Is the Talmud evil?

You may have seen videos or other writings or commentary saying the Talmud is racist or anti Christian or other such things ,so is this true.I have heard a lot that is said about the Talmud ,one youtuber said he would sooner burn the whole Talmud even before destroying the Satanic Bible or literature by Aleister Crowley .Indeed a very strong statement considering!

First ,what exactly what is the Talmud? First the word Talmud means to study or instruction from the word lamad meaning to learn.

The history is that there was a oral tradition of ancient Israel going back most likely thousands of years.Some say say what was called the oral Torah was given to Moses on Mt Sinai along with the written Torah or maybe it could have gone back to Abraham before writing was very common.This oral tradition was passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation for unknown centuries.It was considered profane to ever write down the oral tradition or oral Torah but after the Bar Kokhva or also Bar Kokhba revolt that ended in 136 CE resulting in the final expulsion of Jews from Judea.

A group of Rabbi’s known as the Tannaim which means teachers in Aramaic decided that without Jews living in one place the oral tradition could be lost.They codified the oral tradition from the very late 2nd century CE to the very early 3rd century in a book called the Mishnah which means repetition or study.So about the year 200 and it was written in six orders or the “Shas” an acronym for shisha s’darim meaning six orders.This book was very heavily studied and Rabbi’s started a running commentary on the Mishnah and this book was much discussed.

When the commentary on the Mishnah was written down it was called the Gemara which meant completion or finishing.The first and much less studied Gemara was written in the Galilee region of Israel but was called the Talmud Yerushalmi or the Jerusalem Talmud and was completed about 350 CE or so most believe.Then around 500 or so CE Talmud Bavli or Babylonian Talmud was written and this version is much much more studied.When people talk about the Talmud or Gemara they almost always mean this one.

The Mishnah was written in Mishnaic Hebrew and the Gemara of Jerusalem in western Jewish Aramaic and the Babylonian Gemara in an eastern Jewish Aramaic dialect in modern Iraq near Nehardea, Nisibis (modern Nusaybin).

Also I would like to make clear I am not a Talmudic scholar but I am simply giving the history of this important set of documents. Also I would recommend that most Christians who do not fully keep the Torah read it either.And a lot of it is in the New Testament anyway being Paul an educated Jew knew well and Jesus not only being and educated Jew and all knowing anyway knew obviously of course.Paul’s letters are the best practical Talmud study anyway in many ways.Sometimes Christian Biblical scholars read it to give difficult Old Testament passages some context for example.

Most of the kosher laws in Judaism come out of the Talmud and not the Bible itself.For instance where it says “do not boil a kid in it’s mothers milk” which is vague the Talmud clarifies and says this prohibits the mixing of meat and dairy products on one dinner plate.The Talmud deals with very nuanced and fine pointed issues.We who live by grace do not need to specific conclusions in this type of way.However these issues do matter and the Talmud is useful to scholars.I see no reason for most Christians to read to Talmud especially being that it does not validate the truth of Jesus.

Is the Talmud evil ,lets start with does it call gentiles dogs?

I have searched and searched and although it is a giant set of documents I have found no evidence that gentiles were called dogs .The closest thing was in the kosher section I’m not exactly sure the tractate.It says that some non kosher foods may be given to gentiles or fed to dogs but this is all.In context this is not calling anyone a dog.Let us look at something similar in Mathew 15

The Faith of a Canaanite Woman

²¹ Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. ²² A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

²³ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

²⁴ He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

²⁵ The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

²⁶ He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

²⁷ “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

²⁸ Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

Here Jesus gives a test of faith and once the woman passes her daughter is healed.

Does the Talmud encourage sexual abuse (I apologize if this is disturbing read with caution)

I will not in this article quote word for word but in Tractate Ketubah part 3 29.a (If you want to look it up) it more or less states that is a woman or girl is raped or abused that she maintains legal virginal status for future marriage.

Here the Talmud is not condoning sexual assault but simply saying these tragic things happen and the victim will be legally a virgin for her future benefit.

Next issue is , and again I won’t quote for sensitivity sake but, Tractate Ketubah part 3 39.a 1 if you want to read

it talks of legality of using a contraceptive and in context is saying that if a abuser uses a cloth or any contraceptive device to stop pregnancy it is not held against the victim as a sin and for her health .This is not saying that sex with minors is permitted only that if a minor is abused and something is used as contraceptive it is for her benefit and the sin of birth control is not upon her.This is not permission to have sex with minors ok but only if said abuser uses birth control as to cover his deed that the victim is not at fault.We must remember that in the era that this was written the use of birth control was considered a (it still is a sin today) more wicked sin than our society now views it.So it had to be in the law that a rape or abuse victim was not responsible if birth control was used in the bad act.If this had been written today more sensitive language would have been used but the contextual intent was protection of the victim and to give legal ruling of ketubah suites in court.In those times if a woman was not a virgin her ketubah or marriage contract could nullified and there could be a suite against the brides father.So a non virginal woman was non marriable ,so to allow birth control under rape or abuse kept her a legal virgin allowing her to marry someday.

So lets go to part II