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, ignoble.
(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 nothing.
(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 fulfil.

    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 heating
____________________
(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 of life.
(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 he died.10

    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 THE KNOCKERS40
____________________
(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 illness.
(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, 29ff.
(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 second.]
(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 chapter.
(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.

        Talmud - 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 views.

    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
prophet.21

    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 sister.26

    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 don’t 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 GEHAZI.38

    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 or strangled.

(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. XIII, 3.

(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
means strangulation.

(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 strangulation.

(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 from stoning.

(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 to death.]

(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. XIII, 5.

(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,
XI, 5.)

(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 to come.24

    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 again etc.

    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 life?'
____________________
(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' resurrection.
(16) An apt mnemonic, meaning lit., ‘As to the Righteous, also the Body Riseth.'
(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 D.S.
(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 by priests.
(3) What Sabbath desecration could the taking of the scapegoat to the wilderness involve?
(4) V. Shab. 90a. Hence no transgression would be involved in carrying it.
(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 too.
(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 teachers.
(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 unto him.
(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.
 

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party