Yevamot 98a does not say "All children of the goyim are animals." Actual text: "They do not perform levirate marriage. Learn from this the Merciful One dispossesses his offspring, as it is written: Whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose semen is the semen of horses." Because God said the Egyptian seed in Ezek. 23:20 was metaphorically animal, even though a "child of God" in its humanity, it is concluded that (all) Gentile brothers are free from duties of levirate marriage applying to halakhically proven brothers. The Talmud goes no further than Ezekiel does with this thought.

Avodah Zarah 36b does not say "Goy girls are in a state of niddah from birth". It says "Rabbi Nahman bar Yitzhak says: They decreed upon their daughters, menstruating women from their cradle .... As it is written: Neither shall you make marriages with them." This is a decree that deems a state, not an actual biological state, and its purpose in context is to say that an unconverted girl is never marriageable (even arranged marriage), Deut. 7:3. Many Christians would never marry a non-Christian either.

Sanhedrin 55b accurately says "Three years and one day old is betrothed with intercourse. And if yavam engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her; and liable for her due to married woman. And she transmits impurity to one who engages in intercourse with her .... If one of any of those with whom relations are forbidden, who are stated in the Torah, engaged in intercourse with her, they are executed for her, and she is exempt." This indicates that a child over three who is sexually abused is no longer a virgin and the rapist is subject either to execution or (if her father permits) an arranged "shotgun" marriage where he must wait until she is mature to determine her father's decision, having all the financial responsibilities of marriage but none of the benefits. This is shown by the fact that the "impurity" transmitted is that of menstruation, so the passage is not talking about consummating marriage with a child but about the punishments and legal statuses applicable to child victims in their later mature marriages. Rape of girls not over three is similar but the virginity is not ruled to be violated out of consideration for the girl. Forbidden sexual relations with her at any age result in execution, but upon her maturity she becomes permitted to her betrothed husband.

Sanhedrin 54b-55a does not say "A child less than nine years old cannot be the object of sodomy" or "A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old." It reads: "With regard to what do disagree? Rav holds any that applies to one who engages in intercourse applies to one who engages in intercourse, and any that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse does not apply to one who engages in intercourse. And Shmuel holds: It is written: As with a woman. It is taught in accordance with of Rav: A male aged nine years and one day, ... liable." In this case the majority agrees with Rav that since a nine-year-old boy is not sexually mature it is not tried as adult homosexuality; Shmuel held the minority opinion that the threshold for adult activity should be that of the girl at three years old (when virginity can be more significantly ruptured). The quotation is a modern (lightface) attempt to explain the majority ruling. It is not that he is not an object of sodomy by our definition, but he is not ruled as the object of a capital crime of homosexuality. The abuser is still subject to punishment as a rapist (porneia under Gen. 2:24), but not as a homosexual (abuse of an adult). So this is in discussion about adult homosexuality rather than child abuse, as the two are distinguished: "Rav says: Does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old like one who is nine years old." The abuse of a boy over nine is treated as an adult case.

More.

u/ApparentlyImAHeretic