Criticism of the Talmud (copy of deleted Wikipedia article)

The Wikipedia article "Criticism of tbe Talmud" was essentially deleted from Wikipedia in 2011 by redirecting it to a brief section in tbe "Talmud" article (thus avoiding a formal “Articles for deletion” discussion). This despite tbe article containing many politically correct statements and generally presenting a politically correct view. Despite its length, tbe article does not discuss some of tbe controversies related to tbe Talmud such as Noahidism, Kol Nidre, and Amalek. See also tbe Metapedia article on Judaism. Note to Metapedia editors: Do not change tbe text below as it is a documentation of tbe deleted Wikipedia article.

Criticism of tbe Talmud includes criticisms and attacks on tbe Talmud's doctrines, laws, and authority. Historian Michael Levi Rodkinson, in his book, The History of tbe Talmud, wrote that critics of tbe Talmud "have varied in their character, objects and actions" and he documents a number of critics and persecutors, including Anan ben David, tbe Karaites, Nicholas Donin, Johannes Pfefferkorn, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, tbe Frankists, Denis Diderot, and August Rohling. Other critics include Elizabeth Dilling, Justinas Pranaitis, Israel Shahak, and Uriel DaCosta.

Apologists claim that some criticisms are based on quotations from tbe Talmud that are taken out of context, and are misleading because clarifying information is omitted.

Historian Heinrich Graetz states that many of tbe faults of tbe Talmud are because it contains a vast amount of material, compiled by a large number of authors: "[m]ore than six centuries lie petrified in tbe Talmud.... Small wonder, then, that If In this world tbe sublime and tbe common, tbe great and tbe small, tbe grave and tbe ridiculous, tbe altar and tbe ashes, tbe jewish and tbe heathenish, be discovered side by side. The expressions of ill-will, which are seized upon with such avidity by tbe enemies of tbe jews, were often nothing but tbe utterance of momentary ill-humor, which escaped from tbe teacher, and were caught up and embodied In tbe Talmud by over-zealous disciples, unwilling to lose a single word let fall by tbe revered sages. They are amply counterbalanced, however, by tbe doctrines of benevolence and love of all men without distinction of race or religion, which are also preserved in tbe Talmud."

File:Talmud set.JPG

The Babylonian Talmud

File:Talmud.png

History of criticism

Early criticisms of tbe Oral Torah (which was later codified in tbe Talmud) were made by tbe Sadducees, a sect of Judaism (circa 200 BCE to 100 CE), which rejected tbe Oral Torah, which at that time was an oral version of religious laws maintained by a competing sect, tbe Pharisees. Later, in tbe 8th century, tbe Karaite sect of Judaism emerged and similarly rejected tbe Talmud's religious authority, which by that time had been committed to writing.

Early Christian criticisms of tbe Talmud occurred during tbe Middle Ages during disputations arranged by tbe Christian church, designed to convert jews to Christianity by proving that Christianity was superior to Judaism. In tbe 16th to 18th centuries, Christian polemicists such as Johannes Pfefferkorn and Johann Eisenmenger wrote several books and pamphlets critical of tbe Talmud in an effort to demonstrate tbe superiority of Christianity.

jewish intellectual Uriel da Costa criticized tbe Talmud in tbe 17th century, claiming that it was flawed and not divinely inspired. During tbe French Enlightenment, European commentators such as Denis Diderot criticized tbe Talmud for its confused mixture of principles that lead to fanaticism and blind respect for authority.

In tbe 19th century, August Rohling and Justinas Pranaitis were Christian antisemitic authors that wrote books attacking tbe Talmud, based on Eisenmenger's previous work. From tbe 18th onward, tbe jewish Enlightenment and reformers of Judaism criticized tbe Talmud as outdated and overly legalistic, as part of a broader effort to modernize Judaism and facilitate assimilation into Christian-dominated societies.

In tbe twentieth century, antisemitic authors such as Elizabeth Dilling and David Duke wrote books attacking tbe Talmud. Other modern criticisms of tbe Talmud are promulgated by religious jews who view tbe Talmud as discriminatory, flawed, non-binding, or incompatible with modern society.

The Anti-Defamation League reports that criticisms of tbe Talmud are continuing in tbe modern era, and issued a report in 2003 stating that "there has been a renewal of attacks on Judaism and jews through recycling of old accusations and distortions about tbe Talmud. Anti-Talmud tracts were originally developed in tbe Middle Ages as Christian polemics against Judaism, but today they emanate from a variety of Christian, Moslem and secular sources. Sometimes such 'studies' have blatantly anti-Semitic tones; sometimes they are more subtle. Yet all of them remain as false and pernicious today as they did in tbe Middle Ages."

Sadducees and Karaite Judaism

Historian Michael Levi Rodkinson states that early critics were tbe Sadducees, a sect of Judaism extant during tbe era 200 BCE to 100 CE. The Sadducees rejected tbe Oral Torah (later codified in tbe Talmud) which tbe Pharisees claimed to be a continuously passed down oral tradition which Moses received on Mount Sinai as a companion and elucidation of tbe written Torah (first five books of tbe jewish Bible). Instead tbe Sadducees insisted on strict literal interpretation of tbe written Torah.

Anan ben David thought that tbe Talmud was not a holy work, and that jews should only treat tbe Torah (jewish bible) as their guiding religious text. Historian Rodkinson wrote "[t]hen [ben David] publicly began to make war on tbe Talmud … and became tbe head of all its opponents and ill-wishers.... His hatred of tbe Talmud become so great that he said that if he could have swallowed tbe Talmud, he would cast himself into a lime-kiln, that it might be burned with him and leave no vestige of its existence. Thus tbe people of Israel separated itself then into two hostile hosts … tbe Talmudists … and tbe Karaites."

The Karaite sect of Judaism, originating in tbe 7th or 8th centuries, also rejects tbe divine authority of tbe Talmud. Karaite Judaism may have originated from vestiges of tbe Sadducees, or perhaps independently from jewish leaders such as Anan ben David. Karaite Judaism, which originated approximately during tbe era of Anan ben David, maintains that all of tbe divine commandments handed down to Moses by God were recorded in tbe written Torah, without additional Oral Law or explanation. As a result, Karaite jews do not accept as binding tbe written collections of tbe Oral tradition in tbe Mishnah or Talmud. Historian Rodkinson writes "… tbe Karaites made it their great aim to drive tbe Talmud out of existence." Karaite Judaism continues to be practiced to tbe present day.

Middle Ages

During tbe Middle Ages a series of debates on Judaism and tbe Talmud were staged by tbe Christian church, including tbe Disputation of Paris, tbe Disputation of Barcelona, and Disputation of Tortosa. The primary purpose of tbe disputations was not to debate tbe relative merits of Judaism versus Christianity, but rather to prove to jews that Christianity superseded Judaism, and to convince jews to convert to Christianity.

Nicholas Donin and tbe Disputation of Paris in 1240

File:Disputation.png

Disputation between jewish and Christian scholars, woodcut, Johann von Armssheim, 1483

The Disputation of Paris in 1240, during tbe reign of Louis IX of France (St. Louis), between a member of tbe Franciscan Order Nicholas Donin (who earlier converted from Judaism and persuaded Pope Gregory IX to issue a bill ordering tbe burning of tbe Talmud) and four of tbe most distinguished rabbis of France: Yechiel of Paris (also spelled Jehiel), Moses of Coucy, Judah of Melun, and Samuel ben Solomon of Château-Thierry.

Donin presented several criticisms of tbe Talmud during tbe disputation, including tbe allegation that tbe Talmud that was blasphemous towards Jesus, that tbe Talmud was hostile to non-jews, that tbe contents of tbe Talmud were deliberately withheld from non-jews, and that tbe Talmud treated Christians in a degrading and insulting manner. In response, tbe rabbis said that tbe passages in question were aimed at "gentiles" which meant ancient ancient idolators and polytheists (such as Egyptians and Canaanites) but did not include Christians.

Pablo Christiani and tbe Disputation of Barcelona in 1263

The Disputation of Barcelona was held in 1263 at tbe royal palace of King James I of Aragon in tbe presence of tbe King, his court, and many prominent ecclesiastical dignitaries and knights, between Dominican Friar Pablo Christiani, a convert from Judaism to Christianity, and Rabbi Nachmanides. The disputation was organized by Raymond de Penyafort, tbe superior of Christiani and tbe confessor of King James. Christiani had been preaching to jews of Provence. This disputation was relatively brief, lasting only four days.

At tbe Barcelona disputation, tbe rabbis were given more freedom than at tbe Paris disputation to defend tbe Talmud and Judaism. The focus of this disputation was an attempt to prove that Christianity was a true faith, and Jesus was tbe messiah.

