Debunking the antisemitic Talmud quotes meme promoted by...
shevereshtus@shevereshtus
12 views
Aug 29, 2025
~9 min read
Advertisement
1
Debunking the antisemitic Talmud quotes meme promoted by @DanBilzerian and boosted by @RealCandaceO and her ilk
A thread.
A thread.
2
Preface: None of this is new; most of these fake quotes originate from a couple of antisemitic German books that are over a hundred years old and they've been debunked over and over in many places. Sadly, most of them are not so accessible so I'll go over them myself.
3
As far as my credentials, I'm a Rabbi who is in his second decade teaching Talmud for a living. This is something that occupies a large part of my day.
It's truly an eye-rolling moment whenever I see these quoted. Let me show you why:
It's truly an eye-rolling moment whenever I see these quoted. Let me show you why:
4
1) Soferim 15
Mistranslation + taken out of context.
In a discussion about generalities, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that even the best members of your enemy nation, you should kill in a time of war instead of having mercy on them. This is rooted in the exodus from Egypt:
Mistranslation + taken out of context.
In a discussion about generalities, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that even the best members of your enemy nation, you should kill in a time of war instead of having mercy on them. This is rooted in the exodus from Egypt:
5
It says that after the plagues, when the Jews were in the midst of the sea, they were pursued by Pharoh and the rest of the egyptians on chariots. Now, how could they have chariots if all of their animals died in a plague?
Those who feared G-d brought them inside as per Moshe.
Those who feared G-d brought them inside as per Moshe.
6
So, they believed in the words of Moshe, they believed that G-d was sending those plagues on Egypt, and yet they still decided after seeing everything all the miracles they saw and knowing what they put the Jewish people through, to pursue them at sea in order to kill them.
7
This is why Rabbi Shimon says that, in a time of war, don't have mercy on 'the best' of your enemies but rather kill them. We can see from this that they might have been the best members of their society but they still ultimately wanted to go through with their murderous intents.
8
Yevamot 98a
Fake translation, and out of context.
There's a discussion about what happens when identical twin brothers converted, one marries a Jewish woman and he dies without having an heir: does his existing brother perform levirate marriage, or give her a form of divorce.
Fake translation, and out of context.
There's a discussion about what happens when identical twin brothers converted, one marries a Jewish woman and he dies without having an heir: does his existing brother perform levirate marriage, or give her a form of divorce.
9
There's a whole debate about whether or not he's permitted to do a levirate marriage.
One of the arguments that is brought is that since there's so much licentiousness in the non-Jewishness nation at the time, we don't know who is anyone's father as such, we don't allow it.
One of the arguments that is brought is that since there's so much licentiousness in the non-Jewishness nation at the time, we don't know who is anyone's father as such, we don't allow it.
10
To back this opinion, a verse from Ezekiel about the licentiousness of the Egyptians that compares their views on relationships with the way animals mate with each others without caring about who they mate with.
So, in no way does it say that "children of non-Jews are animals."
So, in no way does it say that "children of non-Jews are animals."
11
3) Bava Metzia 114b
Fake translation, and completely out of context.
In short, there's a discussion about the idea of ritual purity, and whether the corpse of a non-Jew renders you impure if you touch their grave or not. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, no. Here's why:
Fake translation, and completely out of context.
In short, there's a discussion about the idea of ritual purity, and whether the corpse of a non-Jew renders you impure if you touch their grave or not. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, no. Here's why:
12
He quotes a verse in relation to ritual purity that says that only Jews are called "Adam."
Now, antisemites translate this as meaning man. Except, there are four terms that define man: Adam, Ish, Enosh and Gever. They all have different spiritual meanings.
Now, antisemites translate this as meaning man. Except, there are four terms that define man: Adam, Ish, Enosh and Gever. They all have different spiritual meanings.
13
So, Rabbi Shimon is not saying here that "non-Jews are not human", there's nothing about how non-Jews are beast at all mentioned there. In fact, the ones being compared to animals here are Jews (sheep).
14
4) Gad Shas 2:2
This is a fake quote. There's no such thing as Gad Shas.
