’s in a particular context there and it’s talking about the technical aspects about what sort of punishment Is incurred for the crime of murder. It would be a different sort of punishment if the victim was Jewish or not.
There are occasions when the punishment is stricter for a non-Jew than for a Jew: when, for example, someone injures the limb of an Israelite slave, he only has to pay compensation, so you can see it’s not as simple as might appear from the quote in Sanhedrin.
[It should be noted that though the Rabbi is speaking here in the present tense, the reference to slavery indicates that this law is (to put it mildly) somewhat archaic. The fact that slavery was rampant when this particular tract of the Talmud was written and that this evil institution has by now been long since abolished throughout the world (theoretically at any rate), suggests also that a straightforward interpretation of Talmudic – or indeed any – scripture is by no means reliable. No one should fall into the trap of judging an ancient civilisation by today’s "enlightened" moral standards. (38)]
Note: “Has it not been taught: ‘With respect to robbery – if one stole or robbed...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 may be retained’?”
“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’?”
However, in the footnotes, the following appears: “...though it is forbidden to rob the heathen...the offence was non-actionable...But actually it is punishable too. [This is merely a survival of old Semitic tribal law that regarded theft and robbery as a crime against the state, and consequently punishable by death.” Sanhedrin 57a
Note: A further note, according to The Essential Talmud (39), (page 172), “The Torah imposed a special sentence on the rotzeah bi-shegagah (accidental murderer)”.
“Accidental murder” is of course a semantic fallacy; murder is by definition committed with intent. (40) Accidental “murder”, ie manslaughter, is a crime which incurs various sanctions in our own culture according to the circumstances, eg by drunken drivers, brawling workmen, gross negligence etc.
A Baron: “Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal.” Sanhedrin 59a. (deleted in the Soncino English version).
Rabbi Cohen: I’ve not come across that; I don’t know whether it exists or not.
A Baron: “Tradition tells us that the best of the Goyim deserves death.” Vaikra Rabba 14b
Rabbi Cohen pointed out that this referred to Leviticus. Subsequently, a search of the relevant section of the Midrash Rabbah Leviticus, Edited by Dr H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, published by Soncino Press, (1939), revealed no section 14b and nothing remotely like this spurious quote in section 14.
A Baron: “A Goy who pries into the Talmud is condemned to death, for it is written, it is our inheritance, not theirs.” Sanhedrin 59a.
Rabbi Cohen: There is such a quote but it has been torn out of context.
It doesn’t mean that we would kill a non-Jew who studies the Talmud. It’s a figurative expression which means that it is a moral crime for a non-Jew to intentionally and substantially indulge in the study of the Torah if he is not intending to convert because it’s as if he’s trying to take something of our people for himself while he’s still part of his own people. It doesn’t mean literally that he’s going to be killed by anyone; that is totally ridiculous.
Note: The quote actually says, “R. Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance; 2 it is our inheritance, not theirs. 3”
Further on it says, 6 “...hence thou mayest learn that even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest!”
The comment to note (3) says: “This seems a very strong expression. In the J.E. (loc. cit.) it is suggested that R. Johanan feared the knowledge of Gentiles in matters of Jurisprudence...it may be observed that the Talmud places R. Johanan’s dictum (which, of course, is not to be taken literally) immediately after the passage dealing with the setting up of law courts by Gentiles.”
Again, this is yet another example of the seemingly interminable Talmudic discourses.
A Baron: “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.” Libbre David 37
Note: This quote is actually a pure fabrication; the term Libbre David is a mistranslation from a Talmudic forgery which has been going the rounds for over three hundred years. (41)
A Baron: “Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal, but found no satisfaction until he [obscenity] Eve.”Yebhamoth 73a
Presumably the reference here Yebhamoth 73a is to Yebamoth 73a. Presumably, the deleted word is “fucked”.
Rabbi Cohen: That’s a very interesting perversion or a misquote of it. What you have to appreciate is that before the process of creation, when the Almighty was trying to determine how man would perpetuate himself, the process of the Creation was still incomplete so it would not have been considered immoral at that point if – for argument’s sake – Adam had taken a gorilla for a mate. But it was because Adam was given the option of choosing his mate from any of the animals of the world, and didn’t feel happy with any of them, that the Almighty then created a new being, namely Eve, who was to be his mate.
It’s interesting that Adam found no metabolic balance with any of the other animals of the world (42), so that the Almighty had to make Eve from Adam’s body. That was what was missing in the other animals. The whole concept of the man and his wife being one and everything like this, is so complete because it comes from Adam in the first place.
Note: In other words, what the Talmud-baiters represent as an obscenity is nothing more than a Creationist fairy tale. However, there is no mention of this particular fairy tale in Yebamoth 73a.
