What does the Talmud say about 'Yeshu'?

[muman613]

I have just discovered the answer to one of the questions I have had about the Jewish views of Jesus. Most Rabbis will tell us that the Jewish sources don't mention Jesus and while this seems to be true, there are some hints which I have just learned.

In some respect these facts give some credence to the idea that the Jews were responsible for Jesus. It seems according to this Talmud that had a certain great Rabbi of Israel handled his student 'Yeshu' the outcome would have been much, much different.

Let me first quote some of the basic material which I am talking about:

http://www.ou.org/chagim/elul/bteshuvah.htm

"Our Rabbis taught, 'A person should always push away the sinner with the left (generally, the weaker) hand, but hold him close with the right (generally, the stronger) hand. Not like Yehoshua ben Perachiah who pushed away his student with both hands." (Masechet Sotah 47a)

Comment: It is necessary to push away the "sinner," to some extent; that is, to let him know that he has gone off the path, but never to reject him entirely, as that would violate the entire spirit of the Jewish Religion's approach to Sin and the Acceptance of Repentance.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachia was the teacher of Jesus and the Midrash describes the following fateful series of events which separated the latter from his Jewish origins.

"What was the incident involving Yehoshua ben Perachia? When Yanai the King killed out most of the Sages, two of the small number of survivors were Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachia. Shimon was protected by his sister, the Queen; Yehoshua ben Perachia fled to Alexandria in Egypt and established a Yeshiva there.

When peace was established between Yanai and the surviving Sages, Shimon ben Shetach sent for Yehoshua to return. He sent the following message, 'From Yerushalayim, the Holy City, to you, Alexandra of Egypt, my Sister! My husband is hidden in your precincts, while I am sitting abandoned.' When he received this message, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachia said, 'There must be peace now.'

On his return, he and his students stayed at a certain inn, run by a woman, where he was shown great honor. Afterwards, he remarked, 'Wasn't that a nice innkeeper!' His student, Jesus, responded by saying, 'but master, her eyes are crooked!'

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachia said, 'Wicked person! Is this what you find important?!' And he had him excommunicated. Each day, Jesus would come before his teacher, and ask to be forgiven. But his Repentance was not accepted.

On the day that Rabbi Yehoshua finally decided to accept Jesus' repentance, when the latter came to ask forgiveness for what he had decided would be the final time, his master was praying. When he lifted his hand to cover his eyes, Jesus interpreted that gesture as yet another rejection, gave up, left, and went astray.

When later Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, 'Return!' Jesus responded, 'Have you not taught us the principle that for someone who leads others astray, there is no possibility of Teshuvah!' (Masechet Sotah 47a)

Comment: Thus, the origin of Christianity is attributed by the Talmud to the failure of one of the greatest Sages of the Jewish People to accept the Repentance of his student, when he should have.

"Anyone who leads the People towards righteousness, will not sin; and someone who leads the People towards sin will not be allowed to do Teshuvah.

What is the justice of this?

The one who led the People towards righteousness will not sin because how would it look if the teacher was in Gehinnom (the Jewish expression for the "place of punishment" reserved for the wicked, after death - not very pleasant, but probably no "pitchforks." Also, the name of a valley outside of Jerusalem; actually, the valley is Gei-ben-Hinnom, undoubtedly related; perhaps the site of an ancient idol-worshipping cult), and the students in "Gan Eden" (the "Garden of Eden," the Jewish expression for "Paradise," the "place of reward" for the righteous)?! "

(Actually, with regard to these matters, the Jewish position is 100% Belief in "Reward and Punishment," but, as to the specifics, we say, with King David, "no eye has seen it, O L-rd, but Yours.")

Conversely, the one who led the People towards sin will not be permitted to repent because how would it look if the teacher was in "Gan Eden" and the students in Gehinnom?!" (Masechet Yoma 87a)

Comment: A leader of the Jewish People is held to a very high standard of responsibility. Not only must he be concerned about his own actions; he must lead his people in the right direction, as well, because his ultimate destiny becomes intertwined with theirs.

Now this site gives a little more background concerning the events: http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/vedibarta-bam/avot-1.htm

"Yehoshua ben Perachyah says: 'Judge every person favorably.'" (1:6)

    QUESTION: Why was this one of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah's popular sayings?

