Jesus in the Talmud

Notes to Chapter 1 1498. Interestingly enough, some manuscripts (Ms. Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23 inShab 104b and Mss. Yad ha-Rav Herzog 1 and Karlsruhe Reuchlin 2 in Sanh67a) as well as printed editions (Soncino in Shab 104b and Barco in Sanh 67a)continuously call him/the husband/his mother “Stara” instead of “Stada.” Theword stara can also be vocalized as sitra (lit. “side”), and sitra could be a play onwords with seritah, the “scratches/tattoos” through which Ben Stada brought hiswitchcraft from Egypt. I do not want to suggest that “Sitra” could be an allusionto the kabbalistic notion of sitra ahra, the “other side” of evil, particularly in theZohar. The Karlsruhe manuscript (13th century) might be too early for such akabbalistic reading of the Jesus story.9. ela hu ela immo in Ms. Munich is clearly a dittography; the other Mss. ofShab 104b read as follows:Ms. Oxford 23: “the husband was this Pappos ben Yehuda, and ratherhis mother was Stada and his father Pandera”;Ms. Vatican 108: “the husband [variant reading: the cohabiter] was Papposben Yehuda, (and) his mother was Stada [addition: (and) he is Jesusthe Nazarene]”;Ms. Vatican 487: after the name “Ben Siteda” the following part is missing;printed edition Soncino: “the husband was Pappos ben Yehuda and hismother was Stada.”The Mss. of Sanh 67a: Ms. Munich 95: “the husband was Pappos benYehuda, but rather say: Stada was his mother”;Ms. Firenze II.1.8–9: “the husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, but rathersay: his mother was Stada”;Ms. Karlsruhe (Reuchlin 2): “the husband/cohabiter was Pappos benYehuda, but rather say: his mother was Stada”;Ms. Yad ha-Rav Herzog 1: “the husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, butrather say: his mother was Stada.”10. “Miriam” in most manuscripts and printed editions, but in Ms. Munichonly in Sanh 67a.—Ms. Vatican 108 has the unique and strange addition: hismother was Miriam “and his father (? avoya/e ?) Prince/Nasi (? naśi/neśiya?).”11. “Hair” (se