What are religious systems if not guides for ethics? Any religion worth its salt must give its followers a concrete notion of the good life—of virtue, justice, and rectitude. It needs to offer a conception of what counts as good in this world; it must explain how a person can be good, and how people collectively can create the best possible existence for themselves. These things will naturally be tied to a specific conception of God (or the gods), but still, concrete and specific ethical norms must be the outcome; otherwise, followers will be largely left in the dark regarding how to conduct a proper life.

Judaism is no exception. The basic outline of this religion is of course found in the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament (the Tanakh). Unfortunately, from an ethical perspective, the Old Testament is an utter fiasco: moral precepts abound, but they are ambiguous, contradictory, vapid, and arbitrary. And worse: they lead to a catastrophic and repulsive set of attitudes, as I will demonstrate.

Let me start, then, with the ethics of the Old Testament. The clearest bit of the mess is the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), but these are either so obvious as to be pointless (“honor your parents,” “don’t steal,” “don’t kill”), or so abstract as to be meaningless (“no other gods,” “keep Sabbath holy,” “God’s name not in vain”). There is really very little here to live by, and certainly nothing to indicate a divine origin, as would be expected from an omniscient and all-good God.

But it’s worse than this. According to Jewish tradition, there are precisely 613 “commandments” in just the Torah alone! (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.) Every time anyone is told to do something, or not to do something, some rabbi has turned that into a “commandment.” What a mess! And then how many commandments in the entire Old Testament? There must be thousands, surely.

And then there are the many inconsistencies and contradictions. How, for example, does “thou shalt not kill” play against the many calls by God for Jews to slaughter innocents? Just consider the poor Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, and others, whom God commands to “utterly destroy” (Deut 20:17); or the unfortunate Midianites, whom God insists be massacred by the thousands (Num 31).[1] And this is not to mention the call by God for the Jews to “blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Deut 25:19)—which is nothing less than a call for genocide. Amalek, in the form of Palestinians, Iranians, and Lebanese, are certainly suffering a fair degree of “blotting” as we speak. After all, who shall challenge the word of God?

How is it that Moses is commanded to “despoil” and plunder the Egyptians (Ex 12:36), when, only a few verses later, he is commanded to “not steal” (Ex 20:15)? How is it that “the sins of the fathers are the sins of the sons” (Ex 20:5, 34:7), but yet Ezekiel informs us that “the son shall not suffer the iniquity of the father” (Ez 18:20)? How is that “you shall not oppress a stranger” (Ex 23:9) and yet “you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you” (Lev 25:44)? Good luck figuring that out.

Actually, a good bit of the confusion disappears when we realize that the Old Testament is the Jewish Bible; it was written by Jews, for Jews, and about Jews. Nothing about it is intended for gentiles. The famous Ten Commandments apply only among Jews; theft, “covetousness,” even killing are allowed when dealing with non-Jews. All those nice sayings about the “brother” or the “neighbor” apply only to “the brother Jew” and “the neighbor Jew.” If you are a non-Jew and you think that anything about the OT applies to you, you need to do some serious rethinking.

In fact, the vast majority of specific references to gentiles in the OT are negative: The slaves? Non-Jews. The slaughtered, the plundered, the “blotted”? Non-Jews. Making honest agreements (“covenants”) with non-Jews? No (Ex 34:12). Having relationships with non-Jews? No (Deut 7:3). Showing mercy or lenience toward non-Jews? No (Ps 106:34). Exploiting non-Jews through usury? Sure! (Deut 23:20) In sum, the gentiles are fit for slavery, usury, exploitation, theft, and murder, but little else. So much for your “holy” bible.

All this is consistent with the generally Jewish supremacist outlook of the Old Testament. Jews, of course are “chosen” by God; they were “given” the Earth and its inhabitants; and they were told by God to dominate and rule. In fact, the two dominant themes of the OT, from a non-Jewish perspective, are (1) a divinely-mandated Jewish dominion over the Earth, and (2) Jewish contempt or hatred toward non-Jews, i.e. misanthropy. These are terribly pernicious qualities in their own right, but when they combine and become the defining characteristics of an entire ethnicity, then serious trouble is sure to follow.