In fact, both the Bible & Talmud prescribe lashes for a Jewish man who engages in relations with a non-Jewish girl whether for pleasure or "marriage" (such unions are not legally recognized as marriage).
This is a fake quote. There's no such thing as Gad Shas.
In fact, both the Bible & Talmud prescribe lashes for a Jewish man who engages in relations with a non-Jewish girl whether for pleasure or "marriage" (such unions are not legally recognized as marriage).
15
5) Avodah Zara 36b
Fake translation and out of context.
Yes, non-Jewish girls are considered niddah from birth. So is the status of any non-Jewish woman who is unmarried as well. And married women for nearly half a month.
It has nothing to do with "filth" at all.
Fake translation and out of context.
Yes, non-Jewish girls are considered niddah from birth. So is the status of any non-Jewish woman who is unmarried as well. And married women for nearly half a month.
It has nothing to do with "filth" at all.
16
In fact, the reason why the Rabbis decreed that non-Jewish women are considered to be in a state of niddah from birth is to make it an even worse punishment if a Jew were to stay and have relations with one of them.
The Torah is really big into not intermarriage. Lots of verses.
The Torah is really big into not intermarriage. Lots of verses.
17
6) Sanhedrin 54b
Fake translation & wildly out of context.
This is a discussion specifically about *forbidden relationships* and whether it makes you susceptible to the death penalty. What's debated here is whether a person who engages in such horrible actions is put to death.
Fake translation & wildly out of context.
This is a discussion specifically about *forbidden relationships* and whether it makes you susceptible to the death penalty. What's debated here is whether a person who engages in such horrible actions is put to death.
18
The Sages determined that before the age of 9, children are completely unaware & don't understand what relations are. Between the ages of 9 & 13, while they do understand, they are not considered guilty whether passive or active.
The whole discussion is about their victimizer.
The whole discussion is about their victimizer.
19
So here, the Jewish that is codified is that if a man forces someone between the ages of 9 & 13 to engage with him, that person gets the death penalty (and his victim does not) and under the age of 9, he does not get the death penalty but rather he gets lashes in public.
20
The fact that he gets lashes for it instead of the death penalty doesn't mean that it's less than a crime. It's because it's considered something other than having relations, because a child that age is unable to understand what is happening and as such it's a different crime.
21
For the record, Halacha also permits you to straight up kill this victmizer if you catch him in the act and it's necessary to stop, so it's not like he's being protected or we don't believe his crime is not something heinous.
22
7) Sanhedrin 58b
Fake translation
The opinion of Rabbi Chanina is that if a non-Jew strikes a Jew, he is worthy of receiving the death penalty, as we saw when an Egyptian struck a Jew and Moshe killed him.
Jewish law, however, says that a non-Jew is not executed for this.
Fake translation
The opinion of Rabbi Chanina is that if a non-Jew strikes a Jew, he is worthy of receiving the death penalty, as we saw when an Egyptian struck a Jew and Moshe killed him.
Jewish law, however, says that a non-Jew is not executed for this.
23
This is why so many of these are infuriating. This is one opinion talking about how someone "ought to" get something for doing something, but somehow it becomes transformed as "This is what Judaism believes."
24
8) Sanhedrin 57a
Fake translation, plus out of context.
Here, there is a whole discussion about the 7 Laws of Noach and whether a non-Jew who transgresses them is liable to the death penalty or not.
Here the Talmud states that laws against murder are stronger for non-Jews.
Fake translation, plus out of context.
Here, there is a whole discussion about the 7 Laws of Noach and whether a non-Jew who transgresses them is liable to the death penalty or not.
Here the Talmud states that laws against murder are stronger for non-Jews.
25
As is codified in Halacha, a non-Jew who kills a fetus for example is going to be put to death, while it might not be the case for a Jew depending on the case. Same if he killed someone who was dying, or put them in a situation where they died indirectly because of him.
26
So, if a non-Jew hired a hitman, locked someone and left them to starve to death or pushed them in front of a lion, they will be put to death while a Jew might not be in this situation.
That doesn't mean that a Jew is allowed to do such a thing; the Jew will in fact be punished.
