If you have been around the internet for some time, you may have seen floating around images that list a series of things that the Talmud allegedly say, such as this one:
Observe that the text is presented as quotes, with quotation marks, as expected from a direct quote. However, if you confront any Jew about these, he will deny the veracity of these claims. Not only that, but he will go to the referenced part of the Talmud, search the quote, and say "See? It's not there! You just lie to attack us poor Jews, you antisemite! Go and donate to the nearest holocaust museum as reparation".
The problem here is that, at some point, some idiot took a similar collection of references and decided to put the short description of what is said between quotes, making it seem like they are actually quotes; while they are merely a short paraphrasing of what the text says or implies.
In this article, we will take a look at 14 claims of this nature and check the referenced text to confirm whether or not the Talmud says such things. Jews will probably say that the things stated in this quote are just the personal opinions of some rabbis. But that personal opinion, and the perversion that creates them, are prominent enough to have them displayed in what is held as a sacred collection, often unchallenged or considered to be perfectly reasonable and wise. After all, these positions can't be born but of widespread disdain, the same one showed by Jews in the current day.
The best of gentiles should be killed (Abodah Zarah 26b)
R. Joseph further had in mind to say, in regard to what has been taught that in the case of idolaters and shepherds of small cattle one is not obliged to bring them up [from a pit] though one must not cast them in it — that for payment one is obliged to bring them up on account of ill feeling. Abaye, however, said to him: He could offer such excuses as, 'I have to run to my boy who is standing on the roof', or, 'I have to keep an appointment at the court.' R. Abbahu recited to R. Johanan: 'Idolaters and [Jewish] shepherds of small cattle need not be brought up. though they must not be cast in, but minim, informers, and apostates may be cast in, and need not be brought up.' Whereupon R. Johanan remarked: I have been learning that the words, And so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother's [thou mayest not hide thyself], are also applicable to an apostate, and you say he may be thrown down; leave out apostates! Could he not have answered that the one might apply to the kind of apostate who eats carrion meat to satisfy his appetite, and the other to an apostate who eats carrion meat to provoke? — In his opinion, an apostate eating carrion meat to provoke is the same as a min.
It has been stated: [In regard to the term] apostate there is a divergence of opinion between R. Aha and Rabina; one says that [he who eats forbidden food] to satisfy his appetite, is an apostate, but [he who does it] to provoke is a 'min'; while the other says that even [one who does it] to provoke is merely an apostate. — And who is a 'min'? — One who actually worships idols.
An objection was raised: If one eats a flea or a gnat he is an apostate. Now such a thing could only be done to provoke, and yet we are taught that he is merely an apostate! — Even in that case he may just be trying to see what a forbidden thing tastes like.
The Master said: 'They may be cast in and need not be brought up' — if they may be cast in need it be said that they need not be brought up? — Said R. Joseph b. Hama in the name of R. Shesheth: What is meant to convey is that if there was a step in the pit-wall, one may scrape it away, giving as a reason for doing so, the prevention of cattle being lured by the step to get unto the pit. Raba and R. Joseph both of them said: It means to convey that if there is a stone lying by the pit opening, one may cover the pit with it, saying that he does it for [the safety] of passing animals. Rabina said: It is meant to convey that if there is a ladder there, he may remove it, saying, I want it for getting my son down from a roof.
In this passage, Jews discuss their obligations with regards to someone who has fallen into a pit. Regarding idolaters (a group that would include all non-Jews), some say that Jews don't have to help someone who has fallen (lying to give excuses), while others say that it is also perfectly fine to also throw them into the pit, and do everything possible to prevent the person from getting out while lying about the reasons to do so.
Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth from birth) (Abodah Zarah 36b)
The above text stated: 'Behold Bali declared that Abimi the Nabatean said in the name of Rab: The bread, wine and oil of heathens and their daughters are all included in the eighteen things?' What means 'their daughters'? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: [The Schools of Hillel and Shammai] decreed that their daughters should be considered as in the state of niddah from their cradle; and Geneba said in the name of Rab: With all the things against which they decreed the purpose was to safeguard against idolatry.
