by Ram ben Ze'ev
In Jewish tradition, the Talmud serves as a foundational text, building on the Torah and the teachings of the sages. Within its pages, there are brief but notable mentions of Yeshu haNotzri (Jesus of Nazareth), which have sometimes been misconstrued as implying agreement with, or even acknowledgment of, his teachings. However, a careful examination of these references reveals quite the opposite. The Talmud’s mentions of Yeshu haNotzri are polemical in nature, i.e., strongly critical or argumentative, and aiming to draw a clear line between Jewish beliefs and those of the nascent sect.
The Talmud consists of two main parts: the Mishnah (משנה), compiled around 200 CE, and the Gemara (גמרא), completed between 400 and 600 CE. These texts encapsulate the Oral Torah’s interpretations and discussions by the sages over several centuries. The few references to Yeshu haNotzri occur primarily in the Gemara, within discussions of legal and ethical principles. It is essential to understand that the Talmud was written during a period when the emerging religious sect was growing, and the rabbinic tradition was clarifying and reinforcing Jewish theological positions in opposition to the teachings of the nascent sect.
The Key Mentions of Yeshu HaNotzri
Sanhedrin 43a (סנהדרין מג א) describes the execution of Yeshu haNotzri and mentions that he was “hanged” on the eve of Pesach (פסח). The text emphasizes that he led the people of Israel astray with sorcery. This passage underscores that the rabbis of the Talmud did not view Yeshu as a messianic figure but rather as a transgressor of Jewish law, punished accordingly.
Sanhedrin 107b (סנהדרין קז ב) discusses how Yeshu practiced sorcery and led Israel astray. It portrays him as a figure who deviated from the path of the Torah and encouraged others to do the same. This condemnation is not only legal but also theological, reinforcing the rejection of any claims to divinity that the emerging religious sect would later ascribe to him.
Sotah 47a (סוטה מז א) refers to the disciples of Yeshu, stating that they were executed for leading people into error. This passage reiterates that the influence of Yeshu and his followers was viewed as a direct challenge to Jewish law, meriting punishment under the legal codes that governed Israel at the time.
Shabbat 104b (שבת קד ב) mentions Yeshu in a context that criticizes his use of magical practices. The Talmud is clear in its condemnation of magic and sorcery, viewing it as antithetical to the will of G-D. By associating Yeshu with these practices, the Talmud positions him outside the bounds of legitimate Jewish teaching.
Gittin 57a (גיטין נז א) contains a reference to Yeshu suffering in Gehinnom (גהנם), a realm of punishment. This is a polemical statement underscoring that Yeshu’s teachings and actions ultimately led to his spiritual downfall.
Throughout these passages, the Talmud makes it abundantly clear that the rabbis did not recognize Yeshu as a divine figure or as the Mashiakh (משיח). Instead, they saw his actions and teachings as a threat to the Jewish community and its adherence to the Torah. The concept of the Mashiakh in Judaism is fundamentally different from the emerging religious sect's interpretation of Jesus. In Jewish thought, the Mashiakh is a human being, anointed by G-D, who will lead the Jewish people to an era of peace and divine fulfillment, as described in Yeshayahu (ישעיהו) and Yehezkel (יחזקאל). The notion of divinity or incarnation in human form, as seen in the nascent sect theology, is antithetical to Jewish monotheism, as expressed in the Shema (שמע), the declaration of G-D’s oneness (Devarim דברים 6:4).
The inclusion of these references in the Talmud does not indicate acquiescence to the teachings of Yeshu haNotzri. Instead, these brief mentions serve as warnings against deviations from Torah observance. The context is crucial: the Talmud is a legal and ethical compendium meant to guide Jews in living according to G-D’s law, as revealed in the Torah. The mention of figures like Yeshu is not an endorsement but a critique, underscoring the boundaries of Jewish belief and practice.
Moreover, the Talmud emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of Jewish monotheism. The discussions surrounding Yeshu and his disciples highlight the rejection of any claims to divinity and the centrality of the Torah as G-D’s eternal covenant with the Jewish people. By recording these passages, the rabbis sought to protect their communities from the growing influence of the early nascent sect, which they viewed as a deviation from the truth of the Torah.
It is important to note that many of these passages were censored or removed from later editions of the Talmud during the Middle Ages due to pressure from the nascent sect authorities. This historical fact underscores the sensitivity and tension surrounding these references. The surviving references, however, make it clear that the Talmud’s position is one of opposition, not agreement.
The Talmudic references to Yeshu haNotzri are polemical, aimed at reinforcing Jewish theological boundaries in opposition to early teachings of the nascent sect. These mentions are not expressions of agreement or acknowledgment of Yeshu’s claims, but rather serve to clarify the Jewish rejection of his divinity and messianic status. By examining these texts in their proper context, we see that the Talmud maintains its unwavering commitment to the Torah and the teachings of the Jewish tradition, distancing itself from any association with the beliefs that emerged within the early emerging religious sect.
The Jewish understanding of G-D, the Mashiakh, and the Torah remains distinct and separate from the claims made by Yeshu haNotzri and his followers, as reflected in the passages within the Talmud.
###
Bill White (Ram ben Ze'ev) is CEO of WireNews Limited, Mayside Partners Limited, MEADHANAN Agency, Kestrel Assets Limited, SpudsToGo Limited and Executive Director of Hebrew Synagogue