Judaism discovered

The Western Wall of the Temple: Not

In Jerusalem in 2008 during the month of Nissan, the rabbi of the Kotel ("Western" or "Wailing" Wall, also spelled "Kosel") and his helpers clean out the notes and prayer requests that have been crammed into the cracks and crevices of the wall's "mystic stones."

Archaeologists say that only the "base" of the "Western" or "Wailing" Wall dates from the first century A.D. The upper portions were added centuries later. There is no proof that this "western wall" was actually part of the Second Temple. Both the 1978 and 2007 editions of the Encyclopedia Judaica only go so far as to assert that the wall was part of the "Temple Mount," not the Temple itself. According to Simon Goldhill, "The wall actually had no religious significance at all in Herod's time: where people now pray was no more than a road at the bottom of the wall which held up the platform on which the Temple stood. It was a functional solution to the architectural problem of the platform, and not part of the Temple itself," ¹¹⁷⁵

.
1015

On March 26, 2000 Pope John Paul II left the following note in the wall: "God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the Nations: we are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant. We ask this through Christ Our Lord, Amen." Compare the Pope's words with those of John 8:39-40: "Jesus said unto them, If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham."

We do not know whether the rabbinic Kotel-cleaners removed the Pope's note along with the other clutter.

Having a surrogate in Jerusalem make a note for someone residing in another part of the world and place it in a crack in the wall is a lucrative rabbinic business.

Charging fees ("donations") for "davening" at rabbinic graves and engaging in vain repetition at "holy sites" throughout the Israeli state on behalf of distant clients, is a thriving business.
1016

Criticism of 's Research

We sometimes receive excited letters from readers of our first book, Judaism's Strange Gods. The general tenor of these letters is to breathlessly announce that, "Your research has been refuted! There's a website that answers all your claims about Judaism and makes some new ones against you!" The person who can actually determine that it is our work that is being attacked on these various and sundry rabbinic and Talmudic websites is quite the detective, since, to the best of our knowledge, as of this writing, none of the many websites dedicated to refuting Judaism's Strange Gods or the pamphlet based upon it, "The Truth About the Talmud," has the candor to mention this writer or Judaism's Strange Gods by name. ¹¹⁷⁶ Everyone which we have examined as of this writing, only quote our texts anonymously. We can only surmise that this reluctance is an indication of the extent to which these critics believe our work to be persuasive. All they will do is quote from Judaism's Strange Gods (but without giving the title or any reference) and then offer their "refutations." Here are some typical examples of what the critics have produced concerning our research.

First Example

Claim: "Says Jesus was a Sorcerer Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus CYeshu' and in footnote #6, Yeshu 'the Nazarene') was executed because he practiced sorcery.

Response by Talmudic apologist: Standard versions of the Talmud do not mention anyone with this name. There is a version which mentions Yeshu HaNotzri who was executed and who had five students who were also executed. The description of this Yeshu HaNotzri indicates that he was executed by stoning and that for forty days before his execution announcements were made looking for evidence in his favor. The Talmud also indicates that this Yeshu HaNotzri was extremely friendly with the local Roman government. The passage describes the way in which the followers of this Yeshu claim that their names (Mathai, Natai, Netzer, Boni and Toda) give them immunity from the death penalty and the way they were answered (by passages from the bible connecting their names with death or execution). As the description of the person involved does not fit the descriptions given in

.

1017

Christian traditions it would appear that it is not referring to the same person. —Michael Gruda

Hoffman's rejoinder: When Mr. Gruda refers to "standard versions of the Talmud" he is referring to censored versions. Of course in a censored Talmud text, this passage would not appear. By substituting the euphemism "standard" for the accurate term "censored" he gives the impression that an established, quality version of the Talmud does not contain the quote. But a censored version is not a quality version of a book; it is a defective version. Quoting a defective version that omits Talmud passages in order to make the case that a Talmud passage is not present, is disingenuous.

