The Weird World of John Hagee

• “HAGEECON” 2013: Bevy of Christian, Jewish Zionists want more war with Islam in Mideast

By Michael Collins Piper

Barack Hussein Obama came under heavy fire when more than 4,000 people showed up in Washington, D.C. on July 22-24 to proclaim the support of American Christians for Israel and to lobby Congress on its behalf.

Along with a host of American politicians—mostly Republicans—known for their fealty to Israel, the assembled masses gathered at the Washington Convention Center under the auspices of Texas evangelist John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel (CUFI) which claims to have some one million members.

While the corpulent Hagee surrounds himself with a contingent of Israeli bodyguards, CUFI’s operations are directed by an American Jew, David Brog, who is a cousin of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

The New York-based Jewish newspaper Forward reported enthusiastically about the conference, noting that “Christian evangelical supporters of Israel sent a strong message of opposition to President Obama on Iran and the renewal of Mideast peace talks.”

However, what did take place during this gathering reflects a bizarre and inflammatory worldview on the part of the participants.

Rabbi Aryeh Sheinberg’s invocation slammed Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry—who is of Jewish extraction on his father’s side and whose brother is a practicing Jew, having abandoned the Catholic faith in which he was raised—saying their proposals for a Middle East settlement would reinstate what the Israelis call “the Auschwitz borders”—that is, Israel’s borders before it expanded into Arab lands after the 1967 war.

Television personality Glenn Beck—a Mormon—gave the keynote address, trashing Obama and concluded: “Our government is on the wrong side and we are entering terrible, terrible days if we don’t wake up and turn around.”

Beck delighted his audience by explaining that the real reason why America’s founding fathers staged the revolution against Britain was so conservative Christians could ultimately help usher Israel into being in 1948.

Giving a tangled description of symbolism on the one dollar Federal Reserve Note—which is otherwise the subject of well-founded debate—Beck said this was proof of his thesis.

(Beck failed to mention that American Jewish millionaires bribed several Latin American delegates to the United Nations whose votes were critical to UN recognition of Israel, not to mention that supporters of Israel have now cheerfully bragged that a special blackmail and coercion intelligence operation was utilized to further influence other delegates.)

Beck also displayed—of all things—a napkin he claimed was on a table next to Hitler when the German leader survived an assassination attempt on July 20, 1944. He also brandished a whip he claimed had been used in the Auschwitz work camp in Poland to punish Jewish prisoners during World War II.

And, just for the record, Beck declared how evil Islam happens to be—a favorite mantra often heard today, a major tool in the effort by Israel and its supporters to engage America in war against the Muslim world.

(Unfortunately, a lot of patriots—who should know better—are echoing this same kind of rhetoric, promoting the poison of the Israeli propagandists.)


Among an array of politicians—mostly conservative Republicans—who showed up to declare their alliance with Israel included:

• Newly-elected Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a 2016 presidential aspirant whose wife is a banker with Goldman Sachs, the powerful international Jewish investment house;

• House Majority Leader Representative Eric Cantor (R-Va.)—an Orthodox Jew much of whose campaign money comes from Wall Street and gambling and liquor interests;

• Retiring Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) who once famously said, “I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish, because it is the foundation, the roots of my faith as a Christian.

Another stalwart voice for Israel, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)—who never served in combat but who is always an advocate of United States military ventures on behalf of Israel—pranced to the podium and told the cheering audience he plans to introduce a resolution in Congress authorizing the use of force—American blood and treasure—against Iran.

Using reasoning reeking of the provocative logic utilized in rabbinic commemorated in the Jewish holy works known as the Talmud, Graham explained: “My goal is to avoid war and the best way to avoid war is to let the Iranians know they’re going to face one and lose.”

The only thing Graham and his GOP colleagues didn’t say—at least publicly—was “Onward Christian Soldiers,” although that certainly is their philosophy.

Hagee himself said he wants the United States to “turn the Israeli Defense Forces loose and have a total victory in the Middle East for peace that will last.” In other words: all-out war against the Arab and Muslim nations—financed, of course, by American taxpayers and underscored by the implicit promise American soldiers will come to Israel’s support as necessary.

And making it all too clear Israel really isn’t so poised for peace with the Palestinian Christians and Muslims as many Americans are led by the media to believe, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prossor, said any talk of a so-called “two state solution” is actually a “euphemism for the destruction of the state of Israel.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was on hand to warn, or so he said, that Iran doesn’t just plan to destroy Israel. Iran has missiles intended to hit the United States and “that could happen very soon.”

