Does Talmud Teach Bestiality, Pedophilia, Incest?

talmud7.jpg

Pedophilia and Bestiality are seeping into popular culture.
Could the Talmud be the source?

St. Paul, who had been a Pharisee, often bores
Christians who do not know what he was arguing about, in his
discourses haranguing Pharisees. But one familiar with the Talmud can
appreciate his diatribe against the “uncleanness” of those,
“Who changed the truth of God into a lie” and: “Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools,” until “God gave
them over to a reprobate mind … . Being filled with all
unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness … .” (Romans 1:22,
25, 28).

Of the “sacred” Talmudic teachings of the
“Sages,” preserved since 500 A.D. and taught more widely
today than ever before in Talmud-Torah schools in the U.S.A., perhaps
nothing better illustrates “fools” with “reprobate
minds” than the teaching in the Talmud book of
Yebamoth.

Although
Moses commanded that if a woman have intercourse with a beast, both
should be killed (Leviticus 20:16), and that a priest must not marry
a harlot or woman who is profane (Lev. 21:7), the Talmud teaches that
“unnatural intercourse does not cause a woman to be forbidden to
marry a High Priest,” since then “you will find no woman
eligible … .” (Folios 59a-59b)

Rulings of the “sages”
follow: “A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to
marry a priest — even a High Priest.” … If she had
intercourse with a dog while sweeping the floor, she is likewise
reckoned to be pure, and suitable. For, “The result of such
intercourse being regarded as a mere wound, and the opinion that does
not regard an accidentally injured hymen as a disqualification does
not regard such as intercourse either.”

This alone gives
a fair idea of the systematic deformation of Scripture by the
Pharisees and the truthfulness of Christ’s denunciations about their
making God’s commandments of none effect by their Tradition. (Matthew
15:6)

BABIES

Baby
boys may always be used as subjects for sodomy by grown men,
according to the Talmud. (The Pharisaic subterfuge here is that until
a child reaches sexual maturity, capable of sexual intercourse, he or
she does not rank as a person, hence Biblical laws against sodomy
(pederasty) do not apply. Throughout the Talmud “nine years and
one day” is the fictitious age of male maturity.

Likewise,
under “nine years and one day,” the “first stage of
intercourse” of a boy with the mother, or any grown woman, is
harmless, Talmudically. Shammai,
to seem more “strict,” lowers the age to eight years in
some cases. (See Exhibit 82 from Sanhedrin 69b of the Talmud)

A
long harangue about the amount of the Kethubah (payment if divorced)
a woman gets if her virginity was removed by a young boy, fills
Kethuboth I lb of the Talmud. And here, the foul mother may be
reckoned “pure,” depending on the age of the child. Such
degrading use of children was typical of paganism throughout the
ancient world.

“When a grown up man has intercourse with
a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this —
that is, less than three years old — it is as if one puts the finger
into the eye — tears come to the eye again and again, so does
virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” (See
Exhibit 136, Kethuboth 11b of the Talmud)

This is the standard
doctrine of the whole Talmud on baby girls. Sodomy and intercourse
with babies is the prerogative of the adult Talmudic man, in contrast
to Christ’s beautiful teachings concerning little children.

The
following is also typical concerning the fictitious age of sexual
maturity of baby girls set by the Pharisee “sages:” “A
maiden aged three years and one day may be acquired in marriage by
coition …” See Exhibit 55 (Sanhedrin 55b), Exhibit 81
(Sanhedrin 69a-69b), Exhibit 156 (Yebamoth 57b), and Exhibit 159
(Yebamoth 60b); also Niddah 44b…

Adultery is permitted
with the wife of a minor, and wife of a non-Jew. (See Exhibit 53) The
pretense is that a minor not being a “man” yet, and the
non-Jew having non-human status, Talmudically, the Biblical law does
not apply.

Thus, once again do the Pharisees make the
commandments of God of “none effect” as Christ said.
(Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:13)

INCEST

Moses
ordered the priests that: “They shall not take a wife that is a
whore, or profane … for he is holy unto his God.” (Leviticus
21:7) The laws against incest are most vehement: “The nakedness
of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother …
(Leviticus 18:7) And in the Talmud the Pharisee “sages”
reverse these Biblical injunctions:

“If a woman sported
lewdly with her young son, a minor and he committed the first stage
of cohabitation with her — Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her
unfit to the Priesthood.” Here a footnote explains that she
could not marry a priest, if this made her profane and the above
Leviticus 21:7 is cited precisely. (See Exhibit 82)

We then
learn that the dispute concerns only the age of the son, not the
lewdness of the foul mother: “All agree that the connection of a
boy aged nine years and one day is a real connection whilst that of
one less than eight years is not [Footnote: “So that if he was
nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is
invalidated from the priesthood, whilst if he was less than eight,
Beth Shamnmai agree that she is not.”] …

PERMISSIBLE
ADULTERY AND INTERCOURSE WITH THE DEAD

“None
of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover
their nakedness: I am the Lord,” says the Book (Lev. 18:6).
Scripture references are also cited which denounce a married woman
who lies “carnally” with a man not her husband. But say the
sages: “That in connection with a married woman excludes
intercourse with a relaxed membrum since no fertilization can
possibly result. This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance
with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with
forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated.”

And other Talmud sources are cited. “The exclusion is
rather that of intercourse with a dead woman [Footnote 15] even
though she died as a married woman.” Thus one is “exonerated”
for, or permitted, intercourse with dead relatives or with relatives,
married or single, “with a relaxed membrum,” because “no
fertilization can possibly result.” (Talmud, Yebamoth 55b, See
Exhibit 163)

Intercourse with dead bodies was an old pagan
practice. The above is echoed with some variation in “the chief
repository of the criminal law of the Talmud,” the book of
Sanhedrin. (See Exhibit 89)

There the act of sodomy with one
suffering with an incurable disease, hence regarded as already dead,
or a “terefah,” is held to be merely “as one who
abuses a dead person, and hence exempt.” The explanation, which
continues on the next page (not reproduced) is: “Punishment is
generally imposed because of the forbidden pleasure derived —
[footnote] Whereas there is no sexual gratification in abusing the
dead.”

How apt it was when Christ called the Talmudic
Pharisees “whited sepulchers … full of all uncleanness.”
(Matt. 23) Yet some of His followers call these abominators of every
decency “God’s Chosen People” and “People of the
Book”!

Leave a Reply