Category Archives: Talmud

Although regardingboksersI dont give two hoots,

about thecarob trees on which they growmyminds not shut,

appreciating what helps themgrow like me, their roots.

My roots:not just midrashic explanations of me, butpeshat,

a process which midrashic explanations hardly moots,

both tastier thanboksersI dont eat onTu BShvat,

enjoying both midrashic explanations andpeshatas fruits

that arent dependent on a kashrut label such asglatt.

InWhy Jews Used to Eat Dried Carob on Tu bShvat: Bokser smells like Limburger cheese. Its also an embodiment of Jewish vitality and endurance,Mosaic.com, 2/4/15, Meir Soloveichik writes:

In the Talmud, the holiday of Tu bShvat commemorates nothing more than one in a series of halakhic deadlines related to the obligation to offer tithed portions of the years crops to the Levites in the Temple. For fruits in particular, the end of one fiscal year and the beginning of the next was marked by Tu bShvat, the fifteenth day of the Hebrew month of Shvat. Because these laws of tithing applied only to produce grown in the Holy Land, celebrating Tu bShvat became throughout the centuries a way of connecting to the land itself. For Ashkenazi Jews, that meant eating one fruit: carob, whose name derives from the Hebrewharuv and whose Yiddish name,bokser, is short for the Germanbokshornbaum, the tree with rams-horn-shaped fruit..

In its discussion of laws dependent on the land, the Mishnah presents us with the following conundrum. Suppose a tree is planted on one of the lands borders, with its roots in sacred soil but its fruit hanging over into non-native territoryinto, in effect, the Diaspora. Is the fruit subject to tithing in accordance with the laws relating to Tu bShvat? The answer is unequivocally yes: everything depends on the roots, not the foliage.

Another talmudic ruling is also relevant here. The tractate ofBava Batraincludes a lengthy discussion of the obligations we owe our neighbors. According to one ruling, we may not plant a tree near our neighbors well because the roots, though on our own property, will extend underground and possibly contaminate his water supply. Any tree, therefore, must be planted at a distance of 25 cubits from neighboring property. But certain trees, with exceptionally long roots, must be placed twice as far away. One such tree, the Talmud stresses, is theharuv, the carob.

So, according to Jewish law, identity is defined by roots: surely, an arresting idea. After all, we moderns often assume the oppositethat identity is not predetermined but malleable, that it can be shed and replaced like a suit of clothes, that we can be whoever we wish to be. And to a certain extent that is true enough; taken to an extreme, however, such an attitude, Judaism insists, denies human nature. For man is akin to a tree in the field, Deuteronomy informs us. In the view of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, this strange comparison suggests precisely that man, much like a tree, is in fact integrally connected with his roots, and indeed largely defined by them.

The carob, says the Talmud, has longer roots than most other Israelite trees; to eat its fruit was thus, for Jews in the Diaspora, to link themselves with a land and a heritage far away, and with an identity impervious to the often inimical forces of their surrounding environment. Unquestionably, sweeter and more exotic species of fruit exist abundantly in the Holy Land today, and can be almost instantly transported anywhere in the world. But even today, to connect with ones long-ago ancestors in the land by savoring the humble carob is truly to comprehend the Psalmists confident exclamation: Taste and see that the Lord is good.

Gershon Hepner is a poet who has written over 25,000 poems on subjects ranging from music to literature, politics to Torah. He grew up in England and moved to Los Angeles in 1976. Using his varied interests and experiences, he has authored dozens of papers in medical and academic journals, and authored "Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel." He can be reached at gershonhepner@gmail.com.

Read more here:

Roots, Midrash and Tu B'Shvat | Gershon Hepner | The Blogs - The Times of Israel

View into the Jewish Talmud, which denotes Epicurus as meaning heretic. Credit: Chajm Guski. CC BY-4.0/Wikimedia Commons/Chajm Guski

In rabbinic literature, the word epikoros refers to a heretic or person whose views contradict Jewish literature. The term is a specific reference to Greek philosopher Epicurus.

The Talmud, the central text of Jewish religious law, explicitly states that epikoros means heretic and refers to an individual who does not have a share in the world to come. In Sanhedrin 10:1, it is written that all of Israel [has] a part in the world to come. But the following have no part in the world to come: one who says that the resurrection of the dead is not biblical, or that the Torah is not from heaven, or the Epicurean.

According to Maimonides, an ancient Jewish philosopher, insulting a scholar of the old testament is synonymous with disrespecting the entire Torah and its scholars. In his work Mishneh Torah, he explains that an epikoros is one who denies that god communicates with humans through prophecy, a person who denies the prophecy of Moses, or one who denies gods knowledge of the affairs of humans. In other words, this refers to one who doubts gods intervention in human affairs.

In an article published by Philosophy Documentation Center, titled Maimonides and the Epicurean Position on Providence, the author claims that Maimonides likely encountered the word or name Epicurus some time between writing his commentary on the Mishneh and before penning his defining work, The Guide for the Perplexed.

In the former, the author writes, Maimonides said the term epikoros was an Aramaic word, but in The Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides seems to have become aware of the atheistic worldview of the philosopher by that name.

However, why did the ancient Jewish philosophers regard Epicurus to be a heretic? Anthony Graftons book, The Classical Tradition, argues that the most important Greek philosopher in the development of atheism was Epicurus, who espoused a materialistic worldview devoid of divine conclusions and drew on ideas from Democritus and the Atomists.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Epicurus still believed that the gods existed but just didnt hold that they were interested in the everyday lives of human beings.

The encyclopedia explains that the aim of the Epicureans was to reach ataraxia, a mental state of being untroubled. One sure fire way of achieving this was by calling out fear of divine wrath as irrational.

The Epicureans also held that there was no such thing as the afterlife. Therefore, according to them, there was no need to fear divine punishment after death.

In The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, written by David Sedley, the author explains that Epicureans denied being atheists, but that their critics, including Jewish philosophers, insisted they were.

Read more from the original source:

Why the Jewish Word for Heretic Is Based on Epicurus - Greek Reporter

Variations on the words unity and togetherness have become common in Israeli discourse since October 7. The slogan together we will win is evident everywhere, although apparently not in ultra-orthodox neighborhoods, in which military service is negligible to non-existent. Nevertheless, politicians from that segment of the population draw on unity in their comments and interviews. I have recently seen such by Yitzchak Goldknopf and Arye Deri, leaders of Ashkenazi and Sephardi ultra-Orthodox parties, respectively.

Let me use this platform to suggest how they may express that very unity that they praise. My suggestion will enable them to generate goodwill among the general public, which at this time is doubly sensitive to unequal burden-sharing. This is not about large matters such as compulsory military service or the absence of basic schooling but about small things. How small? From an avocado to an orange, through a cucumber, and onto radishes.

It is no secret that the agricultural sector is in a severe crisis. Farmers and their laborers were murdered while others were evacuated; access to fields was limited by the army; and foreign workers have left. Volunteers attempt to fill this void. Young and old, they pick, pack, and prepare for the next cycle. They attempt to assist the landowners, both private and communal, while helping prevent a rise in the cost of living, which affects us all.

No one expects an unqualified yeshiva student to show up on the frontline and shed his blood. Instead, they could shed some sweat. About a third of some 30,000 foreign workers in the agricultural sector have left the country since October 7. There are about 150,000 full-time students in yeshivot. If they would each allocate one day a week, perhaps not all of them but most, even every fortnight, possibly only on Friday, which is a day off, they could fill the gap, at least until more workers arrive from abroad.

They would thus become a link in a historical chain of tillers of soil, headed by our patriarch Isaac, who sowed in Gerar (apparently between Netivot and Ofakim, not far from Gaza) and reaped a hundredfold. Archeology and our sources testify to our agrarian roots. True, there were limits on land ownership in the Diaspora. But the impression that our forefathers saw produce only in the market is wrong.

Thus, in Hungary last century, my late grandfather owned a threshing machine, which supplemented his earnings as a Talmud teacher, and my late father subsidized his yeshiva studies by pressing grapes for wine. As an added value, such involvement would allow yeshiva students to understand the practical meaning of many agriculture-focused discussions that they see on the page.

They cannot be expected to be as proficient as professional laborers, and work would be adapted to the personal abilities of each one. True, such an enterprise would require a little slowing of their studies. In that, they would join all Israeli students who were called up on October 7 and those whose studies have been interrupted.

Initiatives along these lines, such as those of Karlin Hassidim, are to be applauded, but they are not enough. An extensive and systematic effort by the entire sector will prove to the Israeli public that among the ultra-orthodox and the politicians who represent them, unity is not a theoretical concept that applies to others but applies to them too, as part of the nation as it faces unprecedented challenges.

The writer was Israels first ambassador to the Baltic republics after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, ambassador to South Africa, and congressional liaison officer at the embassy in Washington. She is a graduate of Israels National Defense College.

Originally posted here:

War, Talmud, and agriculture - opinion - The Jerusalem Post

For an overview of the depiction of Alexander the Great in Talmudic literature, with bibliography, see the Hebrew Wikipedia entry .

This Talmudic passage (Sanhedrin 91a (sections # 6-9)) starts with a quote from Megillat Taanit(a pre-rabbinic text, written in Aramaic): On the twenty-fourth day in Nisan it is a joyous day, since the usurpers [dimusanaei] were expelled from Judea and Jerusalem. (Jastrowsays thatdimusanaei( ) is a corruption ofdemosionai=publicani) farmers of public revenues under the Roman government. So, related to the Greek worddemospeople,and here meaning tax collector, seePublican Wikipedia, equivalent to the later rabbinic termmokhes .)

It then describes a debate led byGeviha ben Pesisa, representing the Jewish people against the claims of the Africans ( the people ofthe Roman province of Africa, the northern coast of what is now known as the African continent).

Geviha ben Pesisa requested the Sages permission to debate with the people of Africa before Alexander of Macedon. He proposed that if he were defeated, the Sages could minimize the loss by stating he was just an ordinary person (hedyot see my discussion in the next paragraph) and that a true victory would require defeating the Sages. Conversely, if he won, the victory should be attributed to the wisdom of the Torah, not to his personal abilities. The Sages agreed and gave him permission to proceed with the debate.

(Hedyot is a common loan word in Talmudic literature. It is cognate with modern Englishidiot.Idiot Wikipedia:

The word idiot comes from the Greek noun iditsa private person, individual (as opposed to the state), a private citizen (as opposed to someone with a political office), a common man, a person lacking professional skill, layman, later unskilled, ignorant, derived from the adjective idiospersonal (not public, not shared). In Latin, idiota was borrowed in the meaning uneducated, ignorant, common, and in Late Latin came to mean crude, illiterate, ignorant. In French, it kept the meaning of illiterate, ignorant, and added the meaning stupid in the 13th century. In English, it added the meaning mentally deficient in the 14th century.)

The Africans argued beforeAlexander the Greatthat the land of Israel (eretz kanaan Land ofCanaan) belonged to them, citing biblical inheritance.Clearly, these Africans were of Canaanite ethnicity. This makes historical sense, since the major city in the area known as Africa was Carthage, a Canaanite colony.

Wikipedia, Ancient Carthage:

Ancient Carthage ([] Punic: [] romanized:qart hada; lit.New City) was an ancient Semitic civilisation based in North Africa. Initially a settlement in present-day Tunisia, it later became a city-state and then an empire. Founded by the Phoenicians [=Canaanites] in the ninth century BCE, Carthage reached its height in the fourth century BCE as one of the largest metropolises in the world.

(See more on the use of the place-name Canaan at the end of this piece.)

Geviha ben Pesisa challenged this claim using the Torah, stating thatCanaan (son of Ham), being cursed as a slave, meant that his descendants and their possessions belonged to their masters. He argued that since the Africans had not served the Jews, they were not entitled to the land and owed debts and servitude. Unable to respond to Gevihas argument, the Africans fled, leaving their fields and vineyards, which benefitted the Jewish people, especially since it was a Sabbatical Year with agricultural restrictions.

Similar stories, with very similar literary structure are then given for a debate with Egyptians ( bnei Mitzrayim Sons of Egypt, ibid. sections #10-13) and a debate with Arabs ( bnei Yishmael ubnei Keturah Sons ofYishmaeland Sons ofKeturah, ibid. sections #14-16).

The Egyptians argue, based on the Bible: Give us the silver and gold that you took from us; you claimed that you were borrowing it and you never returned it. Geviha responds with a counter-claim: Give us the wages for the work [] whom you enslaved in Egypt for four hundred and thirty years.

The Arabs claim, based on the Bible: The land of Canaan is both ours and yours. Notice that unlike the Africans, who say that the land is exclusively theirs, the Arabs are simply claiming a share, as opposed to the Jewish exclusivist claim. Geviha responds with a rhetorical question, after citing a Biblical verse: In the case of a father [=Avraham] who gave a document of bequest [agatin ] to his sons during his lifetime and sent one of the sons away from the other, does the one who was sent away have any claim against the other? In this case, unlike in the debates with the African and the Egyptians, theres no counter-claim, but simply that the Arabs ancestor Yishmael had been disinherited by Avraham. (Jastrowexplainsagatinas a loan word stemming from Latinlegatummeaning bequest, leaving in a will. Cognate with modern Englishlegacy.)

The use of the term Canaan to refer to Eretz Yisrael is interesting. This word is the standard one in the Bible, and was the one used by the natives themselves (the Canaanites), especially those who lived on the coast of modern-day Lebanon, and those who lived in Carthage in (North) Africa (see earlier), known to the Greeks asPhoenecians.

Presumably, Alexander himself would mostly likely have referred to the area as Palestine, which was the standard term in Greek, seeTimeline of the name Palestine Wikipedia:

The term Palestine first appeared in the 5th century BCE when the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a district of Syria, called Palaistin between Phoenicia and Egypt inThe Histories. Herodotus provides the first historical reference clearly denoting a wider region than biblical Philistia, as he applied the term to both the coastal and the inland regions such as the Judean Mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley. Later Greek writers such as Aristotle, Polemon and Pausanias also used the word, which was followed by Roman writers such as Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Plutarch as well as Roman Judean writers Philo of Alexandria and Josephus.

Its also possible that Alexander would have called it Syria or Phoenecia. See also the recent balanced overview: by Lyman Stone, Who Has Claim? 3,000 Years of Religion in the Land Between,In a State of Migration(October 27, 2023).

Its likely that the termCanaanis used by the Talmud here, because the editors were sensitive to the fact that their standard term for the landEretz Yisrael,was used only by Jews. The other natives, especially the so-called Phoenicians (a Greekexonym, meaning, a term that only non-natives used, to refer to natives), called the landCanaan, and the Greeks called itPalestine.

Ezra Brand is an independent scholar, whose research interests include the Talmudic era, medieval Kabbalah, digital humanities, and linguistics. He has a Master's degree in Medieval Jewish History from Yeshiva University, and spent a year studying in the Talmud Department in Bar-Ilan University. In addition to blogging here, he is a frequent contributor to The Seforim Blog.

Follow this link:

Claims on 'Canaan' by Africans and Arabs in the Talmud - The Times of Israel

Tractate of the Talmud about blessings and prayers, particularly the Shema and the Amidah

Berakhot (Hebrew: , romanized:Brakhot, lit. "Blessings") is the first tractate of Seder Zeraim ("Order of Seeds") of the Mishnah and of the Talmud. The tractate discusses the rules of prayers, particularly the Shema and the Amidah, and blessings for various circumstances.

Since a large part of the tractate is concerned with the many berakhot (English: blessings), all comprising the formal liturgical element beginning with words "Blessed are you, Lord our God.", it is named for the initial word of these special form of prayer.[1]

Berakhot is the only tractate in Seder Zeraim to have Gemara rabbinical analysis of and commentary on the Mishnah in the Babylonian Talmud. There is however Jerusalem Talmud on all the tractates in Seder Zeraim. There is also a Tosefta for this tractate.

The Jewish religious laws detailed in this tractate have shaped the liturgies of all the Jewish communities since the later Talmudic period and continue to be observed by traditional Jewish communities until the present, with only minor variations, as expounded upon by subsequent Jewish legal codes.

The Mishna of this tractate deals with aspects of the daily prayer services, primarily the laws about formal prayers and blessings, and only infrequently or incidentally with the content, theology, or rationales for these prayers. These aspects are discussed more at length in the Tosefta, Gemara, and passages in the Midrash. Although the Talmud identifies some biblical basis for the topics dealt with in the tractate, the Mishnah organizes the material according to topics, with only occasional references to biblical sources.[2][3]

The laws regarding three liturgical categories addressed in this tractate are as follows:[1][4]

The first three chapters of the tractate discuss the recital of the Shema, the next two the recital of the Tefilla, and the last four the various blessings.[1][4]

The biblical basis for the discussions in this tractate are derived from the Torah (Deut. 6:49, Deut. 11:1321 and Numbers 15:3741) regarding the Shema; for the Grace after Meals from Deut. 8:10; and from other Biblical references about the recital of prayers and the deduction that prayers should be recited three times daily (Psalms. 55:18 and Daniel 6:11).[3]

The obligation to recite the Shema is a biblical command derived from the verses of the Torah in Deut 6:7 and Deut 11:19 that constitutes the way for a Jew to fulfill their obligation to affirm their acceptance of the "yoke of the kingship of Heaven" by declaring, "the Lord is One" (Deut. 6:4).[2]

The Talmud explain this as a specific commandment to recite the two paragraphs in which the requirement occur (Deut. 6:49, 11:1321) to be performed twice per day, in the evening ("when you lie down") and in the morning ("when you rise up"). The tractate defines the exact periods when the Shema should be said in the evening and the morning, specifies conditions for its recital, and who is exempt from this mitzvah ("commandment").[4]

The Mishnah also mandates the addition of a third section to the Shema (Numbers 15:3741), relating the commandment of ritual fringes and the daily obligation to acknowledge the Exodus from Egypt.[2]

The tractate deals with the principal rabbinic prayer, recited quietly, without interruption, and while standing and known as the Amidah or "standing prayer", or simply as Tefillah ("prayer"). Its original version comprised eighteen blessings all beginning with the standard formulation "Blessed are you, Lord our God". A nineteenth blessing was added at a later stage of the Talmudic period.[2]

The Mishnah takes the structure and text of the prayer as a given and tefillah as a general concept refers to the regular prayers instituted by the members of the Great Assembly and the sages who followed them. Three daily prayer services were instituted: Shacharit during the morning hours until four hours of the day have passed, and corresponding to the morning daily sacrificial offering at the Temple in Jerusalem, Mincha during the afternoon, corresponding to the afternoon sacrificial offering and Ma'ariv in the evening after nightfall. The times for these services are also connected in the tractate to the practices of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.[5]

On days when an additional offering was sacrificed in the Temple, namely Shabbat, Festivals, the intermediate days of the Festivals and the New Moon, an additional prayer service, Musaf, was recited between the morning and afternoon services.[5]

The Mishnah and subsequent discussion in the Gemara consider the designated times for the three services; occasions when the full eighteen blessings, or an abbreviated versions should be recited; circumstances in which a person does not have to pray as normally required facing towards the Temple in Jerusalem; traditions about the required state of mind when praying and the role of the Shaliach tzibbur ("representative of the congregation") who leads the repetition of the prayer when a minyan ("quorum") is present.[4]

A "berakhah" is a formal liturgical unit that is usually formulated with the opening words "Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe..." The tractate discusses the blessings for specific occasions, and the Tosefta[6] states that the theological rationale for this is a recognition that a person should not benefit from the world without first acknowledging that God is the source of the abundance.[2]

The tractate formulates and describes the use of a number of categories of blessings, for the following:

In addition to the blessings to be recited before eating, the tractate discusses the blessing ordained in the Torah (Deut 8:8), known as Birkat Hamazon ("the Grace after Meals"), to be recited after eating food; while the Torah obligation applies only to a meal that satisfies a person's hunger, the rabbis of the Mishna required that it be recited after eating a k'zayit measure of bread. When three or more men have eaten together, one of them is required to invite the others to recite the Grace after Meals in what is known as the zimmun ("invitation to bless").[5][7]

The tractate formulates the berakha m'ayn shalosh ("blessing abridged from the three blessings" of the Grace after Meals), recited for food or drink made from any of the seven species wheat, barley, grape, fig, pomegranates, olive (oil), and date (honey) which are listed in the Hebrew Bible (Deuteronomy 8:8) as being special products of the Land of Israel.For all other foods, besides bread or the products of the seven species, a one blessing berakha acharona ("blessing recited after eating or drinking") is recited.[5]

The tractate also discusses the various requirements for Kiddush, the sanctification prayers recited over wine on Shabbat and Festivals, and Havdalah, the blessings for the ceremony recited at the end of the Shabbat and Festivals.[7]

The tractate consists of nine chapters and 57 paragraphs (mishnayot). It has a Gemara rabbinical analysis of and commentary on the Mishnah of 64 double-sided pages in the standard Vilna Edition Shas of the Babylonian Talmud and 68 double-sided pages in the Jerusalem Talmud. There is a Tosefta of six chapters for this tractate.[8]

Tractate Berakhot in the Babylonian Talmud has the highest word per daf average due to its large quantity of aggadic material. Some of these passages offer insights into the rabbis' attitudes towards prayer, often defined as a plea for divine mercy, but also cover many other themes, including biblical interpretations, biographical narratives, interpretation of dreams, and folklore.[2]

An overview of the content of chapters is as follows:

The topics of tractate Berakhot, relating to prayers and blessings, are seemingly quite different from the agricultural laws of the other tractates of this Order and several rationales have been proposed for this placement:

According to Maimonides, because food is the foremost necessity for life, the laws concerning its production and use the Order Zeraim was placed at beginning of the Mishnah. However, to first express gratitude to God for these gifts, the one non-agricultural tractate which opens this order is Berakhot.[3]

Another explanation given is the fact that since reciting the Shema in the evening is the first religious duty of the day, this may account for the placement of the tractate at the beginning of the first Order of the Mishnah the important principle implied in the first question of the tractate, "From what time is it allowed to read the evening Shema?" is that the day is calculated from evening to evening and thus the Mishnah begins with the first mitzvah commandment that a Jew is obligated to fulfill every day.[1]

The Talmud itself (Shabbat 31a), cites an explanation given by Resh Lakish, who homiletically states that the first six terms in a verse in Isaiah (Isa 33:6) refer to the six orders of the Mishna and the first word, "emunah" (faith), corresponds to Zeraim. This is seen as an explanation for why the regulations regarding prayers and blessings and especially those concerning the recital of the Shema prayer the Jewish declaration of faith in the One God came to be grouped with agricultural laws, which are seen both as an expression of faith through reliance on God and, according to the commentator Rashi, (1040 1105 CE), as an expression of faithfulness in social relationships, by the provisions of dues to the poor, the priests and the Levites as described in the other tractates of this Order.[9]

Composed towards the end of the Mishnaic period (c. 30 BCE - 200 CE) in the Roman province of Judea, the Mishnah of tractate Berakhot contains traditions covering the full range of sages from the period, from the Second Temple period until the end of the period of the Tannaim.[2][10]

This tractate, along with other literature from the Second Temple era, especially the liturgical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has provided scholars with a better understanding of the place of Jewish prayer in the broader evolution of Jewish worship of the time when it coexisted alongside the sacrificial worship of the Temple in Jerusalem. The tractate also provides significant information about the eating customs of the Jews in Babylon (chapter 6), and of the Jews in Roman Palestine, which were largely modeled on those of the Romans (chapter 8) by the time the Mishna was written (c. 200 CE).[2][4]

Initially, the prayers instituted by the Talmudic rabbis were primarily learned and transmitted orally and prayer texts may have been flexible within these accepted structures. Only around the fourth century CE does synagogue architecture in the Land of Israel begin to consistently reflect the physical orientation towards Jerusalem required by rabbinic worship. By that time, prayer had become a function of the synagogue, with a shaliach tzibbur ("leader of the congregation") who recited the prayers out loud to enable those incapable of praying properly on their own to fulfill their obligations to participate by listening and responding "amen".[11]

Around the essential main prayers of the Shema and Amidah, other elements seem to have arisen, probably in the later Talmudic period during the time of the Amoraim. These included the recitation of psalms and other collections of biblical verses known as pesukei dezimra ("verses of song") prior to the main prayers in order to set an appropriate frame of mind for praying (Berakhot 5:1), and the recitation of individual prayers after the Amidah. These began as private supplications, including personal requests (Tosefot to Berakhot 3:10), but were gradually formalized. These elements took different forms in the Land of Israel and in Babylonia, as the findings of some of these texts in the Cairo Genizah have shown.[11]

During the Talmudic period, the norm developed that the ideal language for prayer was Hebrew, although other languages were considered acceptable for many prayers (BT, Berakhot 13a). By the end of the Talmudic period, consensus existed as to the basic formulation of most prayers, though regional variations remained.[11]

By the end of the Talmudic period (c. 500 CE), two distinct prayer rites had developed, in the Land of Israel and in Babylonia. However, by the end of the period of the geonim (c. 1038 CE), the prayers of all the traditional Jewish communities had largely conformed to the liturgy of the Babylonian Jewish community, and this has remained so until the present time, with only minor textual and structural variations among them.[4]

Both the Babylonian Talmud (BT) and Jerusalem Talmud (JT) include original prayers, many of which have been included in the Siddur, the daily prayer-book. The prayers are mostly the same in form and content in both Talmuds.[1]

Many of the Talmudic sages arranged personal petitions that they would say at the conclusion of the Amidah, some of which are cited in this tractate [12] Elohai ("My God"), the private meditation of the fourth century sage, Mar son of Ravina, as recorded in this tractate, has become universally accepted as the concluding meditation of the Amidah in the liturgies of all the Jewish communities. It begins with the words "My God, guard my tongue from evil and my lips from deceitful speech" and reflects the opening meditation of the Amidah "O Lord, open my lips so that my mouth may declare your praise" in that, having asked God to guide what to say in his presence, it now asks Him to guide what not to say in the presence of other human beings.[13]

Yehi Ratzon ("May it be Your will"), the personal prayer of the late secondearly third century sage, Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, as recorded in this tractate (Talmud, b. Berakhot ), requesting protection from harmful events, people and temptations, which he recited every day after the morning service, has been incorporated at the beginning of the morning service in both the Ashkenazi and Sefardi liturgies, albeit with minor textual variants in each.[14][15]

The second part of the Nishmat prayer, recited on Sabbath and Festivals, from the words "If our mouths were as full of song as the sea...we could not sufficiently praise You O Lord our God" is the text of a thanksgiving prayer for rain cited in this tractate (Talmud, b. Berakhot ).[15]

Another prayer beginning with Elohai ("My God") and continuing with "the soul which you have given me is pure" is recorded in this tractate (BT, Berakhot 60b) expressing gratitude to God for restoring ones spirit upon awakening in the morning and for providing the person with the requirements for life and health. This text is the introduction to the series of fifteen blessings recited in the early morning service in both the Ashkenazi and Sefardi liturgies, in accordance with the teaching on Berakhot 60b, that as one experiences the phenomena of the new day, one should bless God for providing them.[16][17]

The concluding statement of the tractate in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud (BT, Berakhot 64a) is Amar Rabbi Elazar ("Rabbi Elazer said"), "Torah scholars increase peace in the world..." and it is recited at the end of the Kabbalat Shabbat service welcoming the Sabbath on Friday night in the Ashkenazi liturgy, and towards the end of the Musaf service on Sabbaths and Festivals in both the Ashkenazi and Sefardi liturgies.[1][18]

Read this article:

Berakhot (tractate) - Wikipedia

Talmud and Midrash, commentative and interpretative writings that hold a place in the Jewish religious tradition second only to the Bible (Old Testament).

The Hebrew term Talmud (study or learning) commonly refers to a compilation of ancient teachings regarded as sacred and normative by Jews from the time it was compiled until modern times and still so regarded by traditional religious Jews. In its broadest sense, the Talmud is a set of books consisting of the Mishna (repeated study), the Gemara (completion), and certain auxiliary materials. The Mishna is a collection of originally oral laws supplementing scriptural laws. The Gemara is a collection of commentaries on and elaborations of the Mishna, which in the Talmud is reproduced in juxtaposition to the Gemara. For present-day scholarship, however, Talmud in the precise sense refers only to the materials customarily called Gemaraan Aramaic term prevalent in medieval rabbinic literature that was used by the church censor to replace the term Talmud within the Talmudic discourse in the Basel edition of the Talmud, published 157881. This practice continued in all later editions.

The term Midrash (exposition or investigation; plural, Midrashim) is also used in two senses. On the one hand, it refers to a mode of biblical interpretation prominent in the Talmudic literature; on the other, it refers to a separate body of commentaries on Scripture using this interpretative mode.

Despite the central place of the Talmud in traditional Jewish life and thought, significant Jewish groups and individuals have opposed it vigorously. The Karaite sect in Babylonia, beginning in the 8th century, refuted the oral tradition and denounced the Talmud as a rabbinic fabrication. Medieval Jewish mystics declared the Talmud a mere shell covering the concealed meaning of the written Torah, and heretical messianic sects in the 17th and 18th centuries totally rejected it. The decisive blow to Talmudic authority came in the 18th and 19th centuries when the Haskala (the Jewish Enlightenment movement) and its aftermath, Reform Judaism, secularized Jewish life and, in doing so, shattered the Talmudic wall that had surrounded the Jews. Thereafter, modernized Jews usually rejected the Talmud as a medieval anachronism, denouncing it as legalistic, casuistic, devitalized, and unspiritual.

There is also a long-standing anti-Talmudic tradition among Christians. The Talmud was frequently attacked by the church, particularly during the Middle Ages, and accused of falsifying biblical meaning, thus preventing Jews from becoming Christians. The church held that the Talmud contained blasphemous remarks against Jesus and Christianity and that it preached moral and social bias toward non-Jews. On numerous occasions the Talmud was publicly burned, and permanent Talmudic censorship was established.

On the other hand, since the Renaissance there has been a positive response and great interest in rabbinic literature by eminent non-Jewish scholars, writers, and thinkers in the West. As a result, rabbinic ideas, images, and lore, embodied in the Talmud, have permeated Western thought and culture.

The Talmud is first and foremost a legal compilation. At the same time it contains materials that encompass virtually the entire scope of subject matter explored in antiquity. Included are topics as diverse as agriculture, architecture, astrology, astronomy, dream interpretation, ethics, fables, folklore, geography, history, legend, magic, mathematics, medicine, metaphysics, natural sciences, proverbs, theology, and theosophy.

This encyclopaedic array is presented in a unique dialectic style that faithfully reflects the spirit of free give-and-take prevalent in the Talmudic academies, where study was focussed upon a Talmudic text. All present participated in an effort to exhaust the meaning and ramifications of the text, debating and arguing together. The mention of a name, situation, or idea often led to the introduction of a story or legend that lightened the mood of a complex argument and carried discussion further.

This text-centred approach profoundly affected the thinking and literary style of the rabbis. Study became synonymous with active interpretation rather than with passive absorption. Thinking was stimulated by textual examination. Even original ideas were expressed in the form of textual interpretations.

The subject matter of the oral Torah is classified according to its content into Halakha and Haggada and according to its literary form into Midrash and Mishna. Halakha (law) deals with the legal, ritual, and doctrinal parts of Scripture, showing how the laws of the written Torah should be applied in life. Haggada (narrative) expounds on the nonlegal parts of Scripture, illustrating biblical narrative, supplementing its stories, and exploring its ideas. The term Midrash denotes the exegetical method by which the oral tradition interprets and elaborates scriptural text. It refers also to the large collections of Halakhic and Haggadic materials that take the form of a running commentary on the Bible and that were deduced from Scripture by this exegetical method. In short, it also refers to a body of writings. Mishna is the comprehensive compendium that presents the legal content of the oral tradition independently of scriptural text.

Midrash was initially a philological method of interpreting the literal meaning of biblical texts. In time it developed into a sophisticated interpretive system that reconciled apparent biblical contradictions, established the scriptural basis of new laws, and enriched biblical content with new meaning. Midrashic creativity reached its peak in the schools of Rabbi Ishmael and Akiba, where two different hermeneutic methods were applied. The first was primarily logically oriented, making inferences based upon similarity of content and analogy. The second rested largely upon textual scrutiny, assuming that words and letters that seem superfluous teach something not openly stated in the text.

The Talmud (i.e., the Gemara) quotes abundantly from all Midrashic collections and concurrently uses all rules employed by both the logical and textual schools; moreover, the Talmuds interpretation of Mishna is itself an adaptation of the Midrashic method. The Talmud treats the Mishna in the same way that Midrash treats Scripture. Contradictions are explained through reinterpretation. New problems are solved logically by analogy or textually by careful scrutiny of verbal superfluity.

The strong involvement with hermeneutic exegesisinterpretation according to systematic rules or principleshelped develop the analytic skill and inductive reasoning of the rabbis but inhibited the growth of independent abstract thinking. Bound to a text, they never attempted to formulate their ideas into the type of unified system characteristic of Greek philosophy. Unlike the philosophers, they approached the abstract only by way of the concrete. Events or texts stimulated them to form concepts. These concepts were not defined but, once brought to life, continued to grow and change meaning with usage and in different contexts. This process of conceptual development has been described by some as organic thinking. Others use this term in a wider sense, pointing out that, although rabbinic concepts are not hierarchically ordered, they have a pattern-like organic coherence. The meaning of each concept is dependent upon the total pattern of concepts, for the idea content of each grows richer as it interweaves with the others.

Read more from the original source:

Talmud and Midrash | Definition, Books, Examples, & Facts

The William Davidson Talmud is a free digital edition of the Babylonian Talmud with parallel translations, interlinked to major commentaries, biblical citations, Midrash, Halakhah, and an ever-growing library of Jewish texts. As with all of Sefaria, The William Davidson Talmud will continually evolve as we add additional translations, commentaries, and connections. , , , . , , .

The William Davidson Talmud includes Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltzs complete Modern Hebrew and English translations of the Talmud. Through the generous support of The William Davidson Foundation, these translations are now available with a Creative Commons non-commercial license, making them free for use and re-use even beyond Sefaria. . , Creative Commons, .

December 5, 1922 - March 13, 2009 5 , 1922 - 13 , 2009

William Davidson was an internationally recognized businessman and lifelong philanthropist who cherished above all else his family and his Jewish heritage. Throughout his life, he supported projects and organizations that preserved and enhanced Jewish life and continuity. From his parents he learned that success in business provides the means for helping others. This family philosophy shaped his life. " , . , . . .

An expert in making troubled companies profitable, he transformed a struggling, family-owned automotive-glass fabricating firm into one of the worlds largest manufacturers of architectural and automotive glass. He also was the owner of several professional sports teams, including the Detroit Pistons basketball team. A native of Detroit, Michigan, he earned his bachelor of business degree from the University of Michigan and his law degree from Wayne State University. , -, , - . , , . , , .

In 2005, he established the William Davidson Foundation, a private, family foundation to advance for future generations the economic, cultural and civic vitality of Southeast Michigan, the State of Israel and the Jewish community. One of the secrets to a fulfilling life, he once said, is to be able to do things for other people. To commemorate his life and extend his spirit of generosity, the Talmud, as translated in English and Modern Hebrew by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, is now accessible to all. " 2005, , , - , , . , , . , , (), .

. . . Moses charged us with the TeachingAs the heritage of the congregation of Jacob.Deuteronomy 33:4 :

Read more:

The William Davidson Talmud The William Davidson Talmud

Switching My Kids to This Jewish Day School from Public School Was a Godsend and Came Just in Time  Kveller.com

Continue reading here:

Switching My Kids to This Jewish Day School from Public School Was a Godsend and Came Just in Time - Kveller.com

Humans of Heller High: What nine teens learned on an immersive program in Israel  JTA News - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

The rest is here:

Humans of Heller High: What nine teens learned on an immersive program in Israel - JTA News - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Possible references to 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 (although not spelling) of the Hebrew name Yeshua.[1][2]

The identification of Jesus with any number of individuals named Yeshu has numerous problems, as most of the individuals are said to have lived in time periods far detached from that of Jesus; Yeshu the sorcerer is noted for being executed by the Hasmonean government which lost legal authority in 63 BC, Yeshu the student is described being among the Pharisees who returned to Israel from Egypt in 74 BC,[3][4][5] and Yeshu ben Pandera/ben Stada's stepfather is noted as speaking with Rabbi Akiva shortly before the rabbi's execution, an event which occurred in c. 134 AD.[6][7][8] These events would place the lifetime of any Yeshu decades before or after the birth and death of Jesus.[9][10]

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 under Pope Gregory IX[12][13] accused the Talmud of containing blasphemous references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jews responded to the disputations by saying 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.[14] 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.[15] 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.[16] "Minimalists" include Jacob Z. Lauterbach (1951) ("who recognize[d] only relatively few passages that actually have Jesus in mind"),[15] 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),[17][18] 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).[19][pageneeded]

Some editions of the Talmud are missing some of the references, which were removed either by Christian censors starting in the 13th century,[20] or by Jews themselves due to fear of reprisals, or some were possibly lost by negligence or accident.[21] 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 Catholic 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.[22] 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.[23] 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.[23] 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.[24] 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.[25]

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 (The Life of Jesus From Jewish Sources) written in 1902 by Samuel Krauss, which was the first scholarly analysis of the Judaic anti-Christian polemic Toledot Yeshu (The Biography of Jesus).[24] 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.[26] In 1910, Hermann Strack wrote Jesus, die Hretiker und die Christen nach den ltesten jdischen Angaben (Jesus, the heretics and the Christians according to the oldest Jewish data), which found no evidence of a historical Jesus in the Talmud.[24] 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.[27] 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.[28] In 1978 Johann Maier wrote Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen berlieferung (Jesus of Nazareth in the Talmudic tradition) 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".[29] 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.[30]

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.[31] Some scholars treat Christianity, during that era, referred to as Early Christianity, as simply one of many sects of Judaism.[32] 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.[33]

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.[34] 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"[35] 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."[36]

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."[37] and "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?"[38] and in return in the description in Revelation of a "synagogue of Satan."[39]

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]".[40]

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.[41]

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.[42]

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.[43][44][45]

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.[46] 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.[47]

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.[48] Gustaf Dalman (1922),[49] Joachim Jeremias (1960),[50] Mark Allen Powell (1998)[51] and Roger T. Beckwith (2005)[52] 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"[53]

Numerous times between 1239 and 1775 all copies of the Talmud were destroyed. In 1280 following the Disputation of Barcelona the Talmud was censored.[54] 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.[42] 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.[55]

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:[56]

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".[57][58] 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."[59]

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.[59]

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.[62][63][64]

Our rabbis taught Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples, and these are they: Matthai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.[65][66][67][68]

The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.[69][5][70][71]

"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."[72][73][74][75]

On 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 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."[66][76][77][78]

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[6] and is himself mentioned as being among the Pharisees returning to Israel following their persecution by John Hyrcanus,[5] which would place Yeshu's lifetime anywhere between 130 after and 70 years before the birth of Jesus.

Sanhedrin 43a[79] 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.[80]

Sanhedrin 107[81] tells of a Jesus ("Yeshu") who "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."[82]

In Gittin 56b and 57a,[83] 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.[84][85]

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.[86]

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.[87] The texts cited by critics include Sanhedrin 67a,[88] Sanhedrin 106a,[89] and Shabbath 104b.[90] 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.[91]

Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:[92]

Sanhedrin 43a relates the trial and execution of Jesus and his five disciples.[93] 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).

The full passage is:

The Rabbis taught, Yeshu had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Buni, and Todah. They brought Mattai in, he said, "Shall Mattai be executed? Isn't it written, When (may) can I go and meet with God?" They said to him, "Yes, Mattai shall be executed, for it is written, When (may) will he die and his name perish?"

They brought Nakai in, he said, "Shall Nakai be executed? Isn't it written, Do not kill the innocent (nq) and righteous?" They said to him, Yes, Nakai shall be executed, for it is written, In the hiding places he kills the innocent (nq)."

They brought Netzer in, he said, "Shall Netzer be executed? Isn't it written, and a branch (ner) shall grow out of his roots?" They said to him, Yes, Netzer shall be executed, for it is written, But you are cast out of your tomb like a rejected branch (ner)."

They brought Buni in, he said, "Shall Buni be executed? Isn't it written, Israel is my firstborn son (bn)?" They said to him, "Yes, Buni shall be executed, for it is written, I will kill your firstborn son (bn)."

They brought Todah in, he said, "Shall Todah be executed? Isn't it written, A psalm of thanksgiving (t)?" They said to him, "Yes, Todah shall be executed, for it is written, The one who offers thanksgiving (t) as his sacrifice glorifies Me."

Sanhedrin 43a

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:[94]

The full passage in the Talmud Bavli is:

(The Gemara) raises an objection: A person may not engage in dealings with heretics, and one may not be treated by them even in (cases of) life (-or-death matters).

(There was) an incident involving ben Dama, son of Rabbi Ishmael's sister, (in) which a snake bit him. Jacob of the village Sekhanya came to treat him, but Rabbi Ishmael did not let him. And (ben Dama) said to him: "Rabbi Ishmael, my brother, let him (treat me), and I will be healed by him. And I will cite a verse from the Torah (to prove) that this is permitted." But (ben Dama) did not manage to complete the statement before his soul departed, and he died.

Rabbi Yishmael recited with regard to him: "Fortunate are you, ben Dama, as your body is pure and your soul departed in purity, and you did not transgress the statement of your colleagues, who would state the verse: And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him."

Avodah Zarah, 27b

Whereas in the Talmud Yerushalmi, the passage is the following:

(There was) an incident in (which) Rabbi Eleazer ben Dama was bitten by a snake, and Jacob of the village Sama came to heal him in the name of Yeshu (ben) Pandera, but he was prevented by Rabbi Ishmael. (Eleazer ben Dama) told (Rabbi Ishmael), "I shall bring proof that he can heal me." But, he could not bring proof before he died. Rabbi Ishmael said, "Blessed are you, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, as it is written, And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him." But did a snake not bite him (before such a dilemma even occurred?) It will not bite him in the World to Come. What could he have said? "Keep My decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them."

Shabbat 14

Scholars have identified passages that mention Jesus, as the messiah of Christianity, in the context of a Torah teacher:[94]

The full passage is:

(Rabbi Eliezer) said to him: "Akiva, you have reminded me; once I was walking in the upper markets of Sepphoris, and I found a man of the students of Yeshu, and his name was Jacob, of the village Sekhanya. He said to me, "It is written in your Torah, You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute... What is (the halakha), (is it permitted) to make, from (the fee of a prostitute) a bathroom for a High Priest?" And I said nothing to him.

He said to me, "Yeshu taught me that (it is indeed permitted, for it is written): Since she gathered her gifts from the wages of prostitutes, as the wages of prostitutes they will again be used. (The coins) came from a place of filth, let them go towards a place of filth."

And I derived pleasure from the statement, and due to this, I was arrested for heresy...

Avodah Zarah, 17a

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.[96] 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:[94]

The full passages are:

Alternatively, the phrase "no evil shall befall you" means that you will be frightened neither by bad dreams nor by evil thoughts. "Nor shall any plague come near your tent", that you will not have a child or student who overcooks his food in public, i.e., sins in public and causes others to sin, such as [Yeshu].

Sanhedrin 103a

"There is no breach", that our faction should not be like the faction of David, from which Ahitophel emerged. "And no going forth", that our faction should not be like the faction of Saul, from which Doeg the Edomite emerged. And no outcry; that our faction should not be like the faction of Elisha, from which Gehazi emerged. "In our open places", that we should not have a child or student who overcooks his food in public, as Yeshu (did).

Berakhot 17b

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").[97] 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.)[98] 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:[99]

The full passage is:

It should always be (the) left (hand) to push (away), and (the) right (to) bring closeward. Not like Elisha who pushed Gehazi (away) with both hands, and not like Joshua ben Perachiah who pushed Yeshu, (one of) his students, with both hands...

When King Yannai was executing the Rabbis, Simeon ben Shetach was hidden by his sister (and) Rabbi Joshua ben Perachiah went (and) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. When peace was made, Simeon ben Shetach sent him (the following letter): "From me, Jerusalem the holy city, to you, Alexandria of Egypt, my sister. My husband dwells amongst you, and I am sitting lonely". (Joshua ben Perachiah) said "I learn from (the letter) that there is peace!"

When he came, (they) arrived at an inn. (The innkeeper) stood before him with exemplary honor, and accorded him great honors. (Joshua) sat and was praising them, (saying): "How beautiful this inn is!" Yeshu said to him, "My master, her eyes are narrow." [The Aramaic words for "inn" and "innkeeper" were the same] (Joshua) said to him "Wicked one, is this how you conduct yourself?!" He brought out four hundred shofarot and excommunicated him.Every day, (Yeshu) would come before him, but (Joshua) did not accept him.

One day (Joshua) was reciting the Shema, (Yeshu) came before him. He intended to welcome him (this time), so he signaled (Yeshu) with his hands (to wait). (Yeshu) thought he was rejecting him. (Yeshu) went and erected brickwork, and worshipped it (as an idol). (Joshua) said to him "Return thyself!" (Yeshu) said to him "This I learned from you: Anyone who sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity 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.[41]

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 the son of Callinicus, son of the sister of Titus, desired to convert himself (to Judaism)...

(Onkelos) went (and) he conjured Yeshu the Nazarene (from the grave). (Onkelos) said (to Yeshu), "Whom is of importance in that world?" (Yeshu) said (to him), "Israel." (Onkelos further queried) "Should I attach (myself) to them?" He (Yeshu) said; "Their welfare you shall seek, their misfortune you shall not seek, for anyone who touches them is regarded as if he were touching the apple of his eye".

(Onkelos) said to (Yeshu), "What is the punishment of that man (who seeks their misfortune)?" (Yeshu) said (to Onkelos), "boiling excrement". As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement.

(As said in the Gemara:) Come see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations of the world.

Gittin 57a

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

The full passage is:

(The Mishna asserts) a crier goes out before (a man condemned to execution). Before him (i.e. when he is being led to execution), yes; but from the outset (i.e. before his conviction), no. But isn't it taught that on Passover Eve, they hanged Yeshu (after he was killed by stoning)? And a crier went out before him (for) forty days, (proclaiming): "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited (idolatry), and lead the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows (a reason to) acquit him should come (forward) and reveal it on his behalf!" And they did not find (a reason) to acquit him, and they hanged him on Passover Eve.

Ulla said, "And (how can) you understand? (Was) Yeshu worthy of a search to acquit him? He was an inciter, and the Merciful One states, Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him. But, Yeshu was different, as he was close with the government."

Sanhedrin 43a

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.[101]

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.[102] 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.[103] 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.[104]

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,[105] but other scholars suggest that they may be unrelated references.[106] 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.[105] 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.[107]

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.[108] In addition, some editions of the Jerusalem Talmud explicitly identify Jesus as the son of Pandera:[109]

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:[110]

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.[103]

See the original post here:

Jesus in the Talmud - Wikipedia