Читать книгу The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament - Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik - Страница 16

Author’s Preface

Notwithstanding the contrary misconception, the New Testament is in no manner contrary to the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) or to the Talmud. This commitment I have made, regarding the first Gospel, I was able to carry out, thanks be to God; I continued my commitment with the completion of the second.

However, a few words are necessary to begin.

Many highly placed people—whether so placed for their intelligence, good fortune, or social rank—have applauded my attempt: some, because they already shared my ideas or adopted them after reading my book; and others, without any conviction, at least respected the sanctity of my goal and the great importance of the result that I pursue. Both groups urged me to persevere, and their encouragement has, in no small way, contributed to supporting me in my efforts.

But alas! In this situation, as in all others, one can always count on extreme opinions Moreover, in wanting to reconcile the two adversaries, one risks turning them against each other. Aside from some favorable reports that I just mentioned, quite a few others were not so favorable. Jews, as well as Christians, either with fanatical personalities or dominated by false prejudices, have bombarded me with objections that, I believe, would be useful to answer.

My fellow Israelites have said: “Putting the Gospel and the Talmud on the same level—what audacity on the part of the author! Undoubtedly, there could be some good things in the former, but we do not know the source. We do not know who told it to them. Where is, then, their authority? On the contrary, in the Talmud, nothing is anonymous; we find the sources everywhere, even in some of the oral laws that can be traced back to Moses, the direct interpreter of the Almighty. We find them even in remote individual statements, coming from well-known men—respected scholars of whom tradition teaches us their names and genealogies. ‘All their words are as coals of fire’ (Pirkei Avot 2:10),¹ and the author is not afraid of burning himself! His book is an attack against the sanctity of the Talmud, and to compare the New Testament to it is a sacrilege.”

The Christians, on their part, agree that it is indeed a sacrilege, but in the opposite sense. “The New Testament is divine, the Talmud is only a human work; not only is it a human work, but it is inconsistent and contradictory. What one rabbi permits, another forbids; or if one says white, the other says black. The New Testament is completely different. It has one teaching, and this teaching is so beautiful, so holy, so beneficial to mankind, that it could come from no other source but from God.”

This is what they say, and here is my response:

Fellow Israelites, I know just as well as you the holiness of the Talmud and its precious value; I was nourished by it since infancy, and I learned to revere it. But believe me, arguments like yours cannot glorify it, and our rabbis would certainly disapprove of them if they were to come back from the dead. Just and impartial toward everything, they do not systematically condemn man or book, and they know how to deliver justice even to those they reprove. Rather, you can see what they say about the book Ben-Sira (BT Sanhedrin 100b): “‘It is not permitted to (habitually) read the books of heretics.’ ‘Neither,’ adds Rav Yosef, ‘the book of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus; because—says Rashi—of the nonfactual and exaggerated things that one finds within it). However,’ says Rav Yosef again, ‘the good things one finds in it can be read and commented upon.’”

So here is a book that the Talmud forbids reading, and yet it does not reject the fact that it contains something good; it even elevates it and recommends it in a number of citations (ibid.) and proves that it accepts the good and the truth wherever it encounters them. Plus, as a side note, the Ben-Sira of the Talmud is not the work of Yeshua ben-Sira or ben-Siraḥ, who appears in our Bibles under the name Ecclesiasticus, but the work of another less known (I have a copy), where one finds, in effect, much stupidity and nonsense.² But let us move on.

Is not the harmony between men as great and precious a thing as peace? This same Talmud, whose cause you believe you are defending—is not all of it worthy of the most magnificent praise? Here is what we read in BT Sukkot 53b, to cite one single, curious passage: “If, in order to reconcile man and wife, God has permitted that his name, which was written in sanctity, be erased by the priest, how much more beautiful is it to reconcile all of humanity!”³ This is precisely the goal that I aspire to, that every student of Torah must aspire to, every Israelite and every man worthy of that name; and you, my brothers, you would disapprove of my efforts! Let me tell you, such words do not come from wisdom.

And you Christians, my brothers, who claim that I insult the Gospel by putting the Talmud on the same level, do you not know that this Talmud that you so thoroughly despise deserves your gratitude and that, without it, the name of your “Christ” would perhaps have long ago fallen into oblivion? Actually, many a famous writer has denied the existence of Yeshua, called the Messiah, and many even deny it in our present day, by failure of knowing the Talmud, which, as we will see, strictly mentions his existence.⁴ What is more, one of your greatest writers, Voltaire, spoke of him in terms that still outrage you, trusting alleged Israelite documents that absolutely do not agree with the Talmudic sayings.

