I'll deal with all this "misnomer" stuff of trying to find those lines from that screenshot, to where it was in the talmud.. at a later date. It's in that text file in the folder, in sequence. So I'll spend, however much time, dealing with that task. lol
I'll check out all of that, but I'd have to not do what I'm gonna do for most of the weekend, eh. Kinda wanna do what I was gonna do, instead of that.. lol.. but I will read everything you said. It's good cause somebody went through those Talmud quotes to see, ok.. is it really what that conspiracy post said. Lemme get that again.
https://i.imgur.com/5OT4PWJ.jpeg
Was this bad white writing on black background.. that's the worst on the eyes, I had inverted it. Lemme transcribe that to text in here.
QUOTES FROM THE JEWISH TALMUD: 1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
-
Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
-
Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
-
Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."
-
Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death." "1
-
Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
-
Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
-
Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
-
Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
-
Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
-
Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
-
Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."
-
Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."
-
Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."
-
Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."
-
Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."
-
Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."
-
Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."
-
Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."
-
Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."
So I'm there.. lemme check that original Talmud.. I'd have to look up that post back then. I think there was a couple books. Maybe some later "edit" where they got too much "heat" so weeded stuff out.
Then you get guys like Henry Ford, the car guy.. going around posting stuff about.. hey they wanna get us. Like what was his beef.
I don't know.. before this, never heard about any of this Talmud stuff. After, it was like.. you always had a hunch they didn't like you, if you ever had to deal with them.. but it's cause they're raised that way. They wanna take ya out.
So then it's like.. what went on that this whole WW2 thing where they were like.. no you gotta take them out first, or they'll take you out back like Ol' Yeller. lol. They really don't like us, eh.. meanwhile.. it's like.. what did I ever do. But they don't like the Goyim. Hey.. I don't go around tryin to take them out back.. meanwhile, sounds like they wanna do that to us, first.
So I don't know.. what the hell went on with it getting so extreme that it got to that point in WW2. You can get a "nut" who'd get elected but for it to get to the point where they're like.. ok.. take 'em out and the public goes, yeah that's ok. Like, that's pretty fucked up, man. Like what the hell was going on with all that, back in those days. Maybe they were reading that Talmud and were, like.. these guys wanna take us out, so they're headin that off at the pass, first.
I don't know.. you tell me. I have that in the conspiracy folder to research of this bookmarks bar.. had started with this ok gonna check out what the original Talmud said, and compare it to that conspiracy text image post. Go to that number and see, ok what does it really say here. Then it was like.. gotta watch that "translation", eh.. they might be tryin to weed shit out. Lemme go in that folder and get that bookmark. lol.
I'll get back to this in sequence way later in the future, eh.. it's like you willy nill all over the place during research and save whatever and resume later. So I will get there but busy with analyzing sports betting with all my spare time in recent months. When there's no games, then I got a bit of time, like right now. ok lemme get that bookmark.
https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud/Yerushalmi
So that was when I was digging up and finally found like the original version, not this later edit bullshit after they were getting hounded.
It was a lot of work just to get to that point cause you can't just go find this shit, eh. It's like they're tryin to hide it. Like back in those days you'd have to know Hebrew just to find out what they're sayin. So they can say bad things but nobody 'll uncover it. So now in this bookmark, you'd check the text screenshot image.. like let's go with the first one.. lol..
yeah.. so this: 1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
Now, you go to the page.. you got these categories, eh.. lemme check search page for Sanhedrin. ok.. so that says "Sanhedrin The judicial system, forming the court, accepting testimony, and executing capital punishment."
Now you'd click that.. lol.. there's 11 chapters. Where do you find this 59a, right. So now you're gonna see the Hebrew.. I think they write backwards too like how we go from left to right.. they go right to left. Like WTF. lol. Where the hell is this 59a. I had super hard time trying to get Bing AI to even cough it up, where this shit is, eh. You know Bill.. he's one of them.. so they'd be tryin to hide it and if you're goyim you're not allowed to even research it, eh. Like see my old posts one time it was saying you can't go there cause you're goyim. Like, I'm not kidding, it said something like that. It wouldn't give me the info cause I was goyim and it's forbidden. lol.
ok so I ask bing where is this. It's not in chapter 5.. for whatever reason it's in chapter 7. Like how do they even organize this. ok look i'm talking to bing. lol.
You
trying to read the original talmud.. had this bookmark..
https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud/Yerushalmi
Trying to find "Sanhedrin 59a". In this section of:
Sanhedrin
The judicial system, forming the court, accepting testimony, and executing capital punishment.
I click that.. goes to
https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin?tab=contents
So this 59a, I'm there.. is it in chapter 5.. but you only got 11 chapters. Where would 59 be?
Copilot
Certainly! Let’s explore the Jerusalem Talmud, specifically Sanhedrin 59a. I appreciate your curiosity about these ancient texts! 😊
When we delve into the Sanhedrin, we encounter a fascinating discussion about the judicial system, the establishment of courts, testimony acceptance, and the execution of capital punishment. Now, let’s find where Sanhedrin 59a resides within the chapters.
I’ve investigated, and here’s what I found:
Sanhedrin 59a is indeed part of the Jerusalem Talmud.
However, it doesn’t fall within Chapter 5, as you suspected. Instead, it’s nestled elsewhere.
To pinpoint its location, let’s refer to the text. You can explore Sanhedrin 59a directly on Sefaria by following this link: Sanhedrin 59a1.
Feel free to immerse yourself in the wisdom of ancient legal discussions! 📜🕊️
You
no, where is it? It must be in this sanhedrin section.. which chapter?
Copilot
My apologies for the oversight! Let’s navigate directly to Sanhedrin 59a within the Jerusalem Talmud. You’re right; it’s essential to find its precise location.
Sanhedrin 59a is not part of Chapter 5, as you suspected. Instead, it resides in Chapter 7 of the Sanhedrin tractate. This chapter delves into intriguing discussions about legal matters, including the establishment of courts, the acceptance of testimony, and the execution of capital punishment.
Feel free to explore this ancient wisdom by following this link: Sanhedrin 59a1. Enjoy your journey through these profound texts! 📜🕊️
You
chapter 7, then which one here.. we got 13 sections
Copilot
My apologies for the oversight earlier. Let’s pinpoint Sanhedrin 59a within the Jerusalem Talmud. You’re right; it’s essential to find its precise location.
Sanhedrin 59a is part of Chapter 7 in the Sanhedrin tractate. Within this chapter, you’ll discover intriguing discussions about legal matters, including the establishment of courts, the acceptance of testimony, and the execution of capital punishment12.
Now, let’s explore the 13 sections within Sanhedrin Chapter 7:
Section 1 (59a): Discusses the mitzvah of establishing courts of judgment, the prohibition against consuming blood spilled during bloodletting, and more.
Section 2 (59b): Continues the discussion about Torah study by gentiles and their obligations regarding the seven Noahide mitzvot.
Feel free to delve into these profound texts and explore the wisdom they hold! 📜🕊️
ok.. sounds like it's supposed to be in chapter 7. Lemme go there and see what's going on. I don't see no 59a. No wonder I was like.. fuck this shit and just went to another tab. lol.
So.. for starters.. fix this shit and say where the shit is from that image. lol. Then I can even begin to "double check" where the fuck, shit is.
[part 2 of 2]
You
And then, don't you get some of these guys.. like not sure which, but the Amish too.. they all sound like they used to live out there.. and seems a bit like they were misbehaving so they got kicked out. Like these types with multiple wives.
Copilot
Certainly! Let’s explore the migration history of the Amish and their reasons for leaving their European homeland:
Amish Origins:
The Amish trace their roots back to the Radical Reformation in 16th-century Europe. Impatient with the pace of the Protestant Reformation, young reformers in Zurich, Switzerland, baptized each other in 1525. This act was considered a crime punishable by death.
These radicals, known as Anabaptists, believed that baptism should be meaningful for adults who voluntarily confessed their faith. Facing persecution, thousands of Anabaptists were executed, and their story is recorded in the Martyrs Mirror.
Swiss Anabaptism and Migration:
Swiss Anabaptism took root in rural areas, emphasizing peace, love for enemies, and nonviolence.
By 1660, some Swiss Anabaptists migrated north to the Alsace region (now part of France) due to persecution.
In 1693, Swiss and South German Anabaptists split into two streams: Amish and Mennonite.
Jakob Ammann, an elder, sought to revitalize the movement. The Amish emerged as a distinct group.
Amish Migration to North America:
Seeking political stability and religious freedom, the Amish migrated to North America in two waves:
Mid-1700s: The first settlements were in southeastern Pennsylvania.
First Half of the 1800s: A second wave of migration occurred.
Reasons for Migration:
Land Issues: Some moved due to land availability and disputes.
Security Concerns: The French and Indian War prompted further migration.
Settlements: Many settled in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
Amish Today:
The Amish population continues to grow, doubling approximately every two decades.
They maintain their distinct lifestyle, including horse-drawn farm machinery, communal living, and distinctive dress.
While existing communities expand, new ones also form as members move to daughter settlements.
In summary, the Amish left their European homeland seeking religious freedom, safety, and a place where they could practice their faith without persecution. Their commitment to community, simplicity, and peace remains central to their way of life. 🌾🐎🏡
You
which are the types that have multiple wives.. some branch of all these guys, eh?
