Hi, I'm sure some of your links are accurate and some overstated, but I chime in and comment where I know there are mistakes.

To call Ishut by Maimonides "one of their 'holy books'" is like calling any random Bible study a Christian "holy book". It's just one voice in Judaism and is not taken as authoritative. Majority Talmudic decisions are taken as authoritative if the minority concerns are also understood.

Ishut 3:11 states at your link, 'A father may consecrate his daughter without her knowledge while she is a minor. Even when she is a na’arah, he still possesses this right, as implied by Deuteronomy 22:16: “I gave my daughter to this man.” The money received as kiddushin belongs to her father. Similarly, he has the right to any ownerless property she finds, the wages she receives for her labor, and the money she receives as stipulated in her ketubah if she is divorced or widowed before the marriage bond is consummated. He is entitled to all these until she becomes a bogeret. Therefore, a father is entitled to receive kiddushin on behalf of his daughter from the day she was born until she becomes a bogeret. Even if she is a deaf mute or intellectually incompetent, if her father consecrates her to another man, she is his wife.' This is not about sex with 3-year-olds, this is (only in a culture that protects virginity until maturity and consent) about the right to betrothe (reserve) a minor girl on the assumption that formal marriage and consummation will follow her maturation. In those days child marriage was used to protect girls from abuse by reserving them in advance of puberty; obviously we don't have a culture today that can use that system (albeit our current systems aren't doing so well at protecting children either).

Now, the 3-year-old mark is notable for arising in Talmudic Judaism, but not with the misunderstanding proposed. The basic rule is that Gen. 2 teaches that sex is for mature marriage and so all deviancies are forbidden (and some are capital). Because the Talmud desires to describe every conceivable case no matter how abstruse (as illustrated by the Sadducaic question about the widow of seven men), they consider all cases about what would happen if there were child sexual abuse, and in particular the question of balancing undue further harm to the victim against the need to punish the criminal. The agreed ruling, if I'm saying it right, was that sexual abuse of a girl over three would be the capital offense of rape, but that for a lower age it would merely be ruled as child sexual abuse so that the victim's rights to a full marriage contract would not be harmed by her unwittingly being abused. Note, that is well advanced from the prevailing Roman law by which a homeowner could abuse or kill any child of the home, free or slave, as his own right. So there is no proof anywhere that "Jews are okay with having sex with three year olds", although if you take the Talmud out of context it might easily be misunderstood just as if you took US statutes about child abuse out of context. Excessive boring detail.

The Gittin 57a passage is the single most misquoted passage anywhere on Scored. (1) It does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth but to a stock character "Yeshu" that composites three or more marginal Jews of the same name from three different centuries. (2) It does not say Yeshu was raised by necromancy as a factual statement but in the context of a joke: in English if a text began "A pagan, a Roman, and a Jew walked into a seance", we would know right off it was setting up a punchline. (The punchline is that Yeshu, the Jew, unlike the others, still affirms the Jewish people after his death, so they must be unbeatable.) (3) The text says nothing about what Christians infer from the English word "hell" apart from being dead. (4) The text does not say "punished with boiling excrement", which is a paraphrase. It only speaks of boiling excrement being used as punishment indirectly, and contemporary views of this regard it as a time-limited punishment.

In short, Christians are being baited to go crazy about Gittin in the same way that Muslims go crazy over a single depiction of Muhammad as a live bomb. It's just an anonymous joke and may as well be about Yeshu the idolatrous student of ben Perachiah. If a few Jews took the passage as actually making fun of Jesus, it's no worse than Celsus making fun of him, or patristic texts making fun of non-Christian religions. It's certainly not a dogma just because it jokes about a Yeshu coming back from the dead with awareness of the pains of the afterlife. Excessive boring detail.

I'm all for exposure of truths, but not for distortions that compromise the other things you may be saying that may be true. To criticize the Talmud inaccurately is to be subject to being accused of being an IDF bot yourself, who is shilling by making anti-Semites look stupid; the Talmud can be accurately criticized for its superstition and insularity and casuistry without reference to distortions. NOTE TO ENEMIES OF TRUTH - "you will lose. Our numbers here are just a grain of sand compared to the people who feel this way. You don't stand a chance."