1.  The TRUE Hebrew Israelites of the Seed of Abraham
2.  The Promised Land was ALREADY given to True Israel
3.  Those Who Say They are Jews - BUT ARE NOT
4.  State of Israel IS NOT the Same as the People of Israel
5.  Counterfeit Israel Will Usher in False (Anti) Christ.

1.  The True Hebrew Israelites of Abraham 

This chapter exposes the greatest cover-up in the history of mankind and likewise, the greatest identity theft in world history by drawing upon proven DNA, Genome, Scriptural and Historical FACTS - which were discovered and published by prominent Ashkenazi Jew historians and geneticist doctors - ultimately uncovering the difference between an "Israelite" and an "Israeli". 

"In modern English the term “Israelite” is usually confined to the people of ancient Israel, either of the kingdom of that name or—more broadly—any Jew of the Biblical era. Only modern citizens of the state of Israel are called “Israelis.” Although the term most often refers to Jewish citizens of that state, it can also refer to Arab, Muslim, or Christian citizens of Israel."

This chapter simply points out facts - who are of the true blood lineage of the tribes of Israel and who are not. The fact is that the true Hebrew Israelites were driven out of THEIR LAND. It does NOT belong to Khazar Ashkenazi Jews. This is not a anti-Semitic discourse whatsoever for the following reasons: the author himself is of Sephardic Semitic origin, secondly, this chapter identifies the true Semites and prays they will soon return to their rightful land upon the return of the Nazarene Messiah, third, the Nazarene Code endorses the keeping of the Torah to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and fourth, Khazar Ashkenazi Jews are in fact Gentiles - not Semites. So by every measure, this publication is NOT anti-Semitic at all - quite the contrary - it is completely PRO-Semitic in championing the rights of the true Hebrew Israelites.

You will discover in the lower half of the chapter "Jews Who Are Not Israelites" that it demonstrates studies conducted by Ashkenazi (Khazar) Jews themselves that conclusively prove Khazars have no bloodline connection to Abraham.  Some Khazar Jews follow Torah but most worship the Babylonian Talmud. The true Semites are the Black Hebrews, Indians, Hispanics and many Arabs that carry the Abrahamic blood lineage in their veins but many, if not most, have turned to the worship of other doctrines thus forgetting their identity and their heritage. 

Discovery of some ancient maps and growing awareness of something I heard awhile back got me to investigating this subject. Concerning Ethiopia, it is frequently mentioned in the Bible - in fact, Mosheh married an Ethiopian woman - and there is a group that still follows Hebrew traditions there. It is claimed that the Ark of the Covenant is housed there as well so  it appears that there is much hidden history that's been wiped off the history books.  In fact, much of American Indian wording is very similar to Paleo Hebrew - the original spoken language between Elohim and the children of Israel.

The following are Must-See videos - your world view will be shaken to the core... the material that follows below becomes every more conclusive with descriptive scriptures proving that the Hebrew children of Israel, key figures in the Bible such as Yosef ("Joseph"), Moshe ("Moses"), Sha'ul ("Paul") the Ancient of Days, and ultimately, the Messiah Himself were and are,Black - Burnished Bronze skin colored.

This expose is based solely on factually historical and scriptural material - it is NOT an attack nor meant to offend any creed, group, organization, race, religion or tribe.

Whited Out -  the True Israelites were Black                              The Curses upon the true Israelites

Genetics, Mathematics and History Proves Ancient               Hidden Biblical Images of the Real Israelites
Israelites are Black (Pt 1 of 3)

Real Israelites by Bloodline : Deut.23:2-8 : Laws of DNA pt.1 (3 pt series)



Profound Implications

This profoundly changes everything... The black man has been robbed of his place both Biblically and historically.  We can now better appreciate and understand not only who the True Children of Israel are but it could not have been any other race of group that suffered the banishment from the land and their enslavement.  Likewise we can better comprehend the overtaking of Gentile Talmudic practicing Ashkenazi Khazar "Jews" of the synagogue of satan from the True children of Israel land of Jerusalem that can ONLY applies to the Black man - not Gentile Ashkenazi Khazar Jews.

...and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Luke 21:24

We can also better understand the motive to create laboratory diseases such as AIDS, perhaps Ebola to wipe out many of the true children of Israel, where many of the lost children of Israel actually fled to, and the counterfeit state of "Israel" in another light and what this all means as to its implications in prophecy and Revelation.

The Truth Behind The Nation State Of Israel

This awareness should inspire everyone to see fellow members of the human race so discriminated and maligned for centuries in another light and develop an appreciation and respect particularly knowing who they are: the true children of Israel whom Elohim has a very special and unique bond with.

                                         "But many who are first will be last; and the last, first".  Matthew 19:30

The scriptures below are from the King James Version - the oldest translation to English - you will find that many newer translations have gone out of their way to change the original version to a different meaning to hide the true Hebrew Israelite appearance.

Nazarites were Black

"Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more swarthy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage (appearance) is blacker than coal;"  Lamentations 4:8

Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.  Lamentations 5:10

"I am black but lovely, O daughters of Jerusalem, Like the tents of Kedar, Like the curtains of Solomon.  
                                                                                                                                              Song of Solomon 1:5

Job's Skin is Black

My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.  Job 30:30 (KJV)

Judah is Black

Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.                                                                                                                                                                  Jeremiah 14:2 (KJV)

The Pharisee Sha'ul (Paul) was Black:

As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commander, "May I say something to you?" And he said, "Do you know Greek? 38"Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?"  Acts 21:37

Editor's Note: He was mistaken for an Egyptian for looking like an Egyptian - Black.

For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.  Romans 11:1

Editor's Note:  Apparently Benjaminites like Egyptians, were Black.

New Living Translation
Among the prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch of Syria were Barnabas, Simeon called Niger ("the black man")*, Lucius (from Cyrene), Manaen (the childhood companion of King Herod Antipas), and Saul.  Acts 13:1
*Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (#3526)

Of Latin origin; black; Niger, a Christian -- Niger.

Will the Real Hebrews Please Stand Up              Will the Real Jews Please Stand Up (Pt 1 of 4)

Interesting and thought-provoking quote from Herodotus "Histories", Book 2 Chapter 104:  

450 BCE :
                                                              “There could be no doubt that the Cholchians
                                                               are an Egyptian race… My own conjectures were
                                                               founded first in the fact that they are
                                                               BLACK SKINNED  and have WOOLY HAIR.”

1.  The Promised Land was ALREADY GIVEN to True Israel

Has The Land Promise Been Fulfilled?

Earl E. Robertson
Tompkinsville, Kentucky

To answer this question seems superogatory. If the word of God can be believed, while having to totally reject the doctrines of men, this question can easily and quickly be answered. To answer the question poses no difficulty to any Bible student; getting one to accept what God says about the matter does present problems. Nearly every religious denomination is saturated with the premillennial web, which position has as a cardinal doctrine the contention that the land promise has not been kept.

The Promise

Here is the original promise that God made, "Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him . . . and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came . . . And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land . . ." (Gen. 12:1-7). While Abram "dwelled in the land of Canaan" the Lord said unto him, "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Gen. 13:12, 14-15). "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" (Gen. 15:18). "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" (Gen. 17:7-8).

Furthermore, Jehovah said, "And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers . . . And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord" (Ex. 6:4, 8). Moses, a man of faith in God, and "educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds" (Acts 7:22), some three centuries after the promise was made to Abraham he evidenced his confidence that soon the land promise would be fulfilled, saying, "And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, ,Moses' father in law, We are journeying unto the place of which the Lord said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel" (Num. 10:29).

