You are on page 1of 11

The Soloveitchik Who Loved Jesus

Peter Saloveys recent appointment to the presidency of Yale University,


founded by Congregationalist ministers, was cause for celebration for those
who admire the Soloveitchik dynasty, an illustrious family of rabbis from
Lithuania that includes abbi !ayyim Soloveitchik of "risk #$%&'($)$%*, one
of the most creative and important +ewish sages of modern times, and abbi
+oseph ,ov "er Soloveitchik #$)-'($))'*, known simply as .the av,/ the
leader of 0odern 1rthodo2y in 3merica4 5n a breathless column, a writer for
theYale Daily News reported on the new presidents rabbinic lineage6under
which Salovey himself commented, proudly affirming his place in the family
tree as he had come to understand it4
"ut what went unmentioned in the celebratory genealogy is that
Saloveys forgotten forebear, 4 7li8ah 9vi Soloveitchik, was forgotten for a
reason: his love of +esus Christ4 5ndeed, abbi 7li8ah 9vi Soloveitchik #aka
7lias Soloweyc;yk, $%-&($%%$*, the grandson of 4 !ayyim of <olo;hin, was
an enigmatic traditional rabbi who in the middle decades of the $)th century
wrote a commentary to parts of the =ew >estament #0ark and 0atthew* and
a book, Kol Kore, which argues for the symmetry between +udaism and
Christianity and claims that there is nothing in Christianity that is alien to
+udaism4
???
0uch of what we know about 4 7li8ah 9vi Soloveitchik is contained in the
work R. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik: The Man and is !ork @!ebrewA
#+erusalem $))&* written by ,ov !yman, a "ritish(born dermatologist who
lived for many years in =ew York before emigrating to +erusalem in the
$)B-s4 !ymans father and grandfather both studied in the yeshiva in
<olo;hin4 3fter finding 4 7li8ah 9vis work cited in an obscure .messianic/
8ournal he came upon in the library of the Creat Synagogue, !echal Shlomo,
in +erusalem, !yman collected everything he could find on the man and his
work and published it in this book4 "ecause of the delicate nature of the
sub8ect he printed only &- copies and distributed them to scholarly friends,
family, and those who helped him in his research4 #5 was given a copy, and
provided information about the author, by my good friend 0enachem "utler,
through the generosity of one of ,ov !ymans sons4*
abbinic writing about +esus was very popular in the mid $)th century,
especially by liberal and eform rabbis arguing for +ewish emancipation4
Dhat is striking about 4 7li8ah 9vis work is how different it is from
that of reformers such as +oseph Salvador in Erance, 3braham Ceiger in
Cermany, Claude 0ontefiore in 7ngland, and Faufmann Fohler, 5saac 0ayer
Dise, and +oseph Frauskopf in 3merica4 0any of these rabbis were Guite
critical of Christianity and focused largely on the historical +esus to argue that
+udaism was the religion o" +esus while Christianity was the
religion a#o$t him6implying that Christianity and the teachings of +esus
need to be viewed as distinct4 5n fact, for most of them, their positive
appraisal of +esus was a veiled critiGue of Christianity4
5t wasnt until +oseph Flausners !ebrew %es$s o" Na&areth: is 'i"e,
Ti(es, and Teachin)was published in $)H' #7nglish translation, $)H&* and
0artin "ubers famous declaration of .+esus as my brother/ in Two Ty*es o"
+aith in $)I& that +ews began to take Christianity #and not 8ust the historical
+esus* seriously in relation to +udaism4 "ut these works too, while
sympathetic, were critical of Christianitys doctrinal commitments4
4 7li8ah 9vi Soloveitchik, the traditional rabbi from Lithuania, pre(
dates most of these men and is actually more sympathetic to Christian
doctrine, even the doctrine of the >rinity, and much more positive about the
symbiosis between +udaism and Christianity than almost all of the rabbis
mentioned above4 !e was not primarily interested in the historical +esus but
in Christianity itself4 !e wrote his work on +udaism and Christianity, Kol
Kore, in !ebrew and first published it in Erench, 7nglish, Cerman, and Polish
translations before publishing the original !ebrew version in $%B)($%%-4 >he
7nglish version appeared as The 'aw, The Tal($d, and the ,os*el #$%J%*,
and he gave it to a Protestant publishing house on the condition they publish
it without his name4 1bviously written for a Christian as well as a +ewish
audience, his work attracted a large readership among Christians, many of