And as a humorous but not-so-subtle reminder that the power of Jewish media, money and mischief is a force in America today, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told the crowd: “The Jewish lobby is a myth. It’s our job to make it a legend!”

Finally, he warned anybody who dared stand up to Israel and its “mythical lobby”: “Don’t bet against the Jews.”

Michael Collins Piper

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.

2 Responses to The Weird World of John Hagee

  1. Bobby English says:


    Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation [raping] of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” (1) Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. (2) Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.

    References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.


    The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate. Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” (3) In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia: “How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” (4)

    1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
    2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
    3 Sanhedrin 76a.
    4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.


    It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1,600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it. [Ashkenazik Shinar (‘sin’) was a stone throw away from Sodom and Gomorrah—Any questions?]

    As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married [raped] a three year old girl. But with expulsion of the Jews [‘Edomites, Pharisees, Ashkenazim, Khazars, Sephardim’] in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended. Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.


    What exactly did these sages say?

    The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man.” Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus. 18:22) One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes, “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” (5) Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. (6) A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised: “. . . the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” (7) The Talmud also says, “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” (8) Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.

    5 Sanhedrin 69b.
    6 Sanhedrin 55a.
    7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
    8 Sanhedrin 55b.


    In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape. [these were the ‘precursors’ of Hillary, Pelosi, Kagan, Napolitano, Ginsburg, Boxer, Albright, Abzug, Goldman, Livni, ad nauseam]

    R. Joseph said: “Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.” (Sanh. 55b)

    “A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation . . . ” (Yeb. 57b)

    A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yeb. 60b)

    It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, but all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them.” (Yeb. 60b)

    [The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] ” . . . fit for cohabitation . . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.” (Footnote to Yeb. 60b)

    The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”

    The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” (9) But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.

    The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage. “At nine years a male attains sexual matureness . . . The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”


    The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age. “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” (10)

    The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen—an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for, “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” (11)

    In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.

    Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.


    Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yeb. 60b:

    “There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.”

    The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” (12)

    These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yeb. 12b confirms that under 11 years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”

    In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile)—a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” (13) This passage says: ” . . . it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”

    The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.

    9 Sanhedrin 55a.
    10 Kethuboth 11a.
    11 Kethuboth 11b.
    12 Yebamoth 60b.
    13 Sanhedrin 76b.


    Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details. The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known [!!!]. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.

  2. Bobby English says:


    There are three things to be considered in this chapter:

    1. The names by which Christians are called in the Talmud.
    2. What kind of people the Talmud pictures Christians to be.
    3. What the Talmud says about the religious worship of the Christians.

    The Names Given to Christians in the Talmud

    As in our languages Christians take their name from Christ, so in the language of the Talmud Christians are called Notsrim, from Jesus the Nazarene. But Christians are also called by the names used in the Talmud to designate all non-Jews: Abhodah Zarah, Akum, Obhde Elilim, Minim, Nokhrim, Edom, Amme Haarets, Goim, Apikorosim, Kuthrim.

    1. Abhodah Zarah

    Strange worship, idolatry. The Talmudic Tract on Idolatry is thus entitled: Obhde Abhodah Zarah—Idol Worshippers. That Abhodah Zarah really means the cult of idols is clear from the Talmud itself: “Let Nimrod come and testify that Abraham was not a server of Abhodah Zarah.” But in these days of Abraham there existed no strange cult either of the Turks or the Nazarenes, but only the worship of the true God and idolatry. In Schabbath (ibid. 82a), it says:

    “Rabbi Akibah says: How do we know that Abhodah Zarah, like an unclean woman, contaminates those who subscribe to it? Because Isaiah says: Thou shalt cast them away like a menstruation cloth; and shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.”

    In the first part of this verse mention is made of idols made from gold and silver. The learned Maimonides also clearly demonstrates that the Jews regarded Christians as Abhodah Zarah. In Perusch (78c) he says: “And be it known that Christian people who follow Jesus, although their teachings vary, are all worshippers of idols (Abhodah Zarah).

    2. Akum

    This word is made up of the initial letters of the words Obhde Kokhabkim U Mazzaloth—worshippers of stars and planets. It was thus that the Jews formerly styled the Gentiles who lacked all knowledge of the true God. Now, however, the word Akum in Jewish books, especially in the Schulkhan Arukh, is applied to Christians. This is evident from numerous passages:

    In the Orach Chaiim (113,8) those who use a cross are called Akum. In the Iore Dea (148, 5, 12), those who celebrate the feasts of Christmas and New Year, eight days afterwards, are called worshippers of the stars and planets:

    “Thus if a gift is sent to the Akum, even in these times, on the eighth day after Christmas, which they call the New Year,” etc.

