post header

Jesus in the Talmud: DEBUNKING jewish damage control with FACTS and LOGIC

Maybe you have read on the internet the many claims there are about the many deeply blasphemous ways Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud. Many have not. If knowledge of these facts were widespread, oceans of boomer money and effeminate “christian” sympathy would be lost, so Jews will do everything in their considerable worldly power to shut it down.

Despite likely having at least heard of these things, odds are you haven’t personally checked the source material. The average Jew knows this, and his tactics will be very similar to those of muslims and atheists. As happened recently to me on Gab, the Jew will claim that there actually isn’t any mention of Jesus in the Talmud -- that it is a poor, innocent Jewish commentary and that those are just evil, antisemitic attacks. The Jew will most often then try to weasel down one of these two routes:

  1. Claiming that there is no mention of Jesus in the original hebrew. They know that most people do not know hebrew and/or have not read the Talmud in hebrew, and will thus have no means to prove the falsehood of this statement.
  2. Claiming that there is no mention of Jesus or Yeshua. Rather, just some totally-not-Jesus “Yeshu”,  which is supposedly proven by the fact that this “Yeshu” appears at times along with historical characters that were not contemporaries of Jesus.

To rebuke this nonsense, we will check the source material, the Talmud, and what it actually says. But before that, I will partially address point 2. It is not strange that mentions of Jesus use the name Yeshu instead of Yeshua, since Yeshua means “God saves” (as mentioned in Matthew 1:21, because “He will save His people from their sins”, one of the many statements that mention Jesus’ divinity). Jews, however, do not think that Jesus is God nor is saved by God, so they replace the name with “Yeshu”, which works as an acronym for “May his name be blotted out for ever” (though don’t expect a Jew to ever openly admit this). Not only that, but it is to be expected that Jews writing slanderous fiction about Jesus (whom they make sure not to teach anything about) will get people and dates mixed up, since they couldn’t care less about those details.

That out of the way, let's get our hands dirty. The first problem is that, as was said earlier, Jews will do anything in their power to keep the 'stupid goyim' from knowing their hearts, so they will self-censor the Talmud to replace or remove the mentions of Jesus. Unfortunately for Jews, there is a certain document called the “Munich Codex." It is the oldest manuscript in hebrew of the entire Talmud, preserved in a library in Munich (hence the name). This manuscript is old enough to predate the censors, and thus shows the actual, true text.

And fortunately, we don’t need to know Hebrew to check where Jesus is mentioned since in the 20th century, rabbi Dr I. Epstein led the edition of a translation of the entire Talmud into English. Despite being based on more recent texts for the main body, it includes comprehensive notes detailing (among other things) the places where it differs with the older uncensored editions. This edition is available for free at For improved availability and archiving, Legio Christi has also assembled an archival pdf with over 10000 pages including the compiled website pdf files, available in the reading list section of this website.

So next I will search for the word “Jesus” in this pdf and go over every single relevant instance where Jesus or related people are mentioned in the original text -- be it because of the negative message, or to show the self-censor of the Jews:

Chagigah 4b

In Chagigah 4b, it is written:

“Is there anyone who passes away before one's [allotted] time? Yes, as in the story [heard] by R. Bibi b. Abaye [(an occultist)], who was frequently visited by the Angel of death. [Once] the latter said to his messenger: Go, bring me Miriam, the women's hairdresser!”.

According to the notes, Miriam would refer to Mary the mother of Jesus, with the description of hairdresser (megaddela) being connected to Mary Magdalene, with whom there seems to be a confusion. This mention is relatively benign.

Sotah 47a

In Sotah 47a it is written:

“Our Rabbis have taught: Always let the left hand thrust away and the right hand draw near. Not like Elisha who thrust Gehazi away with both his hands (and not like R. Joshua b. Perahiah who thrust one of his disciples away with both his hands)”.