A Baron: Baby girls bring dire punishment on those who have intercourse with them when they are menstruating. (Sanhedrin 55b, 69a)
Rabbi Cohen: I would have thought that baby girls bring dire punishment on [those who have intercourse with] them whether they’re menstruating or not.
Note: This is a total fabrication; there is nothing remotely resembling it in the given passages in Sanhedrin, nor, undoubtedly, in any other passage of the Talmud.
A Baron: Sexual intercourse is permitted with a dead relative regardless of whether he or she was single or married. (Yebhamoth 55b)
Note: Again, Yebhamoth must refer to Yebamoth, but is it even remotely likely that the highly moral Talmud – which condemns people to death for practising sodomy remember – would endorse necrophilia?
This section of Yebamoth does in fact mention sexual intercourse with a dead relative, but again, this is yet another perversion. What it actually says is, what constitutes intercourse? Ie if one cohabits with a “forbidden” relative with relaxed membrum, is he exonerated? In other words, as usual, the Talmud leaves absolutely nothing to chance. The offending passage actually reads:
“The exclusion [for this act] is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman. 15”
And note (15) reads “Even though she died as a married woman.”
The fact that there are so many totally fabricated quotes means that both “Edward First” (who is, presumably, one of Mr Hancock’s slimy friends), and William Grimstad, are guilty either of blatant anti-Semitic fabrication or of sloppy research. I am prepared to be charitable and opt for the latter. In this age of information overload it is impossible to keep track of everything or even to research it from primary sources.
However, it should be noted that while Four Small Candles has no pretence to being anything but blatant anti-Semitism, (43) Grimstad’s book has some pretence to academia. He reproduces several pages of photocopied extracts from the Talmud without doctoring them, including the genuinely anti-Gentile quote: “Tob shebe-goyyim harog”, [already explained.]
Like all “researchers” who set out to prove a point rather than to investigate impartially, Grimstad finds only what he seeks.
A Baron: “The name of G-d is not profaned when, for example, a Jew lies to a Goy by saying: ‘I gave something to your father, but he is dead; you must return it to me,’ as long as the Goy does not know that you are lying.” Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b
Rabbi Cohen: I’ve never come across this; the only thing I can think of is that it may refer to [ie be a perversion of] what I said earlier, that if a person is forced to make a declaration under duress, if part of that duress were to swear on God’s name, then that oath would not be binding.
A Baron: “Jews may befool and cheat the non-Jews.” Yore Deah 157:2
Rabbi Cohen: No, I’m sure it doesn’t say that.
Note: What this passage in Yore Deah 157:2 and 157:3 actually says is, “It is forbidden for a Jew to say he is an idol worshipper in order that he should not be killed, but it is permitted for a Jew to change his clothing in order that he not be recognised in times of persecution since it does not say that he is not a Jew.” [Translation by Ezra Kahn.]
This sounds like very prudent advice, although personally I’d rather admit to being an idol worshipper than be murdered.
A Baron: “If you send a messenger to collect money from an Akum [Gentile] and the Akum pays too much, the messenger may keep the difference. But if the messenger does not know about it, then you may keep it all yourself”. Choshen Ha’mishpat 183:1 and 266:1
Rabbi Cohen: I’ve never come across anything like this; I can only speculate that if say you had a dispatch rider bring you something by mistake from China, obviously you wouldn’t be able to send it back to that person, you might not know who sent it, and if you did, the expense might be several times the amount he mistakenly paid you. It may possibly be taken from that sort of context.
Note: What these passages really say is: “If somebody sends a messenger to buy a certain type of goods for him and the messenger doesn’t buy the goods ordered, he cannot make a monetary claim against him but can only complain. Whereas, if the messenger buys goods with the money which he keeps for himself, then that person has the right to remove the goods the messenger bought against the messenger’s will.”
And
“The lost property of an idol worshipper is permitted to be kept by the finder since the Bible mentions the ’lost property of your brother’. He who returns the lost article commits an offence since he strengthens the hand of the idol worshipper, but if he returned the article in order to sanctify the name of God so that the non-Jews would praise Israel, that they are men of good faith, this is praiseworthy. In an instance where this would cause the profanation of God’s name, it is forbidden for him to keep the article, he must return it. In all instances one has to safeguard his (the idol worshipper’s) utensils as if they were our own and to preserve the peace.” [Translation by Ezra Kahn.]
This should be sufficient explanation. (44)
The UJE spells Choschen Ha’mischpat thus: Hoshen Mishpat.
