Last name origin & meaning:
Jewish (eastern Ashkenazic), Ukrainian, and Belorussian: nickname from Ukrainian shostak, Belorussian shastak ‘someone with a six-fingered hand’. Compare Polish Szostak.
Shostak Name Meaning
Jewish (eastern Ashkenazic), Ukrainian, and Belorussian: nickname from Ukrainian shostak, Belorussian shastak ‘someone with a six-fingered hand’. Compare Polish Szostak.
Talking With… a man who looks for life beyond the stars
by dan pine
Name: Seth Shostak
City: Mountain View
Position: Senior astronomer, director of research, SETI Institute
J.: You serve as senior astronomer and director of research at the SETI Institute (SETI stands for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence). What is the function of the institute?Seth Shostak: The institute is all about the question of life, life beyond Earth and the origins of life on our own planet. We ask whether this is the only place in the cosmos where biology has taken a foothold. People at SETI are interested in finding life in our own [cosmic] backyard. There’s also a small SETI group, which I’m the director of, interested in life that could hold up the other end of a conversation.
In the news recently, we’ve seen stories about possible liquid water on Mars and warm seas on one of Jupiter’s moons. What would it mean if we find primitive life in places like those?
If we find life on another planet — a second Genesis — that would tell you right away that life is not a miracle. It happens all over the place. As long as we’re the only example of life, you can say we’re special. But even if you find pond scum on a moon of Jupiter, you can say biology is a cosmic infection.
What was the closest call you ever had at the SETI Institute?
We had a false alarm in summer of 1997. We saw a strong signal coming over a very limited bandwidth on the radio dial. Because a piece of our equipment wasn’t working that day, it looked like the real deal for most of the day. That was quite exciting. From our point of view it looked pretty promising. It turned out it was the transmitter above a research satellite.
The institute has been around for more than 30 years. How does it get by financially?
We barely have enough money to pay a handful of people. When I joined, it was a NASA project with several dozen involved. It cost 1/1000th of the NASA budget, but that was killed by Congress in 1993, which claimed it was a waste of taxpayer money. Since then we have run entirely on donations. We’re very limited in what we can do. We built our own telescope in the Cascades, the Allen Telescope Array, but to save money we’ve given up half of the [telescope] time to other astronomers.
What would it mean to humankind if you did receive a signal from an alien civilization?
In the short term, it would be a very interesting story. Everyone’s going to want to know where in the sky is this place. In the long term, every telescope would be turned in that direction, so we’d build bigger antennas. If you can decode what is sent, obviously that would be remarkable and could change everything, but it’s more likely we won’t figure it out. Then the effect is philosophical. What happened on this planet is just another instance of what’s happened many times.
You grew up Jewish in Arlington, Virginia. How did that impact your life and work?
My mom was active in the local synagogue and president of Hadassah. My grandfather was Orthodox, but none of his kids were. But I have to say [Judaism] is an aspect of my life I confront every day. Judaism is very open about the processes of science. It doesn’t have dogma attached. Also, a surprisingly high number of the people I deal with on a professional level are Jewish and come from New York. There’s something about Jewish guys from New York that makes them very approachable, easy-going and easy to talk to. It makes me smile a lot.
If you were to receive a message from across interstellar space, and you could respond, what message would you send?
Given that it might take hundreds of years to get there, you might send a lot of stuff. Send them Google servers so they can research the corpus of information. But if I only had enough space to ask two questions, they would be: do you have religion, and do you have music?
“Talking with …” focuses on local Jews who are doing things we find interesting.
from THE JEWISH RELIGION: Its Influence Today
by Elizabeth Dilling
TALMUDIC IMMORALITY, ASININITY AND PORNOGRAPHY: THE REPROBATE MIND
[page 22] 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 (Exhibit 155) that spittle on the top of the bed curtain proves that a wife has been guilty of adultery, as only lying down face upwards could she have spit up on it. Spitting several feet straight up! The Talmud states: “When a peddler leaves a house and the woman within is fastening her sinnar [breech-cloth] … If spittle is found on the upper part of the curtained bed she must, said Rabbi, go.” Footnote: “Even if there were no witnesses that misconduct took place.” Further footnote: “Only the woman lying face upwards could have spat on the spot. Intercourse may, there fore, be suspected.”
From a Roof
The Talmud book of Yebamoth also concerns the duty to marry a brother’s widow who is childless. Two volumes of junk and obscenity for its own sake carry the title, Yebamoth. Another illustration of the “reprobate mind” is the teaching that [Yebamoth 54a] if a man falls from a roof “and his fall resulted in accidental insertion,” as [Ybamoth 54a footnote] “When in a state of erection the levir fell from a raised bench upon his sister-in-law who happened to be below.” Here the great Talmudic “saint” Rashi is cited as authority. “His commentary on the Talmud is a consummate masterpiece, a remarkable and gigantic work,” says the 1943 Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. Rashi was born in Troyes, France, 1040, and died there in 1105.