    3. Obhde Elilim

    Servers of idols. This name has the same meaning as Akum. Non-Jews are frequently called by this name. In the Orach Chaiim, for example (215, 5), it says:

    “A blessing should not be pronounced over incense which belongs to the servers of idols.”

    But at the same time when the Schulkhan Arukh was written there were no worshippers of the stars and planets (Akum); there were no ‘servers of idols’ among those who lived with the Jews. Thus, for example, the author of the Commentary on the Schulkhan Arukh (entitled Magen Abraham), Rabbi Calissensis who died in Poland in 1775, in note 8, on No. 244 of the Orach Chaiim (where it is allowed to finish a work on the Sabbath with the help of an Akum) says:

    “Here in our city the question is raised about the price of hiring worshippers of the stars and planets who sweep the public streets when they work on the Sabbath.”

    4. Minim—Heretics.

    In the Talmud those who possess books called the Gospels are heretics. Thus in Schabbath (116a) it says:

    “Rabbi Meir calls the books of the Minim Aven Gilaion [iniquitous volumes] because they call them Gospels.”

    5. Edom

    Edomites. Rabbi Aben Ezra, when he speaks about the Emperor Constantine who changed his religion and placed the image of him who was hanged on his banner, adds:

    “Rome therefore is called the Kingdom of the Edomites.”

    And Rabbi Bechai, in his Kad Hakkemach (fol. 20a, on Isaiah, ch. LXVI, 17) writes:

    “They are called Edomites who move their fingers ‘here and there'” (who make the sign of the cross).

    Likewise Rabbi Bechai, commenting on the words of Isaiah (loc. cit.), “those who eat the flesh of swine” adds: “These are the Edomites.” Rabbi Kimchi, however, calls them “Christians.” And Rabbi Abarbinel, in his work Maschima Ieschua (36d) says: “The Nazarenes are Romans, the sons of Edom.”

    6. Goi

    Race, or people. The Jews also call a man a Goi—a gentile; they call a gentile woman a Goiah. Sometimes, but very rarely, Israelites are called by this name. It is mostly applied to non-Jews, or idolators. In Jewish books which treat of Idolatry, worshippers of idols are often called by this single word Goi. For this reason, in more recent editions of the Talmud the use of the word Goi is purposely avoided and other words for non-Jews are substituted. It is well known that in the Jewish language, the Jews call Christians among whom they live, Goim. Nor do the Jews deny this. Sometimes in their popular magazines they say that this word means nothing harmful or evil. But the contrary can be seen in their books written in the Hebrew language. For instance, in Choschen Hammischpat (34, 22), the name Goi is used in a depraved sense:

    “Traitors and Epicureans and Apostates are worse than Goim”

    7. Nokhtrim

    strangers, foreigners. This name is used for all who are not Jews, and therefor for Christians.

    8. Amme Haarets

    People of the earth, idiots. There are some who say that people of other races are not meant by this, but only crude and uneducated people. There are passages, however, which leave no doubt about the matter. In the Holy Scripture, Book of Esra, ch. X, 2, we read: We have sinned against our God, and have taken strange wives [nokhrioth] of the people of the earth. That people of the earth denotes idolators is clear from Zohar, I, 25a: “The People of the earth – Obhde Abhodah Zarah, idolaters.

    9. Basar Vedam

    Flesh and blood; carnal men who are destined to perdition and who can have no communion with God. That Christians are flesh and blood, is proved from the prayer book:

    “Whoever meets a wise and educated Christian can say: Blessed art thou O Lord, King of the Universe, who dispenseth of thy wisdom to Flesh and Blood,” etc.
    Likewise in another prayer, in which they ask God soon to restore the kingdom of David and to send Elias and the Messia, etc., they ask him to take away their poverty so that they will have no need to accept gifts from “flesh and blood,” nor to trade with them, nor to seek wages from them.

    10. Apikorosim

    Epicureans. All are called by this name who do not observe God’s precepts, as well as all those, even Jews themselves, who express private judgments in matters of faith. How much more, therefore, Christians!

