The Gospel According to the Pharisees, Part 4, or, The Gospel of Ben Seṭadha’:

Jewish date: 24 Tammuz 5771 (Parashath Mas‘e).

Today’s holidays: The Three Weeks (Judaism), Feast Day of Joachim and Ann (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Stanley Kubrick (Church of the SubGenius).

Upcoming events:

• The group protesting for Jewish rights on the Temple Mount and against the Waqf’s destruction of everything Jewish up there (myself included) will be at the Shuq in Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) this Thursday (28 July 2011), probably around 7:00 PM, in an educational capacity.
• One of the people at the last protest (this past Thursday) was handing out pamphlets promoting Jews visiting the Temple Mount on Ro’sh Ḥodhesh ’Av (1 August 2011). Visiting hours for Jews are 7:30 AM to 11:00 AM and 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM. One should visit a miqweh, wear non-leather shoes, and bring a one’s identity card. See “The Temple Mount: Bird's Eye Guide to the Temple Mount” and “Ascending the Temple Mount: An Introduction and Brief Guide” and consult a competent Orthodox rav for more information. Remember: The more Jews who show up, the more the police and the politicians know that the Temple Mount matters to Jews and will be less likely to pander to Muslim discrimination.

Greetings.

And now for the fourth in my series on Jesus in the Talmudh. (See also “The Gospel According to the Pharisees”, “The Gospel According to the Pharisees, part 2”, and “The Gospel According to the Pharisees, Part 3”.) The Wikipedia article I got a lot of the references from (thanks to Stephen), “Jesus in the Talmud”, lists some references to one Ben Seṭadha’ who sounds a bit like Jesus and Yeshu the Noṣri.

Talmudh Yerushalmi, Shabbath 12:4:

[Mishnah:] One who writes on his flesh [on Shabbath] is liable [to bring a sin offering if unintentionally and to death if deliberately]. And one who scratches [letters] on his flesh [on Shabbath], Rabbi ’Eli‘ezer declares him liable to bring a sin offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua‘ exempts [him].

[Expositing on the Mishnah:] The one who draws like the form of writing on the skin [on Shabbath] is exempt.

Rabbi ’Eli‘ezer said to them, “And did not Ben Seṭadha’ bring out sorcery from Miṣrayim [Egypt] just this way?

They said to him, “Because of one incompetent, do we lose many smart [people]?”

Talmudh Bavil, Shabbath 104b:

[Expositing on the Mishnah:] “One who scratches [letters] on his flesh [on Shabbath—Rabbi ’Eli‘ezer declares him guilty to bring a sin offering, and the Sages exempt [him].]”: It was taught: Rabbi ’Eli‘ezer said to the Sages, “And did not Ben Seṭadha’ bring out sorcery from Miṣrayim in a scratch that [was] on his flesh [i.e., scratched into his flesh]?”

They said to him, “He was an incompetent, and one does not bring a proof [of how people normally behave] from incompetents.”

The term which I translate as “incompetent” in both passages, shoṭeh, is frequently grouped together with ḥeresh (“deaf-mute”) and qaṭan (“minor”, someone under age 13 if male and 12 if female) as part of the canonical group of people who are not legally responsible for their actions; someone has to have severe mental problems to be considered a shoṭeh. The term also is part of the compound term ḥasidh shoṭeh (“incompetent pietist”), which refers to someone whose priorities are severely wrong, such as a man who declines to save a woman drowning in a river because if he does so, he will have to see her naked. It is no stretch to interpret this passage as meaning that the Sages thought Ben Seṭadha’ was some sort of idiot or lunatic.

Do note that Ben Seṭadha’, like Yeshu the Noṣri and the Jesus of the Gospels spent time in Egypt. And like Yeshu the Noṣri, Ben Seṭadha’ was a magician. Also note that while the passages about Yeshu the Noṣri do not approve of his behavior, none of them suggest that he was mentally defective. Keep in mind: doing wrong is not the same thing as being stupid.

