1 Sanhedrin 59a: quote is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.
2 Avodah Zarah 26b: out-of-context quote is from a different medieval source, Tractate Soferim 15 (see below for details). Avodah Zarah's closest statement seems to be: But may not a Gentile circumcise a Jew, because are suspected of bloodshed. The statement of Rabbi Meir. Even there, another Meir statement is taken to imply that a professional Gentile physician may circumcise a Jew: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean physician, Aramean circumcise and Samaritan not circumcise. The statement of Rabbi Meir. This is about Gentiles not being subject to Jewish courts, not about them being subject. Tractate Soferim 15: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, not from the main Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from early addenda.
3-5 See #1.
6 Yevamot 11b: quote appears to be a conflation of Yevamot 57b and Ketubot 11b. Ketubot says: "An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl ... their marriage contract is two hundred .... More than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not a claim virginity .... An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl, nothing, as less than is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye." This is not about age at marriage, this is about marriage to a mature woman who had been abused in her youth. The ruling is that a girl abused after the age of three has a lower brideprice because she is not a virgin, but a girl abused before that can still be counted as a virgin; that is, it provides opportunity for healing for the immature victim by not challenging her virginity on physiological grounds. I've previously pointed out that Gen. 2:24 regulates sexual intercourse as limited to a covenanted man and woman, and that the abuser is thus still subject to the death penalty regardless. Ketubot is about the marriageability aspect, not about the crime; and Yevamot 57b is about the applicability of levirate marriage and is even more tangential. 57b says: "With regard to a girl less than three years and one day old. Since there is no intercourse her." This just restates the principle above that an abuse incident in an infant's life is not held against her virginity, and it goes on to apply this principle to the mature bride's rights to eat offerings.
7 Shavuot Haggadah: no match. There are many books so named. Pranaitis translates Rohling as "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only." Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1327), and "Shevuot, Haggahot Asheri" 6:4 by Israel of Krems (15th c.), may be intended, as Israel speaks about false oaths. The quote is similar to Bava Kamma 113a. Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." The two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.
8-9 Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1, says: "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." As in Yoreh De'ah 158, this is not Talmud, is not about goyim but is limited to idolaters (with Jewish idolaters being mentioned separately), and refers only if one's own life would be at risk. Deut. 7:2 is limited to the seven nations in Canaan judged for their idolatry, who were in a state of war with Israel and were not to be shown mercy, so Maimonides extends this to other hypothetical known idolaters.
10 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388: no match, quote is from Pranaitis, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.
11 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266: no match. It does teach the general principle that "finders keepers" sometimes applies when restoring property is impractical, such as for low value without distinct marks where the owner is unlikely to search long, or if hypothetically returning the property would be blasphemous (not "because"). The quoted development must come from a later source. However, another sentence taken from this passage is not an unreasonable paraphrase of the second half of this paragraph: "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"; but again, the text does not mention God, Christians, Jews, or honorable. A probably errant modification of Google's translation yields: "If one returned it to him in order to sanctify the name so that Israel will cause pride and they know that they have faith, that is fine."
12 Tur, Yoreh Deah 17, 14th century, does not say "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim ask if our books contain anything against them." This chapter pertains to animal slaughter and seems wholly unrelated. It is likely that a source is intended that would be called part 17 of "She'elot u-Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah", but the first two words mean Q&A or responsa, and could refer to any such book commenting on Yoreh Deah. Attribution of the quote to "Libbre David 37", or to Passover prayers in Pranaitis, appears to be confusion from its repeated close proximity to quotes from those sources. No searches indicate further leads on the original source of this particular quote, but it's clearly not Talmud, although it is close to Bava Kamma 113a.
13 Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)
14 Shabbat 32b does not say "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." Original: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499, by Simeon ha-Darshan, translated: "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him."
