hat difference do religious systems make to ethical guidelines? Every religion worthy of the name must give its followers a concrete image of the good life - of virtue, justice and honesty. It must offer a vision of what is considered good in this world; it must explain how human beings can be good and how people can work together to create the best possible life for themselves. These things are naturally linked to a particular conception of God (or gods), but they must nevertheless lead to concrete and precise ethical norms; otherwise followers will remain largely in the dark about how they should live virtuous lives.

Judaism is no exception in this respect. The basis of this religion is of course found in the Jewish Bible, in the pages of the Old Testament (Tanach). Unfortunately, from an ethical point of view, the Old Testament is a complete failure: there are plenty of moral precepts, but they are ambiguous, contradictory, meaningless and arbitrary. Worse still, they lead to a disastrous and repugnant set of attitudes, as I will show, writes David Skrbina.

Let me start with the ethics of the Old Testament. The clearest part of this jumble are the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), but they are either so obvious as to be meaningless ("honour your parents", "do not steal", "do not kill"), or so abstract as to be meaningless ("do not worship other gods", "keep the Sabbath holy", "do not take God's name in vain"). There is actually very little to follow here, and certainly nothing that suggests a divine origin, as one would expect from an omniscient and omnipotent God.

But the situation is even worse. According to Jewish tradition, the Torah alone contains exactly 613 "commandments! (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.) Whenever someone is told to do something or not to do something, a rabbi has turned it into a "commandment". What a mess! And how many commandments are there in the entire Old Testament? There must be thousands.

And then there are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. How, for example, does the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" fit in with the numerous exhortations in which God tells the Jews to slaughter the innocent? Just think of the poor Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, and others whom God commands to "utterly destroy" (Deuteronomy 20:17); or the wretched Midianites, whose destruction by the thousands God demands (Numbers 31); [1] and this is not even mentioning God's call for the Jews to "blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven" (Deuteronomy 25:19) - which is an outright call for genocide. Amalek, in the form of Palestinians, Iranians and Lebanese, is certainly undergoing a fair amount of "erasure" at the moment. For who would dare to deny the word of God?

Why is Moses commanded to "plunder" and destroy the Egyptians' property (Exodus 12:36), when just a few verses later he is commanded "thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15)? Why is it that "the sins of the fathers are the sins of the sons" (Exodus 20:5, 34:7), yet Ezekiel tells us that "the son does not bear the iniquity of the father" (Ez 18:20)? How is it possible that "you shall not oppress a stranger" (Ex 23:9) and yet "you can buy male and female slaves from the nations around you" (Lev 25:44)? Good luck with the settlement.

In fact, much of the confusion is dispelled when we realise that the Old Testament is a Jewish Bible; it was written by Jews, for Jews and about Jews. None of it is intended for non-Jews. The famous Ten Commandments apply only to Jews; theft, "greed", even murder are permitted when it comes to non-Jews. All those beautiful phrases about "brother" or "neighbor" apply only to "Jewish brother" and "Jewish neighbor". If you are a non-Jew and you think a passage in the Old Testament applies to you, you need to think carefully.

In fact, most of the explicit references to gentiles in the Old Testament are negative: slaves? Non-Jews. Slain, robbed, "destroyed"? Non-Jews. Entering into honest agreements ("covenants") with gentiles? (Exodus 34:12). Entering into relations with non-Jews? No (Deuteronomy 7:3). Showing mercy or kindness to non-Jews? No (Psalm 106:34). Taking advantage of gentiles through usury? (Deuteronomy 23:20) In short, Gentiles are fit for slavery, usury, exploitation, theft and murder, but for little else. There's your "holy" bible.

All this fits in with the general Jewish-supremacist view of the Old Testament. The Jews are, of course, God's "chosen"; they were "given" the land and its inhabitants; and God commanded them to rule and reign. In fact, the two dominant themes of the Old Testament, from a non-Jewish perspective, are (1) God-ordained Jewish rule over the earth and (2) Jewish contempt or hatred of non-Jews, or misanthropy. These are in themselves terribly harmful traits, but when they combine to form the defining traits of an entire ethnic group, the result is undoubtedly serious misery.