God Kept His Word The Land Received, (Joshua 21;43-45)

Joshua, the aged leader of God's people, preparing to die, intensely told the Israelites, "The Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein . . . There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass" (Josh. 21:4.3, 45).

When God called Abram from the Ur of the Chaldees, Abram "departed as the Lord had spoken unto him." This started the long and eventful trek which ultimately led to the seed "after him" receiving and dwelling in the land of Canaan. The apostle said, "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went" (Heb. 11:8). Abram knew neither the "where" nor "when;" God knew, however. Stephen said, "The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia... Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell" (Acts 7:2-4). Abraham personally had no inheritance in the land, "no, not so much as to set his foot on" (Acts 7:5). Stephen's speech carries Israel through the Egyptian bondage, embracing more than four hundred years, and then says, "And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place" (Acts 7:7). "In this place" is the "land wherein ye now dwell" (vs. 4), being the very land that God had said "I will give." So, the inheritance would be received after the bondage. But, further, Stephen says, "But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt" (Acts 7:17). The time drew nigh!

Abraham could not personally inherit the land, but his seed "after him" would, following the serfdom, inherit the land and dwell in it. This is exactly what Joshua said about it. He said, "The Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein" (Josh. 21). All the land promised the fathers was given and possessed by Israel - the seed after the fathers. This is what the word of God says about it! Stephen said God made this promise to Abraham "when as yet he had no child" (Acts 7:5). Emphasized in the promise is the seed of Abraham, not Abraham himself. Of this promised land of Canaan, Nehemiah testifies: "Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous" (Neh. 9:7, 8).

Possession Of Land Conditional

The possession of this land was conditioned on the Jews keeping the word of God. When Israel went into the land of Canaan and possessed it there were remaining in the land heathen peoples with their false gods and idolatrous worship. Joshua spoke unto Israel of "these that remain among you" (Josh. 23:7/, and warned the people of God "That ye come not among these nations;" "neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them nor bow yourselves unto them." Further, he said, "Know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given you" (Josh. 23:13/. The watchword was, then, "keep the words of God" or perish. Cf. Deut. 8:19, 20; Deut. 30:18. Often the sins of Israel caused them to lose the land; to be driven out and become slaves to the nations used by the Lord. As captives they lamented unto the Lord, and He, with pity, would bring them back into their land. A case in point to illustrate is David "recovering" the land. The record says, "David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates" (2 Sam. 8:3). Also, "He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the Lord God of Israel" (2 Kgs. 14:25).

The "recovering" of the land was not a fulfillment of the promise; Israel had already inherited and possessed the land. Conditions causing the "recovering" was sin disobedience to God. All the later Israeli encounters have absolutely nothing to do with the promise God made to Abraham about the land. The Israeli war with the Arab Nations of June 5-10, 1967 has no connection whatsoever with the Abrahamic promise for Israel to inherit and possess the land. Our point of contention is: God kept his promise to Abraham. The rebellion and sins of the Jews afterward is the cause of their losing the land. The Assyrian captivity in the days of Tiglath-Pileser and Shalmaneser; with the great Sennacherib leading the capture of Samaria by Sargon; the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar, have nothing to do with God giving Abraham's seed the land as He promised in Genesis 12. These captivities were the results of Israel sinning against God; their return to the land came about because of repentance of sin and their faith in God. When they returned to their land they did so by observing the law of tribal estates (Lev. 25:13-28). When these Jews returned from Babylon under the leadership of Zerrubabel, Ezra told them to obey God, thus, tribally, they dwelt in their cities (Ez. 2:70). Their awareness and ability to do this depended on their knowledge of genealogy. Contrary to the concepts now held by modern millennialists, these records of the Jews are unknown. The Holy Spirit moved Paul to write: "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain" (Tit. 3:9). Where would the premillennial put these Jews now scattered to every part of the world? Paul said, don't try! The efforts are "unprofitable and vain".

Present Pratings

David R. Reagan wrote in Word And Work, March 1980, p. 81, of the Jews returning to their land after the Babylonian captivity: "Unfortunately, Bro. Woods (Guy N., EER) did not bother to explain how these chapters were fulfilled by,the return from Babylon. They may have been prefilled in type by the return from Babylon, but they certainly were not fulfilled in any literal, sense." No one, including Reagan, understands such to be anything but nonsense. Prefilled in type! Reagan's theory of premillennialism demands "the regathering of the Jews to their homeland" to "be worldwide in extent;" "a future kingdom of regathered Jews in the land of Palestine;" that Jesus will be the earthly king over this kingdom of regathered Jews in Jerusalem, and that all of this will come to pass unconditionally! Reagan declares their re-entrance into Canaan by "recovery" was not literal. Yes, they literally entered the land and that was literally fulfilling the promise.

Charles C. Ryrie, in his book, The Basis Of The Premillennial Faith, says the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants have not been fulfilled. He says, "The unconditional character of the Abrahamic covenant is the crucial issue in making the Abrahamic covenant a basis for premillennialism. If the covenant is unconditional, then the national aspect of it must yet be fulfilled, and premillennialism is the only system of interpretation which makes a place for a national future for Israel in which she possesses her land" (p. 52). Again, on page 60, he says, "Since the coveant has never been fulfilled. in history, if language means anything at all, it must have a future fulfillment." And among the things God promised Abraham which have not been fulfilled, he says, "specifically, the national promises." He says there have been three dispersions of the Jews, "The third and last dispersion began in 70 A.D. and continues to the present day. Israel has not yet returned from this dispersion although the prophecies of her final regathering are manifold, which prophecies must be fulfilled if the ' Bible is the word of God . . . Israel's regathering is surely future" (p. 74).

Premillennial teachers tie the Abrahamic promise (Gen. 12) to the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:12-17), making the land promise literally received (but yet future) through the restoration of the Jews from all over the world and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ with a physical rule over these returned Jews; these re-gathered Jews being the kingdom of Christ, the subjects of his rule.

As we have shown, the Jews have already inherited and possessed the land. That promise has literally been fulfilled. The words of God through Nathan the prophet to David are: "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever" (2 Sam. 7:12, 13). The apostle Peter quotes this Scripture and makes an inspired application of it to the resurrection of Christ; to the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of the Father, and the Lord's foes becoming His footstool. Upon these facts the Son of God was preached "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). In the "name" of this Lord salvation was offered through faith, repentance, and baptism to these Jews "out of every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5, 36-38). Three thousand of these Jews did obey the Lord that day and were added to the church (Acts 2:41-47). The kingdom of the Messiah was established at Pentecost in Jerusalem; it was at this time the "throne of his kingdom" came into being; it was here the sovereign reign of the ruling Redeemer had its beginning over newly blood-washed saints who comprised His kingdom. He truly is the head of the church, which is His body (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18, 24). Peter says that Jesus Christ "is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (1 Pet. 3:22).


Though R.H. Boll taught the early church did for three centuries believe and teach "the millennial reign on the earth of Christ," which "would be inaugurated at Christ's return;" that the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 2:44ff) could not be fulfilled by the first coming of Christ, but rather, "to be realized at His Second Coming," we must go on believing the testimony of God as shown above. See, Kingdom Of God, pp. 11, 25.

Boll's side-kick, Charles M. Neal, said in his book, Looking Into The Dark, "Israel's restoration to the land is just as plainly and abundantly taught as the dispersion from the land. One is a fact of history, the other a fact of prophecy" (p. 56). Yes, but his explanation of the "fact of prophecy" stresses the "shalls" of Luke 1:31-33, and places the "reign of Jesus" in his Seventh period of history which is "the thousand years, Rev. 20" (p. 103). So, with Neal (like Boll) the restoration and reign are yet future. God says otherwise!