15 Midrash Talpiot 315 accurately says (my translation): "For the honor of Israel, that the star and constellation worshippers were not created except to serve them day and night, who would not rest from their work, and there is no honor in the son of a king that a beast in the form of a beast should serve him but it is as a beast in the form of a man." Compare copy and translation by Israel Shamir. Page 315 in this edition corresponds to (Rohling) 255 in the Warsaw 1875 edition, later misquoted as 225. This is tamer than the misquote and only has the Akum as beasts metaphorically, "as a beast" in reference to a bestial spirit; not unlike the Christian's view of the unsaved's dead spirit.
16 Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.
17 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8: It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."
18 Sanhedrin 57a, actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. I'ts not about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" So, since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.
19 See #10.
20 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348 is about theft, but the closest I find, translated by Google, is: "A question to Gaon. Who is suspected of theft and there are no witnesses against him, and there are witnesses against him for another theft before, what is the law against him? Answer: Thus we have seen that there is neither judgment nor flogging for him unless the Torah commands flogging except with two witnesses, but they will judge him by a decree." The imaginative interpretation quoted is not in Pranaitis, so may have come from another route.
1 Sanhedrin 59a: quote is several layers away from what the passage was originally about, namely, what natural law applies to all men and what Mosaic law applies to the Jews. Sanhedrin is accurately paraphrased as "A goy who pries into the law is guilty of death"; more literally at Sefaria, in one rabbi's name: "Rabbi Yohanan says: A Gentile who engages in Torah, liable death; as it is stated: 'Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance'; it is an inheritance for us, and not for them." This view is then rejected in favor of another baraita by Rabbi Meir, with the conclusion, "You have therefore learned that even a Gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest. There, in their seven mitzvot." That is, since Gentiles must study Torah to find out the (seven) Laws of Noah, they are free to study Torah; and Yohanan represents a rejected view. The extended form of the statement above comes not from the Talmud but is often attributed to a fictitious book name, "Libbre David 37". The nonexistence of "Libbre David" as a book or even a Hebrew phrase, and the nonexistence of quotes in several of the books correctly titled "Dibre David" beginning in 1671, was noted as early as 1920 by Hermann Strack, cited in 1939 by Ben Zion Bokser. This typo and quote arose from an anti-Talmud pamphlet, apparently by August Rohling (c. 1871), quoted by Joseph S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, 1927, p. 4. However, the quote may still exist in some unsearched Dibre David.
2 Avodah Zarah 26b: out-of-context quote is from a different medieval source, Tractate Soferim 15 (see below for details). Avodah Zarah's closest statement seems to be: But may not a Gentile circumcise a Jew, because are suspected of bloodshed. The statement of Rabbi Meir. Even there, another Meir statement is taken to imply that a professional Gentile physician may circumcise a Jew: In a city in which there is no Jewish physician, and in which there is a Samaritan physician and an Aramean physician, Aramean circumcise and Samaritan not circumcise. The statement of Rabbi Meir. This is about Gentiles not being subject to Jewish courts, not about them being subject. Tractate Soferim 15: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, not from the main Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from early addenda.
3-5 See #1.
6 Yevamot 11b: quote appears to be a conflation of Yevamot 57b and Ketubot 11b. Ketubot says: "An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl ... their marriage contract is two hundred .... More than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not a claim virginity .... An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl, nothing, as less than is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye." This is not about age at marriage, this is about marriage to a mature woman who had been abused in her youth. The ruling is that a girl abused after the age of three has a lower brideprice because she is not a virgin, but a girl abused before that can still be counted as a virgin; that is, it provides opportunity for healing for the immature victim by not challenging her virginity on physiological grounds. I've previously pointed out that Gen. 2:24 regulates sexual intercourse as limited to a covenanted man and woman, and that the abuser is thus still subject to the death penalty regardless. Ketubot is about the marriageability aspect, not about the crime; and Yevamot 57b is about the applicability of levirate marriage and is even more tangential. 57b says: "With regard to a girl less than three years and one day old. Since there is no intercourse her." This just restates the principle above that an abuse incident in an infant's life is not held against her virginity, and it goes on to apply this principle to the mature bride's rights to eat offerings.