From OT to Mishnah to Talmud

The Old Testament, as far as we know, was composed over many centuries by various individuals, all Jews, and came into something like a modern form by around 350 BC. Much of the OT is history and genealogy, along with a retelling of various incidents and escapades of the Jewish people, but the ethical “commandments,” as noted, are vague and ambiguous. Consequently, Jewish rabbis began debating the actual meaning of the OT for people’s daily lives, especially in the aftermath of their defeat at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD, 115 AD, and 135 AD. Some 100 rabbis went to work, constructing a new document—called the Mishnah—which attempted to translate the many OT stories and dictates into common, daily-life requirements. The Mishnah was composed over several decades, coming to be unified sometime around 250 AD, and containing the equivalent of about 200,000 English words. (The OT, by contrast, is about 600,000 words in English.)

It is worth taking a moment to look at the structure of this document. The Mishnah is organized into six parts (sedarim): 1) Zeraim (‘Seeds’), 2) Moed (‘Festival’), 3) Nashim (‘Women’), 4) Nezikin (‘Damages’), 5) Kodashim (‘Holy items’), and 6) Tahorot (‘Purities’).[2] Each seder is in turn divided into a number of named “tractates,” which are then divided into chapters. The numbers are summarized below:

Zeraim: 11 tractates, 74 total chapters

Moed:  12 tractates, 88 chapters

Nashim:  7 tractates, 71 chapters

Nezikin:  10 tractates, 72 chapters

Kodashim:  11 tractates, 90 chapters

Tahorot:  12 tractates, 126 chapters

As soon as the Mishnah became settled, other rabbis immediately began analyzing and commenting on it. This commentary grew rapidly, coming to include internal debates, speculations, ‘commentary on commentary,’ and so on. Furthermore, the process of analysis caused many rabbis to spin off into tangential discussions, often of considerable length but perhaps not even directly related to the original topic. Over time, we can well imagine how such commentary could grow exponentially.

Worse, there were two centers of analysis, one located in Jerusalem and another in Babylon. Eventually, Jewish scholars collected together the various comments into what was called a “Gemara,” or “completion,” of the original Mishnah. But given the two centers of learning, there emerged two Gemaras—one in Jerusalem and one in Babylon, both around 500 AD. And these are huge: each Gemara contains about 2.5 million words in English, or about 10 times the size of the original Mishnah.

The final and obvious step, then, was to combine the original Mishnah with the Gemara to create a single, gargantuan document containing the most complete embodiment of Jewish learning and theology over the centuries: the Talmud. Since there are two Gemaras, there are, technically, two Talmuds: the more-common Babylonian Talmud, and the less-common Jerusalem Talmud. Both incorporate the same original Mishnah, but they then supplement it with different interpretations and analysis—different Gemara—from their various perspectives.

As such, the Babylonian Talmud (“the” Talmud) is a vast work: some 2.7 million English words equivalent, comparable to around 18 volumes of the standard World Book encyclopedia. (My personal 2003 edition of the World Book runs to 21 volumes, so this is roughly the size of the Talmud.) Truly “encyclopedic” Jewish wisdom.

For those of us non-Hebrews who might attempt to analyze this monstrosity, having a good English translation is essential—preferably, an online one. There are two that I have used: www.sefaria.org (preferred) and www.chabad.org. Unfortunately, and probably deliberately, neither site has a clear and logical breakdown of the various sederim and tractates. Sefaria’s home page lists some 14 “library” subpages, of which two are “Talmud” and “Mishnah.” The Mishnah page lists all six sederim and corresponding tractates. On the Talmud page, we find near the top, the two versions—Babylonian (default) and Jerusalem. Below this, we find the six sederim (“Seder Zeraim,” etc.), and at the end, links to some 15 so-called minor tractates, followed by several separate commentaries, ancient and modern.

