Subject: Re: Christian language about Jews and Judaism
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 02:21:57 GMT
From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

I promised a couple of weeks ago to respond to Troy's list of
references to Jesus and Christians in the Talmud. 
I spent a couple of hours at the UWA library yesterday looking at
the text of the Talmud, and using the Oxford Dictionary of Jewish
Religion as a reference. Those who have ever spent any time
studying the text of the Talmud will be aware that it is not an
easy task; there is not a simple numbering system, and the whole
work numbers some 20 books (in the version I was using). I have
done the best I can to find the references Troy has listed, but
many of them remain elusive. It is quite likely that I have been
unable to find some of them, but I suspect that some of the
references listed here are from medieval (or even later) polemic
works, and at least some may be fictitious. If I have missed or
misrepresented any genuine Talmud references, please forgive me
and correct me.

I am writing this in MS Word because it is so big, but hopefully
it will be easy to see which are Troy's quotes and which are my
comments.


Troy wrote:
>The following is a summary of references to Jesus in the Talmud:

>Sanhedrin 67a: Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier.
>Mother a prostitute.

According to a footnote in the Talmud, this passage refers to a
Jewish revolutionary named Ben Stada or Ben Padira who came from
Egypt, claimed to be a prophet, led his followers to Mount Zion,
and was executed by the Romans,  about 100 years after the time
of Jesus. The footnote also says that Christians have long
misunderstood this passage as a reference to Jesus and tried to
censor it or condemn the Jews because of it. 
I suspect that part of the confusion may arise from the legend
put about by Celsus, the Greek philosopher who argued with Justin
martyr in the 2nd century, and who repeated a tale that Jesus was
the son of a Roman centurion called Panthera. 

>Kallah 1b. (18b): Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation.
>Mother a Prostitute.
The tractate Kallah is one of the shortest in
the Talmud, so I was able to read it from beginning to end. It does
say that a person who is concieved during menstruation (which I
thought was impossible), and one whose mother is a prostitute should
be considered illegitimate, but neither the text nor the footnotes
make any mention of Jesus or Christians in this or any other
context.

>Sanhedrin 67a: Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover.
I couldn't find this reference, but isn't that what the fourth
Gospel says anyway?

>Toldath Jeschu: The Birth of Christ related in most shameful expressions.
The Toledoth Yeshu is a polemic work written in about the 10th
century. It is very critical of Christians, and apparently
repeats just about every libel against Jesus that has ever been
told. I was not able to find a text of this document, but the
Oxford Dictionary of Jewish religion says of it "..the work is an
expression of vulgar polemics written in reaction to the no less
vulgar attacks on Judaism in popular Christian teaching and
writing [of that time]". It does not have any authority, and is
not part of the Talmud. We cannot condemn modern Jews for the
content unless we are prepared to accept equal responsibility for
contemporary Christian documents.

>Abhodah Zarah II: Christ referred to as the son of Pandira, a Roman
>soldier, a Prostitute Mother.
I could not find this reference in Abodah Zarah. What I did find
in Abodah Zarah (16b-17a) is a discussion about Rabbi Eliezer
being arrested on suspicion of heresy. He is accused of accepting
Christian teaching, and it is found that he accepts some of their
doctrines. The only doctrine mentioned explicitly is a teaching,
allegedly from jesus, that "you shall not bring the hire of a
harlot into the temple (as an offering)". The teaching is spoken
of with approval, but the rabbis are of the opinion that even
good teaching should not be accepted from a 'suspect' source. 

>Schabbath XIV: Christ again referred to as the son of Padira the
>Roman soldier.
I could not find this reference in Shabbath.

>Sanhedrin 43a: On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.
See above.

>Schabbath 104b: Called a fool and no one pays attention to fools.
I could not find this reference in Shabbath,

>Toldoth Jeschu: Says Judas and Jesus engaged in a quarrel with
>human excrement.
See above on Toledoth Yeshu.

>Sanhedrin 103a: Suggested corrupts his morals and dishonors self.
I could not find this reference in Sanhedrin.

>Zohar III (282): Died like a beast and buried in animal's dung heap.
The Zohar is a 13th century spiritual writing. I was not able to
find a text of this document. It is not part of the Talmud.

>Hilkoth Melakhim: Attempt to prove Christians err in worship of Jesus.
I was not able to find this document at all. Is it surprising
that a Jewish document should express the opinion that
"Christians err in worship of Jesus"?

>Abhodah Zarah 21a: Reference to worship of Jesus in homes unwanted.
I was not able to find this reference in Abodah Zarah.

>Orach Chaiim 113: Avoid appearance of paying respect to Jesus.
>Iore Dea 150, 2: Do not appear to pay respect to Jesus by accident.
These two documents form part of the Schulhan 'Aruch (and it is
quite possible that some of the other documents I have been
unable to find are also part of this document). It is a law code
published in 1565, and revised many times over since that date.
It is not part of the Talmud. I was unable to find a copy of the
text.

>Abhodah Zarah (6a): False teaching to worship on the first day of Sabbath.
I was unable to find this reference in Abodah Zarah. Do you think
Troy (or whoever prepared this list) meant "first day of the
week"? Even so, I was unable to find any discussion of this issue
in Abodah Zarah. Once again, why should it be a surprise (or
reason for condemnation) for Jews to argue that worship of the
seventh day, not the first, in the week is God's will?

