SANHEDRIN, 69a
“‘A man’; from this I know the law only with respect to a man: whence do I know it of one aged nine years and a day who is capable of intercourse? From the verse, And ‘if a man?’ (2) He replied: Such a minor can produce semen, but cannot beget therewith; for it is like the seed of cereals less than a third grown (3).”
(footnotes)
“(2) ‘And’ (‘) indicates an extension of the law, and is here interpreted to include a minor aged nine years and a day. (3) Such cereals contain seed, which if sown, however, will not grow.”
SANHEDRIN, 69b
“Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declare her fit...All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.
(footnotes)
“(1) i.e., she becomes a harlot whom a priest may not marry (Lev XXL,7.). (2) so that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less than eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not.”
KETHUBOTH, 5b.
“The question was asked: Is it allowed (15) to perform the first marital act on the Sabbath? (16). Is the blood (in the womb) stored up (17), or is it the result of a wound? (18).
(footnotes)
“(15) Lit., ‘how is it?’ (16) When the intercourse could not take place before the Sabbath (Tosaf) (17) And the intercourse would be allowed, since the blood flows out of its own accord, no wound having been made. (18) Lit., or is it wounded? And the intercourse would be forbidden.”
KETHUBOTH, 10a-10b.
“Someone came before Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi (and) said to him, ‘my master I have had intercourse (with my newly wedded wife) and I have not found any blood’ (7). She (the wife) to him, ‘My master, I am still a virgin.’ He (then) said to them; Bring me two handmaids, one (who is) a virgin and one who had intercourse with a man. They brought to him (two such handmaids), and he placed them on a cask of wine. (In the case of) the one who was no more a virgin its smell (1) went through (2), (in the case of) the virgin the smell did not go through (3). He (then) placed this one (the young wife) also (on the cask of wine), and its smell (4) did not go through. He (then) said to him: Go, be happy with thy bargain (7). But he should have examined her from the beginning (8).”
(footnotes)
“(1) i.e., the smell of wine. (2) One could smell the wine from the mouth (Rashi). (3) One could not smell the wine from the mouth. (4) i.e., the smell of wine. (5) Rabban Gamaliel (6) To the husband. (7) The test showed that the wife was a virgin. (8) Why did he first have to experiment with the two handmaids.”
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b.
“Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as ‘a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.’”
(footnotes)
“(5). Lit., ‘says.’ (6) Lit., ‘here,’ that is, less than three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b.
“Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”
(footnotes)
“(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”
HAYORATH, 4a.
“We learnt: (THE LAW CONCERNING THE MENSTRUANT OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN THAT AWAITS A DAY CORRESPONDING TO A DAY HE IS EXEMPT. But why? Surely (the law concerning) a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day is mentioned in the Scriptures: He hath made naked her fountain. But, surely it is written, (1)- They might rule that in the natural way even the first stage of contact is forbidden; and in an unnatural way, however, is (that the ruling might have been permitted) (3) even in the natural way (4) alleging (that the prohibition of) the first stage (5) has reference to a menstruant woman only (6). And if you prefer I might say: The ruling may have been that a woman is not regarded as a zabah (7) except during the daytime because it is written, all the days of her issue (8).” (emphasis appears in Soncino Edition original, Ed.)
(footnotes)
“(13) Lev. XV, 28. (14) Cf. supra p. 17, n. 10. Since she is thus Biblically considered unclean how could a court rule that one having intercourse with her is exempt? (15) Lev XX, 18. (1) Ibid. 13. The plural “xxxx” (Hebrew characters, Ed.) implies natural, and unnatural intercourse. (2) Why then was the case of ‘a woman who awaits a day corresponding to a day’ given as an illustration when the case of a menstruant, already mentioned, would apply the same illustration. (3) The first stage of contact. (4) In the case of one ‘who awaits a day corresponding to a day’; only consummation of coition being forbidden in her case. (5) Cf. Lev XX, 18. (6) Thus permitting a forbidden act which the Sadducees do not admit. (7) A woman who has an issue of blood not in the time of her menstruation, and is subject to certain laws of uncleanness and purification (Lev XV, 25ff). (8) Lev XV, 26. Emphasis being laid on days.”
ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a.
“R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it...From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.”
SOTAH, 26b.