whom reprinted his writings and viewed his work as vindicating Christianity
from centuries of +ewish polemical critiGue4 !e writes in his introduction to
his commentary on 0atthew that he wrote the book .to show everyone that
the =ew >estament only comes to show that the root of e2istence is in the
unity of Cod #ahd$t ha-.ore* K and also to strengthen the law of 0oses
#Torat Moshe*4/ 0ore than that, he continues, .5 publish this commentary #to
0atthew* in !ebrew for +ews, to introduce them to the =ew >estament who,
until now, have not recogni;ed its beauty #eyna( (akiri( /et yo"ya*4/ 5t
seems he wanted Christians to understand their scripture anew through
sympathetic +ewish eyes and to educate his +ewish readers about their
misunderstanding of Christianity4
4 7li8ah 9vi Soloveitchiks interest in Christianity seems to pre(
date Kol Kore4 5n $%IJ he published a !ebrew commentary to the
philosophical sections of 0oses 0aimonidesMishneh Torah #Code of +ewish
Law*, including .Laws on the Eoundation of the >orah4/ 5t is well(known that
0aimonides is a ma8or figure in the Soloveitchik dynasty4 >he "risker av
uses him as the centerpiece of his analytic method and >almudic analysis, but
4 7li8ah 9vi seems to use him for a different purpose entirely4 5nterestingly,
he publishes his commentary to one section of Mishneh Torah, .Laws of
5dolatry,/ separately4 5t is here where 0aimonides delineates the erosion of
the natural state of monotheism to idolatry via a series of unfortunate errors
whereby humans mistakenly substitute the glory of Cods creation for
autonomous divinities4 Could it be that 4 7li8ah 9vi, this traditional
Lithuanian +ew from the Soloveitchik dynasty, wanted to suggest that
0aimonides description of idolatry as a veil that conceals a true belief in
Cods unity is precisely what is presented in ChristianityL
Understood this way, Christianity becomes a mirror of +udaism4 5n fact,
4 7li8ah 9vi says as much in his introduction to the 7nglish translation of Kol
Kore, The 'aw, the Tal($d, and the ,os*el4 ."ut our ob8ect is not to
comment4 K De desire to institute an inGuiry into the causes of an e2isting
misunderstanding4 Eor since the fire of dispute has been kindled in the camp
of our !ebrew brethren, it has divided the worshippers of Cod
into two sections, the one +ews, and the other Christians4/ 4 7li8ah 9vi
continues in Kol Kore to cite 0aimonides >hirteen Principals of Eaith, widely
considered to be the doctrinal framework of +udaism, and then proceeds to
e2plain how each one of 0aimonides principles is upheld by Christianity,
8u2taposing >orah and =ew >estament verses to support one another4 5n one
footnote in the 7nglish translation he deals with the doctrine of the >rinity as
follows: .3s to the doctrine of the >rinity to which the modern +ew so much
ob8ects #which was a doctrine really held by many of the most learned of the
abbis* it is a very sublime thing, more e2tended than the circumference of
the earth, and more e2panded than the sea, and has many sublime principles
depending on it, and truly does the 3postle say: MCreat is the mystery of
CodlinessN for not everyone can fathom the depth of that mystery4/ >he
ostensible division of the !oly >rinity as a compromise to true monotheism
is, for 4 7li8ah 9vi, as well as many for Christians such as >homas 3Guinas,
simply an error of interpretation4
Lest one think Kol Kore was the product of some obscure and marginal
figure, in the renowned +ewish bibliographer 0orit; Steinschneiders #$%$J(
$)-B* personal copy of Kol Kore there is a page with a commendation of 4
Samson aphael !irsch #$%-%($%%%*, the founder of neo(1rthodo2y in
Cermany4 Yet one may still understandably Guestion why this traditional +ew
from a rabbinic dynasty would engage in this kind of scholarship4 >here were
many like him who converted to Christianity and wrote similarly4 1ne
e2ample would be 5mmanuel Erommann #d4 $B'&*, who wrote a kabbalistic
commentary to the Cospel of Luke e2amined in a recent essay by 7lliot
Dolfson4 "ut as far as we know, 4 7li8ah 9vi remained a devout +ew4 Dhile in
Paris in $%B- he e2plained that he believed that the =ew >estament had been
misunderstood and that he had achieved the correct understanding4 !e thus
wanted to illustrate to the church that since there are no contradictions
between the Christianity and >orah, Christian anti(Semitism should cease4 5n