But as mentioned, it is still confusing. The Talmud page, at Seder Zeraim, lists only one tractate (Berakhot) when in fact there are 11 in total; these can be found only on the Mishnah page, under the same seder. Yet the Talmud “Berakhot” page is numbered differently than the Mishnah “Berakhot” page, even though the text is (apparently) the same. To further muddy the waters, the Jerusalem Talmud page, at Seder Zeraim, lists all 11 tractates. Confusing indeed. The Jews certainly don’t make it easy on us poor gentiles.

If the reader’s head is spinning at this point, it is totally understandable; they didn’t invent the phrase “Talmudic logic” for nothing.

Some Truly Malicious Content

As one can imagine, much of the Talmud is utterly mundane: trivial and absurdly-detailed commentary and argumentation on all sorts of daily matters, from cooking, trading, farming, interpersonal relations, to more interesting remarks on ethics, sexuality, and interacting with the dreaded ‘goyim,’ the non-Jews.

As I will show below, some of the remarks are truly disgusting; but we need to keep in mind that, like most religious commentary, there is a diversity of views and opinions among the “experts.” They don’t all agree, and they are not all repulsive. Unfortunately, though, they are all documented in the Talmud and therefore are all available to a Jew, any Jew, to draw upon to justify his actions. This point was put well by the German writer Theodore Fritsch back in 1922:

[I]n the Talmud with its commentaries, one finds the most divergent Rabbinic opinions, and its doctrines and expositions frequently contradict one another. This, however, is only equivalent to saying that it is open to every faithful Jew to accept as authentic whatever doctrine and exposition may best suit his purpose for the time being. Thus, when one passage reads: “you must not lie to, deceive, or rob the Goy,” and another Rabbi says: “under certain circumstances, you may do so,” more latitude is allowed to the conscience of the Jew who believes in his Talmud. He can act either in this way or that, and will still find himself in agreement with the law, and will still remain a pious and orthodox Jew.[3]

Hence, even the worst of what we read below is still “Jewish law” and still available to guide Jewish actions, no matter how reprehensible. Fritsch presses this very point: “The most intellectual Rabbinical writings actually prove that, amongst the Jews, the feeling for true morality, and for the ethical consciousness, is entirely lacking. There is no good and evil for them; everything is gauged by momentary advantage” (p. 140). I would further note that it is not just orthodox Jews who feel compelled to follow the Talmud; even secular, non-religious Jews take their moral cues, even if subconsciously, from longstanding Jewish tradition as documented there.

What, then, do we find in the Talmud? All sorts of weird, bizarre, disturbing, shocking, offensive things. They are well-buried, of course, and rarely mentioned in polite company—yet they are there all the same, and they deserve a bit of light, if we are to better understand the Jewish people and their motivations and ethics. Let me walk through some of the six sederim and pull out a few, shall we say, interesting passages.[4]

The first seder, Zeraim, includes a nice passage on “dreaming of shit”:

One who defecates in a dream, it is a good omen for him, as it is stated: “He that is bent down shall speedily be loosed; and he shall not go down dying into the pit, neither shall his bread fail” (Isaiah 51:14). The Gemara notes that this only applies where he does not wipe and get his hands dirty. (Berakhot 57a,14)

So, it is good luck to dream of shitting, because of what it says in Isaiah. Actually, the cited passage in Isaiah is quite cryptic and seems to have nothing to do with defecating; but such is our Talmudic logic. Perhaps we goyim are simply too dull to grasp the deeper meaning here.