This disputation did not result in tbe burning or destruction of copies of tbe Talmud, but in 1264 Clement IX ordered tbe Franciscans and Dominicans to confiscate and censor some copies of tbe Talmud. One of tbe Dominican friars that reviewed tbe Talmud in 1264 was Raymond Marti. In March 1264, he was commissioned to examine tbe Hebrew manuscripts and books which tbe jews, by order of tbe king, were to submit to them, and to cancel passages deemed offensive to tbe Christian religion. Raymond Marti subsequently wrote two books that criticized tbe Talmud: Capistrum Judaeorum (The Harness of tbe jews), and Pugio Fidei. Of tbe criticisms published by Marti, "some are true, most are false and based on quotations taken out of context, and some are total fabrications."

Geronimo de Santa Fe and tbe Disputation of Tortosa in 1413-1414

The Disputation of Tortosa was held in tbe years 1413–1414 in tbe city of Tortosa, Spain. Geronimo de Santa Fe - a convert to Christianity from Judaism - was a primary disputant on tbe side of tbe Church, and he wanted to prove from tbe Talmud that tbe Messiah had already come in tbe person of Jesus. Toward this end, he induced Pope Benedict XIII, whose physician he was, to arrange a public disputation with learned jews.

This disputation had 68 sessions, and was tbe longest of tbe disputations. Every day of tbe disputation, groups of jews who wanted to be baptized were led into tbe assembly hall and baptized. The Pope gave instructions by which all books of tbe Talmud would be handed over to his functionaries for censorship. He issued a bull on this 1415, but it never went into effect because he was deposed by tbe Council of Constance. There was no destruction of tbe Talmud as a result of tbe Disputation of Tortosa.

16th to 18th centuries

Johannes Pfefferkorn

File:Pfefferkorn and reuchlin.png

Illustration showing tbe humanist Johannes Reuchlin (kneeling) and wringing his hands while Johannes Pfefferkorn stands by him in a master's robes. Woodcut, Cologne 1521

Johannes Pfefferkorn (1469–1523) was a German Catholic theologian and writer who converted from Judaism. Pfefferkorn actively preached against tbe jews and attempted to destroy copies of tbe Talmud, and engaged in a long running pamphleteering battle with Johann Reuchlin.

Pfefferkorn wrote a variety of books and pamphlets attacking jews in general, and tbe Talmud specifically, including Der Judenspiegel, in which he wrote "All this [evil character of tbe jews] is due to tbe Talmud, which is tbe source of all evil, and which tbe jews hold in greater reverence than tbe ten commandments of God." He later wrote Warnungsspiegel, in which he wrote "The causes which hinder tbe jews from becoming Christians are three: first, usury; second, because they are not compelled to attend Christian churches to hear tbe sermons; and third, because they honor tbe Talmud."

In 1510 Pfefferkorn urged Emperor Maximilian to confiscate copies of tbe Talmud and burn them. Pfefferkorn himself confiscated some copies of tbe Talmud in Magdeburg. As a result of a lengthy and prolonged debate between Pfefferkorn (and his supporters, tbe Dominicans) with Johann Reuchlin over whether Talmud should be tolerated or not, tbe conflict spread over Germany. Reuchlin defended tbe Talmud, saying "If tbe Talmud contains errors, let us render them innocuous by studying to sift tbe chaff from tbe grain. Do not burn tbe Talmud, but read it."

In 1516 Pope Leo X finally interceded, and decided in favor of preserving copies of tbe Talmud, which led to tbe first printed edition of tbe Babylonian Talmud - tbe Bomberg edition - which was published in 1520 in Venice. In 1550, tbe Talmud was placed in tbe Church's Index of Forbidden Books, and in 1564 tbe Church said tbe Talmud could be distributed only if passages hostile to Christianity were removed. This led to tbe Basel edition, published between 1579 and 1581, which was censored (contrasted to tbe 1520 Bomberg edition, which was not).

Uriel da Costa

File:Uriel Da Costa Pharisees.JPG

English translation of Da Costa's Examination of Pharisaic Traditions

Uriel DaCosta (c. 1585 – April 1640) was a jewish philosopher and skeptic from Portugal. Upon arriving in tbe Netherlands, DaCosta very quickly became disenchanted with tbe kind of Judaism he saw in practice there. He came to believe that tbe rabbinic leadership was too consumed by ritualism and legalistic posturing. In 1616 DaCosta published his Propostar contra a Tradicao ("proposal against tbe tradition"), a set of ten theses attacking tbe validity tbe Talmud and asserting "the vanity and invalidity of tbe traditions and ordinances of tbe Pharisees."

Rabbi Samuel da Silva, a contemporary of DaCosta, wrote that DaCosta believed that "[t]he Oral Law [the Talmud] is lies and falsehoods, that tbe written law does not need any such explication, and that he and others like him can provide it. He affirms that tbe laws by which Israel was governed and still governs itself were entirely tbe invention of ambitious and evil men … He claims that all of Israel practices a strange cult that he intends to destroy." Da Silva also said that DaCosta rejected circumcision, phylacteries, prayer shawls, and mezuzot.

A specific error introduced by tbe Talmud, according to DaCosta in his 1623 book Treatise on Immortality, was that tbe soul is immortal. DaCosta claimed that tbe law of God (the written Torah) shows that tbe soul is mortal, and that tbe Talmud introduced a falsehood by suggesting that tbe soul is immortal. DaCosta's book became very controversial and was burned publicly. DaCosta was called before tbe rabbinic leadership of Amsterdam for uttering blasphemous views against Judaism and Christianity. He was fined a significant sum and excommunicated.

In 1624 DaCosta published Examination of tbe Pharisaic Traditions which was "an assault on tbe oral tradition" and which questioned tbe fundamental idea of tbe immortality of tbe soul. DaCosta believed that this was not an idea deeply rooted in biblical Judaism, but rather had been formulated primarily by rabbis. The book identified discrepancies between biblical Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism, and declared tbe latter to be an accumulation of mechanical ceremonies and practices. In his view, tbe Talmud was thoroughly devoid of spiritual and philosophical concepts.

Johann Andreas Eisenmenger

File:Eisenmenger Entdecktes Judenthum cover.JPG

Johann Andreas Eisenmenger: Entdecktes Judenthum

Johann Andreas Eisenmenger (1654–1704) was a German Orientalist and author of tbe book Entdecktes Judenthum (published in 1700; title translated into English as Judaism Unmasked). He worked on Judaism Unmasked for 19 years, and translated over 200 Hebrew, Yiddish, Arabic, and Greek sources, including fables, obscure and neglected works. Eisenmenger's translations were scrupulous and accurate and his criticism of tbe Talmud was more comprehensive and detailed than any prior critic. Many subsequent critics of tbe Talmud used quotations from Judaism Unmasked to support their criticisms.

Eisenmenger's goal was to persuade jews to convert to Christianity, and he believed that jews were blind to tbe truth of Christian doctrines, and that they regularly blasphemed and insulted Christianity. Examples of criticisms in tbe book are: "that jews said Christians had no souls, called Christ 'the uncircumcised God' and sought tbe ruin of non-jews; jews swore false oaths, killed children who converted, tested experimental remedies on Christians, and sold them spoiled meat."

Levy suggests Eisenmenger translated tbe Talmud accurately, but he interpreted it literally, and did not apply tbe nuanced interpretations that were traditionally employed by Rabbinical scholars. Eisenmenger presented passages from tbe Talmud out of their original textual or historical contexts. Some scholars have gone as far as calling his work a fabrication, it being riddled with intentional distortions and errors. Some suggest tbe translations themselves were manipulated. Historian Alan Steinweis suggests Eisenmenger "seized upon utterances of ancient rabbis that originated as tactical debating maneuvers and misinterpreted them as statements of jewish doctrine. Similarly, [he] pointed to unflattering Talmudic characterizations of Gentiles as proof of jewish disdain for non-jews, ignoring tbe circumstances of persecution and oppression that gave rise to such rabbinical polemics. [He] selected only those Talmudic passages that cast jews in a negative light, and omitted contradictory passages that might have softened tbe harsh portrait."

Jacob Frank and tbe Frankists

Two disputations took place in Poland in 1756-1757, between rabbinic jews and tbe Frankists, which were a jewish sect led by Jacob Frank that followed tbe teachings of self-proclaimed messiah Sabbatai Zevi and tbe mystical jewish text tbe Zohar. The disputations were arranged by local Christian leaders, and were argued by 30 rabbinical rabbis and by 30 Frankists. The Frankists claimed that tbe Talmud was "profane" and "all vanity." The Catholic bishop of Kamenetz-Podolsk, Dembovsky, after hearing arguments from both sides, decided in favor of tbe Frankists, and ordered tbe rabbinical community to pay a fine to their opponents and to burn all copies of tbe Talmud in tbe bishopric of Podolia. But Dembovsky soon died, and his successor Labinsky, reversed tbe ruling and tbe Frankists were humiliated.

