The huppah, the Jewish bridal canopy, is one of the most beloved objects of Jewish art. It is steeped in history, customs, symbolism and beauty. It is both the actual bridal canopy and the ceremony. Here we will focus on the huppah as an object of Jewish art. The Hebrew word huppah means covering, or that which floats above. It is based on the root word hafah, which means to cover or hide, similar to the word hafaf, meaning to protect. It intended as a roof or covering for the bride and groom at their wedding. It is open on all four sides as Abrahams tent was, to welcome strangers from all directions.Originally, the wedding ceremony was held outdoors, with the hope that the couple would be blessed with a large family, as Gods blessing to Abraham. I will greatly bless you, and I will exceedingly multiply your children as the stars in heaven. It is also reminiscent of the sukkah the temporary structure erected for Sukkot. Like the sukkah, the huppah reminds the bride and groom that they are protected by God alone and that God is their only haven and support.In the Talmudic period, the grooms fathers would set up a royal purple tent or use gold and luxurious scarlet cloth for their sons huppot. An especially moving ceremony involved planting a cedar tree on the occasion of a sons birth, and a pine tree when a daughter was born. When the child married, the branches and leaves from the tree were then used to make the huppah.The medieval community often used a parochet, the embroidered curtain covering the Torah ark. But over time, it was felt to be inappropriate to use a sacred object for the bridal chamber. It then became the custom to marry under a tallit, the prayer shawl, which was frequently a gift from the brides family to the groom.To define the space as sacred, a covering was used to avoid the appearance that the bridal couple were marrying in the marketplace, which was considered indelicate and unacceptable at that time.Prior to the 16th century, the huppah consisted of a veil worn by the bride. Later, it was a cloth spread over the shoulders of the bride and groom. An eminent Polish rabbi in the 16th century wrote the portable marriage canopy was widely adopted by Ashkenazi Jews as a symbol of the chamber where marriages originally took place.It is an ancient concept, and the Talmud considered it biblically required for marriage. THERE IS great symbolism in the huppah as attested in the Bible, Chabad, hassidim and Kabbalah.God constructed 10 huppot for Adam and Eves wedding, according to the Midrash. Ten is a mystical number in Kabbala referring to the 10 divine attributes through which God relates to the physical world. The huppah is considered a symbol of Gods love above the married couple. The traditional huppah features an open sky above acknowledging God as Creator, who infuses marriage with deep spirituality and cosmic significance.It is said that the couples ancestors are present at the huppah ceremony and that the Shechinah, the Divine Presence, graces every huppah ceremony. Unlike many other Jewish ritual objects such as the tallit or mezuzah that follow strict Biblical instructions, the only rule about the huppahs construction is that it be a temporary structure made by human hands. The cloth huppah was originally draped around the bride and groom but was later spread out over their heads. The single cloth under which the couple are joined thus symbolizes both the new household they are forming and represents the public recognition of their new status as man and wife.Huppot are diverse and reflect personal taste, budget, community influence, season and settings. Huppot vary from simple cloths to elaborate tapestries and embroideries, quilts sewn by family members, to spectacular floral creations. The materials depend on taste, budget and the ceremonys location. Over centuries, the appearance of huppot has changed dramatically. While some abroad are totally floral, normally they are fashioned from fabric: cotton, lace, organza, wool, silk, satin or velvet. White, symbolizing purity, is the most accepted color, while hassidic weddings utilize dark blue velvet. Some huppot are embellished with popular motifs in Jewish art, including Stars of David, pomegranates representing abundance, scenes of Jerusalem and texts and images from the sheva brachot (seven marriage blessings).The Great Synagogue of Rome boasts a majestic huppah in pale green floral brocade, lined in satin with a scalloped valance trimmed in gold fringe. HAND-HELD HUPPOT can be used in the processional, the poles carried by four friends or relatives represent the communitys support in years to come. Poles can be made of metal or wood and can be carved, painted or wrapped in ribbons or flowers and greenery. Wedding halls, caterers and many synagogues generally provide a large huppah, often raised on a stage. Huppot can be rented online, complete with poles and stands. It is a mitzvah to beautify all Jewish ritual objects (hiddur mitzvot), and the huppah is no exception. After the wedding, a huppah can become a wall hanging, a bed canopy or a bedspread. Some couples loan theirs for weddings of family and friends, and some have raised their huppah for a baby-naming or brit milah ceremony. Customs too have changed over time and in Jewish communities around the world. Many of the customs are still cherished and practiced today.In Yemen, the Jewish practice was not for the groom and his bride to be secluded under a canopy (huppah) hung on four poles, as is widely practiced today in Jewish weddings, but rather in a bridal chamber that was, in effect, a highly decorated room in the house of the groom. This room was traditionally decorated with large hanging sheets of colored, patterned cloth, replete with wall cushions and short-length mattresses for reclining. Their marriage is consummated when they have been left together alone in this room.In the Italian Jewish wedding it is traditional to use a crocheted tablecloth or a bed covering which, after the ceremony, will be used in the couples home. In fact, the Italian phrase, sotto la coperta, (or under the covering) signifies the bridal canopy from ancient times.Let the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride be heard.The writer is an American interior and textile designer and Judaica artist, based in Jerusalem. joetob@netvision.net.il

Visit link:

The huppah - a beloved object of Jewish art - The Jerusalem Post

The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life. For example, the fourth of the Ten Commandments, ordains, "Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy" (Exodus 20:8). From the Sabbath's inclusion in the Ten Commandments, it is clear that the Torah regards it as an important holiday. Yet when one looks for the specific biblical laws regulating how to observe the day, one finds only injunctions against lighting a fire, going away from one's dwelling, cutting down a tree, plowing and harvesting. Would merely refraining from these few activities fulfill the biblical command to make the Sabbath holy? Indeed, the Sabbath rituals that are most commonly associated with holiness-lighting of candles, reciting the kiddush, and the reading of the weekly Torah portion are found not in the Torah, but in the Oral Law.

Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah's laws would be incomprehensible. In the Shema's first paragraph, the Bible instructs: "And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes." "Bind them for a sign upon your hand," the last verse instructs. Bind what? The Torah doesn't say. "And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes." What are frontlets? The Hebrew word for frontlets, totafot is used three times in the Torah always in this context (Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18) and is as obscure as is the English. Only in the Oral Law do we learn that what a Jewish male should bind upon his hand and between his eyes are tefillin (phylacteries).

Finally, an Oral Law was needed to mitigate certain categorical Torah laws that would have caused grave problems if carried out literally. The Written Law, for example, demands an "eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24). Did this imply that if one person accidentally blinded another, he should be blinded in return? That seems to be the Torah's wish. But the Oral Law explains that the verse must be understood as requiring monetary compensation: the value of an eye is what must be paid.

The Jewish community of Palestine suffered horrendous losses during the Great Revolt and the Bar-Kokhba rebellion. Well over a million Jews were killed in the two ill-fated uprisings, and the leading yeshivot, along with thousands of their rabbinical scholars and students, were devastated.

This decline in the number of knowledgeable Jews seems to have been a decisive factor in Rabbi Judah the Prince's decision around the year 200 C.E. to record in writing the Oral Law. For centuries, Judaism's leading rabbis had resisted writing down the Oral Law. Teaching the law orally, the rabbis knew, compelled students to maintain close relationships with teachers, and they considered teachers, not books, to be the best conveyors of the Jewish tradition. But with the deaths of so many teachers in the failed revolts, Rabbi Judah apparently feared that the Oral Law would be forgotten unless it were written down.

In the Mishna, the name for the sixty-three tractates in which Rabbi Judah set down the Oral Law, Jewish law is systematically codified, unlike in the Torah. For example, if a person wanted to find every law in the Torah about the Sabbath, he would have to locate scattered references in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Indeed, in order to know everything the Torah said on a given subject, one either had to read through all of it or know its contents by heart. Rabbi Judah avoided this problem by arranging the Mishna topically. All laws pertaining to the Sabbath were put into one tractate called Shabbat (Hebrew for "Sabbath"). The laws contained in Shabbat's twenty-four chapters are far more extensive than those contained in the Torah, for the Mishna summarizes the Oral Law's extensive Sabbath legislation. The tractate Shabbat is part of a larger "order" called Mo'ed (Hebrew for "holiday"), which is one of six orders that comprise the Mishna. Some of the other tractates in Mo'ed specify the Oral Laws of Passover (Pesachim); Purim (Megillah); Rosh haShana; Yom Kippur (Yoma); and Sukkot.

The first of the six orders is called Zera'im (Seeds), and deals with the agricultural rules of ancient Palestine, particularly with the details of the produce that were to be presented as offerings at the Temple in Jerusalem. The most famous tractate in Zera'im, however, Brakhot (Blessings) has little to do with agriculture. It records laws concerning different blessings and when they are to be recited.

