being equal to animals, &c. The other 20 numbers of the paragraph likewise contain nothing of the sort."

The authorities quoted by Rohling: Yebamoth 67a and Tosafoth on Kethuboth 4 are creations of fancy. Nöldeke and Wünsche (N. 177) declare:

We find nothing in Yebamoth 67a and Tosafoth on Kethuboth 4a and b that bears any resemblance to what Professor Rohling stated. Generally speaking, there will hardly be found a passage in the Talmud or in the Midrash in which "horses, susim" are mentioned in connection with to the Goyim, except the explanation of the passage in Ezekiel 23: 20.

Notwithstanding this, we read in Justus, Law 98:

If a Jew has married a Jewess he may, in case she become a Christian, take another wife without standing in need of a divorce, for the Akum (Christians), according to Talmud, must not be looked upon as human beings, but as a sort of horses.

Surely, this is a shameless way of lying.

Dr. Ecker tries to produce an authority for it in Eben haEzer 44, 8.

If a Jew marries an Akum or a slave (the marriage) is null and void, just as a marriage is null and void between an Akum or a slave and a Jewess.

How do we know it? Rab Huna says: It says in the Scripture (Gen. 22:5): Stay here with the ass, i. e. a people which is like an ass; therefrom we see that they are not able to marry. Kiddushin 68 a. But, on opening the Talmud, we find the following words:

How do we know that the marriage with a Canaanitic slave is null and void? Rab Huna says, It says in the Scripture, Stay here with the ass, a people that is like the ass. (Question) We only find that the wedding with her (the slave) is null and void; how do we know that her child is like her (the mother)? (Answer): It is written (Ex. 21:4), The wife and her children shall be her master's. How do we know that a Jew may not wed a Nochrith (non-Jewess)? It says in the Scripture (Deut. 7:3), Neither shalt thou make marriages with them.

The mention of the ass refers exclusively to the Canaanitic slave; in regard to a mixed marriage with a non-Jewess since such a comparison is out of the question - another passage of

the Bible had to be resorted to. Justus-Ecker metamorphosed the pagan slave into a Christian.

Rohling, in his book Polemics and the Human Sacrifice of Rabbinism p. 11, states:

In Tosafoth Kethuboth 3b and Yebamoth 22 a it says of the Goy, His seed is estimated as the seed of cattle.

But Yebamoth 22a (N. and W. number 172) contains only an explanation that additions made by the rabbis to the Biblical marriage restrictions, on the score of consanguinity, do not apply to proselytes.

As regards Tos. Kethuboth a few preliminary remarks will clear the matter up.

If a woman was guilty of adultery, it was not only the right but the duty of her husband, according to the rigour of the old Jewish law, especially if he was a priest, to give his wife a bill of divorce. One even went so far as to extend this law also to cases of rape, or to cases which looked suspiciously like rape. In New-Persia, where the Babylonian Talmud was being written down, the Persian satraps arrogated the jus primae noctis; thus it came about that the custom of marrying maids (Kethuboth 3b; N. and W. 176) on the fourth weekday was dropped on account of such danger, and the Jewish maids were secretly married on the third day, in oder to deceive the tyrant.

If the newly-married couple was found out, then it often happened that a pious bride died a martyr's death in order to escape being ravished. Then follows the passage quoted by Rohling, Tos. Kethub. 3b; N. and W. 177.

(Question): But why did one not tell them that violent ravishment is not adultery? (Answer): In consideration of the unchaste who, under such pretence, would do voluntarily what would be an adultery and would require divorce.

The contention that ravishment is not adultery induces the Tosaphist to quote the passage Sanhedrin 74a in which it says: One must guard oneself against the sins of idolatry, murder, and adultery even at the risk of one's life.

But that well-known and acknowledged maxim does not tally with the question which is put here. The gloss continues:

Rabbi Tam wished to say that adultery with a non-Jew, like the despot in question, does not require capital punishment, because it says in Ezekiel (23:20), Their issue is the issue of horses.

Finally it says:

But this is not convincing, for it says expressly in Yebamoth 59 and Kethuboth 26 that the adultery of a Jewish wife with a non-Jew is to be regarded as adultery, and that the wife must be divorced. Nöldeke and Wünsche add literally:

Thus the cohabitation with a Goy is not (Nöldeke and Wünsche underline this word) to be put on a par with that of an animal.

The meaning of this passage is, then, just the reverse of what Rohling puts into it by quoting only two detached Hebrew words of the Biblical prophet Ezekiel out of the whole passage. This is also the view of the Talmud throughout.