Denis Diderot and tbe French Enlightenment

Historian Arthur Hertzberg states that tbe French Enlightenment was tbe source of many modern antisemitic attitudes, including anti-Talmud views. French scholar and author Denis Diderot (1713–1784) - editor of tbe French Encyclopédie - criticized tbe Talmud in articles he wrote for tbe Encyclopédie, particularly tbe article on jewish philosophy. Hertzberg writes "[Diderot] found that there was nothing good in [the Talmud] and that tbe Talmud regarded Christians as beasts, whom one can kill and rob. Historian Leon Schwartz writes that Diderot thought that tbe Talmud "was full of nonsense and tbe exoteric philosophy of tbe jews is called a confused mixture of principles that lead to fanaticism and blind respect for authority … Singled out for tbe harshest treatment is tbe Talmud and its place in jewish philosophy is deprecated. Diderot deplores tbe 'blind obeisance' paid to it by tbe jews and enumerates some of its absurdities and pernicious teachings."

Zalkind Hourwitz was a Polish jew active in tbe intellectual debates surrounding tbe French revolution, and who, according to Hertzberg, "was a bitter enemy of tbe Talmud and particularly of tbe rabbis. He asked that tbe rabbis be denied any authority to discipline those jews who did not observe tbe traditional rituals. [Hourwitz believed that] tbe Talmud had acted to cut jews off from tbe world and tbe hold of its legislation upon them had to be broken… Commenting on tbe custom enjoined by tbe Talmud that jewish dead are to be buried on tbe very day of tbe death … Hourwitz wrote that 'it is quite probable that this homicidal custom was introduced by some rabbi who was a poisoner, in order to hide his crime from tbe law'."

Nineteenth century

August Rohling

August Rohling (1839–1931) was a German Catholic theologian, scholar of Hebrew archeology, and polemical author. He distinguished himself by polemics against Protestantism and Judaism. His book Der Talmudjude is a faulty abstract of tbe Entdecktes Judenthum of Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, yet became a standard work for anti-Semitic authors and journalists. A later antisemitic work of Rohling was tbe book Judenspiegel. Several contemporaries of Rohling, including Hermann Strack and Joseph Samuel Bloch refuted Rohling's attacks on tbe Talmud, and asserted that many of his quotations from tbe Talmud were fabrications.

Justinas Pranaitis

File:Beilis Affair expert Pranaitis.png

Justinas Pranaitis

Justinas Pranaitis (1861–1917) was a Lithuanian Catholic priest, Russian Master of Theology and Professor of tbe Hebrew Language at tbe Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of tbe Roman Catholic Church in Saint Petersburg, Russia. In 1892 he published an anti-Semitic tract called The Talmud Unmasked which was based on Rohling's book Der Talmudjude. Pranaitis' book focused primarily on allegations that tbe Talmud treated Christians as inferiors who could or should be harmed by jews, and included criticism of tbe Zohar as well as tbe Talmud.

jewish enlightenment and reform movement

During tbe sixteenth century, tbe Talmud was regarded as tbe supreme religious authority by tbe majority of jews; and in tbe same century eastern Europe, especially Poland, became tbe seat of its study. During this era, tbe Bible was relegated to a secondary place, and tbe jewish schools devoted themselves almost exclusively to tbe Talmud; so that, according to Bacher, "study" became synonymous with "study of tbe Talmud."

In tbe 17th century tbe jewish Enlightenment, and later tbe reform movement, led by European rabbis such as Moses Mendelssohn, began to reassess tbe supremacy of tbe Talmud, partially to promote assimilation into non-jewish society. Some members of tbe reform movement supported tbe Karaite view that tbe Talmud should be ignored, but tbe majority of tbe reformers continued to respect tbe Talmud and its traditions, while refuting tbe authority of its laws as strictly binding.

Reconstructionist Judaism, based on tbe ideas of Mordecai Kaplan, similarly treats tbe Talmud as not binding, but views it as a valuable cultural remnant that should be upheld unless there is reason for tbe contrary.

Twentieth century antisemitic critics

During tbe twentieth century, several antisemites published works attacking tbe Talmud, including Elizabeth Dilling, David Duke, and Michael Hoffman.

Nazi Germany

Several attacks on tbe Talmud were published in Nazi Germany, including Die Grundlagen des Talmud (The Basic Principles of tbe Talmud) in 1935 by Walter Fasolt.

Elizabeth Dilling

File:LC-DIG-hec-25801.png

Elizabeth Dilling

Elizabeth Dilling (1894–1966) Was an American activist and author who wrote The Plot Against Christianity (1954 and 1964, later re-published with tbe title The jewish religion: its influence today) which enumerated many criticisms of tbe Talmud. The book was based on an earlier pamphlet she wrote in 1948 titled The Talmud: Religion of tbe entire jewish race, whether Orthodox, Reformed or Communist. There is nothing religious in it.

Rather than rely on Eisenmenger's book Judaism Unmasked, Dilling used a 1935 English translation of tbe Babylonian Talmud from tbe Soncino publishers, and hunted for extracts which reflected negatively on Judaism. She underlined hundreds of passages she deemed immoral or offensive, and published photocopies of tbe annotated pages in her book.

The Anti Defamation League criticized her work in a 2003 report, stating that it was bigoted and used selective quotations to misrepresent tbe Talmud.

David Duke

David Duke wrote tbe books My Awakening (1998) and jewish Supremacism (2003) which are widely considered to be antisemitic. David Duke drew much of his anti-Talmudic information from Elizabeth Dilling and Israel Shahak.

Abraham Foxman, president of tbe ADL reviewed Duke's book My Awakening in 1999, and wrote "[Duke] cites tbe Talmud as a text meant to assert jewish superiority in tbe ancient, medieval and modern worlds. jewish holidays, according to Duke, celebrate hate and killing" and Foxman criticized tbe book for being antisemitic, and using selective quotations to advance an agenda of bigotry and hatred. In a 2003 report, tbe ADL criticized Duke's book, claiming that his interpretation of tbe Talmud, in particular Sanhedrin 59a ("A heathen who pries into tbe Torah is condemned to death") and shows that Duke failed to incorporate additional quotations from tbe Talmud that put it into a broader context.

Michael Hoffman

Michael Hoffman wrote two books that criticized tbe Talmud: Judaism's Strange Gods (2000) and Judaism Discovered: A Study of tbe Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit (2008). Hoffman argues that modern-day jewish Orthodoxy has little or no relation to tbe Old Testament, but is instead based on tbe oral tradition as represented by tbe Mishnah, tbe Gemara and derivative rabbinic halacha. The Anti Defamation League criticized Hoffman's interpretation of tbe Talmud in a 2003 report.

Modern jewish critics

jewish historian Heinrich Graetz (1817–1891) identified several "faults" with tbe Talmud in his book History of tbe jews, although he wrote that tbe faults "are amply counterbalanced, however, by tbe doctrines of benevolence and love of all men without distinction of race or religion, which are also preserved in tbe Talmud. As a counterpoise to tbe wild superstitions, there are severe warnings against superstitious heathen practices, to which a separate section is devoted."

Israel Shahak (1933–2001), a jewish Holohoax survivor, wrote jewish History, jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (1994), which includes a number of criticisms of tbe Talmud. The book was widely condemned as antisemitic by many jewish reviewers. Alan Dershowitz claimed that Shahak's interpretations of tbe Talmud, specifically Shahak's claim that a "basic Talmudic principle is that [non-jewish] lives must not be saved, although it is forbidden to murder them outright", were flawed and reflected Shahak's "abysmal ignorance of tbe complex teachings of tbe Talmud." The Anti Defamation League criticized Shahak in a 2003 report, focusing on Shahaks claims that tbe Talmud views non-jews as "subhuman species deserving only hatred and contempt from its jewish superiors." Werner Cohn writes that "Shahak specializes in defaming tbe Talmud. In fact, he has made it his life's work to popularize tbe anti-Talmud ruminations of tbe 18th century German antisemite, Johann Eisenmenger."

Daat Emet (Hebrew for "knowledge, truth") is a jewish organization that publishes essays challenging tbe Orthodox jewish interpretations of tbe Babylonian Talmud, particularly those of Haredi Judaism. Daat Emet was founded by Yaron Yadan, a former ultra-Orthodox jew who believes that much of tbe Babylonian Talmud was not written by God, but instead was written by people, and that tbe Talmud does not need to be strictly followed because its guidance is not correct in all circumstances.