The above Talmud passage is not reproduced here. It is in Yebamoth 53b-54a (page 356 of the Soncino edition) and continues the above with the responsibility of a “levir” or brother-in-law “when, for instance, his intention was intercourse with his wife and his sister-in-law seized him and he cohabited with her.” [Yebamoth 54a] The passage is merely an excuse to indulge the “reprobate mind” in uncleanness. (Romans 1:28) Is it any wonder that Christ likened Pharisees to “unseen graves” (Luke 11) and “whited sepulchres” (Matt. 23)?
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 …” (See Exhibit 157, from the Talmud book of Yebamoth, 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.” Unless specifically warned in advance and the act seen by two witnesses, she is acceptable also. 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.” (See Exhibit 158)
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)
Baby boys may always be used as subjects for sodomy by grown men, according to the Talmud. (See Exhibit 54) 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. [page 23] (See Exhibit 136 and Exhibit 137) 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.
Baby girls of three can invoke sadistic punishments on those who have intercourse with them when they are “Niddahs” (menstruating), a physical impossibility, of course. (Talmud, Sanhedrin 55b – Exhibit 55; Sanhedrin 69a – Exhibit 81)
And, at three, a baby girl is always rated as “one who is fit for cohabitation — that is one who has attained the age of three years and one day.” (Talmud, Yebamoth 60b, Exhibit 159) But, in the case of a baby girl who is not Jewish-born, or a so-called “proselyte,” she may be “married” thus by a grown priest: “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest;” although “one who is fit for cohabitation,” as stated on the same page, is “one who has attained the age of three years and one day.” (See Exhibit 159)
This Talmud Yebamoth passage continues with the ruling in the case of a baby under three married to a grown man priest, and declared eligible to continue as his wife. (See Exhibit 160) The baby girl was a “proselyte,” of course, so age did not matter. But “under eleven years and one day” a little girl “carries on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.” (See Exhibit 152, Yebamoth 12b of the Talmud)
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)
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.”] Here silliness reigns supreme, and one understands why Christ called the Pharisees “fools and blind:” “Beth Shammai maintaining, we must base our ruling on the earlier generations” [Footnote states: “When a boy of that age could cause conception.”] “but Hillel holds that we do not.”
The supposition that boys became fathers at eight is the silly excuse for the Shammai school to argue that the boy must be under eight to leave the mother pure. The standard throughout the Jewish Talmud is that a little boy becomes a person, “sexually mature,” at nine years and one day, — another asininity. The whole argument strains at the “gnat” of age and “swallows the camel” of incest between mother and son. (Matthew 23:24)
Incest with Lot
The Bible tells us that after the destruction of Sodom with all of its inhabitants, except Lot and his two daughters who took refuge in a cave: “The firstborn said unto the younger, our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us … Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.” The next night the same events took place for the younger: “Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.” (Genesis 19:31-8) The abominating tribes of Moabiteg and Ammonites were the products of these two sons, at first spared, then demolished by the fourth king of Judah, Jehosaphat. (11 Chron. 20)
But the Talmudic “Sages” take anything but a critical view of this incest:
“A man should always be as alert as possible to perform a precept, for as a reward for anticipating the younger by one night, the elder daughter of Lot was privileged to appear in the genealogical record of the royal household of Israel four generations earlier.” (See Exhibit 166, Nazir 23b-24a of the Talmud)
The Jewish press in 1954 reported attempts to alter state laws so as to legalize marriages between uncle and niece, which is common in rabbinical circles. The Bible prohibits marriages between uncles and aunts, and with nieces and nephews, as incest. (Lev. 18:13,14).
Under “Talmudic Eugenics” in Baron’s A Social and Religious History of the Jews (Jewish Publication Society, 1952), is this on incest: “In Egypt the Ptolemaic rulers themselves, for the most part, married their own sisters. In Parthia-Persia, marriages between parents and children were valid, and those among brothers and sisters were quite customary. [page 24] The Parsee religion … encouraged such marriages as the fittest means of preserving family purity [cf. ‘Yasna’ 12, 9] … Artaxerxes 11 had married his two daughters, and … Mithraidates I had married his mother. Ardea Viraz is said to have married his seven sisters.” (page 229, Volume 11) This was not harmful, we are told!
“On one point, particularly, Roman law differed from Jewish: marriages between an uncle and a niece. We recall that both Rabbi Eliezer and Abba married nieces, as did Rabbi Jose the Galilean … Rabbi Ishmael made a special effort to overrule his vow [not to marry his own niece] and to make the niece more attractive to him by improving her teeth …” (page 230, same)
Moses commanded in God’s name, that a woman should not marry her uncle, or a man his aunt. (Lev. 18:14) Nevertheless, today these “People of the Book” are striving to modify American state laws against such marriages, and have actually been successful in some states, on the ground that their “religion” requires such latitude.