God made a promise to Abraham that "his seed" would possess the land of Canaan (Gen. 12); God kept His word, Israel possessed the land (Josh. 21). God promised David that He would raise up his seed (Gal. 3:16) and establish His throne and kingdom (2 Sam. 7); God kept His word by raising up the Christ, establishing His kingdom, and giving the Son the throne (Acts 2:30 ff; 13:33; Col. 1:13).

The land promise has been fulfilled! Do not let the materialist deceive and confuse you by telling you all of this is yet future. Do not allow them to equate "inheritance" with "possession". This they will attempt to do to show, as Ryrie put it, "The unconditional character of the Abrahamic covenant is the crucial issue in making the Abrahamic covenant a basis for premillennialism."

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 1, pp. 11-13
January 7, 1982


click to view

Three promises:

1. Great nation promise

2. Land promise

3. Seed promise

All Fulfilled!

Abrahamic Land Promise to Israel fulfilled 3000 years ago!

Israel becoming a nation in 1948 does not fulfill Bible prophecy.


1.  We support the state of modern Israel as a stable productive democracy and a protectorate of biblical archeology from the Muslims who would hinder and destroy any evidence the Bible is accurate and that Jews are the historic occupiers of the land since 1400 BC. However Israel becoming a nation in 1948 AD was a non-event as far as Bible prophecy is concerned. The only hope of Israel is to accept Jesus Blood for their sins and be saved though faith, repentance, confession of Christ and water baptism.

2.   Pre-tribulation Rapture and dispensationalists teach the false doctrine that God failed to fulfill the three promises he made to Abraham in fleshly Israel and the church (spiritual Israel).

3.  All Premillennialists reject the plain Bible teaching that Israel possessed all the land God promises to Israel through Abraham.

4.  Any church or preacher that claims that 1948 AD fulfilled Bible prophecy when modern Israel gained statehood, is a false teacher and ignorant of the bible. These false teachers are called "premillennialists, dispensationalists" and believe in the Rapture.

A. Plain Bible passages say that Israel got all the land promised Abraham:

1.  "So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass. " (Joshua 21:43-45)

2.  "Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. "It shall come about that just as all the good words which the LORD your God spoke to you have come upon you, so the LORD will bring upon you all the threats, until He has destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you. " (Joshua 23:14-15)

3.  Josh 24:28 Then Joshua dismissed the people, each to his inheritance.

4.  2 Sam 8:3 David defeated he went to restore his rule at the River [Euphrates].

5.  1 Kings 4:21 Now Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the [Euphrates] River to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt; they brought tribute and served Solomon

6.  2 Chr 9:26 And he was the ruler over all the kings from the Euphrates River even to the land of the Philistines, and as far as the border of Egypt.

7.  Neh 9:8 And Thou didst find Abraham's heart faithful before Thee, and didst make a covenant with him to give him the land of the Canaanite, of the Hittite and the Amorite, of the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite-- to give it to his descendants. And Thou hast fulfilled Thy promise, for Thou art righteous.

8.  Jer 11:5 "in order to confirm the oath which I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day." Then I answered and said, "Amen, O LORD."

9.  So it is simply apostate theology to say that God did not give Israel all the land promised to Abraham.

B. The 6 cities of Refuge prove the land promise was fulfilled:

1.  For example, God said that if Israel got all the land promised, then they would have six cities of refuge.

2.  "Therefore, I command you, saying, 'You shall set aside three cities for yourself.' "If the LORD your God enlarges your territory, just as He has sworn to your fathers, and gives you all the land which He promised to give your fathers— if you carefully observe all this commandment which I command you today, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in His ways always—then you shall add three more cities for yourself, besides these three. " (Deuteronomy 19:7-9)

3.  Joshua 20:7-9 lists six cities of refuge - Kadesh, Shechem, Hebron, Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan.

4.  Therefore God gave them all the land and premillennialism is utterly refuted!

C. Premillennialists are deluded false teachers:

1.  Premillennialists falsely teach that Israel never got the land they were promised and that God had to bring Israel again into the land in 1948 AD, in order to fulfill his promise. This is entirely false!

2.  Here are some typical statements by famous premillennialists:

a.  "God unconditionally promised Abraham's descendants a literal world-wide kingdom over which they would rule through their Messiah who would reign upon King David's throne...Even the animals and reptiles will lose their ferocity and no longer be carnivorous," (The Late Great Planet Earth,  Hal Lindsay, p 165)

b.  "The nature of the blessings are earthly, territorial, and national, and have nothing to do with a spiritual church to which none of these blessings has been promised ...Christ is not now on the throne of David bringing blessings to Israel as the prophets predicted, but He is rather on His Father's throne waiting for the coming earthly kingdom and interceding for His own who form the church," (The Millennial Kingdom: A Basic Text in Premillennial Theology, John F. Walvoord, p 205, 1983 AD)

c.   3. "The foundation of the state of Israel in recent years has been a part of the predicted regathering of scattered Israel back to their ancient land...The present partial possession of the land is a token. The complete possession awaits the coming of Israel's Redeemer" (The Millennial Kingdom: A Basic Text in Premillennial Theology, John F. Walvoord, p 185, 1983 AD)


1.  Premillennialism is a theology of infidelity because it refuses to accept the plain teaching of the Bible that Israel possessed all the land God promised them through Abraham over 3400 years ago under Joshua and Solomon.

2.  All three promises God made to Abraham were fulfilled over 2000 years ago.

3.  Israel became a great nation in Egypt, possessed the land under Joshua and Solomon and through Jesus all the nations of the earth were blessed.

4.  The idea that God must re-establish National Israel, rebuilt the Temple, restart animal sacrifices all to fulfill the land promise is a huge and obvious false doctrine. Few care enough to study it for themselves and escape the bondage of the false doctrine.


Jews Who Are Not Israelites

You will discover that comments from several prominent Ashkenazi Jews whom recognize they are not of the Abrahamic blood-lineage Israelites, but also criticize Zionism and the occupation of Palestine. 

When the Nazarene Messiah returns, He will return the true Hebrew Israelites to their rightful land and drive out the occupier Gentiles and destroy their cities in the land of Israel according to scripture:

I wish to make something very clear to readers - I am of Sephardic Semitic (Hebrew) origin on both sides of my parents, a keeper and strong proponent of Torah to non-believers and member of ADL and Chabad - the following is not at all a simply a presentation of DNA and historical evidence and findings compiled not solely from noted journalist Arthur Koestler and Emeritus Professor Shlomo Sand of History at Tel Aviv University who are themselves Ashkenazi Jews and from highly respected Johns Hopkins University post-doctoral genetics researcher Dr. Eran Elhaik and Harry Ostrer, M.D., professor of pathology and genetics at Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine and author of the 2012 book “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People" who are themselves Ashkenazi Jews 

Benjamin H. Freedman, Ashkenazi Jewish Historian – Researcher – Scholar.
From “Common Sense”, p. 2-1-53 and 5-1-59

“Christians have been duped by the unholiest hoax in all history, by so-called Jews. This is considered their most effective weapon.”

“This ‘big lie’ technique is brainwashing United States Christians into believing that Jesus Christ was “King of the Jews”, in the sense that so-called ‘Jews’ today call themselves ‘Jews’. This reference was first made in English translations of the Old and New Testaments, centuries before the so-called Jews high-jacked the word ‘Jew’ in the 18th century A.D. to palm themselves off on the Christian world as having a kinship with Jesus Christ. This alleged kinship comes from the myth of their common ancestry with the so-called ‘Jews’ of the Holy Land in the Old Testament history, a fiction based on fable.”