7 Shavuot Haggadah: no match. There are many books so named. Pranaitis translates Rohling as "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only." Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1327), and "Shevuot, Haggahot Asheri" 6:4 by Israel of Krems (15th c.), may be intended, as Israel speaks about false oaths. The quote is similar to Bava Kamma 113a. Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." The two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.
8-9 Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1, says: "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." As in Yoreh De'ah 158, this is not Talmud, is not about goyim but is limited to idolaters (with Jewish idolaters being mentioned separately), and refers only if one's own life would be at risk. Deut. 7:2 is limited to the seven nations in Canaan judged for their idolatry, who were in a state of war with Israel and were not to be shown mercy, so Maimonides extends this to other hypothetical known idolaters.
10 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 388: no match, quote is from Pranaitis, where his original adds that someone has "betrayed Israel three times, or"; he attributes it as 388:10, 15, but paragraph 15 doesn't exist. I hesitate to translate paragraph 11, but it appears to teach that money was (somehow) forbidden to be lost solely due to the accusation of an informer (spy), or to be surrendered to the government three times due solely to an informer, which is a far cry from the interpretation edited from Pranaitis (who says spy, not denunciator) from the medieval text. So, yet again, a reasonable enough dictum is greatly exaggerated by a lost modern chain of commentary.
11 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 266: no match. It does teach the general principle that "finders keepers" sometimes applies when restoring property is impractical, such as for low value without distinct marks where the owner is unlikely to search long, or if hypothetically returning the property would be blasphemous (not "because"). The quoted development must come from a later source. However, another sentence taken from this passage is not an unreasonable paraphrase of the second half of this paragraph: "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"; but again, the text does not mention God, Christians, Jews, or honorable. A probably errant modification of Google's translation yields: "If one returned it to him in order to sanctify the name so that Israel will cause pride and they know that they have faith, that is fine."
12 Tur, Yoreh Deah 17, 14th century, does not say "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim ask if our books contain anything against them." This chapter pertains to animal slaughter and seems wholly unrelated. It is likely that a source is intended that would be called part 17 of "She'elot u-Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah", but the first two words mean Q&A or responsa, and could refer to any such book commenting on Yoreh Deah. Attribution of the quote to "Libbre David 37", or to Passover prayers in Pranaitis, appears to be confusion from its repeated close proximity to quotes from those sources. No searches indicate further leads on the original source of this particular quote, but it's clearly not Talmud, although it is close to Bava Kamma 113a.
13 Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)
14 Shabbat 32b does not say "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves." Original: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Yalkut Shimoni on Nach. 499, by Simeon ha-Darshan, translated: "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him."
15 Midrash Talpiot 225, by Elijah Kohen (1698), does not say "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." Pranaitis is tamer. Page 225 online I roughly translate as "And added Israel according to the fact that they are one special people to one supreme God as it is written 'and who is like your people Israel, one nation'. And he said, since you are Israel, one nation, it is proper for you to prepare yourself and prepare yourself for the one, and please eat and not drink a couple, so that you may think in your heart for a few seconds." This quotes 2 Sam. 7:23 tamely. Rohling refers to the Warsaw 1875 edition instead.
16 Avodah Zarah 36b-37a does not say "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." It says: "When a Gentile child impart ritual impurity as ziva? .... Female Gentile child is three years and one day old, since she is fit to intercourse, she also imparts impurity as ziva." This is not about permission, but about when a forbidden act also carries ritual impurity. Abuse of younger children is just as bad, as in Gen. 2:24, but the idiosyncratic ruling was that, if a temple stood, it would not rise to impurity from mature bodily discharge. Making a biological statement into a permission is the perversity here.
17 Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8: It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."
18 Sanhedrin 57a, actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. I'ts not about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" So, since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8.
19 See #10.
20 Tur, Choshen Mishpat 348 is about theft, but the closest I find, translated by Google, is: "A question to Gaon. Who is suspected of theft and there are no witnesses against him, and there are witnesses against him for another theft before, what is the law against him? Answer: Thus we have seen that there is neither judgment nor flogging for him unless the Torah commands flogging except with two witnesses, but they will judge him by a decree." The imaginative interpretation quoted is not in Pranaitis, so may have come from another route.