>This passage is not an instruction of committing a crime, but an advice to one who has lost control of his actions and desires. It does not offer a permission to sin, but rather a more indirect form of admonition that is meant for sick individuals.
That's your supposition and nothing more. The text itself says that if you want to do evil, you should go do it in a place where you're not known. It's clearly advocating criminality, and the pure conjecture you've presented as to its 'real' meaning doesn't mean anything because it has no basis.
>Yes, Jews must obey the rulings of their rabbis.
So you agree, that anyone who disobeys a rabbi gets boiled in excrement for eternity.
>The Sanhedrin are the courts of Jewish elders. Their judgements only deal with disputes between Jews, not between gentiles or between Jews and gentiles.
The Talmud and the Code of Jewish Law both prohibit killing and stealing from gentiles.
Incorrect, as Sanhedrin 57a does state what I said it does.
"A heathen is executed for theviolation of the seven Noachian laws; the Divine Law having revealed this of one [murder], itapplies to all. Now is a heathen executed for robbery? Has it not been taught: ‘With respect torobbery — if one stole or robbed30 or [seized] a beautiful woman,31 or [committed] similaroffences,32 if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean33 against another, [the theft, etc.] must not bekept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite maybe retained’?"
Kikes allowed to steal from non-kikes, right there.
"It applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage.44 One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted."
Kikes allowed to withhold the wages of non-kikes.
If you quote other passages which contradict this, then you showcase the hypocrisy of the text, but don't negate anything - it still clearly permits those things which it says it permits. Furthermore, quotations from outside of the Talmud are not what we're discussing; Maimonides is irrelevent to this discussion, for example.
>Ketuvot 11b does not permit anything, but explains the distinction of virgins and non-virgins.
Talmud repeatedly and explicitly forbids sexual relations outside of marriage. The Talmud forbids young children without agency from being married.
Lie. Here's what it actually says:
"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 thepriesthood.4 Beth Hillel declare her fit. R. Hiyya the son of Rabbah b. Nahmani said in R. Hisda'sname; others state, R. Hisda said in Ze'iri's name: All agree that the connection of a boy aged nineyears and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not:5 their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old, Beth Shammai maintaining, We must base our ruling on the earlier generations, but6 Beth Hillel hold that we do not."
Next, Kethuboth 11b clearly advocates fucking young girls of 3 years or less:
" small boy who has intercourse with a grown-upwoman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood.1 When I said it before Samuel hesaid: ‘Injured by a piece of wood’ does not apply to2 flesh. Some teach this teaching by itself:3 [Asto] a small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman. Rab said, he makes her [as though shewere] injured by a piece of wood; whereas Samuel said: ‘Injured by a piece of wood’ does not applyto flesh. R. Oshaia objected: WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN HAS HAD INTERCOURSE WITH ALITTLE GIRL, OR WHEN A SMALL BOY HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UPWOMAN, OR WHEN A GIRL WAS ACCIDENTALLY INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD-[INALL 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 PIECEOF WOOD — HER KETHUBAH IS A MANEH!4 Raba said. It means5 this: When a grown-up manhas intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this,6 it is as if one puts thefinger 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". You quoting Maimonides means nothing since we're discussing the Talmud itself, not extra-talmudic commentators. Kiddushin 41a also doesn't negate it, since we the point wasn't whether the young girl was given in marriage, but merely whether it was permitted to fuck her, which it clearly is.