Talmudh Bavil, Sanhedhrin 67a:

[[In a discussion of the trial of inciters:]]

And if he said, “Thus are our obligations and thus is beautiful for us [to worship idols]”, the witnesses that hear from outside bring him to court and stone him. And thus they did to Ben Seṭadha’ in Ludh [Lod, a city near Tel ’Aviv and site of the Ben Guryon Airport], and they hung him on the eve of Pesaḥ [Passover].

Ben [= son of] Seṭadha’? He [was the] son of Pandera’!

Rav Ḥisda’ said, “The husband [was] Seṭadha’. The one who had intercourse [with his mother was] Pandera’.”

The husband [was] Pappos ben Yehudhah!

[Yes, ] but his mother was Seṭadha’.

His mother was Miryam the braider of women[’s hair = Miryam meghadela’ neshaya’]!

As they said in Pumbedhitha’ [a center of Jewish learning in Babylonia]: This one turned [seṭath da’] from her husband.

Like Yeshu the Noṣri and the Jesus of the Gospel According to John, Ben Seṭadha’ is executed on the eve of Pesaḥ. Like Yeshu the Noṣri, Ben Seṭadha’ is stoned and hung by Jews, not crucified by Romans. That this specifically happens in Ludh is unlike the Gospels, in which Jesus is executed in Yerushalayim.

Note there is some confusion over who were Ben Seṭadha’’s parents, with the resolution being that his father was Pandera’, his mother’s husband was Pappos ben Yehudhah, and his mother was Miryam [= Mary]. Only the last agrees to any degree with the Gospels and the Aramaic suggests an identification of Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary Magdalene. (Digest that, Dan Brown and Lady Gaga!) Miryam was an adulteress, which fits well with the Gospel claim that Jesus was literally the Son of God and with the Christian tradition that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute or adulteress. (And, yes, I am aware the Gospels are silent on Mary Magdalene’s sex life and I have heard that such an identification may be late, but the parallel is still there.)

Though there was a bit of similarity of Ben Seṭadha’ to Yeshu the Noṣri and Jesus of the Gospels, there is not a lot to go on in the first place. That a scholar such as Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah could have at one point voluntarily associated with Yeshu the Noṣri suggests Yeshu was probably at least somewhat intelligent. This is confirmed by Yeshu being able to disgrace his learning—he had to be able to acquire the learning in order to be able to disgrace it. Ben Seṭadha’ seems to have not been mentally all there, suggesting that he was a different person.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

The Gospel According to the Pharisees, Part 3

Jewish date: 22 Tammuz 5771 (Parashath Mas‘e).

Today’s holidays: The Three Weeks (Judaism), Seventeenth Sunday of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Sylvester Graham (Church of the SubGenius).

Upcoming events:

• The group protesting for Jewish rights on the Temple Mount and against the Waqf’s destruction of everything Jewish up there (myself included) will be at the Shuq in Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) this Thursday (28 July 2011), probably around 7:00 PM, in an educational capacity.
• One of the people at the last protest (this past Thursday) was handing out pamphlets promoting Jews visiting the Temple Mount on Ro’sh Ḥodhesh ’Av (1 August 2011). Visiting hours for Jews are 7:30 AM to 11:00 AM and 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM. One should visit a miqweh, wear non-leather shoes, and bring a one’s identity card. See “The Temple Mount: Bird's Eye Guide to the Temple Mount” and “Ascending the Temple Mount: An Introduction and Brief Guide” and consult a competent Orthodox rav for more information. Remember: The more Jews who show up, the more the police and the politicians know that the Temple Mount matters to Jews and will be less likely to pander to Muslim discrimination.

Greetings.

Image of Jesus making himself look like an ignoramus in front of Pharisees via Wikipedia

As intended, I am continuing my series on Jesus in the Talmudh. (See “The Gospel According to the Pharisees” and “The Gospel According to the Pharisees, part 2”.) Today’s installment (in what looks like it is going to drag out to at least five installments) deals with what the Rabbis thought about Yeshu the Noṣri, who may well be Jesus of Nazareth.

