Talmud’s view of non-Judaic women

Documenting and exposing hate speech:

The Babylonian Talmud’s hateful attitude toward non-Judaic women

By Michael Hoffman 

Copyright©2018 by RevisionistHistory.org

The general tenor of the Babylonian Talmud and cognate halachic successor texts (Mishneh Torah, Shulchan Aruch etc.) is that all non-Jewish women are represented by the acronym NSHGZ, which signifies Niddah, Shifchah, Goyyah, Zona (menstrual filth, slaves, heathens and whores - cf. BT Sanhedrin 81b-82a). 

In Yiddish slang, a non-Judaic woman is a shiksa ( שיקסע) which personifies the corrosive “NSHGZ” stereotype.

Caution needs to be exercised here, however, because the Babylonian Talmud has a low view of women generally, whether Judaic or gentile. 

Admittedly, Orthodox Judaism's view of non-Judaic females is much lower by comparison with Judaic women,  and unreservedly toxic. In Israeli, Judaic-American and Yiddish culture, the popular view of the non-Judaic female is that of a highly promiscuous woman, contrasted with the supposedly more sexually modest Judaic woman. 

This view was in the news in 2018, when a researcher with the Washington Post sifted through Hollywood director Woody Allen’s writings and discovered this nugget by Mr. Allen: 

 “Unlike the Jewish girl the shiksa is not guilt-ridden—not a complainer—she is abandoned, fun-loving, and above all promiscuous. The shiksa will perform any sex act.” (Cf. Washington Post online, http://wapo.st/2DipDJ5 [January 4, 2018]).

In studying the halacha of permissible rape of gentiles, we find an expression from Bar-Ilan University Prof. Mordecai Kedar who is on record stating: “The only thing that can deter terrorists...is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped.” (Kedar is also a research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan).

Though it will be claimed by the usual public relations hacks that Prof. Kedar's monstrous rape/deterrent observation is “condemned by the Jewish tradition” (citing, for example, BT Kiddushin 22), there are rabbinic escape clauses which justify rape of non-Judaic women. 

First, the rape target must be classified as a zonah (prostitute) or a nokri (hostile alien). The supreme Ashkenazic halachic authority, Rabbi Moses Maimonides, rules that a Judaic soldier may rape this type of female POW ("Yefas To’ar") when he is not actively fighting a battle (cf. Hilchos Melachim 8:3). For more on this line of thought consult Judaism Discovered, p. 904. 

Courtesy of Maurice Pinay, we have learned of a text from the Meorot theology journal of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinic School, on permissible rape: "It is the consensus of many halachic decisors (judges of rabbinic law) that the yefat to’ar can be subject to involuntary intercourse...”  Cf. Dov. S. Zakheim, Meorot, vol. 6, no. 1 (2006), p. 5. (Mr. Zakheim was Under Secretary of Defense in the administration of George W. Bush, 2001-2004).  

Eyal Karim (also spelled "Qarim”), the Israeli military’s chief rabbi, agrees: "Just so, war removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations (gilui arayot), and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge (yetzer ha’ra), under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.” Cf. https://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-implies-rape-is-permitted-in-war/39535/

In educating the public concerning the misogyny in the Talmud, we risk yet another campaign by the ADL to have our writing suppressed, based on some fractured distortion of what we are saying. What we are expressing is the preceding documentation. If we are wrong, show us where we are wrong, and we will correct it. But there is a principle that must be defended: without the right to state painful and tragic facts about that which others regard as sacred and untouchable, human learning cannot advance. We will continue to pursue and present knowledge, even at the very real risk of having our presence on the Internet erased by the anti-free speech lobby, which few liberals in charge of social media have thus far found the courage to resist.

“Religions always talk about the one true religion. Now on the Left we have the one true opinion. If you go against that, you do so at your peril…We live in an age where people want to cancel other people and disappear them. Who’s going to be left?” — Bill Maher

_______________________________

Subscribe to Michael Hoffman's Revisionist History® newsletter and start your subscription with the current issue.

_______________________________