Here is an example of a portion from Voltaire’s The Important Examination of the Holy Scriptures by Lord Bolingbroke, chapter 10: “It is said in the book Toledot Yeshu, that Yeshua was the son of a woman named Miriam, married in Bethlehem to a poor man named Yoḥanan.

In the village, there was a soldier whose name was Yosef Pantera, a very handsome man with a strong build; he fell in love with Miriam, and Miriam became pregnant by Pantera; Yoḥanan, confused and despairing, left Bethlehem and hid in Babylon, where there were still many Jews. Miriam’s behavior disgraced her; her child Yeshu was declared a bastard by the judges of the city, etc.”⁵

This whole story is a lie from beginning to end. That there was a certain Pantera (Pandira or Pandera, according to the Talmud) who courted a certain Miriam and that their relations may have birthed a son in adultery, as the Talmud states—fine. But that this child was Yeshua, the founder of Christianity: there is no trace of this whatsoever in the Talmud. Not only that, as I also demonstrated at length in the first volume (Mattai 1:18): the chronological information establishes that the child of Pandera absolutely could not have been Yeshua the Messiah, but I proved (ibid.) through irrefutable texts that the real Yeshua was held in high esteem by our most revered rabbis, who cite his words with approval, even though they differ with him on certain issues. And you vilify the Talmud, which honors your Messiah and speaks of his doctrine with praise! Frankly, is this not ingratitude or, at the very least, blindness?

So, then, do you know this Talmud of which you speak with such disdain, this Talmud that you believe unworthy of being equaled with the Gospel? Do you not know—touching on only one of its merits—that this is a monument beyond all comparison of jurisprudence, profundity, and judicial ingenuity? Listen.

In the Middle Ages, there was an illustrious Israelite, the crowning glory of the Synagogue and of humanity; medical doctor and astronomer, philosopher and theologian, exegete and Talmudist, wonderful writer and beloved man: Maimonides.⁶ This man, who was the doctor of the sultan of Egypt, the famous Saladin, surpassed all his contemporaries with his extensive knowledge, as his numerous works testify, the greatest of which we have quoted from in the first volume. One of these works, and one of the most significant, is the Mishneh Torah, otherwise called Yad HaḤazaqah (The strong hand); it contains the complete Mosaic and rabbinical law according to the Talmud, and he has, in a way, made an inventory of all the discussions in order to give us the last word.⁷ The work of Maimonides comprises fourteen main books divided into eighty-three parts, which are themselves subdivided into 985 chapters, each of which is composed of an often considerable number of paragraphs (halakhot), treating every particular case with reverence.⁸

Take whichever part you like among the eighty-three sections of the work; I commit to giving you the French translation of them with explanatory notes. Now compare these Talmudic laws with those of any European nation about any matter, and you will see that our Jewish laws bear a striking resemblance, and you will be astounded by what these rabbis, whom you attack, knew how to produce two thousand years ago by their sheer intellect alone.

Thus, and I repeat this with regret, Jews and Christians are equally illogical in their attacks against me. For who am I, after all, that you complain against me? Not against me are your complaints (Exodus 16:8), but against truth and peace, my only objectives!⁹ David distinctively wrote in one of his psalms: Ani shalom ve-khi adaber hemah la-milḥamah (), and this is how I translate it: “‘All my desires are for peace; even though I wage war against men,’ I only do so for the purpose of obtaining peace.” All right, then—I, too! If I am here to battle with the old commentators of the New Testament, it is only to restore peace and understanding between men, whose false teachings have for too long divided them.

May I succeed in this venture! May the favor of YHWH descend upon my work, so that it may produce in the hearts of those who read it abundant and beneficial fruits, that with a unanimous spirit they will embrace the worship of one God, and that through my humble intervention, the words of the prophet will come true (Zephaniah 3:9): For then I will make the peoples pure of speech, so that they all invoke YHWH by name and serve him with one accord. Amen.

1 The full mishnah reads: “Each of these disciples had three maxims. R. Eliezer: “A friend’s honor must be as dear to him as his own. Do not allow yourself to be easily angered. Repent one day before your death.” [He also said:] “Warm yourself before the light of the wise, but beware of their embers, perchance you may be singed; for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss is that of a fiery serpent; and all their words are as coals of fire.” The apparent use of this mishnah in Soloveitchik’s imagined rabbinic response to his work is that he is being too flippant with rabbinic statements, using them against tradition. The imagined admonition is that the words of the sages can be as dangerous as they are sacred.

