Aletho News


Does Israel Permit Freedom of Worship?

Palestinian Christians will soon be extinct

By Philip Giraldi | Unz Review | May 3, 2022

A week ago I wrote a piece describing how Israel’s power over the US government is such that no American official will confirm that the Israelis have, and have had for years, a secret nuclear arsenal consisting of as many as 200 nukes. The situation is particularly odd in that the United States is on record as being strongly opposed to nuclear proliferation, except for Israel, and the enriched uranium that was used to create Israel’s bombs as well as the nuclear triggers were stolen and exported illegally from the US. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself was reportedly involved in the thefts. One lawyer friend has suggested that the reason for the reticence is that under US law by way of the Symington Amendment, no assistance or aid can be given to any country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel has not signed and also has a widely acknowledged nuclear arsenal. To preserve Israel’s billions of dollars in annual largesse from the US taxpayer, silence over what goes on when the government breaks its own laws must be maintained. Some might consider that a case of pandering to Israel rather than taking steps to enhance United States security, but when it comes to the Jewish state that argument is a non-starter in Washington as Israel always comes first.

This week I am going to describe another aspect of the Zionist state’s policy that has been invisible if one relies on the mainstream media or the chattering magpies that occupy Capitol Hill and the White House. That is the ongoing elimination of Christianity in the region where it was born being carried out by Israel and its friends. The United States has been the enabler of much of the change in spite of the prevalence of self-described devout Christians in Congress, many of whom ironically are vocal and even enthusiastic supporters of Israeli “security” policies. Killing Palestinians is all too often justified in Congress and the White House with the meaningless expression “Israel has a right to defend itself.”

American power wielded on behalf of Israel has already destroyed a thriving Christian community in Iraq while still laboring to do the same in Syria and possibly even Lebanon. At Christianity’s very birthplace, in what was once Palestine, Israel has been engaged in making the lives of Palestinian so miserable that they frequently choose to emigrate. Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion famously declared in a letter to his son that “We must expel the Arabs and take their places…” and he exploited massacres of unarmed civilians carried out by the Haganah to create terror to accomplish that end. Since that time, Israel has refused to allow Palestinians driven from their homes by the 1948 fighting to return, has destroyed more than 400 Arab villages and confiscated other Palestinian properties, has appropriated additional land and water resources for its illegal settlements, has allowed armed settlers to destroy Palestinians crops and other forms of livelihood, and controlled Palestinian movements through a network of Jews only roads and numerous checkpoints. Even Palestinians who happen to be Israeli citizens are legally and in practice treated like second-class citizens with limited rights. There are more than 60 laws in Israel that discriminate against non-Jews while Israel now legally defines itself as a Jewish state. Israel has also imprisoned without any trial thousands of West Bank and Jerusalem Palestinians, including children, and shot dead hundreds more.

I could go on, but the point is that Israel wants Palestinians gone, a process that has particularly impacted on the Christian community. It has not been done by ethnic cleansing in the classic sense after the initial Nakba massacres and appropriations in 1948, but rather accomplished by creating incentives to leave. And it has been successful. At the end of the Second World War, an estimated one third of the Palestinian population identified as Christian, but the percentage is currently closer to 9% and continuing to decline. The numbers suggest that Christians in the former Palestine are verging on extinction. In fact, Christians have been able to become disproportionately emigrants from their homeland because they more frequently than Muslims have family already established in Europe and the US and have also been able to rely on networking through their churches for resettlement assistance in a new country.

Even by the wretched standards of the past 70 years, Israel’s seeking a “final solution” with the Palestinians recently has become particularly outrageous, focusing as it does on loosening their ties to their religious and cultural institutions while also destroying their livelihoods and appropriating their properties.

Hardly reported in the US media was the use of new Israeli imposed security restrictions to disrupt this year’s Palestinian Christian Orthodox Easter celebrations of Christ’s Resurrection at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. This comes on top of similar police action to support the usual crowd of rampaging settlers and other Jewish extremists at the most recent Ramadan services held by Palestinian Muslims at the al-Aqsa Mosque, which included using a drone to fire tear gas at worshipers.

What took place during Holy Week and more particularly on Easter Sunday has been described by Rod Dreher, who writes for The American Conservative. I will confess that I do not much like Dreher as he is fond of celebrating himself in everything he writes, full of navel gazing and smug sanctimonious twaddle, but as he was a participant and eye witness to what occurred his account is of necessity extremely valuable. To be sure, he makes it clear that readers understand that he is not criticizing Israelis in general, nor is he engaging in anything objectionable to Jewish sensitivities when he includes himself in how “we American Christians, especially those who support Israel,” also as “an American who cares about Israel,” and who refers to “my Israeli Jewish friends” and then goes on to assert “I condemn anti-Semitism unreservedly. Criticizing the Jewish settlers and official Israeli policy does not constitute anti-Semitism” before concluding that “most Israeli Jews wouldn’t support these hate-filled radical settlers.”

Actually, the US and other governments as well as many states do believe that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. And, depending on how the question is phrased many, possibly most Jews worldwide, support firm action against Muslims in particular, who are routinely described in the media and by the Israeli government as “terrorists.” Rod clearly understands that it is a bad idea to veer into areas that Jews are uncomfortable with as they can be surprisingly sensitive and unreasonably reactive to perceived slights. No need to bite the hand that feeds you, as one might put it, particularly if one wants to stay employed.

Dreher reports how he was “staying at a hotel inside the Old City, where I was advised to book a room out of fear that the Jerusalem police would not let Christians into the Old City on Holy Saturday. This turns out to have been very good advice.” Holy Saturday for Orthodox Christians features a “miracle” of the Holy Fire, which is believed to be the first sign of the Resurrection of Jesus. Normally, at 11 am, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher opens and is quickly packed with believers. After noon, the Greek Patriarch the “little house” built directly over the tomb of Christ, prays, and what is referred to as “divine energy” descends from heaven to light the Patriarch’s candles, the flames from which are shared with everyone present. He then emerges and passes the flame to everyone there.

Dreher and a friend reportedly left their hotel early to pray but when they arrived at the end of the street at the Jaffa Gate, two Jewish police officers refused to allow them to pass out of the Old City, warning that if they left they might not be able to come back in. They then walked over to an access point to the Jaffa Gate, and witnessed a large group of Christians behind a barrier on the other side, blocked from entering into the Old City where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is situated. Dreher observed that at the same time Orthodox Jews wearing white prayer shawls, entered freely into the Old City on their way to the Western Wall to pray on the Jewish Sabbath. Later that morning, Dreher was only allowed to pass into the Church of the Holy Sepulcher because he had obtained a ticket to the “fire” service. The tickets, to control and limit attendance at the church was an innovation by the Israeli police. The Patriarch objected, observing that tickets had never before been required. The tickets allowed entry of only 1,800 worshipers in the church, which normally accommodates 10,000, a reduction of 82% of the faithful permitted to be in attendance on the highest of all holy days.

