Proving That Anti-Semitism Had Nothing to Do With His Conviction — and Proving That His Defenders Have Used Frauds and Hoaxes for 100 Years
By Bradford L. Huie | 26 April 2013
THE AMERICAN MERCURY — Mary Phagan was just 13 years old. She was a sweatshop laborer for Atlanta, Georgia’s National Pencil Company. Exactly 100 years ago today — Saturday, April 26, 1913 — little Mary (pictured, artist’s depiction) was looking forward to the festivities of Confederate Memorial Day. She dressed gaily and planned to attend the parade. She had just come to collect her $1.20 pay from National Pencil Company superintendent Leo M. Frank at his office when she was attacked by an assailant who struck her down, ripped her undergarments, likely attempted to sexually abuse her, and then strangled her to death. Her body was dumped in the factory basement.
(Listen to the audio book version of this article by pressing the play button below:)
Leo Frank, who was the head of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith, a Jewish fraternal order, was eventually convicted of the murder and sentenced to hang. After a concerted and lavishly financed campaign by the American Jewish community, Frank’s death sentence was commuted to life in prison by an outgoing governor. But he was snatched from his prison cell and hung by a lynching party consisting, in large part, of leading citizens outraged by the commutation order — and none of the lynchers were ever prosecuted or even indicted for their crime. One result of Frank’s trial and death was the founding of the still-powerful Anti-Defamation League.
Today Leo Frank’s innocence, and his status as a victim of anti-Semitism, are almost taken for granted. But are these current attitudes based on the facts of the case, or are they based on a propaganda campaign that began 100 years ago? Let’s look at the facts.
It has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that either Leo Frank or National Pencil Company sweeper Jim Conley was the killer of Mary Phagan. Every other person who was in the building at the time has been fully accounted for. Those who believe Frank to be innocent say, without exception, that Jim Conley must have been the killer.
On the 100th anniversary of the inexpressibly tragic death of this sweet and lovely girl, let us examine 100 reasons why the jury that tried him believed (and why we ought to believe, once we see the evidence) that Leo Max Frank strangled Mary Phagan to death — 100 reasons proving that Frank’s supporters have used multiple frauds and hoaxes and have tampered with the evidence on a massive scale — 100 reasons proving that the main idea that Frank’s modern defenders put forth, that Leo Frank was a victim of anti-Semitism, is the greatest hoax of all.
1. Only Leo Frank had the opportunity to be alone with Mary Phagan, and he admits he was alone with her in his office when she came to get her pay — and in fact he was completely alone with her on the second floor. Had Jim Conley been the killer, he would have had to attack her practically right at the entrance to the building where he sat almost all day, where people were constantly coming and going and where several witnesses noticed Conley, with no assurance of even a moment of privacy.
2. Leo Frank had told Newt Lee, the pencil factory’s night watchman, to come earlier than usual, at 4 p.m., on the day of the murder. But Frank was extremely nervous when Lee arrived (the killing of Mary Phagan had occurred between three and four hours before and her body was still in the building) and insisted that Lee leave and come back in two hours. […]
JEWISH TALMUD PROVES THAT TALMUDIC JEW, LEO FRANK WAS GUILTY.
“THE JEWISH TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD”!
The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 was “Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices” by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A.’, Ph.D., Maurice Simon, M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz wrote the “Foreword” for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.
The world’s leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic “The History of the Talmud,” Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise states:
“THE JEWISH TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence…IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time.
IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH…”
Or consider this from The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, in the entry
“PHARISEES”:
The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.
Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.
— R. Travers Herford for the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. (2)
Rabbi Dr. Louis Finkelstein, Instructor of Talmud, and later president of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, writes:
Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew reads his prayers, he is reciting formulae prepared by pre-Maccabean scholars; when he dons the cloak prescribed for the Day of Atonement and Passover Eve, he is wearing the festival garment of ancient Jerusalem; when he studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies.
— Rabbi Dr. Finkelstein (3)
SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: “What is meant by this? – Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? – Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5).”
This “divine truth” which “a whole people venerate” of which “not a single letter of it is missing” and today “is flourishing to such a degree as cannot be found in its history” is illustrated by the additional verbatim quotations which follow:
SANHEDRIN, 69b “Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai says, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declares her fit…All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as
a girl who is injured by a piece of wood' ".says’. (6) Lit., `here’, that is, less than three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”(footnotes) "(5). Lit.,
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood(a dildo).”
(footnotes) “(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”
ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a. “R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it…From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.
SOTAH, 26b. “R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) – the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)…As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?”
SANHEDRIN, 55b: “A maiden three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea).”
(footnotes) “(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving. (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew. (4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction `to his wife but not to his neighbor’s wife’ is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse.”
Of the “sacred” Talmudic teachings of the “Sages,” preserved since 500 A.D. and taught more widely today than ever before in Talmud-Torah schools in the U.S.A., perhaps nothing better illustrates “fools” with “reprobate minds” than the teaching in the Talmud book of Yebamoth that spittle on the top of the bed curtain proves that a wife has been guilty of adultery, as only lying down face upwards could she have spit up on it. Spitting several feet straight up!