>Following are references to Christians:
I was unable to find many of the references in this section,
mainly due to the time it took looking for those above. I have
concentrated on those which appear to be 'worst', and those I was
able to find in the Talmud. I have deleted those from Troy's list
which are not in the Talmud at all.

>Kerithuth (6b p. 78): Jews called men, Christians are not called men.
>Makkoth (7b): Innocent of murder if intent was to kill Christian.
>Schabbath (116a): Talmudists agree that the books of Christians are to be burned.
I did not have time to find these references.

>Kallah (1b p. 18): Jew may perjure himself with a clear conscience.
This is not in the text of Kallah.

>Abhodah Zarah (25b)T: Even the best of the Goim [Christians] should be killed.
At the time of writing the Talmud, Christians were relatively
insignificant to the Rabbis. Goim refers to all people who are
noit Jews, and Christians are deluding themselves if they think
we are singled out in any way. Having said this, I was unable to
find this reference in Abodah Zarah.

>Abhodah Zarah (22a): Do not associate with gentiles, they shed blood.
Hardly a surprising prohibition, nor one deserving condemnation.

>Abhodah Zarah (22a): Christians have intercourse with animals.
This is not in the text of Abodah Zarah.

>Sanhedrin (74b) Tos: Sexual intercourse with Christian same as intercourse with beast.
Sanhedrin 74b says nothing of the sort. This is a rather obscure
passage about fire. The footnote speaks with approval, in the
context of this passage, of Churches in synagogues in Persia
where the Christians provided heating for the Synagogue on the
Sabbath, and in return the Jews provided heating for the
Christians in their Churches on the Sunday.

>Kethuboth (3b): The seed [children] of Christians valued same as the seed of a beast.
I was unable to find this reference.

>Sanhedrin (58b): To strike a Jew is the same as slapping the face of God.
I could not find this reference, but perhaps the same could be
said of a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, ...

>Kallah (1b, p. 18): Jew may perjure himself when lying about Christians.
I could not find this in the text of Kallah.

>Sanhedrin (59a): Christians who study the Jews' "Laws" {Talmud} to be put to death.
The text goes on to argue that this is wrong. It was argued by
some that non- Jews who study the Talmud should be put to death,
but the view that prevailed is that a gentile who studies the
Talmud is "as the high Priest", in other words highly to be
praised and honoured.

>Kelhubath (11a-11b): "When a grown-up man has had intercourse with a little girl...
It means this: When a GROWN UP MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A LITTLE
GIRL IT IS NOTHING, for when the girl is less than this [See
Footnote] THREE YEARS OLD it is as if one puts the finger into
the eye [Again See Footnote] tears come to the eye again and
again, SO DOES VIRGINITY COME BACK TO THE LITTLE GIRL THREE YEARS
OLD."

This is probably the most insidious quote in the whole list. The
words are correctly quoted but completely out of context. All the
words after [see footnote] actually appear in the footnote, and
are therefore not part of the Talmud itself. This passage is a
discussion of the penalties and consequences of adult-child
sexual relations. The point being made is that if a man has
sexual relations with a little girl, that is to be punished less
harshly than if it is with an older child or an adult woman.
Importantly, when she grows up, the child is to regarded as still
having her virginity for legal and marriage purposes. She is not
to suffer. In modern times it is quite shocking to think that the
fine or reparation for raping an infant should be less than that
for raping or seducing an older child, but that is the relative
judgement that some of the rabbis made, and which is recorded in
the Talmud. The following paragraphs continue to discuss this
issue, and there does not seem to be a strong consensus on the
issue. The important thing, though, is that whilst from a modern
standpoint we (whether Christian, Jew or atheist) might deplore
the medical and psychological ignorance which seems to inform
this decision, it must be stressed that the Talmud in no sense
condones such behaviour. The discussion is about how it should be
punished.


>Sanhedrin (59a) & Abohodah Zarah 8-6: "Every goy [non-Jew] who studies the
Talmud and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die."
I have discussed this issue above.

So far as I can tell, the passages I have deleted are all
repetitions or from sources other than the Talmud. I apologise if
Ihave deleted any incorrectly.

Troy wrote:
>Of course, all this is anti-semite propaganda.
I recognise that Troy's intention here is ironic, but I would
respectfully suggest that the collection of Talmud references,
and the way they were presented, do indeed constitute
anti-semitic propaganda. It is possible to present a collection
of Scriptural references in the form of anti-Christian propaganda
(some atheists do this constantly on the newsgroup), and that is
precisely what has been done here in regard to Judaism. Both Troy
and Greg have denied that the source of their information is
anti-semitic 'factsheets' or web sites, so I can only conclude
that they have this information from such sources indirectly. The
list of talmud references is not the same as the one in the
"Protocols of the elders of Zion" - a widely acknowledged forgery
widely distributed by anti-semitic organisations in France,
Germany and the USA in the early part of this century, but there
are many similarities. 

It is possible that my investigations in this lengthy post will
not convince anyone to change their views, but I do hope that I
have shown that the source from which Troy derived his list of
Talmud quotes is, to say the least, flawed. I freely admit that
it is quite possible that I have missed some references to Jesus
in the Talmud, either due to my own lack of time or care, or
because of spelling variants in Troy's list, but the fact remains
that in examining the actual text of the Talmud I was unable to
find anything which deserved the level of condemnation contained
in Greg and Troy's earlier posts. Of course Christians and Jews
disagree, and have different understandings of historical events,
but that does not justify or excuse demonising or condemining any
or all Jews.

Cheers


N+

Nigel B. Mitchell