Talmudh Bavli, Berakhoth 17b:

[In a discussion of the eulogies of great scholars which ends up as exegesis of Psalms 144:14, giving examples of bad students:] “In our streets”—that we should not have a son or student that spoils his dish [i.e., disgraces his learning] in public, e.g., Yeshu the Noṣri.

This passage indicates that the Pharisees thought about as highly of Yeshu’s learning as he did of theirs.

Talmudh Bavli, Giṭṭin 56b-57a:

’Unqelos bar Qaloniqos [author of the canonical translation of the Torah into Aramaic] was the son of the sister of Ṭiṭus [Titus, emperor of Rome]; he wanted to convert.

[[’Unqelos raises up Titus and Bil‘am and questions them about who is important in the World to Come.]]

[’Unqelos] went [and] raised up with necromancy Yeshu the Noṣri. He said to him, “Who is important in that world?”

[Yeshu] said to him, “Yisra’el [Israel].”

[’Unqelos asked,] “What about to be joined to them?”

[Yeshu] said to him, “Inquire about their grace; do not inquire about their tragedy. Whoever touches them, it is as if he touches the pupil [better: cornea] of his eye.”

[’Unqelos] said to him, “The judgement of ‘that man’ [i.e., Yeshu] is in what?”

[Yeshu] said to him, “In boiling excrement.”

Your humble blogger finds it difficult to see this as an actual historical event. At best, it could reflect some meditative or drug-induced experience. What is obvious what whoever wrote it thought about Yeshu the Noṣri.

Both of these passages demonstrate a very negative view of Yeshu the Noṣri, which is in complete agreement with the passages I have already written about. They also reflect the negative attitudes of the Pharisees towards Jesus depicted in the New Testament, the big difference being that here Jesus is the bad guy. Note that while Jesus in the Gospels gets the upper hand in arguments (probably through omission of the Pharisees’ rebuttals of anything Jesus has to say, if these arguments ever took place at all), here he is not even given the opportunity to make a case.

Thus ends what I have managed to find on Yeshu the Noṣri in the Talmudh. Up next are passages on Ben Seṭadha’, which resemble the stories of Jesus and Yeshu and may—or may not—be the same person.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

Temple Mount protest #1 and Silwan

Jewish date: 17 Tammuz 5771 (Parashath Maṭṭoth).

Today’s holidays: The Fast of Tammuz (Judaism), Tuesday of the Sixteenth Week of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Dr. Doom/St. Thulsa Doom (Church of the SubGenius), Feast Day of the Magi: Krishna (Thelema).

Greetings.

Topic 1: Today is the 17th of Tammuz, a fast day commemorating the breaching of the walls of Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), leading to the destruction of the Second Temple. You can find out more about it on the Orthodox Union’s Web-site.

Note: I am fasting, and it may show in the quality of my writing today.

Topic 2: A month ago, I wrote about my visit to the Temple Mount, which I was upset about, both in terms of what I had to do to get up there without being harassed and what I saw up there. This was not the end of the matter. As documented in “Protest: Stop Temple Mount Discrimination, Desecration”, last Thursday I took part in a demonstration against discrimination against Jews on the Temple Mount and of the Waqf’s treatment of the place. I am the guy with the sign saying אנחנו לא ד׳ימיים (“We are not dhimmis”), a refusal to accept Islamic domination. The protest took place at Gesher hamMesharim (the Strings Bridge) in Yerushalayim (Jerusalem). I asked the obvious question why the protest was not taking place somewhere more relevant to the Temple Mount. According to the organizer, holding the protest at the Western Wall would likely get us arrested. Instead, we (something like ten people) stood at the side of a major road with signs, chanting and talking with interested passersby in Hebrew and English. The number of protesters may have been small, but at least we got news coverage. Another protest is planned this Thursday.