There is no question at this late date that "Yeshu HaNotzri" is a Talmudic epithet for Jesus which is still used to this day by rabbis and Talmud students to degrade the Christian savior. The point of the Talmud passage is to ritually defame Jesus. The fact that it does not exactly mirror the gospel account is not evidence that it is a reference to "another Yeshu." Talmudists having been using that alibi for hundreds of years. The context of the passage proves that Jesus is the object of the vilification.

Second Example

Claim: Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the 'uncensored' text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, 'Miriam the hairdresser,' had sex with many men.

Response by Talmudic apologist: "No such text exists in the standard Talmuds." —Michael Gruda

Hoffman's rejoinder: Here is the text, in the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud, at footnote no. 2 of BT Shabbath 104b:

—Hm mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser?-ft ij as we say in Pumbeditha; This one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from'—sataht da) her husband,

Footnote #2. Soncino edition of BT Shabbath 104b

Mr. Gruda's claim that this text does not exist is risible. The Soncino edition of the Talmud is generally conceded to be a "standard" English edition and this footnote is contained within it, as we stated. The Soncino is a partially censored edition, however. The Soncino footnotes attempt to restore some of the meaning omitted from the censored main body of the text, but

1018

even in this case a euphemism — "has been unfaithful" — is employed. In the original Talmud passage, the connotation is clearly indicative of Mary's alleged whoredom. "Miriam the hairdresser" is the Talmud's name for Mary, the mother of Jesus.¹¹⁷⁷

Concerning BT Shabbath 104b, Mr. Gurda regurgitates the customary rabbinic line: "There is reference to a certain Ben Stada who according to R. Eliezer brought knowledge of witchcraft out of Egypt by making marks on his body. The other sages dismissed Ben Stada as a fool. In some versions of the Talmud there is statement to the effect that this person's mother (Miriam Magdala) was not faithful to her husband. Some commentators specifically point out for identification purposes that this person was executed in Lod and is not identifiable with anyone mentioned in Christian traditions. The Talmud also notes that the name Miriam Magdala was a very common one."

Hoffman's rejoinder: Gruda writes, "Some commentators specifically point out...that this person...is not identifiable with anyone mentioned in Christian traditions." Can we rest easy about Talmudic libel of Mary and Jesus now that we know that "some commentators" inform us this is not a reference to any Christian? On whose authority is this claim advanced and why should anyone believe it? As for Ben Stada, the mysterious "fool," the uncensored texts of the Talmud reveal that this is Jesus Christ. Stada is an epithet derived from the Hebrew/Aramaic root satah/sete ("to depart from the right path, to be unfaithful"). His mother Miriam was called "Stada" to indicate her status as sotah (adulteress).¹¹⁷⁸ Mr. Gruda's method of "refutation" is riddled with holes and misrepresentation of the case at hand.

Third Example Another critic of our writing and research is Rabbi Gil Student (he insists that "Student" is his actual surname, and not a pseudonym). Once again, like the other opposers, as of April 2008, he has written against our work, as have rabbis and Zionists who have dedicated themselves to refuting , yet without having the candor to mention this writer or our book(s) by name. He quotes anonymously from Judaism's Strange Gods

.

1019

as it was excerpted in a tract we published entitled "The Truth About the Talmud: Judaism's Holiest Book." Here is the quote he attempts to refute:

From: Rabbi Gil Student: "The Accusation: 'The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): 'My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament).'

"It is indeed interesting that anyone should make this claim about the Talmud. While it is certainly not true that Judaism views the Talmud as being holier than the Bible, what if it were true? How does that in any way show that Judaism is wrong?"

Hoffman replies: This rhetorical question by Rabbi Student, who is incredulous at the thought that anything could be wrong with Judaism, even if the Bible was not its holiest book, reveals the hubris which even the public defenders of Judaism exhibit. Here is our answer to Rabbi Student: since Judaism claims to be a Bible-based religion, if it does not hold the Bible as supreme, it is not, therefore a Biblical creed. Not to worry, though. Rabbi Student's question is only rhetorical. He claims to believe that Judaism does regard the Bible as its supreme book: "However, as with most of these claims, the exact opposite is true. Judaism considers the Bible to be its holiest book and biblical laws are considered most important."