addition, he hoped his work would correct the negative appraisal +ews had of
=ew >estament, which is why he published it in the original !ebrew after
various translations already appeared in print4 5n retrospect we can surely see
the naivetO of this observation, but in its time6that is, in the decades
preceding and following emancipation6it was not such an unrealistic hope4
Einally, it is also worth noting that the more well(known Soloveitchik,
4 +oseph ,ov "er #the av*, published an influential essay titled
.Confrontation/ in $)JI where, in response to the Second <atican Council, he
attempted to significantly limit ecumenical discourse between +ews and
Christians4 5n his essay he argued, .@>Ahe confrontation should not occur at a
theological, but at a mundane level,/ claiming that the .great encounter
between Cod and man is a wholly personal affair incomprehensible to the
outsider6even to a brother of the same faith community4/ Dhile the
underlying reason for the avs counseling against serious ecumenism is
matter of scholarly debate, it is interesting that his position stands in
complete opposition to that of his cousin 4 7li8ah 9vi4
3nother Soloveitchik, 4 0eir Soloveichik #b4 $)BB*, great nephew of 4
+oseph "er, 8ust completed a dissertation at Princeton on the 1rthodo2
theologian 0ichael Dyschogrods work on divine election that also deals
e2tensively with Christianity and its relationship to +udaism4 4 0eir
Soloveichiks position on Christianity is aptly e2pressed in his essay .=o
Eriend of +esus/ that appeared in +irst Thin)s in H--%, largely a review of
+acob =eusners 0 Ra##i Talks to %es$s4 <ery much in line with his great(
uncle, perhaps even (ore dismissive of the possibility of substantive
theological dialogue, 4 0eir Soloveichiks position e2hibits a sentiment that
is worlds away from 4 7li8ah 9vi6both in substance and in tone4 =eusner
argues that even as he re8ects the basic premises of +esus as divine he can still
engage with Christianity .with great respect and reverence4/ Soloveichik
counters that since +esus presents himself as Cod #an idea that is hotly
contested among =ew >estament scholars* there is nothing more to be said,
and .respect and reverence/ is simply a .polite hedge/ #citing C4S4 Lewis* that
by definition undermines +udaisms basic foundation4 >he most that believing
+ews and Christians can do is present a united front to battle the nasty
secularists or progressive religionists because it is only the traditionalists,
Soloveichik suggests, who still believe in .truth4/ Civen such a position it is
surprising, or perhaps not so surprising, that R. Meir Soloveichik was
honored with giving the benediction at the H-$H epublican =ational
Convention4
5 have no idea whether either of these modern(day members of an
illustrious rabbinical dynasty knew of their lost forebears work on
Christianity and the =ew >estament, but it is surely the case that 1rthodo2y
has not taken the path suggested by 4 7li8ah 9vi4 "ut it seems that there is
more than one approach to Christianity among the Soloveitchiks4 >his is all to
say that while Peter Saloveys rise to the presidency of Yale University may
indeed be cause for celebration for those who have a connection to the
Soloveitchik dynasty, the Soloveitchik who would likely be most pleased may
be the forgotten cousin, 4 7li8ah 9vi, the Soloveitchik who loved +esus4
Understood this way, Christianity becomes a mirror of +udaism4 5n fact,
4 7li8ah 9vi says as much in his introduction to the 7nglish translation of Kol
Kore, The 'aw, the Tal($d, and the ,os*el4 ."ut our ob8ect is not to
comment4 K De desire to institute an inGuiry into the causes of an e2isting
misunderstanding4 Eor since the fire of dispute has been kindled in the camp
of our !ebrew brethren, it has divided the worshippers of Cod
into two sections, the one +ews, and the other Christians4/ 4 7li8ah 9vi
continues in Kol Kore to cite 0aimonides >hirteen Principals of Eaith, widely
considered to be the doctrinal framework of +udaism, and then proceeds to
e2plain how each one of 0aimonides principles is upheld by Christianity,
8u2taposing >orah and =ew >estament verses to support one another4 5n one
footnote in the 7nglish translation he deals with the doctrine of the >rinity as
follows: .3s to the doctrine of the >rinity to which the modern +ew so much
ob8ects #which was a doctrine really held by many of the most learned of the
