The name “Israel” carries profound significance, reflecting both the identity and destiny of the Jewish people. Far from being just a geographic or political term, Israel encapsulates a spiritual and existential mission rooted in struggle, perseverance, and transformation.

The word “Israel” originates in the Hebrew Bible, specifically in Genesis 32:29, where Jacob, the third patriarch of the Jewish people, is given a new name after wrestling with a divine being. The verse states, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, for you have struggled with G‑d and with humans and have prevailed.” The Hebrew root of Israel, Yisrael, derives from Sarah (to strive or struggle) and El (G‑d), literally meaning “one who struggles with G‑d.”

This name defines not only Jacob but also the nation that descends from him—the Israelites, or the Jewish people. Jacob’s life was marked by constant challenges: he contended with his brother Esau, was deceived by his father-in-law Laban, and even wrestled with a mysterious angelic figure. Yet, through each struggle, he emerged stronger, earning the name Israel. This legacy of striving became the hallmark of the Jewish people.

What makes the name Israel particularly striking is its focus on the struggle itself rather than the victory. According to Jewish thought, as articulated by scholars like Rabbi Leibel Eiger in Torat Emet (Parshat Vayishlach), the essence of Israel lies in the act of grappling—with G‑d, with others, and with oneself. Judaism does not prioritize serenity, an afterlife, or a guaranteed happy ending. Instead, it celebrates the effort to pursue goodness, justice, and moral growth in the here and now, regardless of the outcome.

This ethos is reflected in the Jewish people’s history and the modern State of Israel. From ancient times through centuries of exile to the challenges of nationhood today, the Jewish people have faced adversity—external threats, internal debates, and spiritual questions. The name Israel embodies this resilience, a commitment to striving for a better world while wrestling with complex realities.

In essence, Israel is more than a place or a people; it is a mission. To be Israel is to embrace the struggle for truth, righteousness, and self-improvement, never accepting the world as it is but working tirelessly to make it what it could be.

Sources:

• Genesis 32:29.
• Torat Emet, Rabbi Leibel Eiger of Lublin, Parshat Vayishlach.

The post What Does Israel Mean? appeared first on HaShem.Faith.

AIPAC is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an American organization which is funded by Americans and helps fund American politicians who support the Israeli-American relationship.

FARA is the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Foreign-controlled or funded entities such as RT (formerly Russia Today) or China Global Television Network must register under FARA. American-owned organizations funded by Americans, regardless of their purpose, are not required to register under FARA. Educational foreign-funded or controlled organizations such as the Confucius Institute were granted exemptions, however, since 2020, have had to register under the Foreign Missions Act.

While some conspiracy theorists and anti-Israel activists have stated that AIPAC should register under FARA, they often are either confused on what the purpose of FARA is or they are purposely obscuring the purpose to drive people who don’t know about the topic towards skepticism of Israel or overt antisemitism. Because AIPAC is an American organization and it is funded by Americans, it has absolutely no reason to be registered under FARA.

The post Should AIPAC Be Registered As A Foreign Organization Under FARA? appeared first on HaShem.Faith.

No, Jewish is not a language. “Jewish” is an adjective referring to people, practices, or cultural elements associated with Jews, whether through ethnicity, religion, or heritage.

The primary language historically associated with the Jewish people is Hebrew. Hebrew is both an ancient and modern language, used in religious texts like the Tanakh (referred to as the Old Testament by Christians) and as the official language of Israel today.

Additionally, Yiddish, a Germanic language with Hebrew and Slavic influences, has been widely spoken by Ashkenazi Jewish communities, particularly in Europe and North America. Other Jewish diaspora communities have also used languages like Ladino (Judeo-Spanish) or Aramaic in specific historical contexts.

While “Jewish” itself is not a language, the term can be associated with these rich linguistic traditions that reflect the diversity of Jewish culture and history. Thus, Hebrew, Yiddish, Ladino, and Aramaic could be considered Jewish languages.

The post Is Jewish a Language? appeared first on HaShem.Faith.

This is a complex issue and the following explanation will fully address the issue in great detail.  What we will demonstrate is that the Talmud does not state anywhere that gentiles are animals.  Both the passage in Yevamot and the story about Elijah are misrepresented by the accusation.

What the passages actually mean is that, due to the biblical prohibition against Jews marrying outside their religion, there is no legal standing to sexual relations between a Jew and a gentile.  While this may seem offensive to some, it is the view of the Talmud.

There are a number of interesting points to be raised about this passage.  However, first and foremost is the inference that has been drawn by some that this passage states that gentiles are considered donkeys by the Talmud.  Reading through this passage, that seems like a correct inference.  However, considering another passage that discuss this verse, it becomes clear that this is not the case at all.  In fact, as we shall soon see, the Talmud actually states that possibility and quickly rejects it.

Let us first put this event into its proper historical context.  Aaron Hyman [Toldot Tannaim Ve’amoraim, vol. 3 pp. 1111-1112] places this during the time of R. Shimon ben Gamaliel II which is early second century.  Around fifty years earlier the Temple had been destroyed and large portions of the Jewish population brought to Rome and sold as slaves.  The Jews were still persecuted due to the decrees of the emperor Trajan (reigned 98 to 117) and, when he died and Hadrian became his successor, Hadrian’s early policy of tolerance was changed to one of persecution as well, some say due to Jewish informers who warned against giving Jews too much independence.  In the year 114, the huge Jewish population of Alexandria was almost wiped out by rioting gentiles with the tacit approval of the Roman government.  In the year 123, Hadrian forbade Jews from observing their Sabbath and circumcising their sons [Mattis Kantor, The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia, pp. 103-105].  These were dangerous and scary times for Jews.  This difficult situation culminated in a revolt in the year 127.  However, the events in our passage evidently precede the revolt.

The man in our passage had committed a religious offense and was being punished by a Jewish court.  Having relations with anyone other than one’s wife is forbidden under Jewish law, as is marrying a gentile [see Deut. 7:3; Ezra 9; Nehemiah 13:23-28].  This man had sinned and the court tried and convicted him for this offense.  [Courts such as this no longer have the religious or secular authority to punish for such sins.]  However, this court was not recognized by the Romans and had no authority to punish the man for religious crimes.

When R. Shila, who presided over the court of three judges, was summoned before the Roman authorities, he could have been killed for administering Jewish laws.  Therefore, he claimed that the man had violated a Roman law and that the court was merely doing what any Roman court would have done.  When the Romans decided to judge the case themselves, R. Shila realized that this man might be punished more harshly than his crime deserved.  R. Shila then tricked the court to save this man’s life by saying that the man had slept with a donkey.  However, this statement was not an entire lie because there is a biblical verse in which gentiles are compared to donkeys, particularly in respect to relations.  Therefore, R. Shila could claim that he was speaking metaphorically and the court mistakenly understood him literally.  Was he one hundred percent honest?  No.  However, he was dealing with a vicious government that was cruelly persecuting Jews.  This turn of phrase saved a man’s life.  It was not, however, an outright lie.  And that distinction is crucial in determining whether it was permitted or not, even during those dreadfully dangerous times.

Afterwards, this man was lacking in gratitude to R. Shila, although understandably since he had recently been flogged by him, and threatened to inform on him to the Roman government.  This would have meant certain death for R. Shila, and possibly a massacre of thousands of Jews.  Since this man was pursuing R. Shila — he was trying to cause his death by informing on him to the Romans — R. Shila had the right to save himself by killing this man first.

[The descent of Elijah is a fascinating example of the slow decrease in divine revelation that began with G-d speaking directly to man in the early biblical period, descended to G-d only speaking through a prophet, gradually reduced the clarity of prophecy until it was totally ended in Ezra’s time.  There still remained non-prophetic ways of G-d revealing himself to man.  However, over centuries these too diminished until we are currently left with almost no way of knowing G-d’s will except by looking to the past.  R. Shila lived during the end of the last period of divine revelation and he was, therefore, still able to witness Elijah’s descent from heaven.  This, however, takes us well off topic and is best left for another time. Cf. R. Ya’akov Kaminetsky, Emet LeYa’akov Al HaTorah, Exodus 7:22]

While we have made the plausible contention that R. Shila did not mean this equation between gentiles and donkeys literally, and that those who claim he did are guilty of reading an historical episode overly literal, we have yet to prove our claim.  The following passage, however, does that. 
 

