But why would a Jєω rabbi Baptize, when his тαℓмυd tells him the Gentiles are cattle and Our Lord is in Hell?

Not everybody reads the whole of the тαℓмυd. 

Perhaps because the Rabbi is a decent human being who wants to put the mother's mind at ease and perform an act of charity.

Praise of rabbi on a Traditional Catholic forum? What's next, a post accusing St. John Chrysostom of being an "αnтι-ѕємιтє?"

Oh, that's right. Sigismund already blazed that trail back in 2014:
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/are-the-Jєωs-worse-than-this/60/

Perhaps because the Rabbi is a decent human being who wants to put the mother's mind at ease and perform an act of charity.

Sigmund,  

You know full well that the тαℓмυd instructs Jєωs to have no charity or mercy towards the gentiles.

To do so would be a sin in the eyes of their father.

Perhaps because the Rabbi is a decent human being who wants to put the mother's mind at ease and perform an act of charity.

I was thinking of the validity of the baptism, not how likely it would be done. 

In 1872, the Holy Office dealt with the case of whether Baptism is valid, even when the minister told those he was about to baptize not to believe it will have any effect on their soul.  The Holy Office responded that even the expressed declaration of the minister that a sacrament produced no effects is not enough to invalidate the sacrament, since it still would not exclude the intention to do what the Church does.

“In some places, some (heretics) baptize with the proper matter and the form simultaneously applied, but they expressly warn the baptizands not to believe that baptism has any effect upon the soul; for they say that it is merely the external sign of aggregation of the sects. And so often the Catholics in their crowd turn around their belief about the effects of Baptism, and call it superstitious.


Question:
 1. Whether baptism administered by those heretics is doubtful on account of defect of intention to do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister before he baptized that baptism had no effect on the soul?

 2. Whether baptism so conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect?”

 Reply to the first question: In the negative; because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church does is not excluded.

 Reply to the second question: Provided for in the answer to the first.

- Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii. 18 Decem. 1872 – Vic. Ap. Oceaniae Centr.  “Dubium quoad Baptisma ad mi n i stratu m ab haereticis.” Acta Sanctae Sedis, Vol. XXV, 1892-93, p. 246.


A similar case was addressed by the Holy Office in 1877. As with the last case, this involved a question about the validity of baptisms conferred and received by Methodists who considered baptism to be indifferent and unnecessary. The Holy Office confirmed that their baptisms were valid, despite their beliefs.

From “The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments.” (Salvo, 1949):

The Bishop of Nesqually had addressed to the Propaganda an inquiry concerning the validity of baptisms conferred by Methodists, against the validity of whose baptisms he alleged an insufficient and adverse intention and consequently the presumption of invalidity. The Bishop stated that the Methodists held so many errors about the necessity, the power, and the efficacy of the sacrament of Baptism that they considered it merely an indifferent rite which had been entirely omitted in the past and at a later time had been put into use again for the purpose of deceiving the faithful and attempting to show them that their false religion did not differ from the true religion. (Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, Jan.24, 1877--CSCPF, n.1465, Vol.II, pp.99-100 sqq.) To this question the Holy Office gave a very detailed answer which is one of the most explicit statements about the intention of doing what the Church does. In substance the reply lays down the following principles:

 1. It is a dogma of faith that Baptism administered by anyone, whether a schismatic, a heretic, or even an infidel, must be considered valid, as long as in their administration those things are present by which the sacrament is perfected, namely, due matter, the prescribed form, and the person of the minister with the intention of doing what the Church does. Hence it follows that the peculiar errors which the ministers profess either privately or publicly do not at all affect baptism or any other sacrament.
 
2. The errors which the heretics profess privately or publicly are not incompatible with that intention which the ministers of the sacraments must have, namely, of doing what the Church does. Those errors in themselves cannot give rise to a general presumption against the validity of the sacraments in general and baptism in particular.

 From these principles taken from the decision of the Holy Office it must be concluded that as a general rule the baptisms of heretics are valid in spite of the fact that their ministers hold beliefs entirely incompatible with the Catholic doctrine concerning Baptism, and deny all power of regeneration in that sacrament. Their error does not offer sufficient reason to conclude that they have an insufficient or adverse intention in regard to conferring the sacrament. 

- De Salvo, Rev. Raphael, O.S.B., S.T.L. The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments. 1949. pp.28-29

If you find it inconceivable that some rabbi somewhere might want to comfort a distressed woman, the problem lies in your lack of charity, not in rabbis or me.

 
Says the man who judged the Golden-Mouthed Doctor according to the standards of the ADL.

We all have beams in our eyes, but that's an awfully big one. 

I have a relative who is a Jєωιѕн doctor.  He has baptized 3 babies during his long career, because the parent asked him to and he was happy tos dos something that, while meaningless to him, brought comfort to them.  The fact that Is seems impossible that any Jєω could be decent and empathetic enough to do tihs is astonishingly malevolent and foolish, even by Cathinfo standards of malevolent foolishness. 

He's a deacon and he called St. John Chrysostom an αnтι-ѕємιтє? 

I hope for everyone's sake, Sigismund, that if your parish read his Paschal Homily last weekend, that you didn't need a trigger warning. Shame on you.