...
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 21:10:53 -0400,
> <R7tTj.28715$3v1.17
...@bignews3.bellsouth.net> "ElParedon"
> <ser
...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>"Craig Stevens" <craig_stev...@no-reply-wanted.net> wrote in message
>>news:3iis14du9u5ndn7pdm9d4up0ef5kg526bg@4ax.com...
>>> Josef Fritzl is Jewish
>>> http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?p=2454756
>>> the guy was a jewish Zionist.....take a look at what he had on his
>>> walls.
>>> as soon as this gets revealed the jewish media will drop it like a hot
>>> potato. Why would this "Nazi" have Stars of David plastered on his
>>> walls?
>>> he is not austrian, he is jewish
>>> Link to picture
>>> http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/3677/proofjosffisajewishcrimrt2.jpg
>>> CNN still has pic on their website..they will remove that quite soon
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/28/austria.cellar/index.html#...
>>> 'House of horror' children never saw daylight
>>> Pictures
>>> http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/WORLD/europe/04/28/austria.cellar/art.cel...
>>> http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/WORLD/europe/04/28/austria.cellar/art.aus...
>>> http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/WORLD/europe/04/28/austria.cellar/art.bui...
>>> but to late...we have exposed this as another Kabbalistic ritual.
>>Only one of them could be this inhumane
> What can one expect from people who are raised and indoctrinated in
> twisted and perverted
> traditions of men in the name of religion? Josef Fritzl's behavior may be
> due to trauma he
> suffered as an infant resulting from the sucking of the wound rite Jews
> practice.
> More info here---> http://tinyurl.com/5y24hj
> http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_133.html
> Teachings such as Jewess having sex with beasts as being acceptable by the
> Talmud could have
> twisted his mind.
> The Babylonian Talmud
> Translated into English by Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein
> London
> The Soncino Press 1935
> From the Talmud Volume Yebamoth:
> <Yebamoth 59a pages 150 &151 of above volume>
> Rabbi Eleazar having stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with
> unmarried woman with no
> matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot! {11} Rabbi Joseph
> replied: {12} When for
> instance, the woman was subjected to intercourse with a beast, where the
> reason of 'previous
> carnal intercourse' may be applied but not that of harlot. {13} Said Abaye
> to him: Whatever you
> prefer [your reply cannot be upheld]. If she is a beulah {14} she must
> also be a harlot; and if
> she is not a harlot {15} she cannot be a beulah either! And were you to
> reply: This case is
> similar to that of a wounded woman, {16} [it may be pointed out] that if
> [the disqualification
> should be extended to] unnatural intercourse also, {17} you will find no
> woman eligible to
> marry a [High Priest [since there is not one] who has not been in some way
> (end of page 396 flipping to page 397 to continue) wounded {1} by a
> splinter! No, said Rabbi
> Zera, {2} in respect of a minor who made a declaration of refusal. {3}
> Rabbi Shimi b. Hiyya
> stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a
> priest. {4} Likewise it
> was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being,
> {5} though she is in
> consequence subject to the penalty of stoning, {6} is nevertheless
> permitted to marry a priest.
> {7} When Rabbi Dimi came {8} he related: It once happened at Haitalu {9}
> that while a young
> woman was sweeping the floor {10} a village dog {11} covered her from the
> rear {12} and Rabbi
> permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest.
> Footnotes for page 396:
> {11} Infra 61b, 76a, Sanh. 51a, Tem. 30a
> {12} Rab's reason of 'previous carnal intercourse' was necessary. {13} A
> term which is not applicable to bestial intercourse. V. infra {14} one who
> had experienced carnal intercourse.
> {15} Presumably because her act cannot be regarded as 'sexual
> intercourse'
> {16} V. supra p. 394, n. 8 As in her case marriage with a High Priest is
> forbidden (v. our Mishna), though she is no harlot, so also in the case of
> bestial intercourse.
> {17} I.e., if injury to the anus is to be subject to the same
> restrictions as injury to the hymen.
> Footnotes for page 397:
> {1} Cf. supra p. 394, n. 8
> {2} Rab's reason of 'previous carnal intercourse' was necessary.
> {3} Mema'meth, v. Glos. Unnatural intercourse with her by her husband
> places
> the minor in the status of beu'lah (v. Glos) but not in that of harlot,
> while her refusal to live with him does not give her status of divorcee or
> widow but that of mema'meth. Hence the necessity for Rab's statement that
> such a minor also is forbidden to marry a High Priest.