If Rabbi Student were a skilled and erudite opponent I would be willing to give him all the credit in the world, as the pope gave John Calvin in the quotation cited toward the beginning of this book. But in fact, even though Rabbi Student enjoys prestige and influence among Judeo-Churchians who often refer people who are beginning to doubt Judaism's Talmudic "goodness," to Student for "correction," we have found him to be an obtuse and inept apologist for Judaism. We are confident that there are better ones available, but he seems to be the most popular, as of this writing. This will probably change in the future. In fact, if this book of ours obtains a sufficiently massive readership, chameleon Judaism will very likely morph into a decidedly different shape as part of its aptitude for defensive coloration. But as of this writing, he's the one Christians are most often referred to if they happen to encounter our writings.

1020

Rabbi Student is so obtuse that in supposedly proving his point that we're wrong, and Judaism's holiest book is in fact the Bible and not the Talmud, he makes our case for us. In order to attempt to prove his point, he quotes from BT Kiddushin 30a which tells a Judaic to spend ²A of the time studying the Talmud (the Mishnah of the Pharisees and the later rabbinic Gemara, together forming the "Talmud"), and only Vz studying the Bible ("Scriptures"). Here's the passage Rabbi Student cites:

"Talmud Kiddushin 30a. A man must always divide his years into three — one third in Scriptures, one third in Mishnah, and one third in Talmud. Who knows how long he will live? Rather his day must be split into thirds."

Here's Rabbi Student's comment on BT Kiddushin 30a: "Bible study may begin at the age of five but the Talmud tells us that it must remain a major part of our daily study routine....There is no question that the Bible, as the Written Law, is a center-piece of Judaism."

Well, not quite a "major part" Rabbi Student, actually the passage you quote from the Gemara shows that Scripture study comprises only a minor part (one-third) of the Judaic student's attention. This hardly qualifies it as a "center-piece" of Judaism. But in the face of these facts he makes the demonstrably false claim anyway, predicated on his ipse dixit "I told you so" prestige as a rabbi. For those who don't accept prestige as a guarantor of validity, there is no substance to his argument. (Remember, this is the argument Rabbi Student advanced prior to the publication of this book. He may attempt to strengthen or alter his argument after this rejoinder of ours is published).

Fourth Example Perhaps the most amusing attempted defense of the Talmud which Rabbi Student proffers is his disquisition on BT Moed Kattan 17a. This is a difficult passage to defend because its admonition to Judaics is so blatantly defective and morally perverse:

1021

Rabbi Ila'i said: If a person is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known, dress in black clothes, cover his head in black, and do what his heart desires so that God's name will not be desecrated. — BT Moed Kattan 17a

Rabbi Student's defense of the indefensible Moed Kattan 17a is as follows: "Note the part of the passage that is not quoted in the accusation. The accusers do not mention that this person (not necessarily a Jew) must dress in black and cover his head. Why should this be if the Talmud is offering advice on how to commit a crime? Quite the opposite, this person should try to blend in with everyone else. Rather the Talmud is offering very sound psychological advice. This person is not directly told Tou can't do it.' That advice to a person steeped in desire is meaningless because the person has lost control of his actions. Rather, the person is bidden to first delay his intended actions by going to a city where he is not known. This lengthy trip will serve as a cooling off period. He is then told to dress humbly which should further serve as a reminder of what he should be doing compared to what he plans on doing. Rather than offering carte blanche permission to sin, the Talmud is suggesting a form of indirect rebuke to prevent the person from sinning...a subterfuge to convince this sick individual to follow the path to health."

Hoffman's rejoinder: Rabbi Student is saying that the only reason that the Talmud recommends that a wrong-doer should commit his evil in another city is to provide a "cooling-off period" for the would-be criminal to reconsider the acts he is planning before he actually carries them out. The problem with Student's assertion is that there is no evidence for this claim and it runs contrary to the sense of the passage.