Topic 3: I spent Shabbath in Kefar hatTemanim/Silwan, an illegally built neighborhood in Yerushalayim. The place I was at was Beth Yonathan, one of the few Jewish-owned and -occupied structures in the neighborhood; it contains several apartments and a synagogue/kolel (a sort of organization for Torah study). The rest of the neighborhood was built by Muslim Arabs, and much of the building was done in a national park—land which belongs to the state. The lack of legality shows. Many of the buildings are in bad condition. The roads are too narrow, too steep, frequently missing sidewalks, and blatantly unsafe. I whole-heartedly support government plans to bulldoze the structures built in the national park.

There is the graffiti everywhere, predominantly in Arabic.

This picture was taken on Saturday night on the way out of Silwan. See that Arabic graffiti? That is Allāhu akbar (الله أكبر, “Allah is great”), a phrase made infamous for its use by Islamic terrorists. I also saw a circled swastika graffiti on Shabbath afternoon. (Sorry, no photographs from during Shabbath.)

The anti-Semitism was not limited to graffiti. The Jews in Silwan live under the constant protection of guards and police, and it is needed, even just to take a walk. A stupid kid actually threw a rock at the army vehicle which took me and some other Jews from a parking lot to Beth Yonathan. Beth Yonathan’s multi-layered windows have cracks and bullet holes.

So why are Jews voluntarily living in such a hostile place? Jews and Muslims are fighting a low-level war over Israel. One of the tactics Muslims are using in the West for expanding the dominion of Islam is the creation of no-go zones, places where only Muslims can enter safely. (See “The 751 No-Go Zones of France” and “Muslim Autonomous Zones in the West?” for examples.) Israel is no exception, with the short-term, self-professed goal of the Palestinian Authority being the creation of a State of Palestine, essentially a very large no-go zone, since Jews in “Palestine” is somehow anathema. Silwan is just a smaller-scale attempt. Since Zionist Jews hold they have a duty to settle the land, no-go zones are anathema to them. Their living in such a hostile place is a concrete denial of Islamic domination.

Also: One can tell that there a sizable number of Muslims in Silwan due to the regular calls to prayer from minarets, such as this one near the parking lot:

The call to prayer was easily hearable within Beth Yonathan. There were also a lot of fireworks set off on Shabbath night, which was explained to me—I hope I am getting this right—as that Ramaḍān is coming soon, and unmarried Muslims are trying to get married ahead of then due to a prohibition of marrying then; the fireworks are part of the celebration. (Anyone sufficiently knowledgeable about Islam, please let me know if this is correct or not.)

Peace and have an easy fast.

’Aharon/Aaron

Review of The Gospel According to St. Matthew

Jewish date:  8 Tammuz 5771 (Parashath Pineḥas).

Today’s holidays:  Fifteenth Sunday of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Mel Blanc (Church of the SubGenius).

Greetings.

Yes, I am reviewing The Gospel According to St. Matthew, yet another Gospel-based film, one specifically based on Matthew and currently watchable on Hulu.  Happily (or unhappily, depending on your point of view), there is not much to say.  Other than ṣara‘ath (often mistranslated as “leprosy”) being confounded with a facial deformity, it follows Matthew closely, warts and all, especially the warts.  While authenticity is good, absolutely nothing is done to fill in the gaps in the original text and make it more understandable.  You will find nothing to explain why anyone did anything which is not in the Gospels.  Everything I complained about the Gospels being anti-Semitic is there, without the least sign of reflection on the part of those who made this film on what Jesus’s opponents actually believed or why they were opposed to him; Jesus is depicted as obviously right without question.  Pilate and the rest of the Romans get off easy here, too.  Only two things are particularly unusual:

1) The visual style is bad, even taking into consideration that this movie was made back in the 1960s, when video was often still in black-and-white and special effects were crude.  The scenery is dull.  The clothing is dull.  The headgear looks especially stupid, and none of it looks like anything your humble blogger has seen in any depiction of Second Temple Period Israel.  Anyone who has opened up Ezekiel knows that angels do not look like young women, but no one who made this movie seems to have considered having the angel at least dress differently from everyone else.