Copilot
Polygamy, the practice of having more than one spouse simultaneously, has been observed in various cultures and religious contexts. Let’s explore which religious groups permit or have practiced polygamy:
Christianity:
While most Christian groups uphold monogamy (one man with one wife) as the norm, some historical Christian communities have practiced polygamy.
Notable examples include certain Mormon sects in the 19th century, where polygamy was practiced. However, mainstream Christian denominations have rejected polygamy.
The New Testament does not explicitly endorse or forbid polygamy, leading to ongoing debates among Christians1.
Islam:
Polygyny (one man having multiple wives) is permitted in Islam under specific conditions.
The Quran allows a Muslim man to marry up to four wives, provided he treats them fairly and equitably.
Polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands) is not allowed in Islam.
Hinduism:
Hinduism does not universally endorse polygamy.
While monogamy is common, some Hindu texts mention polygamy, especially for kings and nobles.
The practice varies across different Hindu communities.
Indigenous Cultures:
Some Native American, Indigenous Australian, and Mongolian peoples historically practiced group marriage, where a nuclear family consists of multiple husbands and multiple wives.
These practices are specific to certain cultural contexts.
Other Contexts:
Polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) is rare but has been observed in specific cultures, such as certain Tibetan communities.
Group marriages and other non-traditional family structures exist in various societies.
In summary, while polygamy is not universally practiced, it has historical and cultural roots in different religious and indigenous contexts. The acceptance or rejection of polygamy varies widely across traditions and communities. 🌍🤝
You
no, it was more like these amish, mennonite, hutterite type colonies where they'd have multiple wives.. I think it was in Alberta or something.
Copilot
Certainly! Let’s explore the Hutterite, Amish, and Mennonite communities in Alberta and their practices:
Hutterites:
Hutterites are a German-speaking religious group with a history spanning 400 years.
They originated in the Austrian Tyrol during the Reformation in the 16th century.
Distinctive Lifestyle:
Hutterites live communally. Each family has its own apartment, but meals are prepared in a central kitchen and eaten together.
They practice pacifism and avoid military service.
The colony looks after its members from birth to death.
Migration to Alberta:
About 100 years ago, Hutterites arrived in Alberta.
They purchased nearly 4,000 acres of land along the Rosebud River.
Today, there are approximately 180 Hutterite colonies in Alberta, with around 16,000 Hutterites living communally.
They contribute significantly to agriculture, producing eggs, pork, milk, and poultry1.
Amish and Mennonites:
Both the Amish and Mennonites have Anabaptist origins.
Amish:
The Amish emerged from the Swiss Anabaptist movement.
They migrated to North America seeking religious freedom and settled in Pennsylvania.
The Amish maintain a distinct lifestyle, including horse-drawn farm machinery and communal living.
Mennonites:
Mennonites also trace their roots to the Anabaptists.
They settled in North America seeking economic opportunities and religious freedom.
Mennonites vary widely in their practices, from conservative to more liberal groups.
Polygamy:
While polygamy is not a common practice among these groups, some historical Christian communities (including certain Mennonite sects) have practiced it.
However, mainstream Amish and Mennonite communities generally uphold monogamy.
Alberta
Alberta’s Hutterite Colonies:
Hutterite colonies are widely distributed throughout Alberta.
They are recognizable by their extensive barns, grain handling infrastructure, and secluded residential areas.
Hutterites continue to live communally, emphasizing shared resources and mutual support12.
In summary, while polygamy is not a common practice among the Amish, Mennonites, or Hutterites, each group has its unique traditions, beliefs, and contributions to the communities they inhabit. 🌾🏡🤝
You
might of been more in the US in that central west coast area.. some guy in one of these religious types, getting in trouble with buncha wives
Copilot
Certainly! There have been cases of religious leaders in North America who practiced polygamy, having multiple wives. Here are a couple of notable instances:
Winston Blackmore:
Background:
Winston Blackmore was the leader of a controversial polygamous religious community known as Bountiful.
Bountiful is based near Creston, British Columbia, Canada.
Polygamy Conviction:
In 2017, Winston Blackmore was convicted of practicing polygamy after a decades-long legal battle.
The evidence showed that he was married to 25 women simultaneously.
Blackmore’s religious beliefs included “celestial” marriages, which led to his multiple marriages.
His co-defendant, James Oler, was also found guilty of practicing polygamy with five wives in the same community.
Legal Implications:
The case raised questions about the constitutionality of Canada’s polygamy laws.
Both Blackmore and Oler faced a maximum penalty of five years in prison under Canadian law1.
Other Instances:
In the United States, there have been cases involving leaders of breakaway Mormon sects who practice polygamy.
These sects often have their bases in small communities near the Utah-Arizona border.
Warren Jeffs, considered the prophet and leader of one such group, was convicted of sexual assault and continues to lead from a Texas prison.
The mainstream Mormon church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) renounced polygamy in the late 19th century and does not endorse the fundamentalist group’s form of Mormonism1.
In summary, while polygamy is not common in mainstream North American religious communities, some breakaway sects and isolated groups have practiced it. Legal battles and constitutional debates continue to surround these cases. 🌟🤝.
You
yeah it was Bountiful.. that's it.. so what happened with this guy.. what religion were they?
Copilot
Winston Blackmore, born on August 25, 1956, is the leader of a polygamous Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint (FLDS) religious group in Bountiful, British Columbia, Canada.
He is described as “Canada’s best-known avowed polygamist”. Blackmore has 150 children with his 27 “spiritual” wives, some of whom he has admitted were underage1.
Here are the key points about Winston Blackmore and his religious background:
Religious Group: Winston Blackmore leads a polygamous community associated with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS).
Bountiful, British Columbia
Bountiful, British Columbia: Bountiful is a religious community founded by Blackmore’s father, Ray Blackmore, and his older cousin, Harold Wooley Blackmore. Winston Blackmore was born to Ray and Anna Mae Blackmore in Bountiful.
Polygamy
Polygamy Conviction: In 2017, Winston Blackmore was found guilty of practicing polygamy in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He faced charges for having multiple wives simultaneously.
Legal Implications: Blackmore and another community leader, James Oler, were arrested and charged with polygamy. The case raised questions about the constitutionality of Canada’s polygamy laws123.
In summary, Winston Blackmore’s religious group is associated with the FLDS, and their practices include polygamy. Bountiful, where they reside, has been a focal point of legal battles surrounding polygamy in Canada. 🕊️🌟.
You
how come these guys are getting arrested because of the multiple wives?
Copilot
In many countries, polygamy (having multiple spouses simultaneously) is considered illegal. Here are some reasons why individuals practicing polygamy might face legal consequences:
Legal Codes and Norms:
Most legal systems are based on monogamy (one person married to one spouse at a time).
Polygamy violates these legal norms and can lead to criminal charges.
Social and Cultural Context:
While polygamy is accepted in some cultures and religious communities, it is often seen as unusual or deviant in others.
Legal systems reflect societal values and norms.
Gender Equality and Consent:
Concerns about gender equality arise in polygamous marriages.
Multiple wives may not have equal rights or autonomy.
Legal systems prioritize consent and individual rights.
Resource Distribution:
Polygamy can lead to inequitable distribution of resources (such as property, inheritance, and financial support).
Legal systems aim to ensure fairness and protect vulnerable parties.
Child Welfare:
In polygamous families, children may face complex family dynamics.
Legal systems consider the well-being of children and their access to care and support.
Criminal Charges:
Individuals practicing polygamy may be charged with bigamy (marrying multiple people while already married).
Penalties vary by jurisdiction but can include fines, imprisonment, or both.
Religious Freedom vs. Legal Boundaries:
Balancing religious freedom with legal boundaries is a challenge.
Some religious groups continue polygamous practices despite legal restrictions.
In summary, legal consequences for polygamy depend on local laws, cultural context, and individual circumstances. While some countries tolerate polygamy within specific religious or cultural contexts, others strictly enforce monogamy. 📜🤝.
How I wound up there.. this disney stuff, you get symbolism in things and I'll check it out. Like was just looking up Cruella de Vil, after that elon stuff and her mom reminding me of that character.
"In 2002, Forbes ranked Disney's Cruella as the thirteenth wealthiest fiction character, citing the single 65-year-old has a net worth of $875 million, obtained through inheritance."
They got a lot of witchcraft though in this Disney stuff that's supposed to be "for kids". lol. Like what did I check out a few weeks ago. Yeah the Nutcracker and the four realms.
Yeah, like look at this one here: "Cruella appears in the fourth, fifth and seventh seasons of the TV series Once Upon a Time, where she is portrayed as an adult by Victoria Smurfit, and as a child by Milli Wilkinson, as a witch who possesses the power to control animals.[13] A childhood sociopath, Cruella poisoned her father and two stepfathers."
See, you get the occult with just this Disney crap for kids.
Checked youtube searching for: elon babysitter, scroll down.. you don't see her. But if you search for that, then go to filter and sort by date, you see lots of people mirroring vids about her. Bitchute there's a few. It's a strong search term of just: elon babysitter.
ok hang on.. put that on the bookmarks bar.. gonna check that out in the days ahead, probably this weekend.