Seder Nashim

This seder has a number of interesting comments, beginning with tractate Yevamot, where we learn that it is permissible—or at least, not disqualifying—for women to have sex with animals:

Rabbi Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: A woman who had intercourse with an animal is like one whose hymen was torn accidentally. Consequently, she is not a zona and is fit for the priesthood. This is also taught in a baraita: If a woman had intercourse with one who is not a man, i.e., an animal, although she is liable to stoning if she did so intentionally and in the presence of witnesses who forewarned her of her punishment, she is nevertheless fit for the priesthood. (Yevamot 59b,6)

A “zona” is a woman who, owing to her history of inappropriate sexual activity, such as with a gentile, is disqualified from certain privileges, including marrying into the upper classes. A woman who has sex with animals is not a zona, thus not disqualified, from such privileges. (Just don’t do it “in front of witnesses” or you might get stoned.)

In tractate Nedarim, we find the famous “Kol Nidre,” in which Jews can preemptively negate any vows or promises that they might make in the coming year:

[O]ne who desires that his vows not be upheld for the entire year should stand up on Rosh HaShana and say: “Any vow that I take in the future should be void.” And this statement is effective, provided that he remembers at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void. (Nedarim 23b,1)

This works especially well with the goyim, to whom a Jew can make any sort of promise or commitment, knowing full well that he already negated it!

Then things get truly revolting. In the Ketubot tractate, we learn that sexual intercourse with girls under age three is “nothing”:

Rava said that this is what the Mishnah is saying: An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old has done nothing, as intercourse with a girl less than three years old is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye. In the case of an eye, after a tear falls from it, another tear forms to replace it. Similarly, the ruptured hymen of the girl younger than three is restored [by natural healing]. (Ketubot 11b,6)

Now, I am not a pediatrician, but from what I understand, a torn hymen will never restore itself to its original, un-torn state, no matter how young the girl. But the Jews believe it does, and they use this fact to justify sex with girls under (!) three. It is “nothing”; poking your penis into her is no different than poking a finger into someone’s eye. Unpleasant for the recipient, perhaps, but not a sin.  (And we wonder why Jews, like Jeffrey Epstein, are so often implicated in pedophilia.)

Also in the Nashim, we find the famous statement about the hated Jesus allegedly “boiling in shit” in hell:

Onkelos said to him: “What is the punishment of that man”, a euphemism for Jesus himself, “in the next world?” Jesus said to him: “He is punished with boiling excrement.” As the Master said: “Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement.” And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages. The Gemara comments: Come and see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the [gentile] nations of the world. As Balaam, who was a prophet, wished Israel harm, whereas Jesus the Nazarene, who was a Jewish sinner, sought their well-being. (Gittin 57a,4)

This is quite strange, because Jesus himself allegedly came to fulfill the Jewish law (Mt 5:17) and to keep the commandments (Mt 19:17). And Paul himself said “Christ’s life of service was on behalf of the Jews” (Rom 15:8). But the orthodox Jews could not accept that this alleged savior died on a cross, so they declared that he merely mocked the prophets—hence the boiling afterlife.

Seder Nezikin

In this next seder, we have several passages of note, beginning with the blatant assertion that Jews are permitted to “trick” and deceive the gentiles:

Rav Ashi said: The Mishnah [on tax collection] issues its ruling with regard to a Gentile tax collector, whom one may deceive: In the case of a Jew and a Gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the Gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under Gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the Gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case with legal trickery, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew. … Apparently, it is permitted to deceive a Gentile. (Bava Kamma 113a,21-22)

The implication, of course, is not merely on tax collection issues, but on any circumstance that might involve a “legal dispute.” Jews may refer to “our [Jewish] law” or “your [gentile] law,” as they wish—whichever serves their advantage.

In the same tractate, we learn that Jews may keep anything that a gentile has “lost”—whether literally or figuratively:

It is permitted to retain the Gentile’s lost item … “From where is it derived that it is permitted to retain the lost item of a Gentile? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: ‘With every lost thing of your brother’s’ (Deut 22:3), indicating that it is only to your brother [Jew] that you return a lost item, but you do not return a lost item to a Gentile.” […] Samuel says that it is permitted to financially benefit from a business error of a Gentile… (Bava Kamma 113b,8-10)

Thus, if a gentile loses something because it fell out of his pocket, or because he left something lying around, or because he was not quite clever and shifty enough—well then, all to the Jews’ benefit.