    11. Kuthim

    Samaritans. But since there are no longer any Samaritans, and since there are many references in recent Jewish books to Samaritans, who can doubt that this does not mean the Christians? Furthermore, in this matter of naming those who are not Jews, it is to be particularly noted that Jewish writings apply these names indiscriminately and promiscuously when they speak of the same thing, and almost in the same words. For instance, in the Tract Abhodah Zarah (25b) the word Goi is employed, but in the Schulkhan Arukh (Iore Dea 153, 2) Akum is used. Kerithuth (6b) uses Goim;Jebhammoth (61a) uses Akum; Abhodah Zar. (2a) uses Obhde Elilim; Thoseph uses Goim and Obhde Ab., Choschen Ham (Venetian ed.) uses Kuthi; (Slav. ed.) Akum. And many more instances could be quoted.
    Maimonides in his book on Idolatry indiscriminately calls all the following idolators: Goim, Akum, Obhde Kokhabhim, Obhde Elilim, etc.


    In the preceding chapter we saw what the Jews think of the Founder of the Christian religion, and how much they despise his name. This being so, it would not be expected that they would have any better opinion about those who follow Jesus the Nazarene. In fact, nothing more abominable can be imagined than what they have to say about Christians. They say that they are idolaters, the worst kind of people, much worse than the Turks, murderers, fornicators, impure animals, like dirt, unworthy to be called men, beasts in human form, worthy of the name of beasts, cows, asses, pigs, dogs, worse than dogs; that they propagate after the manner of beasts, that they have diabolic origin, that their souls come from the devil and return to the devil in hell after death; and that even the body of a dead Christian is nothing different from that of an animal.


    Since Christians follow the teachings of that man, whom the Jews regard as a Seducer and an Idolater, and since they worship him as God, it clearly follows that they merit the name of idolater, in no way different from those among whom the Jews lived before the birth of Christ, and whom they taught should be exterminated by every possible means.

    This is best demonstrated by the names they give Christians, and by the unmistakable words of Maimonides which prove that all who bear the name of Christian are idolaters. And anyone who examines Jewish books which speak of the “Worshippers of the Stars and Planets,” “Epicureans,” “Samaritans,” etc., cannot but conclude that these idolaters are none other than Christians. The Turks are always called “Ismaelites,” never idolaters.


    Maimonides in Hilkoth Maakhaloth (ch. IX) says:

    “It is not permitted to drink the wine of a stranger who becomes a convert, that is, one who accepts the seven precepts of Noah, but is permitted to gain some benefit from it. It is allowed to leave wine alone with him, but not to place it before him. The same is permitted in the case of all gentiles who are not idolaters, such as the Turks [Ismaelites]. A Jew, however, is not permitted to drink their wine, although he may use it to his own advantage.”


    In Abhodah Zarah (22a) it says:

    “A Jew must not associate himself with gentiles because they are given to the shedding of blood.”

    Likewise in Iore Dea (153, 2):

    “An Israelite must not associate himself with the Akum [Christians] because they are given to the shedding of blood.”

    In the Abhodah Zarah (25b) it says:

    “The Rabbis taught: If a Goi joins an Israelite on the road, he [the Jew] should walk on his right side. Rabbi Ismael, the son of Rabbi Jochanan the nephew of Beruka, says: if he carries a sword, let the Jew walk on his right side. If the Goi carries a stick, the Jew should walk on his left side. If he is climbing a hill or descending a steep incline, the Jew must not go in front with the Goi behind, but the Jew must go behind and the Goi in front, nor must he stoop down in front of him for fear the Goi might crack his skull. And if he should ask the Jew how far he is going, he should pretend he is going a long way, as Jacob our Father said to the impious Esau: until I come to my Lord in Seir (Gen. XXXIII, 14-17), but it adds: Jacob set out for Sukoth.”

    In Orach Chaiim (20, 2) it says:

    “Do not sell your overcoat (Talith) with the fringes to an Akum, lest he should join up with a Jew on the road and kill him. It is also forbidden to exchange or lend your overcoat with a Gentile, except for a short time and when there is nothing to be feared from him.”


    In the Abhodah Zarah (15b) it says:

    “Animals of the masculine sex must not be left in the barns of the Gentiles with their men, nor animals of the feminine sex with their women; much less must animals of the feminine sex be left with their men and of the masculine sex with their women. Nor must sheep be left to the care of their shepherds; nor must any intercourse be had with them; nor must children be given into their care to learn to read or to learn a trade.”

    In the same tract a little farther on (22a) it is explained why animals must not be allowed in the barns of Gentiles, and why Jews are not permitted to have sexual intercourse with them:

    “Animals must not be allowed to go near the Goim, because they are suspected of having intercourse with them. Nor must women cohabit with them because they are over-sexed.”