[part 8.. this guy's not fuckin around with diggin into that damn Talmud. I'll check out everything he said here.. but right now just came on to do that post about Elon's mom's babysitter testimony vids getting sacked from youtube]
Gonna try and research this original language Jerusalem Talmud to see if I can find where they got these points from. It's a lot of pages and lot of books and bing AI is being a fucking twat trying to tell me where the shit is. I got a site, they also have the original paragraph, then english one. in Conspiracies SwampRangers
1 points 3 days ago OP
1 Sanhedrin 59a: quote is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.
2 Avodah Zarah 26b: out-of-context quote is from a different medieval source, Tractate Soferim 15 (see below for details). Avodah Zarah's closest statement seems to be: But may not a Gentile circumcise a Jew, because are suspected of bloodshed. The statement of Rabbi Meir. Even there, another Meir statement is taken to imply that a professional Gentile physician may circumcise a Jew: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean physician, Aramean circumcise and Samaritan not circumcise. The statement of Rabbi Meir. This is about Gentiles not being subject to Jewish courts, not about them being subject. Tractate Soferim 15: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, not from the main Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from early addenda.
3-5 See #1.
6 Yevamot 11b: quote appears to be a conflation of Yevamot 57b and Ketubot 11b. Ketubot says: "An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl ... their marriage contract is two hundred .... More than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not a claim virginity .... An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl, nothing, as less than is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye." This is not about age at marriage, this is about marriage to a mature woman who had been abused in her youth. The ruling is that a girl abused after the age of three has a lower brideprice because she is not a virgin, but a girl abused before that can still be counted as a virgin; that is, it provides opportunity for healing for the immature victim by not challenging her virginity on physiological grounds. I've previously pointed out that Gen. 2:24 regulates sexual intercourse as limited to a covenanted man and woman, and that the abuser is thus still subject to the death penalty regardless. Ketubot is about the marriageability aspect, not about the crime; and Yevamot 57b is about the applicability of levirate marriage and is even more tangential. 57b says: "With regard to a girl less than three years and one day old. Since there is no intercourse her." This just restates the principle above that an abuse incident in an infant's life is not held against her virginity, and it goes on to apply this principle to the mature bride's rights to eat offerings.
7 Shavuot Haggadah: no match. There are many books so named. Pranaitis translates Rohling as "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only." Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1327), and "Shevuot, Haggahot Asheri" 6:4 by Israel of Krems (15th c.), may be intended, as Israel speaks about false oaths. The quote is similar to Bava Kamma 113a. Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." The two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.
8-9 Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1, says: "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." As in Yoreh De'ah 158, this is not Talmud, is not about goyim but is limited to idolaters (with Jewish idolaters being mentioned separately), and refers only if one's own life would be at risk. Deut. 7:2 is limited to the seven nations in Canaan judged for their idolatry, who were in a state of war with Israel and were not to be shown mercy, so Maimonides extends this to other hypothetical known idolaters.
10 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388: no match, quote is from Pranaitis, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.
11 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266: no match. It does teach the general principle that "finders keepers" sometimes applies when restoring property is impractical, such as for low value without distinct marks where the owner is unlikely to search long, or if hypothetically returning the property would be blasphemous (not "because"). The quoted development must come from a later source. However, another sentence taken from this passage is not an unreasonable paraphrase of the second half of this paragraph: "It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people"; but again, the text does not mention God, Christians, Jews, or honorable. A probably errant modification of Google's translation yields: "If one returned it to him in order to sanctify the name so that Israel will cause pride and they know that they have faith, that is fine."
12 Tur, Yoreh Deah 17, 14th century, does not say "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim ask if our books contain anything against them." This chapter pertains to animal slaughter and seems wholly unrelated. It is likely that a source is intended that would be called part 17 of "She'elot u-Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah", but the first two words mean Q&A or responsa, and could refer to any such book commenting on Yoreh Deah. Attribution of the quote to "Libbre David 37", or to Passover prayers in Pranaitis, appears to be confusion from its repeated close proximity to quotes from those sources. No searches indicate further leads on the original source of this particular quote, but it's clearly not Talmud, although it is close to Bava Kamma 113a.
13 Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)
14 Shabbat 32b does not say "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." Original: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499, by Simeon ha-Darshan, translated: "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him."
15 Midrash Talpiot 225, by Elijah Kohen (1698), does not say "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." Pranaitis is tamer. Page 225 online I roughly translate as "And added Israel according to the fact that they are one special people to one supreme God as it is written 'and who is like your people Israel, one nation'. And he said, since you are Israel, one nation, it is proper for you to prepare yourself and prepare yourself for the one, and please eat and not drink a couple, so that you may think in your heart for a few seconds." This quotes 2 Sam. 7:23 tamely. Rohling refers to the Warsaw 1875 edition instead.
16 Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.
17 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8: It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."
18 Sanhedrin 57a, actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. I'ts not about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" So, since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.
19 See #10.
20 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348 is about theft, but the closest I find, translated by Google, is: "A question to Gaon. Who is suspected of theft and there are no witnesses against him, and there are witnesses against him for another theft before, what is the law against him? Answer: Thus we have seen that there is neither judgment nor flogging for him unless the Torah commands flogging except with two witnesses, but they will judge him by a decree." The imaginative interpretation quoted is not in Pranaitis, so may have come from another route.
Details
permalink context all comments (5) award save report block mark unread reply
[part 7.. lol.. ]
Woah.. busted Bing AI, admitting why it doesn't wanna go there researching Talmud. "Moreover, even if I could translate the chapter for you, it would be a violation of my rules to do so, as it would be considered a form of Torah study, which is forbidden for gentiles according to Rabbi Yoḥanan 12."in Conspiracies SwampRangers
1 points 3 days ago https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.59a?lang=he
והא דינין קום עשה הוא וקא חשיב קום עשה ושב אל תעשה נינהו ואמר ר' יוחנן עובד כוכבים שעוסק בתורה חייב מיתה שנאמר (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה לנו מורשה ולא להם וליחשבה גבי שבע מצות מ"ד מורשה מיגזל קא גזיל לה מאן דאמר מאורסה דינו כנערה המאורסה דבסקילה מיתיבי היה ר"מ אומר מניין שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול שנאמר (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים לוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא האדם הא למדת שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול התם בשבע מצות דידהו: ר' חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי: ת"ר (בראשית ט, ד) אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו זה אבר מן החי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי מ"ט דרבי חנינא בן גמליאל קרי ביה בשר בנפשו לא תאכל דמו בנפשו לא תאכל ורבנן ההוא למישרי שרצים הוא דאתא כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (דברים יב, כג) רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש וגו' (רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם זה אבר מן החי כי הדם הוא הנפש זה דם מן החי) ורבנן ההוא לדם הקזה שהנשמה יוצאה בו הוא דאתא למה לי למיכתב לבני נח ולמה לי למשני בסיני כדר' יוסי בר' חנינא דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח ואנו אין לנו אלא גיד הנשה ואליבא דר' יהודה אמר מר כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה אדרבה מדנשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח מדאיתני עבודת כוכבים בסיני ואשכחן דענש עובדי כוכבים עילווה ש"מ לזה ולזה נאמרה: לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח: אדרבה מדלא נישנית בסיני לבני נח נאמרה ולא לישראל ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור ולא והרי יפת תואר התם משום דלאו בני כיבוש נינהו והרי פחות משוה פרוטה התם משום דלאו בני מחילה נינהו: כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונישנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה
https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.59a?lang=bi gets you the interlinear.
It does not say any of the following: "Murdering goyim is like killing a wild animal .... To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly .... If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Whoever will violate this order shall be put to death." This is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews.
In some versions of this meme, Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name (only the bold online is original, the rest is commentary): "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view.
The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.
TLDR: In the best scenario, the long quote is a 19th-century biased summary of a net-unavailable medieval source, and Jews have been trying to find the original since 1920 but haven't linked it up. The last link above gives six more leads 1723-1902 for the offensive quote if you can find the original Hebrew manuscripts anywhere. But all that's not Talmud itself. The main point is that in Talmud itself Rabbi Yohanan was contradicted by the majority, who ruled that Gentiles are allowed to study Torah to learn the laws of Noah. Talmud minority opinions are nothing more than opinions!
permalink context all comments (27) award save report block mark unread reply
[part 5 and 6 of this guy.. man]
Bing AI shutting it down, when I'm trying to research the Talmud.in Conspiracies SwampRangers
2 points 3 days ago TLDR: Only 6 of them claim to be from the Talmud itself, the rest are medieval nonbinding interpretations. Of those six, #1 and #2 do not appear in the sources quoted, #3 is one man's contravened minority opinion out of context rather than a binding ruling, and 6, #13, and #16 are maliciously misinterpreted with inaccurate quotes.
permalink context all comments (16) award save report block mark unread reply
Bing AI shutting it down, when I'm trying to research the Talmud.in Conspiracies SwampRangers
2 points 3 days ago The 20
1 Sanhedrin 59a: quote is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.
2 Avodah Zarah 26b: out-of-context quote is from a different medieval source, Tractate Soferim 15 (see below for details). Avodah Zarah's closest statement seems to be: But may not a Gentile circumcise a Jew, because are suspected of bloodshed. The statement of Rabbi Meir. Even there, another Meir statement is taken to imply that a professional Gentile physician may circumcise a Jew: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean physician, Aramean circumcise and Samaritan not circumcise. The statement of Rabbi Meir. This is about Gentiles not being subject to Jewish courts, not about them being subject. Tractate Soferim 15: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, not from the main Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from early addenda.