2) To the credit of the lead actor, Jesus is unusually lively for a Gospel film.  Jesus in the Gospels is frequently angry, and in this movie, it actually shows.  It is a controlled anger, a disgust for everything he complains about, which underlies all his speeches.  Jesus also comes off as a bit crazy.

Recommendation:  If you need to review Matthew and have a strong stomach, this is a good film to watch.  Otherwise just skip it; you will not miss anything.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

Satan's Island?

Jewish date:  4 Tammuz 5771 (evening) (Parashath Balaq).

Today’s holidays:  Feast Day of Anthony Zaccaria (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of Saints Cyril and Methodius Day (Christianity), X-Day (Church of the SubGenius).

Greetings.

I must confess I am a bit stuck right now.  I am working on an essay on The Addams Family and managed to get writer’s block.  And thanks to Stephen, I have been looking up material in the Talmudh Bavli which might refer to Jesus, but I am not ready to publish on it yet.  I am therefore going to comment briefly on a short article Barry sent me word of recently which seems to be of the type of thing that I will never be able to get out of my head unless I write something about it.

The article is “Your Turn: Gilligan”, which deals with Gilligan’s Island, the famous sit-com from the 1960s.  Sherwood Schwartz, who created the show, reportedly claimed afterwards that the seven castaways represented the Seven Deadly Sins of Christianity.  This article claims instead:

But a closer viewing indicates that the island may well have been Hell — and the red-clad Gilligan the devil who kept them on his island.

The greatest part of the metaphor, though, is that if the others ever wanted to get off the island, what they needed to do was kill Gilligan — and that each of us has our own inner Gilligan, that sweet-natured, well-meaning part of us that always sabotages us from getting what we really want.

Maybe if we truly want to succeed in life, we need to kill our own inner Gilligan.

I can see the business of the Seven Deadly Sins.  Each of the castaways has weaknesses in their character which they must strive to overcome (like the rest of the human race).  But Gilligan as Satan is more of a stretch than the basic premise of the show that the castaways can never get off the island.  Satan, in Christianity, is a rebel against God, the very personification of evil.  Being deliberately evil for a being who knows full well that God exists and will ultimately prevail is arguably supremely stupid, but Gilligan is merely stupid.  He is not evil.  The only reason his screw-ups keep the other castaways on the island is that if they ever did get off, the show would end.  Satan is also not known for being “sweet-natured” or “well-meaning”; his main interest is getting humans to sin, which often involves getting them to do what they want, as opposed to what is right.  

Likewise, the castaways’ time on the island can hardly be considered Hell.  They may sometimes miss things available back in Hawaii but not on the island, but they quickly grow into a family.  This is despite them getting angry with each other from time to time, but such is completely normal for families.  In the first movie after the series, Rescue from Gilligan’s Island, the castaways, after being separated following their rescue, are stressed over reintegrating into society and are ultimately glad to see each other at their Christmas reunion; if anything, civilization is Hell for them.  In the second movie, The Castaways on Gilligan’s Island, upon being rescued again, the castaways decide not to leave and set up a resort on the island instead.  In the third movie, The Harlem Globetrotters on Gilligan’s Island, the plot centers around saving the island.  None of this is consistent with Hell; it is fully consistent with home.

Conclusion:  Whoever wrote this article was probably being at least as silly as the writers for Gilligan’s Island.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

The Gospel According to the Pharisees, part 2

Jewish date:  24 Siwan 5771 (Parashath Ḥuqqath).

Today’s holidays:  Corpus Christi (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Archie McPhee (Church of the SubGenius).

I post this now in an effort to get caught up.  There are things going on religiously which are unlikely to be discussed by me, but at least I hope to make progress on what one might call “original content”.