An Anglican priest from Virginia who spoke to Dreher at the service described that morning’s experience this way: “Police checkpoints were at every corner. Even when we reached the private property of the Greek Patriarchate, police had taken over there as well. They actually turned back nearly a dozen Consuls General and other diplomatic representatives, including ones from the United States. We had to take an alternative route to get inside. If that was the way it worked for VIPs, imagine you’re a local Palestinian Christian simply trying to worship on the holiest of Christian holidays inside the church built over the very Tomb of Christ.”

At issue are demands by radical Jewish groups, most notably the extremist Jewish settlers’ organization Ateret Cohanim, a type of Jewish Taliban, to “cleanse” Jerusalem of all non-Jews. They have been aggressively buying or otherwise occupying properties in and around the traditional Christian and Muslim quarters of the city and often use violence when they are resisted by local residents. Christians, unlike the Muslim community, notably do not tend to resort to violence in support of their property or civic rights even though recourse to the Israeli courts is useless as the judges have consistently sided with the settlers and police.

In Jerusalem there have been regular instances of verbal abuse, vandalism and spitting on Christian clergy, as well as sporadic violent assaults. In the Armenian Christian quarter a monk reports how “[The settlers] destroy the tires of our cars, graffiti ‘death to Christians’, break windows, they desecrate our cemetery, you know… ugly things, and it’s really invasive.” Some Christians have pointed to what happened to the former St John’s Hospice near the Jaffa Gate as a prime example of what the Christian churches fear could happen across the quarter. The building’s lintel still shows the tau-phi monogram of the Greek Patriarchate but in 1990, this pilgrims’ hostel was illegally occupied by Ateret Cohanim, and now the vast building is covered with multiple Israeli flags and houses violent armed Israeli settlers. The local Christians Dreher talked to “believe that this is part of a settler plot to choke off access to Christian holy sites within the city, and force Christians out.”

The Israeli authorities tend to ignore the settler activity as they have powerful supporters, including from the diaspora community in the US and some Evangelicals who help to fund them. Ateret Cohanim’s 2010 annual gathering featured as guest speaker no less than John Bolton and the Kushner Family Foundation has reportedly helped finance its activities. In addition, Israel’s religious conservative parties are a necessary component in the coalition government and their extreme behavior is tolerated and even aided and abetted on the sly. Nor will secular Jews stand up for their Christian brothers in Israel in enough numbers to matter. Also, many Israelis believe that increasingly hardline radical Jewish groups are actually the future of Israel based on demographic trends. All excuses aside, clearly enough of the ruling elite in America, and in Israel, support the radical settlers, or none of this would be happening.

And the situation is little better for Christians in Palestine outside Jerusalem. A Franciscan monk visitor to a monastery outside of the city reported how the Israeli authorities had cut off water to the building while the missionaries themselves were verbally abused and had rocks and other debris hurled at them by settlers. In Bethlehem, a Christian gift shop was deliberately put out of business after nearby Jewish settlements were allowed to erect walls blocking access to it. Other attacks on Christians have included a June 2015 arson incident at the Church of the Multiplication and a nearby Benedictine monastery in Tabgha, located 120 miles north of Jerusalem. The church is built on the site where Christ fed the 5,000 through the multiplication of loaves and fishes. The attackers left Hebrew graffiti on the walls, reading “all idols will be smashed.” In 2014 occurred vandalization of a Romanian Orthodox church, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition, and Catholic offices in Jerusalem, as well as a monastery in Beit Shemesh. The year before, more than 20 Christian sites of the Latin Patriarchate were attacked by vandals. And in 2012, a Trappist monastery in Latroun was subject to arson and graffiti, while the Convent of St. Francis on Mt. Zion was vandalized. Non-Jews in Bethlehem and on the West Bank meanwhile live under a system of Israeli military laws and check points established by government order number 101. In Hebron, non-Jews living on Jewish-only streets cannot even walk out their front doors and they are regularly bombarded by feces and other waste hurled down upon them by the settlers.

Israel’s anti-Christian policies are international and includes support of groups the US has called terrorists. Israel has given money and weapons to the jihadists fighting against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, which includes al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate. Wounded jihadists even have crossed into Israel to received hospital treatment. Once, ISIS accidentally fired into Israel and then publicly apologized. Israel is intent on removing al-Assad, which will lead to an exodus of Christians from Syria, similar to what took place in neighboring Iraq after US forces deposed Saddam Hussein.

There is a certain irony in how the United States doggedly pursues China over its alleged maltreatment of the Uighurs while at the same time rewarding and protecting Israel even though it spies relentlessly on the US and very clearly persecutes Palestinians. Dreher asks the question why the US government, which gives Israel multiple billions of dollars a year, cannot stop Israel’s de facto official punishment of its Christians. The answer is at least in part simple, that most American Christians do not care about the plight of their co-religionists in the Middle East. Millions of true-blue Christians not unlike Dreher, many weaned on the Scofield Bible and its dispensationalism, and many of whom wind up in government or other positions of power, choose to disengage from the problem, accepting that Jews are the “chosen people” of God and, for some, part of End Time prophecy. They are therefore to be given a pass by both the media and government on all their exclusivism and bad behavior even as they meddle in US politics and work to hobble freedom of speech by criminalizing anyone who criticizes Israel or supports Palestinians by urging a boycott against it. Until all that changes, if it even can happen, Christians in the so-called Holy Land will be on the chopping block and when the churches and monasteries no longer have a community to sustain them, it will be the end of Christianity in the place where it was born. And more’s the pity, the United States will have played a major role in enabling that to happen.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is

May 3, 2022 - Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , ,



    What Is Public Law 102-14?
    Jews run & own the media; the Internet; politics!
    This is the language of HJ Res. 104:
    102nd CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. J. RES. 104
    To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.’.
    HJ 104 EH
    102nd CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. J. RES. 104
    To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.’.
    Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;
    Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;
    Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;
    Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;
    Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;
    Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;
    Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

    Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe,’ this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving,’ the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

    Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.’. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
    Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 1991.