3-5 See #1.
6 Yevamot 11b: quote appears to be a conflation of Yevamot 57b and Ketubot 11b. Ketubot says: "An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl ... their marriage contract is two hundred .... More than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not a claim virginity .... An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl, nothing, as less than is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye." This is not about age at marriage, this is about marriage to a mature woman who had been abused in her youth. The ruling is that a girl abused after the age of three has a lower brideprice because she is not a virgin, but a girl abused before that can still be counted as a virgin; that is, it provides opportunity for healing for the immature victim by not challenging her virginity on physiological grounds. I've previously pointed out that Gen. 2:24 regulates sexual intercourse as limited to a covenanted man and woman, and that the abuser is thus still subject to the death penalty regardless. Ketubot is about the marriageability aspect, not about the crime; and Yevamot 57b is about the applicability of levirate marriage and is even more tangential. 57b says: "With regard to a girl less than three years and one day old. Since there is no intercourse her." This just restates the principle above that an abuse incident in an infant's life is not held against her virginity, and it goes on to apply this principle to the mature bride's rights to eat offerings.
7 Shavuot Haggadah: no match. There are many books so named. Pranaitis translates Rohling as "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only." Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1327), and "Shevuot, Haggahot Asheri" 6:4 by Israel of Krems (15th c.), may be intended, as Israel speaks about false oaths. The quote is similar to Bava Kamma 113a. Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." The two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.
8-9 Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1, says: "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." As in Yoreh De'ah 158, this is not Talmud, is not about goyim but is limited to idolaters (with Jewish idolaters being mentioned separately), and refers only if one's own life would be at risk. Deut. 7:2 is limited to the seven nations in Canaan judged for their idolatry, who were in a state of war with Israel and were not to be shown mercy, so Maimonides extends this to other hypothetical known idolaters.
10 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388: no match, quote is from Pranaitis, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.
11 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266: no match. It does teach the general principle that "finders keepers" sometimes applies when restoring property is impractical, such as for low value without distinct marks where the owner is unlikely to search long, or if hypothetically returning the property would be blasphemous (not "because"). The quoted development must come from a later source. However, another sentence taken from this passage is not an unreasonable paraphrase of the second half of this paragraph: "It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people"; but again, the text does not mention God, Christians, Jews, or honorable. A probably errant modification of Google's translation yields: "If one returned it to him in order to sanctify the name so that Israel will cause pride and they know that they have faith, that is fine."
12 Tur, Yoreh Deah 17, 14th century, does not say "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim ask if our books contain anything against them." This chapter pertains to animal slaughter and seems wholly unrelated. It is likely that a source is intended that would be called part 17 of "She'elot u-Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah", but the first two words mean Q&A or responsa, and could refer to any such book commenting on Yoreh Deah. Attribution of the quote to "Libbre David 37", or to Passover prayers in Pranaitis, appears to be confusion from its repeated close proximity to quotes from those sources. No searches indicate further leads on the original source of this particular quote, but it's clearly not Talmud, although it is close to Bava Kamma 113a.
13 Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)
14 Shabbat 32b does not say "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." Original: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499, by Simeon ha-Darshan, translated: "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him."
15 Midrash Talpiot 225, by Elijah Kohen (1698), does not say "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." Pranaitis is tamer. Page 225 online I roughly translate as "And added Israel according to the fact that they are one special people to one supreme God as it is written 'and who is like your people Israel, one nation'. And he said, since you are Israel, one nation, it is proper for you to prepare yourself and prepare yourself for the one, and please eat and not drink a couple, so that you may think in your heart for a few seconds." This quotes 2 Sam. 7:23 tamely. Rohling refers to the Warsaw 1875 edition instead.
16 Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.
17 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8: It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."
18 Sanhedrin 57a, actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. I'ts not about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" So, since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.
19 See #10.
20 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348 is about theft, but the closest I find, translated by Google, is: "A question to Gaon. Who is suspected of theft and there are no witnesses against him, and there are witnesses against him for another theft before, what is the law against him? Answer: Thus we have seen that there is neither judgment nor flogging for him unless the Torah commands flogging except with two witnesses, but they will judge him by a decree." The imaginative interpretation quoted is not in Pranaitis, so may have come from another route.
Details
permalink context all comments (16) award save report block mark unread reply
[part 4 of that guy getting back to me when I was wondering about the Talmud research. That's still all paused in the conspiracy folder to research and bookmarks. Got sidetracked with epic freemason stuff. lol. But I will eventually get back to checking out each of those lines in the Talmud to see the original, compared to that reddit conspiracy post with an image that just claims these things.]
Everything the cabal does, is for what happens after. WW2, after that, you can't inquire about Jewish stuff because it'll go, that's anti semetism. Like try asking Bing AI about anything to do with the Talmud. Meanwhile these priests are permitted to molest kids.in Conspiracies SwampRangers
2 points 3 days ago OP
1 Sanhedrin 59a: quote is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.
2 Avodah Zarah 26b: out-of-context quote is from a different medieval source, Tractate Soferim 15 (see below for details). Avodah Zarah's closest statement seems to be: But may not a Gentile circumcise a Jew, because are suspected of bloodshed. The statement of Rabbi Meir. Even there, another Meir statement is taken to imply that a professional Gentile physician may circumcise a Jew: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean physician, Aramean circumcise and Samaritan not circumcise. The statement of Rabbi Meir. This is about Gentiles not being subject to Jewish courts, not about them being subject. Tractate Soferim 15: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, not from the main Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from early addenda.
3-5 See #1.
6 Yevamot 11b: quote appears to be a conflation of Yevamot 57b and Ketubot 11b. Ketubot says: "An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl ... their marriage contract is two hundred .... More than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not a claim virginity .... An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl, nothing, as less than is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye." This is not about age at marriage, this is about marriage to a mature woman who had been abused in her youth. The ruling is that a girl abused after the age of three has a lower brideprice because she is not a virgin, but a girl abused before that can still be counted as a virgin; that is, it provides opportunity for healing for the immature victim by not challenging her virginity on physiological grounds. I've previously pointed out that Gen. 2:24 regulates sexual intercourse as limited to a covenanted man and woman, and that the abuser is thus still subject to the death penalty regardless. Ketubot is about the marriageability aspect, not about the crime; and Yevamot 57b is about the applicability of levirate marriage and is even more tangential. 57b says: "With regard to a girl less than three years and one day old. Since there is no intercourse her." This just restates the principle above that an abuse incident in an infant's life is not held against her virginity, and it goes on to apply this principle to the mature bride's rights to eat offerings.
7 Shavuot Haggadah: no match. There are many books so named. Pranaitis translates Rohling as "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only." Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1327), and "Shevuot, Haggahot Asheri" 6:4 by Israel of Krems (15th c.), may be intended, as Israel speaks about false oaths. The quote is similar to Bava Kamma 113a. Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." The two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.
8-9 Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1, says: "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." As in Yoreh De'ah 158, this is not Talmud, is not about goyim but is limited to idolaters (with Jewish idolaters being mentioned separately), and refers only if one's own life would be at risk. Deut. 7:2 is limited to the seven nations in Canaan judged for their idolatry, who were in a state of war with Israel and were not to be shown mercy, so Maimonides extends this to other hypothetical known idolaters.
10 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388: no match, quote is from Pranaitis, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.
11 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266: no match. It does teach the general principle that "finders keepers" sometimes applies when restoring property is impractical, such as for low value without distinct marks where the owner is unlikely to search long, or if hypothetically returning the property would be blasphemous (not "because"). The quoted development must come from a later source. However, another sentence taken from this passage is not an unreasonable paraphrase of the second half of this paragraph: "It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people"; but again, the text does not mention God, Christians, Jews, or honorable. A probably errant modification of Google's translation yields: "If one returned it to him in order to sanctify the name so that Israel will cause pride and they know that they have faith, that is fine."
12 Tur, Yoreh Deah 17, 14th century, does not say "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim ask if our books contain anything against them." This chapter pertains to animal slaughter and seems wholly unrelated. It is likely that a source is intended that would be called part 17 of "She'elot u-Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah", but the first two words mean Q&A or responsa, and could refer to any such book commenting on Yoreh Deah. Attribution of the quote to "Libbre David 37", or to Passover prayers in Pranaitis, appears to be confusion from its repeated close proximity to quotes from those sources. No searches indicate further leads on the original source of this particular quote, but it's clearly not Talmud, although it is close to Bava Kamma 113a.
13 Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)
14 Shabbat 32b does not say "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." Original: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499, by Simeon ha-Darshan, translated: "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him."
15 Midrash Talpiot 225, by Elijah Kohen (1698), does not say "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." Pranaitis is tamer. Page 225 online I roughly translate as "And added Israel according to the fact that they are one special people to one supreme God as it is written 'and who is like your people Israel, one nation'. And he said, since you are Israel, one nation, it is proper for you to prepare yourself and prepare yourself for the one, and please eat and not drink a couple, so that you may think in your heart for a few seconds." This quotes 2 Sam. 7:23 tamely. Rohling refers to the Warsaw 1875 edition instead.
