Is this phrase more likely to be literal or a euphemism?

[Sigurdrifa]

*and what's the most accurate translation?*

A few months ago I was Googling and reading up on the Talmudic "Ben Stada" traditions out of interest. More Googling turns up a whole lot of scholars' theories on the meaning of the Aramaic phrase "megadla neshayya" in the context of a description for Ben Stada's mother Miriam, including the idea that it's meant litearlly because she worked as a hairdresser or professional hair braider but also that it was a euphemism for a woman who was unfaithful or promiscuous. I've seen a lot of different translations; as "hairdresser", "women's hairdresser", "braider of women's hair" and "woman who let her hair grow".

I'm not an expert or scholar and I can't read Aramaic, so I want to ask what the generally accepted theories about the phrase and its meaning are. What's this phrase most likely to mean and refer to and what's likely to be the most accurate translation for it out of all the ones I've found? Can anyone weigh in?

[semiopen]

Jesus_in_the_Talmud

The name "ben Stada", used for the same figure, is explained by Peter Schäfer as a reference to his mother's supposed adultery:
His mother's true name was Miriam, and “Stada” is an epithet which derives from the Hebrew/Aramaic root sat.ah/sete' (“to deviate from the right path, to go astray, to be unfaithful”). In other words, his mother Miriam was also called “Stada” because she was a sotah, a woman suspected, or rather convicted, of adultery."[47]
Peter Schäfer states that there can be no doubt that the narrative of the execution of Jesus in the Talmud refers to Jesus of Nazareth, but states that the rabbinic literature in question are from a later Amoraic period and may have drawn on the Christian gospels, and may have been written as responses to them.[47]

I'd tend to trust Schafer's opinion.

Somehow the Medieval Jews convinced the Christian's that this stuff wasn't about Jesus. Even today it's a little awkward to admit that this was just bullshit and the passages are, in fact, about Yoshke.

DuvDuv, as an Haredi Jew, would defend the position that they weren't on here, but not very well. I don't think there is any academic disagreement today about these passages - maybe about how early or late they were. Schafer is (was) the major expert on this.

[outhouse]

but states that the rabbinic literature in question are from a later Amoraic period and may have drawn on the Christian gospels, and may have been written as responses to them.[

Cannot argue that, and its what I follow.


There is no value here in the Talmudic "Ben Stada"

[semiopen]

It fascinated me that Duvi argued that the Jesus passages in the Talmud were not about Jesus.

I think this is because that the brilliant defenses of the Talmud of the Middle Ages came to be integrated into Judaism.

The Disputation_of_Paris is an example.

The terms of the disputation demanded that the four rabbis defend the Talmud against Donin's accusations that the Talmud contains blasphemies against the Christian religion, attacks on Christians themselves, blasphemies against God, and obscene folklore. The attacks on Christianity were from passages referencing Jesus and Mary. There is a passage, for example, of someone named Jesus who was sent to Hell to be boiled in excrement for eternity. The Jews denied that this is the Jesus of the Bible, stating “not every Louis born in France is king.”[4]

It seems that because of the nature of Disputation

In the scholastic system of education of the Middle Ages, disputations (in Latin: disputationes, singular: disputatio) offered a formalized method of debate designed to uncover and establish truths in theology and in sciences. Fixed rules governed the process: they demanded dependence on traditional written authorities and the thorough understanding of each argument on each side.

the Rabbis didn't want the Talmud to be burned and made what has to seem like some dubious arguments about certain segments to try to save it.

Then Orthodox (Haredi) Judaism, figuring that this is clearly unjust persecution, decides that the defenders are righteous and incapable of lying and therefore their arguments that the passages are not about Yoshke have to be true.

[DCHindley]

It fascinated me that Duvi argued that the Jesus passages in the Talmud were not about Jesus. I think this is because that the brilliant defenses of the Talmud of the Middle Ages came to be integrated into Judaism. ... The Rabbis didn't want the Talmud to be burned and made what has to seem like some dubious arguments about certain segments to try to save it.

Then Orthodox (Haredi) Judaism, figuring that this is clearly unjust persecution, decides that the defenders are righteous and incapable of lying and therefore their arguments that the passages are not about Yoshke have to be true.

So I swear by Jupiter of Rome Jupiter of Aram and Babel!*

DCH

*Cf. Quarterly Review, 1867, Volume 123. Emanuel Deutsch. Published by John Murray, London, 1867. Funny thing is that the editor of QR changed every instance of Jesus in the original draft of his article to "our Lord," acting as a Censor in an article about Christian censorship of "licensed" editions of the Talmud. See G R S Mead, Did Jesus Live 100 BC? (1903, page 99). Later printings of this issue of QR corrected the text back to his original.