“American Christians little suspect they are being brainwashed twenty-four hours of every day over television and radio, by newspapers and magazines, by motion pictures and plays, by books, by political leaders in office and seeking office, by religious leaders in their pulpits and outside their churches, by leaders in the field of education inside and outside their curricular activities, and by all leaders in business, professions and finance, whose economic security demands that they curry the favor of so-called “Jews” of historic Khazar ancestry. Unsuspecting Christians are subjected to this barrage from sources they have little reason to suspect. Incontestable facts supply the unchallengeable proof of the historic accuracy that so-called “Jews” throughout the world today of eastern European origin are unquestionably the historic descendants of the Khazars, a pagan Turko-Finn ancient Mongoloid nation deep in the heart of Asia, according to history, who battled their way in bloody wars about the 1st century B.C. into eastern Europe where they set up their Khazar kingdom. For some mysterious reason the history of the Khazar kingdom is conspicuous by its absence from history courses in the schools and colleges.

“The historic existence of the Khazar kingdom of so-called “Jews”, their rise and fall, the permanent disappearance of the Khazar kingdom as a nation from the map of Europe, and how King Bulan and the Khazar nation in about 740 A.D. became so-called “Jews” by conversion, were concealed from American Christians by censorship imposed by so-called “Jews”, of historic Khazar ancestry, upon all U.S.A. media of mass communications directed by them.

Then in 1945 this author gave nation-wide publicity to his many years intensive research into the “facts of life” concerning Khazars. The disclosures were sensational and very effective but apparently angered so-called “Jews” who have continued to vent their spleen upon this author since then solely for that reason. Since 1946 they have conducted a vicious smear campaign against him, seeking thus to further conceal these facts, for obvious reasons. What have they to fear from the truth?

“In an original 1903 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia in New York’s Public Library, and in the Library of Congress, Volume IV, pages 1 to 5 inclusive, appears a most comprehensive history of the Khazars. Also in the New York Public Library are 327 books by the world’s greatest historians and other sources of reference, in addition to the Jewish Encyclopedia, dealing with Khazar history, and written between the 3rd A.D. and 20th centuries by contemporaries of the Khazars and by modern historians on that subject.”
Jesus was a ‘Judean’, not a Jew.

During His lifetime, no persons were described as “Jews” anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the “homeland” of the ancestors of those who today style themselves “Jews”. Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea.
They existed at that time in Asia, their “homeland”, and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a “Jew”. The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term “Texan” signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called “Jews”, they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as “Jew”. The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled “Jews” today refer to as “Jews”, were known as “Pharisees”.
“Judaism” today and “Pharisaism” in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced “Pharisaism” – hence the words, “Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers”.

Inscribed upon the Cross when Jesus was crucified were the Latin words ‘Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum’. Pontius Pilate was the author of that infamous inscription. Latin was Pontius Pilate’s mother-tongue.

No one will question the fact that Pontius Pilate was well able to accurately express his own ideas in his own mother tongue. The authorities competent to pass upon the correct translation into English of the Latin ‘Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum’ agree that it is “Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans”.

Theologians and churchmen, willingly ignorant of true history, blaspheme and accuse Jesus Christ of being a Jew, but Christ Jesus (Yeshua), the Only-Begotten Son of God, never subscribed to the teachings of the Talmud. He was therefore never a Jew either by religion, nor was He a Jew politically, bent on conquering the world through the philosophy of Babylonian Talmudism – that is, subscribing to world Zionist megalomania.

It is therefore very important to understand that the Bible never says that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew.
It specifically says that Jesus was a JUDE-AN.
The Bible never says that Jesus was King of the Jews. The Bible says that Jesus was King of the JUDEANS, a Biblical term referring to the ISRAELITE ADA-MICS who lived in Judea and who were the pure racial descendants of Abraham, where some of whom had fallen for the lies of the Talmudic Pharisees.

Full Definition of Semite

  1. 1a :  a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabsb :  a descendant of these peoples

  2. 2:  a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and 
I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are
 the synagogue of Satan. Revelation 2:9

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.  Revelation 3:9

2"Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months. 3"And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth."  Revelation 11:2-3

And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the Gentiles fell; and Babylon the great came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.  Revelation 16:19

Most people confuse the State of Israel with the true Abrahamic blood-lineage children of Israel who keep the Law commandments (Torah) of Elohim. The implications of this is extremely profound in understanding Bible prophecy for the end times and the need for blood-lineage and spiritual Israelite Nazarenes of the Way to persevere in keeping the Torah and the Testimony of the Messiah.

Quotes from famous Ashkenazi Khazar Jews

‘But the Zionists are far more cunning in their evil and they have made nationalism a substitute for Torah and commandments.." Mendelstam in his open letter stated that,"a Jew was not one who fulfilled the commandments but one who is a Zionist... [T]he leader of the Zionists has set up the Nationalism, rebellion against the Lord and denial of Torah and commandments, on the very site of the Temple of the Lord.’" -  211:77

                                                                                      Lubavitcher Rebbe Rabbi Shulem ben Schneersohn  1903

Nazi Propaganda was Based on What Zionists Said - Zionism and Anti-Semitism:

“We implore and beseech our Jewish brethren to realize that the Zionists are not the saviors of the Jewish People and guarantors of their safety, but rather the instigators and original cause of Jewish suffering in the Holy Land and worldwide. The idea that Zionism and the State of “Israel” is the protector of Jews is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Jewish People. Indeed, where else since 1945 have Jews been in such physical danger as in the Zionist state?!”

As far as Zionism is concerned, the founder of Zionism and apostate, Theodor Herzl, sought to intensify hatred of the Jew in order to enhance the cause of political Zionism. Here are some of his “pearls”:
“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. . . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)

              “Zionism is a form of racism and racist discrimination” and it called upon all countries to “oppose this racist 
               and imperialist ideology.” 
                                                                                                                                                                        November 10, 1975 
                                                                                                                                                                        The United Nations

From True Torah Jews (Against Zionism)
Nazi Propaganda was Based on What Zionists Said

SHOCKING Confessions of "Jewish" Leaders          Jews Against Zionism and Rothschilds 


There is a need to know that the 12 tribes of Israel were NOT all "Jews"... in fact, only 1 of the 12 tribes of Israel was "Judah" transliterated as "Yehudim". The people of the region where the Messiah ministered were called Judeans transliterated as Ioudaios in Greek - they were not "Jews". 

One must overcome years of lies and deception to get to the truth - this truth changes history, the present and our perception of the future.


Jew Helen Thomas Says Jews Stole Israel             Israel's Brutal History Against Blacks


Counterfeit Israel Links

Why these people cannot possibly be the true, Torah-practicing Abrahamic Children of Israel

Research Proves Jews are Not Israelites
click here

"Jews" are not Descendants of Abraham

click here

New DNA Research Confirms That Modern Khazarian “Jews” Are Not the Descendants of Ancient Isrealites or The Seed of Abraham!
click here

Counterfeit Israel, Antichrist & World Rule
click here

Perverted Christianity
click here

The Synagogue of Satan Revealed at Last!!  
(Editor's Note: Publisher errs name of I AM - it is NOT Jehovah - see "God's True Name")

click here

Today's Counterfeit Israel
click here

DNA Reveals Ashkenazi's are Not of Abraham
                   Shlomo Sand - Invention of the Jewish People

Michael Hoffman - The Dubious Jewish Identity                     Eran Elhaik DNA Reveals Jews Not of Abraham

The Degenerate Agenda of the State of Israel

United Nations Slams Israel Over Child Prostitution Epidemic

Tel Aviv trumps New York to be named world's best gay city

Jewish Daily Forward Admits Jews Are Behind Homosexual and Transgender Movement

Khazar Jews Satanic Babylonian Talmud 

THE JEWISH TALMUD is “Holy Writ” for the Jews. The Talmud supercedes the Old Testament in authority for the Jews. And the Talmud is the most racist, hate-mongering , blasphemous book the world has ever known.