    In fol. 22b of the same book the reason is given why animals especially of the feminine sex must be kept away from their women: “…because when Gentile men come to their neighbors’ houses to commit adultery with their wives and do not find them at home, they fornicate with the sheep in the barns instead. And sometimes even when their neighbors’ wives are at home, they prefer to fornicate with the animals; for they love the sheep of the Israelites more than their own women.”

    It is for the same reason that animals are not to be entrusted to Goi shepherds, nor children to their educators.

    5. UNCLEAN

    The Talmud gives two reasons why the Goim are unclean: because they eat unclean things, and because they themselves have not been cleansed (from original sin) on Mount Sinai. In Schabbath, (145b) it says:

    “Why are the Goim unclean? Because they eat abominable things and animals that crawl on their belly.”

    Likewise in Abhodah Zarah, 22b:

    “Why are the Goim unclean? Because they were not present at Mount Sinai. For when the serpent entered into Eve he infused her with uncleanness. But the Jews were cleansed from this when they stood on Mount Sinai; the Goim, however, who were not on Mount Sinaim were not cleansed.”


    “When ten persons are praying together in one place and they say Kaddisch, or Kedoschah, anyone, even though he does not belong there, may respond Amen. There are some, however, who say that no dung or Akum must be present.”

    In Iore Dea (198, 48) Hagah, it says:

    “When Jewish women come out of a bath they must take care to meet a friend first, and not something unclean or a Chrsitian. For if so, a woman, if she wants to keep holy, should go back and bathe again.”

    It is worthy of note that the following list of unclean things is a given in Biur Hetib, a commentary on the Schulchan Arukh:

    “A woman must wash herself again if she sees any unclean things, such as a dog, an ass, or People of the Earth; a Christian (Akum), a camel, a pig, a horse, and a leper.


    In Kerithuth (6b p. 78) it says:

    “The teaching of the Rabbis is: He who pours oil over a Goi, and over dead bodies is freed from punishment. This is true for an animal because it is not a man. But how can it be said that by pouring oil over a Goi one is freed from punishment, since a Goi is also a man? But this is not true, for it is written: Ye are my flock, the flock of my pasture are men (Ezechiel, XXXIV, 31). You are thus called men, but the Goim are not called men.”

    In the Tract Makkoth (7b) he is said to be guilty of killing “except when, if intending to kill an animal he kills a man by mistake, or intending to kill a Goi, he kills an Israelite.”

    In Orach Chaiim (225, 10) it says:

    “He who sees beautiful creatures, even though it be an Akum or an animal, let him say ‘Blessed art thou Our Lord God, King of the Universe, who has placed such things on the earth!'”


    In Midrasch Talpioth (fol. 225d) it says:

    “God created them in the form of men for the glory of Israel. But Akum were created for the sole end of ministering unto them [the Jews] day and night. Nor can they ever be relieved from this service. It is becoming to the son of a king [an Israelite] that animals in their natural form, and animals in the form of human beings should minister unto him.”

    We can quote here also what is said in Orach Chaiim, 57, 6a:

    “If pigs are to be pitied when they suffer from disease, because their intestines are similar to ours, how much more should the Akum be pitied when thus affected.”

    9. ANIMALS

    In Zohar, II, (64b) it says:

    “…People who worship idols, and who are called cow and ass, as it is written: I have a cow and an ass…”

    Rabbi Bechai, in his book Kad Hakkemach, ch. I, beginning with the word Geulah—redemption—referring to Psalm 80, v.13:

    The boar out of the wood doth waste it, says:

    “The letter ain is dropped [suspended] the same as these worshippers are followers of him who was suspended.”

    Buxtorf (Lex.) says:

    “By wild pig the author here means the Christians who eat pork and, like pigs, have destroyed the vineyard of Israel, the City of Jerusalem, and who believe in the ‘suspended’ Christ. Else the letter ain is dropped in this word because they, as worshippers of Christ who was hanged, are also dropped.”

    Rabbi Edels, in commenting on Kethuboth (110b) says:

    “The Psalmist compares the Akum to the unclean beast in the woods.”