    Below is reproduced folios 56a-57b of the 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, which are the sections dealing with Noahide Law. You will find that much of this document mirrors what you already read in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Here is the doctrine of the Pharisees, the laws which would rule us all under Talmudic Noahide Law.
    Sanhedrin 56a
    1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud

    “Heathens” who blaspheme are to be decapitated, we are all “sons of Noah” and so we are all required to adhere to the Noahide Laws. Footnote 23 to the passage makes it clear that according to Talmudic doctrine we are all responsible to follow the Noahide Laws because they were enacted before the time of Abraham. The punishment for breaking any of the Noahide Laws by a Gentile is death by decapitation.
    Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his God, shall bear his sin.[21] It would have been sufficient to say], ‘A man, etc:’ What is taught by the expression any man?[22] The inclusion of heathens, to whom blasphemy is prohibited just as to Israelites, and they are executed by decapitation; for every death penalty decreed for the sons of Noah is only by decapitation.[23]

    The Talmudic passage continues with a debate between the Rabbis, they want to come to a conclusion as to if a person is to be put to death if they blaspheme using a substitute for the name of god. Rabbi Meir of the Talmud seems to believe that anyone, Jew or Gentile who blasphemes using a substitute should be killed, but the Jew should be stoned to death while the Gentile should be decapitated. Rabbi R. Miyasha seems to believe that only Heathens should be killed for blaspheming with substitutions, but Rabbi Issac seems to believe that even heathens must use the direct name of god to be killed for blasphemy (Please See Footnote 31). However, even though there does seem to be a debate, the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on the Noahide Laws makes the definite statement that unlike Jews, “Heathens” are decapitated for blaspheming even when they use a substitute for the name of god.

    Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to heathens] deduced from this verse? But it is deduced from another, viz., The Lord, referring to the ‘blessing’ of the Divine Name.[24] — R. Isaac the smith[25] replied; This phrase [‘any man’] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of God’s name,[26] and the Baraitha is taught in accordance with R. Meir’s views For it has been taught: Any man that curseth his God shall bear his sin.[27] Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death? Because it is stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, I might think that death is meted out only when the ineffable Name is employed. Whence do I know that all substitutes [of the ineffable Name] are included [in this law]? From the verse, Any man that curseth his God — shewing culpability for any manner of blasphemy [even without uttering the Name, since the Name is not mentioned in this sentence]: this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: [Blasphemy] with use of the ineffable Name, is punishable by death: with the employment of substitutes, it is the object of an injunction. [but not punishable by death].
    This view [of R. Isaac the smith] conflicts with that of R. Miyasha; for R. Miyasha said: If a heathen [son of Noah] blasphemed, employing substitutes of the ineffable Name, he is in the opinion of the Sages punishable by death. Why so? — Because it is written, as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land [when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death]. This teaches that only the stranger [i.e.. a proselyte], and the native [i.e., a natural born Israelite] must utter the ineffable Name; but the heathen is punishable even for a substitute only. But how does R. Meir interpret the verse, ‘as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land’? — It teaches that the stranger and citizen are stoned, but a heathen is decapitated. For I would think, since they are included [in the prohibition], they are included [in the manner of execution too]: hence we are taught otherwise. Now how does R. Isaac the smith interpret the verse, ‘as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land’, on the view of the Rabbis?[30] — It teaches that only a stranger and a native must revile the Name by the Name, but for a heathen this is unnecessary. Why does the Torah state any man?[31] — The Torah employed normal human speech.[32]


    The Talmudic passage ends by including all seven of the Noahide Laws which all men must follow. These include not only abstaining from “blasphemy” but also “idolatry” and “adultery”. The footnotes give us two very important pieces of information. First, the Noahide laws are for everyone, not just Jews, and anyone who breaks these laws is to be put to death (SEE FOOTNOTE 34). Second, Jews are instructed to set up courts of justice “or, perhaps, to observe social justice” to ensure the Noahide Laws are followed by all (SEE FOOTNOTE 33).

    Our Rabbis taught: seven precepts were the sons of Noah commanded: social laws;[33] to refrain from blasphemy, idolatry; adultery; bloodshed; robbery; and eating flesh cut from a living animal.[34]

    21. Lit., ‘A man, a man’, Heb. ish ish, [H].
    22. The only place where death is explicitly decreed for non-Israelites is in Gen. IX, 6: Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. It is a general law, applicable to all, having been given in the pre-Abrahamic era; his blood shall be shed must refer to the sword, the only death whereby blood is shed.
    23: The only place where death is explicitly decreed for non-Israelites is in Gen. IX, 6: Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. It is a general law, applicable to all, having been given in the pre-Abrahamic era; his blood shall be shed must refer to the sword, the only death whereby blood is shed.
    24. V. infra 56b. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat. Gen. II, 16. Every word or phrase in this verse is separately interpreted, the Lord teaching the prohibition of blasphemy to a Noachide.
    25. In the Talmudic period the Rabbi was an honorary official; consequently, he had to have a private occupation e.g., R. Joshua, who came into conflict with R. Gamaliel, was a blacksmith, (Ber. 28a.) others translate, charcoal-burner.
    26. I.e., even if only a substitute was employed in blasphemy, the death penalty is incurred.
    27. Lev. XXIV, 15
    28. Ibid. 16.
    29. Ibid.
    30. That a heathen too must use the ineffable Name for incurring punishment.
    31.This is a difficulty For R. Isaac and R. Miyasha, as they explain the opinions of the Sages. They both maintain that the culpability of a heathen is deduced from And the Lord (God commanded etc.) When employing substitutes, his culpability, in the view of R. Miyasha is deduced from as well the stranger etc.; Whilst R. Isaac denies that it is punishable at all. Hence the difficulty, why the repetition ish ish, a man, a man?
    32. I.e., no particular significance attaches to the repetition, it being the usual idiom.
    33. I.e., to establish courts of justice, or, perhaps, to observe social justice (Nahmanides on Gen. XXXIV, 13): Hast. Dict. (s.v. Noachian precepts) translates ‘obedience to authority’.
    34. These commandments may be regarded as the foundations of all human and moral progress. Judaism has both a national and a universal outlook in life. In the former sense it is particularistic, setting up a people distinct and separate from others by its peculiar religious law. But in the latter, it recognises that moral progress and its concomitant Divine love and approval are the privilege and obligation of all mankind. And hence the Talmud lays down the seven Noachian precepts, by the observance of which all mankind may attain spiritual perfection, and without which moral death must inevitably ensue. That perhaps is the idea underlying the assertion (passim) that a heathen is liable to death for the neglect of any of these. The last mentioned is particularly instructive as showing the great importance attached to the humane treatment of animals; so much so, that it is declared to be fundamental to human righteousness.

    Babylonian Talmud, Soncino, Published 1961

    “Sorcery”, divination and astrology (observer of times) are added to the list of forbidden practices which even “heathens” are not permitted, non-Jews are also forbidden from crossbreeding differing kinds of animals or grafting together different species of trees, but these restrictions are not as barring as the seven main Noahide Laws.