Through the Old Testament to the Mishnah and on to the Talmud

The Old Testament, as far as we know, was compiled over the centuries by a number of people, all Jewish, and took a form around 350 BC that resembles the current version. Much of the Old Testament consists of history and genealogies, as well as accounts of the various events and adventures of the Jewish people, but the ethical 'commandments' are, as has been pointed out, vague and ambiguous. As a result, the Jewish rabbis began to discuss the true meaning of the Old Testament in the daily lives of the people, especially after their defeats by the Romans in 70 AD, 115 AD and 135 AD. Around 100 rabbis set to work to produce a new document - called the Mishnah - which sought to translate the numerous stories and precepts of the Old Testament into universal requirements for everyday life. The Mishnah was compiled over several decades, and was completed around 250 AD. It contains about 200 000 words in English. (The Old Testament, on the other hand, contains about 600 000 words in English.)

It is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the structure of this work. The Mishnah is divided into six parts(sedarim): 1) Zeraim ("Seeds"), 2) Moed ("Feasts"), 3) Nashim ("Women"), 4) Nezikin ("Damages"), 5) Kodashim ("Sacred Objects") and 6) Tahorot ("Purity").[2] www.sefaria.org . But there are many variations: for example, "Tahorot" is often written as "Tohorot". Each seder is in turn divided into several "tracts", which are further divided into chapters. The numbers are summarized below:

Zeraim: 11 treatises, 74 chapters in total

Moed: 12 treatises, 88 chapters

Nashim: 7 books, 71 chapters

Nezikin: 10 treatises, 72 chapters

Kodashim: 11 books, 90 chapters

Tahorot: 12 books, 126 chapters

As soon as the Mishnah was confirmed, other rabbis immediately began to analyse and comment on it. This commentary grew rapidly and soon included internal discussions, speculations, "comments on comments" and so on. Moreover, the process of analysis led many rabbis to stray into side discussions, often quite lengthy, but perhaps not even directly related to the original topic. We can well imagine how such comments could grow exponentially over time.

Worst of all, there were two centres of analysis: one in Jerusalem and one in Babylon. Eventually, Jewish scholars compiled the various commentaries into a single work called the "Gemara", or "addition" to the original Mishnah. But because there were two schools, two Gemara were born: one in Jerusalem and one in Babylon, both around 500 AD. And these are huge: each Gemara contains about 2.5 million words in English, about ten times the size of the original Mishnah.

The final and obvious step, then, was to combine the original Mishna with the Gemara to create a single, massive document containing the most comprehensive account of Jewish doctrine and theology over the centuries: the Talmud. Since there are two Gemara, technically there are two Talmuds: the more common Babylonian Talmud and the less common Jerusalem Talmud. Both contain the same original Mishnah, but supplement it with different interpretations and analyses - different Gemara - from their own perspectives.

As such, the Babylonian Talmud ("Talmud") is a huge work: in English, about 2.7 million words, which is equivalent to about 18 volumes of a standard World Book encyclopedia. (My 2003 edition of the World Book contains 21 volumes, so this is about the size of the Talmud.) True "encyclopedia-like" Jewish wisdom.

For those of us who do not speak Hebrew and would like to analyse this giant, a good English translation is a must - preferably an online version. I have used two sites: www.sefaria.org (my favourite) and www.chabad.org. Unfortunately, and probably deliberately, neither site has a clear and logical classification of the various sederim and treatises. The Sefaria home page lists some 14 "library" sub-pages, two of which are "Talmud" and "Mishnah". ' The Mishnah page lists all six sederim and their associated treatises. At the top of the Talmud page are two versions: the Babylonian (standard) and the Jerusalem. Below them are the six seder ("Seder Zeraim" etc.), and at the end links to about 15 so-called minor treatises, followed by various separate commentaries, both ancient and modern.

