Said R. Samuel, the son of Nachman, R. Jochanan said, “Three shall be called by the name of the Holy One; blessed be He.” And these are the Righteous, the Messiah, and Jerusalem. The Righteous, as is said (Is. xliii. 7). The Messiah, as it is written (Jer. xxiii. 6): “And this is His name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Jerusalem, as it is written (Ezek. xlviii. 35): “It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be The LORD is THERE.” In the later editions of the Talmud the allusions to Christ and Christianity are few and cautious, compared with the earlier or unexpurgated copies. The last of these was published at Amsterdam in 1645. In them our Lord and Saviour is “that one,” “such an one,” “a fool,” “the leper,” “the deceiver of Israel,” etc. Efforts are made to prove that He is the son of Joseph Pandira before his marriage with Mary. His miracles are attributed to sorcery, the secret of which He brought in a slit in His flesh out of Egypt. His teacher is said to have been Joshua, the son of Perachiah. This Joshua is said to have afterward excommunicated him to the blast of 400 rams’ horns, though he must have lived seventy years before His time. Forty days before the death of Jesus a witness was summoned by public proclamation to attest His innocence, but none appeared. He is said to have been first stoned, and then hanged on the eve of the Passover. His disciples are called heretics, and opprobrious names. They are accused of immoral practices; and the New Testament is called a sinful book. The references to these subjects manifest the most bitter aversion and hatred. The Rabbis have laid down thirteen rules for the interpretation of the Talmud. These rules form their system of logic. They are as follows: (1.) “Light and heavy,” an argument from the less to the greater. An example is furnished in the case of Miriam (Num. xii. 14). “If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.” The argument is here drawn from the conduct of man, the less, to that of God, the greater. The owner of an ox is also fined more for his beast if it gores his neighbor’s beast than if it eats his neighbor’s corn; since the tooth only means sustenance for the stomach, but the horn means mischief. (2.) “Equality,” an argument from the similarity or identity of words and impressions. An example is furnished in Deut. xv. 12: “If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years, then in the seventh year thou shalt let him free from thee.” In the 18th verse, when this law is again referred to, the man only is mentioned; but as the woman was mentioned in the former verse, it is concluded that the law applies equally to both.