Skip to content

Let’s take a hard look at the TALMUD. And then ask why Rejoice Radio[RBN] and VCY AMERICA BROADCAST NETWORK have betrayed the cause of CHRIST.

February 2, 2013

My Fellow Christians : The VCY AMERICA Network and the curiously strange and counterfeit Christian enterprise known as REJOICE RADIO[RBN] both feel the need to promote the cause of Judaism worldwide. This usually takes the form of overt and often subtle references to the adherents of the Jewish Faith as being great and noble people. This is heard very often from one of America’s craven and deceiving religion hucksters who has the temerity to engage in” on the air BIBLE STUDY.” called REJOICE IN THE LORD. Add to this the daily insanity from the judases running things at VCY AMERICA and heard on the crosstalk radio program,from out of Milwaukee.
These two gangs make a serious point of promoting the bloody agenda of those who daily murder and rob the innocent Palestinian people of their homes, their culture and their identity as a people. And gleefully murder the helpless inhabitants of ancient lands ,including infants, the elderly and pregnant mothers.
For this reason,I’m presenting you with something to read that may shed some light on the nature of the enemy we are currently facing in this nation. And in order to counter the endless stream of lies ,presented to you on two of this country’s most deceptive and fraudulent religion operations : REJOICE RADIO and their affiliates :THE VCY AMERICA NETWORK.
read carefully.!

“The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races…and by the establishment of a world republic in which everywhere the Jews will exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the Children of Israel…will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition…”

– Karl Marx in a letter to Baruch Levy, Reprinted in the Review de Paris, June 1, 1928, p. 574

from an unknown source …:” Fart next to a jew and he’ll take you to court for wanting him gassed. Drop a cigarette on his foot and he’ll accuse you of wanting to cremate him. ….”

There are many critiques of Judaism and the Talmud on the internet, as well as in the published literature, that heavily rest on an inaccurate use of quotes without their context and the necessary examples of Judaic law to back up the intended meaning of the presentation. This kind of ill-conceived and counter-productive methodology only adds more leverage to those presenting anti-Semitic critique as wholly irrational and bigoted.

Therefore, it is within this article that I aim to provide a critical look at Judaism and the Talmud not only through its values of differentiation between jews and non-jews, but also to add examples of jewish law together with some commentary, on certain parts, by one of the more authoritative and widely accepted authors on Judaism: Rabbi Jacob Neusner[1].

Basic jewish law (Halakha, as given by the Mishnah) divides the world in two: Israel and non-Israel, and in general the jewish law given only deals with gentiles (non-jews) when issuing controls and rules on how an Israelite and Israel itself should interact with them. Let us begin by looking at a passage that defines the value of this difference:

‘All Israelites have a share in the world to come, as it is said, ‘Your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever: the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified (Isa: 60:21).’[2] Before we look at Neusner’s commentary on the above passage, I would like to quote another comment by him:

‘For while the Israelite is defined as the portion of humanity that rises from the grave to eternal life, the gentile is defined solely in practical terms of how the Israelite intersects with the gentile on specified occasions or in particular transactions… But to the comparable issue – What is justice for the portion of humanity excluded from life eternal and left to rot in the grave? – the law speaks only implicitly… Then of what does justice consist? How shall we explain the distinction within the genus, humanity, into two species, Israelites and gentiles?

In addition, a practical issue of justice in Israelite-pagan relationships flows from the distinction between life and death, Israel and the nations, and should not be missed. How shall we find justice in the present status of Israel, subordinated as it is to the gentiles? For if God rules as a sovereign over all humanity, and if the two species of humanity compete, where is the justice in the fact that one species, the gentiles, presently dominates the other, Israel? It follows that to make sense of and to justify world order the subordinated status of both species, the gentiles in the age to come and, Israel in the present age, has to be explained and the same explanation must govern both…

But when it comes to the law of the Mishnah, ”Israel” is defined with the reference to the end of days; Israel is composed of all those who will emerge victorious over death.

It is apparent from these quotes that one of the fundamental differences in Judaism between Israel and the rest of mankind can be defined as life and death, with the jews inheriting the world and being divinely blessed to be God’s elect to return to Eden, while the nations, or the non-jews, will become subordinated to God, through the actions of the jews.