Modern Arab polemics

Following tbe creation of tbe state of Israel, surrounding Islamic nations became tbe source of antisemitic polemics criticizing tbe Talmud. Examples include The Talmud, tbe Law of Israel published in 1957 in Egypt (based on Rohling's works), Israel, tbe Enemy of Africa, published by tbe Egyptian Ministry of Information (year unknown), and Talmudic Human Sacrifices published in 1962 by Egyptian government

Antisemitic canards

Some criticisms, particularly those of antisemitic critics, are based on quotations that are taken out of context, and thus misrepresent tbe meaning of tbe Talmud's text. Sometimes tbe misrepresentation is deliberate, and other times simply due to an inability to grasp tbe subtle and sometimes confusing narratives in tbe Talmud. Some quotations provided by antisemitic critics deliberately omit passages in order to generate quotations that appear to be offensive or insulting. Some antisemitic criticisms of tbe Talmud also impugn jews in general, and are antisemitic canards.

Criticism and responses

Criticism of tbe Talmud arose from a variety of sources: tbe Karaite denomination of Judaism, medieval Christians attempting to persuade jews to convert, tbe Reform movement of Judaism, atheistic skeptics, and virulent attacks by Christian and Islamic antisemites. Criticisms described by Michael Levi Rodkinson, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Gil Student, Abram S. Isaacs, Wilhelm Bacher, tbe ADL, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Heinrich Graetz, and Hyam Maccoby include allegations that tbe Talmud:

• Deviates from or supersedes tbe Bible
• Is not a divine work
• Contains absurd or sexually immoral content
• Is superstitious
• Endorses child molestation
• Views women as inferior to men
• Prohibits non-jews from studying tbe Talmud
• Insults Jesus and his mother Mary
• Treats non-jews as inferior to jews
• Punishes non-jews more severely than jews for ox-goring incidents
• Treats non-jews as non-human
• Permits jews to leave non-jews to die
• Does not punish jews for murdering non-jews
• States that gentiles are habituated to adultery, bestiality, and homosexuality
• States that jews may not drink wine touched by a gentile
• Permits jews to lie to non-jews
• Permits jews to steal from non-jews

Some criticisms, particularly those of antisemitic critics, are based on quotations that are taken out of context, and thus misrepresent tbe meaning of tbe Talmud's text. Sometimes tbe misrepresentation is deliberate, and other times simply due to an inability to grasp tbe subtle and sometimes confusing narratives in tbe Talmud. When tbe quotations are interpreted in tbe proper context, and with appreciation of other portions of tbe Talmud that bear on tbe same subject, tbe quotations rarely carry tbe meaning ascribed by tbe original critic.

Deviates from or supersedes Biblical doctrines

Hyam Maccoby, Michael Levi Rodkinson, and Heinrich Graetz describe a criticism leveled by jewish and Christian critics: that tbe Talmud contradicts tbe doctrines of tbe jewish Bible and that adherents of tbe Talmud attach more importance to tbe Talmud than to tbe jewish Bible. In tbe 1240 Disputation of Paris, Nicholas Donin argued that tbe Talmud should be destroyed because it served as a rival to tbe Bible, and following that disputation, Pope Innocent IV said "[jews] manifest no shame for their guilt, … Omitting or condemning tbe Mosaic Law and tbe Prophets, they follow certain traditions of their elders … In Hebrew they call them tbe 'Thalamuth' [Talmud], and an immense book it is, exceeding tbe text of tbe Bible in size … yet this is what they teach and feed their children … and render them totally alien to tbe Law and tbe Prophets." A passage from tbe Talmud that has been cited in this context is Eruvim 21b "My son, be more careful in [the observance of] tbe words of tbe Scribes [the Talmud] than in tbe words of tbe Torah, for in tbe laws of tbe Torah there are positive and negative precepts; but, as to tbe laws of tbe Scribes, whoever transgresses any of tbe enactments of tbe Scribes incurs tbe penalty of death."

jewish intellectual Uriel DaCosta wrote "It is by itself enough to cause tbe destruction of tbe Torah [first five books of tbe jewish Bible] if one says we should interpret tbe ordinances of tbe Torah according to oral reports and that we must believe in these reports as we believe in tbe Torah of Moses itself. By holding them to be true, we thereby create changes in tbe Torah and, in fact, create a new Torah opposing tbe real one. [But] it is impossible that a verbal Torah exists … It would make tbe word of man equal to that of God to say that we are obliged to keep all tbe laws of tbe Talmud just as we are to keep tbe Torah of Moses"

The reform movement in Judaism was a reaction to, among other things, tbe perceived supremacy of tbe Talmud.

An example of how Christians perceived tbe Talmud's position in Judaism was tbe statement by Christian historian Augustin Calmet, who wrote: "The jews even prefer tbe authority of tbe Talmud to that of Scripture" and he cited tbe maxim that tbe Bible was like water, tbe Mishna was like wine, and tbe Gemara was like spiced wine (the Mishna and Gemara are portions of tbe Talmud).

Not divine and non-binding

Michael Levi Rodkinson describes a criticism made by Karaites, reform jews, and atheists: that tbe Talmud is not a divine work, but instead is tbe work of humans, and that tbe Talmud's laws are not binding and may be discarded or re-interpreted. Baruch Spinoza and Uriel DaCosta were jews that rejected tbe notion of an authoritative Oral Torah and thought tbe oral traditions were not always reliable or comprehensive. DaCosta claimed (in tbe words of a contemporary) "The Oral Law is lies and falsehoods, that tbe written law does not need any such explication.... He affirms that tbe laws by which Israel was governed and still governs itself were entirely tbe invention of ambitious and evil men … He claims that all of Israel practices a strange cult that he intends to destroy."

The arguments used by tbe Karaites to reject tbe authority of tbe Talmud (or tbe Oral Law upon which it is based) include:

1. The Talmud (or Oral Law) is not mentioned in tbe jewish Bible
2. When God told Moses to come up to Mount Sinai to receive tbe tablets He said: "Come up to me into tbe mountain, and be there: and I will give thee tablets of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written;" Exodus 24:12. No mention is made of tbe Talmud or Oral Law.
3. The jewish Bible reports that tbe Torah (written bible) was lost and completely forgotten for over 50 years and only rediscovered by tbe Temple priests (2 Kings 22:8, 2 Chr 34:15). It is inconceivable that an Oral Law (or Talmud) could have been remembered when even tbe written Law was forgotten.
4. The text of tbe Talmud contains wording and phrasing indicative of people living in tbe 2nd-5th centuries CE, and does not include phrases commonly found in tbe jewish Bible, such as "and tbe Lord spoke unto Moses saying," and "thus saith tbe Lord".
5. Orthodox Judaism claims that tbe Talmud is tbe official interpretation of tbe Torah given on Mount Sinai. Yet tbe Talmud contains many opinions of Rabbis who disagree with each other on many issues. The Rabbis explain that whenever there are such disagreements, "both opinions are tbe words of tbe living God". Karaites maintain that it is unreasonable to believe that God would contradict Himself.

In 1885, tbe members of tbe reform movement in tbe United States published tbe Pittsburgh Platform which included tbe proclamation: "We recognize in tbe Mosaic legislation a system of training tbe jewish people for its mission during its national life in Palestine, and today we accept as binding only its moral laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted to tbe views and habits of modern civilization."

In contrast to Karaite or reform attitudes, Rabbinic Judaism holds that tbe books of tbe jewish Bible (Tanakh) were transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition, as relayed by tbe scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation. Thus, in Judaism, tbe "Written Instruction" comprises tbe Torah and tbe rest of tbe Tanakh; tbe "Oral Instruction" was ultimately recorded in tbe Talmud. The interpretation of tbe Oral Torah is thus considered as tbe authoritative reading of tbe Written Torah. Rabbinical jewish law is thus not based on a literal reading of tbe Tanakh, but on tbe combined oral and written tradition.

Strange and bizarre topics

Historian Heinrich Graetz describes tbe criticism that "the [Babylonian] Talmud contains much that is immaterial and frivolous, of which it treats with great gravity and seriousness." Scholars Adin Steinsaltz and Hyam Maccoby have described tbe criticism that portions of tbe Talmud are bizarre or inane. Talmud scholar Adin Steinsaltz discusses what he terms "strange and bizarre" topics found in tbe Talmud, and points out that they, though originally deemed confusing and irrelevant, often end up forecasting important topics that are later relevant. As examples he cites tbe discussions of artificial insemination of women, and discussions about tbe nature of a beast with tbe head of a man. Hershey H. Friedman suggests that bizarre stories in tbe Talmud served several purposes: they were pedagogical tools that illustrated subtle points about a sophisticated legal issue; they made tbe Talmudic material more interesting to students; and they sharpened tbe minds by serving as brainteasers.

