The Talmud Examined: The Truth of its Contents Part 1
By Judicial Notifier
In this series of posting, I will be diving into contents of the Talmud and if the Talmud actually rises to the level of contention that is impressed upon the minds of those that -happen- to stumble upon one of those sites that claims to have direct Talmud quotes that would presumably strike a nerve, and probably thunder-strike anyone who has never heard of the specifics before. Some of the claimed quotes or general sentiments from the Talmud from “antisemitic” sites are jarring to say the least for the uninitiated. Are the claims of the contents of the Talmud, that some might be familiar with, true? Even remotely so? I will attempt to understand more about this, to demonstrate the actual truth of some select infamous Talmud quotations to the best of my ability.
This is by no means a comprehensive list and analysis, and should not be treated as such. I will likely add to this series of religious literature analysis.
The websites I will be using for my research:
https://www.halakhah.com/
TBD
Notice: Within the Talmud, “Jew” and “Israelite” are used interchangeably.
For non-Jews, the terms “Samaritan,” “Cuthean,” “Heathen,” “Goyim,” and “Goy,’ are essentially interchangeable.
The Talmud examined: A Jew does not have to return a lost item to a “Heathen?”
CLAIMED QUOTE-Baba Mezia 24a.:If a Jew finds an object lost by a heathen it does not have to be returned.
Quotation from body of content:
“Come and hear: If one finds therein19 a lost object, then if the majority are Israelites it has to be announced, but if the majority are heathens it has not to be announced.20 Now who is the authority that lays it down that we go according to the majority if not R. Simeon b. Eleazar? You must therefore conclude that R. Simeon b. Eleazar says this only where the majority are heathens, but not where the majority are Israelites! — [No.] This is the view of the Rabbis.”
From the footnotes:
8. [Heathens do not return lost articles (v. infra p. 152, n. 3), and consequently do not come within the provision of the law relating to the announcement of finds. Moreover, according to Tosaf., even if it were certain that the article belonged to an Israelite, there would be no need to return it because the owner, presuming that a heathen found it, would despair of recovering it. v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 666.]
22. In which case it was not lost at all, and if the majority were Israelites the finder would have to announce it.
Summary: Lost items do not have to be returned to non-Israelites/Jews, and it is presumed that if a Heathen(non-Jew) found a lost item of a Jew, they would not return it. Heathens do not qualify within the bounds of ‘the law,’ and therefore the ‘the law’ does not apply to them. There is one system of ethics that subjectively applies to Jews, and another that applies to Heathens.
The Talmud Examined: No death penalty is warranted when a Jew murders a heathen? PART 1
CLAIMED QUOTE-Sanhedrin 57a.: When a Jew murders heathen, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from heathen he may keep.
Quotation from body of content:
“R. Joseph said, The scholars23 stated: A heathen is executed for the violation of three precepts — Mnemonic G Sh R—24 viz., adultery, bloodshed, and blasphemy. R. Shesheth objected: Now bloodshed is rightly included, since it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;25 but whence do we know the others? If they are derived from bloodshed,26 the other four should also be included; whilst if their inclusion is taught by the extending phrase any man,27 should not idolatry too be included?28 But R. Shesheth said thus: The scholars stated, A heathen is executed for the violation of four precepts [including idolatry]. But is a heathen executed for idolatry? Surely it has been taught: With respect to idolatry, such acts for which a Jewish court decrees sentences of death [on Jewish delinquents] are forbidden to the heathen. This implies that they are merely forbidden, but their violation is not punished by death!—- R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: Their prohibition is their death sentence.29
Relevant footnote:
29. I.e., in speaking of heathens, when the Tanna teaches that they are forbidden to do something, he ipso facto teaches that it is punishable by death; for only in speaking of )ews is it necessary to distinguish between prohibition and punishment.
Summary: By default, when a ‘heathen’ violates fundamental precepts( such as idolatry, blasphemy, adultery, and bloodshed) they are “ipso facto” worthy of the death penalty under Jewish law. Heathens are strictly prohibited from violating Jewish law, and though violating these precepts is ‘forbidden’ for Jews, they are not necessarily worthy of the death penalty under Jewish law. Presumably, what constitutes a violation of precepts such as idolatry, blasphemy, adultery and bloodshed is a necessity conditioned by Jewish law itself.
The Talmud examined: Should all “gentiles,” even the best, be killed?
CLAIMED QUOTE-Soferim 15:10. Even the best of the gentiles deserve to be killed. The best of snakes ought to have their head crushed.
This post will examine the validity of this claimed quote. Preface: according to Wikipedia, Tractate (Masakhet) Soferim, or “Tractate of the Scribes,” is a “non-canonical” Talmudic tractate. So, the authoritative power of its content is possibly in question. But, in the source I will use, “Many medieval legal authorities considered the tractate(Soferim) to be a reliable source of law.”
From the website www.sefaria.org, where they utilize “The William Davidson Talmud” translation, this is what reads in Soferim 15:
“R. Simeon b. Yoḥai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war;50 crush the brain of the best of serpents. The most worthy of women indulges in witchcraft. Happy is he who does the will of the Omnipresent.51 [41b]”
When the footnote embedded in the number “50” is viewed, it reads as follows:
[For the various forms of this saying, cf. Bacher, Ag. d. Tannaiten II, p. 86, n. 3. The qualifying phrase ‘in the time of war’ he regards as a later addition to soften the harshness of the utterance. It was called forth in a time of bitter oppression and is not to be taken as typical of Jewish ethics. On the subject, cf. J. S. Bloch, Israel and the Nations, pp. 204ff.]