A Baron: “It is sometimes permissible to kill a non-Jew.” Makkoth 7b
Note: Tractate Makkoth deals with punishments; the word actually means “corporal punishment” and is the fifth tractate of Nezikin. (45)
As usual, the passage concerned deals with its subject matter with characteristic Talmudic thoroughness. Thus it is necessary to determine that if somebody is raising a bucket, and the bucket falls and kills somebody else, does the person responsible go into banishment? Or, while chopping a log, “IF THE IRON SLIPPED FROM ITS HELVE...AND KILLED [SOMEBODY]” what must be done? If a butcher whilst chopping meat killed somebody, what happens then? (There are four versions of this!) What if a person is going up a ladder and he falls and kills somebody underneath when a rung gives way under him? Would this be considered death by an upward or downward movement? What if the rung which broke and caused him to fall was worm-eaten? And so on, etcetera and und so weiter.
The actual quote has been fabricated out of a discussion about manslaughter and accidental death.
“...I consider anyone pleading that he thought it permissible [to kill] closely akin to a wilful [murderer].
‘Whoso killeth...unawares...[the Talmud’s ellipses] precludes anyone that killed wtih [sic] intent’”
And
“I would suggest that it is to meet such cases as when he intended to kill an animal, but killed a man; 2 to kill a heathen, 3 but killed an Israelite; to kill a premature-born, 4 but killed a fully-developed infant.”
Note (2) in the above says “I.e., he misdirected his blow.” Note (3) says “[The death of a heathen is as little condoned as that of a premature-born child, but is not subject to the relevant Scriptural law of refuge...”
A Baron: As a Jew, what do you think of people who produce this sort of stuff?
Rabbi Cohen: To be quite honest, I don’t really get all that bothered by it because you do get sick people in the world, you do get people who have got nothing better to do than to go around engaging in this sort of trouble-making. When it gets to be quite serious, one has to do something about it. When it reaches the point where people are actually actively taking violent steps against other human beings. But I just feel sorry for these people basically.
Note: This is a very charitable thing to say. It is notable that the people who make the most noise about anti-Semitism, real (like this filth), and imagined (like any criticism of the State of Israel), are Zionist Jews. It was the well-organised and extremely militant (Zionist) Anglo-Jewish Establishment, which initiated the prosecution of Lady Birdwood. It has been Zionist Jewry in Britain (and elsewhere) which has campaigned loudest and longest for “anti-hate legislation” to stifle not only the irrational hatred of Jews by Grimstad and his cronies but all legitimate dissent and criticism. Seldom if ever have the benign, humble, self-effacing Torah Jews called for the suppression of their Gentile neighbours’ civil liberties. This is clearly another case of those who scream loudest suffering the least.
A Baron: Earlier you told me that Orthodox Jews live under six hundred and thirteen Biblical commandments. You’ve got laws and rituals covering everything. Considering the size of the Talmud and other Jewish religious writings, and that this process of interpretation is still on-going, is it at all surprising that there should be so much in it about sex, sexual codes and the like?
Rabbi Cohen: Not at all, if you’ve got laws regulating every single aspect of life, you’re bound to get things that cover areas of sexual relationships and behaviour as well. What your comment brings to mind is that I find it quite fascinating that if you’ve got illiterate hot-heads who are trying to find things and passages from within the vast depths of the Talmud that they can misquote, that they’ve come up with so little.
A Baron: Don’t say that, you’ll put ideas into their heads.
The Talmud has been burned at various times by those good people who gave us the Crucifixion, witchcraft hysteria and the like. Does the fact that the Talmud was burned vindicate the belief that it is an unholy book?
Rabbi Cohen: Anyone who makes reference to the fact that the Talmud was publicly burned is doing a greater injustice to Christians than to anyone else. The reason the Talmud was burned, essentially, was because there were certain clergy who felt threatened by the existence of the Talmud because they weren’t knowledgeable enough to be particularly well versed in it. There were public disputations in the Middle Ages, during which the Jewish representative invariably won and proved that the Talmud was not anti-Gentile and so on, invariably, and despite the unfair way the disputation was arranged.
The Talmud was often burned anyway, but it was burned by superstitious people who burned human beings as witches as well, and I would have thought that something that is such a disgrace upon the Christian faith, the Christian clergy and the Christian people, would be best, in their own interest, buried and forgotten about.
Note: Grimstad lists 11 dates from the 13th to the 16th Centuries on which the Talmud was burned under official auspices. In 1520, Pope Leo X gave permission to print the Talmud; this was done by the Christian printer Daniel Bomberg. (46) Popes have also issued bulls against the “Blood Libel” at various times; the allegation that the Jews kidnapped and murdered Christian children and used their blood in magical rituals.
A Baron: Finally, are there any blank pages in the Talmud which, when he comes to them, the Jewish father pauses at and instructs his children in the ritual murder of Christians?
Rabbi Cohen: I think that’s one of the funnier little tales that some people have obviously been telling.
To Further Points Of Controversy
To Notes And References
Back To Case For The Defence (2)
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