The Talmud was written in Hebrew between the 3rd & 6th Centuries as a codification of the so-called Oral Law that the Jewish rabbis claim was handed down from Moses. But the Messiah Jesus censored the “Oral Law” when He said, “By the traditions of your elders you make void the Word of God.” (St Matthew 15).

The English translation of the Talmud has been watered down so as to conceal from the Gentiles the “satanic verses” contained in the original Hebrew.

A portion of Talmud's verses can be classified into 3 categories:

1) Jewish Supremacy.2) Hatred Towards The “Goys” (Gentiles).3) Blasphemies Against Jesus Christ, The Virgin Mary, & All Christians.


* “If a ‘goy’ (Gentile) hits a Jew he must be killed.” (Sanhedrin 58b)
* “If a Jew finds an object lost by a ‘goy’ it does not have to be returned.” (Baba Mezia 24a)
* “If a Jew murders a ‘goy’ there will be no death penalty.” (Sanhedrin 57a)
* What a Jew steals from a ‘goy’ he may keep.” (Sanhedrin 57a)
* “Jews may use subterfuges to circumvent a ‘goy.’” (Baba Kamma 113a)
* “All children of the ‘goyim’ (Gentiles) are animals.” (Yebamoth 98a)
* “Girls born of the ‘goyim’ are in a state of ‘niddah’ (menstrual uncleanness!) from birth.” (Abodah Zarah 36b)


* “The ‘goyim’ are not humans. They are beasts.” (Baba Mezia 114b)
* “If you eat with a ‘goy’ it is the same as eating with a dog.” (Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)
* “Even the best of the ‘goyim’ should all be killed.” (Soferim 15)
* “Sexual intercourse between the ‘goyim’ is like intercourse between animals.” (Sanhedrin 74b)
* “When it comes to a Gentile in peace times, one may harm him indirectly, for instance, by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice.” (Shulkan Arukh, Yoreh De ‘ah, 158, Hebrew Edition only)


* “‘Yashu’ (derogatory for ‘Jesus’) is in Hell being boiled in hot excrement.” (Gittin 57a)
   [’Yashu’ is an acronym for the Jewish curse, ‘May his (Jesus) name be wiped out forevermore.’]
* Yashu (Jesus) was sexually immoral and worshipped a brick.” (Sanhedrin 107b)
* “Yashu (Jesus) was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness and refused to repent.” (Sotah 47a)
* “Miriam the hairdresser had sex with many men.” (Shabbath 104b, Hebrew Edition only)
* “She who was the descendant of princes and governors (the virgin Mary) played the harlot with carpenters.” 
   (Sanhedrin 106a)

* “Christians who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.” (Rosh Hashanah 17a)



Talmud Permits Child-Adult Sex

Talmud law permits sexual intercourse between children and adults. This doctrine is contained in a number of Mishnahs. Before we examine them, however, it is necessary that the reader be familiar with the word kethubah.

According to the Soncino Talmud Glossary:

KETHUBAH (Lit., 'a written [document]'); (a) a wife's marriage settlement which she is entitled to recover on her being divorced or on the death of her husband. The minimum settlement for a virgin is two hundred zuz, and for a widow remarrying one hundred zuz; (b) the marriage contract specifying the mutual obligations between husband and wife and containing the amount of the endowment and any other special financial obligations assumed by the husband.

— Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Talmud Glossary

Zuz is a unit of currency. We see, then, that a dollar (or zuz) value is put on virginity.

Now let's look at a Mishnah from Kethuboth 11a:


— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 57

The translator, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, amplifies the text with footnotes:

  1. A man who was of age.
  2. Lit., 'who came on'.
  3. Less than three years old.
  4. Less than nine years of age.
  5. Lit., 'One who was injured by wood', as a result of which she injured the hymen.

— Rabbi Dr. Daiches

Let's review the above-cited Mishnah: "When a grown-up man has had sexual intercourse with a little girl, or when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman …" It is obvious that sex activity between a grown man and a little girl, and between a grown woman and a little boy, is a part of the woof and the warp of everyday Talmud life; such relationships, in the eyes of the Sages, are unremarkable. There is no prohibition on sexual activity between adults and young children — it is simply regulated. Recall the words of the Very Reverend the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire the late Dr. Joseph Herman Hertz:

Religion in the Talmud attempts to penetrate the whole of human life with the sense of law and right. Nothing human is in its eyes mean or trivial; everything is regulated and sanctified by religion. Religious precept and duty accompany man from his earliest years to the grave and beyond it. They guide his desires and actions at every moment.

— Rabbi Dr. Hertz (38)

Thus, if the Talmud permits girls three years old and younger to be sexually used by adults, that is the law. The concern of the Sages is to ensure that the adult is not, technically speaking, in violation of any of the rules.

Regenerating Virginity

In the Gemara that follows the Mishnah of Kethuboth 11a (cited above), the Sages discuss the issues. They say having intercourse with a girl younger than three is like putting a finger in the eye. Rabbi Dr. Daiches explains in the footnotes that, just as tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.

GEMARA. 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) When I said it before Samuel he said: 'Injured by a piece of wood' does not apply to (2) flesh. Some teach this teaching by itself: (3) [As to] a small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman, Rab said, he makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood; whereas Samuel said: 'Injured by a piece of wood' does not apply to flesh. R. Oshaia objected:WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN HAS HAD INTERCOURSE WITH A LITTLE GIRL, OR WHEN A SMALL BOY HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UP WOMAN, OR WHEN A GIRL WAS ACCIDENTALLY INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD — [IN ALL THESE CASES] THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ]; SO ACCORDING TO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A GIRL WHO WAS INJURED ACCIDENTALLY BY A PIECE OF WOOD — HER KETHUBAH IS A MANEH! (4) Raba 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 into 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,' and [with regard to the case of] 'a girl injured by a piece of wood,' itself, there is the difference of opinion between R. Meir and the Sages.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 57-58

Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches amplifies the text with footnotes (page 58):

  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.
  2. Lit., 'is not in'.
  3. I.e., the difference of opinion between Rab and Samuel with regard to that question was recorded without any reference to R. Judah.
  4. The Sages differ only with regard to a girl injured by a piece of wood, but not with regard to a small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman. This shows that the latter case cannot be compared with the former case. The Mishnah would consequently be against Rab and for Samuel.
  5. Lit., 'says'.
  6. Lit., 'here', that is, less than three years old.
  7. I.e., tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years. Cf. Nid. 45a.

— Rabbi Dr. Daiches

To a person unaccustomed with the Talmud culture, it may seem that discussion of sexual intercourse between grown men and very young girls is merely theoretical. But as we shall see, cases are cited, judgments are weighed and debated, and the Sages discuss the wounds suffered by the young girls as a result of the intercourse.

More on Regenerating Virginity

We know that the amount of a woman's kethubah depends on her virginity on her wedding day. But what of a woman who, as a little girl below the age of three years, was raped or otherwise subjected to sexual intercourse? The Sages rule that the kethubah of such a woman is set as if she were still a virgin.


— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 54

This seems like a generous and humanitarian ruling, the creation of a legal fiction of virginity when the woman is no longer physiologically a virgin. But Dr. Daiches corrects us. He tells us that, according to the Sages, the hymen of a girl younger than three literally grows back again.

