JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

verbatum. The first baraita, which describes his practice of
writing on his flesh, is brought in the JT Shabbat (12:4, 13d) in
a form very similar to the text of the Tosefta. It differs, however,
in one important respect: the rather obscure allusion to
Ben Sṭara’s eccentric behavior (“Ben Sṭara, ‘learned’ in this
way”) is expanded and explained: “Isn’t it true that Ben Sṭada
[brought witchcraft out of Egypt] in this way?” While it is possible
that the Jerusalem Talmud is preserving here an ancient
tradition concerning Ben Sṭada, it is equally likely that this is
a harmonistic interpretation of Tosefta Shabbat in an attempt
to explain why he was executed in Tosefta Sanhedrin.
Both of these traditions were originally brought in the
Babylonian Talmud, but they were eliminated in part from
later editions as a result of Christian censorship, for reasons
that will be made clear immediately. The later printed texts of
TB Shabbat 104b read as follows: “R. Eliezer said to the Sages:
Isn’t it true that Ben Sṭara brought witchcraft out of Egypt by
marking on his flesh? They said to him: He was an idiot, and
one does not bring proofs from idiots”. Here the sugya ends
in the later printed editions. The continuation of the sugya, as
represented by all manuscripts and the earliest printed text,
reads as follows: “[Was he] the son of Sṭara (or: Sṭada)? Wasn’t
he rather the son of Pandira! Rav Ḥisda said: Sṭara was [his
mother’s] husband; Pandira was [his mother’s] lover. [But his
mother’s] husband was Papos the son of Judah! Rather, his
mother was Sṭara (or Sṭada), his father was Pandira. [But]
his mother was Mary the hairdresser (magdala)! Rather [she
was called Sṭada] because of what they say in Pumbedita: She
cheated (saṭa da) on her husband.” The name “Ben Pandira”
was understood in the Babylonian Talmud as a euphemism
for Jesus (cf. Tosefta Ḥul. 2:24, TB Av. Za. 16b-17a). It is fairly
clear, therefore, that this entire talmudic passage is an anti-
Christian polemic, ridiculing the doctrine of the virgin birth
of Jesus (see D. Rokeah, “Ben Sṭara is Ben Pantira”). In keeping
with this anti-Christian tendency, the version of the second
baraita as brought in the uncensored text of TB Sanhedrin
67a reads as follows: “And that is precisely what they did
to Ben Sṭada (or: Sṭara) in Lydda, and they hung him on the
day before the Passover” – apparently a reference to the crucifixion.
The text then continues as in Shabbat (“Was he the
son of Sṭara? Wasn’t he rather …”).
While the Babylonian tradition clearly seems to identify
Ben Sṭada with Ben Pantira (Jesus), it is highly unlikely that
this reflects any historical tradition deriving from the tannaitic
period. On the contrary, it is almost certainly a classic
example of the Babylonian Talmud’s “creative historiography”
which seeks to identify obscure and unknown figures (like
Ben Sṭada) with significant and well known figures (like Ben
Pantira = Jesus). The Babylonian Talmud here as elsewhere
reworks early sources (Tosefta and TJ) in order to achieve its
own literary and polemical ends. It is therefore not surprising
that inconsistencies remain between the older, more original
elements, and the more recent trends and interpretations
which coexist in the Babylonian Talmud’s final retelling of
these stories. Attempts to relate all of these various elements
bensusan
to a particular concrete historical figure will therefore almost
always result in contradiction.
For example, Rabbenu Jacob b. Meir *Tam (in early editions
of tosafot to Sanhedrin) mentions an interpretation
which identifies Ben Stada with Jesus. This suggestion is based
on the allusion to Pandira and strengthened by the mention of
a Passover execution and of a mother named Miriam (Mary).
R. Tam, however, rejects this view, pointing out that Pappos
b. Judah lived a century after Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus was
executed in Jerusalem and not in Lydda. Modern scholarship
has suggested that Ben Stada may have been the Egyptian
prophet who, during the administration of the Roman procurator
Felix, persuaded “large crowds to follow him to the
Mount of Olives,” where at his command, “Jerusalem’s walls
would fall down and he would provide an entrance to the city”
(Jos., Ant., 20:169ff.; Acts, 21:38). The only real link between
the two, however, is the mention of Egypt. Josephus claimed
that the prophet disappeared, whereas Ben Stada (according
to the earliest and most reliable evidence) was executed in
Lydda, possibly in the second century C.E. (see Derenbourg,
Essai sur les formes des pluriels arabes (1867), 468–71). Given
the scanty evidence concerning Ben Stada which is preserved
in the earliest sources, it is unlikely that any definite identification
of the historical figure that stands behind these traditions
can be made.
Bibliography: R.T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash
(1903), 37, 344ff.; J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazereth (1929), 20–23;
Schoeps, in: HUCA, 21 (1948), 258ff.; Chajes, in: Ha-Goren, 4 (1903),
33–37; D. Rokeah, in: Tarbiẓ, 39 (1970), 9–18.
[Isaiah Gafni / Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]
BENSUSAN (Ibn Sūsān or Shoshan, also Cohen ibn Sūsān
and Levy Bensusan), Moroccan family that can be traced to
the 12th century. JUDAH IBN SūSāN (d. 1165) was *Maimonides’
teacher in *Fez; he was martyred there by the *Almohads.
During the 13th and 14th centuries, members of the Ibn
Sūsān family held important posts as rabbis, astronomers,
physicians, financiers, and diplomats in Christian Spain. Their
descendants returned to Morocco after 1391. Some time before
1539, the Moroccan mathematician ISSACHAR B. MORDECAI
IBN SūSāN settled in Jerusalem and later in Safed, where he
wrote Tikkun Yissakhar (Salonika, 1564), which was reedited
under the title ʿIbbur Shanim (“Intercalation of the Years,”
Venice, 1578). The book includes two treatises on the rituals
to be followed according to yearly variations of the Jewish calendar,
and the apportioning of the haftarot according to the
rites of different communities. NATHAN LEVI BENSUSAN was
a leader of the toshavin (“native”) community in Morocco in
the early 16th century. Several of his descendants were scholars
who were often named in the statutes of the Fez community.
The family constituted a powerful merchant clan in Rabat-Salé,
and often acted against the interests of other members
of the community. During the 17th and 18th centuries
their activities extended to London, where they were active in
the Sephardi community. In the 19th century they reinforced
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 379