abbis* it is a very sublime thing, more e2tended than the circumference of
the earth, and more e2panded than the sea, and has many sublime principles
depending on it, and truly does the 3postle say: MCreat is the mystery of
CodlinessN for not everyone can fathom the depth of that mystery4/ >he
ostensible division of the !oly >rinity as a compromise to true monotheism
is, for 4 7li8ah 9vi, as well as many for Christians such as >homas 3Guinas,
simply an error of interpretation4
Lest one think Kol Kore was the product of some obscure and marginal
figure, in the renowned +ewish bibliographer 0orit; Steinschneiders #$%$J(
$)-B* personal copy of Kol Kore there is a page with a commendation of 4
Samson aphael !irsch #$%-%($%%%*, the founder of neo(1rthodo2y in
Cermany4 Yet one may still understandably Guestion why this traditional +ew
from a rabbinic dynasty would engage in this kind of scholarship4 >here were
many like him who converted to Christianity and wrote similarly4 1ne
e2ample would be 5mmanuel Erommann #d4 $B'&*, who wrote a kabbalistic
commentary to the Cospel of Luke e2amined in a recent essay by 7lliot
Dolfson4 "ut as far as we know, 4 7li8ah 9vi remained a devout +ew4 Dhile in
Paris in $%B- he e2plained that he believed that the =ew >estament had been
misunderstood and that he had achieved the correct understanding4 !e thus
wanted to illustrate to the church that since there are no contradictions
between the Christianity and >orah, Christian anti(Semitism should cease4 5n
addition, he hoped his work would correct the negative appraisal +ews had of
=ew >estament, which is why he published it in the original !ebrew after
various translations already appeared in print4 5n retrospect we can surely see
the naivetO of this observation, but in its time6that is, in the decades
preceding and following emancipation6it was not such an unrealistic hope4
Einally, it is also worth noting that the more well(known Soloveitchik,
4 +oseph ,ov "er #the av*, published an influential essay titled
.Confrontation/ in $)JI where, in response to the Second <atican Council, he
attempted to significantly limit ecumenical discourse between +ews and
Christians4 5n his essay he argued, .@>Ahe confrontation should not occur at a
theological, but at a mundane level,/ claiming that the .great encounter
between Cod and man is a wholly personal affair incomprehensible to the
outsider6even to a brother of the same faith community4/ Dhile the
underlying reason for the avs counseling against serious ecumenism is
matter of scholarly debate, it is interesting that his position stands in
complete opposition to that of his cousin 4 7li8ah 9vi4
3nother Soloveitchik, 4 0eir Soloveichik #b4 $)BB*, great nephew of 4
+oseph "er, 8ust completed a dissertation at Princeton on the 1rthodo2
theologian 0ichael Dyschogrods work on divine election that also deals
e2tensively with Christianity and its relationship to +udaism4 4 0eir
Soloveichiks position on Christianity is aptly e2pressed in his essay .=o
Eriend of +esus/ that appeared in +irst Thin)s in H--%, largely a review of
+acob =eusners 0 Ra##i Talks to %es$s4 <ery much in line with his great(
uncle, perhaps even (ore dismissive of the possibility of substantive
theological dialogue, 4 0eir Soloveichiks position e2hibits a sentiment that
is worlds away from 4 7li8ah 9vi6both in substance and in tone4 =eusner
argues that even as he re8ects the basic premises of +esus as divine he can still
engage with Christianity .with great respect and reverence4/ Soloveichik
counters that since +esus presents himself as Cod #an idea that is hotly
contested among =ew >estament scholars* there is nothing more to be said,
and .respect and reverence/ is simply a .polite hedge/ #citing C4S4 Lewis* that
by definition undermines +udaisms basic foundation4 >he most that believing
+ews and Christians can do is present a united front to battle the nasty
secularists or progressive religionists because it is only the traditionalists,
Soloveichik suggests, who still believe in .truth4/ Civen such a position it is
surprising, or perhaps not so surprising, that R. Meir Soloveichik was
honored with giving the benediction at the H-$H epublican =ational
Convention4
5 have no idea whether either of these modern(day members of an
illustrious rabbinical dynasty knew of their lost forebears work on
Christianity and the =ew >estament, but it is surely the case that 1rthodo2y
