After learning about Public Law 102-14 and the Noahide Laws, discriminatory Jewish Talmudic laws which threaten non-Jewish freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of sexual expression in the United States and the world, we wanted to learn a little more about modern Jewish opinion on this matter. We are fortunate because in 2008 a book on Noahide Law was published in Jerusalem entitled “The Divine Code”. Better still, the book was reviewed by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Let’s see what “The Divine Code” and the Chief Rabbis have to say about Noahide Law.

Like Our Page On Facebook  

Join Our Facebook Group

[email protected]

JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY 

We verified our information in a modern source, the Jewish Virtual Library. According to their website, the Jewish Virtual Library is a project run by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). “The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share.” (See About Us, Virtual Jewish Library) You can access the Jewish Virtual Library at www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

ASK NOAH & THE DIVINE CODE

“The Divine Code” was written by a Jerusalem based Rabbi named Rabbi Moshe Weiner and was published in 2008. You can find Rabbi Weiner’s book on the “Ask Noah” website. (See www.asknoah.org) “Ask Noah” is an organization dedicated to teaching about the Noahide Laws according to their homepage:

“The Noahide Code of 7 Divine Commandments was given to Noah and his children after the flood. These commandments would assure Noah and his children, the pioneers of the new human race, that humanity would not degenerate into a jungle again… We are dedicated to teaching about these commandments in the light of Torah, with insights on the nature of creation, and our important roles as individuals and community members. When we fulfill our potential within the context of this Divine covenant, the creation is elevated to reach its intended goal. This makes the world into a beautiful gem – a place where G-d can (and will) dwell!” – Home Page, ASKNOAH.ORG.  

You can find Ask Noah’s article on “The Divine Code” here: http://asknoah.org/books/the-divine-code

THE DIVINE CODE

According to the book’s description on Amazon:

“The Divine Code, Volume I, is the result of an historic project by Ask Noah International. Originally compiled in Hebrew by Rabbi Moshe Weiner and endorsed by prominent Torah scholars, including both Chief Rabbis of Israel, it examines the Torah-law foundations and details of the Noahide precepts. Unique among the previous popular overviews of the subject, this authoritative text is footnoted with extensively researched Talmudic and post-Talmudic sources. It identifies and applies the fundamental principles by which the practical requirements for righteous living are determined for pious non-Jews.” – Amazon, The Divine Code

The Amazon description said the book was endorsed by both Chief Rabbis of Israel, that sounds like a pretty official seal of approval. The description also said the book relied on both Talmudic and post-Talmudic sources.

“THE DIVINE CODE”:
WORLD GENTILES COMMANDED TO FOLLOW THE NOAHIDE LAWS

Ask Noah International has uploaded some free chapters of “The Divine Code” to their website. We were able to download these chapters and read through their texts. Here is what “The Divine Code” says about Noahide Law for Gentiles (non-Jews):

“All the Gentiles of the world were henceforth eternally commanded to accept upon themselves and to fulfill these seven Divine precepts, because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah,  and He made known through Moses our teacher that the descendants of Noaĥ had previously been commanded to do them.[7]

WHAT IS THE CHIEF RABBINATE OF ISRAEL?

The Chief Rabbinate is recognized by Law as the Supreme Halackhic (Jewish Law) authority for the Jewish people in the state of Israel. Rabbinical courts are part of the Israeli state judicial system. Verdicts passed by these religious courts are enforced by state agencies. Since the Chief Rabbis are the supreme authority on Jewish law in Israel, it is safe to say that their opinion on a text like “The Divine Code” would carry weight in the Jewish community and would also be considered authoritative.

“The Chief Rabbinate is recognized by law as the supreme halakhic and spiritual authority for the Jewish people in the State of Israel. The Chief Rabbinate Council assists the two chief rabbis, who alternate in its presidency. It has legal and administrative authority to organize religious arrangements for Israel’s Jews. It also responds to halakhic questions submitted by Jewish public bodies in the Diaspora. The Council sets, guides, and instructs those agencies subject to its authority concerning their activities and scope… The Rabbinical Courts are part of the State judicial system. They have exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce by Jews and have parallel competence with district courts in matters of personal status, alimony, child support, custody, and inheritance. Religious court verdicts are implemented and enforced – as for the civil court system – by the police, bailiff’s office, and other agencies.” (Ministry of Religious Services, Virtual Jewish Library) 