The Talmud states:
“When a peddler leaves a house and the woman within is fastening her sinnar [breech-cloth] … . If spittle is found on the upper part of the curtained bed she must, said Rabbi, go.”
Footnote: “Even if there were no witnesses that misconduct took place.”
Further footnote: “Only the woman lying face upwards could have spat on the spot. Intercourse may, therefore, be suspected.”
THREE YEAR OLD BRIDES
“SEX AFTER EIGHT IS TOO LATE”?
Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia — permitting molestation [raping] of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.”
(1) Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah”, or binding Jewish law.
(2) Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.
References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.
THE PHARISEES ENDORSED CHILD SEX
The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hair-splitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.
Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” (3)
In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia: “How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” (4)
Endnotes:
1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
3 Sanhedrin 76a.
4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
OUT OF BABYLON
It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it. [Ashkenazik Shinar (‘sin’) was a stone throw away from Sodom and Gomorrah – Any questions?]
As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married [raped] a three year old girl.
But with expulsion of the Jews [‘Edomites, Pharisees, Ashkenazim, Khazars, Sephardim’] in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.
Still, a shocking contradiction lingers:
If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.
SEX WITH A “MINOR” PERMITTED
What exactly did these sages say?
The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man” Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22) One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,
“All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” (5)
Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature,he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. (6)
A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised: “…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” (7) The Talmud also says, “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” (8) Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.
Endnotes:
5 Sanhedrin 69b.
6 Sanhedrin 55a.
7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
8 Sanhedrin 55b.
SEX AT THREE YEARS & ONE DAY
In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape. [these were the ‘precursors’ of Hillary, Pelosi, Kagan, Napolitano, Ginsburg, Boxer, Albright, Abzug, Goldman, Livni, ad nauseam]
R. Joseph said: “Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.” (Sanh. 55b)
“A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation …” (Yeb. 57b)
A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yeb. 60b)
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated:
“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them.” (Yeb. 60b)
[The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] “… fit for cohabitation … But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.” (Footnote to Yeb. 60b)
The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”
The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” (9) But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.
The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage.
“At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”
NO RIGHTS FOR CHILD VICTIMS
The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age.
“As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” (10)
The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for,
“When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.”
The footnote says that as:
“tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” (11)
In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.
Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.
PEDOPHILIA WIDESPREAD
Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism .
This is illustrated from Yeb. 60b:
“There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.”
The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” (12)
These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yeb. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”
In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” (13) This passage says:
“… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”
The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.
Endnotes:
1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
3 Sanhedrin 76a.
4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
5 Sanhedrin 69b.
6 Sanhedrin 55a.
7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
8 Sanhedrin 55b.
9 Sanhedrin 55a.
10 Kethuboth 11a.
11 Kethuboth 11b.
12 Yebamoth 60b.
13 Sanhedrin 76b.
A FASCINATION WITH SEX
Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.
The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known [!!!]. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.
YAHWEH & HIS CHOSEN CANNIBALS:
CANNIBALISM AND HUMAN SACRIFICES
The most execrable and diabolic of the divine laws of Yahweh are the repeated enactments condemning his Chosen to cannibalism, the eating of human flesh, and ordaining and sanctioning living human sacrifices to appease the fierce wrath of the holy God. These infernal ukases consign the Heavenly Father of Jew and Christian to eternal loathing, as well as the inspired book which enshrines them.
Text after text of the inspired word of God relates to the custom of burning children as living human sacrifices to this Hebrao-Christian Moloch. True, some texts forbid the practice, but they are very late in Hebrew history, and testify by their iteration to the inveterate cult of human sacrifice. The instance of the God’s command to Abraham to murder his God-engendered Isaac to the whim of the Monster of Hebrew mythology is too well known to need narrating; it is no palliation of the barbarity that a billy-goat was substituted just as the deluded votary of Yahweh “stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son” (Gen. xxii, 10); the god who would command a father to do such a thing and the poor obsessed fool who would obey are alike beneath contempt.
Jephthah was himself the “goat” of his God, as well as “a son of a harlot” (Judges xi, 1), when “the Spirit of Yahweh came upon Jephthah” (xi, 29) to incite him to murder. “And Jephthah vowed a vow unto Yahweh … that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me … shall surely be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it {123} up for a burnt offering” (xxi, 30, 31). The revolting murder of his own daughter as a burnt sacrifice to the Moloch of Israel, because “I have opened my mouth to Yahweh, and I cannot go back,” is a blasting infamy to the God who instigated and accepted the murder, and who intervened with none of his usual meddlesome conjuring tricks to prevent it. It is recorded that the murdered maiden’s father, in making this human sacrifice, “did with her according to his vow which be had vowed: … and it was a custom [margin, ordinance] in Israel” (xi, 39), thus testifying to the historical fact that human sacrifice was a customary thing in Israel, was established by divine “ordinance,” and was practised for ages among these barbarian people.