But as already mentioned, the issue remains confusing. The Talmud page, in the Seder Zeraim, mentions only one tractate (Berakhot), when in fact there are 11 in total; these can only be found on the Mishna page, under the same seder. Yet the Talmud page "Berakhot" is numbered differently from the Mishna page "Berakhot", even though the text is (apparently) the same. To make matters even more confusing, on the Jerusalem Talmud page, under Seder Zeraim, all 11 treatises are mentioned. Very confusing indeed. The Jews certainly don't make it easy for us poor non-Jews.

If the reader feels dizzy at this point, it is perfectly understandable; the term "Talmudic logic" has not been coined in vain.

A few really nasty points

As you might imagine, much of the Talmud is entirely mundane: from trivial and absurdly detailed commentaries and reflections on all manner of everyday matters, from cooking, trading, farming and relationships to more interesting observations on ethics, sexuality and relationships with the dreaded "goyim", non-Jews.

As I will show below, some comments are indeed objectionable; but we must bear in mind that, as with most religious interpretations, there are a variety of perspectives and opinions among these "experts". They do not all agree with each other, nor are they all repugnant. Unfortunately, however, they are all documented in the Talmud, and therefore available to all Jews, every Jew, to justify their actions. This point was aptly made as early as 1922 by the German writer Theodore Fritsch:

The Talmud and its commentaries contain a wide variety of rabbinic views, and the teachings and interpretations are often in conflict with each other. However, this means that every believing Jew is free to accept as authentic the doctrine and interpretation that best suits his or her purpose. So when in one passage it says: "you may not cheat, deceive or rob a goyim", and another rabbi says: "under certain circumstances it is permissible", the Jew who believes in his Talmud is left more leeway according to his conscience. He can act one way or the other and still be in accordance with the law and still remain a pious and orthodox Jew.[3]

Therefore, even the worst of what we read next is still "Jewish law" and still available to guide Jewish action, reprehensible as it is. Fritsch emphasizes precisely this point: "Even the most intellectual rabbinic writings of the Jews prove in fact that the Jews are totally lacking in a genuine moral sense and ethical awareness. For them, there is no good and evil; everything is measured in terms of momentary advantage" (p. 140). I should also point out that it is not only Orthodox Jews who feel compelled to follow the Talmud; even secular, non-religious Jews derive their moral guidance, albeit unconsciously, from the ancient Jewish tradition it confirms.

So what do we find in the Talmud? All sorts of strange, weird, disturbing, shocking and offensive things. They are, of course, well hidden, and hardly mentioned in polite company - but they are there, and they deserve some attention if we are to understand the Jewish people and their motivations and ethics better. Let's go through some of the six sederim and pick out a few, shall we say, points of interest.[4]

The first seder, Zeraim, contains a beautiful passage on "dreaming of stools":

If one does his needs in a dream, it is a good omen for him, as it is said, "He who stoops down will soon be delivered; he will not go to his death in the pit, nor will he lack bread" (Isaiah 51:14). The Gemara points out that this is only true if he does not wipe himself or dirty his hands(Berakhot 57a,14).

So it is fortunate to dream a dream of defecation, according to the book of Isaiah. In fact, the passage in Isaiah is rather cryptic and doesn't seem to have anything to do with defecation; but that's our Talmudic logic. Perhaps we goyim are simply too stupid to understand the deeper meaning of this.

Seder Nashim

This seder contains several interesting observations, starting with the Yevamot treatises, from which we learn that it is permissible - or at least not a barrier - for women to have sex with animals:

Rabbi Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: A woman who has had sexual intercourse with an animal is like a person whose hymen has been torn by accident. Thus, she is not a zona and is not fit for the priesthood. This is also taught in the baraita: If a woman has had sexual intercourse with someone who is not a man, that is, with an animal, even though she may be punished by stoning, if she has done this intentionally and in the presence of witnesses who have warned her beforehand of the punishment, she is nevertheless fit for the priesthood(Yevamot 59b, 6).