Here is the commentary, by Neusner, on the initial quote from the Mishnah:

‘I maintain that this passage provides a juridical, practical definition of ”Israel” on which courts will act in practical ways. So one may fairly ask, exactly how does this statement that all Israel has ‘a portion in the world to come’ serve to define Israel? We may in response manipulate the opening declaration, reversing (1) the subject of ”all israelites” and (2) the predicate, ”have a portion in the world to come” as follows: (2) ”all who have a share in the world to come” are (1) ”Israelites”. And -simple logic requires- all who do not have a portion in the world to come logically cannot fall into the category ”Israelites” as framed in that sentence.’[4] Now, we have not only a working and accepted definition of what it fundamentally means, in Judaism, to belong to Israel and to not belong to Israel. We also have a rather stark impression of Judaism being centred on and expressed for its genealogically defined people with little interest in an equal setting for other people but rather, as we shall see, one of inequality with jews as the governing elite.

Let us take another passage from the Mishnah, relating to the above, in its definition of gentiles:

‘do not leave cattle in gentile’s inns, because they are suspected in regard to bestiality.
And a woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspected in regard to fornication.
And a man should not be alone with them, because they are suspected in regard to bloodshed.’[5] Neusner’s commentary on this passage clarifies the following:

‘The basic theory of gentiles, all of them assumed to be idolaters, is, first, gentiles always and everywhere and under any circumstance are going to perform an act of worship for one or another of their gods. Second, gentiles are represented as thoroughly depraved (not being regenerated by the Torah), so they will murder, fornicate, or steal at any chance they get; they routinely commit bestiality, incest, and various other forbidden acts of sexual congress. Here is how the Mishnah law expresses these premises: do not leave cattle in gentile’s inns, because they are suspected in regard to bestiality. And a woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspected in regard to fornication. And a man should not be alone with them, because they are suspected in regard to bloodshed.’[6] To further show that this is not a controversial view within Judaism but rather a commonly applied one , I will quote from another contemporary book on Judaism, aptly named ‘On Judaism’, by the highly regarded Rabbi Emanuel Feldman:

‘I do believe that if, theoretically, there had never been any Judaism in the world, we would today rarely encounter this phenomena [righteous gentiles] of people who call themselves unbelievers and yet lead relatively decent and moral lives. On the contrary, we would all be devouring each other.'[7]

‘These are legitimate descriptions of the Jewish condition. God explicitly tells us in Leviticus 20:26, va’avdil etchem; “I have separated you from among the peoples to be Mine…” Yes, it is part of God’s overall plan for mankind that the Jewish people should remain separate. The fact is that to be a holy people in a world that disdains holiness means to be a separate people.

It’s interesting that the world seem to recognize this Jewish differences intuitively. Even the assimilating Jew – who does not wear distinctively Jewish dress and does not practice anything distinctively Jewish, who is a citizen of the world and faithfully lives be the ways of society around him – even he is nevertheless pointed to as a Jew, as someone different from “the rest of us”. This makes the assimilator very unhappy, but it probably makes God very happy, because jewish otherness is all part of His plan.’[8] One of the weaker aspects of much ‘anti-Semitic’ critique of Judaism and jews is found in the methodology used. Those who offer such critique usually either give quotes without their context and without adding the legislative and/or historical background in order to make a well-defended case. That or they use a segment of quotes and instances lodged in between their own lengthy theories and interpretations of what the given matters mean. So, it is with that intention in mind that I seek to add as little of my own theories to these matters at this point. The passages and the given commentary suffice to highlight the values of seemingly unabashed Judaic sentiment and law.

The lengthy passage that follows describes what moral order is working on behalf of the previously mentioned idea of Israel, the jews, equates Life whereas non-Israel, the non-jews, equates death.

I quote:

‘The Holy One, blessed be He, will then say to them: ‘Wherewith have you occupied yourselves?’ They will reply: ‘O Lord of the Universe, we have established many market-places, we have erected many baths, we have accumulated much gold and silver, and all this we did only for the sake of Israel, that they might [have leisure] for occupying themselves with the study of the Torah.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, will say in reply: ‘You foolish ones among people, all that which you have done, you have only done to satisfy your own desires.

You have established marketplaces to place courtesans therein; baths, to revel in them; [as to the distribution of] silver and gold, that is mine, as it is written: Mine is the silver and Mine is the gold, saith the Lord of Hosts; are there any among you who have been declaring this?’ And ‘this’ is nought else than the Torah, as it is said: And this is the Law which Moses set before the children of Israel. They will then depart crushed in spirit. On the departure of the Kingdom of Rome, Persia will step forth. (Why Persia next? — Because they are next in importance. And how do we know this? — Because it is written: And behold another beast, a second like to a bear; and R. Joseph learned that this refers to the Persians, who eat and drink greedily like the bear, are fleshly like the bear, have shaggy hair like the bear, and are restless like the bear.)