ANSWER: According to the uncensored version of the Gemara (Sanhedrin 107b) the infamous "that person" (known as "Yeshu," which is an acronym for yemach shemo vezichro — may his name and memory be erased — was a student of Yehoshua ben Perachyah. Displeased with his behavior, He excommunicated him. Afterwards, he reconsidered and wanted to accept him back. "That person" replied, "You have taught me that the one who sins and causes many others to sin is not given the opportunity to repent" (Avot 5:18).

Perhaps Yehoshua ben Perachyah felt that he was somewhat quick in being judgmental on "that person," and had he given him the benefit of the doubt, he would have avoided a students' becoming corrupt and misleading others.

Incidentally, according to the secular world, "that man" was born in the year 3760, 68 years prior to the destruction of the second Beit Hamikdash (3828), and their calendar started its first year counting from his birth. Jewish historians have difficulty accepting this thought because his teacher, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah passed away approximately 125 years before the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. Therefore, they conclude that there were actually two men called "Yeshu" and the first one was the student of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah. However, the Naazarite whom Xianity accepted lived before the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash in the days of beit Hillel and beit Shamai.

According to other Jewish historians there was only one, and he was born in the year 3671, more than one hundred and fifty years before the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash (3828). His mother's name was Miriam (see Chagigah 4b, Tosafot), and he was fathered by Pandira, a non-Jew. In Gemara he is named "Yeshua ben Stadia," (Stadia is an abbreviation for "satit da miba'alah" — "this [lady] turned from her husband, i.e. unfaithful) and thus in Eastern Europe he was referred to as "Yoshke Pandrik." He studied in Egypt under Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah and when Shimon ben Shatach brought back Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah to Eretz Yisrael, he came alone.

Egypt was known for sorcery (Kiddushin 49b). There he learned the art and secretly took it with him when he left Egypt. Afterwards, he publicly practiced sorcery and induced people to worship idolatry. He was the one who instituted the celebration of Sunday, and claimed that Hashem spoke to him.

He is also known as "Yeshu the Notzri" because he claimed that the words of the prophet "Veneitzer misharashav yifreh" — "A shoot will sprout from his root" (Isaiah 11:1) are a reference to him. At the age of thirty-six, on Erev Pesach 3707, he was stoned and then hung by the Beit Din for sorcery, and incitement to embrace idolatry. (See Chesronot Hashas to Shabbat 104b, Sotah 47a, Sanhedrin 43.)

Thus, the secular calendar in reality has nothing to do with his birth, and it was actually made some seven hundred years after his death by a Roman priest Dionysius who based his calendar on the false birth date publicized by the church fathers (Britannica 1965 Ed. Vol. 12 p. 1016). Contemporary Catholic historians admit that he was really born more than ninety years prior to the two thousand years of the calendar.

They falsified the year of his birth in order to convince the masses that the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash took place shortly after his death and that it was a punishment for our putting him to death.

It is interesting to note that the authentic information they have about him is taken from our sources. The reason is that during his lifetime the world at large knew very little of him and had no regard for him. About one hundred years after his death, certain individuals decided to make him the foundation of their new belief and started fabricating stories of his greatness.

I have investigated some of the sources quoted in these articles. I am currently listening to the Daf Yomi for Sotah 47a which relates this story.

I do not seek to reignite a battle with non-Jews concerning anti-gentile sentiment. But it is historically questionable that our holy Talmud would not discuss whether such a man existed. There is a question whether the Yeshu which is discussed is the figure of Jesus, and the dates are a bit fuzzy... But it does seem like an incredible coincidence that the Talmud brings us such a story.

[mord]

Im happy i had no Rabbis like that guy who yelled at Jesus mine where all kind and always explained to me when i did wrong

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

[If anything resembling the man known as Jesus existed at all]

[as recorded in the christian gospel]
Jesus broke the Shabbat, and encouraged others to do so, no? 
Did he not make a "paste" in violation of Shabbat?

[muman613]

[If anything resembling the man known as Jesus existed at all]

[as recorded in the christian gospel]
Jesus broke the Shabbat, and encouraged others to do so, no? 
Did he not make a "paste" in violation of Shabbat?

I have heard, that according to their own gospel he violated many mitzvahs, in front of other Jews. Rabbi Singer once explained how he did not say Netilat Yedayim {The blessing on hand washing} before eating and his students inquired about it, he had some excuse which didn't even make sense.