About ten months ago I reported on a passage in Sanhedhrin 43a in the Talmudh Bavli dealing with one Yeshu the Noṣri (Jesus the Nazarene).  It is not clear if this Yeshu is the same as the subject of the Gospels, though there are suggestive similarities.

Around Shavu‘oth I was at a lecture which brought up another (commonly censored out) passage in Sanhedhrin which deals with Yeshu the Noṣri.  When I looked it up, I discovered it appears slightly differently in Soṭah, too.  Here are both versions, my translation (with apologies for any inaccuracies there may be, as the language is difficult):


Soṭah 47a:

Our Masters taught:  Always the left [hand] should push away and the right bring near.  [This is] not like [the prophet] ’Elisha‘, who pushed away [his assistant] Geḥazi with his two hands, and not like Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah, who pushed away Yeshu the Noṣri with his two hands.

Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah—what is this?  When King Yanna’y [one of the Maccabean kings] was killing Our Masters, Shim‘on ben Sheṭaḥ’s sister  [wife of King Yanna’y] hid him.  Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah went [and] fled to ’Aleksanderiyya’ of Miṣrayim [Alexandria, Egypt].

When there was peace, Shim‘on ben Sheṭaḥ sent to him:  “From me [in] Yerushalayim [Jerusalem] the Holy City to you [in] ’Aleksanderiyya’ of Miṣrayim:  My sister [says], ‘My husband dwells in your midst, and I sit desolate.’”

He [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] said, “Hear from this he [Shim‘on ben Sheṭaḥ] had peace.”

When he came [and] reached a certain inn, he [the innkeeper] stood before him with much honor; they did for him great honor.  He [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] sat and praised, “How pleasant/beautiful is this hostess!”

Yeshu the Noṣri said to him, “Rabbi, her eyes are ṭeruṭoth [oval?  long?  narrow?  tearful?  at any rate, probably not intended as a complement].

He [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] said to him, “Evil [one]!  In this do you busy yourself?”  He brought out 400 shofaroth [for the sake of publicity] and excommunicated him.

Every day he [Yeshu the Noṣri] went before him [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah], and he did not receive him.

One day he [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] was reading Qeriyyath Shema‘ [a basic Jewish prayer].  He [Yeshu the Noṣri] came before him.  It was on his mind to receive him.  He showed him with his hand [i.e., made a sign to avoid interrupting his prayers].  He [Yeshu the Noṣri] thought that he [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] had pushed him away; he went [and] set up a brick [as] a worshipper.

He [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] said to him, “Return yourself!”

He [Yeshu the Noṣri] said to him, “Thus I received from you:  All sinners and those who cause the masses to sin cannot succeed in doing repentance.  For Mar [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] said, ‘Yeshu the Noṣri performed magic and incited [to transgression] and tempted [to commit transgressions] and caused Yisra’el [Israel] to sin.’”

Sanhedhrin 107b:

Our Masters taught:  Always the left [hand] should push away and the right bring near.  [This is] not like ’Elisha‘, who pushed away Geḥazi with his two hands, and not like Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah, who pushed away Yeshu the Noṣri with his two hands.

Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah—what is this?  When King Yanna’y was killing Our Masters, Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah and Yeshu went to ’Aleksanderiyya’ of Miṣrayim.

When there was peace, Shim‘on ben Sheṭaḥ sent to him:  “From me [in] Yerushalayim the Holy City to you [in] ’Aleksanderiyya’ of Miṣrayim:  My sister [says], ‘My husband dwells in your midst, and I sit desolate.’”

He [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] stood [and] came [and] arrived by chance at a certain inn.  They did for him great honor.  He [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] said, “How pleasant/beautiful is this hostess!”

He [Yeshu the Noṣri] said to him, “Rabbi, her eyes are ṭeruṭoth.

He [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] said to him, “Evil [one]!  In this do you busy yourself?”  He brought out 400 shofaroth and excommunicated him.