What we see here is a talmudic sage addressing exactly this issue.  One might think that this verse teaches us that gentiles are like donkeys.  Contrary to some claims, talmudic rabbis were very familiar with the Bible and knew about this verse in Ezekiel which, while stated regarding Egyptians, is generally understood as referring to all gentiles.  Some might read this verse and understand it to mean that within Jewish law gentiles are considered as animals.  Some might come to the conclusion that this verse means that gentiles are not really human and therefore their standing before us naked is like an animal standing before us naked and the ritual law forbidding prayer before a naked person is not applicable.

However, R. Yehudah teaches, that is not the case at all.  Gentiles are people and not merely animals and the verse in Ezekiel does not mean that gentiles are animals.  To understand the verse literally, the Talmud says, is to misunderstand the verse.  Gentiles are unquestionably human, created in G-d’s image, and Jewish law recognizes this as do the rabbis of the Talmud.

This verse is understood as implying that Jews and gentiles are maritally and sexually incompatible.  The Bible tells us that it is forbidden for Jews to marry gentiles [see Deuteronomy 7:3; Ezra 9; Nehemiah 13:23-28].  While this certainly seems like a logical law since it would be very difficult for one spouse to fully observe the detailed Jewish religious laws while the other does not.  It would also be difficult to raise fully observant children.  The verse in Ezekiel, however, is coming to tell us that a Jew who marries or sleeps with a gentile, while violating a religious law, is not legally accomplishing anything.  The marriage and/or relations has no legal standing and no divorce is necessary.  Normally, when a married woman has an affair, the woman is forbidden both to return to her husband and to marry her lover after divorcing her husband.  However, since relations with a gentile has no legal standing, a woman who has an affair with a gentile can subsequently marry her lover (if he converts to Judaism).  This is not because gentiles are not human or because they cannot have relations.  It is because there is a legal incompatibility which makes marriage or relations with a gentile (while still forbidden) legally ineffective.  [Cf. Tosafot, Ketuvot 3b sv. Velidrosh; R. Betzalel Ashkenazi, Shitah Mekubetzet, ibid. (particularly sv. Mihu)]

This is the message of the verse in Ezekiel.  Just like relations with a donkey has no legal standing (except for the punishment for the act) and cannot cause marriage or separate lovers, so too relations with a gentile [Cf. R. Hershel Schachter, Eretz HaTzvi, p. 114].  Again, it is not because a gentile is considered a donkey.  It is because in this legal dimension they are both in the same category.  In every other dimension, particularly in the arena of interpersonal dynamics, gentiles are compatible with Jews.  However, in the area of marriage, Jews and gentiles can never be married as recognized by Jewish law.

A corollary of this idea is that a Jew with gentile ancestry is not considered related to the gentile.  Since, in Jewish law, gentile relations has no standing, the biological connection does not create a familial relation.  This is mainly applicable to converts or children of intermarriages.  While there is every reason to express gratitude and friendship with a biological relative, every convert to Judaism knows that he or she is breaking all familial ties by converting. 
 

A gentile who converts to Judaism no longer has a father [cf. Rashi, ad. loc., sv. Ha].  It is not, the Talmud is careful to point out, because we assume that gentiles are licentious and his biological father may not really be the man who impregnated his other.  That is not the case.  Rather, a Jew and a gentile are existentially separated by this chasm and the relations of a gentile has no legal standing regarding a Jew.

This is certainly a difficult concept to accept and it is understandable if gentiles might find it perplexing and maybe even offensive.  However, it is not labelling gentiles as animals and that is important to point out.  These passages can and have been misinterpreted as stating that the Talmud considers gentiles to be animals.  That is absolutely false, as has already been demonstrated.

Proof that this is only talking about converts to Judaism and not about all gentiles, can be brought from Talmud Kiddushin 17b where it is stated that a gentile inherits from his father.  If a gentile has no connection to his biological father, how can he inherit from him?  Similarly, Talmud Yevamot 62a tells us that a gentile who has children, and thereby fulfills the blessing/commandment of “be fruitful and multiply”, who subsequently converts to Judaism, is not obligated to have more children.  Since he already fulfilled the blessing/commandment when he was a gentile he does not have to fulfill it again as a Jew [cf. Rashi, Yevamot ad. loc, sv. Bnei Noach].  If a gentile has no father, then how can a gentile man ever fulfill the blessing/commandment of “be fruitful and multiply”?  His children will never be considered his.  Rather, the above passages regarding the donkey are not discussing gentiles in general but only the specific cases mentioned above.

Cf. R. Chaim Soloveitchik, Chiddushei R. Chaim HaLevy, Issurei Biah 13:12; R. Elchanan Wasserman, Kovetz He’arot, 51:3.

The post The Talmud does not consider gentiles to be animals appeared first on HaShem.Faith.

The idea that only Jews are human and not gentiles runs contrary to a number of fundamental Jewish principles. According to the Talmud, gentiles ARE human and the complicated texts quoted to prove the accusation are misinterpreted, as we shall see.

The Texts Talmud Bava Metzia 114b Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said: The graves of gentiles do not cause ritual impurity in a dwelling as it says (Ezekiel 34:31) “Now, you [Israel] are My sheep , the sheep of My pasture, you are Man (Adam)…” You [Israel, the subject of the verse] are called Man (Adam) and gentiles are not called Man (Adam).Talmud Keritot 6b One who uses the official anointing oil [that has been consecrated] to smear on an animal or vessels is innocent of violating the holiness of the oil, to smear on gentiles or corpses is innocent. Certainly an animal and vessels as it say (Exodus 30:32) “It shall not be smeared on flesh of man (Adam)…” and an animal and vessels are not man. One who smears on corpses is also innocent since it is dead it is called a corpse and not a man. However, why is one who smears on gentiles innocent? They are men! No, as it says (Ezekiel 34:31) “Now, you [Israel] are My sheep , the sheep of My pasture, you are Man (Adam)…” You [Israel, the subject of the verse] are called Man (Adam) and gentiles are not called Man (Adam).

The relevance of the first passage is that causing ritual impurity in a dwelling is derived from Numbers 19: 14 “This is the teaching regarding a man (Adam) who would die in a tent…” Since the Talmud learns from Ezekiel that the term for man, Adam, only applies to Jews the verse regarding ritual impurity must also only refer to Jew who are called Adam.

Similarly, the second passage learns from Exodus 30:32 that only one who smears on a man (Adam) is liable. Since only Jews are called Adam, only one who smears on a Jew is liable.

There are those who infer from these passages that the Talmud considers gentiles to be sub-human. After all, if the Talmud says that gentiles are not called man they must be considered sub-human [for some reason the suggestion that they are super-human is never offered].

Here are two other passages which seem to contradict the above passage. After quoting them we will reconcile all of the passages and show that the Talmud does not consider gentiles to be sub-human.

Talmud Gittin 47a A gentile has the ability to purchase land in Israel in order to dig holes and caves as it says (Psalms 115:16) “As for the heavens, the heavens are the Lord’s; but the earth He has given to mankind (Bnei Adam=sons of Adam).”

Talmud Avodah Zarah 3a Rabbi Meir would say: How do we know that even a gentile who engages in the study of Torah is like a Jewish high priest? We learn from the verse (Leviticus 18:5) “which man (HaAdam=the man) shall do [i.e. study] and by which he shall live [in the afterlife].”

We see from Gittin that the Talmud considers the phrase Bnei Adam (sons of man) to refer also to gentiles. We see from Avodah Zarah that the Talmud considers the term HaAdam (the man) to refer also to gentiles. Clearly, gentiles are considered human. Why then does the Talmud in Bava Metzia understand that gentiles are not considered Adam (man)?

The explanation is that these are different terms and only a superficial reading would render the term Adam in Bava Metzia as man. Gentiles are absolutely considered human as biology clearly dictates; there are no physiological differences between Jews and gentiles. All people are ultimately descended from the same ancestors, Noah and Adam.