A "zona" is a woman who, because of inappropriate sexual acts such as relations with a non-Jew, has lost the right to certain privileges, such as marriage to an upper-class person. A woman who has sex with animals is not a zona, and thus does not lose her right to such privileges. (Just don't do it "in the presence of witnesses", or you might get stoned.)

The Nedarim tractates include the famous "Kol Nidre", where Jews can revoke in advance any vows or promises they might make in the coming year:

If someone wants his vows not to be observed throughout the year, he must stand up on Rosh Hashanah and say, "Any vow I make in the future will be invalid." And this declaration is valid, provided that he remembers at the time of making the vow that his intention was to annul it at the beginning of the year.(Nedarim 23b,1)

This works especially well among the goyim, to whom a Jew can make any promise or commitment in the full knowledge that he has already reneged on it!

That's when it becomes really disgusting. From the Ketubot tracts we learn that sexual intercourse with girls under three years old is "nothing":

Rava said that Mishna says this: An adult man who has had sexual intercourse with a girl under three years of age has done nothing, because sexual intercourse with a girl under three years of age is the same as putting a finger in the eye. In the case of the eye, when a tear falls, a new tear forms to replace it. In the same way, the ruptured hymen of a girl under three years of age is repaired [through natural healing](Ketubot 11b,6).

I'm not a paediatrician, but as far as I understand it, a ruptured hymen will never return to its original, unruptured state, no matter how young the girl is. However, the Jews believe this, and they use this fact to justify sex with girls under (!) three years old. It's a "no-brainer"; sticking your penis in her is no different from sticking your finger in someone's eye. (And then we wonder why Jews, like Jeffrey Epstein, are so often complicit in pedophilia.)

Also in Nashim is the famous phrase about the hated Jesus, who is said to be "boiling in shit" in hell:

Onkelos asked him, "What is the punishment of that man," that is, Jesus himself, "in the hereafter?" Jesus answered him, "He will be punished with boiling excrement." As the Master said: "Anyone who mocks the words of the Wise Men will be condemned to boiling excrement." And this was his sin, for he mocked the words of the Wise Men. The Gemara remarks: Come and see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations of the world [Gentiles]. As Balaam, who was a prophet, wished evil upon Israel, while Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Jewish sinner, sought their welfare.(Gittin 57a,4)

This is rather strange, since Jesus came, in His own words, specifically to fulfill the Jewish law (Matthew 5:17) and keep the commandments (Matthew 19:17). And Paul himself said: "Christ's life of service was for the Jews" (Romans 15:8). But the orthodox Jews could not accept that this supposed saviour died on the cross, so they proclaimed that he was only mocking the prophets - hence the hot afterlife awaiting them.

Seder Nezikin

There are several points worth noting in this next seder, starting with the blatant claim that Jews are allowed to "mislead" and deceive non-Jews:

Rav Ashi said: The Mishnah [on tax collection] gives its ruling regarding a gentile tax collector who may be misled: if a Jew and a gentile go to court to resolve a legal dispute, and if the Jew can be vindicated according to Jewish law, vindicate him and say to the gentile: this is our law. If he can be vindicated according to the law of a gentile, vindicate him and say to the gentile, 'This is your law. And if he cannot be vindicated by either legal system, approach the matter with legal cunning, seeking to justify the Jew's case. … Apparently it is permissible to mislead the gentile.(Bava Kamma 113a,21-22)

Of course, this does not only apply to tax collection issues, but to all situations where a "legal dispute" may arise. Jews may refer to "our [Jewish] law" or "your [non-Jewish] law" as they see fit - whichever suits them best.

In the same treatise, we learn that Jews get to keep everything that a non-Jew has "lost" - literally or figuratively:

It is permissible to keep the lost property of a gentile … "What makes it permissible to keep the lost property of a gentile? This is inferred from the verse that says, 'For every lost object of your brother' (Deuteronomy 22:3), which indicates that you return a lost object only to your brother [a Jew], but you do not return a lost object to a gentile." […] Samuel says that it is permissible to gain financially from a gentile's business mistake…(Bava Kamma 113b,8-10)

So if a non-Jew loses something because it fell out of his pocket, or because he left it lying around, or because he wasn't clever enough - well, it's all to the Jews' advantage.