Another order, called Nezikin (Damages), contains ten tractates summarizing Jewish civil and criminal law.

Another order, Nashim (Women), deals with issues between the sexes, including both laws of marriage, Kiddushin, and of divorce, Gittin.

A fifth order, Kodashim, outlines the laws of sacrifices and ritual slaughter. The sixth order, Taharot, contains the laws of purity and impurity.

Although parts of the Mishna read as dry legal recitations, Rabbi Judah frequently enlivened the text by presenting minority views, which it was also hoped might serve to guide scholars in later generations (Mishna Eduyot 1:6). In one famous instance, the legal code turned almost poetic, as Rabbi Judah cited the lengthy warning the rabbinic judges delivered to witnesses testifying in capital cases:

"How are witnesses inspired with awe in capital cases?" the Mishna begins. "They are brought in and admonished as follows: In case you may want to offer testimony that is only conjecture or hearsay or secondhand evidence, even from a person you consider trustworthy; or in the event you do not know that we shall test you by cross-examination and inquiry, then know that capital cases are not like monetary cases. In monetary cases, a man can make monetary restitution and be forgiven, but in capital cases both the blood of the man put to death and the blood of his [potential] descendants are on the witness's head until the end of time. For thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: 'The bloods of your brother cry unto Me' (Genesis 4:10) that is, his blood and the blood of his potential descendants.... Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one should say to his fellow, 'My father was greater than yours.... Also, man [was created singly] to show the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, for if a man strikes many coins from one mold, they all resemble one another, but the King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, made each man in the image of Adam, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obligated to say, 'The world was created for my sake"' (Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5). (One commentary notes, "How grave the responsibility, therefore, of corrupting myself by giving false evidence, and thus bringing [upon myself the moral guilt of [murdering] a whole world.")

One of the Mishna's sixtythree tractates contains no laws at all. It is called Pirkei Avot (usually translated as Ethics of the Fathers), and it is the "Bartlett's" of the rabbis, in which their most famous sayings and proverbs are recorded.

During the centuries following Rabbi Judah's editing of the Mishna, it was studied exhaustively by generation after generation of rabbis. Eventually, some of these rabbis wrote down their discussions and commentaries on the Mishna's laws in a series of books known as the Talmud. The rabbis of Palestine edited their discussions of the Mishna about the year 400: Their work became known as the Palestinian Talmud (in Hebrew, Talmud Yerushalmi, which literally means "Jerusalem Talmud").

More than a century later, some of the leading Babylonian rabbis compiled another editing of the discussions on the Mishna. By then, these deliberations had been going on some three hundred years. The Babylon edition was far more extensive than its Palestinian counterpart, so that the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli) became the most authoritative compilation of the Oral Law. When people speak of studying "the Talmud," they almost invariably mean the Bavli rather than the Yerushalmi.

The Talmud's discussions are recorded in a consistent format. A law from the Mishna is cited, which is followed by rabbinic deliberations on its meaning. The Mishna and the rabbinic discussions (known as the Gemara) comprise the Talmud, although in Jewish life the terms Gemara and Talmud usually are used interchangeably.

The rabbis whose views are cited in the Mishna are known as Tanna'im (Aramaic for "teachers"), while the rabbis quoted in the Gemara are known as Amora'im ("explainers" or "interpreters"). Because the Tanna'im lived earlier than the Amora'im, and thus were in closer proximity to Moses and the revelation at Sinai, their teachings are considered more authoritative than those of the Amora'im. For the same reason, Jewish tradition generally regards the teachings of the Amora'im, insofar as they are expounding the Oral Law, as more authoritative than contemporary rabbinic teachings.

In addition to extensive legal discussions (in Hebrew, halakha), the rabbis incorporated into the Talmud guidance on ethical matters, medical advice, historical information, and folklore, which together are known as aggadata.

As a rule, the Gemara's text starts with a close reading of the Mishna. For example, Mishna Bava Mezia 7:1 teaches the following: "If a man hired laborers and ordered them to work early in the morning and late at night, he cannot compel them to work early and late if it is not the custom to do so in that place." On this, the Gemara (Bava Mezia 83a) comments: "Is it not obvious [that an employer cannot demand that they change from the local custom]? The case in question is where the employer gave them a higher wage than was normal. In that case, it might be argued that he could then say to them, 'The reason I gave you a higher wage than is normal is so that you will work early in the morning and late at night.' So the law tells us that the laborers can reply: 'The reason that you gave us a higher wage than is normal is for better work [not longer hours].'"

Among religious Jews, talmudic scholars are regarded with the same awe and respect with which secular society regards Nobel laureates. Yet throughout Jewish history, study of the Mishna and Talmud was hardly restricted to an intellectual elite. An old book saved from the millions burned by the Nazis, and now housed at the YIVO library in New York, bears the stamp THE SOCIETY OF WOODCHOPPERS FOR THE STUDY OF MISHNA IN BERDITCHEV. That the men who chopped wood in Berditchev, an arduous job that required no literacy, met regularly to study Jewish law demonstrates the ongoing pervasiveness of study of the Oral Law in the Jewish community.

Read the original post:

The Oral Law -Talmud & Mishna - Jewish Virtual Library

A Torah scroll. Photo: RabbiSacks.org.

The Fast of the Seventeenth of Tammuz that we have just passed initiates a three-week period of mourning for the loss, twice, of Jerusalem and the Temple. The official rabbinic reason for the disasters given in the Talmud is Sinat Chinam needless hatred and internal divisions and antagonism among Jews. Sadly we have always been very good at this, from Abraham onward. Looking around us today, the bitter divisions throughout the Jewish world confirm that the rabbis were right.

However, there is another factor that historically I think is more significant. If you look at the early history of the Jewish people 3,000 years ago, as recorded in the Bible, you cannot fail to notice what a mess our kings, priests, judges, and tribal chieftains made of everything, time and time again. Sure, they thought they were making the right decisions. But it turns out they rarely were.

At the time of the Judges, the tribes were so divided they only came together once to settle an internal dispute. They demanded of the tribe of Benjamin that murder on their territory should be punished. Benjamin refused and the other tribes went to war. Eventually, they all but destroyed the tribe and had to rebuild it.

David and Solomons unified rule lasted two generations. Then the kingdom split into two. The southern kingdom of Judea had Jerusalem as its capital, and the Temple. The 10 northern tribes, known as Israel, broke away and immediately set up two pagan temples. The two kingdoms were occasional allies but much of the time they were killing each other.

July 14, 2020 3:59 am

Both kingdoms were caught between rival powers. The Israelite kings had to choose who to ally themselves with and sadly, they invariably made the wrong choices. The northern kingdom of Israel could boast such awful rulers as King Ahab and Queen Jezebel. It changed dynasties and kings regularly. Ten of its 19 rulers were assassinated. All Judean kings, good and mostly bad, came from the house of David. The only exception was a brief interlude when Jezebels daughter (or perhaps granddaughter) Athaliah ruled, having killed all her sons except one.

The northern kingdom soon became a vassal state of Aram. When Aram succumbed to the Assyrian empire, Israel was expected to pay tribute to the Assyrians. But they tried to break away. Terrible decision. The last years of Israel were marred by internal conflict.

One king replaced another in quick succession. Zechariah was killed by Shalum. He was murdered by Menachem who was followed by Pekachyah. His son was murdered by Pekah who was killed by Hoshea. By this time, the Assyrians had enough of this unstable dependent and, to quote the poet Byron, The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold, and his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold. They took the lot of them into exile and scattered them around the Assyrian Empire in 720 BCE.

Having disposed of Israel in the north, the Assyrians then attacked a rare good Judean king, Hezekiah. But with a little help from the Almighty and a plot back at home in Nineveh against Sennacherib, Judea got away with buying the Assyrians off. But then Egypt emerged from a period of passivity and tried to persuade the Judeans to remain neutral in its war with Assyria.

Some 60 years later, another good king, Josiah (and by good I mean ethical and loyal to the Torah) made another disastrous miscalculation and intervened on behalf of Assyria in an attempt to thwart the Egyptian advance even though Pharaoh Necho had begged him not to. Josiah backed the wrong horse again and Pharaoh killed Josiah at Megiddo in 609 BCE. His son Yehoachin became king.

I hope you are still following this. Life in the Middle East was never boring.

Can you believe it, Yehoachin proved untrustworthy too. Nebuchadnezzar lost his patience. He captured the king and carted him and the elite of Judea off to Babylon. They, together with the next group of exiles, would constitute the largest Jewish community anywhere for the next 1,000 years.