CHIEF RABBI METZGER
& “THE DIVINE CODE”

Rabbi Yona Metzger was born in Haifa in 1953. He served in the IDF 7th armored brigade, fought in several wars, and was discharged as an army chaplain with rank of captain. Rabbi Metzger completed his Rabbinic studies at the Kerem Be-Yavne Hesder Yeshiva and continued to teach in Yeshiva and in schools. He served as Rabbi of the Tifferet Zvi Synagogue in Tel-Aviv and was later appointed regional Rabbi of Nothern Tel-Aviv. He published several books, two of which were awarded prizes by the President of Israel. In 2003, Rabbi Yona Metzger was appointed Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, a position he held until 2013. (See Yona Metzger, Virtual Jewish Library) Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger Reviewed “The Divine Code”, here is what he said:

Letter of blessing, from Israel’s Chief Ashkenazic Rabbi, Rabbi Yona Metzger:
(free translation; to view Rabbi Metzger’s original letter, Click here)

With the Help of Heaven, Adar II 26, 5768 / April 2, ’08

The honorable book was brought before me, of great quality and quantity, by Rabbi Moshe Weiner (may he live for many long and good days), called “Sheva Mitzvot HaShem,” which is about the Seven Commandments for the Children of Noah, and is a “Shulkhan Arukh” for all the Torah Laws for Gentiles.

As I skimmed through the pages, I very much enjoyed seeing how the Rav who wrote this gathered and explained, intelligently and with sharpness and depth, all the Torah Laws that are related to and result from this topic, which very few have been involved in. It seems to me that no one else has come to address it, and now that this Rav has authored and categorized it, he should be happy, and happy is his lot, and from Heaven he has merit.

Because of the importance and uniqueness of this book, and since many of the matters included in it are relevant to nations whose language is not Hebrew, I see great importance and benefit in translating the book into the English language. This will enable multitudes of Gentiles to learn it, and receive maximum benefit from it. Here I sign with much blessing to the Rav who authored this book, that he and this book of his should merit to be accepted with love and affection among the other parts of Torah. The merit of spreading out and instilling belief in the Creator of the world amongst all the people of the world, which is the aspect of perfecting the world in the Kingdom of G-d, should stand for him and his household as a blessing in every way possible for good, spiritually and materially, with health, happiness and much joy. Amen, may it be His will.

With great honor,
Yona Metzger
Chief Rabbi of Israel

Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger stated: “I very much enjoyed seeing how the Rav who wrote this gathered and explained, intelligently and with sharpness and depth, all the Torah Laws that are related to and result from this topic”. But some of these referenced Torah laws advocated the killing of Gentiles (non-Jews) who do not adhere to the Seven Noahide Laws. Rabbi Yona Metzger is a Chief Rabbi of the Jewish State, his knowledge is used to execute legally binding statements on behalf of the Israeli government, so we would expect that Rabbi Yona Metzger would understand the breadth and depth of the Jewish laws as they are referenced in “The Divine Code” How could Rabbi Metzger approve of a book which advocates Jewish legal hegemony and even killing non-Jews who resist?

CHIEF RABBI AMAR
& “THE DIVINE CODE”

Rabbi Shlomo Amar was born in Morocco in 1948 and immigrated to Israel in 1962. A close associate of the Shas Party’s spiritual leader and former Sephardi Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Rabbi Amar served as the head of the Petah Tikva Rabbinical court. In 2oo3, Rabbi Shlomo Amar was appointed Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel, a position he held until 2013.  (See Shlomo Amar, Virtual Jewish Library) Chief Rabbi Amar also reviewed “The Divine Code”, here were his words on the matter”

Letter of blessing from Israel’s Chief Sefardic Rabbi, Rabbi Shlomo Moshe Amar,

President of the Great Rabbinical Court of Israel.

(free translation; to view Rabbi Amar’s original Hebrew letter with English

translation, Click here)

With the Help of Heaven, Tammuz 6, 5768 / July 9, 2008

I saw the good book, well-written and aptly titled “Sheva Mitzvot HaShem,” compiled and authored by the Rabbi and great scholar, Rabbi Moshe Weiner, may he live for many long and good days. I have also seen the immense work that was required to explain all the matters of the Seven Commandments for the Children of Noah, and this was done very well, written in simple, clear language, so that the reader can easily comprehend it. I bless him that G-d should send him success in all his endeavors, to continue in his holy work, and to author and publish more works in excellent physical health. And may it be G-d’s will that he see blessing in the work of his hands, that he has prepared for the sake of G-d, blessed be He.