There is more to examine and unpack in just the quotation and footnote, but also with the surrounding context. All in all, everything considered appears to confirm that the original sentiment from Simeon b. Yohai was that “even the best of the gentiles should be killed.” This is tacitly admitted in the footnote.
The Talmud Examined: Lies are permissible when subverting gentiles?
CLAIMED QUOTE: Bava Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies to circumvent a goyim.
There was a lot of legalism and tedious reading required for this to get the full context needed to properly assess the validity of the claim. The next couple sections will be summaries of what I read and took away from the passages.
CLAIMED QUOTE: Bava Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies to circumvent a goyim.
There is precedent here and it is not unfounded that deceiving a gentile, with an intent to subvert their want, is wholly permissible in essentially all circumstances when dealing with a gentile UNLESS they are abiding by the Noahide laws WITHIN the Jewish state already.
There was certainly interactions involving disagreement among rabbis within the passages in regards to Halakah(Jewish Law) of the Mishnah(the part of the Talmud that is prior to the Gemara)
)ews are to assume tax collectors and customs collectors have stolen goods or funds in their own trunk or purse, and you only exchange items or money with them in certain circumstances, such as paying off a debt and receiving your change.
)ews are to obey the laws of where they live, at least generally speaking, yet there are exceptions.
Don’t wear garments of diverse kinds to avoid paying customs(Rabbi Akiva)
It is PERMITTED to avoid customs in this manner(Rabbi Shimon)
Is not the law of the kingdom the law?(Rabbi Shmuel)
So, now there’s a condition where one may surpass the law of “not wearing garments of diverse kinds” when attempting to, or even accidentally, avoid paying customs. Or at least it’s very much up for debate.
The dispute is in regards to tax collectors that have no limit on collection or are not state sanctioned(Rabbi Kahana)
The implication appears to be here that in these situations, an unjust act is being taken by the tax collector, so the )ew may in response subvert their intentions to avoid paying.
Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai: you may vow(lie essentially) before any kind of person to avoid a customs collector taking your good(s).
So, the debate continues on whether or not it is okay to lie to and subvert a customs or tax collector in some circumstances. Or does Jewish law prohibit such courses of action?
Section 2
Mishna issues ruling in regards to collector with no limitations(Rabbi Kahana, citing Shmuel)
Mishna issues ruling in regards to collector who stands on his own, not state sanctioned(Sages of school of Yannai)
So it’s probably okay to deceive a customs collector WHEN they have no limitation in regards to collection amount, or they’re not working for the state. BUT ACCORDING TO RABBI ASHI:
“Rav Ashi said: The Mishna issues its ruling with regard to a gentile customs collector, whom one may deceive, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.”
So Rav Ashi, who was a Babylonian Jewish Rabbi(Wikipedia), interprets the Jewish law in Mishnah in these contexts to imply that Jews may deceive tax and customs collectors when they are Gentiles(non-Jews).
“The Gemara infers from this baraita: And even according to Rabbi Akiva, the reason that the court does not employ trickery in order to vindicate the Jew is only because there is the consideration of the sanctification of God’s name. Consequently, if there is no consideration of the sanctification of God’s name, the court does approach the case circuitously. Apparently, it is permitted to deceive a gentile.”
- Apparently it is permitted to deceive a Gentile
NOW FROM BAVA KAMMA: 113b
From the same source:
“The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef said: It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav].”
- prohibition from robbing a gentile only applies to one that observes the Noahide laws and resides in the bounds of the Jewish state of “Israel.”(Rav Yosef)
This effectively would include all Gentiles until Jews have implemented Noahidism over them, and they live in Israel presumably.
Sources/Citations
Sources:
Home of the Complete English Talmud
https://www.halakhah.com/
Sefaria - a home to 3,000 years of Jewish texts.
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a - Baba Mezi'a 24a
https://www.halakhah.com/babamezia/babamezia_24.html
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin - Folio 57a
https://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html#57a_29
Tractate Soferim 15 - The William Davidson Talmud
https://www.sefaria.org/Tractate_Soferim.15.10?lang=bi&with=About
Bava Kamma 113a - The William Davidson Talmud
https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.113a.20?lang=bi
Citations:
Halakhah.com Babylonian Talmud Online in English. (n.d.). Www.halakhah.com. Retrieved April 8, 2023, from https://www.halakhah.com/
Sefaria: a Living Library of Jewish Texts Online. (n.d.). Www.sefaria.org. http://www.sefaria.org
Babylonian Talmud: Baba Mezi’a 24. (n.d.). Www.halakhah.com. Retrieved April 8, 2023, from https://www.halakhah.com/babamezia/babamezia_24.html
Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 57. (n.d.). Www.halakhah.com. Retrieved April 8, 2023, from https://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html#57a_29
Tractate Soferim 15:10. (n.d.). Www.sefaria.org. Retrieved April 8, 2023, from https://www.sefaria.org/Tractate_Soferim.15.10?lang=bi&with=About
Bava Kamma 113a:20. (n.d.). Www.sefaria.org. Retrieved April 8, 2023, from https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.113a.20?lang=bi