Nebuchadnezzar then appointed the uncle of Jehoachin, Mattaniah, king and insisted he change his name to Zedekiah (literally the Pious One of God). If ever there was a misnomer this was it! He too promised to be a faithful ally. But once again, he made the fateful decision to rely on Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar by now was furious with these devious Judeans. He invaded in 586 BCE, destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, killed the kings sons before his eyes, and then blinded him. That was the rule in those days. And he sent everyone with any skill back to Babylon in chains where they joined the earlier exiles.

Judean dysfunctionality did not end there. Gedaliah was left in charge by the Babylonians, but two pro-Egyptian Judeans assassinated him. The remaining Judeans including the prophet Jeremiah fled down to Egypt for fear of retaliation so that for the first time since Joshua, there were no Israelites living in the once Promised Land. And that is probably why we have the fast of Gedaliah the day after Rosh Hashanah to remind us how we lost the Promised Land and left it devoid of any Jews. We tend to remember our disasters as much, if not more, than our victories.

With a record of so many bad or failed kings, I often wonder why we pray for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy. In three weeks time, it will be the Ninth of Av. And if you have the patience as we get closer, I will tell you why the Second Commonwealth ended up almost as bad a mess as the first one.

All this makes me wonder why so many people still think that the Jews want to control the world, when they couldnt even control their own small bit of it. But then neither logic nor facts were ever very effective against prejudice or hatred.

History does not repeat itself exactly. But we really ought to learn from the mistakes of the past. Human nature being what it is, however, Id rather put my faith in a Higher Power!

Rabbi Jeremy Rosen received his rabbinic ordination from Mir Yeshiva in Jerusalem. He also studied philosophy as an undergraduate at Cambridge University and went on to earn his PhD in philosophy. He has worked in the rabbinate, Jewish education, and academia for more than 40 years in Europe and the US. He currently lives in the US, where he writes, teaches, lectures, and serves as rabbi of a small community in New York.

Read this article:

Learning From the Past: Reckless Jewish Kings Through the Ages - Algemeiner

Jesus in the Talmud

There are several passages in the Talmud which are believed by some scholars to be references to Jesus. The name used in the Talmud is "Yeshu", the Aramaic vocalization (though not spelling) of the Hebrew name Yeshua.[1][2]

The identification of Yeshu as Jesus is problematic. For example, the Talmud mentions Yeshu ben Pandera/ben Stada's stepfather, Pappos ben Yehuda, speaking with Rabbi Akiva,[3] who was executed at the culmination of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE.[4][5] Furthermore, Yeshu the Pharisee student is described as being a student of the second-century BCE nasi Joshua ben Perachiah, as well as being among the exiled Pharisees returning to Israel following their persecution[6][7] by John Hyrcanus,[8] an event which occurred in 74 BC. Additionally, Yeshu the sorcerer was executed by the royal government which lost legal authority in 63 BC. These events would place the lifetime of either Yeshu decades before or after the birth and death of Jesus.[9][10] Still, there are numerous other passages pertaining to an individual named "Yeshu" that either do not provide a specific time period or else specify a time where it is reasonable to assume mentioning of Jesus would even be possible (take for example a notable passage, Gittin 57a mentioning the nobleman Onkelos conjuring the tormented spirit of "Yeshu" Onkelos lived more than a century after Jesus, thus making it possible the Yeshu mentioned could indeed be Jesus, though the likelihood of this is still questionable) still opening the possibility that whichever Yeshu mentioned might be Jesus.

The first Christian censorship of the Talmud happened in the year 521.[11] However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Catholic authorities[who?] accused the Talmud of containing blasphemous references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jewish apologists during the disputations said there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud. They asserted that Joshua was a common Jewish name, along with its derivations, and that the citations referred to individuals other than Jesus. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.

In the modern era there has been a variance of views among scholars of the possible references to Jesus in the Talmud, depending partly on presuppositions as to the extent to which the ancient rabbis were preoccupied with Jesus and Christianity.[12] This range of views among modern scholars on the subject has been described as a range from "minimalists" who see few passages with reference to Jesus, to "maximalists" who see many passages having reference to Jesus.[13] These terms "minimalist" and "maximalist" are not unique to discussion of the Talmud text; they are also used in discussion of academic debate on other aspects of Jewish vs. Christian and Christian vs. Jewish contact and polemic in the early centuries of Christianity, such as the Adversus Iudaeos genre.[14] "Minimalists" include Jacob Z. Lauterbach (1951) ("who recognize[d] only relatively few passages that actually have Jesus in mind"),[13] while "maximalists" include Herford (1903), (who concluded that most of the references related to Jesus, but were non-historical oral traditions which circulated among Jews),[15][16] and Schfer (2007) (who concluded that the passages were parodies of parallel stories about Jesus in the New Testament incorporated into the Talmud in the 3rd and 4th centuries that illustrate the inter-sect rivalry between Judaism and nascent Christianity[17][pageneeded]).

Some editions of the Talmud are missing some of the references, which were removed either by Christian censors starting in the 13th century,[18] or by Jews themselves due to fear of reprisals, or some were possibly lost by negligence or accident.[19] However, most modern editions published since the early 20th century have restored most of the references.[citation needed]

During the Middle Ages a series of debates on Judaism were staged by the Christian church including the Disputation of Paris, the Disputation of Barcelona, and Disputation of Tortosa and during those disputations, Jewish converts to Christianity, such as Pablo Christiani and Nicholas Donin claimed the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus.[20] An early work describing Jesus in the Talmud was Pugio Fidei ("Dagger of Faith") (c. 1280) by the Catalan Dominican Ramn Mart, a Jewish convert to Christianity.[21] In 1681 Johann Christoph Wagenseil translated and published a collection of anti-Christian polemics from Jewish sources, with the title Tela Ignea Satan, sive Arcani et Horribiles Judorum Adversus Christum, Deum, et Christianam Religionem Libri (Flaming Arrows of Satan, that is, the secret and horrible books of the Jews against Christ, God, and the Christian religion) which discussed Jesus in the Talmud.[21] The first book devoted solely to the topic of Jesus in the Talmud was the Latin work Jesus in Talmude published in 1699 by Rudolf Martin Meelfhrer, a student of Wagenseil at Altdorf.[22] In 1700, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger published Entdecktes Judenthum (Judaism Unmasked), which included descriptions of Jesus in the Talmud, and which would become the basis of much anti-Semitic literature in later centuries such as The Talmud Unmasked written in 1892 by Justinas Bonaventure Pranaitis.[23]

Starting in the 20th century the topic of Jesus in Judaic literature became subject to more unbiased, scholarly research, such as Das Leben Jesu nach jdischen Quellen written in 1902 by Samuel Krauss, which was the first scholarly analysis of the Judaic anti-Christian polemic Toledot Yeshu (The Biography of Jesus).[22] In 1903, Unitarian scholar R. Travers Herford wrote Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, which became the standard work on the topic in the Christian world, and he concluded that a large number of references referred to Jesus, not as a historical individual, but instead as the messiah of Christianity.[24] In 1910, Hermann Strack wrote Jesus, die Hretiker und die Christen nach den ltesten jdischen Angaben, which found no evidence of a historical Jesus in the Talmud.[22] In 1922 Joseph Klausner wrote Yeshu ha-Notzri (Jesus of Nazareth) which concluded that "the evidence [for a historical Jesus] in the Talmud is scanty and does not contribute much to our knowledge of the historical Jesus; much of it is legendary and reflects the Jewish attempt to counter Christian claims and reproaches" but he did conclude some material was historically reliable.[25] In 1950 Morris Goldstein wrote Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, including sections on the Toledoth Yeshu. In 1951, Jacob Z. Lauterbach wrote the essay Jesus in the Talmud.[26] In 1978 Johann Maier wrote Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen berlieferung, in which he concludes that there is virtually no evidence of the historical Jesus in the Talmud, and that the references to Jesus were "legendary" and probably added late in the Talmudic era "as a reaction to Christian provocations".[27] In 2007, Peter Schfer wrote Jesus in the Talmud in which he tried to find a middle ground between "anti-Jewish Christian" and "apologetic Jewish" interpretations. He concluded that the references to Jesus (as the messiah of Christianity) were included in the early (3rd and 4th century) versions of the Talmud, and that they were parodies of New Testament narratives.[28]

In the first few centuries CE, there were many sects of Judaism (such as Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadducees) each claiming to be the correct faith.[29] Some scholars treat Christianity, during that era, referred to as Early Christianity, as simply one of many sects of Judaism.[30] Some sects wrote polemics advocating their position, and occasionally disparaging rival sects. Some scholars view the depictions of Jesus in the Talmud as a manifestation of those inter-sect rivalries thus the depictions can be read as polemics by the rabbinic authors of the Talmud which indirectly criticized the rival sect (Christianity), which was growing and becoming more dominant.[31]