However, the Jews, as a unified nation, are one organic entity. We are obligated to treat each other as close family members and are responsible for each other’s actions.

When the Talmud sees the Hebrew word Adam it sees an allusion to Adam of Genesis 1-5 who was at one time the only person. The Talmud understands this as referring to the Jewish people who are an organic unit like one person. Gentiles do not have this organic national bond with each other and are therefore excluded from this concept.

Other terms referring to people, Bnei Adam (sons of Adam) or HaAdam (the man), are understood to refer to the species homo sapien of which gentiles are obviously members just as Jews are.

Thus, with regard to ritual impurity and holy oil, which are uniquely Jewish concepts, the Talmud sees an exclusion to all those who are not part of the organic Jewish nation. With regard to practical matters such as the purchase of land or individual matters such as spiritual status, gentiles are included. An understanding of all of the relevant passages in the Talmud shows that Gentiles are considered human but not Jewish and the accusations against the Talmud are false.

See also Tosafot Yevamot 61a s.v. Ve’Ein; Ra’avan #317; R. Israel Lifshitz, Tiferet Yisrael (Boaz), Avot 3:14; R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes, Hagahot Maharatz Chajes, Yevamot 61a.

The post The Talmud does not consider gentiles to be sub-human appeared first on HaShem.Faith.

The reference to Shabbat 104b will be taken up in the section on the Jesus narrative.

This is claimed to be a reference to Jesus. However, this claim is patently ridiculous.  The Mishnah was most likely referring to a famous person and, due to the lack of any practical ramifications, his name was left out by the compilers of the Mishnah.  Plony is a biblical term used similar to John Doe today (cf. Ruth 4:1).  The keeping of geneological records was very common in talmudic times so that regular Jews did not marry bastards and violate the biblical prohibition (Deuteronomy 23:3).  Investigations into lineage and proclamations of bastardy were not uncommon (cf. Nehemiah 7:5; Talmud Kiddushin 70b-71a).  There is no reason to assume that this refers to Jesus.

Gustaf Dalman rejects the assertion that this Mishnah refers to Jesus [Dalman, Die Worte Jesus (Liepzig: Hinrichs, 1898), p. 4 n. 2].  Similarly, RT Herford calls this suggestion “doubtful and probably unfounded” [Herford, “Jesus in Rabbinical Literature”, The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 6 pp. 87-88].  Johann Maier calls it “odd speculation” [Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung, p. 50].  All of this is cited approvingly by John P. Meier in his highly acclaimed A Marginal Jew, vol. I p. 108 n. 53.  See also Avraham Korman’s discussion in Zeramim Vekitot Beyahadut, pp. 348-349.

The Text Sanhedrin 106a  R. Yochanan said (regarding Balaam): In the beginning a prophet, in the end a sorcerer.  Rav Papa said: As people say, “She was the descendant of princes and rulers, she played the harlot with carpenters.”

Here we come to the common distortion that references in the talmud to Balaam are really veiled references to Jesus.  As we shall soon see, Balaam is not a talmudic codeword for Jesus.  Therefore, the passage above is referring solely to Balaam and not to Jesus.  Besides this fact, read the passage closely and you will see that Rav Papa is offering a parable that explains R. Yochanan’s statement.  It is impossible to read R. Yochanan’s statement as referring to Jesus and Rav Papa’s as referring to Jesus’ mother.

R. Yochanan is saying that Balaam had tremendous potential and started out as a true prophet of G-d.  However, he turned to evil and in the end of his life became a sorcerer (i.e. user of black magic).  This tradition regarding Balaam’s descent was also recorded in the Tanchuma [Balak, 5] and in Yalkut Shimoni [Numbers, 771].

Rav Papa adds a parable to explain this.  Consider a woman who is married to a powerful ruler who leads their people out into battle. She is used to being the wife of someone strong, whose powerful hands can skillfully manipulate a sword and overcome any opponents. If her husband were to die she would still want to marry someone in a similar position of leadership and strength. Even if this widow is continually passed over by those she wishes to marry, she will still strive for her former glory, and will even marry a carpenter who, while not leading his countrymen out into battle, still must skillfully handle tools. Even when the ability to reach her old glory is obviously absent, she will still try everything possible to reach any position that remotely resembles it.

Similarly, Balaam started out as a man with prophecy (like a prince or ruler). He was capable of seeing the future and even manipulating it through his curses and blessings. However, when he lost that gift when G-d removed his prophecy, Balaam still wanted to see the future, even resorting to such pale comparisons as sorcery and black magic (like a carpenter).

This passage has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus and there is certainly no insult implied towards Mary.

Cf. R. Meir HaLevi Abulafia, Yad Ramah, Sanhedrin ad. loc.; Ephraim Urbach, “Rabbinic Exegesis About Gentile Prophets And The Balaam Passage” (Hebrew), Tarbitz (25:1956), p. 284 n. 56.

The Passage Sanhedrin 106b  A sectarian said to R. Chanina: Do you know how old Balaam was?  [R. Chanina] replied: It is not written.  However, since it says (Psalms 55:24) “Men of bloodshed and deceit will not live out half their days…” he was 33 or 34.  [The heretic] said: You said well.  I have seen the chronicle of Balaam and it said “At 33 years Balaam the lame was killed by Pinchas (Phineas) the robber.”

Again we see the assumption that Balaam is a codeword for Jesus.  Here the connection is that Jesus died at the age of 33, and this passage says that Balaam died at that age also.  Also, Pinchas and Pontius Pilate both have the letter “P” in their names.  Even if this passage refers to Jesus, which it does not, I do not see any gloating.

However, historians generally agree that this passage does not refer to Jesus.  The following is taken from Encyclopedia Judaica (“Jesus”, vol. 10 p. 16) [transliteration from Hebrew changed for consistency]:

However, it is impossible to imagine that a Christian would ask a Jew how old Jesus was, and call the Gospel Balaam’s Chronicle or that Pontius Pilate, who is not mentioned even once in the whole of rabbinic literature, should be referred to as Pinchas the robber.  The sectarian referred to was merely a member of a Gnostic sect who was testing whether Chanina could answer a question that was not answered in the Torah.  Balaam’s Chronicle was an apocryphal book on Balaam.  These books often adopted an unfavorable attitude to the patriarchs and the prophets and it was possible that Pinchas of the Bible was called in them Pinchas the robber.

Cf. Urbach, ibid., p. 284; W. Bacher, Jewish Quarterly Review O.S. 3, pp. 456-457; Chanoch Zundel Ben Yosef, Eitz Yosef to Ein Ya’akov, Sotah 11a sv Balaam.

To clarify the issue, let us now address the general claim that Balaam is a talmudic codeword for Jesus.

Balaam

Balaam in rabbinic literature is one of the archetype villains.  As we shall see, he was a powerful man whose prophecy and closeness with G-d gave him potential to do much good.  However, he chose to use those gifts towards evil.  Because of his terrific potential that was utterly twisted, his heavenly abilities that were perverted towards wrongdoing, he is considered the prime example of corruption.

Some scholars have suggested that Balaam is a codeword in talmudic literature for Jesus.  However, we will show that Balaam is considered the paragon of evil in passages that cannot refer to Jesus and from these passages we can see that there is no compelling reason to read other similar passages as referring to Jesus.  Indeed, reading these passages as referring to Jesus would be breaking with the established understanding of the talmud.
 
 

Sifrei on Deuteronomy 34:10  “Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses” – But in other nations there did arise.  Who? Balaam the son of Beor.  But there is a difference between Moses’s prophecy and Balaam’s prophecy. Moses did not know who spoke to him but Balaam knew who spoke to him, as it says (Numbers 24:16) “The words of the one who hears the sayings of G-d…” Moses did not know when G-d would speak to him until he was spoken to but Balaam knew when He would speak, as it says (ibid.) “Who knows the knowledge of the Supreme One…” With Moses, G-d would not speak to him until he was standing, as it says (Deuteronomy 5:28) “But as for you, stand here with Me…”  But with Balaam, G-d would speak to him even while fallen, as it says (Numbers 24:4) “Who sees the vision of the Almighty, while fallen with uncovered eyes.”