    Rabbi Schelomo Iarchi (Raschi), famous Jewish commentator, explaining the law of Moses (Deuter. XIV, 21) forbidding the eating of meat of wounded animals, but which must be given to the ‘stranger in thy gates,’ or which, according to Exodus (XXII, 30) is to be thrown to the dogs, has this to say:

    “…for he is like a dog. Are we to take to word ‘dog’ here literally? By no means. For the text in speaking of dead bodies says, Or thou mayest sell it to an alien. This applies much more to the meat of wounded animals, for which it is permitted to accept payment. Why therefore does the Scripture say it may be thrown to ‘dogs?’ In order to teach you that a dog is to be more respected than the Nokhri.”


    In the Sanhedrin (74b) Tosephoth, it says:

    “The sexual intercourse of a Goi is like that of a beast.”

    And in Kethuboth (3b) it says:

    “The seed of a Goi is worth the same as that of a beast.”

    Hence it is to be inferred that Christian marriage is not true marriage.

    In Kidduschim (68a), it says:

    “…How do we know this? Rabbi Huna says: You can read: Remain here with the ass, that is, with a people like an ass. Hence it appears that they are not capable of contracting marriage.”

    And in Eben Haezer (44, 8):

    “If a Jew enters into marriage with an Akum (Christian), or with his servant, the marriage is null. For they are not capable of entering into matrimony. Likewise if an Akum or a servant enter into matrimony with a Jew, the marriage is null.”

    In Zohar (II, 64b) it says:

    “Rabbi Abba says: If only idolaters alone had sexual intercourse, the world would not continue to exist. Hence we are taught that a Jew should not give way to those infamous robbers. For if these propagate in greater numbers, it will be impossible for us to continue to exist because of them. For they give birth to sucklings the same as dogs.”


    In Zohar (I, 28b) we read:

    “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc. (Genes. III, 1.) ‘More subtle’ that is towards evil; ‘than all beasts’ that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve.”

    The best argument used by the Jews to prove that Christians are of the race of the devil is the fact that they are uncircumcized. The foreskin on non-Jews prevents them from being called the children of the Most High God. For by circumcision the name of God—Schaddai—is complete in the flesh of a circumcized Jew. The form of the letter Isch is in his nostrils, the letter Daleth in his (bent) arm, and ain appears in his sexual organ by circumcision. In non-circumcized gentiles, therefore, such as Christians, there are only two letters, Isch and Daleth, which make the word Sched, which means devil. They are, therefore, children of the Sched, the devil.


    The teaching of the Jews is that God created two natures, one good and the other evil, or one nature with two sides, one clean and the other unclean. From the unclean side, called Keliphah—rind, or scabby crust—the souls of Christians are said to have come.

    In Zohar (I, 131a) it says:

    “idolatrous people, however, since they exist, befoul the world, because their souls come out of the unclean side.”

    And in Emek Hammelech (23d) it says:

    “The souls of the impious come from Keliphah, which is death and the shadows of death.”

    Zohar (I, 46b, 47a) goes to show that this unclean side is the left side, from which the souls of the Christians come:

    “And he created every living thing, that is, the Israelites, because they are the children of the Most High God, and their holy souls come out from Him. But where do the souls of the idolatrous gentiles come from? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the left side, which makes their souls unclean. They are therefore all unclean and they pollute all who come in contact with them.”


    The Elders teach that Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna and prevents any circumcized person from entering there; but that all the uncircumcized go down to hell.

    In Rosch Haschanach (17a) it says:

    “Heretics and Epicureans and Traitors go down into hell.”


    The bodies of Christians after death are called by the odious name of Pegarim, which is the word used in Holy Scripture for the dead bodies of the damned and of animals, but never for the pious dead who are called Metim. Thus the Schulchan Arukh orders that a dead Christian must be spoken of in the same way as a dead animal.

    In Iore Dea (377, 1) it says:

    “Condolences must not be offered to anyone on account of the death of his servants or handmaids. All that may be said is ‘May God restore your lost one, the same as we say to a man who has lost a cow or an ass.'”

    Nor must Christians be avoided for seven days after they have buried someone, as the law of Moses commands, since they are not men; for the burial of an animal does not pollute one.

    In Iebhammoth (61a) it says:

    “The Nokhrim are not rendered unclean by a burial. For it is said: Ye are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture; ye are men. You are thus called men, but not the Nokhrim.”

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked with an *. Your email address will not be published. In order to ensure your comment is not lost due to an incorrect CAPTCHA entry, you may want to copy your comment before you click POST COMMENT. All comments containing hyperlinks will be held in moderation until they are formatted properly, but will be posted. All comments containing obscenities will be amended and posted, unless they are too obscene and nonsensical, in which case they will be deleted.