16 Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.
17 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8: It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."
18 Sanhedrin 57a, actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. I'ts not about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" So, since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.
19 See #10.
20 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348 is about theft, but the closest I find, translated by Google, is: "A question to Gaon. Who is suspected of theft and there are no witnesses against him, and there are witnesses against him for another theft before, what is the law against him? Answer: Thus we have seen that there is neither judgment nor flogging for him unless the Torah commands flogging except with two witnesses, but they will judge him by a decree." The imaginative interpretation quoted is not in Pranaitis, so may have come from another route.
Details
permalink context all comments (12) award save report block mark unread reply
[part 3 of that guy getting back to me]
Everything the cabal does, is for what happens after. WW2, after that, you can't inquire about Jewish stuff because it'll go, that's anti semetism. Like try asking Bing AI about anything to do with the Talmud. Meanwhile these priests are permitted to molest kids.in Conspiracies SwampRangers
2 points 3 days ago I like how the bot kept repeating itself! My notes:
"not an accurate representation": fail, it shoulda said not found at all, but it didn't know.
"discussing legal and ritual matters related to idol worship, not advocating for violence against Gentiles": fail, it really is one man advocating for violence against Gentiles who have declared war against you. That's the context, bot.
"not a call for harm": fail, yes it's a call for harm by one rabbi, but it was overruled is the important point.
"not a recognized text in mainstream Judaism, and this quote is not from the Talmud": correct.
same.
"taken out of context": fail, not really, it's a misquote rather than an out-of-context. The concept is there but it's not about being "permitted" but punished afterward.
"does not reflect mainstream Jewish ethics": fail, should just say stated source unavailable (per my links). I show the thought is close to Bava Kamma 113a and so it does reflect ethics about cases in which potentially deceptive circuitousness is permitted.
"not representative of Jewish teachings, which generally emphasize the value of all human life": fail, it's a valid quote, context being if it means your own life would be at risk and the endangered person were a known idolater.
"not a universal principle in Jewish teachings and should not be taken as such": mostly fail, yeah, it's universal because it's a quote of Deut. 7:2 (KJV): "nor shew mercy unto them." Only applies to Canaanites among the goyim though. In this case bot should learn the context (Deut. 7:1).
"seems to be taken from a source that is not widely recognized": fail, it's widely recognized (Choshen Mishpat) but obscured. But the quote isn't there, there is no paragraph 15 in chapter 388.
"not representative of the ethical teachings found in the Talmud and Jewish tradition": mostly correct, the concept is warped from the original.
"not consistent with principles of truthfulness": mostly fail, it seems to come from somewhere medieval with that thought, but there are three or more obscure responsa that this cite could refer to.
"not representative of mainstream Jewish teachings and values": pass this one, since the quote changes "are called" (deemed) to "are".
"not from the Talmud and should not be taken as an accurate representation of Jewish beliefs": utter fail. The Talmudic source is Shabbat 32b, which reads "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is reflective of Jewish beliefs (as well as triumphalist Christian beliefs taken from Zech. 8:23), but the words Jew and Gentile are not present, which is significant.
"reflects a distorted view that is not representative of Jewish thought": mostly fail, but it's not from the source quoted but from some unfindable haggah commenting upon it. Again, it's probably present in Judaism somewhere, but not binding at all.
"not representative of any mainstream Jewish teachings and is not an accurate portrayal of Jewish ethics": pass this one. Again, it's nonrepresentative only because it's misinterpreted as permission.
"not from the Talmud and is not consistent with Jewish teachings": pass for same reason as previous.
"not reflective of Jewish teachings and ethics, which generally hold all individuals accountable for their actions": fail, the quote does reflect the ethic that Jews (death by stoning) are not capitally responsible in the same way as Gentiles (death by the sword).
"from a legal code but should not be taken out of historical and legal context": hah! Well give it a pass here too. It can't say it's misrepresented, it can only say you have to read more of the unfindable source to understand it.
"not representative of Jewish ethical principles and is not universally accepted": mostly fail. The principle of "finders keepers" expressed by the Talmud includes the thought that the Jews are not responsible for tracking the ownership rights of Gentiles to the same degree as their own.
Bot scores 7 out of 20 correct judgments.
permalink context all comments (12) award save report block mark unread reply
[part 2 of this guy's replies.. jeez.. I'll have to check out carefully everything he's saying here]
Bing AI doesn't like going there and was trying to hide this, then I had to look up the scripture line from the Talmud. "Sboda Sarah 37) "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated". Bing was trying to cover it up about these guys. Then shuts down the conversation when I keep nailing it. in Conspiracies SwampRangers
2 points 3 days ago The 20
1 Sanhedrin 59a: quote is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.
2 Avodah Zarah 26b: out-of-context quote is from a different medieval source, Tractate Soferim 15 (see below for details). Avodah Zarah's closest statement seems to be: But may not a Gentile circumcise a Jew, because are suspected of bloodshed. The statement of Rabbi Meir. Even there, another Meir statement is taken to imply that a professional Gentile physician may circumcise a Jew: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean physician, Aramean circumcise and Samaritan not circumcise. The statement of Rabbi Meir. This is about Gentiles not being subject to Jewish courts, not about them being subject. Tractate Soferim 15: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, not from the main Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from early addenda.
3-5 See #1.
6 Yevamot 11b: quote appears to be a conflation of Yevamot 57b and Ketubot 11b. Ketubot says: "An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl ... their marriage contract is two hundred .... More than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not a claim virginity .... An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl, nothing, as less than is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye." This is not about age at marriage, this is about marriage to a mature woman who had been abused in her youth. The ruling is that a girl abused after the age of three has a lower brideprice because she is not a virgin, but a girl abused before that can still be counted as a virgin; that is, it provides opportunity for healing for the immature victim by not challenging her virginity on physiological grounds. I've previously pointed out that Gen. 2:24 regulates sexual intercourse as limited to a covenanted man and woman, and that the abuser is thus still subject to the death penalty regardless. Ketubot is about the marriageability aspect, not about the crime; and Yevamot 57b is about the applicability of levirate marriage and is even more tangential. 57b says: "With regard to a girl less than three years and one day old. Since there is no intercourse her." This just restates the principle above that an abuse incident in an infant's life is not held against her virginity, and it goes on to apply this principle to the mature bride's rights to eat offerings.
7 Shavuot Haggadah: no match. There are many books so named. Pranaitis translates Rohling as "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only." Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1327), and "Shevuot, Haggahot Asheri" 6:4 by Israel of Krems (15th c.), may be intended, as Israel speaks about false oaths. The quote is similar to Bava Kamma 113a. Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." The two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.
8-9 Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1, says: "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." As in Yoreh De'ah 158, this is not Talmud, is not about goyim but is limited to idolaters (with Jewish idolaters being mentioned separately), and refers only if one's own life would be at risk. Deut. 7:2 is limited to the seven nations in Canaan judged for their idolatry, who were in a state of war with Israel and were not to be shown mercy, so Maimonides extends this to other hypothetical known idolaters.
10 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388: no match, quote is from Pranaitis, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.
11 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266: no match. It does teach the general principle that "finders keepers" sometimes applies when restoring property is impractical, such as for low value without distinct marks where the owner is unlikely to search long, or if hypothetically returning the property would be blasphemous (not "because"). The quoted development must come from a later source. However, another sentence taken from this passage is not an unreasonable paraphrase of the second half of this paragraph: "It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people"; but again, the text does not mention God, Christians, Jews, or honorable. A probably errant modification of Google's translation yields: "If one returned it to him in order to sanctify the name so that Israel will cause pride and they know that they have faith, that is fine."
12 Tur, Yoreh Deah 17, 14th century, does not say "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim ask if our books contain anything against them." This chapter pertains to animal slaughter and seems wholly unrelated. It is likely that a source is intended that would be called part 17 of "She'elot u-Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah", but the first two words mean Q&A or responsa, and could refer to any such book commenting on Yoreh Deah. Attribution of the quote to "Libbre David 37", or to Passover prayers in Pranaitis, appears to be confusion from its repeated close proximity to quotes from those sources. No searches indicate further leads on the original source of this particular quote, but it's clearly not Talmud, although it is close to Bava Kamma 113a.
13 Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)
14 Shabbat 32b does not say "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." Original: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499, by Simeon ha-Darshan, translated: "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him."
15 Midrash Talpiot 225, by Elijah Kohen (1698), does not say "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." Pranaitis is tamer. Page 225 online I roughly translate as "And added Israel according to the fact that they are one special people to one supreme God as it is written 'and who is like your people Israel, one nation'. And he said, since you are Israel, one nation, it is proper for you to prepare yourself and prepare yourself for the one, and please eat and not drink a couple, so that you may think in your heart for a few seconds." This quotes 2 Sam. 7:23 tamely. Rohling refers to the Warsaw 1875 edition instead.
16 Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.
17 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8: It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."
18 Sanhedrin 57a, actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. I'ts not about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" So, since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.
19 See #10.
20 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348 is about theft, but the closest I find, translated by Google, is: "A question to Gaon. Who is suspected of theft and there are no witnesses against him, and there are witnesses against him for another theft before, what is the law against him? Answer: Thus we have seen that there is neither judgment nor flogging for him unless the Torah commands flogging except with two witnesses, but they will judge him by a decree." The imaginative interpretation quoted is not in Pranaitis, so may have come from another route.