We see here a clear reference to the biblical Balaam.  The descriptions of his awesome prophetic powers, greater than Moses’s, are inferred from verses describing the biblical Balaam.  There is no way that this passage can refer to Jesus or to Yeshu.
 
 

Avot DeRabbi Natan 2:5  Why is Job called (Job 1:8) “A perfect and upright man”?  To teach us that he was born circumcised.  Adam was also born circumcised as it says (Genesis 1:27) “So G-d created man in His image…”  Seth was also born circumcised as it says (ibid. 5:2 ) “He begot in his likeness and his image…”  Noah was also born circumcised… Shem was also born circumcised…  Jacob was also born circumcised…  Joseph was also born circumcised…  Moses was also born circumcised…  Even the wicked Balaam was born circumcised…  Samuel was also born circumcised…  David was also born circumcised…  Jeremiah was also born circumcised…  Zerubabel was also born circumcised…

The Talmud here is working with the understanding that circumcision is the final step in the creation of a man.  An uncircumcised man is not quite complete and G-d gave it to us to finish the job and complete the creation of man by circumcising him.  However, there were some people born with such potential for greatness and perfection that they were born already circumcised.  They were born destined for perfection.  Among this list of heroes, this list of righteous and holy leaders, is Balaam.  He was born with the potential for greatness which he unfortunately perverted towards evil with his free will.

It is clear, however, based on the chronological order, that this refers to the biblical Balaam and not Jesus or Yeshu.  Both Jesus and Yeshu would have been listed after David, Jeremiah, and Zerubabel.
 
 

Talmud Sanhedrin 106a  Numbers (24:14) “Come, I shall advise you…”  Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said:  [Balaam] said to them: Their G-d hates promiscuity and they desire flaxen clothes.  Let me give you this advice.  Make tents and put old prostitutes in front of them and young ones inside…  When the Jews are walking in the market, the old lady offers to sell them clothes at market value and the young one offers it cheaper.  After two or three times she tells him that he is already a comfortable visitor and should choose what he wants, all the while a bottle of Amonite wine sitting beside her.  She offers him a glass of wine.  After he drinks it will burn him up and he will ask for sex.  She will take out her idol and demand that he worship it first.  He will say that he is a Jew and she will say that all she is asking is that he defecate [and he will not know that this is the worship of that idol].  She will also say that she will not sleep with him until he denounces the Torah of Moses.

This passage discusses the surprising transition in the biblical narrative from Balaam’s prophecy (Numbers 24) directly into (Numbers 25:1) “Israel settled in the Shittim and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab.”  The talmud’s explanation is that Balaam, the paid advisor of Moab (see Numbers 22), showed the Moabites how and why to entice the Jewish men into harlotry.

This passage is clearly about Balaam and it describes both his cleverness and his despicability.  There are many more passages that show that Balaam is considered by the talmud to be both a powerful and utterly wicked man who earned the title of most hated villain.
 
 

Mishnah Avot 5:19  Whosoever possesses these three qualities belongs to the disciples of Abraham our father: a generous eye, a humble spirit, and a meek soul.  But he who possesses the three opposite qualities — an evil eye, a proud spirit, and a haughty soul — is of the disciples of Balaam the wicked. How do the disciples of Abraham differ from the disciples of Balaam? The disciples of Abraham enjoy this world and inherit the world to come, as it is written (Proverbs 8:21) “Endowing with wealth those who love me, and filling their treasuries.” The disciples of Balaam inherit Gehenna and go down to the pit of destruction, as it is written (Psalm 55:23) “But you, O G-d, will cast them down into the lowest pit; the bloodthirsty and treacherous shall not live out half their days. But I will trust in you.”

Here again, we see that Balaam is the paragon of evil.  Using strictly Old Testament examples, the Mishnah tries to demonstrate the proper  attitudes one should take in life.

The point of all these examples is to show that Balaam is viewed in rabbinic literature as the ultimate villain.  Through indisputable proofs we have shown that the biblical Balaam, not Jesus or Yeshu, is consistently painted as someone destined for greatness who instead misused his talents for evil.  In contemporary terms, he is the Darth Vader of the Bible.  It is therefore no surprise that historians can find many passages that denigrate Balaam.  However, there is every reason to believe that these passages refer to the actual Balaam and not to Jesus or Yeshu.

There are some historians who believe that Balaam is a talmudic codeword for Jesus.  However, this theory has not stood up to the scrutiny of academic talmudic scholarship and has fallen out of favor with historians.

The noted historian of rabbinics, Ephraim E. Urbach, dedicated an article to explaining the rabbinic view of Balaam and debunking the theory that Balaam is a talmudic codeword for Jesus.  See Ephraim Urbach, “Rabbinic Exegesis About Gentile Prophets And The Balaam Passage” (Hebrew), Tarbitz (25:1956), pp. 272-289.

The Text Talmud Gittin 56b-57a [Onkelos Bar Kalonikus] called up Balaam from the dead.  [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world?  [Balaam] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them?  [Balaam] replied: (Deut. 23:7) “You shall not seek their peace or welfare all your days.”  [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment?  [Balaam answered]: In boiling semen.[Onkelos] called up Yeshu from the dead.  [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world?  [Yeshu] replied: Israel.  [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them?  [Yeshu] replied: Seek their good.  Do not seek their bad.  Whoever touches them is as if he touched the pupil of his eye.  [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment?  [Yeshu answered]: In boiling excrement.  As the mast said: Whoever mocks the words of the sages in punished in boiling excrement.

Here we see a story of the famous convert Onkelos who, prior to converting, used black magic to bring up famous villains of history and ask them whether their wickedness saved them in the world to come.  In both cases (there is a third case of Onkelos calling up Titus as well) the sinner is being terribly punished in the afterlife while Israel is being rewarded.  Presumably, this helped convince Onkelos to convert to Judaism.

As we have explained elsewhere, Yeshu is not Jesus of the New Testament.  He is most likely a prominent sectarian of the early first century BCE who deviated from rabbinic tradition and created his own religion combining Hellenistic paganism with Judaism.  While Yeshu may be the proto-Jesus some scholars point to as inspiring the early Christians, he is definitely not the man who was crucified in Jerusalem in the year 33 CE.

Interestingly, if someone were to claim that Yeshu in the passage above is Jesus, then Balaam cannot also refer to Jesus because both Balaam and Yeshu are in the passage together.  In other words, it is self-contradicting to claim that the passages above about Balaam’s mother being a harlot or dying young refer to Jesus and to claim that the passage above about Yeshu being punished also refers to Jesus.  You can’t have it both ways.

The post Jesus In The Talmud appeared first on HaShem.Faith.

There are many talmudic passages that are alleged to be referring to Jesus.  However, talmudic scholars and historians have long debated whether these passages are actually about Jesus.  The evidence is very unclear.  We will show the passages that are discussed and offer some historical theories to explain them.  Some of the passages we will examine do not even mention a name close to Jesus’.  Others contain stories and names similar to Jesus’.  What we will do is examine these passages, offer different theories to explain them, and point out the problems with these theories.  We hope that we will be able to show to anyone with an open mind that there can be no consensus over whether the Talmud ever mentions Jesus.

One of the reasons that some approach this topic is to prove that the talmudic rabbis were blasphemers of the Christian religion.  In order to avoid this bias, let us stipulate up front that the sages of the talmud were indeed blasphemers of the Christian religion.  None of them believed that Jesus was the messiah or the son of G-d.  In fact, they believed that in claiming so he was a false prophet.  They did not believe that he was born through a virgin birth; he was either the son of his mother and her husband or his mother and someone else.  If they did believe in these concepts then they would be Christians.  But they did not and were not.  If you choose to label all non-Christians as blasphemers that is your prerogative.

Jesus in the Talmud

Jesus Narrative in the Talmud

The post Christianity In The Talmud appeared first on HaShem.Faith.