    R. Hanania b. Gamaliel said: Also not to partake of the blood drawn from a living animal. R. Hidka added emasculation. R. Simeon added sorcery. R. Jose said: The heathens were prohibited everything that is mentioned in the section on sorcery. viz., There shall not be found among you any one, that maketh his son or daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them [sc. the heathens in Canaan] out from before thee.[1] Now, [the Almighty] does not punish without first prohibiting.[2] R. Eleazar added the forbidden mixture [in plants and animals]: now, they are permitted to wear garments of mixed fabrics [of wool and linen] and sow diverse seeds together; they are forbidden only to hybridize heterogeneous animals and graft trees of different kinds.

    5. “SOCIAL LAWS”
    Here it is stipulated that these “social laws” were given to humans in the Garden of Eden, thus the argument that Noahide Laws and their derivatives are applicable to all humans (all humans coming from Eden).

    Whence do we know this? — R. Johanan answered: The Writ saith: And the Lord God commanded the man saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.[3] And [He] commanded, refers to [the observance of] social laws, and thus it is written, For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.[4] The Lord — is [a prohibition against] blasphemy, and thus it is written, and he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.[5] God — is [an injunction against] idolatry, and thus it is written, Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.[6] The man — refers to bloodshed [murder], and thus it is written, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.[7] Saying — refers to adultery, and thus it is written, They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and became another man’s.[8] Of every tree of the garden — but not of robbery.[9] Thou mayest freely eat — but not flesh cut from a living animal.[10]

    Just like Jews, “heathens” are to be sentenced to death for practicing idolatry.

    When R. Isaac came,[11] he taught a reversed interpretation. And He commanded — refers to idolatry; God [Heb. elohim] to social law. Now ‘God’ may rightly refer to social laws, as it is written, And the master of the house shall be brought unto elohim [i.e., the judges].[12] But how can ‘and He commanded’ connote a prohibition of idolatry? — R. Hisda and R. Isaac b. Abdimi-one cited the verse, They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, etc.[13] And the other cited, Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after the commandment.[14] Wherein do they differ? — In respect of a heathen who made an idol but did not worship it: On the view [that the prohibition of idolatry is derived from] they have made them a molten calf, guilt is incurred as soon as the idol is made [even before it is worshipped]; but according to the opinion that it is from, because he willingly walked after the commandment, there is no liability until the heathen actually follows and worships it. Raba objected: Does any scholar maintain that a heathen is liable to punishment for making an idol even if he did not worship it? Surely it has been taught: With respect to idolatry, such acts for which a Jewish Court decrees sentence of death [on Jewish delinquents] are forbidden to the heathen; but those for which a Jewish Court inflicts no capital penalty on Jewish delinquents are not forbidden to him.[15] Now what does this exclude? Presumably the case of a heathen who made an idol without worshipping it?[16] R. Papa answered: No. It excludes the embracing and kissing of idols.[17] Of which idols do you say this? Is it of those whose normal worship is in this manner; but in that case he is surely liable to death? — Hence it excludes the embracing and kissing of idols which are not usually worshipped thus.

    So here we learn that Noahides (non-Jews) are commanded to set up their own courts to enforce the Noahide laws within their communities, these courts are different from Jewish courts and run on different rules which make it easier to convict and kill non-Jews. The judging of criminal cases (at least for Jews in Israel) are to be done before a “Sanhedrin”, a Jewish high court. However, Noahides are commanded to set up their own courts to enforce the Noahide Laws. While Jews are to be judged by a full Sanhedrin and only if there were two witnesses to their “crime” and only if they received a warning, a Noahide being tried in a Noahide court are afforded only one judge, one witness and need not have been warned against their transgression. Yet again, the second class citizenship of even “domiciled” Gentiles under Noahide Laws is evident in the pages of the Talmud. (SEE FOOTNOTE 20)

    ‘Social laws.’ Were then the children of Noah bidden to observe these? Surely it has been taught: The Israelites were given ten precepts at Marah, seven of which had already been accepted by the children of Noah, to which were added at Marah social laws, the Sabbath, and honouring one’s parents; ‘Social laws,’ for it is written, There [sc. at Marah] he made for them a statute and an ordinance;[18] ‘the Sabbath and honouring one’s parents’. for it is written, As the Lord thy God commanded thee![19] — R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: The addition at Marah was only in respect of an assembly, witnesses, and formal admonition.[20] If so, why say ‘to which were added social laws’?[21] — But Raba replied thus: The addition was only in respect of the laws of fines.[22] But even so, should it not have been said, ‘additions were made in the social laws’? — But R. Aha b. Jacob answered thus: The Baraitha informs us that they were commanded to set up law courts in every district and town. But were not the sons of Noah likewise commanded to do this? Surely it has been taught: Just as the Israelites were ordered to set up law courts in every district and town, so were the sons of Noah likewise enjoined to set up law courts in every district and town! — But Raba answered thus: The author of this Baraitha [which states that social laws were added at Marah] is a Tanna of the School of Manasseh, who omitted social laws and blasphemy[23] [from the list of Noachian precepts] and substituted emasculation and the forbidden mixture [in plants, ploughing. etc.].[23] For a Tanna of the School of Manasseh taught: The sons of Noah were given seven precepts. viz., [prohibition of] idolatry, adultery, murder, robbery, flesh cut from a living animal, emasculation and forbidden mixtures. R. Judah said: Adam was prohibited idolatry only, for it is written, And the Lord God commanded Adam.[24] R. Judah b. Bathyra maintained: He was forbidden blasphemy too. Some add social laws. With whom does the following statement of Rab Judah in the name of Rab agree: viz., [God said to Adam,] I am God, do not curse Me; I am God, do not exchange Me for another; I am God, let My fear be upon you?[25] — This agrees with the last mentioned [who adds social laws to the list].
    Now, what is the standpoint of the Tanna of the School of Manasseh? If he interprets the verse, And the Lord God commanded etc. [as interpreted above], he should include these two [social laws and blasphemy] also, and if he does not, whence does he derive the prohibition of the rest? — In truth, he does not accept the interpretation of the verse, ‘And the Lord God commanded etc., but maintains that each of these [which he includes] is separately stated: Idolatry and adultery.

