What about the Jewish Talmud and these quotes? [Note: Click on the reference to get to my answer about a specific passage.]
Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
Sanhedrin 59a: "A Goy (Gentile) who pries into the law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything with a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."
Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is of three years of age."
Sanhedrin 105ab: "Jesus fornicated with his jackass."
Gittin 57a: "Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being boiled in semen. Christians are boiled in dung."
Schabouth Hag. 6b: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
Zohar 1,160a: "Jews must always try to deceive Christians." Hilkkoth Akum Z1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
Choschen Ham 388, 15: "If it be proven that someone has given the money of israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of this earth."
Choschen Ham 266, 1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely if by so doing Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
These misquotes and fabrications come straight from the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan web site. Some cannot be explained simply because the quotes do not exist in the Talmud. Some references are to a book that does not exist in Talmud or any Jewish literature. Others are taken seriously out of context, or add words or thoughts that are not in the original.
1. Sanhedrin 59a says nothing about murdering the heathen, nor does it relate the death of a gentile to the death of a wild animal. It says "R. Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses command us a law for an inheritance; it is our inheritance, not theirs." The tractate goes on to refute this statement by discussing the laws about eating blood. Even in this statement, if accepted, there is no mention of murdering the heathen. "Worthy of death" implies a judicial sentence, not murder.
2. Abodah Zara 26b is taken seriously out of context. What the original says is "but minim [idolatrous priests, whether Jewish or gentile], informers, and apostates [specifically Jewish] may be cast in [a pit], and need not be brought up." This says nothing about killing, and much less about killing gentiles. If it says anything about killing, Jews are included. The discussion, however, is whether a gentile may circumcise a Jew. The argument about who may be thrown into a put, pulled out but not thrown in, etc., concludes by saying that the pit should be covered so that nobody goes in.
3. Sanhedrin 59a does say, recording a conversation between two teachers, that one of them zealously said that a heathen who looks into the Law (the Torah, not the Talmud) should be guilty of death. It goes on to say, however, that the other teacher destroyed his argument, showing instead that a heathen who pries into the Law becomes as a High Priest. So this quote is taken out of context, just like some political candidates take their opponentís comments out of context for their own ads.
4. Libbre David 37 is a pure fabrication. There is no such tractate in Talmud, nor any such book or portion of a book in all of Jewish literature.
5. Yebhamoth 11b says nothing about intercourse with a little girl. Actually, the reference should be Kethuboth 11b, concerning betrothals. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is as if one puts the finger into the eye." A footnote to that passage says that if a man were to have intercourse with a three year old she should not suffer the consequences of loss of virginity when she become eligible for marriage. The comment is actually a defense of victimís rights. The man who did such thing would be punished, but the victim shouldnít be.
6. Sanhedrin 105a talks about Balaam (of talking donkey fame), and does claim that he fornicated with his ass (presumably a Jenny Ass, not a jackass). "Balaam was blind in one eye, as it is said, [and the man] whose eye is open . . .45 He practised enchantment by means of his membrum. For here it is written, falling, but having his eyes open; whilst elsewhere is written, And Haman was fallen on the bed whereon Esther was. It was stated, Mar Zutra said: He practised enchantment by means of his membrum. Mar the son of Rabina said: He committed bestiality with his ass. The view that he practised enchantment by means of his membrum is as was stated. The view that he committed bestiality with his ass is because here it is written, He bowed, he lay down as a lion and as a great lion." It says absolutely nothing about Jesus. In fact, nothing is said about Jesus in the entire Talmud, much of which was written before Jesus was born or during his lifetime.
7. Gittin 57a tells of Balaam and some Jewish heretics suffering such fates. "He then went and raised Balaam by incantations. He asked him: Who is in repute in the other world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He replied: Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.1 He then asked: What is your punishment? He replied: With boiling hot semen." It does not mention Jesus or Christians. The heretics mentioned were probably the Sadduccees.
8. Shabouth Hag 6b doesnít exist in the Talmud. I could find no such reference, except in lists similar to the one you sent me. Hag Shavuot is the Hebrew for the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost). There is no Talmudic tractate specific to that festival.
9. Zohar 1, 160a and Hilkoth Akum are not part of Talmud. There is no such reference as Zohar 1, 160a. (Zohar references donít have letters in them, like Talmud references do.) I could find no passage in Zohar about deceiving Christians. In fact, the Zohar considered any deceit (no matter to whom it was directed) to be wrong. Maimonides (not the Talmud) wrote varous Hilkot, but none is named Hilkot Akum.
10. Choschen Ham 388, 15 and 266,1 are not part of Talmud. There is no such book or tractate as Choschen Ham. It may be an abbreviation of Choshen HaMishpat, which is not part of Talmud. If it is Choshen HaMishpat that is intended, there is no such quote. If it is the Choshen Mishpat section of Rabbi Josef Karo that is intended, the passages in question are taken seriously out of context. The first one actually says that if a Jew owes a debt to a non-Jew then he must repay it, but if the non-Jew would not accept repayment he might use deceit to give the money back.
The compilers of this list clearly had an agenda to push, and were not hesitant to lie and misrepresent in order to push it. It is similar to lists other groups have put forth to try and discredit the Jews or others, and end up showing themselves to be foolish instead.