Given such things, it’s almost as if the Jews are to treat gentiles like beasts, like animals. And in fact, this is true:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure, as it is stated: “And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man” (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, i.e., the Jewish people, are called “man,” but gentiles are not called “man.” (Bava Metzia 114b,2)

Only Jews are human (‘man’), whereas gentiles, since not human, are perforce animals. This is explicit Jewish supremacism of the crudest sort, in black and white. And it certainly helps to explain the malicious treatment directed toward gentiles.

In the Bava Batra, we read again that gentile property—whether “lost” or not—is effectively owned by the Jews: “Shmuel says that the property of a gentile is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it” (Bava Batra 54b,5).

Next, the tractate Avodah Zarah contains more highly-troubling passages on sex with infants and children:

With regard to a male gentile child, from when, i.e., from what age, does he impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva [menstruation]? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to me: From when he is one day old. And when I came to Rabbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: From when he is nine years and one day old. …

The Gemara explains the reason for this opinion: Since a nine-year-old boy is fit to engage in intercourse, he also imparts ritual impurity as one who experienced ziva. Ravina said: Therefore, with regard to a female gentile child who is three years and one day old, since she is fit to engage in intercourse at that age, she also imparts impurity as one who experienced ziva. (Avodah Zarah 36b,19 – 37a,1)

One who “experiences ziva/menstruation” is one who is sexually mature and thus ready for intercourse. Apparently, for Jews, a nine-year-old boy (or maybe a one-day-old infant?!) is like this, as is a three-year-old girl. Less than three, as we saw above, is “nothing” of note, and over three, is equivalent to a ziva-woman: ready for sex. If we are unclear about this, we need only glance at a later tractate, Sanhedrin: “All concede, regarding a boy nine years and one day old, that his intercourse is regarded as intercourse…” (Sanhedrin 69b,6). Mothers, keep your children close.

The just-mentioned tractate of Sanhedrin also permits a number of explicit abuses of the hated gentiles. For example, a Jew can withhold his pay (“It is necessary only to teach the halakha of one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer; for a gentile to do so to another gentile and for a gentile to do so to a Jew is prohibited, but for a Jew to do so to a gentile is permitted”; 57a,22). A Jew can rob the gentile (“With regard to robbery, the term permitted is relevant, as it is permitted for a Jew to rob a gentile”; 57a,17). And a Jew can even kill a gentile (“With regard to bloodshed, if a gentile murders another gentile, or a gentile murders a Jew, he is liable. If a Jew murders a gentile, he is exempt”; 57a,16). Again, more proof that “thou shalt not kill” applies only to the fellow Jew; gentiles are like animals, fit for slaughter.

Seder Tahorot and Mishnah

Two further Talmudic passages are of interest, the first from the sixth seder, Tahorot. In the Niddah tractate, we find a reconfirmation that sex with a girl under age three is like nothing at all:

If the girl is less than that age, younger than three years and one day, the status of intercourse with her is not that of intercourse in all halakhic senses; rather, it is like placing a finger into the eye. Just as in that case, the eye constricts, sheds tears, and then returns to its original state, so too, in a girl younger than three years and one day old, the hymen returns to its original state. (Niddah 44b,12)

And in Makshirin (of the Mishnah) we are shocked to find that eating or drinking of blood is allowed:

There are seven liquids: dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk and bees’ honey. Hornets’ honey does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness and may be eaten. // Derivatives of water are: the liquids that come from the eye, from the ear, from the nose and from the mouth, and urine, whether of adults or of children, whether [its flow is] conscious or unconscious. Derivatives of blood are: blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are clean, and blood from bloodletting [of gentiles?] for drinking.  (Makshirin 6,4-5)

This flies in the face of the infamous prohibition on the eating of blood in the Torah. In Genesis 9:4, we read that God gives Noah and his family every living thing as food, except “you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”  Then in Leviticus, God says to Moses, “you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings” (7:26). This prohibition is also found in Lev 17:10 (“No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood”) and again in Lev 19:26 (“You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it”). It is unclear how the rabbis of the Mishnah justify their blood consumption; perhaps “derivatives of blood,” whatever those are, are not the same as “fresh blood”—it is hard to say.