Harlots and Dogs
The creative powers were worshipped in all ancient pagan countries as the procreative powers of male and female, with sex rites to match. Men who became priests to the female goddess Venus, Mylitta, Astarte, or by whatever name, in a wild orgy of drugged frenzy would castrate themselves with “sacred swords” and then contribute part of their earnings as sodomists to the upkeep of the pagan cult and temple, and would train, sell and rent dogs for immoral purposes. Girls who became priestesses to the pagan temples earned their keep and contributed to a cult’s upkeep through their earnings as “sacred prostitutes.”
But Moses taught that the worship of God was not to be maintained on such earnings. “Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both of these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.” (Deuteronomy 23:18)
The Talmud, citing Deuteronomy 23:19, makes this out of the ruling: “There is not adultery in connection with an animal, because it is written, ‘Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog,’ etc., and it has been taught: ‘The hire of a dog and the wages of a harlot’ are permissible, as it is said, ‘Even both of these are an abomination unto the Lord’ —the two specified in the text are abominations but not four.” Then the permission is given to use for the temple: “Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal adultery. If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be offered.” (Sotah 26b Talmud, Exhibit 168)
Abodah Zarah of the Talmud takes up this same “matter of a harlot’s hire which is permitted — To be devoted to the Temple, in spite of the Law of Deut. XXIII, 19.” (actually, verse 18) The man is permitted to do this: “If he gave her it [the money] and subsequently had intercourse with her, or had intercourse with her and subsequently gave it to her, the hire is permitted. The two matters are regarded as separate and what she received is legally a gift.” This argument goes on for two pages. (See Exhibit 190 and Exhibit 191)
No wonder that Christ charged that the Pharisees nullified the commandments of God by their Tradition, which now, in written form, has become the Talmud.
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 sepulchres … 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”!
There is nothing now, as formerly, in Talmudic doctrine, against polygamy. It is practiced by Jews in countries where it is allowed.
A 1952 book by Salo Wittmayer Baron, Professor of Jewish History, Literature and Institutions of the Miller Foundation, Columbia University, is entitled, A Social and Religious History of the Jews and is published by the American Jewish Committee’s Jewish Publication Society of America. The chapter, “The World of the Talmud,” cites the harem of King Solomon (which finished him morally and otherwise), saying its “memory kindled the imagination of polygamous Jews in subsequent ages.” Although we are told [page 25] that there was no real difference between Palestinian and Babylonian Jewries fundamentally, the book states “there are indications that Babylonian Jewish society had more polygamous features than did that of Palestine.”
And: “Anecdotes like those current in regard to Rab and Rabbi Nahman [who] after arriving in a foreign city they used to advertise for women ready to marry them for the time of their sojourn (‘man havya le-yoma’) … In law, too, the Babylonian emphasis lay upon the Jew’s right to ‘marry as many wives as he is able to support.'”
It was Rabbi Gershorn Ben Judah (bom Metz, 960; died Mayence, France 1040), whose edicts were accepted by European Jewry as final for all time, who commanded Jews in Christian countries to stop getting into trouble with the law by polygamy.
Israel first proposed extra allowances for plural wives but now seems to be screening polygamy from Christian eyes.
After the period of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and before this, in the case of Adam and Noah, monogamy ruled. The Prophets were monogamists. Moses commanded regarding a man of God that: “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away. …” (Deuteronomy 17:17) And, admittedly, the polygamy of David and his son Solomon ended the Israel twelve-tribe united Kingdom. Their hordes of pagan wives, and foul, pagan altars broke down any Godly spirit which had formerly united them. However, reversing the Bible once again, Pharisee “Sages” embroider upon the above words of Moses against polygamy, their permission to have 18, 24, or 48 wives. (Talmud, Sanhedrin 20b-21a) The Mishna asks: “Why then is it written, neither shall he multiply wives to himself … Rabbi Simeon said: He must not marry even one who may turn away his heart — From which it might be inferred that he may marry a lesser number even if they should corrupt him.”
The Jewish Talmud and Legally
Murdering Your Neighbor
As noted elsewhere, regarding murder of the non-Jew, it is good and meritorious, providing you do not get caught and thus get the Talmudic religion exposed for what it is.
However, permissible murder in Judaism embraces more than just killing Gentiles. Murder by suffocation is permissible. Here shyster hairsplitting is inserted in the Talmud, it being permissible to seal up a neighbor in an airtight “alabaster chamber,” providing one does not put in a lighted candle to help eat up the oxygen, but merely allowing the victim to expire by breathing the oxygen up himself unaided, this is acceptable. (See Exhibit 86 from Sanhedrin 77a-77b of the Talmud)
Under Talmudic “law” other forms of murder are also permissible:
Binding up your neighbor so that he dies of starvation. Just bind up the neighbor before it is hot or cold enough to kill him and all is well — you are guiltless of what follows. (See Exhibit 85)
Binding up your neighbor so that he dies of sunstroke. (See Exhibit 85)
Binding up your neighbor so that he dies of cold. (See Exhibit 85)
Binding up your neighbor so that a lion may kill him. (See Exhibit 85) He could not have fought the lion anyway, so, it is acceptable, says the Talmud.
