PLEASE NOTE: Today, Talmudist Jews and Noahides go through great pains to disguise the inherit anti-Gentilism of their religion by drowning out the facts with complex semantic arguments about who is a “goy”, a “gentile”, a “heathen” or an “idolater”. Don’t think that Jews are only speaking out Pagans in their scriptures; Christians are considered as “heretics” by the Talmud and are often viewed as being even more dangerous than “Heathens”:
“MINUTH: Heresy, the belief in more than one Power, especially Judeo-Christianity.” –1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Glossary
Also, whenever Jews say “heathen” or “Samaritan” or “Cuthean” or “Goy” they are really speaking about all non-Jew Gentiles. As their Talmud explains it’s all interchangeable anyway:
Footnote 33: ‘Cuthean’ (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original goy (heathen).] – 1962 Soncino Babylonain Talmud, Sanhedrin 57a
One of the Seven Noahide Laws from the Jewish Talmud is “Do Not Steal”. That sounds pretty reasonable right? But did you know that according to the Talmud Jews are given full permission to steal from non-Jews? And don’t forget, Jews are not prosecuted for stealing small amounts of money, but non-Jews are.
The Noachid is punished with decapitation for all kinds of robbery, whether from a Jew or from a non-Jew, even though the article stolen is worth less than a peruṭah (the smallest Palestinian coin, for less than which no case can be instituted against an Israelite). – Laws, Noachian, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
The Talmudic book of Sanhedrin 57a, which speaks about the Noahide Laws, provides a legal proxy for Jews which not only gives them an excuse to steal from non-Jews, but puts the blame for such acts on the non-Jews themselves. Footnote 34 of the Talmudic passage references Baba Kamma 37b, the oral law (Mishna) which lays out the principle of reciprocity. Here we learn that if an Israelite’s cow injures the cow of a “Canaanite” (non-Jews), there is no liability, but if the cow of a Canaanite injures the cow of of an Israelite, the Canaanite must pay in full. Footnote 12 explains that this is because the Canaanite does not accept “Jewish Law” (the law of the Talmud), and therefore s/he cannot be expected to be protected by it, but of course s/he is expected to pay the one-way property damages [they are forced to follow Jewish Talmudic law against their better interest]. This is the logic used to condone theft from of all non-Jews. Following this line of thought, according to Talmudic opinion, Jews are allowed to steal from non-Jews through stealth and deception. The Jewish Talmud makes several provisions for Jews to lie to, steal from, and cheat non-Jews. The only rule is that the Jew must not get caught (“profane the name” of Jews and/or their Talmudic god). According to the Talmud Jews must return the lost items of other Jews, but they may keep the lost items they find of “heathens”, unless they think the non-Jew will find out about the theft. In a commercial transaction, if a non-Jew makes a mistake in a Jew’s favor (for example, if the non-Jew undercharges the Jew), the money does not have to be returned. Some commentators say that a non-Jew may be actively and intentionally misled and deceived during a commercial transaction by disguising the low quality of goods. There are even provisions for directly stealing from non-Jews, the perverse thinking behind this is that a Jew would give the objects for free while the non-Jew would ask for payment, so it is ok to steal it from the non-Jew.
JEWS MY ROB AND STEAL FROM NON-JEWS
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 (Goy)[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] – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57a
FOOTNOTES:
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.
“THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY”
MISHNAH. IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE OWNER’S[9] CATTLE[10] GORING AN OX CONSECRATED TO THE TEMPLE, OR CONSECRATED CATTLE GORING A PRIVATE OX, THERE IS NO LIABILITY, FOR IT IS STATED: THE OX OF HIS NEIGHBOUR,[11] NOT [THAT IS TO SAY] AN OX CONSECRATED TO THE TEMPLE. WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE HAS GORED AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE, THERE IS NO LIABILITY,[12] WHEREAS WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE GORES AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE, WHETHER WHILE TAM OR MU’AD,[13] THE COMPENSATION IS TO BE MADE IN FULL.[14]- 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 37b
FOOTNOTES
9. [Mishnah text: ‘of an Israelite’.]
10. Lit., ‘ox’.
11. Ex. XXI, 35.
12. As Canaanites did not recognise the laws of social justice, they did not impose any liability for damage done by cattle. They could consequently not claim to be protected by a law they neither recognised nor respected, cf. J. T. a.l. and Maim. Yad, Niz. Mam. VIII, 5. [In ancient Israel as in the modern state the legislation regulating the protection of life and property of the stranger was, as Guttmann. M. (HUCA. III 1 ff.) has shown, on the basis of reciprocity. Where such reciprocity was not recognised, the stranger could not claim to enjoy the same protection of the law as the citizen.]
13. I.e., the ox that did the damage.
14. So that they should guard their cattle from doing damage. (Maim. loc. cit.)
JEWS MAY KEEP OBJECTS LOST BY NON-JEWS (BUT NOT THOSE OF JEWS)
UNLESS THEY THINK THEY WILL GET CAUGHT (PROFANE THE “NAME” OF GOD)
His lost article is permissible, for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible? Because it says: And with all lost thing of thy brother’s: it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen. But why not say that this applies only where the lost article has not yet come into the possession of the finder, in which case he is under no obligation to look round for it, whereas if it had already entered his possession, why not say that he should return it. — Said Rabina: And thou hast found it surely implies that the lost article has already come into his possession. It was taught: R. phinehas b. Yair said that where there was a danger of causing a profanation of the Name, even the retaining of a lost article of a heathen is a crime. – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b
IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO PROFIT FROM THE MISTAKE OF A NON-JEW
Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were supposed to be a hundred while he similarly left him minus one zuz and said to him: ‘See that I am relying upon you.’ - 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b
IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HIDE THE LOW QUALITY OF PRODUCTS FROM NON-JEWS
Rabina together with a heathen bought a palm-tree to chop up [and divide]. He thereupon said to his attendant: Quick, bring to me the parts near to the roots, for the heathen is interested only in the number [but not in the quality]. – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b
DIRECT THEFT FROM NON-JEWS (BECAUSE A JEW WOULD GIVE IT FOR FREE)
R. Ashi was once walking on the road when he noticed branches of vines outside a vineyard upon which ripe clusters of grapes were hanging. He said to his attendant: ‘Go and see, if they belong to a heathen bring them to me,27 but if to an Israelite do not bring them to me.’ The heathen happened to be then sitting in the vineyard and thus overheard this conversation, so he said to him: ‘If of a heathen would they be permitted?’ — He replied: ‘A heathen is usually prepared to [dispose of his grapes and] accept payment, whereas an Israelite is generally not prepared to [do so and] accept payment. - 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b
Footnote 27: Especially since the branches were outside the vineyard and thus probably overhanging a public road; cf. B.B. II, 14.
JEWS MAY LIE TO NON-JEWS TO WIN LEGAL BATTLES, UNLESS THEY THINK THEY WILL GET CAUGHT (PROFANE THE “NAME” OF GOD)
‘Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: ‘This is our law’; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] ‘This is your law’; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him. This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. Now according to R. Akiba the whole reason [appears to be,] because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him! – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113a