But if the permitted blood consumption includes human blood—and the Torah prohibitions seem to apply only to animals—then this gives a Talmudic basis for the notorious “blood libel” or “ritual sacrifice” charge in which Jews are alleged to have killed gentiles, usually children, and then used or consumed their blood. This is another long and sad story that I won’t recount here, except to say that recent research by Jewish scholar Ariel Toaff persuasively argues that Jews did in fact consume human blood in the past, and may still be doing so today; see his book Passovers of Blood.

“Kill the Best”

Finally, I can’t conclude this essay without mentioning one of the most infamous charges, namely, that Jews have a Talmudic dictate “to kill the best of the gentiles.” This is often quoted in anti-Jewish literature, but usually without appropriate citation—unsurprising, because it’s hard to find.

For one thing, it is not, to my knowledge, in the Babylonian Talmud; it can only be found in the Jerusalem Talmud. Here it is, from Seder Nashim, tractate Kiddushin:

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Kill the best of Gentiles, smash the head of the best of snakes. (Kiddushin 4:11)

Unfortunately, this sentence has very little context, and it is thus difficult to grasp the deeper meaning, if any. The prior sentence talks about incompetent doctors going to hell, and butchers as professional killers, but these seem to have no relation to the above sentence. (This situation occurs often in the Talmud—be warned.) In any case, the straightforward reading is clear enough: Gentiles are enemies of a sort, and the best of them—the bravest, the smartest, the most talented—pose the greatest threat to Jews, therefore, they ought to be killed. Gentiles are like snakes (beasts, again), and the way you deal with a poisonous snake is to smash its head. The troubling inference, of course, is that such Gentiles have done nothing to warrant this death sentence. The Rebbi doesn’t say, “Kill the criminal Gentiles” or “Kill the Gentiles that have harmed us.” No—the unstated implication is that all Gentiles are dangerous, and the best are the most dangerous, therefore, for that reason alone, they ought to be killed.

Were this the only occurrence, we might dismiss it as an aberration. But the same passage appears at least three more times in authoritative, but non-Talmudic, texts. For example, we find the following version in the “minor tractate” Soferim:

1. Simeon b. Yoḥai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents. (Soferim 15,10)

Some have argued that the qualifying phrase “in time of war” was added later, so as to not suggest that Jews should always, at all times, strive to kill the best of the heathens/gentiles. (In fact, the footnote in the Sefaria translation says exactly this.) So that phrase might well have been a little effort at covering the Jewish ‘behind.’

Secondly, in the Midrash Tanchuma, chapter titled “Beschalach,” we find another variant amidst a longer passage:

Whose beasts drew the chariots? If you should say they belonged to the Egyptians, has it not already been said: “And all the cattle of Egypt died” (Ex. 9:6)? If you should contend that they belonged to Pharaoh, has it not already been stated: “Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle” (Ex. 9:3)? If you should assert that they belonged to Israel, has it not already been written: “Our cattle also shall go with us, there shall not a hoof be left behind” (Ex. 10:26)? To whom, then, did they belong? They belonged to the slaves of Pharaoh who feared the word of the Lord. Hence we learn that even those who feared the word of the Lord were a stumbling block to Israel. Because of this verse, they say: “The best among the Egyptians, kill; the best among serpents, crush its brain.” (Tanchuma, Beschalach 8,1)

A “midrash” is a commentary or exegesis, and in this case, the Tanchuma (or ‘Tanhuma’) Midrash is a late, post-Talmudic commentary—again, taken as authoritative, but technically not part of the Talmud. But the argumentation here is obscure, to say the least. In Exodus, God punishes the Egyptians for holding Jews captive by killing the Egyptians’ cattle. And somehow, because of this, the rabbi infers that Jews may (must?) kill the Egyptians themselves—and not the least, but the best. A bizarre inference.