“R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) -the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)...As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?” (emphasis in the original text, Ed.)
(footnotes)
“(4) She would not be prohibited to her husband for such an act. (5) farausag near Baghdad v. BB. (Sonc. Ed.) p. 15, n.4. He is thus distinguished from the earlier Rabbi of that name. (6) Deut. XXIII, 19. (7) Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal adultery. (8) If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be offered. (9) Are an abomination unto the Lord (ibid). (10) Viz., the other two mentioned by the Rabbi. (11) In Num. V. 13. since the law applies to a man who is incapable. (12) Lev. XVIII, 22. The word for ‘lying’ is in the plural and is explained as denoting also unnatural intercourse. (13) With the other man, although there is no actual coition.” (emphasis appears in original Soncino Edition, Ed.)
YEBAMOTH, 55b.
“Raba said; for what purpose did the All-Merciful write ‘carnally’ in connection with the designated bondmaid (9), a married woman (10) and a sotah
(11)? That in connection with the designated bondmaid (is required) as has just been explained (12). That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum (13). This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated (14); what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains (that for such an act one is) guilty? The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman (15). Since it might have been assumed that, as (a wife), even after her death, is described as his kin (16), one should be guilty for (intercourse with) her (as for that) with a married woman, hence we are taught (that one is exonerated).”
(footnotes)
“(9) Lev. XIX,20. (10) Ibid. XVIII,20 (11) Num. V, 13. (12) SUPRA 55a. (13) Since no fertilization can possibly occur. (14) Shebu., 18a, Sanh. 55a (15) Even though she dies as a married woman. (16) In Lev. XXI, 2. where the text enumerates the dead relatives for whom a priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin refers to one&lrsuo;s wife.” (emphasis in Soncino Edition original, Ed.)
YEBAMOTH, 103a-103b.
“When the serpent copulated with Eve (14) with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai (16) came to an end, the lust of idolators who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end.”
(footnotes)
“(14) In the Garden of Eden, according to tradition. (15) i.e., the human species. (16) And experienced the purifying influence of divine Revelation.”
YEBAMOTH, 63a.
“R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (5)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.”
(footnotes)
“(5) Gen. II, 23. emphasis on This is now.” (emphasis appears in original Sonsino Edition, Ed.)
YEBAMOTH, 60b.
“As R. Joshua b. Levi related: There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Ramanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day (14), and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest (15).”
(footnotes)
“(13) A proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest. (14) And was married to a priest. (15) i.e., permitted to continue to live with her husband.”
YEBAMOTH, 59b.
“R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest (4). Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being (5), though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning (6), is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest (7).”
(footnotes)
“(4) Even a High Priest. The result of such intercourse being regarded as a mere wound, and the opinion that does not regard an accidentally injured hymen as a disqualification does not so regard such an intercourse either. (5) A beast. (6) If the offense was committed in the presence of witnesses after due warning. (7) In the absence of witnesses and warning.”
YEBAMOTH, 12b
“R. Bebai recited before R. Naham: Three (categories of) woman may (7) use an absorbent (8) in their marital intercourse (9), a minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. The minor (10) because (otherwise) she might (11) become pregnant, and as a result (11) might die...And what is the age of such a minor? (14). From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under (15), or over this age (16) must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”
(footnotes)
“(7) (so Rashi. R. Tam; Should use, v.Tosaf s.v.) (8) Hackled wool or flax (9) To prevent conception (10) May use an absorbent. (11) Lit., ‘perhaps.” (14) Who is capable of conception but exposed thereby to the danger of death. (15) When no conception is possible. (16) When pregnancy involves no fatal consequences.”
YEBAMOTH, 59b.
“When R. Dimi came (8) he related: It once happened at Haitalu (9) that while a young woman was sweeping the floor (10) a village dog (11) covered her from the rear (12) and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest.”
(footnotes)
“(8) From Palestine to Babylon (9) (Babylonian form for Aitulu, modern Aiterun N.W. of Kadesh, v. S. Klein, Beitrage, p. 47). (10) Lit., ‘house.’ (11) Or ‘big hunting dog’ (Rashi), ‘ferocious dog’ (Jast.), ‘small wild dog’ (Aruk). (12) A case of unnatural intercourse.”