Introduction

There are four main passages in the Talmud that are alleged by some to discuss the story of Jesus’ life and death.  What we will do here is to analyze closely these passages and see the reasons one may or may not attribute these stories to the life of Jesus.  We will also look at another two passages that help us identify our protagonist(s).  We will quickly realize that there are great difficulties in stating that any of these texts refer to Jesus.  We will see that a large number of historians and talmudists have addressed these issues and have concluded that either none of these passages refer to Jesus or that they refer to a proto-Jesus, whose life was later obfuscated by the theologically motivated rewriting of history.

Passages

It is important to keep in mind that there are many people in the Talmud with the same names.  R. Aaron Hyman in his biographical work on the sages of the Talmud, Toldot Tannaim VeAmoraim, lists 14 Hillels,  61 Elazars, and 71 Hunas.  Josephus lists approximately twenty different men named Jesus, at least ten of whom lived in the same time as the famous Jesus [cf. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, p. 206 n. 6].  The name Panthera was also a common name in the first two centuries [cf. L. Patterson, “Origin of the Name Panthera”, JTS 19 (1917-18), p. 79-80, cited in Meier, p. 107 n. 48].  When dealing with first names, it is very common to come across different people in the Talmud with the same name and the same applies today.  When I refer to Bill, am I talking about the President of the United States, the billionaire founder of Microsoft, or a local celebrity?  In one place I could mean one Bill and in another place a different Bill.  It is therefore almost impossible to identify someone based on their first name alone.  Second names, which in the Talmud means the name of the father, enable us to identify people with much better accuracy, but not entirely.  It is very possible for both two men and their father’s to have the same names.  This makes history much harder but ignoring this fact is distorting history.

Note that the word “ben” means “son of” in Hebrew.  Therefore, the name “Shimon Ben Gamaliel” means Shimon the son of Gamaliel.

---

Passage #1: Ben Stada

Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a  It is taught: R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin?  They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool. Ben Stada is Ben Pandira. R. Chisda said: The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira. [No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada. [No,] the mother was Miriam the women’s hairdresser [and was called Stada].  As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband.

Summary

What we see from here is that there was a man named Ben Stada who was considered to be a practicer of black magic.  His mother was named Miriam and also called Stada.  His father was named Pappos Ben Yehudah.  Miriam (Stada) had an affair with Pandira from which Ben Stada was born.

Proof

Some historians claim that Ben Stada, also known as Ben Pandira, was Jesus.  His mother’s name was Miriam which is similar to Mary.  Additionally, Miriam was called a women’s hairdresser, “megadla nashaia” [for this translation, see R. Meir Halevi Abulafia, Yad Rama, Sanhedrin ad. loc.].  The phrase “Miriam megadla nashaia” sounds similar to Mary Magdalene, a well-known New Testament figure.

Problems

1. Mary Magdalene was not Jesus’ mother.  Neither was Mary a hairdresser.
2. Jesus’ step-father was Joseph.  Ben Stada’s step-father was Pappos Ben Yehudah.
3. Pappos Ben Yehudah is a known figure from other places in talmudic literature.  The Mechilta Beshalach (Vayehi ch. 6) has him discussing Torah with Rabbi Akiva and Talmud Berachot 61b has Pappos Ben Yehudah being captured and killed by Romans along with Rabbi Akiva.  Rabbi Akiva lived during the second half of the first century and the first half of the second century.  He died in the year 134.  If Pappos Ben Yehudah was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva’s, he must have been born well after Jesus’ death and certainly could not be his father.

---

Passage #2: Yeshu

Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a What of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah? When John [Hyrcanus] the king killed the rabbis, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah [and Yeshu] went to Alexandria of Egypt.  When there was peace, Shimon Ben Shetach sent to him “From me [Jerusalem] the holy city to you Alexandria of Egypt.  My husband remains in your midst and I sit forsaken.” [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] left and arrived at a particular inn and they showed him great respect.  He said: How beautiful is this inn [Achsania, which also means innkeeper]. [Yeshu] said: Rabbi, she has narrow eyes. [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] said to him: Wicked one, this is how you engage yourself? [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] sent out four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. [Yeshu] came before [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] many times and said: Accept me.  But [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] paid him no attention. One day [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was reciting Shema [during which one may not be interrupted].  [Yeshu] came before him.  He was going to accept [Yeshu] and signalled to [Yeshu] with his hand.  [Yeshu]  thought that [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah] was repelling him.  He went, hung a brick, and bowed down to it. [Yeshu] said to [R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah]: You taught me that anyone who sins and causes others to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. And the master said: Yeshu {the Notzri} practiced magic and deceive and led Israel astray.

Background and Summary

Note that historians differ on the exact years of these events.  For simplicity, we will assume the latest possible dates as suggested by Gershon Tannenbaum [Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia, p. 87].

John Hyrcanus was a successful king and soldier.  During a banquet celebrating his victories in 93 BCE, some Pharisee rabbis offended him and he was convinced by Sadducee leaders to try to kill every Pharisee rabbi [Hyman, vol. II pp. 691-692, 766].  Some rabbis, such as R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah and his student Yeshu, fled to Alexandria outside of John Hyrcanus’s reach [Hyman vol. II pp. 647, 692].  Shimon Ben Shetach, however, was hidden in Jerusalem by his sister, Salome Alexandra, who was John Hyrcanus’s daughter-in-law [Hyman, vol. II pp. 647, 692, 766, vol. III pp. 1212-1213].  The extremely diverse religious population of Palestine, full of sects such as the Essenes, Kumrans, and numerous other groups, was temporarily devoid of any public Pharisee leaders.

By the year 91 BCE, John Hyrcanus and his sons Antigonus and Aristobulos had died and his third son Alexander Janneus became king.  Even though Alexander Janneus was an ardent Sadducee, his wife convinced him to appoint his Pharisaic brother-in-law, Shimon Ben Shetach, to the Sanhedrin, then dominated by Sadducees.  Slowly, over the course of a number of years, Shimon Ben Shetach outshone his Sadducee opponents in the Sanhedrin and appointed his Pharisaic students as members [Hyman, vol. II pp. 766-767, vol. III pp. 1213-1214].

By the year 80 BCE it was finally safe for the Pharisee rabbis to quietly return and Shimon Ben Shetach sent a cryptic note to his mentor, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah, encouraging him to return [Hyman, vol. II pp. 647-648, vol. III pp. 1213-1214].

Some 50 to 60 years after the great Pharisaic victory of the Hasmoneans, in which Pharisees rebelled against the Greek-Syrians and gained the monarchy, these Pharisee rabbis returned to a country full of heretical sects that had either integrated aspects of Hellenist paganism into their religion or had, in an attempt to repel all unproven influence, rejected the traditions of the rabbis.  The Pharisees who remembered the prominence in which they had so recently been held were now witnesses to the disintegration of their religious society.

While returning, Yeshu misunderstood one of his teacher’s remarks and said something that demonstrated that he was interested in and looking at married women.  As sexual promiscuity was a sign of many of the Hellenist sects, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah suspected his student of being yet another leader influenced by Hellenism and had him excommunicated [this hasty conclusion was condemned by the Talmud a few lines before our passage].  After many attempts by Yeshu to reconcile with his mentor, R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah was finally ready.  However, Yeshu approached him while he was reciting Shema, the most important part of the morning prayer during which he could not stop to speak.  He motioned to Yeshu with his hand which was misinterpreted as a signal to go away.  Yeshu finally gave up and fulfilled his teacher’s suspicion.  He adopted a pagan religion and went on to create his own sect of Judaism and lead many Jews astray.

Proof

Some historians note some similarities here between Yeshu and Jesus.  Most notably, in one manuscript of the Talmud he is called Yeshu the Notzri which could be rendered (with only a little difficulty) Jesus the Nazarene.