Waiting for G-d’s salvation and mercy,
Shlomo Moshe Amar
Chief Rabbi of Israel

Chief Rabbi Amar blessed the work and seem to agree with its conclusion. But Rabbi Moshe Weiner in his book “The Divine Code” stated that Noahide Law is commanded upon all Gentiles of the world. Rabbi Weiner also references materials which call for the execution of Gentiles (Non-Jews) who do not accept the Noahide Laws. It would be hard to believe that the Chief Rabbi made such a blessing upon “The Divine Code” in ignorance. Can we really assume that the legally recognized supreme authority of Jewish Law in Israel would actually agree with the ideas presented in “The Divine Code”? 

CONCLUSION   

We came across Noahide Law in American Public Law 102-14 and found that the Noahide Laws are discriminatory Jewish Talmudic supremacist laws. We wanted to get a modern and authoritative opinion on Noahide Law. We found a book called “The Divine Code” published in 2008 in Jerusalem which deals with the Noahide Laws. In “The Divine Code” we found passages which explained that Noahide Law is commanded upon the non-Jews entire earth. “The Divine Code” also referenced Jewish legal sources which explained that those of us who do not accept Naohide Law are to be executed. We wanted to make sure these ideas were not excessively radical, so we consulted the reviews of this book by the Chief Rabbis of Israel at the time. Rather than admonishing the author for his work, they praised the book and its contents. Why would the state appointed Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the highest authority on Jewish Law, bless such a book? We can say with certainty that the highest Jewish legal authority on earth, the Chief Rabbinate of the Zionist Jewish state of Israel approves of the Noahide Movement.

Public Law 102-14 not only states that the Seven Noahide Laws are the principles upon which the American Nation was founded, it also honors Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of the Lubavitch Movement (also known as Chabad) as being a “great spiritual leader”. According to Rabbi Schneerson, the Noahide Laws are to be kept by force if possible, and if not by “pleasantness and peace”.  This same Rabbi also stated that non-Jews are inferior to Jews, saying that they have “satanic souls” and their lives are worth nothing accept as service to Jews.  Why would the USA honor such a Rabbi who preaches the most militant form of Noahide Law and who obviously hates non-Jews?

LEARN MORE ABOUT NOAHIDE LAW

JOIN OUR FACEBOOK GROUP

[email protected]

Rabbi Schneerson Is Honored In USA Public Law 102-14

 Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991; Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe’, this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving’, the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws;  – GOOGLE “Public Law 102-14″, Library of Congress

Schneerson – Keep Noahide Laws By Force

Scheerson: “It is obvious that this obligation [found in Maimonides, Malachim 8:10] is not limited only to a Jewish court, since this commandment is unrelated to the presence of a ger toshav (resident alien), and thus what is the need of a beit din. . . . Thus, this obligation is in place in all eras, even the present, when no gera toshav can be accepted and it is obligatory on all individuals who can work towards this goal. So too, this commandment is not limited to using force — where, in a situation we cannot use force, we could be excused from our obligation — since the essence of the obligation is to do all that is in our power to ensure that the seven Noachide commandments are kept; if such can be done through force, or through other means of pleasantness and peace, which means to explain [to Noachides] that they should accept the wishes of God who commanded them in this rules. This is obviously what is intended by Maimonides.” – http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html#responsa

The Rabbi’s Anti-Gentile Bigotry In Context 

Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky

THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTY 59

Israel Shahak (Hebrew: ישראל שחק‎; born Himmelstaub, April 28, 1933 – July 2, 2001) was a Polish-born Holocaust survivor and Israeli professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, known especially as a liberal[1] secular political thinker, author, and civil rights activist. Between 1970–1990, he was president of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights and was an outspoken critic of the Israeli government.