has not taken the path suggested by 4 7li8ah 9vi4 "ut it seems that there is
more than one approach to Christianity among the Soloveitchiks4 >his is all to
say that while Peter Saloveys rise to the presidency of Yale University may
indeed be cause for celebration for those who have a connection to the
Soloveitchik dynasty, the Soloveitchik who would likely be most pleased may
be the forgotten cousin, 4 7li8ah 9vi, the Soloveitchik who loved +esus4
Preface: The Gospel According to Markos
In the preface of the first volume, I put forward, and I promised to
demonstrate, that the New Testament, notwithstanding the contrary
misconception, is in no manner contrary neither to the Tanakh nor the
Talmud This commitment I have made in regards to the first Gospel, I
was a!le to carry out, thanks !e to God" I now continue my
commitment with the completion of the second
#owever, a few words are necessary to !egin
Many highly placed people $ whether so placed for their intelligence,
good fortune, or their social rank $ have applauded my attempt, some
!ecause they already shared my ideas or adopted them after reading my
!ook, and others without any conviction at least respected the sanctity
of my goal and the great importance of the result that I pursue %oth
groups urged me to persevere, and their encouragements have, in no
small way, contri!uted to supporting me in my efforts
%ut alas& In this situation as in all others, one can always count on
e'treme opinions" moreover, wanting to reconcile the two adversaries,
one risks turning !oth of them against each other Aside from some
favora!le reports that I (ust mentioned, there were )uite a few others
that were not so favora!le *ews, as well as +hristians, either with
fanatical personalities or dominated !y false pre(udices, have
!om!arded me with o!(ections to which I !elieve would !e 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& -ndou!tedly
there could !e some good things in the former, !ut we don.t know the
source /e don.t know who told it to them /here is, then, their
authority0 1n the contrary, in the Talmud nothing is anonymous" we
find the sources in everywhere, even in some of the oral laws, which
can !e traced !ack to Moses, the direct interpreter of the Almighty /e
find them even in some often very remote individual statements,
coming from well$known men, respected scholars, of whom tradition
teaches us their names and genealogies 2All their words are like coals
of fire 3Mishnah Avot 4:567,. and the author is not afraid of !urning
himself& #is !ook is an attack against the sanctity of the Talmud, and to
compare the New Testament to it is a sacrilege8
The +hristians, on their part, agree that it is indeed a sacrilege, !ut in
the opposite sense ,The New Testament is divine, the Talmud is only a
human work" not only is it a human work, !ut it.s inconsistent and
contradictory /hat one ra!!i permits, another for!ids" or one says
white, the other says !lack The New Testament is completely different
It has one teaching, and this teaching is so !eautiful, so holy, so
!eneficial to mankind, that it could come from no other source !ut
from God8
This is what they say, and here is my response:
9ellow Israelites, I know (ust as well as you the holiness of the Talmud
and its precious value" I was nourished !y it since infancy and I learned
to revere it %ut, !elieve me, arguments like yours cannot glorify it" and
our ra!!is would certainly disapprove of them if they were to come
!ack from the dead *ust and impartial towards everything, they do not
systematically condemn neither man nor !ook, and they know how to
deliver (ustice even to those they reprove :ather, you can see what they
say a!out the !ook %en$;ira3Tractate ;anhedrin, 5<<!7: ,It is not
permitted to 3ha!itually7 read the !ooks of heretics Neither, adds :av
*oseph, the !ook of %en$;ira 3=cclesiasticus" !ecause, says :ashi, of
non$factual and e'aggerated things one finds within it7 #owever, says
:av *oseph again, the good things one finds in it can !e read and
commented upon8 ;o here is a !ook which the Talmud for!ids
reading, and yet it does not re(ect the fact that it contains something
good, it even elevates it and recommends it in a num!er of citations
3i!id7, proves that it accepts the good and the truth wherever it
encounters them Plus, as a side note, the %en$;ira of the Talmud is not
the work of >eshua !en$;ira or !en$;irach who appears in our %i!les