WARNING: ANTI-MISSIONARY MATERIAL BELOW - FOR JEWISH EYES ONLY






Read this article for some inside depth to the figure of Yeshu: Here

Yeshu HaNotzri
The Man In His Own Words
By Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok

What is a Messiah supposed to be like? What should his characteristics be? How are we to recognize a Messiah? Shouldn’t he show the greatest of love, caring, and forgiveness to fallen souls? Is the Messiah to be a racist? An anti Semite? A blasphemer? Can the Messiah possibly be a man of violence and a terrorist?

According to the Jewish Bible and summarized in all later Jewish holy literature, the character of the Messiah is impeccable. He is to be a man who fulfills the commandments of Torah completely. He is to restore Torah observance to Israel.

Let us begin by reviewing Yeshu’s own words as to how he interacted with the Divinely ordained Rabbinic authorities of his day. In Matt. 23:2-3, Yeshu is quoted as saying, “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; therefore all that they tell you do and observe.”

Here we see that Yeshu acknowledges the authority of the Sages. Remember Deut.17:9-12 states: “You shall do according to the word that they will tell you...and you shall be careful to do according to everything they will teach you. According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgment that they will say to you, shall you do, you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left. And the man that will act with willfulness, not listening...to the judge, that man shall die, and you shall destroy the evil from among Israel.”

Yeshu, himself acknowledges that the Biblical authority rests in the hands of the Rabbinic Sages, who in his day were known as the Pharisees. Now the question must be asked: did he himself listen to his own words. In other words, after acknowledging the authority of the Rabbis, did Yeshu himself listen to and follow their edicts. Remember what Deut. 17 say should happen to the one who does not follow the words of the Rabbinic judges. Let us turn now to the words and actions of Yeshu to see if he fulfilled the words of Torah that he himself acknowledged.

Yeshu and the Sabbath

In Matt. 12:1-7, we have recorded an episode relating to Yeshu’s observance of the holy Sabbath. Now G-d has commanded in His Torah (Ex. 31:15), “whoever does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.” We remember the episode of the man who went out and picked up sticks on the Sabbath and that he was put to death (ref. Num. 15:32-36). What then is Yeshu’s relationship with regards to the Sabbath, to the Word of G-d and the authority of the Divinely ordained Rabbinic judges. Let us review Matt. 12:1-7.

“At that time Yeshu went on the Sabbath through the grain fields and his disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and ate. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Behold, your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.” But he said to them, “have you not read what David did . . . how he entered the house of G-d, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat . . . or have you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, I desire compassion and not sacrifice you would not have condemned the innocent.”

This section is so replete with errors that it broadly broadcasts Yeshu’s lack of Torah education and knowledge of G-d’s laws. To begin with, it is surprising to note that Yeshu’s disciples were not learned enough to know that the picking of grain on the Sabbath was a violation of Biblical law, which under certain circumstances would lead to the death penalty. Yeshu should have taught them better, but judging from his response to the Pharisees, it might be understood that Yeshu, himself, did not know the law.

When the Pharisees noticed Yeshu’s disciples violating the Sabbath, they fulfilled their Biblical obligation of admonishment, as it is written, “You shall reprove your fellow and do not bear sin because of him” (Lev. 19:17). Instead of heeding the Rabbinic authorities and correcting their ways, like Yeshu said should be done (Matt. 23:3 “therefore all that they tell you do and observe”) he instead attempts to justify the actions of his disciples and to challenge the authority of the Rabbis.

Yeshu makes reference to the Biblical story of David (1Sam. 21:4-6), saying how when he (David) was hungry the priests gave him and his men to eat of consecrated bread. Therefore, if it is OK for the law to be broken for David, then surely it is OK for the law to be broken for Yeshu’s disciples.

This response of Yeshu makes no sense in light of Jewish law. You see, the priests did not violate the law in giving the bread to David and his men. Anyone with knowledge of Hebrew can research this law and see for yourselves that what the priests did was entirely allowable. Therefore, when Yeshu declared, “they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat”, he was dead wrong in his analogy.

Yeshu then attempts another analogy to justify their sinful behavior. He references the priests in the temple who “break the Sabbath, and are innocent.” One with the least knowledge of Torah law knows that temple sacrifice was commanded by G-d to be performed on the Sabbath (Num. 28:9-10).

It is not a violation of the Sabbath, it is the fulfillment of Sabbath law. Both of the rationalizations that Yeshu uses to justify his violation of the Torah law, instead of justifying his position, further condemns his actions. However, the worst is yet to come.