He [Yeshu the Noṣri] came before him [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] several times [and] said to him, “Receive me!”  He would not look at him.

One day he [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] was reading Qeriyyath Shema‘.  He [Yeshu the Noṣri] came before him.  He thought to receive [him].  He showed him with his hand [i.e., made a sign].  He [Yeshu the Noṣri] thought, “He [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] has pushed me away.”  He went [and] set up a brick and prostrated himself before it.

He [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] said to him, “Return yourself!”

He [Yeshu the Noṣri] said to him, “Thus I received from you:  All sinners and those who cause the masses to sin cannot succeed in doing repentance.   And Mar [Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah] said, ‘Yeshu the Noṣri performed magic and incited [to transgression] and tempted [to commit transgressions] and caused Yisra’el [Israel] to sin.’”

Like the Sanhedhrin 43a passage, this passage takes place at a time of Jewish rule, not Roman; Herod the Great ruled after the Maccabean kings.  Like in the Gospels, this Yeshu spent time in Egypt due to persecution from the government; however, the Gospels blame Herod the Great for trying to kill Jesus as a small child, while here Yeshu is presumably an adult.

Clearly there is a lot left out of these passages.

1) The cause of Yeshu’s excommunication, that he was criticizing the appearance of a married woman’s eyes, is odd.  That he noticed there was something unusual about a married woman’s eyes is nothing unusual; since he was presumably not blind, it is to be expected.  Talking about it, however, is rude and improper, as it is completely irrelevant to how the inn staff were treating Rabbi Yehoshua‘ ben Peraḥyah and Yeshu—people who are physically unusual can be just as nice as anyone else—but this would be the first time your humble blogger is aware of anyone being excommunicated for being rude.

2) Like in the Sanhedhrin 43a passage, this Yeshu also goes horribly wrong.  Idolatry is strictly forbidden in Judaism, but why he fell that far is never stated.  Many people screw up horribly without becoming idolators.

3) What Yeshu was doing to cause others to transgress or what he did magically is not stated.  Why he did either is never stated.

Humans, even when they go bad, have reasons for what they do.  These reasons may be anything from excellent to idiotic, but they do not happen arbitrarily or suddenly.  Is Yeshu’s comment on a woman’s eyes part of a series of other misbehaviors which together justify his excommuication?  What happened to Yeshu which gave him the idea of practicing idolatry or magic?  Why would he make other people do wrong, too?  I have no idea.  But I find myself wondering if there are other passages in the Talmudh about Yeshu the Noṣri.  I hope further searching will turn up more information on  him which will fill in the gaps in his life.

Peace.

’Aharon/Aaron

The Coyote Ugly sermon

Jewish date:  22 Siwan 5771 (Parashath Qoraḥ).


Today’s holidays:  Birth of John the Baptist (Christianity); Feast Day of Elizabeth,  Mother of the Forerunner (Greek Orthodox Christianity); Feast of the Lesser Mysteries (Thelema); Feast Day of St. Anton LaVey (Church of the SubGenius).


Greetings.


Given that I recently posted a review of the utterly dreadful song “Judas” by the utterly tasteless performer Lady Gaga, one may now assume that anything which I can stand to read or watch without losing my lunch or going insane is now a legitimate target for review and commentary.  And so, after six years, I am going to finally publish what may be first and last sermon ever written on Coyote Ugly, here and now.  I have chosen this time because the sermon is directly relevant to this week’s Torah portion.


Peace and Shabbath shalom.


’Aharon/Aaron

---

I have boasted that I give sermons stranger than anyone else’s, and to this end I will attempt to tie together Qoraḥ, the exoteric and esoteric meanings of Song of Songs, and (of all things) the movie Coyote Ugly.  (I know it sounds like a circus stunt, but please, bear with me.)