Gentiles like sex with cows (Abodah Zarah 22b)
MISHNAH. One should not place cattle in heathens' inns, because they are suspected of immoral practice with them. A woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspected of lewdness, nor should a man be alone with them, because they are suspected of shedding blood.
GEMARA. The following was cited in contradiction: One may buy of them cattle for a sacrifice, and it need not be feared lest it committed, or had been used for, an immoral act, or had been designated as an offering to idols, or had been worshipped. Now we are quite right not to fear about its having been designated as an offering to idols or having been made an object of worship, since if it had been so designated or worshipped, its owner would not have sold it; but we surely ought to fear as to committing an immoral act!...
Then what about that [Baraitha] which has been taught: 'One may buy cattle of any heathen shepherd'; ought we not to fear lest he used it for an immoral purpose? — The heathen shepherd would be afraid of forfeiting his fee. What then about this [other Baraitha] which has been taught: 'One should not entrust cattle to a heathen shepherd'; why not assume that the heathen shepherd would be afraid of forfeiting his fee? — They fear detection by one another since they know a good deal about it, but they are not afraid of us who do not know much about it...
Rabbah said: This is what the popular proverb says. 'As the stylus penetrates the stone so one cunning mind detects another.' In that case, neither should we buy male cattle from women, for fear of their having used them for immoral practice!...
Why then should we not leave female animals alone with female heathens? — Said Mar 'Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens frequent their neighbours' wives, and should one by chance not find her in, and find the cattle there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he should find her in he might use the animal, as a Master has said: Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives.
If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile (heathen) it does not have to be returned (Baba Kamma 113b)
R. Bibi b. Giddal said that R. Simeon the pious stated: The robbery of a heathen is prohibited, though an article lost by him is permissible...
His lost article is permissible, for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible? Because it says: And with all lost thing of thy brother's: it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen.
If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability, but if an ox of a Cannanite gores an of of the Israelite…the payment is to be in full (Baba Kamma 37b)
MISHNAH. In the case of private owner's cattle goring an ox consecrated to the temple, or consecrated cattle goring a private ox, there is no liability, for it is stated: the ox of his neighbour, not [that is to say] an ox consecrated to the temple. Where an ox belonging to an Israelite has gored an ox belonging to a Canaanite, there is no liability, whereas where an ox belonging to a Canaanite gores an ox belonging to an Israelite, whether while tam or mu'ad, the compensation is to be made in full.
A mu'ad ox is an ox which has already been proven to be dangerous. A tam ox is an ox that hasn't, thus being "innocent" so far. Usually, if damage is caused by a tam ox, only half the damage has to be paid for.
Towards the wife of a non-Jew, adultery is not punished (Sanhedrin 52b)
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death]. 'The man' excludes a minor; 'that committeth adultery with another man's wife' excludes the wife of a minor; 'even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife' excludes the wife of a heathen.
It could be understood that the marriages of non-Jews are not considered to be licit.
The Jew is allowed to exploit the mistake of a non-Jew and to deceive him (Baba Kamma 113b)
It was taught: R. phinehas b. Yair said that where there was a danger of causing a profanation of the Name, even the retaining of a lost article of a heathen is a crime. Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were supposed to be a hundred while he similarly left him minus one zuz and said to him: 'See that I am relying upon you.' Rabina together with a heathen bought a palm-tree to chop up [and divide]. He thereupon said to his attendant: Quick, bring to me the parts near to the roots, for the heathen is interested only in the number [but not in the quality]. R. Ashi was once walking on the road when he noticed branches of vines outside a vineyard upon which ripe clusters of grapes were hanging. He said to his attendant: 'Go and see, if they belong to a heathen bring them to me, but if to an Israelite do not bring them to me.' The heathen happened to be then sitting in the vineyard and thus overheard this conversation, so he said to him: 'If of a heathen would they be permitted?' — He replied: 'A heathen is usually prepared to [dispose of his grapes and] accept payment, whereas an Israelite is generally not prepared to [do so and] accept payment.