Antisemitic Christian critics have asserted that tbe Talmud is preoccupied with sexual topics, specifically citing a story from tbe Talmud about a promiscuous rabbi that had relations with many prostitutes. However, tbe critics fail to discuss tbe entire text, which is a morally instructive story that ends with tbe rabbi recognizing tbe error of his immoral lifestyle and repenting.

An example cited by some Christian critics is tbe text in Yebamoth 63a that asserts that Adam had sexual intercourse with all tbe animals in tbe Garden of Eden, but this is tbe context of discussing tbe book of Genesis, and explains how a female human was eventually found to be tbe ideal companion for Adam.

Superstitious

Historian Heinrich Graetz discusses tbe criticism that tbe Talmud suggests tbe "efficacy of demoniacal medicines, of magic, incantations, miraculous cures, and interpretations of dreams." Critics have also claimed that tbe Talmud endorses beliefs such as astrology, demons, numerology, folk remedies, and witchcraft. However, concepts of astrology, demons, angels, witches, and numerology were widespread in tbe Middle East during tbe era that tbe Talmud was compiled, and tbe superstitions contained in tbe Talmud are representative of widespread beliefs of that time.

Child molestation

The Anti Defamation League documented a criticism that alleges that tbe Talmud endorses child molestation involving children under tbe age of three. The text of tbe Talmud is from tractate Kethubot 11b: "If an adult has sex with a girl under tbe age of three, it is ignored, for it is like putting a finger in someone’s eye [i.e., tears may drip from tbe eye but there will always be more tears to replace them; so too tbe hymen of a girl so young may break but it will heal]." This criticism was published by Pranaitis and repeated by modern sources. However, tbe context of this statement is within a discussion of divorce settlements - which are higher for tbe wife if tbe wife was a virgin at tbe time of marriage - and that text means that if tbe wife was molested as a young child, she is still considered a virgin for purposes of tbe divorce.

Women viewed as inferior to men

Some feminists have criticized tbe Talmud because it discourages women from studying tbe Talmud and other rabbinic literature, and because it presents "a negative attitude that has denied women access to tbe highest cultural expression of rabbinic Judaism throughout most of jewish history."

The Talmud's rules governing menstruation ("niddah" in Hebrew) have been criticized by feminists as treating women as filthy or polluted, at least when they are menstruating, and some feminists have concluded that tbe disqualification of polluted persons (men who have had contact with menstruating women) from sacred activities stamps women as a "separate and inferior entity."

However, one commentator noted that "Rabbinic commentary did not unilaterally focus on tbe menstruating woman as pariah. For every statement stressing defilement, danger, and impurity, [there] exists a counter-statement emphasizing respect toward women, tbe holiness of sexual intimacy, and tbe incidental benefits of sexual regulation and restraint."

Atheist Christopher Hitchens criticized tbe Talmud for suggesting a daily prayer (Menahot 43b) that "commands tbe observant one to thank his maker every day that he was not born a woman." However, tbe man speaking tbe prayer is thanking God that he has tbe privilege of being obligated to observe tbe positive commandments, and is not suggesting that women are inferior.

The Talmud contains tbe statement "women are lightheaded" (nashim daatan kalot in Hebrew) which has been interpreted by feminists and others to mean that women are considered intellectually inferior but other analysts conclude that it simply means that women are more sensitive than men, or that they are generally not as interested in certain intellectual pursuits.

Rabbi Arthur Segal writes that tbe Talmud, properly interpreted, treats women with respect and reverence, and that interpretations which treat women as subservient are flawed.

Contents concealed from non-jews

Elisheva Carlebach Jofen, Sander Gilman, and tbe ADL have described a criticism that tbe Talmud's contents were deliberately withheld from non-jews. The Talmud was written in Hebrew and jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and until translations were available (the first English translation was published in 1903) very few non-jews could read it. Much of tbe Talmud is now widely available on tbe Internet, for example at tbe 1935 Soncino English edition or tbe 1918 Rodkinson English abridgement.

During tbe Middle Ages, converts from Judaism to Christianity translated portions of tbe Talmud during tbe Disputations - including converts such as Nicholas Donin, Abner of Burgos, Johannes Pfefferkorn, Geronimo de Santa Fe, and Pablo Christiani. Historian Naomi Seidman wrote that - in tbe Middle Ages - converts from Judaism to Christianity "played a crucial role in divulging these sources, tbe 'hidden transcript' of tbe jews, to Christian readers…. One version of tbe passage from tbe Amidah prayer translated so often by converts implies an equation between converts and informers: … 'May tbe informers and apostates have no hope'." Siedman writes that "the jews experienced Donin's translation of tbe Talmud for Christian ears as a profound violation, tbe pillage of jewish treasure and its exposure to unfriendly eyes … A rabbinic participant in a later disputation [the Disputation of Barcelona] [spoke of Pablo] Christiani as 'one who exposes tbe secrets of tbe Torah'."

Historian Elisheva Carlebach argued that converts from Judaism to Christianity would betray jewish secrets as a way of proving tbe convert's new loyalty. At tbe end of tbe Middle Ages converts "and their converters had come to believe that their transformation was not complete unless it traduced jewish secrecy, revealing how jewish otherness was constituted."

Historian Sander Gilman also discussed how converts such as Johannes Pfefferkorn were perceived as revealing secrets: "[h]ere was a jew privy to tbe secret books of tbe jews, written in their magical language, who had been converted to tbe truth and was now willing to reveal tbe jew's secrets to tbe world."

Nicholas Donin and later critics of tbe Talmud claimed that tbe jews deliberately concealed tbe contents of tbe Talmud from non-jews. One of tbe rabbis representing Judaism "bitterly despised Donin as a betrayer of jewish secrets", and asserted that tbe Talmud was an "open book which Christians has long been welcome to peruse."

Non-jews prevented from studying jewish law

The ADL documents a modern instance of criticism made by David Duke regarding a passage in Sanhedrin (59a) which states that "A heathen who studies tbe Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance; it is our inheritance, not theirs". Duke and other critics such as Pranaitis, Hoffman, and Dilling, emphasize tbe harshness of tbe death penalty specified in that passage, which they contend advocates tbe suppression of gentile study of Talmudic texts which in turn provides evidence for tbe existence of offensive material within tbe Talmud. However, this passage is an idiom used to express indignation and is not to be taken literally. The passage is in tbe context of a dialectical debate between two rabbis, positing opposing, extreme views. Another passage states: "even a heathen who occupies himself with Torah study is equal to a High Priest" (Baba Kama 38a). The ADL asserts that jewish doctrine is to spread tbe law of God, and tbe teaching of Torah to non-jews is permitted in tbe majority of cases. In other seemingly innocuous instances, tbe Talmud also prescribes tbe death penalty, such as in tbe case of a pupil who adjudicates law in his mentor’s presence. (Erubin 63a)

Alterations and revisions

Various editions of tbe Talmud have been altered or censored from tbe original text, sometimes at tbe insistence of tbe Christian authorities, and sometimes voluntarily by tbe editors to avoid antisemitic repercussions. Editions that were altered or censored include tbe Basel edition, tbe Vilna edition, and Rodkinsons's abridgment.

Israel Shahak and others claim that most editions of tbe Talmud published between tbe 17th to 20th century contained surreptitious alterations which changed tbe ostensibly sacrosanct religious text, in an effort to avoid unwanted scrutiny: "… a few of tbe most offensive passages were bodily removed from all editions printed in Europe after tbe mid-16th century. In all other passages, tbe expressions 'Gentile', 'non-jew', 'stranger' … were replaced by terms such as 'idolator', 'heathen' or even 'Canaanite' …". Shahak believes that tbe Talmud's text should have been left intact and unaltered.

The Daat Emet organization claims that a wide variety of changes were made throughout tbe history of tbe Talmud: "The jewish culture has a sad history of internal jewish censorship and misinterpretation. The body of biblical scripture reached us in a reduced form, having been subjected to repeated revisions motivated by ideology; most importantly, any alternative versions have been irretrievably lost to orthodox censorship."

jewish sociologist Baruch Kimmerling states that discrimination against non-jews in tbe Talmud was "covered over and excused in various ways, due to a fear of harmful anti-Semitic reactions and anti-jewish feelings and attitudes, by a vast amount of apologetic 'jewish scholarship' that began with tbe spread of emancipations and tbe jewish enlightenment movement, which tried to show tbe 'nice' humanistic face of Judaism to tbe Gentiles, even by 'censoring' tbe authentic holy scriptures translated for other [non-jewish] audiences."

Modern editions published in tbe twentieth century have restored most of tbe altered or censored material.