The person is being told to disguise himself and go and do the evil that he is tempted to do in another city, quite obviously so that he may, if so inclined, do the evil in a place where he is not known and will not be detected. This is the plain meaning of BT Moed Kattan 17a. Anything else is the shrewd pleading of a lawyer. The far-fetched supposition about the passage being a "subterfuge" for shaming the potential evil-doer, is nowhere sustained by the denotative meaning of the text. Nowhere does the text give

1022

any indication of what Rabbi Student ascribes to it. In his desperation to defend the indefensible he's concocted a nonsensical explanation.

In the past, many rabbis have denied that this passage exists in the Babylonian Talmud, so problematic is it for their pose as righteous representatives of an ethical religion. Gil Student concedes that it's in the Babylonian Talmud and then tries to persuade the reader that the text doesn't really say what it says. How much of this type of "reasoning" do we have to expend time upon in rejoining? If there are "Christians" who find Student's apologia compelling, then it seems there is little remedy save prayer for people who do not have "eyes to see."

The reader may be thinking that we have picked one of the less astute rabbis to showcase as an example of the attacks of our critics. Surely there are rabbis who are far more competent than this one? To which we reply, no doubt there are; we can think of several, beginning with Daniel Boyarin of the University of California at Berkeley. However, Prof. Boyarin has not deigned to take critical notice of our work and if he did, his rejoinder would likely be considerably more erudite and nuanced than the sloppy cannon-blasts that boom forth from the fortress which Rabbi Student endeavors to defend. Thus far, the overarching strategy of containment, however, has been to refuse to reply in a scholarly way to our research, but rather to blacklist, boycott, censor and silence us and our books and tracts, until such time —if ever — that this writer gains an audience and our influence becomes too substantial to be ignored. If and when that event should occur, it's likely that some heavy-hitters very much out of Rabbi Student's league will be summoned to the polemical frontline. In the meantime, Student strikes many of the denizens of Judeo-Churchianity as a formidable apologist for Judaism. To them he's a regular Talmud Answer Man. This says quite a bit about the mental state and intellectual level of most Judeo-Churchians. For many of these folks, if a rabbi even sneezes in our direction it constitutes a deafening refutation. Judeo-Churchians have a reverential awe and deference for rabbis that puts them in thrall to them. The true followers of Christ, however, have no such awe. Like Jesus did when He was on earth, authentic contemporary Christians ask the Gil Students of the world: "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony" (John 3:10-11).

1023

Furthermore, it should be noted that Rabbi Student, like many of the Orthodox rabbis of which we are cognizant, is a censor. Freedom of speech and inquiry are not his principles. On Aug. 14, 2007 he wrote, "Comments that attempt to undermine Judaism will be deleted. It is not out of fear but out of annoyance....Skeptics are welcome...to contribute comments, but not to preach their skepticism. I have no doubt that skepticCs)... will take this as an admission that traditional Judaism cannot withstand criticism. Let them."

1024

The Talmudic Mentality

Yes, Rabbi Student, we do take your admission as evidence that "traditional" Judaism cannot withstand criticism, and that is why "traditional" Judaism operates a mammoth censorship apparatus and it is this censor, Rabbi "Gil Student," who is proud that he "deletes comments that undermine Judaism" and who would, perhaps, like to delete our books. Unfortunately for them, the Orthodox rabbinate cannot accomplish the objective of silencing skeptics. Therefore the rabbis attack our work in the style of falsification which is the signpost of the Talmudic mentality, which one encounters in numerous Zionist and rabbinic forums, as for example the New York Times. Leslie Gelb's attack, in the Times' Sept. 23, 2007 Sunday Book Review, on John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt's The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy "refers repeatedly to a Jewish lobby despite the fact that the authors never employ the term in their book. Indeed, they explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading, both because the lobby includes non-Judaics like the 'Christian' Zionists and because many Judaic-Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements. The Israel lobby, the authors emphasized, 'is denned by its specific political agenda ... not the religious or ethnic identity of those pushing it.' By using the phrase 'Jewish lobby' in the headline of the review, in the text and in a pull-quote, Gelb and the editors of the New York Times Book Review misrepresented a key part of the authors' argument." ^1]79