One evening at a joint CSEB-SER conference in Toronto (28 June 2005), the guy I was sharing a hotel room with decided to watch television, and after flipping through channels, he settled on Coyote Ugly.  From what I saw of the movie, it was mainly about conventionally beautiful, immodestly dressed women who dance on top of bars.  The point of this is to attract customers to the bar, and these have to purchase alcoholic beverages to stay there.  Though there were clear attempts at a plot and character development, my intuition insists these were not the point of this film or why anyone would deliberately see it; indeed, what little I can remember of how it was marketed was “women dancing on bars” and not “the struggles of an aspiring songwriter”.

Being a religious Jew, I naturally was soon mentally contrasting this tasteless movie with something vaguely similar in any respect out of the world of Judaism, namely the exoteric meaning of Song of Songs.  Song of Songs on the simple level also deals largely with sexuality, but in a vastly different manner than Coyote Ugly.  Sexuality in Song of Songs is all about love between a husband and wife, with the goal being that through appreciation of each other the lovers become closer.  This socially functional sexuality is private, shared by them alone and not with other people.  In contrast, the sexuality of Coyote Ugly is public and exploitative.  It is out there for anyone to see—as long as they are paying customers.  Sexuality is turned into a tool to hawk a product, perverting its whole point.  Sex evolved as a means for reproduction and was later adapted as a means to keep couples together for their mutual benefit for long periods of time.  In contrast with this, in Coyote Ugly men come to the bar, lured by sexuality, but they are never ever allowed to progress past looking.  Instead, they are coerced into buying drinks of questionable hygiene and a deleterious effect on judgement, and ultimately they leave alone, cheated of sexuality’s promise.  This exploitation occurs on a higher level, too.  Men go to see the movie, lured by sexuality, but it is a sham.  They see the pretty sights, but two hours later the movie is over.  There are no beautiful women—in fact, they never were any, so there is no chance of a relationship, and the movie-goers have to go home with nothing but ticket stubs and $5.50 less in each of their wallets.

The real fun happens when we move from the exoteric to the esoteric.  The esoteric meaning of Song of Songs is about the relationship between YHWH and Yisra’el; He loves us, and we love Him.  The practice of Judaism is how we express our love for YHWH.  If we apply this symbolism to Coyote Ugly, we end up with a situation straight out of the Torah, namely the story of Qoraḥ (Numbers 15:1-17:28).  Qoraḥ, like most evil people, depicted himself as righteous.  He stood in public for all to see, calling for everyone to gather around him and see how righteous he was; in fact, he claimed to be even more righteous that Mosheh.  In the text of the Torah alone he accuses Mosheh of ignoring that all of Yisra’el is holy and instead resorting to nepotism in appointing the priesthood.  In midhrash, he argues that Mosheh’s teachings are inconsistent and biased against the most vulnerable people in society.  Like sexuality in Coyote Ugly, Qoraḥ’s righteousness is a sham.  He puts on a big show, but it has nothing to do with expressing his love for YHWH; he is just trying to exploit people.  He promises the great religious concepts of holiness and equality, but he never intends to do anything but grab power and send his followers home no better off than they were previously.  In short, Qoraḥ is the esoteric meaning of Coyote Ugly.

I do realize that the connection between Qoraḥ and Coyote Ugly was almost certainly never intended by the creators of the latter, but the phenomenon of exploitative superficiality which underlies both of them has, so far as I know, been common throughout human history, and it is still common today, to the point where we often expect it.  In movies, we expect great special effects and sex rather than good plots or believable characters.  We expect overblown claims in advertising; if something is labeled “low-fat”, it is high in sugar, and if it is “low-sugar”, it is high in fat—and we expect this.  In the domain of religion, there are cults, the whole purpose of which is to let the clergy exploit the laity.  In science, there are “junk science” and “creationism/intelligent design”, the point of which is to create doubt where none exists and obscure truths rather than reveal them.  In politics, we expect politicians to lie whenever they open their mouths and make promises they never intend to keep, yet we still vote for them.  In short, the World is filled with Qoraḥs, and the question before us is whether we will continue to fall for their lies, thereby perpetuating exploitative superficiality.