A third supplemental text, “Rashi on Exodus,” has this variation:

1. Simeon said: The best amongst the Egyptians—kill him (otherwise he will afterwards devise evil against you); the best amongst the serpents—crush its brains. (Rashi on Exodus 14:7,2)

The apparent source of these remarks, Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai (or Yohai)—known also as Shimon bar Yochai (90-160 AD)—was an influential figure in Judaism, one who lived during the last two Roman revolts. He clearly hated the Romans, the Egyptians, and in fact virtually all non-Jews; the above-linked Wikipedia entry refers to his “animosity toward the Gentiles generally,” which is exactly in line with traditional Jewish misanthropy. There seems to be no doubt that his aim was “to kill the best of the gentiles,” and the fact that this appears at least four times in official, authoritative Jewish texts, including the Jerusalem Talmud, is highly damning.

Whither the Jews?

These, then, are some of the more striking passages that I have encountered in my research. Obviously there must be many more; I don’t claim to have read the entire, encyclopedic Talmud, but knowing what I do, there are surely many, many objectionable, insulting, and degrading dictates sprinkled throughout that work.

If one were to attempt to defend Jewish interests here, I can think of three potential objections: First, that such comments as these are “taken out of context,” and that the “true meaning” has been overlooked or distorted (by the “anti-Semites,” of course). This is always possible, but I think generally unlikely in these cases. The wording and intention seem to come through loud and clear. And the context is not just the textual context of the seder, but the whole background of the OT and the long, documented history of Jewish supremacism and Jewish misanthropy. This is the real context that we need to keep in mind. And in any case, I have provided the links for each passage, should the reader desire to read the full section or chapter directly; in fact, I encourage each reader to do so, and to determine the context for himself.

A second possible objection might be that this relative handful of rather nasty words constitutes only a minute fraction of the over 2 million words in the Talmud (and more, if we include the ancillary texts). This of course is true, but it does not negate the fact that they exist, they are documented, and they stand as justification for Jewish action. God only needs to give a commandment once for it to hold, and likewise, Jews only need a single malicious passage to justify malicious action.

A third and final objection could be that all this Talmudic literature only applies to religious Jews (conservative, orthodox, ultra-orthodox), and not to the secular, non-religious Jews—just as Christian precepts apply only to avowed Christians and not to other gentiles. Technically, yes, but here we are dealing less with a formal religion than with a mindset, a worldview, and a racial value system.

Consider for a moment Judaism as a religion. American Jews fall into different categories. The two largest groups—secular/atheist/nonreligious (32%) and reform (37%)—are generally considered liberal progressive Jews who are either non-religious or only “liberally” religious. These two combined constitute 2/3 of American Jews. The other third is divided among conservative (17%), orthodox (9%), and other (4%); these are generally strongly religious Jews who can be expected to closely follow the Talmud and related documents.

Therefore, one could say that the above Talmudic injunctions apply only to the religious one-third of Jews, and not to the majority. Well, if even one-third of Jews believe in such nastiness, that still covers over 2 million of them. One wonders, in fact, why such malevolent Jews are allowed to stay in this country; what other government in the world would tolerate a two-million-strong minority who hates the majority of its citizens? It is an absurd policy, and yet we do it, and have done so for well over a century.