In the light of all this, it almost seems that Jews should treat non-Jews like animals. And in fact this is true:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says that the graves of non-Jews do not make anyone unclean, as it is written, "And you, my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people" (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, the Jewish people, are called "people", but non-Jews are not called "people"(Bava Metzia 114b,2).

Only Jews are human ("mensch"), while non-Jews, because they are not human, are inevitably animals. This is clear Jewish supremacy at its worst, black on white. And it certainly helps to explain the cruel treatment of non-Jews.

In the Bava Batra we read again that the property of non-Jews - whether "lost" or not - is in fact the property of Jews: "Shmuel says that the property of a non-Jew is like a desert, and whoever takes possession of it has acquired it"(Bava Batra 54b,5).

In addition, Avodah Zarah contains other very worrying passages on sex with infants and children:

As for the non-Jewish male child, at what point, i.e. at what age, does he cause ritual impurity in the same way as someone who experiences ziva [menstruation]? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to me: From the moment he is one day old. And when I went to Rabbi Ḥiyyai, he said to me: From the moment he is nine years and one day old. …

The Gemara explains the reason for this view: because a nine-year-old boy is capable of sexual intercourse, he also causes ritual impurity in the same way as a person who has experienced ziva. Ravina said: Therefore, a gentile girl of three years and one day old, because she is capable of sexual intercourse at that age, also causes impurity in the same way as one who has experienced a ziva(Avodah Zarah 36b,19 - 37a,1).

A person who "experiences ziva/menstruation" is sexually mature and therefore ready for sexual intercourse. Apparently the Jews consider a nine-year-old boy (or perhaps a one-day-old baby?!) to be such, just like a three-year-old girl. Under three years old is, as we saw above, "nothing" of significance, and over three years old is the same as a ziva woman: ready for sex.

If this is unclear, we need only look at a later treatise, the Sanhedrin: "Everyone agrees that in the case of a boy who is nine years and one day old, his sexual intercourse is considered sexual intercourse…"(Sanhedrin 69b,6). Mothers, keep your children close.

The Sanhedrin tractate mentioned above also allows for a number of explicit abuses against hated non-Jews. For example: a Jew may withhold his wages ("It is only necessary to teach halakha to one who withholds wages from a hired worker; it is forbidden for a gentile to do so to another gentile, and it is forbidden for a gentile to do so to a Jew, but it is permissible for a Jew to do so to a gentile"; 57a,22). A Jew is permitted to rob a gentile ("In the case of theft, the term 'permitted' is relevant because a Jew is permitted to rob a gentile"; 57a,17). And a Jew may even kill a non-Jew ("As for bloodshed: if a non-Jew kills another non-Jew or a non-Jew kills a Jew, he is responsible. If a Jew kills a non-Jew, he is absolved of responsibility"; 57a,16). Again, proof that "Thou shalt not kill" applies only to another Jew; non-Jews are like animals destined for slaughter.

Seder Tahorot and Mishna

Two other passages in the Talmud are interesting; the first is from the sixth cedar, Tahoroth. The Niddah treatises confirm that there is no sex with a girl under the age of three:

If the girl is younger than this, less than three years and one day old, sexual intercourse with her is not sexual intercourse in the halachic sense; it is more like poking a finger in the eye. Just as in that case the eye contracts, the tears flow and the eye then returns to its original state, so too with a girl under three years and one day old, the hymen returns to its original state(Niddah 44b,12).

And in Makshirin (Mishna) we are shocked to find that eating or drinking blood is allowed:

There are seven liquids: dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk and honey. Bumblebee honey is not susceptible to contamination and can be eaten. // The derivatives of water are: fluids from the eyes, ears, nose and mouth, and urine, both adult and child, whether conscious or unconscious. The derivatives of blood are: blood from the slaughter of clean cattle, wild animals and birds, and blood from transfusions [from gentiles] for drinking(Makshirin 6:4-5).