    1. Deut. XVIII, 10ff.
    2. Therefore, since it is stated that they are being expelled as a punishment for these sins, they must first have been warned (i.e., prohibited) against them.
    3. Gen. II, 16.
    4. Gen. XVIII, 19. Thus ‘command’ relates to justice and judgment.
    5. Lev. XXIV, 16 — ‘The Lord’ being used in connection with blasphemy.
    6. Ex. XX, 3.
    7. Gen. IX, 6.
    8. Jer. III, 1. Thus ‘saying’ is used in connection with adultery.
    9. Since it was necessary to authorize Adam to eat of the trees of the garden, it follows that without such authorisation — i.e., when something belongs to another — it is forbidden.
    10. By interpreting thus: Thou mayest eat that which is now ready for eating, but not whilst the animal is alive. It is perhaps remarkable that a verse, the literal meaning of which is obviously permission to enjoy, should be interpreted as a series of prohibitions. Yet it is quite in keeping with the character of the Talmud: freedom to enjoy must be limited by moral and social considerations, and indeed only attains its highest value when so limited. Cf. Ab. VI, 2: No man is free but he who labours in the Torah.
    11. V. p. 361, n. 5.
    12. Ex. XXII, 7. The root idea of ‘elohim’ is power, majesty.
    13. Ex. XXXII, 8.
    14. Hos. V, 11, referring to idolatry; thus in both cases ‘command’ is used in connection with idolatry.
    15. V. Mishnah 60b.
    16. For which a Jew is not punished by death.
    17. Teaching that these are not punishable.
    18. Ex. XV, 25. Ordinance (Heb. mishpat) refers to social law.
    19. Deut. V, 16. This occurs in the fifth commandment of the second Decalogue. Similar words are used in the fourth commandment: therefore the Lord thy God
    commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. In both cases then there is a reference to some previous event, shewn by the use of the past tense: commanded thee. Now the second Decalogue, though spoken by Moses towards the end of his life in the plains of Moab many years after the first at Sinai, was nevertheless a repetition thereof. Therefore this reference back must have been made in the first promulgation also, and can only relate to Marah, where, as stated above, ‘he made for them a statute and an ordinance’, i.e., gave certain laws to the the Israelites.
    20. I.e., that Justice should be meted out by an ‘assembly’. viz., a Sanhedrin; that an accusation was to be attested by at least two witnesses, and that a formal warning or admonition was to be given to the accused before he committed his offence, as otherwise he was not liable to the prescribed penalty. But the sons of Noah, though bidden to observe civil laws, were not bound by these regulations.
    21. Since the addition was only in the method of procedure, but not in actual content.
    22. E.g., Deut. XXII, 19, 29, where a slanderer of a woman’s honour is ordered to pay 100 silver shekels to her father, and a seducer of a virgin 50 silver shekels. These payments are not regarded as equitable indemnifications against loss sustained, but as fines for reprehensible acts. These laws were wanting in the civil code of the sons of Noah, and only these commands added at Marah.
    23. The text employs abbreviations for these commands.
    24.Which means that He commanded him to remember His Godhead, and not to reject it for a different deity.
    25. ‘Let my fear be upon you’ is an exhortation to dispense justice uprightly, without fear of man.

    Babylonian Talmud, Soncino, Published 1961

    The Rabbis speak about the prohibitions against immorality (adultery) which is prohibited to all, even Gentiles.

    for it is written, The earth also was corrupt before God;[1] and a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Wherever corruption is mentioned, it must refer to immorality and idolatry.[2] ‘Immorality.’ as it is written, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.[3] ‘Idolatry,’ for it is written, Lest ye corrupt yourselves and make you a graven image, etc.[4] And the other teacher [who deduces this from the verse, and the Lord God commanded etc.]?[5] He maintains that this verse [sc. the earth also etc.] merely describes their way of living.[6] ‘Bloodshed’, as it is written, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, etc.[7] And
    the other?[8] — This verse [he will maintain] merely teaches the manner of execution.[9] Robbery, for it is written, As the wild herbs have I given you all things;[10] upon which R. Levi commented: as the wild herbs, but not as the cultivated herbs.[11] And the other?[12] — He will hold that this verse is written to permit animal flesh,[13] [but not to prohibit robbery]. Flesh cut from the living animal, as it is written, But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.[14] And the other?[15] — He may hold that this verse teaches that flesh cut from live reptiles is permitted.[16] Emasculation, for it is written, Bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.[17] And the other?[18] — He may regard this merely as a blessing.[19] Forbidden mixture, as it is said, Of fowls after their kind.[20] And the other?[21] — He will maintain that this was merely for the sake of mating.[22]

    In this passage we learn not only are “ heathens” executed for idolatry, but that only for Jews is there a difference between “prohibition” and “punishment”; a Jew may be prohibited from a certain act but not punished for transgressing them, however, for “heathens” prohibition means punishment for transgression, and the punishment is death (SEE FOOTNOTE 29).

    R. Joseph said, The scholars[23] stated: A heathen is executed for the violation of three precepts — Mnemonic G Sh R—[24] viz., adultery, bloodshed, and blasphemy. R. Shesheth objected: Now bloodshed is rightly included, since it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;[25] but whence do we know the others? If they are derived from bloodshed,[26] the other four should also be included; whilst if their inclusion is taught by the extending phrase any man,[27] should not idolatry too be included?[28] But R. Shesheth said thus: The scholars stated, A heathen is executed for the violation of four precepts [including idolatry]. But is a heathen executed for idolatry? Surely it has been taught: With respect to idolatry, such acts for which a Jewish court decrees sentence of death [on Jewish delinquents] are forbidden to the heathen. This implies that they are merely forbidden, but their violation is not punished by death! — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: Their prohibition is their death sentence.[29]

    Here we learn that even though Gentiles are executed for breaking any of the Seven Noahide Laws, one of which is murder, a Jew who murders a Gentile (Cuthean) is not punished for this crime; a Jew is never punished by courts of “justice” for killing a non-Jew. Cuthean is another world for a gentile (goy) (SEE FOOTNOTE 33)