  1. If they had sexual intercourse before they were three years and one day old the hymen would grow again, and they would be virgins. V. 9a and 11b and cf. Nid. 44b and 45a.

— Rabbi Dr. Daiches (25)

See also the discussion of Niddah 44b and 45a, below.

As we continue to explore the Talmud doctrines on child-adult sex, we will see further confirmation that the Talmud Sages believed that the hymen regenerates in a girl younger than three.

"… Of Lesser Age, No Guilt is Incurred"

In modern America, sex between an adult and a child is condemned in proportion to the youth of the child. That is, Americans generally consider sex with a fifteen year old, a twelve year old, a six year old, and a three-year-old on a continuous scale of condemnation. The younger the child, the greater the condemnation.

Talmudic law works on the reverse scale: sex with younger children is less significant than sex with older children. How did this doctrine come about?

Scripture states thus:

  1. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

— Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

The Old Testament prohibits a man lying with a man; but notice, the Old Testament does not prohibit a man lying with a boy. Thus, the Talmud Sages arrive at their position on pederasty. In the following, bestiality said to be committed "naturally" when a man uses the vaginal passage of the beast, and "unnaturally" when a man uses the anal passage of the beast. The Sages make a similar distinction for the couplings of a woman with a beast.

GEMARA. … 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 active 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: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankindas 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 bestially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment. (5)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 54b - 55a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 371

The translator, Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, amplifies the text with footnotes. Note particularly footnote 2: "… but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred." See also the final sentence of footnote 5: "… nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable." (See Soncino Talmud Glossary for definition of Baraitha.)

  1. I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
  2. At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
  3. Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three.
  4. (Rashi reads [H] instead of the [H] in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day who commits etc.] There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first — a male aged nine years and a day — refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning — because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.

— Rabbi Dr. Freedman

The plain English meaning of the Talmud text is clear, but if there is any doubt, the Soncino scholars put the matter to rest: No guilt is incurred with a boy child younger than nine, even in incest. Thus we see that Orthodox Jewish doctrines concerning homosexuality are not accurately represented by Dr. Laura and other Orthodox spokesmen.

Out of Context?

When quoted, those passages in Tractate Sanhedrin 54b and 55a are sometimes said to be taken out of context. Theologian James Trimm is one who makes this protest.(6) But now the full context of Sanhedrin 54b and 55a — and indeed, the complete Sanhedrin — is available to the readers of Come and Hear™.

Rabbi Michael Rodkinson, whose English translation of the Talmud was republished in 1918, censored the Sages' teaching on this issue. The 1918 Edition of Rabbi Rodkinson's Talmud was published under the editorship of Rabbi Dr. I. M. Wise, the pioneer of Reform Judaism. Rabbi Rodkinson explains his censorship in a footnote:

We deem it expedient not to translate about two pages of the text preceding the next Mishna, treating of miserable crimes with men and animals, and giving the discussion with questions and answers, it would be undesirable to express in the English language …

— Rabbi Rodkinson (26)

For further discussion, see "Rabbi Rodkinson Censors the Talmud" in Do Not Censor the Talmud, Please.

Censorship, expurgation, and denial of the clear and obvious meaning of basic religious text do not help inter-religious understanding. It does not help people of different religions understand each others' faiths. See What We're About.

The lack of reliable authoritative information on the doctrines of Judaic law is a significant problem as American society and law becomes more Talmudized. Such information gaps can cause unwanted societal consequences.

America Is Rapidly Becoming Talmudized

In 1999, the Supreme Court agreed to consider an amicus brief based wholly on Talmudic law (see Sentence and Execution). 
In November 2002, the American Orthodox Jewish community held a kosher dinner in the Supreme Court building to celebrate the establishment of the National Institute for Judaic Law. (31) The dinner was attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices. The purpose of the Institute is to introduce Talmudic laws into the US legal system and law schools. 
It is thus the clear civic duty of every American to become intimately acquainted with the Talmud. Read articles at:
Death Penalty:
Kosher Dinner: and

Oedipal Incest

According to Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman (footnote 5, above), in Sanhedrin 54b-55a the Sages confirm, "in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day." Therefore, a mother who encourages her son to have sexual intercourse with her incurs no guilt if her son is younger than nine years old and a day. In such an arrangement, the mother would be the "passive" adult, of course.

Adult Male Homosexuality


— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 54a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 367

This clears matters up. Consenting adults who engage in homosexuality suffer the death penalty. But homosexuality with a male child under the age of nine years and a day is not punishable (Sanhedrin 54b-55a, above). Recall Rabbi Dr. Freedman's clear statement of the doctrine:

  1. I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.

— Rabbi Dr. Freedman (21)

Female Homosexuality

But what of female homosexuality?

GEMARA. … Women who practise lewdness with one another are disqualified from marrying a priest.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 76a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 512 - 513

The same statement appears in Shabbath 65a, page 311. The ruling, then, is only that a woman who "commits lewdness" with another is disqualified from marrying a priest. Thus a woman who never had ambitions to marry a priest suffers no sanction for her homosexual activity.

All of this paints a different picture of Orthodox Jewish doctrine on homosexuality — as enshrined in the G-d-given law of the Talmud. What would Dr. Laura say if she knew? Or does she?

More on Oedipal Incest

In the following passage, the question before the Sages is this: If a mother committed incest with her son, would she still be eligible to marry a priest? As we shall see, the answer depends on the son's age. Again, incest with a young boy is not a concern, while incest with an older boy brings consequences to the adult. Here, the Sages debate the threshold age.

GEMARA. … 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 say, he thereby renders her unfit to the priesthood. Beth Hillel declare her fit. R. Hiyya the son of Rabbah b. Nahmani said in R. Hisda's name; others state, R. Hisda said in Ze'iri's name: 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: (2) their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old, Beth Shammai maintaining, We must base our ruling on the earlier generations, but (3) Beth Hillel hold that we do not.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 69b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 470

The translator, Dr. Freedman, uses "cohabitation" to denote sexual intercourse. (32) He amplifies the text with footnotes.

  1. So that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less that eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not
  2. When a boy of that age could cause conception.

— Rabbi Dr. Freedman

The issue rests on the boy's theoretical ability to cause conception. Since (theoretically) a boy younger than nine cannot cause conception, he cannot (theoretically) engage in sexual intercourse (see above, from page 58, footnote 1, "… the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act"). This is a specialized definition ofsexual intercourse.

The boy's youth also exempts the man who sodomizes him — from moral guilt and legal liability. That is, the young boy cannot "throw guilt" on a man who lies with him, and the Scripture does not apply. If the boy is old enough to cause conception, the man who lies with him is in violation of Scripture.

And now we have the answer to a question that might have occurred to the reader when we discussed incest between mother and son, above: Why wouldn't a mother like that be charged with incest? We have seen this explanation from Rabbi Dr. Freedman before, but it warrants further study. In a synthesis of logical premises unique to Talmudism, the translator again helps us out with a footnote. The language is complex, but the meaning of the last few lines is clear: By reckoning back and forth between the definition of "man," "cause conception," "active," and "passive" participants in a sexual act, the conclusion is drawn that incest is not punishable with a boy younger than nine years old.

  1. [Rashi reads [H] instead of the [H] in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day who commits etc.] There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first — a male aged nine years and a day — refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning — because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.

— Rabbi Dr. Freedman (24)

American Puritanism vs. Rabbinic Tradition

Forward reports criticism of Young Israel's award to Dr. Laura.