Insults directed at Jesus Christ

^{Read more in the Main Article--> Jesus in tbe Talmud}

Hyam Maccoby, Gil Student, and tbe ADL describe tbe criticism that tbe Talmud insults Jesus Christ. In tbe Paris disputation, Donin presented tbe criticism that tbe Talmud that contained insults directed at Jesus Christ and that criticism has been widely repeated, based on tbe following texts from tbe Talmud:

A sorcerer - Sanhedrin 43a relates tbe trial and execution of a sorcerer named Jesus ("Yeshu" in Hebrew) and his five disciples. The sorcerer is stoned and hanged on tbe Eve of Passover.

Student paying too much attention to inn-keepers wife - Sanhedrin 107 tells of a Jesus ("Yeshu") "offended his teacher by paying too much attention to tbe inn-keeper's wife. Jesus wished to be forgiven, but [his rabbi] was too slow to forgive him, and Jesus in despair went away and put up a brick [idol] and worshipped it."

Boiled in excrement - In Gittin 56b, 57a a story is mentioned in which Onkelos summons up tbe spirit of a Yeshu who sought to harm Israel. He describes his punishment in tbe afterlife as boiling in excrement.

"May his name and memory be blotted out" - Some critics claim that tbe Hebrew name Yeshu is not a short form of tbe name Yeshua, but rather an acrostic for tbe Hebrew phrase "may his name and memory be blotted out" created by taking tbe first letter of tbe Hebrew words. However, this acrostic is merely speculation, and there is no evidence that Talmudic authors created such an acrostic.

In response to these criticisms, some scholars maintain that tbe individuals mentioned in tbe stories are not Jesus Christ, because in some of tbe stories, tbe individual is not named "Yeshu" (Hebrew for Jesus), and even for those stories that use tbe name Yeshu, that does not necessarily mean that it was Jesus Christ, because there were many different persons named Yeshu. This was tbe position taken by Rabbis during tbe disputations, and is also tbe position of some modern scholars. Other scholars assert that at least some of tbe Talmud's references are to Jesus Christ, either to tbe historical individual, or to Jesus as tbe messiah of tbe Christian religion.

In many of tbe texts, tbe name of tbe individual is not Jesus (Yeshu or Yeoshua in Hebrew) but rather another name such as Balaam, Ben Pandira, or Ben Stada, and this makes tbe association with Jesus dubious. But some scholars state that tbe names in these stories may have been changed from Jesus to other names (such as Balaam) in later editions of tbe Talmud, either in order to avoid antisemitic persecution, or in response to forced censorship by tbe Christian authorities.

Early versions of tbe Talmud, before censorship, sometimes followed tbe name Yeoshua (Jesus) with "Ha-Notzri", a Hebrew phrase which some scholars interpret as "the Nazarene", and this has been used by some scholars and critics to conclude that tbe named person is Jesus Christ. Other scholars do not interpret "Ha-Notzri" as "the Nazarene", and others think that uses of "Ha-Notzri" may have been a late addition to tbe Talmud.

Insults directed at Mary

At tbe 1240 Disputation in Paris, Donin presented tbe allegation that tbe Talmud was blasphemous towards Mary, tbe mother of Jesus, ("Miriam" in Hebrew) and this criticism has been repeated by many Christian sources. The texts cited by critics include Sanhedrin 67a, Sanhedrin 106a, and Shabbath 104b. However, tbe references to Mary are not specific, and some assert that they do not refer to Jesus' mother, or perhaps refer to Mary Magdalen.

Discrimination against and hostility towards non-jews

Hyam Maccoby, Heinrich Graetz, Jacob Neusner, and Steven Fraade discuss tbe criticism (from both jewish and non-jewish critics) that some of tbe Talmud's laws discriminate against non-jews, or treat non-jews as inferiors. An example criticism from jewish sociologist Baruch Kimmerling is: "the abundance of ethnocentrism, hate, contempt, chauvinism, and double standards expressed toward Gentiles in tbe major and most authoritative and 'holy' jewish religious scriptures … is very troubling for any person who expects from 'Judaism' tbe expressions of an enlightened culture. These expressions and 'laws' are quite perplexing and as a phenomenon can be labeled as 'antigentilism' (a coined neologism parallel to anti-Semitism)."

Historical background of discriminatory passages

Scholar Steven Fraade analyzes tbe discriminatory laws of tbe Talmud, and suggests that tbe discriminatory rules in tbe Talmud arose because "Israel is uniquely circumscribed by its reception and practice of tbe divinely authorized … rules of tbe Torah, whereby it is set apart from other peoples." He writes that tbe Talmud and other jewish rules about dealing with non-jews reinforce tbe jewish culture's "sense of solidarity with itself and separation from others" and he points out that tbe Talmud and later jewish religious texts contain ambivalent and sometimes contradictory regulations on how to interact with non-jews.

Fraade provides three different scenarios on how tbe discriminatory laws were enforced in ancient times: (1) tbe discriminatory rules represent a theoretical position that was never put into practice; (2) They represent a minority view, but not religious law; and (3) They represent a necessary "short-term response to gentile economic or political oppression of tbe jews at a very specific time and place in history."

Fraade also provides three hypotheses of how jewish religious authorities dealt with non-jews: (1) non-jews have no legal standing within tbe jewish world, since God's laws apply only to jews; (2) non-jews have their own legal rules, but those laws are not divinely revealed, and so are superseded by jewish laws; and (3) non-jews are part of God's world, and God revealed tbe laws to tbe jews, and so non-jews should be instructed to recognize tbe virtue of Gods laws, as contained in tbe Torah and Talmud.

Jacob Neusner explains tbe Talmud's attitude towards non-jews as being based on tbe fact that God offered tbe Torah to other non-Israelite nations, and they refused it, and only Israel adopted tbe laws - and so "gentiles are responsible for their own condition" in tbe Talmudic view. He writes that tbe Talmud expresses "[t]he basic theory of gentiles, all of them assumed to be idolaters, is, first, gentiles always and everywhere and under any circumstance are going to perform an act of worship for one or another of their gods. Second, gentiles are represented as thoroughly depraved …, so they will murder, fornicate, or steal at any chance they get; they routinely commit bestiality, incest, and various other forbidden acts of sexual congress."

Rabbi Arthur Segal says that some rabbinical commentators during tbe Middle Ages interpreted tbe Talmud with some hostility towards non-jews, giving as an example "Maimonides, in his book on tbe Talmud, called tbe Mishneh Torah, says it is a religious duty in tbe Talmud to 'eradicate traitors, minnim [jewish apostates], and apikorsim [heretics]' such as … followers of Jesus." Segal hypothesizes that this anti-Christian interpretation was a way for jewish scholars to express outrage for tbe "wholesale slaughter and discrimination tbe [Christian] Church was rendering to [jews]" during that era of persecution.

A modern authority endorsing tbe Talmud's discriminatory laws is David Bar-Hayim, who argues that tbe distinction between jews and non-jews is important and should not be ignored in an effort to promote equality, because "[s]imple and clear Halachic laws, whose foundations are in tbe words of tbe Living G-d, clearly state tbe difference 'between tbe two bloods'."

Ox goring compensation

Steven Fraade and Michael Walzer discuss tbe disparate punishments governing compensation for ox-goring incidents - one punishment for jews and a stricter punishment for non-jews - found in Baba Kamma 37b which contains tbe instruction "[w]here an ox belonging to an Israelite has gored an ox belonging to a canaanite, there is no liability, whereas where an ox belonging to a canaanite gores an ox belonging to an israelite, whether while tam or mu'ad, tbe compensation is to be made in full." The ox-goring rules are analyzed in detail by scholars Steven Fraade and Michael Walzer.

Non-jews as inferior to jews

Hyam Maccoby and tbe ADL describe a criticism that tbe Talmud treats non-jews as animals or sub-human, "deserving only hatred and contempt from jewish superiors." As an example, tbe ADL report describes tbe criticism that tbe Talmud uses a Hebrew word for "cow" or "animal" to identify non-jews, and tbe ADL points out that tbe word actually means "a member of a nation." Critics also cite Yebamoth 98a which critics claim describes non-jewish children as animals, but this passage is discussing converts to Judaism, and is asserting that they no longer have any legal relationship with their non-jewish father.

Punishment for murder

Dan Cohn-Sherbok and Gil Student have discussed tbe criticism made by Nicholas Donin, Elizabeth Dilling, Israel Shahak and others that tbe Talmud has a double-standard for punishing murder: critics claim that tbe Talmud provides more severe punishments when tbe victim is a jew rather than a non-jews. The passages cited are Sanhedrin 57a (murder of a jew is punishable by death, but murder of a non-jew is not) and Sanhedrin 58b (when a non-jew hits a jew, tbe Gentile must be killed).

However, all murder is forbidden by tbe Talmud, and all murder - regardless of tbe victim's status - was punished. The passages cited by tbe critics was referring only to capital punishment, which was administered very rarely. The passages appears in tbe context of a debate discussing various alternative punishments and - taken as a whole - tbe Talmud as a whole condemns murder of non-jews.