Problems

1. Yeshu lived about a century before Jesus.
2. Only one of the approximately four distinct manuscripts available have the title HaNotzri (possibly, the Nazarene).  None of the other manuscripts contain that title which make it suspect as a later interpolation, as medieval commentators suggest [cf. Menachem HaMeiri, Beit Habechirah, Sotah ad. loc.].
3. Notzri does not necessarily mean Nazarene.  It is actually a biblical term (Jeremiah 4:16).  While centuries later it was undoubtedly used to refer to Christians in the form of Notzrim or Netzarim, it could have been a term used to refer to many strong communities.  The name “Ben Netzar” was used by the Talmud to refer to the famous chief of robbers Odenathus of Palmyra [see Marcus Jastrow’s Dictionary p. 930]
4. The name Yeshu alone could have been common.  We know that the name Jesus was common [see Collossians 4:11 and above].
5. Other than the name, nothing in the story fits anything we know about Jesus.

---

Passage #3: Trial

Talmud Sanhedrin 67a It is taught: For all others liable for the death penalty [except for the enticer to idolatry] we do not hide witnesses.  How do they deal with [the enticer]?  They light a lamp for him in the inner chamber and place witnesses in the outer chamber so that they can see and hear him while he cannot see or hear them.  One says to him “Tell me again what you said to me in private” and he tells him.  He says “How can we forsake our G-d in heaven and worship idolatry?”  If he repents, good.  If he says “This is our obligation and what we must do” the witnesses who hear him from outside bring him to the court and stone him.  And so they did to Ben Stada in Lud and hung him on the eve of Passover.

Summary

This passage discusses how an enticer to idolatry, one of the worst religious criminals (see Deuteronomy 13:7-12), was caught.  The Talmud then continues and says that this was the method used to catch the notorious Ben Stada.

Proof

Again we see Ben Stada.  Above we were told that he performed witchcraft and we are now told that he was an idolater as well.  The connection to Jesus is that Ben Stada is connected to Jesus in the passage above and that he was executed on the eve of Passover.  The Gospel of John (19:14) has Jesus being executed on the eve of Passover.

Problems

1. The same problems above connecting Ben Stada to Jesus apply here as well, including his living almost a century after Jesus.
2. Ben Stada was stoned by a Jewish court and not crucified by the Roman government like Jesus.
3. The Synoptic Gospels say that Jesus was executed on Passover itself (Matthew 26:18-20; Mark 14:16-18; Luke 22:13-15) and not the eve of Passover.
4. Jesus was not crucified in Lud.

---

Passage #4: Execution

Talmud Sanhedrin 43a It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that “[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray.  Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him.”  But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him?  He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) “Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him.” Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.

Summary

Here we have the story of the execution of Yeshu.  Like Ben Stada, he was also executed on the eve of Passover.  Before executing him, the court searched for any witnesses who could clear his name, as was normally done before any execution.  Ulla, however, questioned this practice.  An enticer, due to the biblical mandate not to be merciful, should not be afforded this normal consideration.  The Talmud answers that Yeshu was different.  Because of his government connections, the court tried to search for any reason not to execute him and upset the government.

Proof

Again we see Yeshu.  All of the proofs from above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here as well.  Additionally, the execution on the eve of Passover is another connection to Jesus as above with Ben Stada.

Problems

1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.
2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
3. Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans.  During Yeshu’s time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee.  It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his.  During the Roman occupation of Jesus’ time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.
3. There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.

---

Passage #5: Disciples

Talmud Sanhedrin 43a  It is taught: Yeshu had five disciples – Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah. They brought Matai [before the judges].  He said to them: Will Matai be killed?  It is written (Psalm 42:2) “When [=Matai] shall (I) come and appear before G-d.”  They said to him: Yes, Matai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 41:5) “When [=Matai] shall (he) die and his name perish.” They brought Nekai.  He said to them: Will Nekai be killed?  It is written (Exodus 23:7) “The innocent [=Naki] and the righteous you shall not slay.”  They said to him: Yes, Nekai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 10:8) “In secret places he slay the innocent [=Naki].” They brought Netzer.  He said to them: Will Netzer be killed?  It is written (Isaiah 11:1) “A branch [=Netzer] shall spring up from his roots.”  They said to him:  Yes, Netzer will be killed as  it is written (Isaiah 14:19) “You are cast forth out of your grave like an abominable branch [=Netzer].” They brought Buni.  He said to them: Will Buni be killed?  It is written (Exodus 4:22) “My son [=Beni], my firstborn, Israel.”  They said to him:  Yes, Buni will be killed as it is written (Exodus 4:23) “Behold, I slay your son [=Bincha] your firstborn.” They brought Todah.  He said to them: Will Todah be killed?  It is written (Psalm 100:1) “A Psalm for thanksgiving [=Todah].”  They said to him:  Yes, Todah will be killed as it is written (Psalm 50:23) “Whoever sacrifices thanksgiving [=Todah] honors me.”

Summary

Five of Yeshu’s disciples were brought before a court, tried for the crime against G-d and society of idolatry, and executed according to biblical law.  This passages presents each disciple cleverly bringing a biblical verse in an attempt to exonerate himself and the court responding likewise.

Proof

The name Yeshu is used as above.  The additional proof this passage provides is that Matai is the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, one of Jesus’ disciples.

Problems

1. The same problems above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here.
2. Of the five disciples, only one is recognized.  What of the other four?
3. The name Matai seems like a nickname or Aramaic equivalent of Matityahu, which was a known Jewish name in that time period.  It was probably a common name, considering the high esteem in which the patriarch of the Hasmonean dynasty, Matityahu, was held by the common people.  Some manuscripts have the name of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah’s famous colleague as Matai from Arbel [cf. R. Shimon Ben Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, ed. Zeini (Jerusalem:2000) p. 31].

---

Passage #6: The Student

Tosefta Chullin 2:23  It once happened that R. Elazar ben Damah was bitten by a snake and Ya’akov of the village Sechania came to heal him in the name of Yeshu ben Pandira, but R. Yishmael did not allow him.

Proof

Here we see the only place in which the names Yeshu and Ben Pandira are connected.

---

Theories

Hazy History

Some historians consider all of the above passages to refer to Jesus.  Granted, there are many difficulties in tying all of the details together, particulary the historical timeframes.  However, these historians claim “that chronology was not a science in which the rabbis excelled, or one in which they laid stress upon accuracy” [RT Herford, Chritianity in Talmud & Midrash, p. 347].  The rabbis of the talmud had a hazy memory of Jesus and embellished upon it in order to villainize him.  The inconsistencies among the various stories are of no consequence because the rabbis did not care.  Thus, Jesus is Yeshu is Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.  Mary Magdalene is called Jesus’ mother due to some vague familiarity with the gospel story.  Jesus’ execution was recalled but only some details remembered.  In fact, these historians found many more references to Jesus in the talmud that did not use his name [discussed here].  Herford lists about twenty different passages that he claims refer to Jesus and still concludes that “it is remarkable how very little the talmud does say about Jesus” [ibid.].

This was at one time the standard approach of historians.  However, the obvious bias against talmudic rabbis and the wanton attribution of nameless passages has since given way to a more balanced approach among academics.

Goldstein, in his highly respected doctoral dissertation Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, argues against the attribution to Jesus of various references in the talmud, such as Balaam and “a certain person”.  In his view, this is finding in the texts what one was a priori looking for [Cf. Goldstein, pp. 57-81].  Joseph Klausner does not consider the Ben Stada passages as referring to Jesus [Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 20-23].  Johann Maier concurs and adds that Ben Pandira had no connection to Jesus either [Johann Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung, p. 237, cited in John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. I p. 106 n. 45].  Maier further denies that the passage in Sanhedrin 43a about the execution and disciples of Yeshu has anything to do with Jesus [Maier, p. 229, cited in Meier vol. I p. 107 n. 51].  John P. Meier, a Catholic priest and author of the most recent and highly acclaimed scholarly analysis of the evidence of Jesus’ life, A Marginal Jew, which has even been added to the Anchor Bible Reference Library, takes a middle ground and says “While not accepting the full, radical approach of Maier, I think we can agree with him on one basic point: in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth” [Meier, vol. I p. 98].

Meier also adds what seems to be a direct answer to Herford’s remark quoted above.  Meier says “Hence, apart from Josephus, Jewish literature of the early Christian period offers no independent source for inquiry into the historical Jesus.  Indeed, why should it?  Engaged in a fierce struggle for its own survival and definition, early rabbinic Judaism had other matters on its mind — matters that, from its own perspective, were much more important” [Meier, ibid.].

