Does It Really Say That in the Talmud?

[JonW]

I've heard some bad ones .. like that our Lady is a prostitute, and that our Lord is boiling in poop.  Is this nonsense really in their sacred writings?  Where is this in the Talmud?  Can someone please cite chapter verse, if such a thing exists for the Talmud?  Where can I find a Talmud?  Finally, if it is in the Talmud, or some other official sacred writing of Judaism, is this something that all modern Jews (the religious ones) actually follow, or is it like when we get called slavery apologists, etc. because it is mentioned in the Bible?  Thanks for the help.

[Arun]

I'm pretty sure its in there, but I wouldn't mind some references too, to help substantiate my arguments. Stvincentferrer will probably know, he's pretty clued up on the jews.

[Arun]

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

there's some stuff in here.

[veritatem_dilexisti]

I am not sure that anti-Semitic literature is the best source of information for the Talmud; I have read, for instance, that Justinas Pranaitis, author of the work known in English as The Talmud Unmasked, was quite ignorant of important elements of the Jewish religion, and mistranslated passages of the Talmud.

[John92]

I am not sure that anti-Semitic literature is the best source of information for the Talmud; I have read, for instance, that Justinas Pranaitis, author of the work known in English as The Talmud Unmasked, was quite ignorant of important elements of the Jewish religion, and mistranslated passages of the Talmud.

Yeah, that's kinda true, though some of them actually have read the whole thing and know Hebrew, etc.

Some of the passages are just misunderstood, like the idea that Jews are allowed to rape girls under 3 years - that passage is just saying that, if a girl is raped at less than 3 years of age, she can still be considered a virgin for legal purposes.

But the stuff about Jesus and His Mother is definitely there and arguments that "Yeshu" was referring to another figure are disingenuous.

[timoose]

The Talmud is not an inspired Book or Books. The Jews no longer pay attention to the Tanak.
tim

[pander44]

What is your basis for saying that Jews no longer pay attention to the Tanach?It is the Jewish Bible after all,that which contains the Torah,Scripture,Prophets,etc.I do know some people who,even though being raised in the Jewish faith,have turned their backs on all of it,and no they don't pay any attention to the Tanach,just as I have seen many Christians do the same with their faith and the Bible.The questions about the Talmud......thought we weren't supposed to discuss them on here.

[Herr_Mannelig]

I've heard some bad ones .. like that our Lady is a prostitute, and that our Lord is boiling in poop.  Is this nonsense really in their sacred writings?  Where is this in the Talmud?  Can someone please cite chapter verse, if such a thing exists for the Talmud?  Where can I find a Talmud?  Finally, if it is in the Talmud, or some other official sacred writing of Judaism, is this something that all modern Jews (the religious ones) actually follow, or is it like when we get called slavery apologists, etc. because it is mentioned in the Bible?  Thanks for the help.

The Talmud is full of weird passages. It is easy to interpret them in various ways, but they can basically deny anything that is said about it because they don't use proper names.

It is full of error, even on the most basic level. It isn't worth reading.

[John92]

What is your basis for saying that Jews no longer pay attention to the Tanach?It is the Jewish Bible after all,that which contains the Torah,Scripture,Prophets,etc.I do know some people who,even though being raised in the Jewish faith,have turned their backs on all of it,and no they don't pay any attention to the Tanach,just as I have seen many Christians do the same with their faith and the Bible.The questions about the Talmud......thought we weren't supposed to discuss them on here.

They do pay attention to it but they view it through the Talmud which uses bizarre methods of interpretation to pervert the law of God into something almost satanic.

[alaric]

I am not sure that anti-Semitic literature is the best source of information for the Talmud; I have read, for instance, that Justinas Pranaitis, author of the work known in English as The Talmud Unmasked, was quite ignorant of important elements of the Jewish religion, and mistranslated passages of the Talmud.

Who says it's "antisemitic"? You or old foxy Abe?

Define antisemitism............

According to some, the NT is "antisemitic".

Jesus is an "Antisemite".

Ask a Palestinian if the IDF is "antisemitic".


That word is so loosely tossed around, it's ridiculous.


And the Talmud is absolutely Unchristian and Anti Catholic.


End of story.

[tg315]

It seems to me that this site http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html may answer your question to some degree.

In general it is worthwhile to realise that the Talmud covers about 800 years, while Jesus' life was only 33 years. Besides that most of the rabbis at the time he is suggested to have lived were themselves in hiding from Romans, or in the case of those with official positions, trying not to stir things up after the destruction of the Second Temple. Most had either relocated to Yavne or moved to Northern parts of the now-Roman province. The Jerusalem Talmud contributors found it harder and harder to continue adding to it, and much of the material used by Jews for the past 1500 years came from the sources gathered in the Babylonian academies.

Besides all this, Yeshu was a relatively common name at the time. It is commonly rendered Jose in English academic sources, and I count 55 contributors to the Babylonian Talmud with that name, with one being a diminutive for Yosef. If the name of the father is omitted (e.g. Jose ben Kifar), it was done probably so as not to embarrass the family at the time. Therefore identifying which individual the Talmud refers to, or even its one or several individuals, is almost impossible.

It seems to me that for the orthodox Jews the Talmud has equal sanctity to the Torah since it is there that most of the commandments are debated and defined. However, many passages will not offer much meaningful information if translated with a dictionary and without any knowledge of other background material or how the language and exegesis works. The Talmud does not lend itself to translation in the same way Greek or Latin texts do because it was redacted for a different purpose. This is commonly pointed out to students in university courses since many, having found success in Greek and Latin courses, try to approach Talmudic texts with same methodology.