Letting mosquitoes bite your neighbor to death. As for the mosquitoes, they come and go, so, since the ones which bit him when you tied the victim go away and others end his life, you are pure and blameless. (See Exhibit 85)
Throwing your neighbor into a pit and leaving him to die there. (See Exhibit 86)
Killing your neighbor with arrow wounds. (See Exhibit 86) Shooting the neighbor with an arrow is acceptable, since if there is balsam for sale somewhere, he presumably could have sent for some and thus have been cured instead of dying. (See Exhibit 86)
You can also drown your neighbor and yet be “guiltless” of his death! Remember to follow Talmudic law, however, and cause the water to travel a little distance before it drowns the neighbor — then you are guiltless of his death! (See Exhibit 87)
Ten “Innocent” Murderers
It is granted in the Talmud that the Bible forbids taking a man’s life — but that merely means taking his life all by yourself. In other words, you must not take the whole of his life all alone, which permits you, nevertheless, to help nine other men to take a life.
Thus, it is stated in the Talmud: “If ten men smote a man with ten staves whether simultaneously or successively, and he died, they are exempt.” Answering the Rabbi who suggests that killing whatever is left of a man’s life might be wrong, we are also told: “If ten men assailed him successively, he was already nearly dead when the last smote him: therefore the last, too, is exempt.” (See Exhibit 88)
“Mercy” Killings Approved
Elaborate pains were taken, rather recently, by Rabbis to deny that “mercy” killings are permitted in Judaism — because they are. The public discussion was on whether or not a hopelessly sick person should be put out of his misery. The Rabbis denied that would be proper, necessarily know ng that the Talmud states otherwise. The Talmud, Sanhedrin 77b-78a, contains these rabbinical edicts:
“Both agree that if he killed a Terefah [explained in a footnote as ‘a person suffering from some fatal organic disease, recovery from which is impossible’] — he is exempt.” And: “If one kills a Terefah, he is exempt; whilst if a Terefah committed murder: if in the presence of a Beth Din [i.e. a Talmudic law court] he is liable; otherwise he is exempt.” (See Exhibit 88 and Exhibit 89)
Cursing and Striking Parents
“Honor thy Father and thy Mother.” So states the Commandment.
[page 26] The Bible, through Moses, teaches that anyone who strikes or curses his parents is worthy of death.
But the Pharisee “Sages” have nullified that. One may strike parents without wounding them, while they are alive, but there are no limitations upon striking them after death! (See Exhibit 94)
Jews may curse their parents providing they use any term meaning God. (See Exhibit 74) Excepted are the Y-H-W-H consonants of the word Jehovah, called the Tetragrammaton, and which is reserved for use in summoning demons.
As for the “sacredness” of the Tetragrammaton word for Jehovah, the word God is frequently written “G-d.” The Tetragrammaton written in full is reserved for the use of Rabbinical potentates, the Hassidist Baal (Master) Shem (of the Name of God), who by using 14, 42, 72 letter combinations of the name is supposedly able to invoke spirits. At the beginning of the century, according to authorities, about half of Jewry was Hassidist.
The word “God” is not supposed to be written or spoken even today, and the California Jewish Voice, for example, carries articles in which the word is spelled “G-D” throughout. Not piety but sheer superstition governs this.
One of Christ’s major “crimes” was that He pronounced the Name as spelled. (See Exhibit 56, from Sanhedrin 55b-56a of the Talmud) It is there explained in a footnote that “Bless” is used in the text instead of the right term “Curse,” typifying Talmudic double-talk.
Moses said that anyone who cursed or struck mother or father should be put to death. (Exodus 21:15,17; Leviticus 20:9; Deuteronomy 27:16)
“But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say a gift (Or I have dedicated to God that which would relieve your need) … ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother: making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have … delivered, and many such like things ye do.” (Mark 7:1-13) Matthew 15 contains like denunciations.
In Matthew 13 and Mark 7, Christ asked the Pharisees: “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and thy mother and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”
Then Christ reminded them of the Pharisee custom of dedicating their goods to the Temple, then telling their needy parents that what they might have given them is now the property of God and they must do without, although they themselves went on using the proceeds of their wealth for themselves.
Christ was hated by the pagan Pharisees for such teachings as:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven … except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-20)
The Talmud Book of Gittin And Some Health Remedies
This Talmud book is about divorce. Reproduced herein are the title page (Exhibit 199) and part of the introduction (Exhibit 200). The book also deals with the fate of Christians in Hell. (See, for example, Exhibit 201 and Exhibit 202.) Following are also various dog and dung health remedies. Exhibit 205, Exhibit 206, Exhibit 207, Exhibit 208, and Exhibit 209 are reproductions from Gittin, Folios 69a-70b, devoted to these dung and dog remedies almost too fantastic to believe. The privy, demons and privates are mingled in insane array.