Many modern historians detect different strata of texts from different ages within the talmudic period.  The passages originally referred to different people named Yeshu, Ben Stada, and Ben Pandira, none of whom were Jesus.  Over time, different generations of talmudic rabbis melded the passages together with added phrases and details.  However, according to Johann Maier, none of these passages ever related to Jesus.  Some scholars, such as Joseph Klausner and John P. Meier, believe that some of the later additions were meant to refer to Jesus, while the original basic text did not.  It is therefore very difficult to determine what, if anything, the talmud actually says about Jesus.

These attempts at literary analysis of the talmud, while not quite heretical to traditional Jews, are certainly anathema.  We will therefore try to use the literature of more traditional historical views of the talmudic passages along with some classic rabbinic commentaries to understand the subjects of these texts.

Two Yeshus

The standard rabbinic understanding of these passages is that these passages refer to at least two different people [cf. Tosafot HaRosh, Sotah 47a sv Yeshu, Shabbat 104b sv Ben Stada; Tosafot (uncensored) Shabbat 104b sv Ben Stada; R. Abraham Zacuto, Sefer Hayuchasin 5:6, R. Natan David Rabinowitz, Binu Shenot Dor Vador, pp. 422-425] .  The first lived in the first half of the first century BCE during the reign of Alexander Janneus.  The second lived in the first half of the second century CE, during the time of the Roman persecution that led to Rabbi Akiva’s tragic death.

The first, Yeshu Ben Pandira, started his own sect and had many followers.  His heretical and idolatrous teachings lasted centuries after his life but, like so many Jewish sects, slowly died out after the destruction of the Temple.

The second, Ben Stada, was simply a public idolater from an illustrious family who was caught and punished.

The only connections between the two are their fathers’ names, that they were executed on the day before Passover, and that they both spent time in Egypt.  The first is probably a mere coincidence because, as pointed out above, Panthera (which in Hebrew and Aramaic is equivalent of Pandira) was a common name.

Ben Stada may have been executed on the day before Passover in Lud out of deference for his illustrious step-father.  On that day, most people were gathered in Jerusalem preparing their Passover sacrifices and very few people would have witnessed the execution in Lud.  Yeshu Ben Pandira may have been executed on the day before Passover in Jerusalem for the exact opposite reason.  Since he was the leader of a heretical sect, the court may have wished that the crowd in Jerusalem would see his execution and learn that his sect was a deviation from the true Judaism.

Their both having spent time in Egypt is similar to two American Jews today both visiting New York City at some time in their lives.  From the year 307 BCE to the year 113 CE, Alexandria had one of the largest and most illustrious Jewish communities in the world.  Its hundreds of thousands of Jews had a very large and active Jewish community, which is probably why R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah and Yeshu were able to hide there .  The Alexandrian community was also noted for its affinity to Hellenistic culture.  Its most famous product, Philo, wrote exclusively in Greek and propounded a very Hellenistic philosophy which some consider to be heretical to Judaism [see Samuel Belkin’s introduction to Midreshei Philon].  It is certainly not surprising that the young Ben Pandira’s visit to this thriving Jewish center led him to accept a hybrid Jewish-Hellenist religion that was considered idolatry by traditional Jews.

The following chart shows which details refer to each person.
 

Early JesusSome historians go further.  It is well known, and long a matter of controversy, that beginning in the early 19th century some historians disputed the existence of an historical Jesus at all.  According to this theory, Jesus never existed and the early church fathers created him as a figure for their religion.  The gospels are compilations of various legends that were attributed to this mythical character Jesus.  Much ink has been spilled debating this theory, but there are some historians who accept this and go one step further.  They identify the basis of the New Testament Jesus in the story of Yeshu Ben Pandira.  This legendary figure, who was branded a heretic by Jewish leaders, founded a Jewish sect that inspired and influenced the early Christians.  These early Christians then adopted the story of Yeshu Ben Pandira and modified it to fit into a later historical period and their own eclectic religious beliefs.  [cf. R. Avraham Ibn Daud, Sefer Hakabbalah, 53; Sefer Hayuchasin, ibid.; Avraham Korman, Zeramim Vekitot Beyahadut, pp. 354-364].

Some daring scholars have even identified the original Jesus or proto-Jesus, Yeshu Ben Pandira, as the Teacher of Righteousness who led the sect in Qumran [cf. Alvar Ellegård, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ; G.R.S. Mead, Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?; G. A. Wells, The Jesus Myth].

While these theories are highly speculative and certainly not mainstream, researchers have amassed a large amount of evidence, from archaelogical finds to medieval references, that point to either this or a similar conclusion.

Conclusion

It seems clear by now that there is no consensus whether Jesus is mentioned at all in the Talmud. Most of the supposed “blasphemies” of Jesus and Mary in the Talmud do not refer to them at all. However, there can be no denying, and no rabbi would deny this, that the authors of the Talmud did not believe in Jesus’ messiahship or his divinity. If you are looking for Christian fellowship then Jewish literature is not the place to look. However, there is no basis at all to state unequivocably that the Talmud calls Jesus a bastard or that Mary was a prostitute who had sex with many men. As has been shown, those passages definitely do not refer to Jesus.

Note: The wording of the texts was taken from Chisronot Hashas, originally printed in Koenigsberg in 1860 and reprinted in Tel Aviv in 1989.  The text of the Tosefta was taken from the standard Vilna edition and slightly modified based on Saul Lieberman’s Tosefet Rishonim.

The post The Jesus Narrative In The Talmud appeared first on HaShem.Faith.

Gentiles

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4 based on Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:1; Talmud Sanhedrin 105aRighteous gentiles have a place in the world to come.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:1It says (Job 37:23): “With justice and an abundance of kindness, He does not deal harshly.” G-d does not withhold reward from gentiles who perform His commandments.

In the Jewish worldview all gentiles who are ethical monotheists will achieve salvation. Judaism does not denigrate gentiles and does not see them as condemned to eternal damnation. Rather we see them as fellow human beings, from other nations, searching for G-d and for meaning in life. Judaism wishes them well with their search and celebrates those who succeed in becoming ethical monotheists. Jews are obligated in many rituals and ceremonies and those Jews who fail to fulfill these rituals are considered sinners. Gentiles, however, are not obligated in these commandments and are only obligated to be ethical monotheists. Those who fulfill this obligation receive their full reward in the world-to-come.

There are three main categories of gentiles [see R. Yom Tov ben Avraham Alshevili, Chiddushei HaRitva, Makkot 9a n.]. The first category is the gentile who fulfills his obligations as an ethical monotheist. This person is generally called a Ben Noach (or Noachide) meaning a proud descendant of the biblical Noah. In the Jewish tradition Noah and his sons were commanded to fulfill seven commandments which amount to ethical monotheism [see Aaron Lichtenstein, The Seven Laws of Noah]. Those gentiles who observe these commandments are considered righteous gentiles. They are, however, not Jews and are not considered part of Jewish society. They are righteous people and recognized for their accomplishments. However, they remain part of the human brotherhood but not part of Jewish society.

There are those who go beyond this step and approach a Jewish court and, in exchange for entering Jewish society, they vow to observe their commandments and be ethical monotheists. Such a person is called a Ger Toshav. By pledging that he will fulfill his obligation to be an ethical monotheist he enters Jewish society. He is not a convert and does not become Jewish. In fact, he can worship any monotheistic religion he chooses. He is, however, a righteous gentile and is gladly received into the Jewish community. He is welcome to live in Jewish neighborhoods (should he so choose), is supported by Jewish charities (if he so needs), and is considered part of the fabric of Jewish society in many ways [see Talmud Pesachim 21b; Talmud Avodah Zarah 65b; Nachmanides, Additions to Book of Commandments, 16; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Zechi’ah Umattanah 3:11, Hilchot Melachim 10:12; Ra’avad of Posquieres, Comments to Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Issurei Biah 14:8]. Both the Ben Noach and the Ger Toshav are righteous gentiles. However, the Ben Noach has not entered Jewish society and perhaps does not wish to. Therefore, he is treated like a stranger. He is respected as a righteous human being, one who is fulfilling his divine purpose in the world. However, he is not part of the Jewish community.