This contradicts the Torah's well-known prohibition against drinking blood. 1. Genesis 9:4 says that God gives Noah and his family all living creatures to eat, except, "You shall not eat the flesh that has its spirit, that is, its blood." Then God says to Moses in Genesis 3. God tells Moses in Leviticus 3: "You shall not drink the blood of any thing, whether of birds or of beasts, in any place where you dwell" (7:26). This prohibition is also found in Leviticus 17:10: "None of you shall drink blood, neither shall any stranger that dwells with you drink blood" and again in Leviticus 19:26: "You shall not eat flesh that has blood in it."

It is unclear how the Mishna rabbis justify the ingestion of blood; perhaps "blood-derived products", whatever they are, are not the same as "fresh blood" - it is difficult to say.

But if the permitted consumption of blood includes human blood - and the Torah's prohibitions seem to apply only to animals - this provides a Talmudic basis for the infamous "blood lust" or "ritual sacrifice" charge, in which Jews are accused of murdering non-Jews, mostly children, and using or consuming their blood. This is another long and sad story that I will not tell here, except to say that recent research by the Jewish scholar Ariel Toaff shows conclusively that Jews did indeed consume human blood in the past and that they may still do so today; see his book Passovers of Blood.

"Kill the best"

Finally, I cannot conclude this essay without mentioning one of the most notorious accusations, namely that Jews have a Talmudic injunction to "kill the best non-Jews". This is often quoted in anti-Semitic literature, but usually without proper citation - not surprisingly, as it is hard to find.

First of all, as far as I know, it is not in the Babylonian Talmud; it is only found in the Jerusalem Talmud. Here it is, from the Seder Nashim, from the Kiddushin Tractate:

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said: Kill the best gentiles, cut off the heads of the best serpents.(Kiddushin 4:11)

Unfortunately, this sentence has very little context, making it difficult to understand its deeper meaning, if any. The previous sentence deals with incompetent doctors going to hell and butchers as professional murderers, but these seem to have nothing to do with the above sentence (this situation is common in the Talmud - beware.) In any case, the literal interpretation is clear enough: gentiles are a kind of enemy, and their best - the bravest, the brightest, the most talented - pose the greatest threat to the Jews, and must therefore be killed. The gentiles are like snakes (again, animals), and the poisonous snake is dealt with by crushing its head. The worrying conclusion, of course, is that such non-Jews have done nothing to warrant this death sentence. Rebbi does not say: "Kill the criminal gentiles" or "Kill the gentiles who have done us harm." No - the unspoken implication is that all gentiles are dangerous, and the best are the most dangerous; therefore, for that reason alone, they must be killed.

If this were the only case, we might consider it an exception. But the same passage appears at least three more times in authoritative but non-Talmudic texts. For example, we find the following version of the "minor treatises" in Soferim:

Simeon ben Yoḥai taught, "Kill the best of the nations in time of war; crush the brains of the best serpents.(Soferim 15:10)

Some have argued that the restrictive phrase "in time of war" was added later to avoid the impression that Jews should always, in all situations, seek to kill the best Gentiles/non-Jews. (In fact, the footnote to the Sephardic translation says just that.) So that phrase may have been an attempt to "protect" the Jews.