Here is the ordinance, the divine law of Yahweh, which commanded these sacrificial murders:
“When a man maketh a singular vow … he shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good. … No devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto Yahweh of all that he hath, both of man and beast … shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto Yahweh. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death” (Lev. xxvii, 2, 10, 28, 29).
Commenting on this abhorrent law of God, the pious editors of the Biblical Encyclopedia, [New York, George H. Doran Co., 1907. 5 vols. (This is not the Encyclopedia Biblica.)] betraying the prostitution of mind of bibliolaters seeking to “justify the ways of God to man,” far from venting their loathing, thus slavishly display their maudlin exegetical wit: “(28) Devoted—anything which by the law belonged to the Lord could neither be sold … nor be redeemed by the vower. (29) surely … death, in extreme cases, where death was proper and right, there was no alternative” (Vol. I, p. 344).
Yahweh vengefully sent one of his frequent famines upon his Holy Land, “flowing with milk and honey,” and it grievously afflicted his Chosen for three years, until the “man after Yahweh’s own heart,” David, “enquired of Yahweh” what it was all about. “And Yahweh answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites” (2 Sam. xxi, 1), heathen enemies whom Yahweh had ordered to be exterminated. David cast about for a form of sacrifice potent enough to conjure away the wrath of his benign God, and to this Yahweh divinely guided him. He took two sons of Saul by Rizpah, and five sons of Michal, Saul’s daughter and David’s own wife, “who loved him”—and “they hanged them in the hill before Yahweh; and they fell all seven together, and were put to death. … And after that God was intreated for the land” (2 Sam. xxi, 8, 9, 14); glutted with the butchery of human sacrifice to him, he graciously ended the famine. But what heart will not be wrung by the mother’s woe of Rizpah, who “took sack-cloth and spread it … upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night” (xxi, 10); the heart-broken mother of the God’s victims despairingly lying over the rotting bodies of her loved {124} sons for several months under the open skies, fighting off the scavenger birds and beasts from the poor carcasses of the human sacrifices to the Christian’s loving Heavenly Father.
Rizpah disobeyed her God’s repeated commands to eat her dead sons. The holy God of Israel, in his sacred Mosaic law, time and again imposes cannibalism, and of the most revolting kind: “Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat” (Lev. xxvi, 29). “And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and thy daughters” (Deut. xxviii, 53-57)—the whole passage should be read for its refinements of gloating fiendishness. And again the holy God ordains these delicate repasts: “And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat everyone the flesh of his friend” (Jer. xix, 9). And again: “The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers” (Ezek. v, 10). There are other inspired passages of the same sort. The Bible commentators above cited reverently ratify the prediction with the comment, “Literally fulfilled” (Vol. I, p. 340), pleased to be able to make citations to support their God’s holy Word. Besides the testimony of the secular history of the Chosen People, concrete instances of cannibalism are related in God’s book for confirmation of our faith and of our love for Yahweh: “The hands of the pitiful women have sodden [boiled] their own children: they were their meat” (Lam. iv, 10). Again Yahweh sent a “great famine” upon his people. “And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my Lord, O King. And he said, If Yahweh do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? … What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give me thy son, that we may eat him to-day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son” (2 Kings vi, 26-29). And the king, by his messenger to Elisha, truly said: “Behold, this evil is of Yahweh”; and he pertinently added: “What should I wait for Yahweh any longer?” (vi, 33) Why? Con, you Jews and Christians, these divine precepts and examples of your holy Bible God, and remember the query of Job’s wife: “Dost thou still retain thine integrity?” Forgive her for her suggestion to poor Job: “Curse God, and die” (Job ii, 9). Then kneel with lifted face to this Ogre of Israel and pray: “Our Father who art in heaven: Hallowed be thy name.”
Cannibalism and its abhorrent, though vicarious, practice are still enjoined by this God on the morons of his Son Christ: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (John vi, 53 et seq.)!
MOLOCH & THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST
MISHNAH.
HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437
Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:
GEMARA.
R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439
Rabbi Dr. Freedman, one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin, clarifies the passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages use “seed” to denote living children, in the same sense as the Biblical translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes. In this footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:
3. Is ‘thou shalt not cause to pass’ applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?
Rabbi Dr. Freedman
Other footnotes within the same context clarify the fine point of distinction being drawn in the Mishnah and subsequent debates among the sages:
5. Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the offence consists of two parts; (I) formal delivery to the priests, and (2) causing the seed to pass through the fire.
Rabbi Dr. Freedman (2)
5. As two separate offences, proving that giving one’s seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences [sic] is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished.
Rabbi Dr. Freedman (3)
Following the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 64a and 64b contain a rousing debate between the Sages concerning:
* the circumstances under which worshipping an idol is idolatry,
* which idols may be worshipped without indulging in idolatry,
* which parts of child sacrifice in what combination are punishable, and
* how children may be sacrificed without violating Leviticus.
JEWS SHOULD READ 1 KINGS 11:1-11; AMOS 5:22-27!