The Holy One, blessed be He, will ask of them: ‘Wherewith have ye occupied yourselves?’; and they will reply ‘Sovereign of the Universe, we have built many bridges, we have captured many cities, we have waged many wars, and all this for the sake of Israel, that they might engage in the study of the Torah. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to them: ‘You foolish ones among Peoples, you have built bridges in order to extract toll, you have subdued cities, so as to impose forced labour; as to waging war, I am the Lord of battles, as it is said: The Lord is a man of war; are there any amongst you who have been declaring this?’ and ‘this’ means nought else than the Torah, as it is said: And this is the Law which Moses set before the Children of Israel. They, too’ will then depart crushed in spirit. (But why should the Persians, having seen that the Romans achieved nought, step forward at all? — They will say to themselves: ‘The Romans have destroyed the Temple, whereas we have built it.’) And so will every nation fare in turn.’[9] As the above can appear a bit difficult to derive any sentiment from, let us see how Neusner clarifies it:

‘The claim of Rome -to support Israel in Torah study is rejected on the grounds that the Romans did not exhibit the right attitude, always a dynamic force in the theology.

As native categories, Rome and Persia are singled out ,”all the other nations” play no role. Once more the law’s theology reaches into its deepest thought on the power of intentionality, showing that what people want is what they get.

The basic thesis is identical: the gentiles cannot accept the Torah because to do so they would have to deny their very character… Now the gentiles are not just Rome and Persia. There are others. The claim is, it is natural for the gentiles (not just Rome and Persia) to violate some of the Ten Commandments – specifically, not to murder, not to commit adultery, not to steal yet these are essential to the Torah. So, the reason that the gentiles rejected the Torah is that it prohibits deeds that the gentiles do by their very nature. The subtext here is that Israel ultimately is changed by the Torah, so that Israel exhibits traits nurtured by God and imparted by their encounter within the Torah.’[10] Now, I am not trying to further the idea that gentiles in Judaism are completely unable to gain eternal life by God’s grace. There are two ways for a gentile to be accepted as righteous by Judaism. One is for the gentile to convert, however, as we shall see, they are not regarded as equal with jews even then. The other option is to follow the seven laws of Noah. I’ve clarified these laws before in a previous article:

‘The Seven Laws of Noah acts as a simplified extension of the essential commandments that God seeks all mankind to keep, which has since then been recognized as the only necessary laws a gentile must keep in order to gain share of Olam Haba (the hereafter).’[11] What would be examples of the Noahide gentile not being served the same benefits from Judaic law as the jew?

Well, if for example, a jew murders a jew or someone else: then in jewish law there will are at least two witnesses required in order for capital punishment to be meted out. Whereas if, for example, a noahide jew (a gentile follower of the seven noahide laws) murders a jew only one witness is required. I quote the relevant passage regarding this in the Babylonian Talmud:

‘R. Jacob b. Aha found it written in the scholars’2 Book of Aggada:3 A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not of a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. Whence do we know all this? — Rab Judah answered: The Bible saith, And surely your blood of your lives will I require;4 this shows that even one judge [may try a heathen].5 At the hand of every living thing will I require it: even without an admonition having been given;6 And at the hand of man: even on the testimony of one witness;7 at the hand of man:8 but not at the hand [i.e., on the testimony] of a woman; his brother: teaching that even a relation may testify.’[12]. The reader might observe that the above does not specifically talk, in this context, about noachian laws, however this passage is taken from the context of Sanhedrin 56-60 where it discussed transgression and rendering of noahide laws for the noahide. However, let us quote a more accessible and easier to understand source:

‘The many formalities of procedure essential when the accused is an Israelite need not be observed in the case of the Noachid. The latter may be convicted on the testimony of one witness, even on that of relatives, but not on that of a woman. He need have had no warning (“hatra’ah”) from the witnesses; and a single judge may pass sentence on him (ib. 57a, b; “Yad,” l.c. ix. 14). With regard to idolatry, he can be found guilty only if he worshiped an idol in the regular form in which that particular deity is usually worshiped; while in the case of blasphemy he may be found guilty, even when he has blasphemed with one of the attributes of God’s name—an action which, if committed by an Israelite, would not be regarded as criminal’[13] The jewish law for a similar case is not equal, as is derived from the law given here:

‘At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.’[14] The above is a rather clear distinction between an example of laws: one standard on capital punishment set forth by jews for jews and another standard set forth by jews for the gentile community that it seeks to encompass under ’righteous living’.

Let us look at an example of legal differentiation between the convert and the ‘full’ jew. I will now aim to show that, in Judaism, a jew by birth cannot dilute his blood by marrying a mamzer, but a convert can.