KETHUBOTH, 6b.
“Said he to him: Not like those Babylonians who are not skilled in moving aside. (7), but there are some who are skilled in moving aside (8). If so, why (give the reason of) ‘anxious.?’ (10) -for one who is not skilled. (Then) let the[m] say: One who is skilled is allowed (to perform the first intercourse on Sabbath), one who is not skilled is forbidden? -Most (people) are skilled (11). Said Raba the son of R. Hanan to Abaye&lrsuo; If this were so, then why (have) groomsmen (12) why (have) a sheet? (13) -He (Abaye) said to him: There (the groomsmen and the sheet are necessary) perhaps he will see and destroy (the tokens of her virginity) (14).”
(footnotes)
“(7) i.e., having intercourse with a virgin without causing a bleeding. (8) Thus no blood need come out, and ‘Let his head be cut off and let him not die!’ does not apply. (9) If the bridegroom is skilled in ‘moving sideways.’ (10) He need not be anxious about the intercourse and should not be free from reading Shema’ on account of such anxiety. (11) Therefor the principle regarding ‘Let his head be cut off and let him not die!’ does not, as a rule, apply. (12) The groomsmen testify in case of need to the virginity of the bride. V. infra 12a. If the bridegroom will act in a manner that will cause no bleeding, the groomsmen will not be able to testify on the question of virginity. (13) To provide evidence of the virginity of the bride. Cf. Deut. XXII,17. (14) It may happen that he will act in the normal manner and cause bleeding but he will destroy the tokens and maintain that the bride was not a virgin; for this reason the above mentioned provisions are necessary. Where however he moved aside and made a false charge as to her virginity, the bride can plead that she is still a virgin (Rashi).”
Then There is the Kol Nidre:
One of the handiest devices provided by the Talmudic “Sages” to offset Moses’ laws against swearing falsely, is found in the Talmud book of Nedarim (Vows), and is put into practice yearly in every synagogue across the world as the “Kol Nidre” (all vows).
The text of the Kol Nidre may be found in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Three times the Cantor, to a tune that sounds like the melodious grief of all ages, pompously intones the words: “All vows, obligations, oaths...whether called ‘konam,’ ‘konas,’ or by any other name, which we may vow or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void and made of no effect… The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths.”
The confirming reply of the Congregation is typical of blasphemous Judaistic misuse of the Bible. Three times a verse from Numbers is chanted. It actually concerns the duty of a congregation which has violated the laws of God, in ignorance, to repent, and states:
“And it shall be forgiven, all the congregation of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance.”
Here is a typical Talmudic situation: Knowingly, in advance, every shred of truth is to be cast away, with religious support. A Scriptural verse of no relevance whatsoever is used as justification.
With the Jewish Kol Nidre, not only is there no repentance involved, as in the Bible itself, but forthright, blatant disavowal and annulment of solemn oaths an entire year in advance.
The text of the Kol Nidre also appears in the Talmud, Book of Nedarim, 23a. The Talmud Mis
hna states: “EVERY VOW WHICH I MAY MAKE IN THE FUTURE SHALL BE NULL. HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID PROVIDING THAT HE REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW.” The Kol Nidre is repeated on the following page. Discounting the irrelevant “filler” about a man eating with his friend, we see in a footnote:
“This may have provided support for the custom of reciting Kol Nidre (a formula for dispensation of vows) prior to the Evening Service of the Day of Atonement... But Kol Nidre as part of the ritual is later than the Talmud... [as] the law of revocation in advance was not made public.”
However, this advance disavowal of oaths, and sanction of perjury, did become known at various times. The Jewish Encyclopedia account concerning Kol Nidre relates how this practice of revoking all vows to be made, a year in advance, was used in European countries to bar the oath of a Jew as of no value. Contemporaneously, however, as we have been in ignorance of the Kol Nidre and what it means, such oaths, no matter how valueless, are foolishly accepted in our Courts.
[Editor note: The bottom line is that these masters of deceit are now in control of the planet and have weaved a web of total deception to ensnare your mind. If you, as a so-called ‘Christian’ zionist, support these antichrist’s you are as guilty as they are, only worse.]
For More Information
For Our Newsletter
The Matrix of Gog Page 12