    R. Huna, Rab Judah, and all the disciples of Rab maintained: A heathen is executed for the violation of the seven Noachian laws; the Divine Law having revealed this of one [murder], it applies to all. Now is a heathen executed for robbery? Has it not been taught: ‘With respect to robbery — if one stole or robbed[30] or [seized] a beautiful woman,[31] or [committed] similar offences,[32] if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean[33] against another, [the theft, etc.] must not be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained’?[34] But if robbery is a capital offence, should not the Tanna have taught: He incurs a penalty? — Because the second clause wishes to state, ‘but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained,’ therefore the former clause reads, ‘[theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean] must not be kept.’[35] But where a penalty is incurred, it is explicitly stated, for the commencing clause teaches: ‘For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty‘?[36] — How else could that clause have been taught? Could he state, ‘forbidden’ … ‘permitted’? Surely it has been taught; A Cuthean and a [Jewish] shepherd of small cattle [sheep, goats, etc.][37] need neither be rescued [from a pit] nor may they be thrown [therein]![38] ‘And similar acts.’ To what can this apply in the case of robbery? — R. Aha b. Jacob answered: To a worker in a vineyard [who eats of the grapes]. When so? If his is the finishing work, it is permitted?[39] If it is not the finishing work, is it not actual robbery?[40] — But R. Papa said: This applies to [the theft of] an article worth less than a perutah.[41] But if so, why say that such robbery of a Jew by a Cuthean must not be kept: does he not forgive him?[42] — Though he later forgives him, he is grieved when it occurs [therefore it is prohibited] — But how can you say that such robbery by one Cuthean from another is but a ‘similar act’ [i.e., bordering on robbery]: since a Cuthean does not forgive,[43] is it not actual theft? — But R. Aha, the son of R. Ika answered; It applies to the withholding of a labourer’s wage.[44] One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted.[45] To what can ‘a similar act’ apply in the case of a beautiful woman? — When R. Dimi came,[46] he said in the name of R. Eleazar in the name of R. Hanina: To a heathen who allotted a bondwoman to his slave [for concubinage] and then took her for himself, for this he is executed.[47]
    ‘A similar act’, however, is not taught with reference to murder.[48] Abaye said: If it should be, however, that it is so taught, it would be in accordance with R. Jonathan b. Saul. For it has been taught; If one was pursuing his neighbour to slay him, and the latter could have saved himself by maiming a limb [of the pursuer, e.g., his foot], and did not thus save himself [but killed him instead],
    1. Gen. VI, II
    2. And once they were punished for these offences, they must first have been admonished against them.
    3. Ibid. ‘Corrupted his way’ connotes immorality; cf. the way of a man with a maid. Prov. XXX, 19.
    4. Deut. IV, 16.
    5. How does he utilize this latter verse?
    6. But is not intended to imply a prohibition.
    7. Gen. IX, 6.
    8. I.e., who deduces it from the verse, all the Lord commanded.
    9. I.e., by the sword, v. p. 380 n. 5; but the fact of execution is taught elsewhere.
    10. Ibid. 3.
    11. I.e., only as that which grows wild, without any owners; but not as that which is cultivated, hence owned by someone. This proves that robbery was forbidden them.
    12. V. n. 8.
    13. Which was prohibited to Adam, v. infra 59b.
    14. Ibid. 4. ‘Flesh with the blood thereof’ means flesh cut from the living animal.
    15. V. n. 8.
    16. V. infra 59a, b.
    17. Ibid. This, of course, is a direct negation of emasculation.
    18. V. p. 386, n. 8,
    19. But it is not intended to convey any prohibition.
    20. Ibid. VI, 20; hence different species are not to be crossed.
    21. V. p. 386, n. 8.
    22. It being easier to mate with the same species than with another; but no prohibition is implied thereby.
    23. The term be Rab does not necessarily mean the school presided over by Rab, though it may have that meaning occasionally. In one sense, it connotes the school founded by him, but lasting many generations after his lifetime. In another, it denotes schools in general. In this very instance, the views attributed to be Rab conflict with the teaching of Rab, Rab Judah, and all his disciples (Weiss. Dor II, p. 206.)
    24. [H]: a mnemonic is given to facilitate the remembering of the subjects of a discussion. Here it stands for Gilluy ‘Arayoth — adultery; Shefikuth damin — murder; and birkath ha-shem — blasphemy.
    25. Gen. IX, 6.
    26. That as bloodshed was forbidden on pain of death, so were the others too.
    27. Heb. [H]. Lev. XXIV, 15: Any man ([H]) that curseth his God shall bear his sin. Ibid. XVIII, 6: No man ([H]) shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. In both cases one referring to blasphemy, and the other to incest, the repetition of ish extends the law to embrace heathens too.
    28. Lev. XX, 2: Whosoever he be (ish ish ) of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed to Moloch (i.e., engages in idol worship); he shall surely be put to death. The repetition then, here too, should extend the death penalty for idolatry to heathens.
    29. I.e., in speaking of heathens, when the Tanna teaches that they are forbidden to do something, he ipso facto teaches that it is punishable by death; for only in speaking of Jews is it necessary to distinguish between prohibition and punishment.
    30. Stole (ganab) refers to secret stealing, robbed (gazal), to stealing by open violence.
    31. In war, v. Deut. XXI, 10-14 — a species of robbery. [This is the only possible and correct rendering of the text, contra Goldschmidt. Cf. Tosef A.Z.]
    32. Acts which are not actual robbery, but partake of its nature.
    33. ‘Cuthean’ (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original goy (heathen).
    34. [I.e., though it is forbidden to rob the heathen (v. Yad, Genebah I, 2; VI, 8), the offence was non-actionable. For reason, v. B. K. (Sonc. ed.) note
    on Mishnah 37b.]
    35. But actually it is punishable too. [This is merely a survival of old Semitic tribal law that regarded theft and robbery as a crime against the state, and consequently punishable by death. V. Muller, D. H., Hammurabi, 88]
    36. Thus the Tanna does refer to punishment; since then he omits a reference to punishment in the clause under discussion, it shows that the heathen is not executed for robbery. In the whole of this discussion the punishment referred to is death.
    37. Both are regarded as robbers the latter because they permit their charges to graze in other people’s fields.
    38. One need neither exert oneself to save them from death, nor may one encompass it. This, of course, is theoretical only, v. p. 388, n. 6. Not a few of these harsh utterances (where they do not reflect the old Semitic tribal law, v. p. 388. n. 7) were the natural result of Jewish persecution by the Romans, and must be understood in that light. In actual practice, these dicta were certainly never acted upon, and it is significant that a commission of Roman officers, after investigating Jewish law in its relation to Gentiles, took exception only to two laws, one relating to the damage done by a goring ox, and the other permitting a Jew the use of property stolen from a Gentile. R. Gamaliel repealed this latter law. (B.K. 38a: Sifre Deut. 344.) Hence, reverting to the discussion, the Tanna could not have stated that the murder of a Cuthean by a Jew is permissible; therefore he is forced to speak of punishment.
    39. E.g., the gathering in of the grapes. Deut. XXIII, 25 is interpreted by the Rabbis as referring to work in connection with the finishing touch given to
    the produce.
    40. Not merely bordering thereon.
    41. A small coin, one-eighth of the Roman as.
    42. One does not mind such a trifle, and readily forgives it.
    43. Even such a trifle, v. infra 59a.
    44. This only borders on a robbery, for actual robbery means depriving a person of what he already possesses
    45. I.e., non-actionable.
    46. R. Dimi was a Palestinian Amora of the fourth century, who travelled to and fro between, Babylon and Palestine, and was very zealous in transmitting the teachings of Palestine Scholars to his colleagues in Babylon (v. J. E. IV, 603; cf. p. 361, n. 5, supra.
    47. This, though not actual robbery, is similar to it.
    48. A deed is either actual murder or not. Even unwitting murder is murder, though the Almighty shewed mercy by sparing the murderer.