It is of these two categories of gentiles that the Talmudic literature states:

Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah 8:2(Psalms 146:8) “G-d loves the righteous.” G-d said: ‘I love those who love Me and so it says (1 Samuel 2:30) “For I honor those who honor Me.” They love Me so I love them in return.’ Why does G-d love the righteous? Because righteousness is not an inheritance or a family trait. You find that priests are from a priestly family and Levites are from a levitical family as it says (Psalms 135:19-20) “O house of Aaron bless G-d! O house of Levi bless G-d!” If someone wants to become a priest [from the family of Aaron] or a Levite he cannot because his father was not a priest or a Levite. However, if someone wants to become righteous even if he is a gentile he can because it is not a family trait as it says (ibid.) “O those who fear G-d bless G-d!” It does not say the house of those who fear G-d but those who fear G-d. It is not a family trait rather on their own they chose to fear and love G-d. Therefore, G-d loves them.

Midrash Sifra, Acharei Mot 9:13(Leviticus 18:5) “Which man shall carry out and by which he shall live.” Rabbi Yirmiyah would say: We see from here that even a gentile who fulfills his laws is like a [Jewish] high priest. He would also say: (2 Samuel 7:19) “And that would be fitting for priests, Levites, and Israelites” is not what it says rather “and that would be fitting for great men – O Lord G-d.” He would also say: (Isaiah 26:2) “Open the gates so the priests, Levites, and Israelites may enter” is not what it says rather “Open the gates so the righteous nation, keeper of the faith, may enter.” He would also say: (Psalms 118:20) “This is the gate of G-d; priests, Levites, and Israelites” is not what it says rather “This is the gate of G-d; the righteous shall enter through it.” He would also say: (Psalms 33:1) “Sing joyfully, O priests, Levites, and Israelites” is not what it says rather “Sing joyfully, O righteous, because of G-d.” He would also say: (Psalms 125:4) “Do good, G-d, to the priests, Levites, and Israelites” is not what it says rather “Do good, G-d, to good people.” We see from here that even a gentile who follows his commandments is [as righteous as the Jewish] high priest.

The third category is of the gentile who is not an ethical monotheist. He is violating the covenant G-d made with Noah and his descendants and will be punished for those sins. It is with these people that Judaism has a very ambivalent attitude. On the one hand, they are acting contrary to G-d’s purpose in the world. For this reason, Judaism tries to distance Jews from them. On the other hand, they are people created in G-d’s image and must be respected as such. The compromise is that their positive traits, examples of which we will shortly see, are recognized and respected. However, their negative traits are never fully forgotten and full societal integration with such people is discouraged.

Talmud Semachot 1:8Rabbi Yehudah said: [The euology of a gentile is] Alas! The good, alas! The faithful who eats the fruit of his own labor. [The sages] said to him: What then did you leave for the worthy? He replied: If he [the gentile] was worthy why should he not be lamented in this manner.Professor Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, p. 77The virtues enumerated in this eulogy are purely secular; there is no trace of religion in them. The man was good, faithful and enjoyed the fruits of his labor. The Gentiles spoken of is a heathen; he is neither a semi-proselyte nor a Christian; no mention is made of his fear of G-d… The Rabbis understood the heathen society and credited it with the virtues it was not devoid of.

Talmud Avot 4:3[Ben Azzai] would say: Do not regard anyone with contempt, and do not reject anything, for there is no man who does not have his hour and nothing that does not have its place.

Talmud Avot 3:10[Rabbi Chaninah ben Dosa] would say: Whoever is pleasing to his fellow creatures is pleasing to G-d; but whoever is not pleasing to his fellow creatures, G-d is not pleased with him.

Talmud Avot 3:14[Rabbi Akiva] would say: Beloved is man who was created in the divine image. An extra amount of love is given to him because he was created in the divine image as it says (Genesis 9:6) “For in the image of G-d He made man.”

Those gentiles who have the status of Ger Toshav, who have requested acceptance into Jewish society and have pledged obedience to their commandments, are treated almost like Jews. Those who have the status of Ben Noach because they have not requested acceptance are respected but are not treated like brethren. They receive letter-of-the-law treatment because to treat them beyond that would be to detract from our brothers. What has a Ger Toshav gained if a Ben Noach is treated the same? What extra connection is there between fellow Jews and within the entire Jewish/Ger Toshav society if everyone is treated extra specially?

Consider the case of a family. My brother needs to borrow money and knows that if he asks me I’ll give him the special interest-free family package. This type of family treatment solidifies us as a unit and increases love between us. I don’t hate everyone else because I treat my brother specially but I have an agreement that my family receives special treatment. Now, what if a stranger off the street knocks on my door and I give him also my special interest-free family loan? It loses its specialness and there is no difference between my bond with my brother and my bond with some guy off the street. Should I treat every human being equally or should I treat everyone properly and reserve extra-special treatment for my family?

The same applies within the Jewish/Ger Toshav society. All members, both Jewish and gentile, are joined together as a community united in its single goal of worshipping the one G-d. While we treat all human beings with the respect due to someone created in the divine image, those within the Jewish/Ger Toshav society get slightly better treatment. They are handled above and beyond the letter of common human interaction.

There are those who point out these differences in treatment and wish to demonstrate that Judaism is anti-gentile. Quite the opposite. Judaism is one of the few religions that recognizes that even those outside its faith can be saved and allows them into its community. Righteous gentiles have a place in the world to come and can choose to join Jewish society if they wish. If they decline this invitation then they are given the full respect that these righteous people deserve. We shall show that the differences in treatment are reasonable and that all gentiles are treated honestly and respectfully.

In the original article, the word ‘condemned’ was misspelled as ‘condemened.’ This error has been corrected in the HaShem.Faith preservation.

The post Where do gentiles fit into the Jewish world view? appeared first on HaShem.Faith.

It Is Forbidden To Lie About The Talmud

While it is possible that the book Libbre David existed I have not been able to find it, even with the help of a librarian from Yeshiva University’s Gottesman Library. It was certainly never a mainstream book. In fact, it is strictly prohibited to lie about the contents of the Talmud.

Let us take an extreme example and see the conclusions of some legal authorities. What should a rabbi do if a disgruntled pig farmer came to his house, aimed a gun at the rabbi, and said “I want pigs to be kosher. Tell me, rabbi, are pigs kosher?”

R. Yishayahu HaLevy Horowitz, Shnei Luchot Habrit, Masechet Shevuot p. 33b (Jerusalem:1975) It is forbidden to change the words of Torah even in times of danger; one must give one’s life over it.

R. Shlomo Luria, Yam Shel Shlomo, Bava Kamma 4:9 Rather we see from here that we are obligated to give ourselves over and sanctify G-d’s name and if one, G-d forbid, changes one law it is as if he denied the Torah of Moses… To [lie and] say that one who is innocent is guilty or vice versa is like denying the Torah of Moses. What is the difference between denying one word and denying the entire Torah?

According to Rabbis Horowitz and Luria it is FORBIDDEN to lie about the Torah or Talmud even if it means losing one’s life. A proof is frequently brought from the Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 2:1 (9b), Horiot 3:1 (11b). Another proof is brought from Talmud Bava Kamma 38a where the story is told of two Roman soldiers who were taught by rabbis the entire Written and Oral Law and found only one point to be offensive. Evidently the rabbis taught the truth about the laws to occupying soldiers even though the soldiers might find them offensive.

There is a dissenting view, however. The Yad Eliyahu (responsa 48) suggests that even though it is forbidden to lie about the Torah or Talmud, when there is a clear and present threat to human life it is better to lie than to have blood shed. According to the Yad Eliyahu, the rabbi would lie to the disgruntled pig farmer until he is calm and disarmed.

However, all agree that barring such extreme circumstances it is forbidden to lie about the contents of the Torah or Talmud.

The post Are Jews commanded to lie about the Talmud? appeared first on HaShem.Faith.