The funny thing about the horrendous and silly “remedies” of the Talmud book of Gittin, is not the asininity of the remedies themselves so much as the commentary, in English, by a British doctor with a string of alleged degrees, which appears in the Appendix to the Soncino edition of this Talmud book. He actually attempts to justify and praise these nutty things! The wrong people, it is often said, are in asylums.
The “Appendix” (not reproduced) is entitled: “Notes On The Various Remedies Recommended in Folios 68b-70b,” by W. M. Feldman, MD, FRCP, Lond., FRAS, FRS.”
For the “Charms, Amulets, Incantations, Astrological associations,” he finds the benefits of “suggestion” with “profound effect,” and for whatever he cannot evolve a “rational physical basis,” he invents imagined benefits. He points out that “animal excrements as remedial agents” are ancient and we “shall not lightly dismiss the ancient folk remedies — however absurd they may appear.” He extolls the incantations and lauds these Rabbis’ “knowledge of all parts of theoretical and practical medicine, in which they surpassed their contemporaries …” He refers to several works to study the glories of “Talmudic Medicine” in five pages of whitewash, professing to look down upon “the probable sneers of the sophisticated, but untutored reader,” which should include just about everyone except a Talmudist zealot.
Use of the Bible for Asininity and Obscenity
One is enlightened as to Christ’s denunciations of the Pharisees as “fools and blind” (Matthew 23, etc.) by the following so-called “wisdom of the sages:
Adam’s words about Eve are cited in the Bible: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh …” a statement Christ used in His teachings about marriage. (Matthew 19:3-6) But the Jewish Talmud teaches:
“What is meant by the Scriptural text, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my fleshT (Genesis 2:23) This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with [page 27] Eve.” (See Exhibit 161, Yebamoth 63a, of the Talmud)
David’s 6th psalm is a plea by David for forgiveness: “Return, 0, Lord, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies sake … in the grave who shall give thee thanks?”
“I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears.” Citing the above verse, Psalm 6:7, the Talmud “sages” make this to be the meaning: “Even during David’s illness he fulfilled the conjugal rights of his eighteen wives, as it is written, ‘I am weary with my groaning: all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears.'” (See Exhibit 116, from Sanhedrin 107a of the Talmud)
Women who are “unclean” (menstruating) are to remain separate, said Moses, “all the days of her issue,” and this verse (Leviticus 15:26) is cited in the Jewish Talmud, which states, “that a woman is not regarded as a ‘zabah’ [one with a discharge] except during the daytime because it is written, ‘all the days of her issue.'” (See Exhibit 194, from Horayoth 4a of the Talmud)
Typical of the Talmud misuse of the Bible for purposes of inventing obscenity and then giving it a Biblical coating, is the Biblical account about Sisera, head of the Canaanite army, who fights all day and is the only man left alive. He flees to the tent of a supposed friend of the Canaanites, Heber the Kenite. Jael, Heber’s wife, welcomes him in but as soon as he falls into exhausted sleep drives a tent nail through his temple and he dies. She boasts of this to his pursuing captors. Next, Deborah makes up a song of rejoicing in which she embroiders on Sisera’s actual death in his sleep (Judges 4:2 1) and with poetic license sings: “When she had stricken through his temples — at her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell, where he bowed, there he fell down dead.” (Judges 5:27) The verbs “bowed” and “fell” are used three times each, and “lay” is used once. This makes seven verbs used in this verse.
The standard Talmud use of this verse is to indicate it as meaning “seven sexual connections.” The same Biblical verse is used thus about Christ. The words: “at her feet he bowed, he fell” are explained as: “Judges 5:27. This is taken to refer to sexual intercourse …” (See Exhibit 108, San hedrin 105a-b of the Talmud)
This is rehashed in Yebarnoth 103a-103b of the Jewish Talmud: “That profligate — Sisera — had seven sexual connections on that day for it is said, ‘Between her feet he sunk, he fell, he lay: at her feet he sunk, he fell; where he sunk, there he fell down dead,” with the footnote giving the Talmudic reasoning: “Each of the expressions ‘he sunk,’ and ‘he fell,’ occurs three times, and ‘he lay’ occurs once.” (See Exhibit 162)
The Talmud book of Nazir reiterates the same Biblical misuse for no reason whatever: “That wicked wretch, Sisera, had sevenfold intercourse with Jael at that time, as it says, ‘At her feet he sunk, he fell, he lay,’ etc. — The words ‘he sunk,’ ‘he fell’ occur three times, and the words ‘he lay,’ once. Judges V,27.” (Exhibit 165, from Nazir 23b, of the Talmud)
The Talmud book of Horayoth repeats the same obscenity. (See Exhibit 195)
Farming Inferior for Jews
In the course of a terrible prophecy against Tyre, the New York of the ancient world, and reprobate with sodomy, lesbianism, child-burning, and other abominations, is a Bible verse foretelling that “all that handle the oar, the mariners, and all the pilots of the sea, shall come down from their ships; they shall stand upon the land.” (Ezekiel 27:29) The prophecy, including all the details of the preceding chapter were literally fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander the Great. Nebuchadnezzar pounded down the walls of Tyre and Alexander made a causeway of the rocks, killing or selling into slavery the inhabitants, who had taken refuge on an island off shore.