Rebbe,” Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who headed the Chabad movement and wielded great influence among many religious Jews in Israel as well as in the United States. Schneerson and his Lubovitch followers are Haredim; nevertheless, they involved themselves in Israel’s political life and shared many concepts with Gush Emunim and the NRP. The ideas of Rabbi Schneerson that appear below are taken from a book of his recorded messages to followers in Israel, tided Gatherings of Conversations and published in the Holy Land in 1965. During the subsequent three decades of his life until his death, Rabbi Schneerson remained consistent; he did not change any of the opinions. What Rabbi Scheerson taught either was or immediately became official, Lubovitch, Hassidic belief. Regarding the non-Jew the Lubovitcher Rebbe’s views were clear even if a bit disorderly: “In such a manner the Halacha, stipulated by the Talmud, showed that a non-Jew should be punished by death if he kills an embryo, even if the embryo is non- Jewish, while the Jew should not be, even if the embryo is Jewish. As we [the talmudic sages] learn from Exodus 22:21, beginning with the words ‘and if any mischief will follow.’” This quoted verse is a part of a passage beginning in verse 21, describing what should be done “if men strive and hurt a woman with child,” thus damaging the embryo. Verse 22, whose beginning is quoted by the Lubovitcher Rebbe, says in full: “And if any mischief will follow, then you shall give soul for soul.” (Some English translations use the wording “life for life” instead of “soul for soul.”) The above stated difference in the punishment of a Jew and a non-Jew for the same crime is common in the Talmud and Halacha. The Lubovitcher Rebbe continued: The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: “Let us differentiate.” Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of “let us differenti- ate” between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world … The Old Rabbi [a pseudonym for one of the holy Lubovitch rabbis] explained that the passage in Chapter 49 of Hatanya [the basic book of Chabad] : “And you have chosen us” [the Jews] means specifically that the Jewish body was chosen [by God], because a choice is thus made between outwardly similar things. The Jewish body “looks as if it were in substance similar to bodies of non-Jews,” but the meaning … is that the bodies only seem to be similar in material substance, outward look and superficial quality. The difference of the inner quality,

Norton Mezvinsky (born 1932) is an American historian, professor, and author. He is a Distinguished University Professor, Emeritus, Central Connecticut State University and is the president of the International Council for Middle East Studies, an academic think tank in Washington, D.C. He has written numerous published books, articles and book reviews that deal with various aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict and Zionism.

60 JEWISH FUNDAMENTALISM IN ISRAEL

however, is so great that the bodies should be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]” “their bodies are in vain.” … An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness. As has been explained, an embryo is called a human being, because it has both body and soul. Thus, the difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish embryo can be understood. There is also a difference in bodies. The body of a Jewish embryo is on a higher level than is the body of a non-Jew. This is expressed in the phrase “let us differentiate” about the body of a non-Jew, which is a totally different kind. The same difference exists in regard to the soul: the soul of a Jewish embryo is different than the soul of a non-Jewish embryo. We therefore ask: Why should a non-Jew be punished if he kills even a non-Jewish embryo while a Jew should not be punished even if he kills a Jewish embryo? The answer can be understood by [considering] the general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” [Genesis 1:1] means that [the heavens and the earth] were created for the sake of the Jews, who are called the “beginning.” This means everything, all developments, all discoveries, the creation, including the “heavens and the earth – are vanity compared to the Jews. The important things are the Jews, because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the divine] aim.” After some additional cabbalistic explanation the Lubovitcher Rebbe concluded: Following from what has already been said, it can be understood why a non-Jew should be punished by death if he kills an embryo and why a Jew should not be punished by death. The difference between the embryo and a [baby that was] born is that the embryo is not a self-contained reality but rather is subsidiary; either it is subsidiary to its mother or to the reality created after birth when the [divine] purpose of its creation is then fulfilled. In its present state the purpose is still absent. A non-Jew’s entire reality is only vanity. It is written, “And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks” [Isaiah 61:5]. The entire creation [of a non- Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews. Because of this a non-Jew

THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTY 61

should be punished with death if he kills an embryo, while a Jew, whose existence is most important, should not be punished with death because of something subsidiary. We should not destroy an important thing for the sake of something subsidiary. It is true that there is a prohibition against [hurting] an embryo, because it is something that will be born in the future and in a hidden form already exists. The death penalty should be implicated only when visible matters are affected; as previously noted, the embryo is merely of subsidiary importance.