‘Mamzer’ is basically equivalent to a jewish person who is the offspring of a forbidden relationship between jews, such as from adulterous or incestuous relationship, and this derogatory status was and is traditionally inherited in Judaism.

In the Old Testament: it is oft been translated from the Hebrew as ‘bastard’ though the Oral Torah comments that this not exactly what a mamzer is meant to denote. This is traditionally derived from the Written Torah’s take in Deuteronomy 23:2 and Zechariah 9.

The infamous Rabbi Maimonides, or Rambam as he is commonly known, in his authoritative codification of jewish law, the ‘Mishneh Torah’, defines a mamzer as follows:

‘Who is considered a mamzer as designated in the Torah? The offspring by any of the forbidden unions, except by a menstruant, whose child is considered impaired, but not a mamzer. If a man has intercourse with a woman of any of the forbidden unions, whether by force or by consent, whether willfully or by error, the child born of that union is regarded as a mamzer, and both male and female are eternally forbidden to marry into Israel.’[15] Therefore Maimonides rules that anyone who has inherited mamzerism is not allowed to marry a born jew, while a convert to Judaism is permitted to marry some born jews. A mamzer can marry a gentile bondsmaid, gentile slave or a convert to Judaism, but not a born jew.

What evidence exists to this rather unequal treatment of supposedly recognized members of the jewish congregation?

In the Babylonian Talmud it is established that a proselyte may marry a mamzer or he may marry a shetuki (a potential mamzer or a jew whose ancestral lineage is in doubt):

‘A proselyte, a freed slave and a halal are permitted to [marry] a priest’s daughter.’ This supports Rab. For Rab Judah said in Rab’s name: Fit women [sc. daughters of priests] were not admonished against being married to the unfit.(see footnote 11)

R. Zera lectured in Mahuza: A proselyte may marry a mamzereth. Thereupon everyone pelted him with stones. Said Raba: Is there anyone who lectures thus in a place where proselytes abound!’ [16] Footnote 11 says:

‘11) I.E., to those who may not marry into the priesthood. Thus, whereas a priest may not marry the daughter of a halal, freedman or proselyte, the daughter of a priest may marry one of these. This does not refer to the ordinary unfit, such as mamzerim or Nethinim.’[17] Another quote, where the legality is of the decision is cited directly from the Mishnah (one of the basic sources of jewish law of halakha):


Priests, Levites and Israelites may intermarry with each other.

Levites, Israelites, Halalim, Proselytes and freedmen may intermarry.

Proselytes and freedmen, mamzerism and nethinim, shetuki and foundlings, are all permitted may intermarry.'[18] More jewish law prohibiting of marriage/union with mamzer/bastards of jews is found in another tractate in the Babylonian Talmud (on both a and b folios: I have only cited the b folio below for the sake of simplicity):

INELIGIBILITY IS FOR ALL TIME, WHETHER THEY BE MALES OR FEMALES.’[19] We also see this in the online edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia under: ‘Illegitimacy’.

I quote:

‘The real mamzer (“waddai”), who may not intermarry with Israelites; “even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deut. xxiii. 2). He may, however, marry a woman who is of the same status or a proselyte.’[20] I have now demonstrated how Judaism has traditionally established that mamzers are not to be permitted to marry a born jew. Where-as a proselyte/convert can marry some born jews and how gentiles are not, even upon entering into Israel with embrace of the Torah (i.e. converting to Judaism), considered equals to born jews in Judaism.

The inequality of mankind in Judaic thought, with the jewish people being the divinely-favoured elite, is evident in light of what I have demonstrated from the given passages aligned with the authoritative and accepted jewish interpretation of them. However in this article: I would much rather the case of these sentiments of superiority having been spoken by an accepted yet uncontroversial authority on Judaism. So let us end our discussion with a jewish defence and definition of their claim of superiority from such an authority:

‘David: I do not want to repeat what is obviously a cliché, but doesn’t chosenness imply superiority? Do we actually consider ourselves superior to the rest of mankind?

Rabbi Emanuel Feldman: That is another false supposition. Superiority per se is not an evil. Certain athletes are superior to others; certain musicians are superior to others; certain doctors are superior to others…

The fact is that certain nations are superior to others in specific areas of endeavor. Yes, we believe that the Jewish people is chosen for its mission by God because it possesses certain God-given talents; a clear vision and knowledge of God and how He wants mankind to live on His earth, and the ability to connect with God and with the sacred in life… The Jewish people was seen by God as having certain qualities – steadfastness, spiritual resilience, courage, faith, self-discipline – which made us the most suitable agent for bringing the concepts of God and holiness into the world. That is to say our national character.’[21]

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: