Talmud Quotes - Part 1
In order to show you why the Talmud is so hard to read, and why most
of the Judeo-Christian Clergy and their flocks the Judeo-Christians will
not study it to see what it is saying. It is very difficult reading and
one must read and study a lot in order to see what is actually being said.
As is their custom the Jews use as much subterfuge wording so
that Christians will not understand what they are saying about Christ,
Christians and etc. As you read the following you will clearly see why
I say this. Also you will see why the defenders of the Jews, who usually
know nothing about the Talmud themselves, but rely on their so-called "friend(s)"
the Jews. Who are not really their friend but are doing what they have
been taught from birth and that is to deceived Christians and non-Jews
about Jewish teachings.
Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 67a: Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira,
a soldier, Mother a prostitute.
. That is merely a mnemonical sign. (1)
MISHNAH. A MESITH IS A [SEDUCING] LAYMAN, (2) AND
HE WHO SEDUCES AN INDIVIDUAL (3) SAYING, THERE IS AN IDOL IN SUCH AND
SUCH A PLACE; IT EATS THUS, IT DRINKS THUS, IT DOES SO MUCH GOOD AND SO
MUCH HARM. FOR ALL WHOM THE TORAH CONDEMNS TO DEATH NO WITNESSES ARE HIDDEN
TO ENTRAP THEM, EXCEPTING FOR THIS ONE. IF HE INCITED TWO [TO IDOLATRY],
THEY THEMSELVES ARE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, AND HE IS BROUGHT TO BETH DIN
AND STONED. BUT IF HE ENTICED ONE, HE MUST REPLY, I HAVE FRIENDS WHO WISH
TO DO SO LIKEWISE [COME AND PROPOSE IT TO THEM TOO].' BUT IF HE WAS CUNNING
AND DECLINED TO SPEAK BEFORE THEM, WITNESSES ARE HIDDEN BEHIND A PARTITION,
WHILST HE WHO WAS INCITED SAYS TO HIM, MAKE YOUR PROPOSAL TO ME NOW IN
PRIVATE. WHEN THE MESITH DOES SO, THE OTHER REPLIES, HOW SHALL WE FORSAKE
OUR GOD IN HEAVEN TO GO AND SERVE WOOD AND STONES?' SHOULD HE RETRACT,
IT IS WELL. BUT IF HE ANSWERS, IT IS OUR DUTY [TO WORSHIP IDOLS], AND
IS SEEMLY FOR US, THEN THE WITNESSES STATIONED BEHIND THE PARTITION TAKE
HIM TO BETH DIN, AND HAVE HIM STONED. IF HE SAYS, I WILL WORSHIP IT',
OR, I WILL GO AND WORSHIP', OR, LET US GO AND WORSHIP'; OR, I WILL SACRIFICE
[TO IT]', I WILL GO AND SACRIFICE', LET US GO AND SACRIFICE'; I WILL
BURN INCENSE, I WILL GO AND BURN INCENSE'. LET US GO AND BURN INCENSE';
I WILL MAKE LIBATIONS TO IT', I WILL GO AND MAKE LIBATIONS TO IT , LET
US GO AND MAKE LIBATIONS, I WILL PROSTRATE MYSELF BEFORE IT', I WILL
GO AND PROSTRATE MYSELF'. LET US GO AND PROSTRATE OURSELVES'. (GUILT IS
INCURRED). (4) (Capitalization in original text)
GEMARA. A MESITH IS A LAYMAN. Thus, only because
he is a layman [is he stoned]; but if a prophet, he is strangled. WHO SEDUCES
AN INDIVIDUAL: thus, only if he seduces an individual; but if a community,
he is strangled. Hence, who is [the Tanna of] the Mishnah? R. Simeon.
For it has been taught: A prophet who entices [people to idolatry] is stoned;
R. Simeon said: He is strangled. (5) Then consider the second clause. (6)
A maddiah (7) is one who says: Let us go and serve idols': whereon Rab
Judah observed in Rab's name: This Mishnah teaches of those who lead astray
a seduced city. Thus it agrees with the Rabbis [who maintain that these
too are stoned, not strangled]. Hence, the first clause is taught according
to R. Simeon; the second according to the Rabbis! Rabina said: Both clauses
are based on the Rabbis' ruling, but proceed from the universally admitted
to the disputed. (8) R. Papa said: When the Mishnah states A MESITH IS
A HEDYOT, (9) it is only in respect of hiding witnesses. (10) For it has
been taught: And for all others for whom the Torah decrees death, witnesses
are not hidden, excepting for this one. How is it done? A light is lit
in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is
in darkness], so that they can see and hear him, (11) but he cannot see
them. Then the person he wished to seduce says to him, Tell me privately
what thou hast proposed to me'; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; But
how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols'? If he retracts,
it is well. But if he answers: It is our duty and seemly for us', the
witnesses who were listening outside bring him to the Beth din (A Jewish
Court of Law), and have him stoned. (Only through the study of the Talmud
could you realize that this is speaking of Christ, and He is called Ben
Stada in the footnote; it shows you that they are speaking of Him here,
but one would never know that unless they read the footnotes, and here
is where most Judeo-Christians leave the field because of their inability
to read properly) (12) MISHNAH. A MADDIAH IS ONE WHO SAYS, LET US GO AND
SERVE IDOLS'. A SORCERER, IF HE ACTUALLY PERFORMS MAGIC, IS LIABLE [TO
DEATH]. BUT NOT IF HE MERELY CREATES ILLUSIONS. (13) R. AKIBA SAID IN R.
JOSHUA'S NAME: OF TWO WHO GATHER CUCUMBERS [BY MAGIC] ONE MAY BE PUNISHED
AND THE OTHER EXEMPT: HE WHO REALLY GATHERS THEM IS PUNISHED: WHILST HE
WHO PRODUCES AN ILLUSION IS EXEMPT.
GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: This Mishnah
teaches of those who lead astray a seduced city. (14)
A SORCERER, IF HE ACTUALLY PERFORMS MAGIC etc. Our
Rabbis taught: [Thou shalt not suffer] a witch [to live]:(15) this applies
to both man and woman. If so, why is a [female] witch stated? Because
mostly women engage in witchcraft. How are they executed? R. Jose the
Galilean said: Here it is written, Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live;
whilst elsewhere is written, Thou shalt not suffer anything that breatheth
to live. (16) Just as there, the sword is meant, so here is the sword meant
too. R. Akiba said: It is here stated, Thou shalt not suffer a witch to
live; whilst elsewhere it is said, [There shall not a hand touch it, but
he shall surely be stoned, or shot through;] whether it be beast or man,
it shall not live. (17) Just as there, death by stoning is meant, so here
too. R. Jose said to him, I have drawn an analogy between Thou shalt not
suffer to live' written in two verses, whilst you have made a comparison
between Thou shalt not suffer to live', and It shall not live'. R. Akiba
replied: I have drawn an analogy between two verses referring to Israelites,
for whom the Writ hath decreed many modes of execution, (18) whilst you
have compared Israelites to heathens, in whose case only
(1) I.e., in both the reference is to something done for the first
time: there to coition; here to profanation. But the similarity ceases
at this point.
(2) Heb. hedyot. As opposed to a prophet.
(3) Heb. hedyot. But not a whole community. On the Heb. term hedyot,
v. p 456, nn. 2 and 3.
(4) The seducer by using any one of those expressions incurs guilt
and is executed; v. Rashi (supra, 61a) who refers it to the seduced person.
(5) V. infra 84a.
(6) I.e., the next Mishnah, which is really part of this.
(7) Who is stoned, as stated in the Mishnah on 53a, of which all the
subsequent Mishnahs in this chapter are explanations.
(8) Lit., nor only this, but that also).' When the Mishnah states,
[HE] WHO SEDUCES AN INDIVIDUAL, it is not intended to exclude a multitude,
but merely to commence with the universally agreed law. Then the next Mishnah
adds that the same applies to the seduction of a multitude, though this
is not admitted by all.
(9) yuhsv , ** rendered in Mishnah, LAYMAN', also means ignorant,
(10) I.e., hedyot is not used in the sense of a layman as opposed to
a prophet, but in the sense of ignoble; so dastardly in his action, that
he is not shewn the same consideration as other malefactors, but hidden
witnesses are set to entrap him. There is no dispute between Rabina and
R. Papa, both teaching that the two clauses agree with the Rabbis; but
Rabina explains the phrase, HE WHO SEDUCES AN INDIVIDUAL', whilst R. Papa
deals with A MESITH IS A HEDYOT'.
(11) Otherwise, they could not testify.
(12) In the uncensored editions of the Talmud there follows this important
passage (supplied from D.S. on the authority of the Munich and Oxford Mss.
and the older editions) And this they did to Ben Stada in Lydda (suk),
and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ben Stada was Ben Padira. R.
Hisda said: The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But was nor the
husband Pappos b. Judah? His mother's name was Stada. But his mother
was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair? (thab tksdn megaddela neshayia):
As they say in Pumbaditha, This woman has turned away (satath da) from
her husband, (i.e., committed adultery).' T. Herford, in Christianity
in the Talmud', pp. 37 seqq, 344 seqq, identifies this Ben Stada with Jesus
of Nazareth. As to the meaning of the name, he connects it with ** seditious',
and suggests (p. 345 n.1) that it originally denoted that Egyptian' (Acts
XXI 38, Josephus, Ant. XX, 8, 6) who claimed to be a prophet and led his
followers to the Mount of Olives, where he was routed by the Procurator
Felix, and that in later times he might have been confused with Jeshua
ha-Notzri. This hypothesis, however, involves the disregard of the Talmudic
data, for Pappos b. Judah lived a century after Jesus (Cit. 90a), though
the mother's name, Miriam (Mary), would raise no difficulty, as thab tksdn
megaddla neshayia may be the result of a confusion with Mary Magdalene
(v. also Box, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, pp. 201f, for other possible meanings
of Ben Stada and Ben Pandira) Derenbourg (Essai note 9, pp. 465-471) rightly
denies the identity of Ben Stada with Jesus, and regards him simply as
a false prophet executed during the second century at Lydda.
(13) I.e., the illusion of doing something, whereas in fact he does
(14) Cf. supra 53a.
(15) Ex. XXII, 17.
(16) Deut. XX, 17. This refers to the war of extermination against
the seven races inhabiting Canaan before the Conquest by Joshua. They would
naturally be killed by the sword.
(17) Ex. XIX, 13. This refers to the taboo placed upon Mount Sinai
before the Theophany.
(18) And yet at Sinai stoning was chosen.
Talmud Quotes - Part 2
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 4b: Christ is said to be the angel of death,
while speaking of Mary His mother in footnote 31.
a delicate person.1 For it is written: When ye come to appear before
Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample2 My courts?3
A Tanna taught: The uncircumcised4 and the unclean5
are exempt from [bringing] the pilgrimage-offering.6 Granted as regards
the unclean, for it is written: And thither thou shalt come,' and thither
ye shall bring.7 To whomever coming' applies, bringing' applies; to whomever
coming' does not apply, bringing' does not apply. But whence do we derive
[the exemption of] the uncircumcised? This will be according to R. Akiba,
who includes the uncircumcised like the unclean. For it is taught: R. Akiba
said: [the expression], what man soever,8 comes to include uncircumcised.9
Our Rabbis taught: An unclean person is exempt from
[bringing] the pilgrimage-offering, for it is written: And thither thou
shalt come; and thither ye shall bring'. To whomever coming' applies bringing'
applies; to whomever coming' does not apply bringing' does not apply.
R. Johanan b. Dahabai said in the name of R. Judah: A person who is blind
in one eye is exempt from appearing [at the Temple]. for it is said: Yir'eh10
[He shall see], Yera'eh [He shall be seen]; just as He comes to see, so
He comes to be seen; as He comes to see with both eyes. so also to be seen
with both eyes.
R. Huna, when he came to this verse, Yir'eh, Yera'eh,11
wept. He said: The slave whom his Master longs to see should become estranged
from him! For it is written: When ye come to appear12 before Me, who hath
required this at your hand, to trample My courts?13
R. Huna, when he came to the [following] verse, wept:
And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there.14 The slave
at whose table his Master longs to eat should become estranged from him!
For it is written: To what purpose is the abundance of your sacrifices
unto Me? saith the Lord.15
R. Eleazar, when he came to the [following] verse,
wept: And his brethren could not answer him, for they were affrighted at
his presence.16 Now if the rebuke of flesh and blood be such, how much
more so the rebuke of the Holy One, blessed be He!
R. Eleazar, when he came to the [following] verse,
wept: And Samuel said to Saul: Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring14
me up?17 Now if Samuel, the righteous, was afraid of the Judgment, how
much more so should we be! How do we know this about Samuel?18 For it
is written: And the woman said unto Saul: I see godlike beings coming up
out of the earth.19 Coming up'20 implies two: one was Samuel, but [who
was] the other? Samuel went and brought Moses with him, Saying to him:
Perhaps, Heaven forfend,21 I am summoned to Judgment: arise with me,22
for there is nothing that thou hast written in the Torah, which I did not
R. Ami, when he came to the [following] verse, wept:
Let him put his mouth in the dust, perhaps there may be hope.23 He said:
All this, and [only] perhaps!24
R. Ami, when he came to the [following] verse, wept:
Seek righteousness, seek humility, perhaps ye shall be hid in the day of
the Lord's anger.25 He said: All this, and [only] perhaps!
R. Assi, when he came to the [following] verse, wept:
Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate, perhaps
the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious.26 All this, and [only] perhaps!
R. Joseph, when he came to the [following] verse,
wept: But there is that is swept away without judgment.27 [He said]:28
Is there anyone who passes away before one's [allotted] time?29 Yes,
as in the story [heard] by R. Bibi b. Abaye,30 who was frequently visited
by the Angel of death. [Once] the latter said to his messenger: Go, bring
me Miriam, the women's hairdresser! (This is speaking of Mary the mother
of Christ, but one has to study the footnote to know this) 31 He went and
brought him Miriam, the children's nurse. Said he to him:32 I told thee
Miriam, the women's hairdresser. He answered: If so, I will take her back.
Said he to him: Since thou hast brought her, let her be added.33 But how
were you able to get her?34 She was holding a shovel in her hand and was
(1) I.e., one that cannot walk barefoot; and it is forbidden to walk
on the sacred Temple Mount with covered feet.
(2) I.e., with shod feet.
(3) Isa. I, 12.
(4) I.e., a Jew that was not circumcised because two of his brothers
had died as a result of their circumcision; cf. Shab. 134a and Yeb. 64b.
(5) Cf. Num. XIX, 20.
(6) They are exempt even from sending the offering by a messenger;
cf. also p. 1, n. 1.
(7) Deut. XII, 5,6. The verse continues: Your burnt-offerings etc.
(8) Lev. XXII, 4.
(9) I.e., if he is a priest, he is prohibited from eating Terumah (i.e.,
the priest's share of crop or dough) like a priest who has become unclean.
(10) Ex. XXIII, 17; v. p. 3, n. 3.
(11) Which implies (v. n. 1) that the Divine Master reciprocally comes
to meet the human pilgrim.
(12) Lit., to be seen', as above.
(13) Isa. I, 12.
(14) Deut. XXVII, 7.
(15) Isa. I, 11.
(16) Gen. XLV, 3.
(17) I Sam. XXVIII, 15.
(18) I.e., that it was the Divine Judgment that he feared.
(19) Ibid. v. 13.
(20) Heb. ohkg which is plural. The deduction cannot be made from ohvkt
(godlike beings) which is also plural in form, because its meaning is generally
singular, viz. God.
(21) Lit., forbearance and peace.'
(22) I.e., to testify on my behalf.
(23) Lam. III, 29.
(24) I.e., after so much suffering, hope of salvation is only problematical.
(25) Zeph. 11,3.
(26) Amos V, 15.
(27) Prov. XIII, 23.
(28) Rashi and Tosaf. delete the words: the question is then asked
by the Gemara.
(29) I.e., although the person has committed no sin to merit shortening
(30) An occultist; cf. Ber. 6a where he performed an experiment with
the object of seeing demons.
(31) Supposed by Tosaf. to be the Mother of Jesus; cf. Shab. 104b in
the earlier uncensored editions. [Her description megaddela (hairdresser)
is connected by some with the name of Mary Magdalene whose name was confused
with that of Mary, the mother of Jesus, v. Herford R.T. Christianity in
Talmud and Midrash, pp. 40f].
(32) I.e., the Angel of death to his messenger.
(33) I.e., to the dead.
(34) Since it was not yet her time to die.
Talmud Quotes - Part 3
Talmud - Mas. Sotah 47a:
Rab and Samuel [differ in their interpretation]; one said it was a miracle,
while the other said it was a miracle within a miracle. He who said it
was a miracle did so because there was a forest but there were no bears;1
he who said it was a miracle within a miracle did so because there was
no forest nor were there any bears. [But according to the latter interpretation]
there need have been [provided] bears but not a forest! [It was required]
because [the bears] would have been frightened.2
R. Hanina said: On account of the forty-two sacrifices
which Balak, king of Moab, offered,3 were forty-two children cut off from
Israel. But it is not so; for Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: Always
should a man occupy himself with Torah and the commandments even though
it be not for their own sake,4 for from [occupying himself with them] not
for their own sake he comes to do so for their own sake; because as a reward
for the forty-two sacrifices which Balak, king of Moab, offered,5 he merited
that Ruth should issue from him and from her issued Solomon concerning
whom it is written: A thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon offer!6 And
R. Jose b. Honi said: Ruth was the daughter of Eglon the son of Balak!7
Nevertheless his desire was to curse Israel.8 And the men of the city
said unto Elisha, Behold, we pray thee, the situation of this city is pleasant,
as my lord seeth etc.9 [But how could it be so] since the water is naught
and the land miscarrieth'! What, then, was its pleasantness? R. Hanin
said: The favour of a place in the estimation of its inhabitants. R. Johanan
said: There are three kinds of favour: the favour of a locality in the
estimation of its inhabitants, the favour of a woman In the estimation
of her husband, and the favour of an article in the estimation of its purchaser.
Our Rabbis taught: Elisha was afflicted with three
illnesses: one because he stirred up the bears against the children, one
because he thrust Gehazi away with both his hands, and one of which he
died; as it is said: Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof
Our Rabbis have taught: Always let the left hand
thrust away and the right hand draw near. Not like Elisha who thrust Gehazi
away with both his hands (and not like R. Joshua b. Perahiah who thrust
one of his disciples away with both his hands). (One would never guess
that this is speaking of both Christ and Paul, until they read the footnotes)11
How is it with Elisha? As it is written: And Naaman said: Be content, take
two talents,12 and it is written: And he said unto him, Went not my heart
with thee when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? Is it
a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and sheep
and oxen, and manservants and maidservants?13 But had he received all these
things? Silver and garments were what he had received! R. Isaac said:
At that time Elisha was engaged [in the study of the Law concerning] the
eight kinds of [unclean] creeping things;14 so he said to [Gehazi], You
wicked person, the time has arrived for you to receive the reward for [studying
the law of] the eight creeping things.'15 The leprosy therefore of Naaman
shall cleave unto thee and unto thy seed for ever.16 Now there were four
leprous men17 R. Johanan said: This refers to Gehazi and his three sons.
And Elisha came to Damascus18 why did he go there?19 R. Johanan said:
He went to induce Gehazi to repent but he refused. He said to him, Repent';
but he replied: Thus have I received from thee that whoever sinned and
caused others to sin is deprived of the power of doing penitence'. What
had he done? Some say: He applied a loadstone to the idolatrous image of
Jeroboam20 and suspended it between heaven and earth. Others say: He engraved
upon it the Name [of God] so that it used to exclaim, I [am the Lord thy
God]' and Thou shalt have no [other God beside me]' Still others say:
He drove the Rabbis from before him, as it is written: And the sons of
the prophets said unto Elisha, Behold now, the place where we dwell before
thee is too strait for us21 hence, up to then it had not been too strait.
What22 was the incident with R. Joshua b. Perahiah?
When King Jannaeus23 put the Rabbis to death, Simeon b. Shetah was hid
by his sister, whilst R. Joshua b. perahiah fled to Alexandria in Egypt.
When there was peace,24 Simeon b. Shetah sent [this message to him]: From
me, Jerusalem, the Holy city, to thee Alexandria in Egypt. O my sister,
my husband25 dwelleth in thy midst and I abide desolate'. [R. Joshua] arose
and came back and found himself in a certain inn where they paid him great
respect. He said: How beautiful is this aksania' ! (One would never guess
that they are speaking of Christ here; it is only by reading the footnote
that one discovers this) 26 One of his disciples (This is speaking of Christ
also, but one can glean that by the mention of his disciples) 27 said to
him, My master, her eyes are narrow!' He replied to him, Wicked person!
Is it with such thoughts that thou occupiest thyself !' He sent forth four
hundred horns and excommunicated him.28 [The disciple] came before him
on many occasions, saying'Receive me'; but he refused to notice him. One
day while [R. Joshua] was reciting the Shema', he came before him. His
intention was to receive him and he made a sign to him with his hand, but
the disciple thought he was repelling him. So he went and set up a brick
and worshipped it. [R. Joshua] said to him, Repent'; but he answered him,
Thus have I received from thee that whoever sinned and caused others to
sin is deprived of the power of doing penitence'. A Master has said: The
disciple practised magic and led Israel astray.
It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Also
human nature29 should a child and woman thrust aside with the left hand
and draw near with the right hand.30
MISHNAH. IF THE MURDERER WAS DISCOVERED BEFORE THE
HEIFER'S NECK WAS BROKEN, IT GOES FREE AND FEEDS WITH THE HERD; BUT IF
AFTER THE HEIFER'S NECK WAS BROKEN, IT IS BURIED IN THAT PLACE BECAUSE
IT CAME THERE FROM THE OUTSET IN CONNECTION WITH A MATTER OF DOUBT,31 AND
ATONED FOR THE DOUBT WHICH IS NOW GONE. IF THE HEIFER'S NECK WAS BROKEN
AND AFTERWARDS THE MURDERER IS DISCOVERED, BEHOLD HE IS EXECUTED.
IF ONE WITNESS SAYS I SAW THE MURDERER' AND ONE
WITNESS SAYS YOU DID NOT SEE HIM';32 OR IF A WOMAN SAYS I SAW HIM' AND
ANOTHER WOMAN SAYS YOU DID NOT SEE HIM', THEY BREAK ITS NECK. IF ONE WITNESS
SAYS I SAW HIM' AND TWO SAY YOU DID NOT SEE HIM', THEY BREAK ITS NECK.
IF TWO SAY WE SAW HIM' AND ONE SAYS TO THEM YOU DID NOT SEE HIM', THEY
DO NOT BREAK ITS NECK.33 WHEN MURDERERS MULTIPLIED THE CEREMONY OF BREAKING
A HEIFER'S NECK WAS DISCONTINUED. THAT WAS WHEN ELIEZER B. DINAI, ALSO
CALLED TEHINAH B. PERISHAH, APPEARED;34 HE WAS AFTERWARDS RENAMED SON
OF THE MURDERER WHEN ADULTERERS MULTIPLIED THE CEREMONY OF THE BITTER
WATER WAS DISCONTINUED AND IT WAS R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI WHO DISCONTINUED
IT, AS IT IS SAID, I WILL NOT PUNISH YOUR DAUGHTERS WHEN THEY COMMIT WHOREDOM,
NOR YOUR BRIDES WHEN THEY COMMIT ADULTERY, FOR THEY THEMSELVES ETC.35 WHEN
JOSE B. JOEZER OF ZEREDAH AND JOSE B. JUDAH OF JERUSALEM DIED, THE GRAPE-CLUSTERS36
CEASED, AS IT IS SAID, THERE IS NO CLUSTER TO EAT; MY SOUL DESIRETH THE
FIRST RIPE FIG.37
JOHANAN THE HIGH PRIEST38 BROUGHT TO AN END THE CONFESSION
MADE AT THE PRESENTATION OF THE TITHE.39 HE ALSO ABOLISHED THE WAKERS AND
(1) These were miraculously created for the occasion.
(2) If there was no forest provided for them in which they could hide,
they would not have dared to attack the children.
(3) Num. XXIII, 1, 14, 29.
(4) Without the expectation of reward.
(5) Although he did not offer them for their own sake.
(6) I Kings lii, 4. V. Hor. (Son. ed.) p. 75.
(7) So this was Balak's reward and not the death of the children.
(8) And so he had his reward in the death of these children.
(9) II Kings II, 19.
(10) Ibid. XIII, 14. Sick and sickness denote two, apart from his fatal
(11) MSS. and old editions read Jesus the Nazarene. R. T. Herford sees
in Gehazi a hidden reference to Paul. Cf. his Christianity in Talmud and
Midrash, pp. 97ff.
(12) II Kings V, 23.
(13) Ibid. 26.
(14) Name of the Chapter in Mishnah Shabbath, XIV, I, cf. Lev. XI,
(15) Referring to the eight kinds of presents he had accepted. That
will be his reward in this world so that he may be punished in the Hereafter.
For a fuller version v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 735.
(16) II Kings V, 27. For ever' indicates the World to Come.
(17) II Kings VII, 3.
(18) Ibid. VIII, 7.
(19) V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 734, n. 8.
(20) Cf. I Kings XII, 28.
(21) II Kings VI, I.
(22) The following paragraph is deleted in censored editions, v. Sanh.
(Sonc. ed.) p. 736, n. 2.
(23) Alexander Jannaeus, king of Israel from 104 to 78 B.C.E., a persecutor
of the Pharisees. The chronological discrepancy is obvious since he lived
a century before Jesus, v. however, Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) loc. cit.
(24) On his death-bed the King advised the Queen to put her confidence
in the Pharisees. V. Josephus, Ant. XIII, XV, 5.
(25) His teacher, R. Joshua.
(26) The word means inn' and female innkeeper'. The Rabbi intended
it in the first sense, Jesus in the second.
(27) MSS.: Jesus'.
(28) A horn is blown at the ceremony of excommunication. The large
number used on this occasion indicated the extreme severity of the penalty.
(29) One must learn to control it so as to avoid extremes.
(30) [One must not be too severe in chiding a child or reproving a
wife lest they be driven to despair.]
(31) The unknown murderer.
(32) [I.e., I was present with you at the time of the alleged murder
and testify that it did not take place.' J. reads I did not see it', and
similarly in the following clause substitutes the first person for the
(33) The single witness does not upset the evidence of two, so there
is no doubt about the murderer.
(34) He was a notorious bandit who committed numerous murders; (v.
Josephus, Ant. XX, 6, I; 8, 5.)
(35) Hos. IV, 14.
(36) Descriptive of Rabbis of exceptional learning. These two Rabbis
flourished in the first half of the second cent. B.C.E. and were the first
of the Zugoth or Pairs' of teachers who preserved and passed on the Torah-lore
accumulated by the men of the Great Assembly. [Lauterbach. J.Z. (JQR VI,
p. 32, n. 34) explains this to mean that with his death teachers ceased
to act as a body, reporting only such teachings as represented the opinion
of the whole group to which they belonged, but began to report rulings
of individual teachers.]
(37) Micah VII, 1.
(38) John Hyrcanus who reigned over Judea from 135 to 104 B.C.E.
(39) Cf. Deut. XXVI, 13f.
(40) These terms are explained in the Gemara.
Talmud - Mas. Sotah 37a
the tribe of Benjamin and descended first into the sea; as it is said:
There is little Benjamin their ruler1 read not rodem [their ruler] but
rad yam [descended into the sea]. Thereupon the princes of Judah hurled
stones at them; as it is said: The princes of Judah their council.2 For
that reason the righteous Benjamin was worthy to become the host of the
All-Powerful,3 as it is said: He dwelleth between his shoulders.4 R. Judah
said to [R. Meir]: That is not what happened; but each tribe was unwilling
to be the first to enter the sea. Then sprang forward Nahshon the son of
Amminadab5 and descended first into the sea; as it is said: Ephraim compasseth
me about with falsehood, and the house of Israel with deceit; but Judah
yet ruleth with God.6 Concerning him it is stated in Scripture,7 Save me
O God, for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where
there is no standing etc.8 Let not the waterflood overwhelm me, neither
let the deep swallow me up etc.9 At that time Moses was engaged for a long
while in prayer; so the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, My beloved
ones are drowning in the sea and thou prolongest prayer before Me!' He
spake before Him, Lord of the Universe, what is there in my power to do?'
He replied to him, Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward.
And lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thy hand etc.10 For that reason
Judah was worthy to be made the ruling power in Israel, as it is said:
Judah became His sanctuary, Israel his dominion.11 Why did Judah become
His sanctuary and Israel his dominion? Because the sea saw [him] and fled.12
It has been taught. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: It
is impossible to declare that Levi [was stationed] below since it is stated
that he was above,13 and it is impossible to declare that he was above
since it is stated that he was below;14 so how was it? The elders of the
priests and Levites were below and the rest above. R. Joshiyah said: All
[the Levites] who were qualified to serve [as bearers of the ark] were
below and the rest above. Rabbi says: Both [the priests and Levites] and
also [the Israelites] were standing below.15 They turned their faces towards
mount Gerizim and opened with the blessing, and then towards mount Ebal
and opened with the curse; for what means al?16 It means near to'; as
it has been taught: And thou shalt put pure frankincense near [al] each
row17 Rabbi says: Al means near to'. You declare that al means near
to'; but perhaps it is not so and the signification is actually upon'?
Since it states: Thou shalt put a veil al the ark,18 conclude that al
means near to'.
THEY TURNED THEIR FACES TOWARDS MOUNT GERIZIM AND
OPENED WITH THE BLESSING etc. Our Rabbis taught: There was a benediction
in general and a benediction in particular, likewise a curse In general
and a curse in particular.19 [Scripture states]: to learn, to teach, to
observe and to do;20 consequently there are
(1) Ps. LXVIII, 28, E.V. 27.
(2) Ibid. The word for council has the same root as the verb to stone';
so it is here understood as their stoners'.
(3) The Temple was erected on the territory of Benjamin, v. Yoma 12a.
(4) Deut. XXXIII, 12, i.e., God dwells in the land of Benjamin.
(5) He was the prince of the tribe of Judah (Num. VII, 12).
(6) Hos. XII, 1. The last words are rod im el, which are interpreted:
he descended (into the sea because his trust was) with God.
(7) Kabbalah, lit., tradition', a term used for the Biblical canon
other than the Pentateuch, v. B.K. (Sonc. ed) p. 3. n. 3.
(8) Ps. LXIX, 2f.
(9) Ibid. 16.
(10) Ex. XIV, 15f.
(11) Ps. CXIV. 2. The Temple was in the kingdom of Judah. His dominion'
is understood as Judah's rule over Israel.
(12) Ibid. 3.
(13) On Gerizim (Deut. XXVII, 12).
(14) Josh. VIII, 33.
(15) This seems to be implied in Josh. l.c.
(16) In Deut. XXVII, 12, translated upon'.
(17) Lev. XXIV, 7.
(18) Ex. XL, 3. The veil was not upon' the ark but near to, i.e.,
in front of it.
(19) The general blessing or curse was in connection with Deut. XXVII,
26, and the particular blessing or curse for the actions specified in that
(20) Cf. ibid. v. I and Xl, 19.
Another Quote From The Talmud
Once again, one cannot tell what is being written
without the notes. The newer sanatuzed Talmuds, are easyer to read and
do not have such convoluted wording, because they want it to deceive Christians
into believe something that is not true as they do now.
Mas. Sanhedrin 90a
They 1 differ only in respect of one who uproots the fundamental [prohibition]
of idolatry,2 or who partially confirms and partially annuls [the prohibition]
of idolatry,3 since the Divine Law said, [...to seduce thee] from [min]
the way [which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in],4 implying even
part of the way.5 But if one [a false prophet] fundamentally uproots any
other precept,6 all agree that he is strangled;7 whilst if he partially
annuls and partially confirms any other precept, all agree that he is exempt.
R. Hamnuna objected; [It has been taught] [Because he hath spoken ...to
seduce thee from the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee] to walk;
this refers to positive commands;8 therein [bah]: to negative commands.9
But should you say that this refers to idolatry, how is a positive command
conceivable in respect of idolatry? R. Hisda explained it [as referring
to], And ye shall overthrow their altars.10
R. Hamnuna said; They11 differ in respect of
one who uproots the fundamental injunction, whether of idolatry or other
precepts, or who partially annuls and partially confirms [the prohibition
of] idolatry, since the Torah said, from the way, implying even part of
the way;12 but if he partly confirms and partly annuls any other precept,
all agree that he is exempt.
Our Rabbis taught: If one prophesies so as to eradicate
a law of the Torah, he is liable [to death]; partially to confirm and partially
to annul it. R. Simeon exempts him. But as for idolatry, even if he said,
Serve it to-day and destroy it to-morrow,13 all declare him liable. Now,
Abaye agrees with R. Hisda,14 and reconciles this with him; Raba holds
with R. Hamnuna, and explains it according to his views. Abaye, agrees
with R. Hisda, and reconciles it with him. [Thus:] If one prophesies so
as to uproot a law of the Torah, all agree that he is strangled; partially
to confirm and partially to annul it (This whole
thing is taking about a Christian that has studied the "Torah" the Talmud
and that he is to be strangled), R. Simeon exempts him, and
the Rabbis likewise.15 But as for idolatry, even if he said, Serve it
to-day and destroy it to-morrow, he is liable each according to his
views.16 Raba holds with R. Hamnuna, and explains it according to his
opinion; If one prophesies to uproot an injunction of the Torah, whether
idolatry or any other precept, he is liable, each according to his views.
Partially to confirm and partially to annul it. R. Simeon declares him
exempt, and also the Rabbis.17 But as for idolatry, even if he said, Serve
it to-day and destroy it to-morrow, he is liable each according to his
R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name; In every matter,
if a prophet tells you to transgress the commands of the Torah, obey him,18
with the exception of idolatry; should he even cause the sun to stand still
in the middle of the heavens for you [as proof of Divine inspiration],
do not hearken to him.
It has been taught; R. Jose the Galilean said: The
Torah understood the extreme depths [of depravity inherent in] idolatry,19
therefore the Torah gave him [the false prophet] power therein, that should
he even cause the sun to stand still in the middle of the heavens, thou
must not hearken to him.20 R. Akiba said; God forbid that the Almighty
should cause the sun to stand still at the behest of those who transgressed
His will, but [the Torah refers to one] as Hananiah the son of Azur, who
was originally a true prophet and [only] subsequently became a false
LIKEWISE [WITNESSES, PROVED] ZOMEMIM, [IN AN ACCUSATION
OF ADULTERY AGAINST] A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER, AND HER PARAMOUR. Whence do
we know this? R. Abba the son of R. Ika said; For it has been taught:
R. Jose said; Why does Scripture state, THen shall ye do unto him, as he
had thought to have done unto his brother?22 For all falsified witnesses23
[spoken of] in the Torah, the zomemim and the paramours are assimilated
to them;24 but in the case of a priest's daughter. She [profaneth] teaches,
She is executed by burning, but not her paramour. Hence, I do not know
whether the zomemim are likened to him or to her:25 but when the Writ saith...to
have done unto his brother, it teaches, to his brother, but not to his
C H A P T E R XI27
MISHNAH. ALL ISRAEL28 HAVE A PORTION IN THE WORLD
TO COME,29 FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THY PEOPLE ARE ALL RIGHTEOUS; THEY SHALL
INHERIT THE LAND FOR EVER, THE BRANCH OF MY PLANTING, THE WORK OF MY HANDS,
THAT I MAY BE GLORIFIED.30 BUT THE FOLLOWING
HAVE NO PORTION THEREIN: HE WHO MAINTAINS THAT RESURRECTION IS NOT A BIBLICAL
DOCTRINE, (One would never guess that
the Jews are talking about the resurrecton of Christ in this, unless they
look at the footnote. Where they deny the resurrection, and therefore,
deny that Christ rose again)31 THE
TORAH WAS NOT DIVINELY REVEALED, AND AN EPIKOROS.(As
you can see, here the Jews deny that the Bible was Divinely inspired. They
dont say directly, but this is in reference to their belief that the Bible
is only fit for fools, children and women. You see the Jews never make
anything clear, because if they did a Christian just might be able to understand
what they are saying; so in self-defense, they write everything in lanuage
designed to deceive all but a student of the Talmud) 32 R. AKIBA
ADDED: ONE WHO READS UNCANONICAL BOOKS.33 ALSO ONE WHO WHISPERS [A CHARM]
OVER A WOUND AND SAYS, I WILL BRING NONE OF THESE DISEASES UPON THEE WHICH
I BROUGHT UPON THE EGYPTIANS: FOR I AM THE LORD THAT HEALETH THEE.34 ABBA
SAUL SAYS: ALSO ONE WHO PRONOUNCES THE DIVINE NAME AS IT IS SPELT.35
THREE KINGS AND FOUR COMMONERS HAVE NO PORTION IN
THE WORLD TO COME: THE THREE KINGS ARE JEROBOAM, AHAB, AND MANASSEH.36
R. JUDAH SAID: MANASSEH HATH A PORTION THEREIN, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, AND
HE PRAYED UNTO HIM, AND WAS INTREATED OF HIM, AND HE HEARKENED TO HIS SUPPLICATION
AND THEY RESTORED HIM TO JERUSALEM, TO HIS KINGDOM.37 THEY [THE SAGES]
ANSWERED HIM: THEY RESTORED HIM TO HIS KINGDOM, BUT NOT TO [HIS PORTION
IN] THE WORLD TO COME. FOUR COMMONERS, VIZ., BALAAM, DOEG, AHITOPHEL, AND
GEMARA. And why such [severity]? A Tanna taught:
Since he denied the resurrection of the dead, therefore he shall not share
in that resurrection, for in all the measures [of punishment or reward]
taken by the Holy One, blessed be He, the Divine act befits the [human]
deed.39 As it is written, Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the Lord;
Thus saith the Lord, To-morrow about this time shall a measure of fine
flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in
the gates of Samaria.40 And it is written, Then a lord on whose hand the
king leaned answered the man of God, and said, Behold, if the Lord made
windows in heaven, might this thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt
see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.41
(1) R. Simeon and the Rabbis, whether the seducing prophet is stoned
(2) Stating in the name of God that idolatry is permissible, or even
meritorious, as it is written...saying, let us go after other gods. Deut.
(3) V. infra.
(4) Ibid. 6.
(5) Since min (in), is partitive and denotes limitation. The verses
adduced by the Rabbis and R. Simeon refer to these cases.
(6) E.g., stating as a Divine communication
that the Sabbath was no longer to be kept holy.
(7) Because this is prohibited in Deut. XVIII,
20: But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which
I have not commanded him to speak...shall die. Unspecified death
(8) To walk implies to do, not to abstain from doing.
(9) This is deduced in the Sifre by gezerah shawah.
(10) Ibid. XII, 3.
(11) V. p. 597, n. 7.
(12) He regards the deduction of to walk, which refers to positive
commands, as applying to all precepts.
(13) That is partial annulment.
(14) Missing footnote.
(15) R. Simeon is mentioned for this reason; According to him, the death
from which he is exempt is obviously strangulation. Consequently the first
clause, teaching that he is liable, must
mean to strangulation, and R. Simeon not being mentioned there, that
is the general opinion. Had the second clause simply stated that he is
exempt, it would imply from stoning or strangulation, according to either
the Rabbis or R. Simeon, and hence the liability of the first clause would
be the same.
(16) I.e., In the opinion of the Rabbis, to stoning; of R. Simeon, to
(17) In R. Hamnuna's view, R. Simeon is particularly mentioned to shew
that he is exempt even
from strangulation, a more lenient death than stoning; hence certainly
(18) E.g., as in the case of Elijah, who ordered sacrifices to be offered
on Mount Carmel.
(19) Or, the wiles by which idolatry attracts.
(20) Since Scripture says, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, it follows
that the false prophet must have been endowed with such powers.
(21) The sign being given during his first phase, and he supported
himself thereon in his second.
(22) Deut. XIX, 19: unto his brother is redundant.
(23) [In cases of incest including adultery Lec. var. who are sentenced
(24) [I.e., the zomemim, to the death they sought to impose on the women,
and the paramours, to that of the women the had dishonoured.]
(25) V. p. 347. n. 2.
(26) I.e., he is executed by her paramour's death, not her own.
(27) In the Jerusalem Talmud this is the tenth chapter, whilst These
are strangled, which in the Babylonian version is the tenth, is there
the eleventh. H. Danby, Sanhedrin, Introduction VIII, 2, defends the order
of the Bab. Tal. as correct. Rashi likewise states: Having first dealt
with those who are executed by Beth din (A Jewish
Court of law) by one of the four modes of execution, the Mishnah
proceeds to enumerate those who have no portion in the world to come.
Maimonides in his commentary places this as the tenth chapter (v. also
his Introduction to Seder Zera'im), and Asheri does likewise. This order
is adopted in the printed editions of the Mishnah and in the Jerusalem
Talmud (cp. also Mak. 2a).
(28) This is not a dogmatic assertion that only Israel has a portion
in the world to come, but is closely connected with the preceding chapters,
and asserts that even those who were executed by Beth din are not shut
out from the future world, as is stated in VI, 2.
(29) The conception of what is to be understood
by the future world is rather vague in the Talmud. In general, it is the
opposite of vzv okug, this world. In Ber. I, 5, this world is opposed
to the days of the Messiah. Whether the Messianic era is thus identical
with the future world, and these again with the period of resurrection,
is a moot point (v. infra, 91b). The following quotation from G. Moore,
Judaism (Vol. 2, p. 389) is apposite: Any attempt to systematize the
Jewish notions of the hereafter imposes upon them an order and consistency
which does not exist in them. (Here the jews
are saying that they are inconsistent in their writings on purpose)
(30) Isa. LX, 22.
(31) Lit., that resurrection is not intimated
in the Torah. The doctrine of resurrection was denied by the Sadducees
and the Samaritans. It was to oppose these that the doctrine was emphatically
asserted in the second of the Eighteen Benedictions (v. W.O. Oesterley.
The Jewish Background of Christian Liturgy, Oxford, 1925, 60ff.). According
to the present text, however, the reference is not to one who denies the
fact of resurrection, but that it is intimated in the Torah. (On the importance
of conceding the Biblical origin of this tenet, v. p. 604, n. 12.) But
D.S. omits the phrase as interpolated, and he is supported by the Tosef.
(32) In the first place, the word denotes an
adherent of the Epicurean philosophy, and then, one who lives a licentious
and dissolute life. The word has also been derived from rep (cf. repv)
to be unbridled, and it is frequently used as a synonym of min (q.v. p.
604, n. 12), heretic. The Gemara defines it as one who speaks disparagingly
of the Bible and its disciples.
(33) Lit., the external books. Graetz, Gesch. IV, p. 99, regards this
as referring to un-Jewish, particularly Gnostic literature. Weiss takes
a similar view. The pernicious influence of Gnosticism, particularly as
it impaired the pure monotheism of Judaism, made the Rabbis very anxious
to stem its spread, and hence R. Akiba's dictum. (Weiss maintains that
Elisha b. Abuia's revolt against the Rabbis was in some measure occasioned
by the influence of Gnosticism.) On this view, ordinary reading is referred
to. There are indications, however, that something more is meant. The J.
Tal. a.l. adds: E.g.. the books of Ben Sira and Ben La'anah. But the reading
of Homer and all subsequent books is as the reading of a letter. In spite
of the fact that the Bab. Tal. forbids the books of Ben Sira, it is evident
from the discussion that all its contents were well-known, and Sira's wisdom
is frequently quoted by the Talmudists. It is also difficult to see why
greater exception should be taken to Sira than to Homer. To obviate these
difficulties the theory has been put forward that the prohibition is against
reading these uncanonical works publicly, treating them as the Scripture
and expounding them to the community. Private reading, however, would on
this theory not come within the ban. (V. Krochmal More Nebuche ha-Zeman,
(34) Ex. XV, 26.
(35) Lit., according to its letters.
(36) Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who is frequently stigmatised in the
Bible as having sinned and caused Israel to sin. Ahab, the son of Omri,
a later King; v. I Kings. XXI, 21. Manasseh, the
son of Hezekiah, King of Judah; v. II Kings. XXI.
(37) II Chron. XXXIII, 13.
(38) Balaam: v. Num. XXXI. 8, 16; Doeg the Edomite: v. I Sam.
XXI, 22; Ahitophel: v. II Sam. XV; Gehazi: v. II Kings V, 20.
(39) Lit., Measure for measure.
(40) II Kings VII, 1.
(41) Ibid. 2.
Another Talmud Quote
Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 90b
And it is [further] written, And so it fell unto him: for the people
trod upon him in the gate, and he died.1 But perhaps this was the result
of Elisha's curse, for Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The curse of a Sage,
even if unmerited, is fulfilled? If so, Scripture should have written,
they trod upon him and he died. Why, trod upon him in the gate? [To show
that it was] on account of matters pertaining to the gate.2
How is resurrection derived from the Torah? As
it is written, And ye shall give thereof the Lord's heave offering to Aaron
the priest.3 But would Aaron live for ever; he did not even enter Palestine,
that terumah4 should be given him?5 But it teaches that he would be resurrected,
and Israel give him terumah. Thus resurrection is derived from the Torah.
The school of R. Ishmael taught: To Aaron [means to one] like Aaron: just
as Aaron was a haber,6 so his sons must be haberim.7 R. Samuel b. Nahmani
said in R. Jonathan's name: Whence do we know that terumah must not be
given to a priest and am ha-arez?8 From the verse, Moreover he commanded
the people that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the Levites,
that they might hold fast to the law of the Lord:9 [thus,] whoever holds
fast to the law of the Lord, has a portion; whoever does not, has no portion.
R. Aha b. Adda said in Rab Judah's name: One who gives terumah to an ignorant
priest is as though he had placed it before a lion: just as a lion may
possibly tear his prey and eat it and possibly not,10 so is an ignorant
priest he may possibly eat it undefiled and possibly defiled. R. Johanan
said: He even causes his [sc. the ignorant priest's] death, for it is written,
and die therefore, if they profane it.11 The School of R. Eliezer b. Jacob
taught: He also embroils him in a sin of general trespass,12 for it is
written, Or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass when they eat
their holy things.13
It has been taught: R. Simai said: Whence do we learn
resurrection from the Torah? From the verse, And I also have established
my covenant with them, [sc. the Patriarchs] to give them the land of Canaan:14
[to give] you' is not said, but to give them' [personally]; thus resurrection
is proved from the Torah.15
(Mnemonic: Zedek, Gam, Geshem, Kam.)16 Sectarians
[minim] (Here is another one of their subterfuge wordings, which would
not indicate Christ, except that someone look at the footnote)17 asked
Rabban Gamaliel: Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will
resurrect the dead? He answered them from the Torah, the Prophets, and
the Hagiographa, yet they did not accept it [as conclusive proof]. From
the Torah': for it is written, And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou
shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise up [again].18 But perhaps,' said
they to him, [the verse reads], and the people will rise up?' From the
prophets': as it is written, Thy dead men shall live, together with my
dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust:
for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out its dead.19
But perhaps this refers to the dead whom Ezekiel resurrected?20 From the
Hagiographa': as it is written, And the roof of thy mouth, like the best
wine of my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those
that are asleep to speak.21 But perhaps it means merely that their lips
will move, even as R. Johanan said: If a halachah is said in any person's
name in this world, his lips speak in the grave, as it is written, causing
the lips of those that are asleep to speak? [Thus he did not satisfy them]
until he quoted this verse, which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give
to them;22 not to you, but to them is said; hence resurrection is derived
from the Torah. Others say that he proved it from this verse, But ye that
did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day;23
just as you are all alive to-day, so shall you all live again in the world
The Romans asked R. Joshua b. Hananiah: Whence do
we know that the the Holy One, blessed he He, will resurrect the dead and
knows the future? He replied: Both are deduced from this verse, And the
Lord said unto Moses, Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and rise
up again; and this people shall go a whoring etc.25 But perhaps will rise
up, and go a whoring'? He replied: Then at least you have the answer
to half, viz., that He knows the future. It has been stated likewise: R.
Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Whence do we know
that the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead and knoweth the
future? From, Behold, Thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and . . . rise
It has been taught: R. Eliezer, son of R. Jose, said:
In this matter I refuted the books of the sectarians,26 who maintained
that resurrection is not deducible from the Torah. I said to them: You
have falsified your Torah,27 yet it has availed you nothing. For ye maintain
that resurrection is not a Biblical doctrine, but it is written, [Because
he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment],
that soul shall utterly be cut off28 [Heb. hikkareth tikkareth]; his iniquity
shall be upon him.29 Now, [seeing that] he shall utterly be cut off in
this world, when shall his iniquity be upon him? surely in the next world.30
R. Papa said to Abaye: Could he not have deduced both [this world, and
the next] from he shall be utterly cut off?31 They would have replied:
The Torah employed human phraseology.
This is disputed by Tannaim: That soul shall utterly
be cut off [hikkareth] he shall be cut off in this world and [tikkareth]
in the next: this is R. Akiba's view. R. Ishmael said: But the verse has
previously stated, he reproacheth the Lord, and that soul shall be cut
off are there then three worlds? But [interpret thus]: and [that soul]
shall be cut off in this world: hikkareth, he is to be cut off in the
next; whilst as for [the repetition] tikkareth, that is because the Torah
employs human phraseology.32 How do both R. Ishmael and R. Akiba utilize
his iniquity shall be upon him? For that which has been taught: I might
think that [this is so] even if he repented: therefore Scripture saith,
his iniquity is upon him: I decreed [that he shall be cut off] only if
his iniquity is still in him. Queen Cleopatra33 asked R. Meir, I know
that the dead will revive, for it is written, And they [sc. the righteous]
shall [in the distant future] blossom forth out of the city [Jerusalem]
like the grass of the earth.34 But when they arise, shall they arise nude
or in their garments?' He replied, Thou mayest deduce by an a fortiori
argument [the answer] from a wheat grain: if a grain of wheat, which is
buried naked, sprouteth forth in many robes, how much more so the righteous,
who are buried in their raiment!'
An emperor said to Rabban Gamaliel: Ye maintain
that the dead will revive; but they turn to dust, and can dust come to
(1) Ibid. 20.
(2) I.e., Elisha had prophesied that wheat and barley would be sold
cheaply at the gate of Samaria, and he denied it.
(3) Num. XVIII, 28.
(4) V. Glos.
(5) The priestly dues were rendered only in Palestine.
(6) V. Glos.
(7) Hence this verse is to teach that the priestly dues are not to
be rendered to an ignoramus, and affords no basis for resurrection.
(8) Lit., people of the earth,' peasants, and then denoting the ignorant
and irreligious in general.
(9) II Chron. XXXI, 4.
(10) I.e., when a lion steals an animal and mauls it, we do not know
whether it was to appease his hunger, or merely to satisfy his blood lust.
(11) Lev. XXII, 9.
(12) I.e., a sin which leads to guilt in a number of ways.
(13) Ibid. 16.
(14) Ex. VI, 4.
(15) The promise could be literally fulfilled only by the Patriarchs'
(16) An apt mnemonic, meaning lit., As to the Righteous, also the
(17) Term used generally as a designation for Judeo-Christians. Herford,
Christianity in the Talmud, pp. 232-4, conjectures that this discussion
took place in Rome, whither R. Gamaliel journeyed in 95 C.E., since this
is followed by The Romans asked R. Joshua.' He maintains that both sides
accepted the fact of resurrection of the dead, the dispute being whether
it is intimated in the Torah. The importance of the debate lay in the fact
that the Christians maintained that the resurrection of the dead was consequent
upon the resurrection of Christ this doctrine of course would be weakened
if it could be shewn that resurrection was already taught in the Torah.
(18) Deut. XXXI, 16.
(19) Isa. XXVI, 19.
(20) V. Ezek. XXVII.
(21) Cant. VII, 9. As the entire Song is interpreted by the Rabbis
as a dialogue between God and Israel, the last phrase is understood to
refer to the dead, whom God will cause to speak again.
(22) Deut. XI, 21.
(23) Ibid. IV, 4.
(24) This is deduced from this day', which is superfluous.
(25) Deut. XXXI, 16.
(26) Herford, op. cit. states that ohbhn is an error for oh,uf Cutheans,
Samaritans, as is proved by parallel passages in the Sif.; cf. 87a, and
(27) [The words to them', from which R. Gamaliel (p. 605) deduced
the resurrection are left out in the Samaritan text.]
(28) ,rf, ,rfv.
(29) Num. XV, 31.
(30) I.e., at the resurrection.
(31) V. next passage in text.
(32) V. supra 64b.
(33) [Not of Anthony and Cleopatra' fame. Bacher, Agada der Tanaiten,
I, 68, n. 2, regards t,fkn tryputhke (Cleopatra, the Queen) as a corruption
of ht,ufs heuryp the Patriarch of the Samaritans (v. Gen. Rab. XCIV, 6).
Cp. Koh. Rab. V, 12, where the disputant of the belief of the resurrection
of the dead with R. Meir is a Samaritan, h,uf.]
(34) Ps. LXXII, 16: the bracketed addition gives the sense according
to Rabbinic interpretation; v. Keth. 111a.
Another Talmud Folo about Jesus
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 66b
[means] that he must be prepared [from the previous day]; appointed'
[means] that [it is to send away]; even on the Sabbath appointed', even
if in a state of uncleanness.1 [You say]: Man [means] to declare a non-priest
eligible', but that is obvious? You might have thought that since [the
term] Kapparah [atonement] is written in connection therewith,2 therefore
he informs us [as above]. Appointed', i.e., even on the Sabbath. What
does this teach?3 R. Shesheth said: It is to say that if it is sick,
he may make it ride on his shoulder. According to whose view is this? Not
according to R. Nathan, for R. Nathan said: A living being carries itself!4
-You may even say that this is in accord with R. Nathan: when it is sick
it is different,5 however.
Rafram said: This is to say that [the laws of] erub6
and carrying out7 apply on Sabbath, but do not apply on the Day of Atonement.8
Appointed', i.e., even in a state of uncleanness.9 What does that teach?
R. Shesheth said: It is to say that if he who is to carry it away became
unclean, he may enter in impurity the Temple Court10 and carry it away.
R. Eliezer was asked: What about his carrying it
on his shoulder? He said: He could carry you and me.11 If he who is to
take it away became sick, may he send it away through someone else? He
said: I wish to keep well, I and you!12 If he pushed it down and it did
not die, must he go down after it and kill it? He said to them: So perish
all Thine enemies, O Lord.13 But the Sages say: If it became sick, he may
load it on his shoulder; if he pushed it down and it did not die, he shall
go down and kill it. They asked R. Eliezer: What about So-and-so (One
would never know this is speaking of Christ, until they look at the footnotes;
that is where most of the information comes from as to who is being discussed
in the Folo) 14 in the world to come'? He replied, Have you asked me
only about this one'?15 May one save the lamb from the lion'? He said
to them: Have you asked me only about the lamb'?15 May one save the shepherd
from the lion'? He said to them: Have you asked me only about the shepherd'?16
May a mamzer17 inherit'? [He replied]: May he marry the wife of his
brother who died without issue'?18 May one whitewash his house'?19 [He
replied]: May one whitewash his grave'? [His evasion was due] not to
his desire to divert them with words [counter-questions], but because he
never said anything that he had not heard from his teacher.20
A wise woman asked R. Eliezer: Since with regard
to the offence with the golden calf all were evenly associated, why was
not the penalty of death the same?21 He answered her: There is no wisdom
in woman except with the distaff. Thus also does Scripture say: And all
the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands.22 It is stated:
Rab and Levi are disputing in the matter. One said: Whosoever sacrificed
and burned incense died by the sword; whosoever embraced and kissed [the
calf] died the death [at the hands of Heaven];23 whosoever rejoiced in
his heart died of dropsy. The other said: He who had sinned before witnesses
and after receiving warning,24 died by the sword; he who sinned before
witnesses but without previous warning, by death; and he who sinned without
witnesses and without previous warning, died of dropsy.
Rab Judah said: The tribe of Levi did not participate
in the idolatry, as it is said: Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp.25
Rabina was sitting and reporting this teaching, whereupon the sons of R.
Papa b. Abba objected to Rabina: Who said of his father and of his mother:
I have not seen him, etc.'?26 His father', that is the father of his
mother, an Israelite; brother', the brother of his mother, an Israelite;
sons', that means the sons of his daughter [which she had] from an Israelite.
AND THEY MADE A CAUSEWAY FOR HIM etc. Rabbah b. Bar
Hana said: These were not Babylonians but Alexandrians, and because they
[the Palestinians] hated the Babylonians,27 they called them [the Alexandrians]
by their [the Babylonians'] name. It was taught: R. Judah said, They were
not Babylonians, but Alexandrians. R. Jose said to him: May your mind
be relieved even as you have relieved my mind!28
MISHNAH. SOME OF THE NOBILITY OF JERUSALEM USED TO
GO WITH HIM UP TO THE FIRST BOOTH. THERE WERE TEN BOOTHS FROM JERUSALEM
TO THE ZOK29
(1) This is soon explained.
(2) And this term as a rule occurs only in connection with a rite performed
(3) What Sabbath desecration could the taking of the scapegoat to the
(4) V. Shab. 90a. Hence no transgression would be involved in carrying
(5) A sick being, unable to carry itself', might logically be assumed
to be an exception to R. Nathan's rule.
(6) v. Glos.
(7) I.e., transferring an object from public to private grounds and
vice versa, both of which were prohibited on the Sabbath.
(8) Since the word anointed' is here interpreted as referring to the
suspension of the Sabbath law, the inference is justified that no such
prohibition existed on the Day of Atonement, or else it would be illogical
to say that a special statement permits the suspension of these laws on
the Day of Atonement which fell on a Sabbath, since they would be operative
on any Day of Atonement, even if it fell on a weekday. The laws of carrying
out' and erub belong together, hence strictly speaking, the Gemara need
not have mentioned both; when one is applied, the other automatically applies
(9) How should the laws on levitical uncleanness apply to the taking
of the scapegoat to the wilderness?
(10) When he receives it from the high priest.
(11) R. Eliezer made a point of not answering any question concerning
which he had not received a definite tradition or interpretation from his
(12) This, too, is an evasive answer: You and I are well, hope to keep
well, why trouble about such hypothetical situations?
(13) Judg. V, 31.
(14) Peloni. It may have been a general question concerning John Doe',
or it may refer to Solomon's (Rashi), or to Absalom's (R. Han.) regard
for the Davidic Dynasty being responsible for the substitution of the vague
Peloni. [Some see in Peloni a reference to Jesus, Finkelstein L. to Philo.
Bokser, B.Z Pharisaism in Transition pp. 18ff, rightly regards these identifications
as hardly supported by any facts.]
(15) Ali his answers are evasive.
(16) Some see in the question about the shepherd a reference to David,
who as lion (King) or as shepherd had taken the lamb (Bathsheba) from her
husband. Others see the lamb in Uriah, Bathsheba's husband, whom the lion
(David) sent to his death.
(17) May a bastard (the issue of a union forbidden under the penalty
of extinction) inherit his father?
(18) Why don't you ask the whole question: How far does he participate
in the rights and duties of normal Jews?
(19) May one whitewash one's house in spite of the fact that one ought
to remain conscious all the time of the destruction of the Temple, etc.
(20) [V. Suk., Sonc. ed., p. 122. Bokser, op. cit. pp. 108f sees in
these questions differences of opinion on important points of law. The
question about sheep concerned the ban against cattle-raising which the
Rabbis wished to enforce (v. B.M. 84b) and which R. Eliezer opposed as
having no precedent in tradition. The questions relating to the mamzer
involved the imposition of certain discriminations against the mamzer of
which R. Eliezer did not approve, and similarly he refused to accept the
prohibition of the other Rabbis of plastering one's house in sad remembrance
of the destruction of the Temple, not finding any support for it in tradition].
(21) Scripture mentions three forms of penalties: Some died by the
sword (Ex. XXXII, 27), others by the plague (ibid. 35), the rest by dropsy
as the result of their drinking the water containing the gold dust, which
Moses had offered them in expiation (ibid. 20).
(22) Ex. XXXV, 25.
(23) I.e., died by the plague.
(24) Penalty could be imposed only when the offence had been committed
in the presence of two witnesses who accuse the defendant, after he had
been warned as to the consequences of his offence.
(25) Ex. XXXII, 26. (cont.) and said: Whoso is on the Lord's side,
let him come unto me'. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together
(26) Deut. XXXIII, 9. Here seems scriptural proof that the Levites,
in punishing the guilty, ignored relationships, such as father or mother,
but executed punishment on all. Thus their relatives, other Levites, must
have been guilty.
(27) This hatred caused them to look down upon the Babylonians as remiss
in their religious duties, and to father upon them other people's wrongs.
(28) R. Jose was a Babylonian. He welcomes the interpretation, which
freed his fellow-countrymen from the charge of such boorish conduct.
(29) Lit., the peak', the mountain top from which the scapegoat was
precipitated. Also used to denote the precipice itself.