PLEASE NOTE: Today, Talmudist Jews and Noahides go through great pains to disguise the inherit anti-Gentilism of their religion by drowning out the facts with complex semantic arguments about who is a “goy”, a “gentile”, a “heathen” or an “idolater”. Don’t think that Jews are only speaking out Pagans in their scriptures; Christians are considered as “heretics” by the Talmud and are often viewed as being even more dangerous than “Heathens”:

“MINUTH: Heresy, the belief in more than one Power, especially Judeo-Christianity.” –1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Glossary

Also, whenever Jews say “heathen” or “Samaritan” or “Cuthean” or “Goy” they are really speaking about all non-Jew Gentiles. As their Talmud explains it’s all interchangeable anyway:

Footnote 33: ‘Cuthean’ (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original goy (heathen).] – 1962 Soncino Babylonain Talmud, Sanhedrin 57a

One of the Seven Noahide Laws from the Jewish Talmud is “Do Not Steal”.  That sounds pretty reasonable right?  But did you know that according to the Talmud Jews are given full permission to steal from non-Jews?  And don’t forget, Jews are not prosecuted for stealing small amounts of money, but non-Jews are. 

The Noachid is punished with decapitation for all kinds of robbery, whether from a Jew or from a non-Jew, even though the article stolen is worth less than a peruṭah (the smallest Palestinian coin, for less than which no case can be instituted against an Israelite). – Laws, Noachian, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia 

The Talmudic book of Sanhedrin 57a, which speaks about the Noahide Laws, provides a legal proxy for Jews which not only gives them an excuse to steal from non-Jews, but puts the blame for such acts on the non-Jews themselves. Footnote 34 of the Talmudic passage references Baba Kamma 37b, the oral law (Mishna) which lays out the principle of reciprocity. Here we learn that if an Israelite’s cow injures the cow of a “Canaanite” (non-Jews), there is no liability, but if the cow of a Canaanite injures the cow of of an Israelite, the Canaanite must pay in full. Footnote 12 explains that this is because the Canaanite does not accept “Jewish Law” (the law of the Talmud), and therefore s/he cannot be expected to be protected by it, but of course s/he is expected to pay the one-way property damages [they are forced to follow Jewish Talmudic law against their better interest].  This is the logic used to condone theft from of all non-Jews. Following this line of thought, according to Talmudic opinion, Jews are allowed to steal from non-Jews through stealth and deception. The Jewish Talmud makes several provisions for Jews to lie to, steal from, and cheat non-Jews.  The only rule is that the Jew must not get caught (“profane the name” of Jews and/or their Talmudic god). According to the Talmud Jews must return the lost items of other Jews, but they may keep the lost items they find of “heathens”, unless they think the non-Jew will find out about the theft. In a commercial transaction, if a non-Jew makes a mistake in a Jew’s favor (for example, if the non-Jew undercharges the Jew), the money does not have to be returned. Some commentators say that a non-Jew may be actively and intentionally misled and deceived during a commercial transaction by disguising the low quality of goods.  There are even provisions for directly stealing from non-Jews, the perverse thinking behind this is that a Jew would give the objects for free while the non-Jew would ask for payment, so it is ok to steal it from the non-Jew.

JEWS MY ROB AND STEAL FROM NON-JEWS

Has it not been taught: ‘With respect to robbery — if one stole or robbed[30]  or [seized] a beautiful woman,[31]  or [committed] similar offences,[32] if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean (Goy)[33]  against another, [the theft, etc.] must not be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained‘?[34]  But if robbery is a capital offence, should not the Tanna have taught: He incurs a penalty? — Because the second clause wishes to state, ‘but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained,’ therefore the former clause reads, ‘[theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean] must not be kept.’[35]  But where a penalty is incurred, it is explicitly stated, for the commencing clause teaches: ‘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’?[36] – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57a

FOOTNOTES:

30. Stole (ganab) refers to secret stealing, robbed (gazal), to stealing by open violence.
31. In war, v. Deut. XXI, 10-14 — a species of robbery. [This is the only possible and correct rendering of the text, contra Goldschmidt. Cf. Tosef A.Z.]
32. Acts which are not actual robbery, but partake of its nature.
33. ‘Cuthean’ (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original goy (heathen).
34. [I.e., though it is forbidden to rob the heathen (v. Yad, Genebah I, 2; VI, 8), the offence was non-actionable. For reason, v. B. K. (Sonc. ed.) note on Mishnah 37b.]
35. 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. V. Muller, D. H., Hammurabi, 88]
36. Thus the Tanna does refer to punishment; since then he omits a reference to punishment in the clause under discussion, it shows that the heathen is not executed for robbery. In the whole of this discussion the punishment referred to is death.

“THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY”

MISHNAH. IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE OWNER’S[9]  CATTLE[10]  GORING AN OX CONSECRATED TO THE TEMPLE, OR CONSECRATED CATTLE GORING A PRIVATE OX, THERE IS NO LIABILITY, FOR IT IS STATED: THE OX OF HIS NEIGHBOUR,[11]  NOT [THAT IS TO SAY] AN OX CONSECRATED TO THE TEMPLE. WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE HAS GORED AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE, THERE IS NO LIABILITY,[12] WHEREAS WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE GORES AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE, WHETHER WHILE TAM OR MU’AD,[13]  THE COMPENSATION IS TO BE MADE IN FULL.[14]- 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 37b

FOOTNOTES

9. [Mishnah text: ‘of an Israelite’.]
10. Lit., ‘ox’.
11. Ex. XXI, 35.
12. As Canaanites did not recognise the laws of social justice, they did not impose any liability for damage done by cattle. They could consequently not claim to be protected by a law they neither recognised nor respected, cf. J. T. a.l. and Maim. Yad, Niz. Mam. VIII, 5. [In ancient Israel as in the modern state the legislation regulating the protection of life and property of the stranger was, as Guttmann. M. (HUCA. III 1 ff.) has shown, on the basis of reciprocity. Where such reciprocity was not recognised, the stranger could not claim to enjoy the same protection of the law as the citizen.]
13. I.e., the ox that did the damage.
14. So that they should guard their cattle from doing damage. (Maim. loc. cit.)

JEWS MAY KEEP OBJECTS LOST BY NON-JEWS (BUT NOT THOSE OF JEWS)
UNLESS THEY THINK THEY WILL GET CAUGHT (PROFANE THE “NAME” OF GOD) 

His lost article is permissible, for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible? Because it says: And with all lost thing of thy brother’s: it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen. But why not say that this applies only where the lost article has not yet come into the possession of the finder, in which case he is under no obligation to look round for it, whereas if it had already entered his possession, why not say that he should return it. — Said Rabina: And thou hast found it surely implies that the lost article has already come into his possession. It was taught: R. phinehas b. Yair said that where there was a danger of causing a profanation of the Name, even the retaining of a lost article of a heathen is a crime. – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO PROFIT FROM THE MISTAKE OF A NON-JEW

Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were supposed to be a hundred while he similarly left him minus one zuz and said to him: ‘See that I am relying upon you.’ - 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HIDE THE LOW QUALITY OF PRODUCTS FROM NON-JEWS

Rabina together with a heathen bought a palm-tree to chop up [and divide]. He thereupon said to his attendant: Quick, bring to me the parts near to the roots, for the heathen is interested only in the number [but not in the quality]. – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

DIRECT THEFT FROM NON-JEWS (BECAUSE A JEW WOULD GIVE IT FOR FREE)

R. Ashi was once walking on the road when he noticed branches of vines outside a vineyard upon which ripe clusters of grapes were hanging. He said to his attendant: ‘Go and see, if they belong to a heathen bring them to me,27  but if to an Israelite do not bring them to me.’ The heathen happened to be then sitting in the vineyard and thus overheard this conversation, so he said to him: ‘If of a heathen would they be permitted?’ — He replied: ‘A heathen is usually prepared to [dispose of his grapes and] accept payment, whereas an Israelite is generally not prepared to [do so and] accept payment. - 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

Footnote 27: Especially since the branches were outside the vineyard and thus probably overhanging a public road; cf. B.B. II, 14.

JEWS MAY LIE TO NON-JEWS TO WIN LEGAL BATTLES, UNLESS THEY THINK THEY WILL GET CAUGHT (PROFANE THE “NAME” OF GOD)

‘Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: ‘This is our law’; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] ‘This is your law’; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him.  This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. Now according to R. Akiba the whole reason [appears to be,] because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him!  – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113a