Peter Schfer concluded that the references were not from the early tannaitic period (1st and 2nd centuries) but rather from the 3rd and 4th centuries, during the amoraic period.[32] He asserts that the references in the Babylonian Talmud were "polemical counter-narratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus' birth and death"[33] and that the rabbinical authors were familiar with the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) in their form as the Diatessaron and the Peshitta, the New Testament of the Syrian Church. Schfer argues that the message conveyed in the Talmud was a "bold and self-confident" assertion of correctness of Judaism, maintaining that "there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater."[34]

By way of comparison the New Testament itself also documents conflict with rabbinical Judaism, for example in the John 8:41 charge "We are not born of fornication."[35] and "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?"[36] and in return in the description in Revelation of a "synagogue of Satan."[37]

In contrast to Peter Schfer, Daniel J. Lasker suggests that the Talmudic stories about Jesus are not deliberate, provocative polemics, but instead demonstrate "embryonic" Jewish objections to Christianity which would later "blossom into a full-scale Jewish polemical attack on Christianity [the Toledoth Yeshu]".[38]

Jeffrey Rubenstein has argued that the accounts in Chullin and Avodah Zarah ("Idolatry") reveal an ambivalent relationship between rabbis and Christianity. In his view the tosefta account reveals that at least some Jews believed Christians were true healers, but that the rabbis saw this belief as a major threat. Concerning the Babylonian Talmud account in Avoda Zarah, Boyarin views Jacob of Sechania as a Christian preacher and understands Rabbi Eliezer's arrest for minuth ("heresy") as an arrest by the Romans for practising Christianity. When the Governor (the text uses the word for chief judge) interrogated him, the rabbi answered that he "trusted the judge." Boyarin has suggested that this was the Jewish version of the Br'er Rabbit approach to domination, which he contrasts to the strategy of many early Christians, who proclaim their beliefs in spite of the consequences (i.e. martyrdom). Although Rabbi Eliezer was referring to God, the Governor interpreted him to be referring to the Governor himself, and freed the rabbi. According to them the account also reveals that there was greater contact between Christians and Jews in the 2nd century than commonly believed. They view the account of the teaching of Yeshu as an attempt to mock Christianity. According to Rubenstein, the structure of this teaching, in which a biblical prooftext is used to answer a question about biblical law, is common to both the rabbis and early Christians. The vulgar content, however, may have been used to parody Christian values. Boyarin considers the text to be an acknowledgment that rabbis often interacted with Christians, despite their doctrinal antipathy.[39]

Between 1239 and 1775 the Catholic Church at various times either forced the censoring of parts of the Talmud that were theologically problematic or the destruction of copies of the Talmud.[40]

During the Middle Ages a series of debates on Judaism were held by Catholic authorities including the Disputation of Paris (1240), the Disputation of Barcelona (1263), and Disputation of Tortosa (141314) and during those disputations, Jewish converts to Christianity, such as Nicholas Donin (in Paris) and Pablo Christiani (in Barcelona) claimed the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus.[41][42][43]

During these disputations the representatives of the Jewish communities offered various defences to the charges of the Christian disputants. Notably influential on later Jewish responses was the defence of Yechiel of Paris (1240) that a passage about an individual named Yeshu in the Talmud was not a reference to the Christian Jesus, though at the same time Yechiel also conceded that another reference to Yeshu was. This has been described as the "theory of two Jesuses" though Berger (1998) notes that Yehiel in fact argues for three Jesuses.[44] This defence featured again in later Jewish defences during the medieval period, such as that of Nachmanides at the Disputation of Barcelona, though others such as Profiat Duran at the Disputation of Tortosa did not follow this argument.[45]

Amy-Jill Levine notes that even today some rabbinical experts do not consider that the Talmud's account of Jesus' death is a reference to the Jesus of the New Testament.[46] Gustaf Dalman (1922),[47] Joachim Jeremias (1960),[48] Mark Allen Powell (1998)[49] and Roger T. Beckwith (2005)[50] were also favourable to the view the Yeshu references in the Talmud were not to Jesus. Richard Bauckham considers Yeshu a legitimate, if rare, form of the name in use at the time, and writes that an ossuary bearing both the names Yeshu and Yeshua ben Yosef shows that it "was not invented by the rabbis as a way of avoiding pronouncing the real name of Jesus of Nazareth"[51]

Numerous times between 1239 and 1775 all copies of the Talmud were destroyed. In 1280 following the Disputation of Barcelona the Talmud was censored.[52] Following the invention of the printing press, the Talmud was banned by the Pope. All printed editions of the Talmud, including the Basel Talmud and the Vilna Edition Shas, were censored. In 1559 the Talmud was placed on the Roman Index and banned. In 1564 under the Tridentine Index an expunged version of the Talmud was allowed. In 1592 the pope ordered all copies of the Talmud and other heretical writing destroyed expunged or not. The total prohibition would stay in place until 1775. Even then the censorship system would remain in force.[40] As a result of these disputations many manuscript editions had references to Jesus removed or changed, and subsequent manuscripts sometimes omitted the passages entirely. Few copies would survive.

In the 20th century, new editions began restoring the censored material, such as in the 1935 English Soncino edition.[53]

Starting in the 13th century, manuscripts of the Talmud were sometimes altered in response to the criticisms made during the disputations, and in response to orders from the Christian church. Existing manuscripts were sometimes altered (for example, by erasure) and new manuscripts often omitted the passages entirely. Peter Schfer compared several editions and documented some alterations as illustrated in the following table:[54]

Bart Ehrman, and separately Mark Allan Powell, state that the Talmud references are quite late (hundreds of years) and give no historically reliable information about the teachings or actions of Jesus during his life. Ehrman clarifies that the name "Son of Panthera" (Roman who allegedly was the seducer of Mary) was a tradition, as scholars have long recognized, that represented an attack on the Christian view, that he was the son of a virgin. In Greek, the term for virgin is parthenos, which is similar to panthera, implying that "son of panthera" is a pun on "son of a virgin".[55][56] The name "ben Stada", used for the same figure, is explained by Peter Schfer as a reference to his mother's supposed adultery:

His mother's true name was Miriam, and "Stada" is an epithet which derives from the Hebrew/Aramaic root sat.ah/sete' ("to deviate from the right path, to go astray, to be unfaithful"). In other words, his mother Miriam was also called "Stada" because she was a sotah, a woman suspected, or rather convicted, of adultery."[57]

Peter Schfer states that there can be no doubt that the narrative of the execution of Jesus in the Talmud refers to Jesus of Nazareth, but states that the rabbinic literature in question are from a later Amoraic period and may have drawn on the Christian gospels, and may have been written as responses to them.[57]

Scholars debate whether the Talmud provides any evidence of Jesus as a historical individual. Van Voorst (2000) describes this as a spectrum of opinion:

There are several Talmudic passages that are said to be referring to Jesus. The following are among those considered the most controversial, contested, and possibly the most notable.[60][61][62]

Our rabbis taught Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples, and these are they: Matthai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.[63][64][65][66]

The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.[67][8][68][69]

"Jesus son of Stada is Jesus son of Pandira?"

Rav Hisda said, "The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandera."

"But was not the husband Pappos son of Yehuda and the mother Stada?"

No, his mother was Miriam, who let her hair grow long and was called Stada. Pumbedita says about her: "She was unfaithful to her husband."[70][71][72][73]

On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover, Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it." But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover.Ulla said: "Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God] says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government.[64][74][75][76]

There are still noticeable challenges to the identification of Yeshu as Jesus, as elsewhere in the Talmud his stepfather, Pappos ben Yehuda, is mentioned as being martyred with Rabbi Akiva[3] and is himself mentioned as being among the Pharisees returning to Israel following their persecution by John Hyrcanus,[8] which would place Yeshu's lifetime anywhere between 130 and 70 years before the birth of Jesus.

Sanhedrin 43a[77] relates the trial and execution of a sorcerer named Jesus (Yeshu in Hebrew) and his five disciples. The sorcerer is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover.[78]

Sanhedrin 107[79] tells of a Jesus ("Yeshu") "offended his teacher by paying too much attention to the inn-keeper's wife. Jesus wished to be forgiven, but [his rabbi] was too slow to forgive him, and Jesus in despair went away and put up a brick [idol] and worshipped it."[80]

In Gittin 56b and 57a,[81] a story is told in which Onkelos summons up the spirit of a Yeshu who sought to harm Israel. He describes his punishment in the afterlife as boiling in excrement.[82][83]

Some scholars claim that the Hebrew name Yeshu is not a short form of the name Yeshua, but rather an acrostic for the Hebrew phrase "may his name and memory be blotted out" created by taking the first letter of the Hebrew words.[84]

In addition, at the 1240 Disputation of Paris, Donin presented the allegation that the Talmud was blasphemous towards Mary, the mother of Jesus (Miriam in Hebrew), and this criticism has been repeated by many Christian sources.[85] The texts cited by critics include Sanhedrin 67a,[86] Sanhedrin 106a,[87] and Shabbath 104b.[88] However, the references to Mary are not specific, and some assert that they do not refer to Jesus' mother, or perhaps refer to Mary Magdalen.[89]

Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:[90]

Sanhedrin 43a relates the trial and execution of Jesus and his five disciples.[91] Here, Jesus is a sorcerer who has enticed other Jews to apostasy. A herald is sent to call for witnesses in his favour for forty days before his execution. No one comes forth and in the end he is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover. His five disciples, named Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah are then tried. Word play is made on each of their names, and they are executed. It is mentioned that leniency could not be applied because of Jesus' influence with the royal government (malkhut).

Scholars have identified passages in the Talmud and associated Talmudic texts that involve invoking Jesus' name, as the messiah of Christianity, in order to perform magical healing:[92]

Scholars have identified passages that mention Jesus, as the messiah of Christianity, in the context of a Torah teacher:[92]

Sanhedrin 103a and Berachot 17b talk about a Yeshu ha-Nosri (Jesus of Nazareth) who "burns his food in public", possibly a reference to pagan sacrifices or a metaphor for apostasy.[94] The account is discussing Manasseh the king of Judah infamous for having turned to idolatry and having persecuted the Jews (2 Kings 21). It is part of a larger discussion about three kings and four commoners excluded from paradise. These are also discussed in the Shulkhan Arukh where the son who burns his food is explicitly stated to be Manasseh. The passages identified by scholars in this context are:[92]

Passages in Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47a refer to an individual (Yeshu) that some scholars conclude is a reference to Jesus, regarded as the messiah of Christianity. In these passages, Jesus is described as a student of Joshua ben Perachiah (second half of the 2nd century BCE), and he (Jesus) was sent away for misinterpreting a word that in context should have been understood as referring to the Inn; he instead understood it to mean the innkeeper's wife (the same word can mean "inn" and "hostess").[95] His teacher said "Here is a nice inn", to which he replied "Her eyes are crooked", to which his teacher responded "Evil one! Is this what you are occupied in?" (Gazing at women was considered sinful.) [96] After several returns for forgiveness he mistook Perachiah's signal to wait a moment as a signal of final rejection, and so he turned to idolatry. Some passages that have been identified by scholars as mentioning Jesus, as the messiah of Christianity, in this context include:[97]

The full passage is:

In all circumstances (one should exercise) use the left hand to push (away) and the right (to) bring closeward ... not like Yehoshua ben Perachya who pushed himto Yeshuwith both hands... (here the Talmud begins a narration) at the time that Yannai the king was executing the Rabbis, Shimon ben Shatach('s sister) hid Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachya, he (then, subsequently was able to) go and run (escape) to Alexandria of Egypt. When there was (came) and (an era of) peace, Shimon ben Shatach sent to him (a letter:) "from me Yerushalayim the holy city to you Alexander of Egypt -my sister, my husband dwells amongst you and I am sitting lonely" said (Rabbi Yeshushua ben Perachya) "I deduce (from the letter) that he (is enjoying) peace. As he (Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachya) came they went up to a lodge, (they -at the lodge) stood for him with exemplary honor and did for him extended goodness. He sat and was in the midst of praising 'how beautiful is this lodging (which also means innkeeper in Aramaic)', (Yeshu) said to him "My master, her eyes are misshaped". He said to him "Evil one!, is this how you conduct yourself?!" he brought out four hundred Shofars and excommunicated him.

Every day he would come before him (intent on being readmitted,) and he did not accept him. One day he was reciting Kriat Shema,[98] he (Yeshu) came before him (the Rabbi)it was on his (the Rabbi's) mind to accept himhe (the Rabbi) showed him with his hand, he (Yeshu) thought 'he is pushing him', (Yeshu then) went erected a fish worship, he (his Rabbi) said to him 'return yourself' he (Yeshu) said to him '(so) I learnt from you; 'all who sin and cause others to sin we do not give (are not given) him the ability to repent'.

Sotah 47a, Sanhedrin 107

The story ends by invoking a Mishnaic era teaching that Yeshu practised black magic, deceived and led Israel astray. This quote is seen by some as an explanation in general for the designation Yeshu.

According to Dr. Rubenstein, the account in Sanhedrin 107b recognizes the kinship between Christians and Jews, since Jesus is presented as a disciple of a prominent Rabbi. But it also reflects and speaks to an anxiety fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism. Prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70, Jews were divided into different sects, each promoting different interpretations of the law. Rabbinic Judaism domesticated and internalized conflicts over the law, while vigorously condemning any sectarianism. In other words, rabbis are encouraged to disagree and argue with one another, but these activities must be carefully contained, or else they could lead to a schism. Although this story may not present a historically accurate account of Jesus' life, it does use a fiction about Jesus to communicate an important truth about the Rabbis. Moreover, Rubenstein sees this story as a rebuke to overly harsh Rabbis. Boyarin suggests that the Rabbis were well aware of Christian views of the Pharisees and that this story acknowledges the Christian belief that Jesus was forgiving and the Pharisees were not (see Mark 2:12), while emphasizing forgiveness as a necessary Rabbinic value.[39]

In Gittin 56b57a a story is recorded in which Onkelos, a nephew of the Roman emperor Titus who destroyed the Second Temple, intent on converting to Judaism, summons up the spirits of Yeshu and others to help make up his mind. Each describes his punishment in the afterlife.

The complete passage from the 1935 Soncino edition is:

Onkelos son of Kolonikos ... went and raised Titus from the dead by magical arts, and asked him; 'Who is most in repute in the [other] world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He said: Their observances are burdensome and you will not be able to carry them out. Go and attack them in that world and you will be at the top as it is written, Her adversaries are become the head etc.; whoever harasses Israel becomes head. He asked him: What is your punishment [in the other world]? He replied: What I decreed for myself. Every day my ashes are collected and sentence is passed on me and I am burnt and my ashes are scattered over the seven seas. He then went and raised Balaam by incantations. He asked him: Who is in repute in the other world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He replied: Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. He then asked: What is your punishment? He replied: With boiling hot semen. He then went and raised by incantations Jesus [in Vilna edition: "the sinners of Israel"; "Jesus" appears in Munich 95 and Vatican 140 manuscripts and "he went and brought up Jesus the Nazarene" (Editions or MSs: Vatican 130)]. He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement. Observe the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the other nations who worship idols. It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for God espoused the cause of Bar Kamza and destroyed His House and burnt His Temple.

Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 56b-57a

Scholars[who?] have identified passages that mention Jesus in the context of his execution:

The complete passage is: "On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, 'Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it.' But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God]says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government."[75][99]

In the Florence manuscript of the Talmud (1177 CE) an addition is made to Sanhedrin 43a saying that Yeshu was hanged on the eve of the Sabbath.[100]

Some Talmudic sources include passages which identify a "son of Pandera" (ben Pandera in Hebrew), and some scholars conclude that these are references to the messiah of Christianity.[101] Medieval Hebrew midrashic literature contain the "Episode of Jesus" (known also as Maaseh Yeshu), in which Jesus is described as being the son of Joseph, the son of Pandera (see: Episode of Jesus). The account portrays Jesus as an impostor.

The Talmud, and other talmudic texts, contain several references to the "son of Pandera". A few of the references explicitly name Jesus ("Yeshu") as the "son of Pandera": these explicit connections are found in the Tosefta, the Qohelet Rabbah, and the Jerusalem Talmud, but not in the Babylonian Talmud.[102] The explicit connections found in the Jerusalem Talmud are debated because the name "Jesus" ("Yeshu") is found only in a marginal gloss in some manuscripts, but other scholars conclude that it was in the original versions of the Jerusalem Talmud.[103]

The texts include several spellings for the father's name (Pandera, Panthera, Pandira, Pantiri, or Pantera) and some scholars conclude that these are all references to the same individual,[104] but other scholars suggest that they may be unrelated references.[105] In some of the texts, the father produced a son with a woman named Mary. Several of the texts indicate that the mother was not married to Pandera, and was committing adultery and by implication Jesus was a bastard child.[104] Some of the texts indicate that Mary's husband's name was Stada.

Some Talmudic sources include passages which identify a "son of Stada" or "son of Stara" (ben Stada or ben Stara in Hebrew), and some scholars conclude that these are references to the messiah of Christianity.[106]

Two talmudic-era texts that explicitly associate Jesus as the son of Pantera/Pandera are:

Both of the above passages describe situations where Jesus' name is invoked to perform magical healing.[107] In addition, some editions of the Jerusalem Talmud explicitly identify Jesus as the son of Pandera:[108]

However, some editions of the Jerusalem Talmud do not contain the name Jesus in these passages, so the association in this case is disputed. The parallel passages in the Babylonian Talmud do not contain the name Jesus.