However, the Talmud nullifies and twists these Biblical words, and out of the words foretelling the end of the seagoing trading power, coming “down from their ships they shall stand upon the land,” the Pharisee Talmud “sages” state: “No occupation is inferior to that of agricultural labor, for it is said, ‘they shall come down.” (From Yebamoth 63a of the Talmud – See Exhibit 161)
Talmud Instructions for the Sabbath
No Talmud book illustrates Christ’s depictions of Pharisaism better than the book of Sabbath. He said: “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:24)
One way to go raving crazy is to study the Talmud book of Sabbath with its rules on what is or what is not permissible on the Sabbath.
Concerning the Sabbath, even the digested laws, or Talmud Mishna in the Schulhan Aruch, take up 82 pages of Volume 2 (pages 63-145). The sum and substance of all of them is a game of subversion. A rule is set up. “How many ways are there to get around it and nullify it?” That is the problem, leading to almost endless trivia and discussion.
Moving a Door Key
One gem concerns the weighty problem of the door key which the “shabbos goy,” or a Sabbath gentile, is carrying home for you so that the Jew is spared that “labor. ”
The Talmud rule is that you cannot move goods from one category of property to another; from private to public property or from what is neither public or private, on the Sabbath. Your doorstep is neither public nor private. The street or sidewalk outside the doorstep is public; your house inside is private. Therefore, says the Talmud, you must have the “goy” not only insert your key in the lock, but push the door in as, otherwise, if you pushed the door in with the key in it, you would be moving the key from property neither public nor private (the sill) to the inside of the house (private property).
The Sabbath Louse-Hunt
“One who searches his garments and finds a louse shall not crack it, but simply rub it with his fingers and throw it away on the Sabbath.” (See Exhibit 6) Throwing away lice is not “labor.” Cracking a louse is to be avoided at all costs, however.
The bloody, the sadistic, and the obscene are the darlings of the Talmudic “synagogue of Satan” mentality, the appetite for which is seemingly never sated. To illustrate, eight running pages have been reproduced here on the popular Talmud subjects of blood and intercourse. This discourse concerns whether or not the first intercourse on the Sabbath would constitute Sabbath “labor.” “Is it performed to see if she was a virgin?”, is discussed at length, for example. But the rule which governs is the dominant Talmud rule of the Sabbath on the subject of labor, namely that an act of injury never ranks as “labor.” So, if the intent is to injure the wife the act is permissible. (See Exhibit 122, Talmud book of Kethuboth 5b-6a)
The eighth page ends with the thought that intercourse is permitted anyway. Then a new line of needless, senseless “religious” discussions about women and blood starts in. These longwinded, silly pages of Pharisee “wisdom” are but a sample of the bent of the whole Talmud. (See Exhibit 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, and 141)
In Matthew 5:34-6, and in Matthew 23:16-22 are recorded the lambastings Christ gave the Pharisees for vowings: “ye blind guides which say, whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for which is greater the gift or the altar that sanctified the gift?” Christ goes on to illustrate Pharisee silliness. Do not swear by anything, is the gist of the Matthew 5:34 passage, not by your head for you cannot “make one hair white or black.”
One can only appreciate His words after reading hundreds of pages of drivel about vows in the Talmud books of Nazir and Nedarim. (Title pages, Exhibit 164 and Exhibit 170)
The Talmud Mishna on the Heifer and the Door is illustrative (not reproduced). The Mishna opens with the Door saying if the man doesn’t open it, and the heifer saying if the man does not make it stand up, he must be a “Nazir.” (A Nazirite [to vow] was one who had vowed not to cut his hair or drink or eat any product of the grape for a certain time.) Three pages of haranguing “Gemara” following the Talmud . . “Mishna” discuss the fact that the heifer then got up of its own volition. The door is quiet, apparently, for nothing more is said by it. The Jewish school of Shammai holds that since the man did not of his own power force the heifer up, he must be a “Nazir,” but the Hillel Jews say that the essence of the vow is the upping of the heifer which was “recumbent” and is now standing up, so the man does not have to be a “Nazir.” The schools of the Hillel and Shammai were in full flower in the Holy Land when Christ lived and, no doubt, this and other nonsense presently preserved for the Jewish religion, existed then.