2 On R. Yosef’s prohibition to reading Ben-Sira, Rashi comments: “It contains many useless things [] and would thus take away from Torah study [].” Soloveitchik’s implied comparison between Ben-Sira and the New Testament suggests that while the former does not contain any theological heresy, neither does the latter.

3 The test of the waters of jealousy, whose formula consisted of a curse, contained the holy Tetragrammaton, which was written by the priest and then mixed with water and dust (Numbers 5:17–23). If this test showed that the woman is question proved to be faithful—that is, she did not physically react to to drinking the potion—as the Talmud says, good relations would be reestablished between husband and wife.

4 On this, see R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (New York: Reference Books, 1966); and, more recently, Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007).

5 On Toledot Yeshu, see Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu; and David Biale, “Counter-History and Jewish Polemics Against Christianity: Toledot Yeshu and Sefer Zerubavel,” Jewish Social Studies 6, no. 1 (1999): 130–145.

6 On Maimonides, see Joel Kraemer, Maimonides: The Life and World of One of Civilization’s Greatest Minds (New York: Doubleday, 2010); and Moshe Halbertal, Maimonides: Life and Thought (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013).

7 See Isadore Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah) (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982).

8 Here is the textual list of the parts in question: I) 1. The Principles of the Torah; 2. Lifestyle and Behavior; 3. The Study and Teaching of the Torah; 4. Idolatry; 5. Repentance. — II) 6. The Shema; 7. Prayer, the Priestly Blessing; 8. Tefillin, Mezuzah, Torah Scrolls; 9. Tzitzit; 10. Blessings; 11. Circumcision. — III) 12. Shabbat; 13. ‘Eruvin; 14. Yom Kippur; 15. Festivals; 16. Matzah (Unleavened Bread); 17. The Shofar, the Sukkah, the Lulav; 18. The Temple Tax; 19. Sanctification of the Month; 20. Fasts; 21. Purim and Hanukkah. — IV) 22. Marriage; 23. Divorce; 24. Levirate Marriage; 25. Virginity (seduction, abduction); 26. Adultery. — V) 27. Forbidden Sexual Relations; 28. Forbidden Foods; 29. Animal Slaughter. — VI) 30. Oaths; 31. Vows; 32. Nazirites; 33. Consecrations. — VII) 34. Mixtures; 35. Gifts to the Poor; 36. Offerings to the Priest; 37. Tithes; 38. The Second Tithe, etc.; 39. First Fruits, etc.; 40. The Sabbath Year and the Jubilee. — VIII) 41. The Temple; 42. Temple Utensils and Servers; 43. Conditions of Entry into the Holy Places; 44. Things Forbidden on the Altar; 45. Sacrifices; 46. Daily and Additional Sacrifices. 47. Holy Things That Become Defiled; 48. The Service on Yom Kippur; 49. Sacrilege. — IX) 50. The Passover Sacrifice; 51. (Individual) Festival Offerings; 52. Firstborn; 53. Sacrifices for Errors; 54. Purification Sacrifices; 55. Substitutions for Sacrifices. — X) 56. The Impurity of a Corpse; 57. The Red Heifer; 58. Leprosy; 59. Things That Make Beds and Seats Impure; 60. Other Sources of Impurity; 61. Impurity of Food; 62. Impurity of Clothing and Utensils; 63. Purification. — XI) 64. Property Damage; 65. Theft; 66. Robbery and Loss; 67. Injury; 68. Murder; Protection of Life. — XII) 69. Sale; 70. Acquisitions and Gifts; 71. Sharing and Joint Ownership; 72. Agents and Partners; 73. Slaves. — XIII) 74. Hiring; 75. Borrowing and Depositing; 76. Financial Debt; 77. Civil Action; 78. Estates. — XIV) 79. The Courts and Their Jurisdiction; 80. Testimony; 81. Authority of the Sanhedrin, Its Powers and Limits; 82. Mourning; 83. The Monarchy and Rules of War. (A few years ago, I published the first five sections, with commentary in Hebrew, English, and German.).

9 Soloveitchik slightly alters the verse to suit his needs. He changes the first-person plural “we,” referring to Moses and Aaron, to the first-person “I,” referring to Soloveitchik. The context of the verse is also interesting. After leaving Egypt, the Israelites complain to Moses that it would have been better to die in Egypt than starve to death in the wilderness. Moses tells them that their complaints are not against him and Aaron but against God. He continues that God will give them “flesh to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to the full.” Could Soloveitchik be saying something similar to his Jewish and Christian detractors? That is, their complaints are misplaced; they are not against him but against God, who has revealed himself in both the Old and New Testaments. He is just revealing this truth.