Secondly, we find in the Midrash Tanchuma, in the chapter called "Beschalach", another version in the middle of a longer passage:

Whose animals pulled the chariots? If you were to say that they belonged to the Egyptians, has it not already been said, "And all the cattle of Egypt died" (Exodus 9:6)? If you were to say that they belonged to Pharaoh, has it not already been said, 'Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon your cattle' (Exodus 9:3)? If you say that they belonged to Israel, has it not already been written, 'Our cattle also shall go with us, and not a hoof shall be left' (Exodus 10:26)? To whom, then, did they belong? They belonged to Pharaoh's slaves who feared the word of the Lord. From this we learn that even those who feared the word of the Lord were a stumbling block to Israel. Because of this verse it is said, "The best of the Egyptians, let them drool; the best of the serpents, let their brains be crushed."(Tanchuma, Beschalach 8,1)

"Midrashic" is a commentary or exegesis, and in this case Tanchuma (or "Tanhuma") Midrashic is a late, post-Talmudic commentary - still considered authoritative, but technically not part of the Talmud. But the reasoning behind this is, to put it mildly, unclear. In Exodus, God punishes the Egyptians for capturing the Jews by killing the Egyptians' livestock. And for some reason, the rabbi concludes from this that the Jews are allowed (or even required?) to kill Egyptians - and not just any Egyptians, but the best ones. A strange conclusion.

The third additional text, "Rashi from Exodus", contains the following variation:

  1. Simeon said: "The best of the Egyptians - kill him (otherwise he will plot evil against you later); the best of the serpents - crush his brain."(Rashi, Exodus 14:7,2)

The obvious source of these remarks, Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai (or Yohai) - also known as Shimon bar Yochai (90-160 AD) - was an influential figure in Judaism who lived during the last two Roman revolts. He clearly hated Romans, Egyptians and indeed almost all non-Jews; the Wikipedia article linked above refers to his 'hatred of Gentiles in general', which is perfectly in line with traditional Jewish misanthropy. There seems to be no doubt that his aim was to 'kill the best of the Gentiles', and the fact that this is mentioned at least four times in official, authoritative Jewish texts, including the Jerusalem Talmud, is highly incriminating.

Where are the Jews being taken?

So these are some of the most striking points I have come across during my research. There are, of course, many more; I do not claim to have read the whole of the Talmud, but from what I know, there are undoubtedly numerous reprehensible, offensive and degrading provisions in the work.

If one wanted to defend Jewish interests in this matter, I could come up with three possible objections: first, that such remarks have been "taken out of context" and that the "real meaning" has been ignored or distorted (by "anti-Semitists", of course). This is always possible, but I find it generally unlikely in these cases. The wording and intent seem to come across loud and clear. And the context is not just the textual context of the seder, but the whole Old Testament background and the long, documented history of Jewish supremacy and Jewish misanthropy. This is the real context that we need to keep in mind. In any case, I have provided links to each passage if the reader wishes to read the entire chapter or section directly; I even encourage every reader to do so and determine the context for themselves.

Another possible objection could be that this relatively small number of rather nasty words constitutes only a tiny fraction of the more than two million words in the Talmud (and even more if we include the additional texts). This is of course true, but it does not remove the fact that they exist, that they are documented and that they are used to justify Jewish actions. God only needs to give a commandment once to make it valid, and likewise the Jews only need one vile passage to justify a vile action.

A third and final objection might be that all this Talmudic literature applies only to religious Jews (Conservative, Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox) and not to secular, non-religious Jews - just as Christian rules apply only to professing Christians and not to other non-Jews. Technically this is true, but it is not so much a formal religion as a state of mind, a worldview and a racial value system.

Let's look at Judaism as a religion for a moment. American Jews are divided into different groups. The two largest groups - secular/atheist/non-religious (32%) and reform (37%) - are generally considered liberal, progressive Jews who are either non-religious or just "liberal" religious. Together, these two groups make up two-thirds of American Jews. The remaining third is divided between Conservative (17%), Orthodox (9%) and others (4%); these are generally strongly religious Jews who can be expected to adhere closely to the Talmud and related texts.

Therefore, it could be said that the Talmudic injunctions mentioned above apply only to the religious third of Jews, and not to the majority. Well, if even a third of Jews believe in such horrors, we are still talking about more than two million people. In fact, the question arises as to why such malevolent Jews are allowed to remain in this country; what other government in the world would allow a minority of a million people who hate the majority of its citizens? It is an absurd policy, and yet we practice it, and have done so for over a century.