It was important for the New York Times Book Review to falsely accuse John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt of writing a book against the "Jewish lobby," rather than truthfully reporting the important distinction that Mearsheimer and Walt make concerning the Israeli lobby. Distinctions like that however, are not common to the Talmudic mentality, which tends to constantly generalize about its rivals. Undoubtedly there will be reviewers of who will refuse to report the distinction we make between Jews and Judaics; between Khazars and Jews, and between Talmudists and Zionists on one hand, and Judaics in general on the other. If the work of Prof. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Prof. Walt of Harvard University, can be so egregiously falsified with seeming impunity,

1025

one can only wonder at the extent to which the contents of , authored by an obscure researcher who is without university connections, is going to be misrepresented.

The Talmudic mentality (a mentality which is also possessed by Freemasons and gentiles on the neocon Right and the Zionist Left and is not exclusive to all Judaics), requires the blurring of distinctions in order to reduce all thoughtful critics of Pharisaic Judaism to the same stereotypical lump: Jew-hating-antisemitic-neo-Nazi-bigots. This conglomerate invective works wonders on the majority of people who tend to think in terms of "sound bite" advertising jargon. The fact that this invective also constitutes the grave sin of false witness is not an issue for the Talmudic mentality. Being Talmudic, they don't view their critics as fully human, and therefore in their own minds, they can't sin against those who are lacking Neshama HaElyonah. False witness is a virtue in their view because it helps to limit our readership and curtail our mission. The reason we mourn concerning the deceitful tactics of the Talmudists is because we regard Talmudists as fully human and the equal of any person in the eyes of God. Yahweh created them for a higher and better destiny. In doing the work of the evil one they brutalize their humanity and risk their immortal souls. May God see fit to enlighten them and bring them to the knowledge of His Truth. The rabbis and other Talmudists are not the only ones at fault. By their radical departure from Biblical teaching and Christian practice, thousands of Catholic and Protestant leaders have revealed themselves to be accomplices of Antichrist, by Scriptural definition: "Such a man is the anti-Christ who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father" (I John 2:23). Christ testified that "no man cometh unto the Father except by me." Yet men have grown "dull of hearing" (Hebrews 5:11) and to the great drama of Christian salvation prefer instead a bland accommodation with the spirit of the modern age and the worldly churches, which hold that a civilization based on the Father can be created by those who have made a religion out of denouncing and rejecting His Son. This delusion — which would be laughable were its consequences not so tragic — has led to the rise of legions of "Judeo-Christians," who equate Judaism's strange gods with authentic Old Testament Israel and who go so far as to claim that it is necessary for Christians to embrace Judaism in order to be justified before God.
1026

They look to a religion founded on a Pharisaic sect comprised of the committed enemies of Christ for clues on how to become a better follower of Christ! Worse, they intimate that Jesus is a liar. Jesus directly condemns the "tradition of the elders" and its "commandments of men," which are the oral basis of the idolized books, Talmud and Kabbalah and the sacred and legal texts derived from them (Matthew 15:1-9, Mark 7:1-13). Jesus puts paid to the lie that the Pharisees had any oral teaching from Moses. He tells them that if Moses were really their teacher they would follow Him (Jesus), not their tradition (John 5:46-47). The brazen betrayal and hypocrisy of supposed "Judeo-Christians" in the face of clear Gospel teaching on this subject, bids battle and defiance unto Heaven itself. The glorified modern popes, cardinals and bishops, celebrity Protestant preachers, politicians and their rabbinic mentors, often succeed for a time in deceiving the multitude, and in gathering a large and noisy following in this world, but their deeds also follow them and proclaim their evil, long after the paeans of media praise have wafted away on the sands of time. God is not mocked.

1027