Other Talmudic narratives describe Jesus as the son of a Pantiri or Pandera, in a teaching context:[109]

However, the parallel accounts in the Babylonian Talmud mention Jesus but do not mention the father's name:

The Babylonian talmud contains narratives that discuss an anonymous person who brought witchcraft out of Egypt, and the person is identified as "son of Pandera" or "son of Stada". The Talmud discusses whether the individual (the name Jesus is not present in these passages) is the son of Stada, or Pandera, and a suggestion is made that the mother Mary committed adultery.[102]

There is no Talmudic text that directly associates Jesus with Mary (Miriam), instead the association is indirect: Jesus is associated with a father ("son of Pandera"), and in other passages, Pandera is associated with Mary (as her lover).[110]

Typically both Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds use the generic minim for heretics. Aside from mentions of the five disciples of "Yeshu ha Notzri," the plural Notzrim, "Christians," are only clearly mentioned once in the Babylonian Talmud, (where it is amended to Netzarim, people of the watch) in B.Ta'anit 27b with a late parallel in Masekhet Soferim 17:4.[111] And then "The day of the Notzri according to Rabbi Ishmael is forbidden for ever" in some texts of B.Avodah Zarah 6a.[112]

The Toledot Yeshu (History of Jesus) is a Jewish anti-Christian polemic that purports to be a biography of Jesus.[113] The work is an early account of Jesus, based on contemporary Jewish views, in which Jesus is described as being the son of Joseph, the son of Pandera (see a translation of the Yemenite text: Episode of Jesus, or what is also known as Toledot Yeshu). Some scholars conclude that the work is merely an expansion and elaboration on anti-Christian themes in the Talmud.[114] Stephen Gero suggests that an early version of the Toledot Yeshu narrative preceded the Talmud, and that the Talmud drew upon the Toledot Yeshu, but Rubenstein and Schfer discount that possibility, because they date the origin of the Toledot Yeshu in the early Middle Ages or Late Antiquity.[115]

The Platonistic philosopher Celsus, writing circa 150 to 200 CE, wrote a narrative describing a Jew who discounts the story of the Virgin Birth of Jesus.[116] Scholars have remarked on the parallels (adultery, father's name "Panthera", return from Egypt, magical powers) between Celsus' account and the Talmudic narratives.[110] In Celsus' account, the Jew says:

"... [Jesus] came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning. He says that she was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as she was convicted of adultery. Then he says that after she had been driven out by her husband and while she was wandering about in a disgraceful way she secretly gave birth to Jesus. He states that because he [Jesus] was poor he hired himself out as a workman in Egypt, and there tried his hand at certain magical powers on which the Egyptians pride themselves; he returned full of conceit, because of these powers, and on account of them gave himself the title of God ... the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera."[117][118]

More:

Jesus in the Talmud - Wikipedia

I will pour forth tears until like a river they reachUnto the tombs of your most noble princes,Moses and Aaron, on Mount Hor, and I will ask: Is thereA new Torah, that your scrolls may be burned?

This is part of the lament Shaali Serufah Baesh, O you who are burned in fire, written by Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg in the aftermath of the burning of thousands of copies of the Talmud at the French royal court in Paris in 1242 and recited to this day by Ashkenazi Jews on the fast day Tisha BAv. King Louis IX, whom Catholics know as St. Louis, ordered the burning after a rigged disputation in which a Jewish convert to Christianity debated a rabbi about whether the Talmud was blasphemous.

Advertisement

This was the first such disputation but not the last, always held in the shadow of Christian political power. Talmuds burned across Europe into the early modern eraand Jewish people were at times burned as well. Nor did St. Louiss persecution of French Jewry end with destroying their sacred books. Under the pretext of combating usury, he threatened to arrest and expel all Jews in his kingdom; he forced Jews to wear a badge on their clothing, in accordance with a decree of the Fourth Lateran Council.

Tisha BAv falls at the end of July this year, but the 13th-century lament became painfully relevant a month earlier, when people in St. Louis, Mo., protested a statue of the citys namesake. Some Jewish leaders called for the statues removal. On June 27 crowds chanted, Take it down! while Catholics rallied to protect the statue, including praying the rosary at its base. The archdiocese issued a statement arguing, For Catholics, St. Louis is an example of an imperfect man who strived to live a life modeled after the life of Jesus Christwith no mention of the persecution of Jews.

The archdiocesan statement describes St. Louis welcoming beggars to the royal table, washing their feet, paying for their needs; the saint worked with lepers, built hospitals and served some of his kingdoms lowliest subjects. St. Louiss charity is startling: personal, lavishthe true medieval touch.

But the archdioceses defense of the citys patron saint, in which persecuting Jews becomes an abstract imperfection, does the saint himself a disservice. Louis is in heaven now; he knows that his humiliation and persecution of the Jews was evil. As the archdiocese notes, canonization is not a declaration that every decision a person made was holy. Saints have been complicit and even active participants in social evils of their time. It is especially necessary to confront this truth in its specifics when the evils they succumbed to are still with us, like racism, misogyny, protection of sexual abusersas with St. John Paul IIs support for the Rev. Marcial Macieland hatred of the Jews.

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by Americas writers and editors.]

We are in a season of statue-razing. It began as a revolt against the widespread presence of statues of Confederate generals and other defenders of slavery, but crowds have also protested statues in Boston and Washington, D.C., which show a kneeling slave being freed by Abraham Lincoln. In San Francisco, protesters toppled a statue of Ulysses Grant, who held one man in slavery for two years before freeing him in 1859 and also helped win the Union victory in the Civil War. A San Francisco protester even vandalized a statue of Miguel de Cervantes, whose sole connection to slavery is that he himself was enslaved.

It might be tempting, therefore, to assume that St. Louis is a victim of ignorance. Maybe those chanting around his statue did not know anything about medieval French Jewry until they looked him up on Wikipedia. Maybe St. Louis is like the Roman poet who had the ill luck to share the name of an opponent of Julius Caesar. At Caesars funeral, a mob captured the poet; Shakespeare has him defend himself with I am Cinna the poet!, but the mob cries out, Tear him for his bad verses! Is St. Louis just a convenient target?

It doesnt matter. First of all, even those who think some protesters concern for Jews is disingenuous should concede that Rabbi Susan Talve, who has called for the statues removal, is sincere. So are those who read reports of the statue controversy in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, The Times of Israel and other Jewish news sources. Actual Jewish people want to know if Catholics have really rejected our shameful history of persecution, as we promised in Nostra Aetate.

Moreover, this is not about protesters integrity. It is about ours. If there is one thing a church facing a catastrophic sexual abuse crisis needs, it is willingness to admit the sins of our heroes. If our first instinct is to defend the church, not to defend the truth or the victims, have we really learned the lessons of the abuse crisis?

I was raised somewhere between secular and Reform Judaism and converted to Catholicism as a young adult. Many of the medieval disputationsshow trials of the Jewish religion and communitywere led by Jewish converts to Catholicism. That is one way to understand our responsibility as converts: to defend the truth we have come to know. A better way is shown by Jewish converts of the 20th century, like Cardinal Aaron Jean-Marie Lustiger or Rassa Maritain. These French Jews defended Christ by defending the Jewish people.

Jewish Catholics should have always been advocates for the Jewish people, not weapons against them. Catholics should have always been shields for the vulnerable, not persecutors. The protests in St. Louis give us a chance to speak the whole truth. Willingness to be totally honest here will make our churches safer for everyone who has been harmed by Christians. Failure to be honest will further alienate those who believe Catholics care more about our public image than about truth or justice.

Continue reading here:

Don't hide from the sins of St. Louis - America Magazine

The current iconoclastic moment in the U.S. has taken an odd turn here in the city of St. Louis. As protesters across the nation tear down or deface statues of Confederate generals and American founders who owned slaves (among others), the statue that has drawn the most attention in St. Louis is one depicting a medieval man who did not know that America existed.

The Apotheosis of St. Louis is a massive equestrian statue inspired by the citys namesake, King Louis IX, who ruled France from 1226 until 1270. It portrays the king seated on his horse and adorned in a Romantic imagining of a triumphant Crusaders garb. In 1764, the French founders of the city of St. Louis gave it that name to honor their king, Louis XV, and his patron saint. Like Joan of Arc, St. Louis was revered by the French of the eighteenth century as a person of heroic virtue. The modern statue was originally a plaster sculpture executed by Charles Henry Niehaus for the 1904 Worlds Fair, hosted by St. Louis. After the fair had concluded, the organizers recast the sculpture in bronze and placed it prominently on Art Hill in Forest Park, the site of the fair. It immediately became the beloved symbol of the city, only edged out slightly in the 1960s by the new St. Louis Arch.