The problem, according to her liberal critics, is that Ms. Schlessinger pushes a conservative, pro-life platform that is out of touch with the mostly liberal American Jewish public. Worse, they say, is that her "sanctimonious" moralism and harsh style are more a reflection of American Puritanism than the ancient rabbinic tradition.
"It's sad that with all the outstanding individuals doing great work, the National Council of Young Israel has chosen someone whose comments have been so divisive within and outside of the Jewish community," said Rabbi Douglas Kahn, the executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco.
Rabbi Kahn said he was referring in particular to the controversy sparked by Ms. Schlessinger's claim that homosexuality is "deviant" and a "biological error." Last year gay rights organizations and other liberal groups organized a boycott of Ms. Schlessinger's new television show, which was eventually canceled due to poor ratings.
More than a dozen Jewish leaders signed a critical letter to Ms. Schlessinger, including Rabbi Paul Menitoff, the executive vice president of the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis.

— Forward(5)

Indeed, Rabbis Kahn, Menitoff, and other Reform rabbis are right. Dr. Laura is not representing "the ancient rabbinic tradition," which allows ample room for homosexuality and pederasty. But why didn't Rabbis Kahn and Menitoff and their Reform colleagues publicly correct Dr. Laura and her Orthodox mentors, in particular Rabbi Moshe Bryski, by using the authority of direct quotes from the Talmud?

Children as Concubines, Babies as Wives

The ancient Hebrews were permitted to use children as concubines. Moses established the precedent. In the passage below, the Hebrews have just massacred the Midianite men. They return home with booty, and the Midianite women and children. Moses directs them to slaughter the captive women and children with this exception: virgin girl children are to be kept as concubines for the Hebrews.

  1. And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
  2. And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
  3. And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
  4. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
  5. Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
  6. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
  7. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

— Numbers 31:12-18 (KJV)

In the following, the Talmud Sages reason that, since Phinehas was among the Hebrews who were permitted a child concubine and Phinehas was a priest, Numbers 31:17-18 is Divine sanction for the marriage of priests with girls under the age of three — babies. The rabbis describe the babies as proselytes. The American Heritage Dictionary defines proselyte as "a Gentile converted to Judaism." In the following passage, a bondman is a male slave, and a bondwoman a female slave.

GEMARA. … 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, (2) for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, (3) and Phinehas (4) surely was with them. And the Rabbis? (5) — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. (6) If so, (7)  a proselyte whose age is three years and one day (8) should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, (9) but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, (3) but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently (10) it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit (11) for cohabitation. (12)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 402

This is a special definition of cohabitation. The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with footnotes:

  1. She is not regarded as a harlot.
  2. Num. XXXI, 18.
  3. Who was a priest.
  4. How could they, contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai, which has Scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?
  5. Not for matrimony.
  6. That, according to R. Simeon, Num. XXXI, 18 refers to matrimony.
  7. So long as she has 'not known man'.
  8. Num. XXXI, 17.
  9. To reconcile the contradiction.
  10. I.e., one who had attained the age of three years and one day.
  11. Not one who had actually experienced it.

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

The doctrine that Jewish men may have sexual intercourse with non-Jewish children ("proselytes") under the age of three is expanded in the following passage; "Rabbi" is Judah the Prince.

GEMARA. … R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai. (13) Said R. Zera to R. Jacob b. Idi: Did you hear this (13) explicitly or did you learn it by a deduction? What [could be the] deduction? — As R. Joshua b. Levi related: 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 enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, (14) and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest. (15)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 403

The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with footnotes:

  1. That a proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.
  2. And was married to a priest.
  3. I.e., permitted her to continue to live with her husband.

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

Not every Sage agreed with this practice. The Talmud records the words of one Sage who objected to one case, though it does not record the specifics of his objection.

GEMARA. … A certain priest married a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to him: What [do you mean by] this? (12) — The other replied: Because R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that thehalachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai. (13) 'Go', the first said, 'and arrange for her release, or else I will pull R. Jacob b. Idi out of your ear'. (14)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 404

The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with footnotes:

  1. I.e., on what authority did you contract the marriage.
  2. V. supra p. 403. n. 13.
  3. He would place him under the ban and thus compel him to carry out his decision which is contrary to that of R. Jacob b. Idi.

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

How Old Is the Screamer?

In Talmud doctrine, if a wife is a screamer — that is, her voice can be heard by the neighbors — she can be divorced without her kethubah.


— Babylonian Talmud, Kethuboth 72a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 449

However, in the current context of the child bride, the matter becomes another issue. It is surely possible that a three or four-year-old wife screams in pain when required to perform her marital duties. On reading further, the Gemara explains that if the wife screams during intercourse, it may be a sign of a physical defect.

GEMARA. … R. TARFON SAID: ALSO ONE WHO SCREAMS. What is meant by a screamer? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: One who speaks aloud (10) on marital matters. In a Baraitha it was taught: [By screams was meant a wife] whose voice (11) during her intercourse in one court can be heard in another court. But should not this, then, (12) have been taught in the Mishnah (13) among defects? (14) — Clearly we must revert to the original explanation. (15)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 72b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 453

Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki amplifies the above Gemara in the following footnotes. He tells us these were not screams of pleasure — they were screams of pain.

  1. Lit., 'makes her voice heard'.
  2. Her screams of pain caused by the copulation.
  3. Since her screaming is due to a bodily defect.
  4. Infra 77a.
  5. Of course it should. Such a case in our Mishnah is out of place.
  6. That given in the name of Samuel.

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

In some cases, however, the screaming wife may be one who is so young and physically underdeveloped, her sexual organs cannot accommodate those of a grown man. It seems this child is at risk of being divorced without her kethubah. That is, of course, a concern.

A Different Viewpoint

There is no Talmud prohibition against sexual activity between an adult and very a young child on the basis that such activity could wound the child. Instead, the concern of the Sages is focused on interpreting Biblical injunctions and technicalities that absolve the adult from guilt or liability: At what age, they ask, does the child begin to cause "defilement" of the adult who uses the child for sex?

This next passage illustrates the point once more. The Sages debate "from what age does a heathen child cause defilement"? Is it nine years, or is it three years? If the correct threshold age is observed, the Jew incurs no guilt for the act of pederasty.

GEMARA. … 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. This is obvious! — You might argue that he is at an age when he knows to persuade [a female] but she is not at an age when she knows to persuade [a male, and consequently although she is technically capable of the sexual act, she does not cause defilement until she is nine years and one day old]. Hence he informs us [that she communicates defilement at the earlier age].

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah 36b-37a
Soncino 1961 Edition, pages 178-179

This may surprise the American reader who encounters it for the first time. In our society, of course, an adult who uses a child — particularly a very young child — for sexual activity is criminally censured.

Brother Takes Three-Year-Old Widow

In Tractate Niddah, again there is approval for priests to marry and copulate with baby girls. This passage describes a situation in which a priest dies without children, leaving a three-year-old widow. In such case, the priest's brother (the yebam) can acquire the girl by having sexual intercourse with her. The ellipsis (…) in the following Mishna indicates the omission of non-germane text. The full text is available through the link at the Come and Hear™ link, below.


— Babylonian Talmud Tractate Niddah 44b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 308

Terumah is the word for temple offerings eaten by priests. This statement indicates that the three-year-old bride is the widow of the priest in all respects and privileges.

In the passage below, we see that the widow of a man who is not a priest can be sexually possessed by her erstwhile brother-in-law and thereby become his wife.

GEMARA. … 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.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 55b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 376

The statement quoted above from Tractate Sanhedrin 55b also appears in Tractate Sanhedrin 69a, Soncino 1961 Edition, page 469.

