Appendix I:
Jewish Evidence on the Talmud

The denunciation of the Talmud by the Jew Pfefferkorn in 1509 and the ex-Rabbi Drach in 1844 have been quoted in the course of this book. Graetz however, in his History of the Jews, quotes an earlier incident of this kind. In the thirteenth century a converted Jew and former Talmudist Donin who, on his baptism, assumed the name of Nicholas, presented himself before the Pope, Gregory IX, "and brought charges against the Talmud, saying that it distorted the words of Holy Writ, and in the Agadic portions of it there were to be found disgraceful representations of God," that it contained many gross errors and absurdities, further that "it was filled with abuse against the founder of the Christian religion and the Virgin. Donin demonstrated that it was the Talmud which prevented the Jews from accepting Christianity, and that without it they would certainly have abandoned their state of unbelief." Again "he stated that the Talmudical writings taught it was a meritorious action to kill the best man among the Christians . . . that it was lawful to deceive a Christian without any scruple; that it was permitted to Jews to break a promise made on oath." These Graetz describes as lying charges.

The Jews were accordingly ordered by the Pope to hand over all their copies of the Talmud to the Dominicans and Franciscans for examination, and if their judgment should corroborate the charges of Nicholas Donin, they were to burn the volumes of the Talmud (June 9, 1239).

In France Graetz goes on to relate that "the priest-ridden and weak-minded Louis IX"—that is to say, Saint Louis—pursued the same course. "The Talmud was put on its trial. Four distinguished Rabbis of North France were commanded by the King to hold a public disputation with Nicholas, either to refute the imputations levelled against the Talmud, or to make confession of the abuse against Christianity and the blasphemies against God that it contained."

It is impossible to imagine a fairer decision, and the queen-mother, Blanche de Castille, was careful to assure the first witness summoned that if the lives of the Rabbis were in danger she would protect them and that he was only required to answer the questions that would be asked of him. Now, there would have been nothing simpler than for the Rabbis to admit honestly that these offensive passages existed, that they had been written perhaps in moments of passion in a less enlightened age, that they recognized the indelicacy of insulting the religion of the country in which they lived, and that therefore such passages should henceforth be deleted. But instead of adopting this straightforward course, which might have put an end for ever to attacks on the book they held sacred, the Rabbis proceeded to deny the existence of the "alleged blasphemous and immoral expressions" and to declare that "the odious facts related in the Talmud concerning a Jesus, the son of Pantheras, had no reference to Jesus of Nazareth, but to one of a similar name who had lived long before him." Graetz, who admits that this was an error and that the passages in question did relate to the Jesus of the Christians, represents the Rabbis as being merely "misled" on the question. But the King, who was not misled by the Rabbis, ordered all copies of the Talmud to be burnt, and in June 1242 these were committed to the flames.

The Talmud, however, continued to exist, and it was not until 1640 that, as we have already seen, the offending passages against Christ were expunged by the Rabbis as a measure of expediency. Now that they have been replaced, no further attempt is made to deny that they refer to the founder of Christianity. As far as I am aware they are not included in any English translation of the Talmud, but may be found in an English version of Dr. Gustav H. Dalman's book, Jesus Christus im Talmud (1891).