So, what is wrong with this statue? Plenty, according to the authors of a change.org petition. Louis IX was a rabid anti-semite [sic] who spearheaded many persecutions against the Jewish people. The petitioners also blame him for giving inspiration and ideas to the Nazis seven centuries after his death. And finally, Louis was vehemently Islamophobic and led a murderous crusade against Muslims. The petition demands that the statue be removed and that the city change its name.

The petition never received much support. It struggled to garner even a thousand signatures, while counter-petitions have attracted thousands. But the demand was so audacious that local news media could not keep away. In response, a group of Catholics mobilized to protect the statue with vigils and prayers. At one such event on June 27, St. Louis police had to form a barricade between Catholics praying the rosary and protestors demanding that the statue be removed. Tempers flared and protestors punched one of the Catholics after the police left the scene. Since then, an increasingly large group of Catholics has come to the statue every evening to recite the rosary and offer prayers for peace. For the moment, those prayers seem to be working. There has been no further violence. On June 30, the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis stated that the removal of the statue will not erase the history, but our present-day collaboration can help us move forward. And the mayor of St. Louis, Lyda Krewson, has made clear that she does not favor removing the statue or changing the citys name.

As a medieval historian, I always cringe when medieval people are judged by modern standards. Their world was very different from our own. Yet the virtue and piety of St. Louis IX of France have always seemed to transcend his age. The crimes leveled against him in this petition are at best misleading. Although praiseworthy today, religious toleration was regarded as dangerous in the Middle Ages. Yet Louis IX (unlike other medieval rulers) still obeyed the Catholic Churchs admonition that Jews were not to be harmed. Like St. Paul, Louis hoped for the conversion of the Jews. Indeed, more than once he served as a godfather for the baptism of a converted Jew. From a modern perspective, Louiss part in the burning of the Talmud in Paris in 1240 is indefensible and certainly constitutes persecution. The theologians at the University of Paristhe best minds of their agejudged that the Talmud contained heresy and blasphemous references to Jesus. From Louiss medieval (not modern) perspective, it was a threat to his kingdom and a hindrance to the conversion of the Jews. That does not excuse it. Louis followed the advice of churchmen, yet as St. John Paul II eloquently expressed it, those churchmen made grave errors. The pope sought pardon for the sins committed by not a few (Catholics) against the people of the Covenant. He continued, We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood.

As for the eastern Crusades, they were wars aimed at recapturing territories in and around the Holy Land that had been conquered by Muslim armies. Louiss first Crusade (124850) was a response to the conquest of Christian-controlled Jerusalem by a Turkish and Egyptian force in 1244. After the Holy City was taken, the victors massacred the Christian inhabitants and desecrated the churches. Louiss Crusade was set to punish Egypt for that attack and ultimately restore Jerusalem to its Christian king. It failed. Louiss army was defeated, and he was thrown into prison until his wife, Queen Margaret, paid 400,000 bezantsliterally a kings ransom. After the Crusade, Louis spent the next four years in the Holy Land trying to stabilize the situation for Christians. He even struck up an alliance with his former Muslim captors in Egypt.

Left unmentioned by Louiss modern detractors is his lifelong devotion to issues of social justice in a world that cared little for such ideas. At his own expense, he continually paid to feed and clothe hundreds of Pariss poor. Every evening he shared the royal table with local homeless and usually insisted that he wash their feet before they left. He established several hospitals for the poor and homes for battered women and ex-prostitutes. He personally visited lepers and washed their sores. After his humiliation in Egypt, Louis refused to don the rich regalia of the French crown, dressing simply and living humbly for the rest of his life. He was the sort of person, like Mother Teresa or John Paul II, whose reputation for piety and virtue was so great that contemporaries had no doubt he would one day be a saint. He was canonized in a record 27 years.

What both sides have overlooked about the statue, I believe, is that this triumphal equestrian image was never meant to depict a medieval saint. Its title says it all. An apotheosis is a coming into greatness or an ascent into glory, and that is certainly what the statue evokes with its horse proudly sauntering forward and the king triumphantly holding aloft his sword. Yet the real Louis IX suffered humiliating defeats in his Crusades. In truth, this statue, which presided over an international gathering to celebrate a new century of progress, has nothing to do with the Middle Ages. It was a symbol of the city of St. Louis, which in 1904 was one of Americas most prosperous urban centers. The attendees of the Worlds Fair saw in this sculpture the promise of confident progress for St. Louis and the world. Even the sword, held with the blade down in a gesture of peace, was a sign of hope for the future. Those who commissioned the statue and those who viewed it had little interest in medieval kings; they were focused on building a bright and prosperous future.

The Apotheosis of St. Louis is not religious art nor was it meant to be. Rather, it was designed to evoke civic pride. Catholics can confidently look to the life of St. Louis IX for his example of Christian charity and seek his intercession in the struggles of our age. But we should take care not to confuse the sacred with the profane. Let the city of St. Louis have its proud, beautiful, and triumphant symbol of modern progress. Catholics will always have the humble and pious king who, although not perfect, still devoted his life to the service of Christ and his Church.

Thomas F. Madden is Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University in St Louis, Missouri.

Photo byRyan Ashelinvia Creative Commons. Image cropped.

First Thingsdepends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

Clickhereto make a donation.

Clickhereto subscribe toFirst Things.

Follow this link:

In Defense of King Louis IX | Thomas F. Madden - First Things

The Story in Short

As the People of Israel geared up to finallyenter the Promised Land, two tribes expressed their desire to opt out. Ladenwith more animals than their brethren, the descendants of Gad and Reuben wishedto settle outside of Israels borders. The land is a land of livestock andyour servants have livestock, they told Moses.

Unhappy, Moses explained that their reluctanceto enter Israel could be interpreted as fear of the Canaanites who inhabitedthe land. This would scare the people like the spies had done. To allay their fears, thedescendants of Gad and Reuben promised to fight on the front lines until theconquest was complete. Only then would they return and settle the land theydesired.

Moses ultimately agreed and gave the land eastof the Jordan to the tribes of Reuben and Gad, as well as half of the tribe ofManassah, on condition that they wage battle ahead of the other troops.

Their story is told in Numbers 32.

In the penultimate year of their desertsojourn, the People of Israel people found themselves in what is now Jordan. They had defeated Sihon andOg, survivedthe saga with Balaam and Balak, and exacted vengeanceon the Midianites. And finally, after four decades of wandering thedesert, they were preparing to enter Israel.

The descendants of Reuben and Gad had morelivestock than the rest of the nation. Some say they were more efficientwarriors and had collected more spoils of war.Others posit that Reuben and Gad had an affinity for the manna and were,therefore, less inclined to slaughter and eat their livestock.

The land of the Amorites, from the Arnon River until MountHermon, was mountainous and fertile. After the Jews conquered that area, thetribes of Reuben and Gad preferred its vast pastures to the urban and dryIsrael.

The tribes of Reuben and Gad approached Moses,the nobles, and Eleazar the high priest with two requests: [a.] Give thisland to us as our plot, and [b.] do not take us across the Jordan River.

Gad and Reuben didnt feel it necessary tocross the Jordan and fight alongside their brothers in Israel. After all, theJews victories werent natural; Gd was the one who brought them triumphagainst the Amorites. What would their contribution accomplish?

Moses was displeased by their request. Heagreed that Gd was integral to victory, but maintained that the act of goingto war remained necessary, and it would be unfair if the tribes of Gad andReuben remained behind while their brothers crossed the Jordan, donned theirarmor, and fell into rank to battle the Canaanites.Shall you remain here while your brothers come to war?! he retorted.

Moses then leveled a second criticism at Gadand Reuben. You will scare the People of Israel from entering the promisedland, he said.

Moses understood that Gad and Reuben meantwell but was worried about the other Jews, who might attribute their choice tofear.

Moses chastised them for neglecting to learnfrom history. This is what your ancestors did when I sent them to survey theland, he said,comparing them to thespies, who, with their negative testimony about Israel, frightenedthe people.

The Rebbeexplains that the tribes of Gad and Reuben were more faithful than the spieswho had said (according to the Talmud), The people of Canaan are stronger thanGd. Nonetheless,the very request to remain on the Jordans east bank revealed a preference fora land other than Israel, mirroringthe spies negative attitude toward the Promised Land.

The descendants of Gad and Reuben yielded toMoses rebuke. Moreover, because the tribe of Gad was renowned for theirphysical prowess, they agreed to fight on the front lines;the descendants of Reuben promised to join them there as well.

The tribes of Gad and Reuben announced theirintention to build corrals for their sheep and towns for their children in thearea they desired. Then, once their livestock and families were settled, theywould remain at battle alongside their brethren until the conquering wascomplete and all the Jews had settled on their land.