Talmud — Juvenile Birth Control and the “Two Hairs” Test for Puberty
The Talmud, Yebamoth 12b, harangues about the ages when female birth control may be exercised, namely from “the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day,” with a child “under or over” these ages to “carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.” The recommended birth control is to be followed because otherwise the pregnant female might have a “second conception” which would make her fetus a “sandal” or “flat fish.” Read the nonsense, followed by the “two hairs” test. (See Exhibit 152)
Read the asinine harangue in the Talmud, Yebamoth 12b 13a (See Exhibit 153), about two hairs proving puberty, or not proving it, as the child may have lost the two hairs through childbirth, also, the calling for an examination by the Rabbis. In the Soncino edition of the Talmud, reference is made to three similar messes of muck in Kethuboth 36a, Baba Bathra 156a and Niddah 52a of the Talmud.
To be unable to tell whether a little girl is as yet adolescent, or has borne a child or not, by counting two pubic hairs, is too idiotic to credit to anything except the Talmudic love of sub-sewer subjects — “the reprobate mind,” as Paul called it, “Who changed the truth of God into a lie.” (Romans 1:25, 28)
To deal in unnatural filth and sex matters is the core of Talmudic “scholarship.”
More Talmudic “Wisdom”
Pretensions of “wisdom” by Talmudic Pharisee “sages” are perhaps the most incredible. No pompous dissertation seems complete without mention of a privy. Sons of “sages” and scholars, we read may “enter and sit down before their father, with their backs to the people.”
When, however, they do not possess the capability of understanding the discourses, “they enter and sit down before their father with their faces toward the public … if he went out to ease himself he may re-enter and sit down in this place … This applies only to the minor functions of the body but not to the major functions since he should have examined himself before … A man should always make a habit of easing himself early in the morning and late in the evening in order that there be no need for him to go far …” (See Exhibit 197 and Exhibit 198)
Jewish Talmud “remedies” are foolish to say the least. The above passage from Horayoth 13a-b of the Talmud is replete with learning such as: “As the olive causes one to forget seventy years of study, so does olive oil restore seventy years of study … Wine and spices have made me wise.” (Exhibit 96)
The Talmud “sages” then dispute whether dipping one or two fingers in salt makes one wise; whether passing under the [page 29] bit of a camel, or under the camel itself, interferes most with mentality. The text then returns to the required protocol for the “Nasi, head of the Sanhedrin, and the head of a Talmud school, the Ab-Beth Din,” and how many rows have to rise in honor when each one enters. (Exhibit 197)
The Talmud also has “wisdom about eating dates.” “They remove three things: evil thoughts, stress of the bowels, and abdominal trouble.” This leads to a play on words, door, ladder and bed, where “one is fruitful and multiplies on it” — back to the old subjects. This is from Kethuboth 10b-11a of the Talmud.
On this same page is the Mishnah (law) that a baby girl under three years and one day old is always reckoned as a virgin: “If they had intercourse before they were three years and one day old the hymen would grow.”
Do not just the few illustrations above from the Pharisee Talmud show the justness of Christ’s excoriations of the Pharisees as: “Full of all uncleanness;” their love of the “uppermost rooms at feasts. . . all their works they do for to be seen of men” — “full of hypocrisy and iniquity?” (Matthew 23:5-6, 27-8, etc.)
And, illustrating their hairsplitting paraded as “wisdom,” He called them “fools and blind.” (Matthew 23:17-19)
Virginity on a Monetary Scale
The Kethuboth book of the Babylonian Talmud (See Exhibit 119 for title page) is supposed to set down rules relating to married life.
The Kethubah is a contract promising to pay a wife a certain sum of money if the husband divorces her, which he can do at will, according to Talmudic doctrine. Perhaps urged on by the growing Christian propaganda against divorce, the Hillelite Jewish school stressed the husband’s freedom to divorce his wife even for some culinary deficiency, or, as Rabbi Aquiba taught, because he had found a better looking woman.
The Kethubah need not be paid if the wife can be proven not to have been a virgin when married. Hence the Jewish custom of the groomsmen waiting outside the bridal chamber door for the bloody sheet to be witnessed, proving the wife’s virginity. Elaborate cuts of these Kethuboth appear in the 1943 Universal Jewish Encyclopedia.
Chicago physician and hospital owner, Dr. A.A. Whamond, used to relate to a member of my family about the money he made by putting in false cat-gut hymens for Jewish girls who were not virgins before they were to be married.
The Talmud price for getting rid of a wife who had been a virgin, is “200 zuz,” given by the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia as being 200 denarii or about $30.00.
“If the wife refuses sexual intercourse, she can be threatened with a reduction of her claims in the Kethubah, and this threat can be carried out.” (Same Encyclopedia) If the husband can contend that the wife had not been a virgin, she gets only “a maneh,” or the smallest coin, says the Talmud.