    Babylonian Talmud, Soncino, Published 1961

    Finally, here in the last tractate we learn that Jews are tried by 23 judges (full Sanhedrin) and need to be accused by two witnesses (SEE FOOTNOTE 16), while a “heathen” need only one witness and one judge to be sentenced to death in their Noahide Courts.

    he is executed for his death.[1] R. Jacob b. Aha found it written in the scholars’[2] Book of Aggada:[3 ]
    A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not of a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. Whence do we know all this? — Rab Judah answered: The Bible saith, And surely your blood of your lives will I require;[4] this shows that even one judge [may try a heathen].[5] At the hand of every living thing will I require it: even without an admonition having been given;[6] And at the hand of man: even on the testimony of one witness;[7 ] at the hand of man:[8] but not at the hand [i.e., on the testimony] of a woman; his brother: teaching that even a relation may testify. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. What is R. Ishmael’s reason? Because it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man within [another] man, shall his blood be shed.[9] What is a man within another man? — An embryo in his mother’s womb.[10] But the first Tanna [who excludes the murder of an embryo from capital punishment] is a Tanna of the school of Manasseh, who maintains that every death penalty decreed for the heathens is by strangulation. He connects the [second] ‘man’ with the latter half of the sentence, and interprets thus: Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, within man [i.e., within him], shall his blood be shed. Now, how can man’s blood be shed, and yet be retained within him? By strangulation.

    R. Hamnuna objected: Now, is not a [heathen] woman commanded [to keep the social laws]? Surely it is written, For I know him, that he will command his sons and his household [which includes the womenfolk] after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to exercise charity, and judgment?[11] — He raised the objection, and he answered it himself: he would command ‘his sons’ to exercise judgment; ‘his daughters’ to perform charity.

    R. Awia the elder said to R. Papa: Let us say that a heathen woman who committed murder must not be executed, since it is written, at the hand of every man [who committed murder] etc. implying,[12] ‘but not at the hand of woman’? — He replied: Thus did Rab Judah say: Whoso sheddeth man’s blood implies whosoever it be [even a woman]. Let us say that a heathen woman who committed adultery is not executed, since it is written, therefore shall a man forsake [his father and mother, and cleave to his wife], implying[12] that a man [must cleave], but not a woman? — He replied: Thus did Rab Judah say: The verse, And they shall be as one flesh, reassimilated them to each other [making the law of fidelity applicable to both].

    Our Rabbis taught: [A man, a man shall not approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness.[13] It would have been sufficient to state,] A man shall not approach etc. What is taught by the repetition, A man, a man? — The extension of the law to heathens, that they too are forbidden incest [including adultery]. Now is this deduced from this verse; is it rather not deduced from a different text, viz., [And the lord God commanded…] saying, which refers to adultery?[14] — The latter text refers to adultery with a woman of their own [i.e., with a heathen married woman]; the former to adultery with one of ours [i.e., a Jewish married woman], for the second clause teaches: If he committed incest with a Jewess, he is judged according to Jewish law. With regard to what is this?[15] — R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: With regard to an assembly, witnesses and formal admonition.[16] Is a Jewess then of less account?[17] But R. Johanan answered thus: It is with regard to a betrothed Jewish maiden,[18] whose violation by heathen law is not a capital offence;[19] hence they are judged by Jewish law.

    But if their offence was against a fully married woman, are they judged according to their law? Surely it has been taught: ‘If a heathen committed adultery with a [Jewish] betrothed maiden, he is stoned; with a fully married woman, he is strangled.’ Now if we judged them according to the law pertaining to them, should he not be decapitated? — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: By a ‘married woman’ this Baraitha means one whose huppah ceremony[20] has been performed, but without the marriage being consummated. Since by their law her violation is not a capital offence, they are judged by ours. For R. Hanina taught: They recognise the inviolability of a woman whose union has been consummated, but not if she merely entered the huppah without the union having been consummated. It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan: All prohibited [sexual] relationships for which a Jewish Beth din imposes capital punishment are forbidden to heathens, but those for which a Jewish Beth din does not impose death are permitted to heathens; this is R. Meir’s view. But the Sages maintain: There are many relationships[21] for which a Jewish Beth din does not impose death, which are nevertheless forbidden to a Gentile. If a heathen committed incest with a Jewess, he is judged according to Jewish law; if with a heathen woman, he is judged according to heathen law. The only difference that this makes is with respect to a betrothed maiden.[22] But should not the Tanna include a woman whose huppah ceremony has been performed without the marriage being consummated? — The teacher of this Baraitha is the Tanna of the college of Manasseh, who maintains that every death penalty decreed for the heathens is by strangulation, and by both codes [Jewish and heathen] this last-mentioned offence is punished by strangulation.

    Now, is R. Meir of the opinion that all relationships for which a Jewish Beth din imposes capital punishment are forbidden to heathens? Surely it has been taught: A proselyte,

    1. Yet this cannot be regarded as real murder, and hence may be called ‘a similar act’. But the sages dispute this, and maintain that he is not executed at all.
    2. V. p. 387, n, 7. It may also mean the School of Rab (Bacher. Agad. Bab. Amor. p. 2).
    3. Aggadah (or Haggadah, from nagad, to declare), means the whole non-legal portion of Jewish learning. Here however, an actual law is cited from the Book of Aggadah. In the T. J. and Midrashim, many statements cited in the T. B. as being from the Book of Aggadah of the schools, are those cited under the name of Noachian precepts. Hence it is possible that the reference is to a collection of laws relating to Gentiles, and in order to distinguish it from specifically Jewish laws, it was called the Book of Aggadah (Weiss, Dor, III, p. 158).
    4. Gen. IX, 5.
    5. The interpretation is based on the use of the singular, ‘I’ will require.
    6. This is based on the extending word ‘every’.
    7. This is based on the singular.
    8. Not the same phrase in Heb. as the preceding one.
    9. Lit. rendering of Gen. IX, 6.
    10. This law was directed against the Roman practice of prenatal murder. Weiss, Dor, II, 22.
    11. Ibid. XVIII, 19. Why then should a woman’s testimony be inadmissible?
    12. According to Rab Judah’s exegesis.
    13. Lit. rendering of Lev. XVIII, 6.
    14. V. p. 383.
    15. Since by the Noachian Law also he is liable to death.
    16. He must be tried by a full Sanhedrin; he cannot be convicted on the testimony of less than two witnesses, and he must have been formally admonished before committing the offence.
    17. I.e., is he dealt with more leniently because his offence was against a Jewess? For when his offence is against a heathen, these are unnecessary.
    18. V. p. 333, n. 3; p. 337, n. 5.
    19. As they do not regard her as married until the actual consummation of the nuptials.
    20. V. p. 333, n. 3.
    21. The Gaon of Wilna deletes ‘many’: Maimonides likewise does not include it in his text. Actually, the dispute of the Sages and R. Meir is only in
    reference to a half-sister by one’s mother.
    22. Tosef. ‘A.Z. IX. Since heathen law does not recognise this as a capital offence, he is judged by our law. This statement supports R. Johanan’s contention.