The Midrashobserves that Reuben and Gad mentioned their animals before their children,which seems to indicate that they had more concern for their money than theirfamilies. In a moving commentary, the Midrash reminds its readers that allsuccess comes from Gd and that no wealth is permanent:

That is whybelongings are called nechasim, asthey are covered (nichsim) from oneand revealed to another. And why is zuzimthe name of [common coins]? Because they move (zazim) from one and are given to another. [It is called] money (mammon), because what you count (mah [sheatah] moneh) is not anything.[They are called] coins (maot),because they are from time (meet) totime.

His concerns now addressed, Moses agreed toallow the tribes of Reuben and Gad to dwell outside of Israel. If you do this,if you bear arms for Gd before your brothers then this land will become yourinheritance.

According to some traditions, Moses choice ofwords can be understood as guidance for proper warfare. He knew that Gad andReuben had an ulterior motive. They were fighting alongside the people onlybecause they knew it was a necessary prerequisite to their inheritance of theland. But, that isnt how an Israelite ought to fight. Moses instructed them tobear arms for Gd, i.e., to intend, with war, to sanctify Gds name. Only thencan the war be honest and just with peace as the primary objective.

Read: 10 Facts to Know about War and Judaism

Moses also leveled a veiled criticism at themby changing the order of their request. Build towns for your children and pensfor your sheep, he exhorted. A personspriority must be family before money and career.

In fact, according to Midrash, the tribesof Gad and Rueben were later punished for their preference of money overchildren and the Diaspora over Israel. When Sennacherib, king of Assyria, exiled the tentribes, he captured those outside of Israel 10 years before thoseinside.

Reuben and Gad agreed to Moses provisionspromising that [a.] Our children, wives and [b.] livestock will remain inGilead and Your servants will arm themselves for war before Gd.

Moses was happy. He turned to Joshua and theelders and used, what would later be coined, The Condition of Gad and Reuben:

Rabbi Meir said:Every stipulation which is not like that of the descendants of Gad and Reubenis not legally binding. For it is written: And Moses said unto them: If thechildren of Gad and Reuben cross the Jordan, [...you shall give them the landof Gilead as their possession], and, But ifthey will not ... then they shall have possessions among you in the Land ofCanaan. (Thus, both sides of the condition have to bespelled out: if the condition is fulfilled, then such-and-such will happen, butif the stipulation is not fulfilled, then such-and-such will be the case.)

Read: The Danger of Suspicionto discover another importantprinciple of Jewish law gleaned from the story of Gad and Reuben.

Until this point in the story, there are onlytwo parties in the deal with Moses: The descendants of Gad and the descendantsof Reuben. Suddenly, a third party is introduced. And Moses gave thedescendants of Gad and Reuben and halfof the tribe of Manasseh, son of Joseph, the land of the Amorites.

Tradition suggests a few explanations fortheir sudden inclusion:

Abraham ibn Ezra theorizes that they werealways party to the negotiations, but the Torah chooses not to mention themuntil the end because they were not a full tribe.

Nachmanides explains that Moses saw a lot ofextra land on the east bank of the Jordan and offered it to any willing tribe.Some of Manasseh came forward, possibly because they were also herdsmen.

The Rebbeexplains that Moses wanted to instigate the process of expanding Israelsborders. The Torah informs usthat with the advent of the Final Redemption, Gd will grant the Jewishpeople the lands of the Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites which were previouslyforbidden.

Things of extreme importance to the Jewishpeople need to have Moses involvement.For this reason, the land expansion associated with the Redemption had to beinstigated by Moses. To do this, he gave land outside of Israel to half of thetribe of Menasseh. Gad and Reuben wouldnt cut it for this purpose because theyhad asked for the land.

Why Menasseh? According to our tradition, thetribe of Manasseh had a special relationship with Israel. The daughters ofZelophehadwho demanded from Moses their fathers plot of land inIsraelwere from the tribe of Manasseh.Joseph, Menassehs father, also demonstrated his love for the land byrequesting that his bones be buried there.As such, Moses gave them the land which would commence Israels expansion.

Homiletically, Manassehs name reflectsJosephs desire to return to his fathers homeand that symbolizes the Jewish hope for Redemption. Therefore, Moses gaveMenasseh the land that would act as the catalyst for the End of Days.

Before Joshua led the Jews across the Jordan,he reminded the descendants of Gad, Reuben and Manasseh about their promise. And true totheir word, when the war started, the warriors from Gad, Reuben, and half ofManasseh fought at the front of the army. In addition, they remained behind foran extra seven years as the land was divided amongst their fellows.

The Midrashrelates that when the descendants of Gad and Reuben entered Israel, theyexpressed regret at choosing to live outside it. A small portion of thePromised Land would be more valuable than twice the amount on the east bank!they cried.

Shepherding is a craft of isolation. In ourhistory, spiritual seekers would spurn industrial and agricultural occupations,afraid that the involvement would stunt their spirituality.In a similar vein, the tribes of Gad and Reuben wanted to remain shepherds as ameans to pursue spirituality without the distractions present in Israel.

While the spies wanted all of the people to remain outside of Israel for this reason, Gad and Reuben wanted to bethe only ones to do so. Moses wasokay with their request because the community needs to have at least somemembers that are uniquely devoted to Gdly pursuits.

Ultimately, however, the true purpose of lifeis to be engaged with and transform the physical world. Therefore, despiteMoses permission, the tribes were eventually punished for their decision whenSannecheirib exiled the ten tribes.

Excerpt from:

How Two-and-a-Half Tribes Ended Up Over the Jordan - Chabad.org

Right, we have a problem; 500 of us have died of the virus and thats considerably more than should have. Why the disaster, with 500 families in mourning.? The classic Jewish answer is to ask a rabbi; you get an answer a responsa and the rabbi might well quote a Rabbi who died a thousand years ago. there is no time limit to a responsa in Judaism.

So where do we look for an answer to todays problem? How about the 6th century Talmud. You think Im joking. How can a body of laws, 1,500 years old, have relevance today, when were dealing with a previously unknown virus?

Well, we have something like 600 plus laws and over 200 of them are to do with medicine. The Egyptians, the Romans and the heathens believed that if you caught a disease, it was the punishment of the gods and nothing could be done about it. The Biblical Jew, though, set out to find cures and a lot of the doctors were rabbis. Good Queen Bess had three Jewish doctors and popes, emperors and kings followed suit over the years.

How good were they?If you look up the book of Samuel youll find that the Jews were warned that the plague which was hitting the Philistines, was being brought by the rats; they didnt know that in Britain till the early 20th century.

So what are we told to do to avoid something like this virus?

First of all we are told to wash our hands. Sounds familiar? Remember Seder night? Well, were supposed to wash our hands pretty regularly. Most people didnt wash. There was one bathroom and two toilets in the whole of Louis XIVs Palace of Versailles. The Rothschilds had a bath and used to lend it to Kings in Germany, having it trundled through the streets to everybodys surprise. Mostly, though, nobody washed

You could still get a nasty virus. What to do then? The Talmud is clear; you isolate the patient. Sounds familiar again? Isolate them and theres a good chance they wont pass it on to somebody else. Well never know how our 500 victims caught coronavirus, but somebody had to give it to them. Today you can get a test if you have any kind of coronavirus symptom. Do what the Talmud says.

Then there are two further relevant laws in the Talmud. One is dina de malchuta dina. That means that the law of the country in which we Iive is to be the law of the Jews. The government didnt make it a law that everybody should stay home to avoid the R level going over one, but we should have done it because it was as near a law as they could make it.

There is one more law in the Talmud which is particularly valid in the present crisis. Thats pekuach nefesh. That you can break any Jewish law if there is a danger to life. Those people who are taking part in services in the hotel in Bournemouth are breaking pekuach nefesh.

Maybe it wont result in fatalities. Please G-d that will be the case. It might not be, however. Those 500 fatalities caught coronavirus from somebody. If theyd stayed home, they might well have still been with us.

As Jews, weve been accused over the centuries of bringing the plague because we often didnt get it as badly as the neighbours. Jewish houses had to be scrupulously clean; look at getting rid of the hometz before Passover.

As many as 50,000 Brits will have died from this pandemic and, percentagewise, weve lost more of the community than our numbers justify. Is there any doubt that if wed followed the laws in the Talmud we would have done better.

It isnt about what kind of Jew you are; from Charedi to Liberal. Its about a lot of very clever ancestors who came up with the right answers. They went so far as to make it a law that every Biblical Jewish soldier had to be given a spade to bury their effluent. We will not go into what happened at the Palace of Versailles. At Balmoral after the First World War, the Prince of Wales didnt have a bathroom.

Im staying locked down until the virus has disappeared. The vast majority of the Jewish fatalities were over 65.

Derek is an author & former editor of the Jewish Year Book

Follow this link:

How to beat the virus? It's in the Talmud - Jewish News