All of this talk about blood and virginity is a favorite Talmudic subject, and seemingly endless. Note, for example, Exhibit 121, Exhibit 122, Exhibit 123, Exhibit 124, Exhibit 125, Exhibit 126, Exhibit 127, Exhibit 128, Exhibit 129, Exhibit 130, Exhibit 131, Exhibit 132, Exhibit 133, Exhibit 134, Exhibit 135, Exhibit 136, Exhibit 137, Exhibit 138, Exhibit 139, Exhibit 140, Exhibit 141, Exhibit 142, Exhibit 143, Exhibit 144, and Exhibit 145 herein, all from the book of Kethuboth.
And, as always in the Talmud, in the book of Kethuboth, asininity is combined with filth. For example, the controlling “Mishnah” or overall rule in Folio 61b (See Exhibit 145) doles out by trades the proper number of relations between husband and wife as: “men of independence, every day; for laborers, twice a week; for ass-drivers, once a week; for camel-drivers, once in thirty days; for sailors, once in six months.”
Despite the thunderings and prohibitions of the Bible, sodomy in general, and specifically with little children, dead bodies, neighbors’ wives and one’s own wife is permitted by the Talmud.
The argument for this last is in Nedarim 20b of the Talmud (page 58 of Soncino translation): “Our Sages said … a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife at intercourse: Meat which comes from the abbatoir [stockyards] may be eaten salted, roasted, cooked or seethed; so with fish from the fishmonger … A woman came before Rab and complained [of her husband’s sodomy with her], “Rabi replied: ‘Wherein does it differ from fish?”
All of this is made Jewish religious doctrine with full Luciferian knowledge of the Bible’s laws against it.
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind” and the Biblical verse, Leviticus 18:22, is actually cited in the same Talmud section where sodomy with boys under nine or baby girls under three is permitted. (See Exhibit 54) The full text of this verse states: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Small wonder that Christ denounced the Pharisees as nullifying the word of God and violating every concept of human decency.
The Talmud Today
After reciting the denunciations and condemnation of the Talmud down throught the centuries, Rodkinson, in his in troduction to the Talmud, states:
“Such was the past of the Talmud which we hope will never be repeated. Now a glance at the end of the last century and the beginning of this one.
“The colleges for the study of the Talmud are increasing almost in every place where Israel dwells, especially in this country where millions are gathered for the funds of the two great colleges, the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York, in which the chief study is the Talmud and its post-Talmudical literature.”
This was written early in the present century. Is what Rodkinson wrote true today?
The answer is “yes.” Not only are Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America more active than ever, but a network of schools to teach the Talmud to young Jews now exists from coast to coast.
[page 30] For example, in the Chicago area, the Associated Talmud Torahs of Chicago oversees some 57 schools where the Talmud is taught to young Jews, commencing with their tender years.
If you are told by anyone that the Jewish Talmud is merely ancient history concerning Judaism, don’t be fooled. The Talmud is present-day Judaism and without it so-called Judaism would not exist.
Does Talmud Teach Pedophilia, Incest, Bestiality?
December 4, 2009
Excerpts from a long letter by Benjamin Freedman (left) to David Goldstein, dated October 10, 1954.
Freedman (1890-1984) had been part of the American Zionist inner circle but, like Goldstein, converted to Christianity. The complete letter appeared in a pamphlet entitled “Facts are Facts.”
In spite of the centrality of the Talmud to Judaism, I doubt if more than 10% of Jews have read any part of it. These articles are as informative to most Jews as to non-Jews. This article is significant because the Illuminati engage in incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. Is the Talmud their guide? Is this why this behavior is being mainstreamed?
Verbatim quotations from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud are required to illustrate the enormity of the Talmud’s iniquity. My comments with verbatim quotations will prove inadequate to do that. In spite of the low language, I will of necessity therefore include in this letter to you I have no compunctions in the matter because the United States Post Office authorities do not bar the Soncino Edition of the Talmud from the mails. Nevertheless I apologize in advance for the language which will of necessity appear in this letter to you. You now understand.
The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 was “Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices” by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A.’, Ph.D., Maurice Simon, M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz wrote the “Foreword” for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.
The world’s leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic “The History of the Talmud,” Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise states:
“THE TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence…IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time. IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH…”
The following are but a few of the many similar quotations with footnotes from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud, the “sort of book” from which Jesus allegedly “drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world” on “moral and religious” subjects:
SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: “What is meant by this? – Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? – Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5).”
This “divine truth” which “a whole people venerate” of which “not a single letter of it is missing” and today “is flourishing to such a degree as cannot be found in its history” is illustrated by the additional verbatim quotations which follow:
SANHEDRIN, 55b: “A maiden 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. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea).”
(footnotes) “(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving. (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew. (4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction `to his wife but not to his neighbor’s wife’ is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse.”
SANHEDRIN, 69b “Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai says, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declares her fit…All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as `a girl who is injured by a piece of wood’ “.
(footnotes) “(5). Lit., `says’. (6) Lit., `here’, that is, less than three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”
(footnotes) “(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”
ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a. “R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it…From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.
SOTAH, 26b. “R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) – the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)…As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?”