Wounding Young Brides by Intercourse

The Sages go on to discuss sexual intercourse with a girl younger than three years old: Wounding the child and causing her to bleed is one possible result. From the Sages' description, it is apparent that the baby bleeds again and again from copulation with a grown man, and the Sages, once again, attribute the bleeding to the repetitive rupturing of the hymen (i.e., virginity growing back).

In the following Mishnah, non-germane text is omitted (…). Please follow the source link to view the complete Mishnah.


— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 44b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 309

The image of "a finger in the eye" is once again explained in the following Gemara. The possibility that the three-year-old committed adultery with a stranger is also addressed:

GEMARA. … IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE. It was asked, Do the features of virginity disappear and reappear again or is it possible that they cannot be completely destroyed until after the third year of her age? In what practical respect could this matter? — In one, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with her before the age of three and found blood, and when he had intercourse after the age of three he found no blood. If you grant that they disappear and reappear again [it might well be assumed] that there 'was not sufficient time for their reappearance, but if you maintain that they cannot be destroyed until after the age of three years it would be obvious that a stranger cohabited with her. Now what is your decision? — R. Hiyya son of R. Ika demurred: But who can tell us that a wound inflicted within the three years is not healed forthwith, seeing it is possible that it is immediately healed and it would thus be obvious that a stranger had cohabited with her? Rather the practical difference is the case, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with her while she was under three years of age and found blood and when he had intercourse after the age of three he also found blood. If you grant that the features disappear and reappear again the blood might well be treated as that of virginity, but if you maintain that they cannot be destroyed until after the age of three years, that must be the blood of menstruation. Now what is your decision? — R. Hisda replied, Come and hear: IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE; what need was there to state, LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE' instead of merely saying: IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS of no consequence'? Does not this then teach us that as the eye tears and tears again so do the features of virginity disappear and reappear again.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 45a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 309-310

Rest for the Intercourse Wound

This Gemara from Tractate Kethuboth takes up the discussion of the pre-pubescent bride who is wounded by intercourse.

GEMARA. … R. Hisda objected: If a girl, whose period to see [blood] had not arrived yet, got married, Beth Shammai say: One gives her four nights, and the disciples of Hillel say: Until the wound is healed up. (1) If her period to see [blood] had arrived and she married, Beth Shammai say: One gives her the first night, and Beth Hillel say: Until the night following the Sabbath [one gives her] four nights.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 6a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 20-21

The translator, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, amplifies the text with this footnote.

  1. The blood that comes out is attributed to the wound and not to menstruation. Ordinarily, after the first intercourse further intercourse is forbidden until the coming out of blood, i.e., menstruation, is over. But in this case, in which the young bride had never yet had any menstruation, it is assumed that the blood is not due to menstruation but to the wound caused by the intercourse. According to Beth Shammai this assumption holds good for four nights, and according to Beth Hillel it holds good 'until the wound is healed up.' As to the definition of this phrase, v. Nid. 64b. V. also Nid. 65b, where it is finally decided that after the first coition no further intercourse must take place until the flowing of blood has stopped, even in the case of a young bride who had not yet had any menstruation. V. also Eben ha-'Ezer, 63, and Yoreh De'ah, 193.

— Rabbi Dr. Daiches

We have been told that according to Jewish law, a post-pubescent bride who bleeds after the first intercourse does not have intercourse again until after her next menstrual period (above). The situation is different, however, for a bride who has not reached the age of menstruation. What are the rules concerning the bleeding pre-pubescent bride? Shammai rabbis say the intercourse wound should be given four nights rest. The Hillel rabbis recommend abstinence until the wound is healed (Kethuboth 6a). See also Tractate Niddah, as follows:


— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 64b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 454

Again, there is no prohibition of a sexual practice that would almost certainly cause physical damage to a young girl due to the mismatched sizes of genitals between an adult's penis and a child's vagina or anus.

Old Fashioned Torah Values?

At a time when Americans are displaying an ever-increasing interest in all things Jewish — from kabbala to Senator Joseph Lieberman to "Kosher Sex" — Dr. Laura is the most popular source for a healthy dose of Jewish nagging, guilt trips and what she presents as lessons in good old-fashioned Torah values.

— Forward(5)

We have seen in Numbers 31:12-18 that Moses permitted grown men to use little girls as concubines. In the Talmud, grown men are permitted to have sexual intercourse with female babies and children, and homosexual relations with boys younger than nine.

Those "good old fashioned Torah values" are not quite as Christian America remembers them.

Marital Duties of the Pre-Pubescent Bride

The marital duties of the pre-pubescent brides are addressed in at least three tractates in almost the same words (Yebamoth 12b and 100b, Niddah 45a, and Kethuboth 39a).

In the following passage, the Sages discuss the use of contraception. All the Sages agree that a wife younger than eleven — a wife who is too young to become pregnant — is required to carry on "marital intercourse" in the normal manner. Recall that those brides can be as young as three, and sometimes younger.

GEMARA. … Three classes of woman may use an absorbent (1) in their marital intercourse: (2) A minor, and an expectant and a nursing mother. The minor,(3) because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother, (3) because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal. (4) A nursing mother, (3) because otherwise she might have to wean her child prematurely, (5) and this would result in his death. And what is the age of such a 'minor'? (6) From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under (7) or over this age (8) must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir. But the Sages ruled: The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in a normal manner and mercy (9) will be vouchsafed from heaven, for it is said in Scripture, The Lord preserveth the simple (10) …

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 45a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 311

The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with these footnotes:

  1. Muk, flax or hackled wool.
  2. To avoid conception.
  3. Is permitted the use of the absorbent.
  4. A fish-shaped abortion. Lit., 'flat-fish'.
  5. On account of her second conception which causes the deterioration of her breast milk.
  6. Of whom it has been said that she is capable of conception but is thereby exposed to fatal consequences.
  7. When conception is impossible.
  8. When conception involves no danger.
  9. To protect them from harm.
  10. Ps. CXVI, 6; sc. those who are unable to protect themselves. At any rate it was here stated that a minor under eleven years of age is incapable of conception. …

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

Did Girls Reach Puberty Earlier Then?

It is sometimes claimed that in the days when the Talmud Sages walked the earth, girls matured earlier; hence, sexual intercourse with girls three years old and younger was not inappropriate. However, the Talmud itself repudiates this assertion.

In Tractate Niddah 45a (quoted above), the Sages argue: "From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day" a girl may use an "absorbent" (contraception) "because otherwise she might become pregnant and die." The Sages also say girls younger (than eleven) must carry on sexual intercourse "in the normal manner." Therefore, as a general rule, the Sages did not expect a girl younger than eleven could get pregnant. The statements in Niddah 45a indicate that sexual maturation of women in the time of the Talmud Sages compares with sexual maturation of women in our own day.

Or consider the passage that appears just previous in Niddah 45a:

GEMARA. … It is related of Justinia the daughter of 'Aseverus son of Antonius that she once appeared before Rabbi. 'Master', she said to him, 'at what age may a woman marry?'. 'At the age of three years and one day', he told her. 'And at what age is she capable of conception?' 'At the age of twelve years and one day', he replied. 'I', she said to him, 'married at the age of six and bore a child at the age of seven; alas for the three years that I have lost at my father's house'. But can a woman conceive at the age of six years?

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 45a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 310


The Irony

The TRUE Children of Israel are found everywhere BUT the State of Israel - a degenerate, Luciferian Rothschild terrorist state created to bring about the Albert Pike's WW3 master plan agenda for a New World Order. 

The true Abrahamic blood-lineage Hebrew Israelites will NOT return to the land of Canaan until the Messiah's return to establish His order.