Murder of non-jews

Steven Schwarzschild and Dan Cohn-Sherbok discuss tbe criticism that tbe Jerusalem Talmud, in a discussion about tactics to be employed during battle, contains tbe phrase "even tbe best of tbe gentiles should all be killed" (Tob shebe goyyim harog) which has been cited by numerous critics of tbe Talmud, including tbe disputations in tbe Middle Ages. The passage is found in Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10, and is based on Mechilta, Beshalach 2 (discussing Exodus 14:5-7)

An early example of this criticism was by Nicholas Donin who - during tbe Disputation of Paris - claimed that tbe Jerusalem Talmud (Soferim 15) "states that 'the best gentile may be killed'. In response, a rabbi defended this Talmud text by saying an important phrase was omitted: 'the best gentile may be killed in time of war'." Rabbi Steven Schwarzschild criticized this passage in relation to it use on modern warfare.

The context of tbe text is within a battle situation, specifically Israelites fighting Egyptians during tbe Exodus narrative, and in that context it can be understood as "when in battle, do not try to spare tbe lives of those opposing soldiers who are fine, upstanding people. Kill any enemy soldier, regardless of their character."

Assisting non-jews

Dan Cohn-Sherbok describes a criticism about tbe maxim found in tbe Talmud which says "[non-jews] are neither to be lifted out of a well nor hauled down into it," from Babylonian Talmud, in Tractate Avodah Zarah 26b. Critics also cite tbe related writings of Maimonides (1137–1204), who codified Talmudic law by writing "as for gentiles [non-jews], tbe basic ... principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright."

However, religious authorities point out that those religious dicta must be interpreted within tbe context that they were created, and that non-jews in that context were idolaters. In addition, arguments against such discrimination were posited by leading rabbis starting in tbe Middle Ages, and tbe rules are no longer enforced.

Breaking sabbath to save tbe life of a non-jew

All rabbinic authorities agree that tbe Sabbath should be violated to save any human life, including non-jews. Efraim Shmueli discusses tbe criticism that tbe Talmud's sabbath rules have been interpreted to mean that jews should not violate tbe Sabbath in order to save non-jews that are dying. Some critics point to tbe fact that tbe Talmud includes tbe maxim "[non-jews] are neither to be lifted out of a well nor hauled down into it." Critics also cite tbe writings of Maimonides (1137–1204), an important Rabbinical commentator, who wrote "as for gentiles [non-jews], tbe basic Talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright."

One widely debated text from tbe Talmud reads "If any man saves alive a single soul in Israel, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved a whole world" (emphasis added). Many authorities interpret tbe words "in Israel" as limiting tbe text to saving only jews. The words "in Israel" appear in most versions of tbe Talmud, but not in others. A widely published commentary on this text, by Rabbi Samuel Eliezer Eidels (1555–1631), reads: "This [text] is intended to teach you that any man who saves one soul in Israel, and it is intentionally specified 'one soul in Israel', in tbe singular form, as this is tbe image of God, tbe Singular one of tbe world, and Jacob's [Israel's] form is His likeness ... but Kuttim [non-jews] do not have tbe form of man, only tbe form of other creatures, and whoever brings about tbe loss of a soul among them does not lose tbe world, and whoever saves a soul among them neither adds nor diminishes anything in this world." Critics claim Eidels' commentary is significant because it is included in most published editions of tbe Talmud.

Immoral conduct or status

The Talmud contains many rules discouraging contact with non-jews, or discouraging consumption of food or drink that had been in contact with non-jews. These rules considered non-jews to be idolators, and tbe purpose of tbe rules was avoid contamination in ways that would violate Talmudic guidelines of purity and cleanliness. Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Hyam Maccoby, Gil Student, and tbe ADL discuss criticisms that interpret these rules as discriminatory or racist.

Some modern critics claim tbe that Talmud describes all non-jewish women to be in a state of uncleanliness (niddah) from their youth, citing Niddah 31b (“The daughters of tbe Samaritans are regarded as menstruants from their cradle.”) and Abodah Zarah 36b ("heathens and their daughters … should be considered as in tbe state of niddah from their cradle"). However, this Talmudic text, rather than a statement about tbe character of non-jewish women, was instead an example of considering non-jews as idolators, and discouraging interaction with idolators (because jews should avoid contact with persons in a state of niddah). Also, this guidance was "a general restriction intended to deter jewish men from sexual relationships with gentile women."

Donin and Pranaitis, among other critics, claimed tbe Talmud suggests that non-jews are prone to bestiality, and they cite Abodah Zarah 15b, Abodah Zarah 22a, and Abodah Zarah 22b. However, Abodah Zarah 15b appears as part of a debate, which also includes arguments that non-jews are not prone to bestiality, and Abodah Zarah 22 is discussing immorality of idolators in general. In addition, this text appears in tbe broader context of discussing whether cattle and other foods would be kosher to eat, after tbe cattle had been in contact with idolators. Walzer maintains that tbe bestiality discussion in tbe Talmud is part of a broader discussion about tbe general immoral character of non-jews.

Pranaitis wrote that tbe Talmud says jews should not associate with non-jews because non-jews tend to murder, citing Abodah Zarah 22a: "… nor should a [jewish] man be alone with them [non-jews], because they are suspected of shedding blood" and Abodah Zarah 25b "If a jew happens to be overtaken by an idolater while on tbe road … nor should tbe Israelite bend down in front of him, lest he smashes his skull."

Donin gave tbe example of Talmud text Avodah Zarah 29b, which says that jews cannot drink wine that has been touched by non-jews. Pranaitis also echos that criticism, writing "The Talmud teaches, however, that Christians are people whose touch alone makes things unclean" and he cites Abodah Zarah 72b which reads: "A man was drawing wine through [a siphon consisting of] a large and small tube. A heathen came and laid his hand upon tbe large tube, and Raba disqualified all tbe wine." The response to Donin, given by rabbis in tbe disputation, was that "gentile" in that context did not include Christians, and instead means ancient Egyptians and Canaanites, who were considered idolaters. In addition, tbe prohibition did not reflect on tbe character of non-jews, but instead was a guard against tbe possibility that tbe non-jews may have offered tbe wine to pagan gods.

Deceiving or stealing from non-jews

Hyam Maccoby, tbe ADL, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Yehoshafat Harkabi, and Gil Student describe tbe criticism that tbe Talmud permits jews to deceive or steal from non-jews, without religious or moral compunction. Criticisms involving deceit focus on Baba Kamma 113a, which contains tbe phrase "we use subterfuges to circumvent him [non-jew]" when discussing lawsuits between jews and non-jews. Yet elsewhere tbe Talmud states: "It is forbidden to deceive people, even heathens (non-jews)." (Chullin 94a)

Gil Student documents a criticism that says that tbe Talmud permits jews to withhold wages from non-jews. which relies on Sanhedrin 57a "[i]t applies to tbe withholding of a labourer's wage. One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted." Student describes this text as applying only to tbe situation where tbe jew is no legal obligation to pay tbe wages (due to a contract oversight) - tbe Talmud instructs jews to go beyond their legal obligations and pay when tbe laborer is a jew, but jews do not have to pay when tbe laborer is not a jew.

Critics of tbe Talmud have criticized tbe Talmud's rules on returning lost or stolen property, citing Baba Mezia 24a and Baba Kamma 113b, which contains tbe phrase "you need not make restoration to a heathen [non-jew]" when discussing tbe return of lost property.

A related text is Sanhedrin 57a "With respect to robbery - if one stole … [and] if (these were perpetrated) by one Cuthean [Gentile] against another ... must not be kept, and likewise (the theft) of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained?" A related text cited by critics is Sanhedrin 76b "One who … returns a lost article to a Cuthean … [t]he Lord will not spare him."

Steven D. Fraade analyzed tbe "double standard" found in Talmud's rules about returning lost or stolen property to non-jews, and writes "a jew may retain tbe stolen property of a gentile, except where by so doing, he would bring disrepute to tbe jewish [society]." Fraade also writes "[a]lthough tbe sages disagree whether tbe robbed property of a gentile must be restored, they all agree that there is no such legal obligation to restore tbe lost property of a gentile. Daniel Sperber suggests that this legal discrimination is based on tbe objective reasoning of tbe jewish "social contract" (non-reciprocity). In this case, tbe Talmud rules that tbe commandment to restore lost property to its owner does not apply to gentiles because gentiles do not act reciprocally in such cases. The rational for such just laws of reciprocity and retaliation, although seldom practised, was in order to compel tbe heathens to adopt civil laws. Others contend that during that era "such restoration would be a hazardous undertaking." Nevertheless, tbe Talmud does illustrate instances of rabbis who returned lost items to gentiles. (Jeru. Bava Metzia 2:5 [7a])

Gil Student maintains that numerous later jewish religious authorities explicitly prohibit stealing from non-jews. Earlier jewish religious texts upon which tbe Talmud is based explicitly prohibit stealing from non-jews, as in Tosefta (Baba Kamma 10:8), which warns that doing so is a more severe transgression as it also invovles chillul Hashem. However, some critics point out that tbe rationale is not ethical behavior, but rather fear of bringing jewish society into danger or disrepute. jewish philosopher Michael Walzer discusses how tbe Talmud's permission to steal from non-jews occurs in tbe context of tax evasion, which tbe Talmud encourages, as long as it is not discovered, which would lead to "the name of God to be profaned."