Public Law 102-14 in the United States and the Jewish Noahide Laws are of concern to all non-Jews.  The Noahide Laws are rules created by Jews for non-Jews, and these rules relegate us to a 2nd class status. But there are layers to this 2nd class citizenship for non-Jews under Jewish Talmudic law.  Did you know that according to the Talmud, the same book which gives us the Noahide Laws, that African people are considered to be cursed?  That’s right, according to the Talmud the “negro” race was produced through a curse on Noah’s son Ham. Since it is the Talmud which informs Noahide Law in general, and it is from Jewish Talmudists that we are informed on the laws, it is certainly possible that some of this Talmudic racism could bleed through, infecting the already nefarious Noahide Laws with a new layer of hate, anti-African racism.  Anti-African racism in Israel might be a good indicator for the temper in which Rabbis might promote the Noahide Law among non-Jews.  To get a deeper understanding of Israel’s anti-African racism issue, please visit the website of Israel social justice activist David Sheen:  http://www.davidsheen.com/racism/

Learn More About The Noahide Laws

Like Our Page On Facebook  

Join Our Facebook Group

[email protected]

Racism In The Jewish Talmud

While Jews are not a race or ethnicity, their religions is most certainly racist against dark skinned people. Almost everyone raised in the Christian and Muslim world is familiar with the “Curse of Ham”, the presumed to be biblical curse placed upon Noah’s son Ham whereby not only were his descendants to be the slaves of the earth, but that these cursed people were marked with black skin as a sign of their hexed lineage.  Yet, one becomes perplexed when they turn to the actual account of Ham’s curse in the book of Genesis.

In Chapter 9 versus 20-27 we read that Ham finds his father Noah drunk and naked. Ham tells his brothers Shem and Japheth who cover Noah with a sheet while turning their eyes away so they do not see their father’s nakedness.  When Noah wakes up from his drunkenness, he curses Ham’s descendants though Ham’s son Canaan to become the slaves of both Shem and Japheth (Genesis 9:20-27).  Besides the fact that this curse on Ham’s descendants seems unreasonable, we never find any description that the curse involves turning their skin black.

So where did this racist myth come from?  The idea that black skin is a curse comes from the Jewish Talmud.  In the Talmud book of Sanhedrin 108b, we learn that there were three who had sex while on the ark; a dog, a raven and Noah’s son Ham.  All three were punished and Ham’s punishment was in his skin; it is said he was “smitten in his skin” and the footnote claims that this curse produced black skinned “negros” (“negros” are classified with diseased people and called “creatures” in the Talmudic book of Berakoth 58b). Notice this curse has nothing to do with the later curse of hereditary slavery placed upon Ham’s son Canaan by Noah (the Talmud suggests that Ham actually sodomized/castrated Noah in Sanhedrin 70a). Thus, later Christians and Muslims conflated one curse with the other and presumed that the “Curse of Ham” stemmed from the bible, but it doesn’t, it is purely Talmudic racism.   The “Curse of Ham” myth shows to what extent Non-Jewish societies have been impacted by Judaism and the Talmud.

HAM AND HIS DESCENDANTS ARE CURSED WITH BLACK SKIN BECAUSE HAM HAD SEX WHILE IN THE ARK 

Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate’s mouth]. and Ham was smitten in his skin. [34] (1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b)

FOOTNOTE 34:  I.e., from him descended Cush (the negro) who is black-skinned.

“NEGROS” ARE LUMPED IN WITH DISEASED PERSONS AND CALLED “CREATURES”

Joshua b. Levi said: On seeing pock-marked persons one says: Blessed be He who makes strange creatures. An objection was raised: If one sees a negro, a very red or very white person, a hunchback, a dwarf or a dropsical person, he says: Blessed be He who makes strange creatures.(1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 58b)

IN THE TALMUD, HAM IS ACCUSED OF BOTH CASTRATING AND SODOMIZING HIS FATHER

Ubar the Galilean gave the following exposition: The letter waw [and]  occurs thirteen times in the passage dealing with wine: And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father, and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.  [With respect to the last verse] Rab and Samuel [differ,] one maintaining that he castrated him, whilst the other says that he sexually abused him. He who maintains that he castrated him, [reasons thus;] Since he cursed him by his fourth son,  he must have injured him with respect to a fourth son. But he who says that he sexually abused him, draws an analogy between ‘and he saw’ written twice. Here it is written, And Ham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father; whilst elsewhere it is written, And when Shechem the son of Hamor saw her [he took her and lay with her and defiled her].Now, on the view that he emasculated him, it is right that he cursed him by his fourth son; but on the view that he abused him, why did he curse his fourth son; he should have cursed him himself? — Both indignities were perpetrated.[45]   (1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 70a)

FOOTNOTE 45:  He both castrated and abused his father.