There, the “one of his disciples” at the end reads “Jesus the Nazarene” in the older uncensored editions. However, the same part mentions as contemporary King Jannaeus, who, as noted, lived a century before Jesus. I guess that according to point 2, this must be a second, completely unrelated “Jesus the Nazarene” since there is a chronological discrepancy. But, anyway, what is said about Jesus the Nazarene? Is there any information about this disciple that was thrust with both hands? Well, there is. The text continues:

“[R. Joshua] arose and came back and found himself in a certain inn where they paid him great respect. He said: ‘How beautiful is this ‘aksania’! One of his disciples said to him, ‘My master, her eyes are narrow!’ He replied to him, ‘Wicked person! Is it with such thoughts that thou occupiest thyself !’ He sent forth four hundred horns and excommunicated him. [The disciple] came before him on many occasions, saying'Receive me’; but he refused to notice him. One day while [R. Joshua] was reciting the Shema’, he came before him. His intention was to receive him and he made a sign to him with his hand, but the disciple thought he was repelling him. So he went and set up a brick and worshipped it. [R. Joshua] said to him, ‘Repent’; but he answered him, ‘Thus have I received from thee that whoever sinned and caused others to sin is deprived of the power of doing penitence’. A Master has said: The disciple practised magic and led Israel astray.”

The “One of his disciples” is, again, “Jesus” in the Munich Codex. As we can see, according to the Talmud, Jesus is a lusting idiot who was excommunicated, then started worshipping a brick when rejected. And most importantly, is described as having practiced magic and leading Israel astray.

Gittin 57a

In Gittin 57a it is written:

“He then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel. He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement.”

The “sinners of Israel” at the beginning is actually “Jesus” in the Munich Codex. Therefore, Jesus is described as someone who “mocks at the words of the Sages” and as punishment is burning in boiling hot excrement in Hell.

Sanhedrin 43a

In Sanhedrin 43a it is written:

“This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto. [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! — ‘Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential]. Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court]…”

According to the notes, the two passages after “but not previous thereto” (that is, everything related to “Yeshu” and his disciples) have been removed in all censored editions. So, we have this totally-not-Jesus Jesus who:

  1. Was taken to the Sanhedrim and condemned there,
  2. Was “hanged” on the eve of Passover,
  3. Was going to be stoned for sorcery and enticing Israel to apostasy,
  4. Was influential, and
  5. Had several disciples.

But, of course, this has nothing to do with Jesus, since the name is Yeshu and not Yeshua, and the number of disciples is different in this made-up piece of Jewish slander, and other similar things. So that there is no doubt that “hanging” would relate to the crucifixion, a similar process with a sunk post and a cross-piece at the top is described in Sanhedrin 46a:


Sanhedrin 67a

In Sanhedrin 67a it is written:

“A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him, but he cannot see them. Then the person he wished to seduce says to him, ‘Tell me privately what thou hast proposed to me’; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; ‘But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols’? If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: ‘It is our duty and seemly for us’, the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to the Beth din, and have him stoned.”

Nothing about Jesus here so far. However, the notes state that the uncensored editions continue with the following passage:

“And this they did to Ben Stada, and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ben Stada was Ben Padira. R. Hisda said: ‘The husband was Stada~ the paremour Padira. But was not the husband Pappos b. Judah? — His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair?: — As they say in Pumbaditha, This woman has turned away (sat th da) from her husband, (s.e., committed adultery).”

“Stada” would be Joseph. “Ben Stada”, that is, the son of Stada, would be Jesus. The text explains how while Joseph was the husband of the mother, the actual father of Jesus is Padira (rendering him “Ben Padira”). Someone seems to especulate that Stada was the name of the mother, but it is corrected that his mother was Mary (“Miriam”), and that she was an adulteress. Mary is even called hairdresser, again because of the word for hairdresser (megadella) and the confusion with Mary Magdalene. There is even more evidence: Padira would be “Panthera”, the Roman solder that the earliest Jews said was Jesus’ father according to Origen in Contra Celsus, book 1, chapter 32: “But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that ‘when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera’”. The notes also give a possible origin for the name “Stada”, which is not relevant given the mountain of evidence showing the passage is talking about the Holy Family.