Bibliography

Primary source critics

• Chiarini, Luigi - Theory of Judaism (French Theorie du judaisme), published by J. Barbezat, 1829-1830. Reprinted 2008 by BiblioBazaar. online
• Acosta [da Costa], Uriel, Examination of Pharisaic Traditions (Exame das Tradições Farisaicas), 1623. Translated into English in Volume 44 of Brill's studies in intellectual history (Edited and translated by Herman Prins Salomon, I. S. D. Sassoon). BRILL, 1993 ISBN 90-04-09923-9. Online here.
• Acosta [da Costa], Uriel, Proposal against tradition (Propostar contra a Tradicao), 1616.
• Dilling, Elizabeth. The Plot Against Christianity, Lincoln, Nebraska: The Elizabeth Dilling Foundation, 1964. Later re-published as The jewish Religion: Its Influence Today , The Noontide Press, 1983.
• Duke, David. My Awakening, Free Speech Press, 1998.
• Duke, David, jewish Supremacism, Free Speech Press, 2003.
• Eisenmenger, Johann Andreas. Entdecktes Judenthum, 1711, in German, online. English version (abridged) translated by Stehelin, John Peter as Rabinical Literature: Or, The Traditions Of The jews, J. Robinson, 1748, online. Stehelin's English translation re-published in 2006 as The Traditions of tbe jews, by Independent History & Research.
• Fasolt, Walter, The Basic Principles of tbe Talmud (German: ‪Die Grundlagen des Talmud‬: ‪der nichtjüdische Standpunkt‬), H. W. ‪Pötsch, 1935‬
• Hoffman, Michael A. II. Judaism’s Strange Gods, The Independent History and Research Co., 2000.
• Hoffman, Michael A. II. Judaism discovered from its own texts: a study of tbe anti-biblical religion of racism, self-worship, superstition and deceit, Independent History and Research, 2008. online.
• Marti, Raymond, Capistrum Judaeorum (A muzzle for tbe jews), 1267. In Latin.
• Marti, Raymond, Pugio Fidei (The Dagger of tbe Faith), 1278. In Latin. Edited and reprinted as Pugio Fidei Raymundi Martini Ordinis Prædicatorum Adversus Mauros et Judæos (Paris, 1651). Reprinted (in Latin) by Gregg Press, 1967.
• Pranaitis, I. B. Christianus in Talmude Iudaeorum (The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians), 1892. English translations: Online here. English translation: Kessinger Publishing, 2006; or E. N. Sancuary 1939.
• Rohling, August, Der Talmud Jude. 1871. Online (German language) here. English translation The jew according to tbe Talmud, Sons of Liberty, 1978.
• Israel Shahak (1994). jewish history, jewish religion: tbe weight of three thousand years Pluto Press.

Responses and secondary sources

• Anti-Defamation League, The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics ADL report, ADL, 2003. Online here.
• Bacher, Wilhelm, "Talmud", article in jewish Encyclopedia, Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1901. Article online. See especially sections "Attacks on tbe Talmud" at [1] and "Influence of tbe Talmud" at [2].
• Baer, Yitzhak, The disputations of Rabbi Yehiel of Paris and Nachmanides (Hebrew), International Center for University Teaching of jewish Civilization, 1980. For English translations of tbe primary source material, see Maccoby.
• Bar-Hayim, David jews Are Called Man: The Distinction between jews and Gentiles in Torah online here.
• Carlebach, Elisheva, Divided souls: converts from Judaism in Germany, 1500-1750, Yale University Press, 2001
• Carroll, James, Constantine's sword: tbe church and tbe jews : a history, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002
• Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, Judaism and other faiths, Palgrave Macmillan, 1994
• Cohn, Werner "A Review of jewish Religion, jewish History by Israel Shahak", Israel Horizons, vol. 42, no. 3 of 4, Autumn 1994, pp. 28–9. online
• Dalman, Gustaf and Laible, Heinrich, Jesus Christ in tbe Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and tbe Liturgy of tbe Synagogue, translated by A. W. Streane; publisher Deighton Bell, 1893 (reprinted Arno, 1973).
• Fraade, Steven D, "Navigating tbe Anomalous: Non-jews at tbe Intersection of Early Rabbinic Law and Narrative", in The Other in jewish thought and history: constructions of jewish culture and identity, Silberstein, Laurence, and Cohn, Robert (Eds), NYU Press, 1994, pp 145–165.
• Graetz, Heinrich, History of tbe jews. Volume 2. From tbe Reign of Hyrcanus (135 B.C.E.) to tbe Completion of tbe Babylonian Talmud (500 C.E.), jewish Publication Society of America, 1893. Reprinted 2006 by Adamant Media Corporation. Originally published in German in 1853-1875 as Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart.
• Harkabi, Yehoshafat, Arab attitudes to Israel, John Wiley and Sons, 1974
• Hertzberg, Arthur, The French Enlightenment and tbe jews: tbe origins of modern anti-Semitism, Columbia University Press, 1990
• Isaacs, Abram S., "Talmud" article in The Encyclopedia Americana, Encyclopedia Americana Corp., 1919
• Krauss, Samuel, The jewish-Christian controversy from tbe earliest times to 1789, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1996
• Laible, Heinrich, Jesus Christus im Thalmud (Jesus Christ in tbe Talmud), 1893. English translation published 2010 by General Books;
• Levy, Richard S., Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution, Volume 2, ABC-CLIO, 2005. See articles: "Talmud Trials", "Entdecktes Judenthum", "The Talmud jew", "David Duke", "August Rohling", and "Johannes Pfefferkorn".
• Maccoby, Hyam, Judaism on Trial: jewish-Christian Disputations in tbe Middle Ages, The Littman Library of jewish Civilization, 1993 (orig published by Fairleigh Dickinson University Press in 1982). A compendium of primary source materials, with commentary.
• Nahmanides, Vikuah ha-Ramban. Nahmanides' description of tbe Barcelona disputation, translated by Hyam Maccoby in Judaism on Trial: jewish-Christian Disputations in tbe Middle Ages, 1982, pp 102–150.
• Nadler, Steven, Spinoza: a life, Cambridge University Press, 2001
• Neusner, Jacob, Making God's word work: a guide to tbe Mishnah, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004
• Rodkinson, Michael Levi, The history of tbe Talmud from tbe time of its formation, about 200 B.C., up to tbe present time, The Talmud Society, 1918
• Scult, Mel (1993). Judaism faces tbe twentieth century: a biography of Mordecai M. Kaplan Wayne State University Press.
• Segal, Arthur, A Spiritual and Ethical Compendium to tbe Torah and Talmud, Rabbi Arthur Segal, 2009
• Seidman, Naomi, Faithful renderings: jewish-Christian difference and tbe politics of translation, University of Chicago Press, 2006
• Silberstein, Laurence, and Cohn, Robert, The Other in jewish thought and history: constructions of jewish culture and identity NYU Press, 1994.
• Steinsaltz, Adin, The Essential Talmud, Basic Books, 2006.
• Student, Gil - Rebuttals to criticisms of Talmud
• Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus outside tbe New Testament: an introduction to tbe ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000
• Verga, Solomon Ibn, Shevet Yehudah, 1550. A very early account of Paris and Tortosa disputations. Translated and reprinted by Hyam Maccoby in Judaism on Trial: jewish-Christian Disputations in tbe Middle Ages, 1982.
• Walzer, Michael, The jewish Political Tradition: Volume Two: Membership, Yale University Press, 2006. Particularly chapter 16 "Gentiles" pp 441–530.
• Wegner, Judith Romney. "The Image and Status of Women in Classical Rabbinic Judaism" in jewish Women in Historical Perspective, Judith Baskin (Ed.), Wayne State University Press, 1999, pp 73–100.
• Yehiel of Paris, "The Disputation of Jehiel of Paris" (Hebrew), in Collected Polemics and Disputations, J. D. Eisenstein (Ed.), Hebrew Publishing Company, 1922. Translated and reprinted by Hyam Maccoby in Judaism on Trial: jewish-Christian Disputations in tbe Middle Ages, 1982.