That doesn't mean that a Jew is allowed to do such a thing; the Jew will in fact be punished.
27
The only distinction here is that "7 mitsvot you can't violate, you can do whatever you want but otherwise you deserve the death penalty if you violate them."
Think of it like Adam in the Garden being told he has one thing to do, and one thing only. Breaking it is much worse.
Think of it like Adam in the Garden being told he has one thing to do, and one thing only. Breaking it is much worse.
28
Since for Jews there are 613, there are more punishments than just the death penalty/nothing, which means that in certain cases, a Jew might be punished with lashes or spend the rest of his life in prison versus being put to death. Doesn't mean that non-Jewish lives don't matter.
29
9) Tosfot Yevamot 84b
Fake quote.
I mean, I went through the Tosafot on that page twice and there's absolutely nothing even close.
It's also confusing, because why with a dog specifically? That has no meaning to us, dogs aren't seen as particularly bad in Judaism.
Fake quote.
I mean, I went through the Tosafot on that page twice and there's absolutely nothing even close.
It's also confusing, because why with a dog specifically? That has no meaning to us, dogs aren't seen as particularly bad in Judaism.
30
10) Bava Metzia 24a
Out of context.
This is the closest one to being accurate, and yet at the same time wildly out of context. We start by discussing a case where a man saves a lost object from a wild animal, at sea, the flooding of a river, or finds it in a public place.
Out of context.
This is the closest one to being accurate, and yet at the same time wildly out of context. We start by discussing a case where a man saves a lost object from a wild animal, at sea, the flooding of a river, or finds it in a public place.
31
There's a debate: did the owner despair of finding the object and, as a result, it is considered ownerless so the person who saved it is permitted to keep it, or does it still belong to his original owner who still hopes to retrieve it eventually.
32
"Is the item owned or ownerless?" is the basic gist, and the answer is that if you find it in a place where it's a majority of non-Jewish inhabitants, it is considered ownerless (even if it belonged to a Jew in the first place) because it is not the way of people to get them back
33
So it has nothing to do whether the owner of the object isn't Jewish (so you can keep it) but if he was Jewish you'd give it back.
It has to do with whether the majority there are likely to give back such lost items or not, and it simply was not the case in those societies.
It has to do with whether the majority there are likely to give back such lost items or not, and it simply was not the case in those societies.
34
11) Bava Kamma 113a
Fake quote, and out of context.
This is a discussion that has to do with tax collectors who were ripping off people at the time and enriching themselves on the back of citizens by claiming taxes that didn't belong to them. Doesn't matter if Jewish or not.
Fake quote, and out of context.
This is a discussion that has to do with tax collectors who were ripping off people at the time and enriching themselves on the back of citizens by claiming taxes that didn't belong to them. Doesn't matter if Jewish or not.
35
So there is a discussion about whether you are allowed to lie in order to protect yourself and your money from those thieves.
The same way you'd be allowed to lie to "circumvent" a non-Jew about whether you were hiding a Jew in your attic during the Second World War.
The same way you'd be allowed to lie to "circumvent" a non-Jew about whether you were hiding a Jew in your attic during the Second World War.
36
12) Avodah Zara 22a-22b
Mistranslation, and out of context.
Basically, it says that you're not allowed to leave your animals alone in the inns of non-Jews at the time since you're putting a stumbling block in front of the blind as they commonly engaged in bestiality back then.
Mistranslation, and out of context.
Basically, it says that you're not allowed to leave your animals alone in the inns of non-Jews at the time since you're putting a stumbling block in front of the blind as they commonly engaged in bestiality back then.
37
I mean I don't think there's much to say about this, it's clear that in many places in the world this is just as common today as it was back then, and even in the more rural areas of the "developed" world it's still something that happens.
The less said, the better.
The less said, the better.
38
Conclusion:
This wraps up this ridiculous piece of propaganda. None of the quotes were 1) accurate, 2) complete and 3) in context. Some of them, straight up lies.
Don't learn theology from memes, people.
This wraps up this ridiculous piece of propaganda. None of the quotes were 1) accurate, 2) complete and 3) in context. Some of them, straight up lies.
Don't learn theology from memes, people.