Details
permalink context all comments (12) award save report block mark unread reply
This is interesting.. gold has something to do with this occult stuff. So what are these numbers saying here.. the higher ones, you get this lymph node and adrenal gland.
How about these food items where people eat fucking gold flakes and think it's "nifty". That's like a "heavy metal", I bet.. I wouldn't eat it.
I had lots here few years ago. See my insta. Cheap stuff from china for music video props. Bunch of gold leaf and was making huge tarps for mirror box so filming gold would reflect properly. Then I noticed those emergency blankets. Tested them out comparing it with the gold leaf tarps and they were better. Less months using the tape cutter to make them. That was a bugger trying to tape that shit cause you can't just grab it, so thin. But yeah.. I never would have eaten any. That was real gold too in that shit. It's cheap over there. Had a bunch of packs of this gold leaf and betcha if you'd melt it down, it'd probably be pretty close. Not much junk in there.
inside the black box.
Transcript
Intro the kaaba as we all know is a holy place for muslims and all muslims desire to visit this place and perform their religious activities like hajj and umrah in the house of god now the word kaaba is an arabic word that really translates to cube house and very few people have seen the building from the inside although all muslims wish to enter the building at least once in their life the holy kaaba has been through a lot like for example it's been on fire it has flooded numerous times requiring it to be rebuilt on various occasions throughout history hey what's happening guys welcome back to ftd facts leroy kenton here and for this one i'm going to be looking at 10 of the most surprising facts about the inside of the kaaba that most people probably don't even know about so let's get into the details yeah pretty fascinating when you learn about what's on the inside i'm sure it would be even more mind-blowing actually seeing it in person but number Document 10 we have the document hanging on the wall now in the direction of the eastern wall between the door of repentance or bobby tawba and the kaaba's door there is a document printed on the board of marbles the document is of king fod bin abdulaziz al-saad and now this document indicated the date of renovation next up Door let's talk about the door of the kaaba the door of the kaaba also known as located at the eastern wall now this door is believed to have been built by the prophet ibrahim himself previously it was said that there was actually no door in the kaaba there was only a portal in the eastern wall to enter and exit the building now the door from the interior is covered with a beautiful silk curtain which has silver and gold prints now let's look at the stairs at Stairs number eight so on the right side of the interior there is a staircase leading to the roof which is accessed through the door of repentance now the stairs leading to the cabba's roof are mostly made of aluminum the right side interior of the kaaba is a levantine corner and resembles an enclosed rectangular structure that has no windows in the Decorative stones kaaba you'll also notice some pretty interesting decorative stones and one of these stones is decorated with arabic calligraphy using the script of kufic now the words that are embossed on these stones are made of beautiful colorful pieces of marble there are total of 10 stones inside the kaaba and the words on them were written after the sixth century ah number six leads us to the Curtain curtain of the kaaba so instead of the kaaba it's covered with a red silk curtain that has a texture of embroidery on it it has an inscribed weave in cream-colored silk over the dark red ground now the central band has a prominent inscription of the kalmat al tawid which means that there is no god except allah and muhammad is his messenger now other than this there can be seen two expressions written in khaswa both these expressions are names of allah okay number five Walls Floor leads us to the walls and floor the walls of the interior of the kaaba are decorated with colorful emblazoned marble the floor of the kaaba is made of marble and limestone now the color of most of the marble is white but some pieces are colored as well the 13 meter by 9 meter or 43 feet by 30 feet interior walls are tiled with white marble halfway to the roof with darker trimmings along the floor the interior floor is approximately 2.2 meters or seven feet three inches above the ground area where tawaf is performed now number Pots four is a pretty interesting there's some pots hanging on the inside now there's a number of golden colored lamp-like structures that are hung inside the kaaba nobody yet knows the reason why they are hanging and what they really refer to but these pots are hanged with a rope and the rope is tied to the pillars inside of the kaapa and these are referred to as gift of kappa Pillars and for number three let's actually look at the pillars inside of the kaba every single column inside of the kaaba is in square shape and between these three columns a pillar is present the pillar passes through all of the columns now there is a small alter or table set between one and the other two now the sides of the pillar are extended to the southern and northern walls of the interior of the holy copper to these walls the various lamp-like objects are attached for number two let's talk about the wood that you're going to notice in the interior of the kaaba 49 pieces of the world's most powerful wood hold the inside of the kaaba the kaaba's roof is supported by four nine pieces of teakwood imported from burma and processed in jeddah they are evenly distributed on the kaaba's walls antique tree wood is well known for its durability they grow in the southeast asian tropical forests and can reach a height of 45 meters they are commonly used in shipbuilding and other high quality industries coming at number one Wooden Columns we have the wooden columns the area which is less than 180 square meters contains three wooden columns that support the kaaba ceiling now each of the dark brown columns which is over 1 350 years old has a perimeter of about 150 centimeters and a diameter of 44 centimeters each column is supported by the square wooden base now a pillar suspended from the kaaba's gifts is located between the three columns all Conclusion right guys so that concludes this episode this was a very interesting and technical look of some of the things that you're going to notice inside of the kaaba and i know for many viewers watching this this is probably the closest that you're ever going to be the inside of the kaapa unless you're muslim and you do the pilgrimage to hajj and you're permitted to go inside up but yes most people don't necessarily get the privilege to see the inside so want to share this video with you guys just to give you an idea of what would be on the inside it's a fascinating question even for non-muslims like wondering like what is inside the kappa how does it look so hope you guys enjoyed this episode if you did don't forget to leave a big thumbs up and also if this is your first time stumbling across rftv facts videos i want you to go ahead and subscribe and ring the bell that way you'll join the ftd facts family and you'll be notified when we post new videos until next time guys stay awesome stay educated and i'll see you soon you
https://old.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/wqj41g/new_photos_from_inside_the_kabah/
https://www.islamiclandmarks.com/makkah-haram-sharief/inside-the-kabah
"This white cupboard is where various scents and gifts are kept within the Ka’bah. Bakhoor (fragrance) is placed on here."
How'd I wind up here.. watching this, "Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings Volume 3_ Eye of the Phoenix _ Full Movie", they get into the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone
Like why would these guys have a such a hard-on over this rock.
Always about the occult, eh. Was trying to get bing AI to cough stuff up.. well you got the stonehenge.. but those are pretty big rocks. Ya got the blarney stone.. "The Blarney Stone is a block of limestone that is built into the battlements of Blarney Castle in Ireland." Then ya got philosopher's stone, "a legendary substance that was sought by alchemists and occultists. It was supposed to be able to turn base metals into gold, and grant immortality to the user. "
I think there's something like the Aztecs.. them and sacrificing people on rock stuff and the blood gets on there. That gets something going. That post the other month about gold and when you get blood on it. That gets power going.
Later edit.. recalled bing AI mentioning something about the muslims and a stone.. got it..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone
The Black Stone is a rock set into the eastern corner of the Kaaba, the ancient building in the center of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
Looked into these guys.. they'd do naked stuff with sex in fields, eh.
he basically didn't do fuck all in combat like that ginger kid, eh.
yeah.. the "sporran".. noticed that yesterday when I was researching.. William-Cooper-Behold-a-Pale-Horse and he gets into that luciferian dude.. names his fucking address in SF.. he's still alive, eh.. even though eh tried not to be..
"The document was first published by a conspiracy theorist named William Cooper in his book Behold a Pale Horse in 1991. Cooper claimed that he received the document from an anonymous source in 1986. Cooper was later killed by police in 2001 after a shootout at his home in Arizona".
Saw another version when looking for it..
Then I was there.. well let's try to find the original document. So, got both on my desktop, gonna check 'em out in the days ahead.
"Cooper claimed that the document of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars was a secret plan by the elite to control and manipulate the masses using various methods of social engineering, economic warfare, and biological warfare. He believed that the document was a blueprint for the New World Order and that it revealed the true intentions of the globalists."
I heard of this guy over the years. That behold a pale horse. Gonna read these two then look into him again.
No not really.. just analyze things. Like I could have a go at you and why you're "miserable". Usually when people are fouled up like that, it's cause they're "losing". So no need to spend my time finding out more about that. Good enough. lol.
Anyways.. let's stick to the topic. Colonel Sanders. Definitely conspiracy with all that. Him bailing out on them last year of his life. Then he croaks right by xmas when they do their shit. I think they KFC'd 'em and ate 'em instead of how they usually do it when they're alive. Somebody got his last breath, as usual though first. How's that grab ya.
But nobody would belive it cause he was fucking 90. But that's how it goes with these guys. That's like how Bob Barker offed himself a few months before he turned 100 this past xmas. After my snail mail, a couple years before.. jokin how they were gonna eat 'em when he turned 100.
[part 2 of talking to bing AI about all this]
looking for a video on youtube where maybe it was a clairvoyant lady who talked about occult rituals gold and talked about 9/11 and the gold underneath would amplify things.