If a married woman was taken captive by pagans for the sake of money (to get ransom) her husband is permitted (to keep her because it may be presumed that the desire for the ransom kept the pagans from ravishing the captive); but if it was done in order to murder her, then her husband is forbidden to keep her (after she has been rescued) as his wife (for fear that the woman had not guarded her chastity in the peril of death). Kethuboth 26b; N. and W. 173. The Talmud adds that, in such cases, even a man who is not a priest is bound to give his wife the bill of divorce.

If a besieged town has been taken by pagan troops, the priests are not permitted to keep their wives any longer. The wife of a priest who has been ravished is no longer fit for her husband. Kethuboth 27a; N. and W. 174.

When Rabbi Zacharias, at the conquest of Jerusalem, said of his wife, I swear by the Temple, that her hand left not mine until the pagan warriors left the town, one replied to him, Nobody can give evidence in his own cause. Kethuboth 27b.

All these passages contain the reverse of the assertion of Rohling's in regard to the view of the Talmud.

In Dinter one reads, nevertheless (The Sin against the Blood, p. 380):

In Talmud Yebamoth it says (98a), The Torah has delivered the children from him (from the Akum), for it says, their flesh is like the flesh of the ass, and their seed is like the seed of the horse.

Tosaphot (this is the name of the medieval glosses to the Talmud) on Talmud Kethuboth 3b, His (the Akum's) seed is looked upon as the seed of cattle, &c.

Now, we know what Nöldeke and Wünsche declared (number 177):

There will hardly be found a passage either in the Talmud or in the Midrash in which "horses, susim" are mentioned, in connection with the Goyim, except the explanation of the passage in Ezekiel 23:20. The Tosaphist on Kethuboth also says the reverse of what Rohling asserts (Nöldeke and Wünsche 171).

To help the reader correctly gauge the despicable character of this slander, he need only to be reminded of the fact that these passages do not refer to a Jew who offended with a non-Jewess, but just the reverse, to the fate of a Jewish married woman ravished by a pagan despot, when the question had to be decided whether the Jewish husband was permitted to keep his wife. Rohling and his copyists, Dinter and associates, identify this pagan despot with a Christian, and find that, by this discussion, his manly honour is hurt.

Rohling, in his book "My Answer to the Rabbis", p. 37, quotes Rashi on Deut. 14:21 as saying that a dog is better than a nonJew.

But what does Rashi commenting on this passage actually say? In Holy Scripture it says, "Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien." Rashi remarks on this, "The alien, i. e. a. ‘Ger Toshab', a nonJew who is not an idolator, to him it is to be given."

But there is no question of dogs or of anything worse than dogs.

On the other hand it says (Exod. 22: 31):

Neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.

Rashi refers here to Deut. 14:21 where Holy Scripture recommends selling such flesh to the alien, while in Ex. 22,31 it recommends throwing it to the dogs. Rashi calls attention to this, explaining that God does not withhold the reward from any of his creatures. When the Israelites went away from Egypt at night, it is said in Ex. 11:7: “And against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue."

As a reward for this, Scripture commands us to throw to the dogs the flesh that is torn by beasts in the field.

If this implies a disparagement of the non-Jews, then one would have to complain against Holy Scripture.

Indeed, the dog is dependent on his master as regards his food; the alien can take care of himself.

With this, all the passages which Rohling has gathered and quoted to support the charge that the non-Jews are, according to the Talmud, placed on a par with cattle, are completely accounted for. There is nowhere a trace of what Rohling states. This must be emphasized, because Professor Adolf Wahrmund in his book The Law of Nomadism and the Jewish Rule of To-day, based exclusively on the authority of Rohling, dares to make the following assertions: According to the Rabbinical theory the non-Jew is not to be looked upon as a human being but as an animal. It is said, The All-merciful declares as fair game all the children of the Goy, for it says, their seed is the seed of horses, and his (the Goy's) seed is counted as the seed of cattle (p. 55).

Justus repeated, in more than twenty passages, the lie that to the Jew the Christians are like animals, "like dogs and worse than dogs", whereas, in the numerous folio volumes of the Talmud and in the entire Hebrew literature, not the slightest hint for this calumny is to be found.

As early as 1819 Börne said:

They set to work against the Jews with the most shameless hypocrisy. Mendacious assertions are made with such brazenness that even wellintentioned people are deceived, because they cannot believe that one would deceive them so grossly.

IV. Recognition of the Merits of Non-Jews. Rohling in his book My Answer to the Rabbis, p. 15 says:

It is forbidden to the Jew to praise the virtue or the learning of a Christian (Akum) unless he does it in the same way in which he acknowledges also the beauty and the physical strength of a beast whom, after all, the Akum equals.

At the outset, it must be noted that Rohling and Justus translate here again "Akum" with "Christian".