    The Lubavitch movement mentioned in HJ Res. 104, began in the late 18th century and is the largest branch of Orthodox Hasidic Judaism. One of its prime goals is the enforcement of the Noahide Laws on all humanity.

    Israel’s bus company Egged has accepted this ad in Jerusalem:

    “Statement of the kingdom. From the teachings=instructions of the [Lubavitcher] rabbi
    The Gentile does not want anything. He waits to be told what the Jew wants!”

    The Lubavitcher rabbi was Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994). Schneerson died in NY and is buried there. If this ad were on a bus in NY, people would say it was anti-Goyim. But then, it couldn’t be on a bus in NY, could it?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Pip | May 3, 2022 | Reply

  2. Without the great Dr. Phil Giraldi, I would be bereft. He infuses in me some sense of solidarity and resolve and sanity in this unhealthy, unjust, warmongering world where too many of us residents exist in a state of “quiet desperation.” This commentary, centered on Palestinian (‘Salt of the Earth’) Christianity, is especially pertinent and poignant. Thank you, Dr. Phil!

    Viva Palestine! — its Christians, its Muslims, all its children/women/men, its culture, its land, its valiant stoicism and steadfastness and non-violent resistance in the face of unremitting evil, oppression, illegal occupation, periodic psychotic eruptions of murder and mayhem within the daily grind of “life,” persecution, apartheid, etc., etc., etc. When will all of this end? — not well and not in any sense of “justice done, peace achieved/attained,” I fear and indeed am convinced at my 78 yo…

    “Palestinian Christians will soon be extinct” — sad, endlessly sad.

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by roberthstiver | May 3, 2022 | Reply

    • Did you really read that whole first comment Robert?


      Comment by brianharryaustralia | May 3, 2022 | Reply

      • Confession time: Brian, I gave it the merest scan. I obviously didn’t go to any of the numerous blocks of footnotes, but I thought “Wow” at the sheer quantity of ’em.
        I picked out mental “takeaways” as I scanned — always looking, I suppose, for tidbits that would support/buttress my own 58-years-long assessment-cum-hatred of the horror of the Zionist program/enterprise…does that make me “anti-semitic?…not in my mind but who am I but an OCD/extreme-empath supporter of the Palestinians? This was themy main/chosen “takeaway”: “Israel’s bus company Egged has accepted this ad in Jerusalem: ‘ “Statement of the kingdom. From the teachings=instructions of the [Lubavitcher] rabbi The Gentile does not want anything. He waits to be told what the Jew wants!” ‘ That sounded(s) like classic Talmud—>Zionism” to me! — and, fairly or not, gave a percentage of credence to the rest of the comment by “Pip” [who is completely unknown to me; I did try to click on his/her name but was unable to go to any link/elucidation/bona fides].
        At any rate, “Pip” has the right to write whatever he/she wants. Any “Like” by me doesn’t necessarily mean concurrence, partial or full.
        Does this “confession” make me sound indecisive/wishy-washy/juvenile, etc.? Dunno….
        Cheers! G’day!

        Liked by 2 people

        Comment by roberthstiver | May 3, 2022 | Reply

        • Well done Robert….I must admit, I couldn’t be bothered with it. It’s just a fact that if anyone says anything critical of Israel(and there’s a lot to be critical of) you are automatically branded as an Anti-Semite, and all this dredging up of “The Holocaust”, where 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazi’s is “out of tune” with the Red Cross’s assessment that only 270,000 people(of all creeds) died in German Work Camps during WWII.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by brianharryaustralia | May 3, 2022 | Reply

  3. The US capital is now codified by a jew death cult which describes the complete darkness she now exists with from sea to sea. Once this death cult rampages through, nothing living or beautiful exists any longer, her land will not produce and her water will dry up. Cancer kills its host.

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by Sparrow | May 3, 2022 | Reply

  4. While I do not doubt the veracity of Pip’s comment on America and the Noahide laws, it has to be said that these ‘laws’ are just a self-justifying Jewish fabrication aimed at belittling and controlling non-Jews. Noah did not produce these laws, even though he was still alive at the time of Abraham. Neither did Abraham. Indeed, it was only some four hundred and thirty years after God made His promises of a saviour (Jesus Christ) to Abraham, that the law of Moses was given. (Galatians 3:16,17), and it was only after the return to Israel after the Babylonian captivity (539 BC), that religious ‘parties’ and hierarchy were established, from which emanated the Talmud and the micro-management of religious thought and behaviour. Jesus, Himself, was being constantly attacked by the Pharisees and Sadducees, and eventually killed by them, because He cut through the crap they were peddling. Nothing is different today.
    When Moses was leading the Israelites through the wilderness, God was so infuriated with their behaviour that He said to Moses, on several occasions, that he was prepared to kill them all off and start again, i.e. create the nation through Moses. Moses dissuaded God, but their mindset has not changed. Due to their self-righteousness, they are blind and deaf to the truth. If they read the scriptures and not the commentaries, they might come to understand that a judgment is coming, in which the evil element is to be removed from Jewish society, and it will be a time far worse than the ‘holocaust’. Ironically, it is the Christians who will make them aware of this, although their response, as now, will be to attack and kill the messenger. It may be infuriating to today’s Jews, but after the ‘cleansing’ those who remain will welcome Jesus Christ.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Bill Francis | May 4, 2022 | Reply

    • Nice “take,” at least in macro; appreciated! But — gasp! — we are prohibited from even hinting that “Jesus, Himself, was being constantly attacked by the Pharisees and Sadducees, and eventually killed by them…”!! Wasn’t it a Pope (Pius XII?) back in the day — 1960s? — who enjoined Christians from assigning blame to the Jews for Jesus’ crucifiction?
      Also, I believe I recall that Moses asked God during the Jews’ wandering “What shall I (we?) do with these people?” Indeed….


      Comment by roberthstiver | May 4, 2022 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.