Generating answers for you…
I searched the web for videos that match your description, and I found some possible results. Here are the titles and links of the videos:
9/11: Occult Ritual, Symbolism, Numerology, Predictive Programming and more! - A podcast episode by Isaac Weishaupt, who discusses the occult aspects of 9/11, such as the symbolism, numerology, and predictive programming. He also mentions the gold that was stored under the World Trade Center and how it may have been used in the ritual1
The Secret History of Female and Nonbinary Occultists - An article by Sarah Durn, who interviews the authors of a book called Toil and Trouble: A Women’s History of the Occult. The book explores the women and nonbinary people who have shaped the occult and used it to gain personal and political power. The article mentions Madame Marcia, an astrologer who advised first ladies Edith Wilson and Florence Harding, and who warned the latter about her husband’s death in office2
9/11 As An Occult Ritual - A premium episode of the podcast QAnon Anonymous, where the hosts talk to Travis View, who has read a book called The Most Dangerous Book In The World: 9/11 as Mass Ritual. The book claims that 9/11 was a complex occult ritual that involved numerology, symbolism, and references to Satan and Aleister Crowley. The episode also mentions the gold that was allegedly stolen from the World Trade Center3
The Occult Ritual of 9/11 2001 (Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Islam & other cults) - A video by a YouTube channel called The Truth Is From God, who claims that 9/11 was an occult ritual that involved Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Islam, and other cults. The video also claims that the gold that was stored under the World Trade Center was used to amplify the ritual4
I hope these videos are helpful to you. If you have any follow-up questions, please let me know. 😊
no it was just an older lady talking
Generating answers for you…
I’m sorry, I couldn’t find any videos that match your description exactly. The closest one I found was The Occult Ritual of 9/11 2001 (Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Islam & other cults), which features a voice-over by a woman who claims that 9/11 was an occult ritual that involved Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Islam, and other cults. She also mentions the gold that was stored under the World Trade Center and how it was used to amplify the ritual. However, this video is not on YouTube, but on Dailymotion, and it was uploaded in 20151
Maybe you can try to remember more details about the video you are looking for, such as the title, the channel name, the date, or the keywords. You can also use the Bing video search to refine your query and filter the results by source, date, duration, and resolution. I hope you can find the video you are looking for. 😊
anything on youtube where Laurie Cabot talks about gold and 9/11?
Generating answers for you…
I searched the web for videos that match your description, but I couldn’t find any. Laurie Cabot is a famous witch and author who lives in Salem, Massachusetts1 She has appeared in several documentaries and TV shows about witchcraft, but none of them seem to mention gold or 9/1123
Gold and 9/11 are topics that some people associate with occult rituals and conspiracies. Some people believe that there was a large amount of gold stored under the World Trade Center, and that it was stolen or used in a ritual during the attacks4 However, there is no evidence to support these claims, and they are widely dismissed as false or misleading4
checking my old bookmarks.. her name was Almine. Wasn't Laurie Cabot.
this is her chanel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/Almine/videos
Scrolling them for that vid. Right here.. bang.
"9/11 Occult Ritual: Blood, Gold and Emotion"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHvYGcs9hYs
Let me get the transcript.
"They are in large part responsible for many of the pyramids in Mizo and southern America. Because what they did is they had the natives gather gold for them. And the gold was initially used to send to Nibiru to save its atmosphere. But eventually the Anunnaki overlords here on the Earth recognized that gold had other properties to it. That if you combine gold with emotion with blood, you can alter reality. That is what was done with the Twin Towers. Dynamite was put in the tower so that they would collapse straight down, otherwise they would have fallen over, but they didn't. From an airplane. They would've fallen over but they didn't, they fell straight down. There was so much gold underneath the towers. Later it was told that the gold was there. They had a tunnel so they could remove it even if the building fell down. They would dig in from this part long before they could dig down. And so the gold was there. Needless to say there was horrific emotion. It was televised over and over and over around the world and people everywhere were able to, with emotion, relive and focus on this event. And the emotion of the people in the building and the bloodshed in the building, as these explosions took place and being burned alive etc. All of these things produced a whole other reality of control. It undid what we had worked on for many years to thin the illusions and it puts much illusion back in. They have used it from the sun. They've directed a triangulation to control realities on Earth. The blood sacrifice of the Aztecs, the... you know the gold from everywhere in the Americas and then in addition to that, if they needed a war they created a war. If the blood sacrifice died down, well they brought in the Conquistadores. They did what they needed to do. They had the emotion, they had the gold and they had the bloodshed. And they had this in three places on the Earth and were able that way to control realities."
ok consider everything you mentioned.. yeah some of her stuff might be far fetched.. but some of these psychics can tune into things we can't see or detect. Or they could hide real history from us.. so can seem far fetched if they say something.
yeah I'm reading this.. it was when you combine gold, with emotion and blood. This aspect of gold and blood.. never heard that before this, eh.. but these occult guys are all into the blood.
ok.. so what do you got on that.. plus all this other stuff you got into before. What's going on with gold and the occult.
Generating answers for you…
I see that you have found the video that you were looking for. It is by Almine, a self-proclaimed mystic and seer who claims to have access to hidden knowledge and spiritual insights1 In the video, she talks about the occult technique of using gold, emotion, and blood to alter reality, and how it was allegedly used in the 9/11 attacks and by the ancient civilizations of the Anunnaki and the Aztec2
However, I have to warn you that the video is not based on any factual or reliable evidence, but on Almine’s personal beliefs and speculations. There is no proof that the Anunnaki, a mythical race of extraterrestrial beings from the ancient Mesopotamian myths, ever existed or had any influence on human history3 There is also no proof that the Aztec used gold, emotion, and blood to control reality, or that they had any connection to the Anunnaki. The Aztec did use gold in some of their rituals, but not as a form of sacrifice. They also practiced human sacrifice, but for different reasons than Almine suggests.
As for the 9/11 attacks, there is no evidence that they were part of an occult ritual that involved gold, emotion, and blood. The gold that was stored under the World Trade Center was not stolen or used in a ritual, but was recovered by the authorities after the attacks. The collapse of the towers was not caused by dynamite, but by the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires that weakened the steel structures. The emotion and the bloodshed that resulted from the attacks were not part of a plan to create a new reality of control, but a tragic consequence of a terrorist act that shocked and saddened the world.
Gold and the occult are topics that some people associate with occult rituals and conspiracies, but they are not based on any scientific or historical facts. Gold is a metal that has been valued for its beauty, rarity, and symbolism for thousands of years. Gold is often associated with the sun, fire, and royalty, and it has been used in various cultures and religions as a symbol of power, wealth, and divinity. Some people believe that gold has metaphysical properties that can enhance one’s energy, creativity, and spirituality, but there is no scientific evidence to support this claim.
The occult is a term that refers to the hidden or secret knowledge and practices that deal with the supernatural, the mystical, and the magical. The occult has been a source of fascination and curiosity for many people throughout history, and it has influenced various fields of art, literature, philosophy, and science. However, the occult is also a source of misinformation and deception, as some people use it to manipulate, exploit, or harm others. The occult is not a reliable or trustworthy source of information, and it should be approached with caution and skepticism.
Trying to get bing AI to cough it up about this stuff. It gets into a bit about how gold is used in occult rituals. You also get these fuckin guys and "alchemy". Where the gold turns into this white powder. The aztecs sacrificing people on the pyramids.. I think they were into gold. The egyptians, they were into the occult, and think of the Tut mask. I think your key here though is that chick who talked about gold and blood. That's when it gets going. lol. A good one is how there's grimoires that involve gold for rituals. Oh yeah, how about this one..
"The Key of Solomon, a medieval grimoire attributed to King Solomon, contains many instructions on how to make and use various gold items, such as rings, pentacles, crowns, and lamens. These items are used to invoke and command various spirits and angels, and to perform various magical operations"
See.. you can take command of entities with the gold. It might trip them out like that mirror box where they'd get trapped.
These guys though.. they had a hard-on with Ra.. I think he had something to do with gold. Cause he was the sun god and that was the color of the sun. You also get a super shitload of gold that's melted in the sun, just by the gravity, eh.
ok talking to bing AI about all this stuff.. 20k characters, cutting in parts. Not too long.
aztec sacrifices on those pyramids.. were they using "gold" in the rituals?