But even those two-thirds of “enlightened” and “progressive” Jews still harbor similar feelings, I would argue, simply because of their ethnic and racial background. We have to recall that, for virtually all of Jewish history, all Jews were religious Jews. Liberal reform Judaism didn’t even exist until the late 1800s, and didn’t become widespread until perhaps 100 years ago. This is an eye-blink in the history of the Jewish people. Such a tight-knit ethnic group cannot change its fundamental outlook so quickly. The reality of the situation is that such negative attitudes and values as shown above are embedded or built-in to the psyche of virtually all Jews today, both in the US and abroad. Secular or religious, reform or conservative—most every Jew embodies these values, to a greater or lesser degree. And this is the heart of the problem.

One need only observe Jewish speech and behavior to confirm this. Look at Israeli Jews. There, about half the population is liberal/secular and half is conservative/orthodox. But the leadership, including Netanyahu, are mostly religious fundamentalists who are inclined to follow Jewish law—the Talmud—very closely. The Israeli slaughter of Gazans—of whom at least 70,000 have been killed since October 2023, and perhaps three or four times that many—reflects precisely a malicious, genocidal, Talmudic attitude toward non-Jews. Naturally there are disagreements among Israeli Jews, many of whom do not like Netanyahu, but apparently they are nearly all in agreement regarding brutal treatment of the Palestinians. Early in the Gaza war, 90% of Israeli Jews opposed a pause in fighting to exchange hostages, and only 2% believed that Israel was using too much firepower. More recently, a poll in mid-2025 showed that at least 70% of Israeli Jews believe “there are no innocent people in Gaza,” and in another such poll, we discover that 82% of Jews there support ethnic cleansing, i.e. expelling all Gazans. Brutality there is pervasive.

Given this, we ought not be surprised in the least at the current Israeli barbarity against Iran and Lebanon. It is still early in this latest Jewish war, but reports claim that some 1,300 Iranians and 200 Lebanese have died so far, at the combined hands of the Israelis and the Israeli-dominated Americans. Also unsurprisingly, Jews worldwide seem more than happy to continue the killing. As noted in recent papers, “Netanyahu’s latest war has few critics in Israel,” even among those who hate him, and the Jewish-Israeli public has fully “embraced militarism.” It’s no different in the US, especially among the rich and powerful. Of the hundreds of wealthy and powerful American Jews, virtually none criticize Israeli actions in Iran or Gaza, none call it genocide, none issue real demands for it to stop, and none insist on punishment for the perpetrators. One searches in vain for prominent voices; at best, we find a now-discredited Noam Chomsky opposing the Gaza genocide, or a closet Zionist like Norm Finkelstein, or Jerry Greenfield of “Ben & Jerry’s”—and that’s about it. The most influential Jews—Chuck Schumer, Stephen Miller, Josh Shapiro, Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomberg—are apparently untroubled by the ongoing mass killing. And as if on cue, we also read that major Jewish groups have “thrown support behind the US-Israeli operation against Iran.” All this is as expected, given the brutal Talmudic mindset that holds sway in the vast majority of all Jews.

How much of all this cruelty and malevolence is attributable to the Talmud is hard to say. Perhaps the best explanation is not that the Talmud causes such behavior, but rather that the mindset and values that allow such perversity and misanthropy to be written into their religious documents are the same ones that justify and support mass killing in the Middle East, not to mention the routine, day-to-day abuse and hatred heaped upon all non-Jews everywhere.

The Talmud is thus the Jewish mindset in print; it is there for all to see. Be not surprised at the consequences.

David Skrbina, PhD, is a former professor of philosophy from the University of Michigan, Dearborn. He is the author or editor of a dozen books, including The Jesus Hoax (2^nd ed., 2024), The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2015), and Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017).

---

[1] While keeping 32,000 virgins for themselves, of course.

[2] I will generally use the spelling as found at www.sefaria.org. But there are many variations: ‘Tahorot’ is often spelled ‘Tohorot,’ for example.

[3] From The Riddle of the Jews’ Success (1922/2023), p. 139.

[4] I have added italics at various points, for emphasis.