Yeshu quotes the prophet Hoshea 6:6, “I desire compassion and not sacrifice.” Is this supposed to imply that G-d simply wants the Jewish people to be compassionate and that the observance of Jewish law is a sacrifice and thus not important?

Is it not written “My Sabbaths you must observe for it is a sign between Me and you for your generations” (Ex. 31:13) and “Between Me and the children of Israel it is a sign forever” (Ex. 31:16). Does something that is “forever” and “for your generations” come to an end? Did G-d, Himself not say, “whoever does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.” (Ex. 31:15)?

Instead of accepting the admonishment of the Rabbinic Sages, which we have no reason to doubt was offered in good faith, Yeshu contradicts himself, and denies the authority and admonition of the Rabbis. By his own actions and words, Yeshu not only violated the Sabbath, but he also refused to accept the authority of the Rabbinic judge, which he, himself says must be listened to.

Yeshu violated the Sabbath and so did his disciples. Yeshu displayed an appalling lack of knowledge of the Torah and acted with contempt towards the Rabbis whose job it was to admonish him, a job which Yeshu, himself, acknowledges. And so, I ask you, are these the deeds of a messiah?

There are yet other episodes to be covered that conclusively show Yeshu violating G-d’s command outlined in Deut. 17:11, “you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left.”

In one episode, recorded in Mark 7:1-8, we not only have another clear record of Yeshu violating G-d’s word as spoken in Deut. 17:11, we also are given a glimpse into a much uglier side of Yeshu’s personality.

“And the Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of his disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves, and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots. And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” And he said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me, but in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” (Is. 29:13). “Neglecting the commandment of G-d, you hold to the tradition of men.”

This scene opens with an innocent visit by the Pharisees to the students of Yeshu. Nowhere is there implied any form of maliciousness on behalf of the Pharisee visitors. When, however, the Pharisees again see Yeshu’s disciples violating a principle of the Rabbis, these Pharisees ask, “isn’t it written, “According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgment that they will say to you, shall you do, you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left.” (Deut 17).

In light of this, the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” (Mark 7)

Here Yeshu is given another excellent opportunity to appropriately respond to the Rabbis by accepting admonishment and by correcting his ways and the ways of his disciples. Yet, instead of doing what Torah law demands, Yeshu, again, goes on the offensive against G-d’s holy servants.

Yeshu strikes out against the innocent Rabbis calling them hypocrites. But why? What hypocrisy did the Pharisees manifest? The story portrayed here in the Gospel of Mark does not reveal any trace of hypocrisy on behalf of the Rabbis. Yeshu was asked a simple question. He responded with an attack.

Yeshu continues to quote a verse from the prophet Isaiah to validate his position condemning the Rabbis. Yet, when the verse in Isaiah is looked at within its proper context, it can be clearly seen that the verse has nothing to do with what Yeshu is talking about. In fact, Yeshu does not even quote the verse correctly.

In the version of this episode in Matt. 15:1-9, Yeshu’s response to the question of hand washing is answered by changing the subject. Here, Yeshu brings up the topics of vows to G-d. He condemns the law which states that devotion to G-d comes before devotion to one’s parents. This is a queer thing for Yeshu to say when he himself has previous said “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matt. 10:37).

It is true, that which is devoted to G-d becomes the property of the temple. But Yeshu here insinuates that adult children are intentionally dedicating their financial goods to the temple just so as to deprive their elder parents of support. From where did Yeshu derive this idea? This, indeed, would be a cruel thing for anybody to do. Granted, it is a lawful thing to do, but why would anyone give away to the temple something that could and would stay in the family? Yeshu’s argument simply does not make any economic sense. In all of Jewish literature relating to the topic of vows and the temple, we do not find even one instance or reference to anything similar to what Yeshu is referring. And besides, what does all this have to do with the washing of hands? That was the original topic. Instead of dealing with the issue, Yeshu avoided it.

In the version in Mark, Yeshu concludes his attack by saying, “Neglecting the commandment of G-d, you hold to the tradition of men”, yet, which commandments of G-d, the Pharisees are accused of neglecting is not mentioned.

This story reveals nothing about hypocrisy on behalf of the Pharisaic Rabbis, but this story is very revelatory exposing Yeshu’s quick temper, accusatory nature, lack of proper scriptural knowledge, and worst of all, his blatant disregard for the Biblical authority of the Pharisee Rabbis.

Again, I ask you: are these the deeds of a messiah?

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

Muman, thank you for posting that.  Very informative.  I have read a few things similar to this, but this gets right down to brass tacks.