Shabbath 104b

In shabbath 104b a similar passage can be found. It is written:

“It was taught. R. Eliezer said to the Sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh?”

And the uncensored text follows according to the notes:

“Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? — Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? — His mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? — It is as we say in Pumbeditha: This one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from' — satath da) her husband.”

Shanhedrin 106a

In Sanhedrin 106a it is written:

“Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. What business had Balaam there? — R. Jonathan said: He went to receive his reward for the twenty-four thousand Israelites whose destruction he had encompassed. Mar Zutra b. Tobiah remarked in Rab's name: This is what men say, ‘When the camel went to demand horns, they cut off the ears he had.’ Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the sword]. A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! — R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer. R. Papa observed: This is what men say, ‘She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.’”

This text describes a “Balaam”, who was slayed by the children of Israel for bringing destruction to israelites, and who was the son of Beor, a prophet who was degraded to soothsayer for cursing Israel, and in reference to this it is added: “‘She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters”, which could easily refer to Mary, Balaam being an alias of Jesus, which is also used in other passages such as Sanhedrin 106b. It reads:

“Hast thou heard how old Balaam was? — He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days, [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old. He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's Chronicle, in which it is stated, ‘Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.’ Mar, the son of Rabina, said to his sons: In the case of all [those mentioned as having no portion in the future world] you should not take [the Biblical passages dealing with them] to expound them [to their discredit], excepting in the case of the wicked Balaam: whatever you find [written] about him, lecture upon it [to his disadvantage]”

Here, “Phinehas the Robber” would be Pilate, and the “Chronicle of Balaam” would be the Gospel. This connection, however, is not definitive and is just a theory.

Sanhedrin 107b

In Sanhedrin 107b we can find a passage very similar to the one in Sotah 47a:

“Our Rabbis taught: Let the left hand repulse but the right hand always invite back: not as Elisha, who thrust Gehazi away with both hands”

According to the notes, the uncensored editions also contain:

“and not like R. Joshua b. Perahjah, who repulsed Jesus (the Nazarene) with both hands. Gehazi, as it etc.”

And later, the uncensored editions also contain the same story:

“What of R. Joshua b. Perahjah? — When King Jannai slew our Rabbis, R. Joshua b. Perahjah (and Jesus) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resumption of peace, Simeon b. Shetach sent to him: ‘From me, (Jerusalem) the holy city, to thee, Alexandria of Egypt (my sister). My husband dwelleth within thee and I am desolate.’ He arose, went, and found himself in a certain inn, where great honour was shewn him. ‘How beautiful is this Acsania!’ (The word denotes both inn and innkeeper. R. Joshua used it in the first sense; the answer assumes the second to be meant.) Thereupon (Jesus) observed, ‘Rabbi, her eyes are narrow.’ ‘Wretch,’ he rebuked him, ‘dost thou thus engage thyself.’ He sounded four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. He (Jesus) came before him many times pleading, ‘Receive me!’ But he would pay no heed to him. One day he (R. Joshua) was reciting the Shema’, when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and worshipped it. ‘Repent,’ said he (R. Joshua) to him. He replied, ‘I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance.’ And a Master has said, ‘Jesus the Nazarene practised magic and led Israel astray.’”.

From these few examples then, we can conclude the following: Jesus was, according to the Talmud, a lusting idiot who was rejected, started worshipping a brick and practicing sorcery. He then led others astray and gained influence. For this, he was going to be stoned but was ultimately hanged on the eve of Passover when sentenced by the Sanhedrin. His mother was an adulteress who cheated on her unknowing husband, and he, Jesus, is currently burning in excrement in Hell.

But remember, the Jews insist that they are chosen for whatever, so that makes this all fictional. Jesus is not in the Talmud, all the aforementioned passages were self-censored by Jews for no reason at all, and any resemblance to real people, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.