This text shows many examples of how for Jews there is no such thing as morality and honesty when it comes to non-Jews; to the point where the text also mentions an example of lies given when caught by a gentile. The overall idea is that when jews see some mistake is being made, being aware of it, they say nothing and rather seek to exploit it.
The Jew is allowed to practice usury with complete immunity for the investor on the non-Jew (Baba Mezi'a 70b)
MISHNAH. One may not accept from an Israelite an 'iron flock' [investment with complete immunity for the investor], because that is usury. But such may be accepted from heathens. And one may borrow from and lend to them on interest. The same applies to a resident alien. An Israelite may lend a gentiles money [on interest] with the knowledge of the gentile, but not of the Israelite
Only Jews are true men (Baba Mezi'a 114b)
[He asked him further:] Whence do we know that a naked man must not separate [terumah]? — From the verse, That He see no unclean thing in thee. Said he [Rabbah] to him: Art thou not a priest: why then dost thou stand in a cemetery? — He replied: Has the Master not studied the laws of purity? For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men; only ye are designated 'men'.
Usually, when a man dies in a tent. The man and everything in the tent is considered unclean for 7 days. This part quotes Ezekiel 34:31, which makes no mention of purity laws. Therefore, it is clearly implied that gentiles are not men, not that they are not the men referred to by some purity law (as in the law not mentioning gentile men).
If a heathen hits hard a Jew, he must be killed. Hitting a Jew on the jaw is like hitting God (Sanhedrin 58b)
R. Hanina said: If a heathen smites a Jew, he is worthy of death, for it is written, And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian. R. Hanina also said: He who smites an Israelite on the jaw, is as though he had thus assaulted the Divine Presence; for it is written, one who smiteth man [i.e. an Israelite] attacketh the Holy One.
It is clear that the text doesn't just refer to killing, since it mentions smiting on the jaw, and the first quote seems to refer to Exodus 2:12 where Moses kills an Egyptian beating a Hebrew. The text doesn't mention that killing him was righteous, and rather conveys that it was done in an emotional manner after witnessing mistreatment. The very Hebrews later tell him "Are you planning to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?".
It is usual to claim that certain affronts can be done as if to God. Still, talking of a person being in a way representative of God usually refers to holy offices (e.g. the priest while hearing confession, or performing certain sacraments in the name of Christ).
The robbed items of a gentile by a Jew can be kept by the Jew. Similarly, the murder is not punished by death (Sanhedrin 57a)
Has it not been taught: 'With respect to robbery — if one stole or robbed or [seized] a beautiful woman, or [committed] similar offences, if [these were perpetrated] by one heathen against another, [the theft, etc.] must not be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a heathen, but that of a heathen by an Israelite may be retained'?
But where a penalty is incurred, it is explicitly stated, for the commencing clause teaches: 'For murder, whether of a heathen by a heathen or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a heathen by an Israelite, there is no death penalty'
It looks like in this version, heathen (goy) was censored with "Cuthean".
Jews can withhold the wages of gentiles (Sanhedrin 57a)
But R. Aha, the son of R. Ika answered; It applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage. One heathen from another, or a heathen from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a heathen is permitted.
God will not spare a Jew who returns a lost object to a gentile Sanhedrin 76b
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One who marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son, or returns a lost article to a Cuthean, — concerning him Scripture sayeth, [that he bless himself in his heart saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart] to add drunkedness to thirst: The Lord will not spare him
Again, "Cuthean" is the censored version of "goy".
As has been seen, the claims about what the Talmud states about the goyim is not some silly fiction, but the reality that can be found and expected from those who worship themselves and hate those who worship God. The Talmud is a collection of poor attempts to find legalistic loopholes by which to ignore every single commandment given by God. Next time a Jew tries to glorify it, mention one of these examples without giving detail, then hope that he will be arrogant enough to try to deny it, and see how he crumbles when you present the detailed text.