But even among those two-thirds of "enlightened" and "progressive" Jews, I tend to say that they still have similar feelings simply because of their ethnic and racial background. We have to understand that for almost all of Jewish history, all Jews were religious Jews. Liberal Reform Judaism did not emerge until the late 19th century and did not become widespread until about 100 years ago. This is a blink of an eye in the history of the Jewish people. Such a close-knit ethnic group cannot change its fundamental outlook so quickly. In reality, such negative attitudes and values, as described above, are ingrained or ingrained in the psyche of almost all Jews today, both in the United States and beyond. Secular or religious, Reform or Conservative - almost every Jew embodies these values, to a greater or lesser degree. And this is the crux of the problem.

This can be seen simply by looking at the language and behaviour of the Jews. Look at the Israeli Jews. There, about half the population is liberal/secular and the other half conservative/orthodox. But the leaders, including Netanyahu, are mainly religious fundamentalists who tend to follow Jewish law - the Talmud - very strictly. Israel's massacre of Gazans - of whom at least 70,000 have been killed since October 2023, and perhaps three or four times that number - reflects exactly the evil, genocidal, Talmudic attitude towards non-Jews. Of course, there are differences of opinion among Israeli Jews, many of whom dislike Netanyahu, but apparently almost all agree on the brutal treatment of Palestinians. At the beginning of the Gaza war, 90% of Israeli Jews opposed a pause in the fighting to exchange hostages, and only 2% thought Israel was using too much firepower. A recent poll in mid-2025 found that at least 70% of Israeli Jews believe there are "no innocent people" in Gaza, and another similar poll found that 82% of Jews there support ethnic cleansing, i.e. the expulsion of all Gazans. Cruelty is everywhere there.

In the light of all this, we should not be at all surprised at Israel's current brutality towards Iran and Lebanon. This latest Jewish war is still in its early stages, but reports indicate that some 1 300 Iranians and 200 Lebanese have been killed so far, both by Israelis and by the Israeli-dominated United States. It is also not surprising that Jews around the world are only too happy to continue killing. As recent articles have pointed out, 'Netanyahu's latest war has few critics in Israel', even among his haters, and the Jewish-Israeli public has fully embraced 'militarism'. In the US, the situation is no different, especially among the rich and powerful. Of the hundreds of rich and influential American Jews, almost none criticise Israel's actions in Iran or Gaza, none call them genocide, none make real demands to stop them, and none call for the perpetrators to be punished. The search for visible voices is futile; at best we find a now discredited Noam Chomsky opposing genocide in Gaza, or a hidden Zionist like Norm Finkelstein, or Jerry Greenfield of 'Ben & Jerry's' - and that's it. The most influential Jews - Chuck Schumer, Stephen Miller, Josh Shapiro, Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomberg - don't seem to care about the ongoing genocide. And, as if by design, we also read that major Jewish groups 'have expressed support for the US and Israeli operation against Iran'. All this is to be expected, given the brutal Talmudic mentality that prevails among the majority of Jews.

It is difficult to say to what extent all this cruelty and evil can be attributed to Talmud. Perhaps the best explanation is not that the Talmud causes such behaviour, but rather that the mentality and values that allow such perversity and misanthropy to be written into religious texts are the same ones that justify and support mass murder in the Middle East, not to mention the routine, daily abuse and hatred that is poured out everywhere against all non-Jews.

So the Talmud is the printed form of Jewish thought; it is there for all to see. Don't be surprised at the consequences.

David Skrbina, PhD, is a former professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, Dearborn. He is the author or editor of a dozen books, including The Jesus Hoax (2nd edition, 2024), The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2015), and Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017).

Comments

[1] Although, of course, they keep 32 000 virgins for themselves.

[2] I usually use the spelling that can be found at www.sefaria.org. However, there are many alternatives: for example, the word "Tahorot" is often written as "Tohorot".

[3] From The Enigma of Jewish Success (1922/2023), p. 139.

[4] I have added italics in various places for emphasis.

Source from

Comment on