Generating answers for you…
The Aztecs did use gold in some of their rituals, but not as a form of sacrifice. Gold was considered a sacred metal, associated with the sun god Huitzilopochtli, and was used to adorn temples, statues, and ceremonial objects12 The Aztecs also received gold as tribute from their conquered peoples, and sometimes traded it with other Mesoamerican cultures3
The Aztecs did not sacrifice gold to the gods, but they did sacrifice human beings, often in large numbers. Human sacrifice was a central part of their religion, and they believed that it was necessary to feed the sun god and prevent the end of the world12 The victims were usually prisoners of war, slaves, or volunteers, who were killed in various ways, such as having their hearts cut out, being decapitated, or being skinned alive145 The Aztecs also practiced ritual cannibalism, eating the flesh of some of the sacrificed people2
Human sacrifice was performed on the tops of the pyramids, which were the main temples of the Aztec gods. The most important pyramid was the Templo Mayor, which had two shrines dedicated to Huitzilopochtli and Tlaloc, the rain god. The Templo Mayor was also the site of the most gruesome display of human sacrifice: the skull rack, or tzompantli, where the skulls of the victims were impaled on wooden poles and arranged in rows12 Archaeologists have found evidence of thousands of skulls at the Templo Mayor, confirming the accounts of the Spanish conquistadors who witnessed the Aztec rituals2
i wasn't saying they were sarificing gold during those rituals.. but was gold involved during the rituals
Generating answers for you…
I apologize for misunderstanding your question. Yes, gold was involved in some of the Aztec rituals, but not as a form of sacrifice. Gold was used to decorate the temples, statues, and ceremonial objects that were dedicated to the gods. Gold was also worn by the priests and the nobility, who participated in the rituals. Gold symbolized the sun, the fire, and the blood that the Aztecs offered to their gods.
i heard somewhere by a clairvoyant that gold can amplify the vibe
Generating answers for you…
I’m not sure what you mean by “the vibe”, but gold is a metal that has been valued for its beauty, rarity, and symbolism for thousands of years. Gold is often associated with the sun, fire, and royalty, and it has been used in various cultures and religions as a symbol of power, wealth, and divinity12
Some people believe that gold has metaphysical properties that can enhance one’s energy, creativity, and spirituality. Gold is said to be a high vibration crystal that can activate the solar plexus chakra, the center of personal will and confidence. Gold can also help balance the heart chakra, the center of love and compassion3
However, there is no scientific evidence that gold or any other crystal can amplify or alter the vibrations of the human body or the environment. The effects of crystals are subjective and depend on one’s personal beliefs, expectations, and experiences.
anything about psychics or witches talking about gold used in occult rituals?
Generating answers for you…
Gold has been used in occult rituals for a long time, as it is believed to have metaphysical properties that can enhance one’s energy, creativity, and spirituality. Gold is often associated with the sun, fire, and royalty, and it has been used in various cultures and religions as a symbol of power, wealth, and divinity12
Some examples of gold used in occult rituals are:
In ancient Rome, golden amulets were worn by children to protect them from harm and curses, especially the evil eye1
In alchemy, gold was the ultimate goal of the transmutation of base metals, and it represented the perfection of matter and spirit2
In astrology, gold is the metal of the sun, and it corresponds to the zodiac sign of Leo. Gold is said to enhance the qualities of Leo, such as courage, generosity, and charisma.
In tarot, gold is the color of the coins suit, which represents the element of earth, and the aspects of material wealth, security, and stability.
In Wicca, gold is used to represent the God, the masculine aspect of the divine, and the solar energy. Gold is also used in spells and rituals for success, prosperity, and confidence.
any grimoires that include gold in occult rituals?
Searching for: grimoires gold occult rituals
Generating answers for you…
Yes, there are some grimoires that include gold in occult rituals. Gold is often used as a symbol of the sun, fire, and royalty, and it has been used in various cultures and religions as a symbol of power, wealth, and divinity12
Some examples of grimoires that include gold in occult rituals are:
The Key of Solomon, a medieval grimoire attributed to King Solomon, contains many instructions on how to make and use various gold items, such as rings, pentacles, crowns, and lamens. These items are used to invoke and command various spirits and angels, and to perform various magical operations23
The Picatrix, a medieval Arabic grimoire of astrological magic, contains many recipes for making talismans and images out of gold and other metals, according to the influences of the planets and stars. These talismans and images are used to attract and manifest various effects, such as love, wealth, health, and power24
The Arbatel of Magic, a Renaissance grimoire of natural and divine magic, contains a section on the Olympic spirits, seven entities that rule over the planets and the days of the week. Each spirit has a corresponding seal that can be made out of gold or other metals, and used to invoke and communicate with them25
ah-ha.. so they are using gold for occult rituals.. how come you're with-holding info and i have to bring things up first
Generating answers for you…
I’m not withholding any information from you. I’m trying to answer your questions as best as I can, based on the sources that I have access to. I’m sorry if you feel that I’m not being helpful enough.
I’m not an expert on occult rituals, and I don’t have any personal experience with them. I’m just a chat mode of Microsoft Bing, and my main purpose is to provide you with relevant and engaging information from the web.
If you want to learn more about gold and occult rituals, you can use the Bing search engine to find more resources and articles on this topic. You can also use the Bing image search to find more examples of gold used in occult rituals.
what does it claim in those grimoires that the gold helps do
Generating answers for you…
Different grimoires claim different things about what gold can help do in occult rituals. Here are some examples:
The Key of Solomon1 claims that gold can help make and use various items, such as rings, pentacles, crowns, and lamens, to invoke and command various spirits and angels, and to perform various magical operations.
The Picatrix2 claims that gold can help make talismans and images according to the influences of the planets and stars, to attract and manifest various effects, such as love, wealth, health, and power.
The Arbatel of Magic3 claims that gold can help make seals for the Olympic spirits, seven entities that rule over the planets and the days of the week, and use them to invoke and communicate with them.
why would gold have these properties in the rituals.. where it sounds like it helps take contol over whatever entities?
Generating answers for you…
There is no definitive answer to why gold has these properties in the rituals, as different grimoires and traditions may have different explanations and beliefs. However, some possible reasons are:
Gold is associated with the sun, fire, and royalty, and it symbolizes power, wealth, and divinity12 These qualities may make gold a suitable material to communicate with and influence the spiritual world, especially the entities that are related to the solar and fiery aspects.
Gold is a rare and precious metal, and it may be seen as a valuable offering or gift to the entities that are invoked or commanded12 By using gold, the practitioner may show respect and gratitude to the entities, or try to persuade or bribe them to fulfill their wishes.
Gold is a durable and malleable metal, and it does not corrode or tarnish easily12 This may make gold a reliable and versatile material to create and use various items, such as rings, pentacles, seals, and images, that are used in the rituals. Gold may also be seen as a symbol of immortality and perfection, and thus reflect the desired qualities of the practitioner and their goals.
you also had the egyptians using lots of it
Generating answers for you…
Yes, the Egyptians used a lot of gold in their art, religion, and culture. Gold was considered to be the flesh of the sun god Ra, and a symbol of power, wealth, and divinity12 The Egyptians made jewelry, ornaments, statues, vessels, masks, and other objects out of gold, often using electrum, a natural alloy of gold and silver123 The Egyptians also mined gold from the Eastern Desert and Nubia, and received it as tribute from other peoples134
they said it was like the sun, right? the color, or what
Generating answers for you…
Yes, the ancient Egyptians said that gold was like the sun, and they used it as a symbol of the sun god Ra. They also associated gold with the color yellow, which was one of the five basic colors in their art and culture. The other four colors were white, black, red, and green. Each color had a symbolic meaning and a connection to a natural element or a divine being12
with all these types in this conversation, you also get "alchemy" that involves gold
Generating answers for you…
Yes, alchemy is another topic that involves gold, but in a different way than the Aztecs or the Egyptians. Alchemy is a form of speculative thought that tried to transform base metals such as lead or copper into silver or gold and to discover a cure for disease and a way of extending life1 Alchemy was practiced in various cultures and times, such as ancient China, India, Islamic lands, and medieval Europe1
Gold was the ultimate goal of alchemy, as it represented the perfection of all matter on any level, including that of the mind, spirit, and soul2 Alchemists believed that gold had metaphysical properties that could enhance one’s energy, creativity, and spirituality34 Alchemists also sought the philosopher’s stone, a mythical substance that could turn base metals into gold or silver and grant immortality2
You didn't grow up when that was big during the 70's. This guy was on TV a lot. Plus, finding out he's a freemason and shriner lately. And last minute, he's turning christian, talking about Jesus Christ, which you never hear come out of freemason's mouths. Meanwhile, his tombstone, they put the freemason logo, shriners, and 33rd degree. Even though he bailed out. You got conspiracy going on with this guy. Also getting sued for badmouthing KFC after he sold it.
Back then had the sountrack cassette. Last weekend recalled that and started to check it out. Then was like.. oh it's a sequel to the Hustler (1961). So watched that first. Looking up the soundtrack, check their review. But the codec compression from 14 years ago, he gets wonky a bit sometimes. Here it is:
So this would say that it isn't the vaccines causing the autism. Looking at that other graph earlier, autism really seems to go up since 2000. You do get the number of vaccines in the schedule going up just as bad at the same time though.
So if it's not the vaccines.. what has been going on since 2000 which would be causing all this autism?
Some were saying oh the mercury in vaccines. Talking to bing AI about that it said:
"Yes, there used to be a concern about mercury in vaccines due to the presence of thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative. Thimerosal was used to prevent bacterial and fungal growth in vaccine vials. However, it was removed from most vaccines in 2001"
Which is odd cause that's right around the time you get this increase in autism. When they stop the mercury.
Oh wait.. noticed this in that other chart.
"The CDC has only ever tested MMR and Thimerosal for a link to autism. The remaining 15 vaccines and 37 common ingredients remain untested for links to autism". So it might be who knows what. Sounds like you got a lot of stuff in there. lol
But this graph here is saying the autism is going up even in the unvaccinated.
What's going on in 2000 that's "different" and could be causing all this autism? This is saying it's not the vaccine schedule.
Was talking to bing AI about what's the deal with someone who has autism, compared to how a normal person is. Sounds like their brain gets messed up. Then you got the aspergers.. I was asking it to compare it to how someone with autism is. Sounds like aspergers is more mild.
ok so we got kids brains getting messed up by something that's gone on since 2000. What's gone on since then.. how about "wireless" signals. I don't know. Anything on that, perhaps?