> {4} Even a High Priest. The result of such intercourse being regarded as a
> mere wound, and the
> opinion that does not so regard such an accidentally damaged hymen as a
> disqualification does
> not so regard such an intercourse either.
> {5} A beast
> {6} If the offence was committed in the presence of witness after due
> warning.
> {7} In the absence of witnesses and warning.
> {8} From Palestine to Babylon.
> {9} [Babylonian form for Aitalu, modern Aiterun N.W. of Kadesh, v. S.
> Klein, Beitrage p. 47].
> {10} Lit., 'house'
> {11} Or 'big hunting dog (Rashi), 'ferocious dog' (Jast.) 'small wild dog
> (Aruk).
> {12} A case of unnatural intercourse.
> <STOP>
> The final line about the condition of the Talmudic Jew is best stated as
> "...it may be pointed out that if the disqualification should be extended
> to unnatural intercourse also, you will find no woman eligible to marry a
> High Priest since there is not one who has not been in some way wounded by
> a splinter.... A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to
> marry a priest." Likewise it was taught "A woman who had intercourse with
> that which is no human being, though she is in consequence subject to the
> penalty of stoning, is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest."
> The Jewish Babylonian Talmud is now online.
> http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/
> http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_59.html
> Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
> http://www.come-and-hear.com/structure.html
> It is possible Josef Fritzl had his mind warped by this medical remedy
> from the Jewish Sages;
> http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_69.html
> Gittin 69a
> For swollen glands,8 R. Johanan said that pellitory leaves are as good as
> mamru9 and the root
> of pellitory better than mamru, and he should put them in his mouth. This
> is to prevent it from
> spreading. To soften it he should take bran that came to the top of the
> sieve and lentils with
> the earth still on them and clover and hemlock flower and the bud of
> cuscuta, and he should put
> about the size of a nut in his mouth. To make it burst, someone should
> blow into his throat
> seeds of unripe dates, through a wheat straw. To make the flesh close he
> should bring dust from
> the shadow of a privy and knead it with honey and eat. This is effective.
> For catarrh10 he
> should take about the size of a pistachio of gum-ammoniac and about the
> size of a nut of sweet
> galbanum and a spoonful of white honey and a Mahuzan natla11 of clear12
> wine and boil them up
> together; when the gum-ammoniac boils, it is all boiled enough. If he
> cannot manage this, let
> him take a revi'ith of milk of a white goat
> Gittin 69b
> and let it drip on three stalks of carob and stir it with a piece of stem
> of marjoram; when the
> stem of marjoram is boiled it is all boiled enough. He can also take the
> excrement of a white
> dog and knead it with balsam, but if he can possibly avoid it he should
> not eat the dog's
> excrement as it loosens the limbs.
> <STOP>
> Josef could have eaten the excrement of a white dog. Remember it has to be
> the excrement of a
> white dog and not a black or brown dog. :-) And to think the Talmud is
> allegedly Jewish High
> Wisdom.
> Search http://www.come-and-hear.com/tindex.html
> http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/index.html
> http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html
> Sanhedrin 57a "'With respect to robbery - if one stole or robbed or
> [seized] a beautiful woman,
> or [committed] similar offences, if [these were perpetrated] by one
> Cuthean against another,
> [the theft, etc.] must not be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an
> Israelite by a Cuthean, but
> that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained'" ... 'For murder,
> whether of a Cuthean by a
> Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a
> Cuthean by an
> Israelite, there is no death penalty'" ... But how can you say that such
> robbery by one Cuthean
> from another is but a 'similar act' [i.e., bordering on robbery]: since a
> Cuthean does not
> forgive, is it not actual theft? - But R. Aha, the son of R. Ika answered;
> It applies to the
> withholding of a labourer's wage. One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean
> from an Israelite is
> forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted."
> Footnotes:
> 'Cuthean' (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original
> goy (heathen).
> [I.e., though it is forbidden to rob the heathen (v. Yad, Genebah I, 2;
> VI, 8), the offence was
> non-actionable. For reason, v. B. K. (Sonc. ed.) note on Mishnah 37b.]
> <STOP>
> Nice people the Jews. It's okay to withhold wages from a goy, it's okay to
> steal from a goy and
> it is kosher to kill a goy but woe be to the goy who did likewise to a
> Jew.