How could Jesus be an anti-Semite if he was urging Jews to be more observant in their religion at the time of Hellenist pagan cults rising up all over? If anything, he would have been a Pharasee, and called an ultraorthodox Jew today.

The Talmud is most definitely anti-Christian, but it seems to me that this needs to be seen in the context of the times. Wasn't so long ago that there was Calvinism and wars between Catholics and Protestants also. In the 1st century Christians were a small sect of Greek-speaking Jews that were advocating not practising their religion. Wasn't so long ago that people were excommunicated from the Catholic church for suggesting Mass should be said in the vernacular rather than Latin

I had a copy of The Talmud Unmasked and showed it to a Jewish (Reform) post-grad some years ago. He took me over to a set of Babylonian Talmud at the uni library and we went through about 4-5 pages looking up passages. Most were mistranslated to various degrees, all were completely taken out of context.

[veritatem_dilexisti]

I am not sure that anti-Semitic literature is the best source of information for the Talmud; I have read, for instance, that Justinas Pranaitis, author of the work known in English as The Talmud Unmasked, was quite ignorant of important elements of the Jewish religion, and mistranslated passages of the Talmud.

Who says it's "antisemitic"? You or old foxy Abe?

Define antisemitism............

From the OED: "Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews."

From Wikipedia: "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, or religion. While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, since the term was invented it has been used to refer exclusively to hostility toward Jews."

Is that good enough for you?

Abusus non tollit usum, my friend; the abuse of the term by Abe Foxman and his ilk should not preclude others from making legitimate use thereof.

As a recent letter signed by 27 high-profile leaders of the Anglo-Jewish community states: "Anti-Semitism is far too grave a charge to be used as a political football." That does not mean that the charge of anti-Semitism cannot be made at all, particularly as regards such literature as has copious recourse to lies and distortions in order to attack Jews.

[Herr_Mannelig]

For the references to Jesus, whether or not the original writers used Yeshu to refer to Our Lord or not, it doesn't matter. Modern speakers of Israeli use it to refer to Him, and do it on purpose. It is a blasphemous term and they know it. So, whatever the original intent, modern Jews do associate Jesus with Yeshu from their Talmud.

[Vetus Ordo]

Talmud = satanic filth.

[Arun]

It seems to me that this site http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html may answer your question to some degree.

In general it is worthwhile to realise that the Talmud covers about 800 years, while Jesus' life was only 33 years. Besides that most of the rabbis at the time he is suggested to have lived were themselves in hiding from Romans, or in the case of those with official positions, trying not to stir things up after the destruction of the Second Temple. Most had either relocated to Yavne or moved to Northern parts of the now-Roman province. The Jerusalem Talmud contributors found it harder and harder to continue adding to it, and much of the material used by Jews for the past 1500 years came from the sources gathered in the Babylonian academies.

Besides all this, Yeshu was a relatively common name at the time. It is commonly rendered Jose in English academic sources, and I count 55 contributors to the Babylonian Talmud with that name, with one being a diminutive for Yosef. If the name of the father is omitted (e.g. Jose ben Kifar), it was done probably so as not to embarrass the family at the time. Therefore identifying which individual the Talmud refers to, or even its one or several individuals, is almost impossible.

It seems to me that for the orthodox Jews the Talmud has equal sanctity to the Torah since it is there that most of the commandments are debated and defined. However, many passages will not offer much meaningful information if translated with a dictionary and without any knowledge of other background material or how the language and exegesis works. The Talmud does not lend itself to translation in the same way Greek or Latin texts do because it was redacted for a different purpose. This is commonly pointed out to students in university courses since many, having found success in Greek and Latin courses, try to approach Talmudic texts with same methodology.

How could Jesus be an anti-Semite if he was urging Jews to be more observant in their religion at the time of Hellenist pagan cults rising up all over? If anything, he would have been a Pharasee, and called an ultraorthodox Jew today.

The Talmud is most definitely anti-Christian, but it seems to me that this needs to be seen in the context of the times. Wasn't so long ago that there was Calvinism and wars between Catholics and Protestants also. In the 1st century Christians were a small sect of Greek-speaking Jews that were advocating not practising their religion. Wasn't so long ago that people were excommunicated from the Catholic church for suggesting Mass should be said in the vernacular rather than Latin

I had a copy of The Talmud Unmasked and showed it to a Jewish (Reform) post-grad some years ago. He took me over to a set of Babylonian Talmud at the uni library and we went through about 4-5 pages looking up passages. Most were mistranslated to various degrees, all were completely taken out of context.

when analysed against contexts applied by jews to the Talmudic references throughout history, we find conclusive evidence that the contexts applied by the angelfire text are a recent fabrication. Based on this, and the fact that the historical evidence points overwhelmingly to the Talmudic texts being interpreted in a hostile context, it appears the evidence is in favour of the common perception around the tankk. Check out the following;
 
Moses Hess "Rome and Jerusalem" (printed 1862)
Theodore Hertzl's Diaries
Max Nordau's 1903 Speech to the 6th Zionist Congress
Balfour's Nov 2, 1917 letter to Rothschild
the works and policies of Cham Weiszman and David Ben-Gurion
 
Then take into account the fact that it is these contextual interpretations, not those stipulated by the angelfire text, which hold consistency with historic judaic policy, conduct, and beliefs.

And, in answer to the original post, YES THE TALMUD DOES SAY  THAT. Angelfire doesn't deny the content of the texts either, merely launching an attempt to interpret the statem,ents in fabricated contexts to dilute their menaing.