under the name of =cclesiasticus, !ut of another less known 3I have a
copy7 and where one finds, in effect, much stupidity and nonsense %ut
let.s move on
Is not the harmony !etween men as great and precious a thing as
peace0 This same Talmud, whose cause you !elieve you are defending,
is not all of it worthy of the most magnificent praise0 #ere is what we
read in Tractate ;ukkah 36? !7 to cite one single, strange passage: ,If, in
order to reconcile man and wife, God has permitted that #is name,
which was written in sanctity, !e erased !y the priest, how much more
!eautiful is it to reconcile all of humanity&8 Now, this is precisely the
goal that I aspire to, that every friend of the Torah must aspire to, every
Israelite and every man worthy of that name" and you, my !rothers,
you would disapprove of my efforts& @et me tell you, such words do not
come from wisdom
And you +hristians, my !rothers, who claim that I insult the Gospel !y
putting the Talmud on the same level, do you not know that this
Talmud you so thoroughly despise deserves your gratitude, and that
without whom the name of your ,+hrist8 would perhaps have long ago
fallen into o!livion0 Actually, many a famous writer has denied the
e'istence of >eshua the Messiah, and many even deny it in our present
day, !y failure of knowing the Talmud, which, as we will see, strictly
mentions his e'istence /hat is more, one of your greatest writers,
Aoltaire, spoke of him in terms that still outrage you, trusting allegedly
Israelite documents and which a!solutely do not agree with the
Talmudic sayings
#ere is an e'ample of a portion from Aoltaire.s ,The Important
='amination of the #oly ;criptures !y @ord %oling!roke,8 chapter 5<:
,It is said in the !ook Toldot >eshu, that >eshua was the son of a
woman named Miryam, married in %ethlehem to a poor man named
>ochanan In the village there was a soldier whose name was >osef
Pantera, a very handsome man with a strong !uild" he fell in love with
Miryam, and Miryam !ecame pregnant !y Pantera" >ochanan,
confused and despaired, left %ethlehem and hid in %a!ylon, where
there still were many *ews Miryam.s !ehavior disgraced her" her child
>eshu was declared a !astard !y the (udges of the city etc8
Now, this whole story is a lie from !eginning to end That there was a
certain Pantera 3Pandira or Pandera according to the Talmud7 who
courted a certain Miryam, that their relations may have !irthed a son
in adultery as the Talmud states $ fine %ut that this child was >eshua,
the founder of +hristianity, there is no trace of this whatsoever in the
Talmud" and not only that, as I also demonstrated at length in the first
volume 3p 5B<$5B47, the chronological information esta!lishes that
the child of Pandira a!solutely could not have !een >eshua the
Messiah, !ut I proved 3loc cit7 through irrefuta!le te'ts that the real
>eshua was held in high esteem !y our most revered ra!!is, 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& 9rankly, is this not ingratitude, or at
very least !lindness0
;o then, do you know this Talmud of which you speak with such
disdain, this Talmud which you !elieve unworthy of !eing e)ualed
with the Gospel0 Con.t you know $ touching on only one of its merits $
that this is a monument !eyond all comparison of (urisprudence,
profundity, and (udicial ingenuity0 @isten
In the Middles Ages there was an illustrious Israelite, the crowning
glory of the ;ynagogue and of humanity" medical doctor and
astronomer, philosopher and theologian, e'egete and Talmudist,
wonderful writer and !eloved man: Maimonides This man, who was
the doctor of the ;ultan of =gypt, the famous ;aladin, surpassed all his
contemporaries with his e'tensive knowledge, as his numerous works
testify, the greatest of which we have )uoted from in the first volume
3p5?$567 1ne of these works, and one of the most significant, is
the Mishneh Torah, otherwise called >ad #a+haDakah 3The ;trong
#and7, containing the complete Mosaic and ra!!inical law, according
to the Talmud, where he has in a way made an inventory of all the
discussions in order to give us the last word The work of Maimonides
is comprised of fourteen main !ooks divided into eighty$three parts,
which are themselves su!divided into nine hundred and eighty$five
chapters, each of which is composed of an often considera!le num!er
of paragraphs 3halachot7, treating every particular case with reverence
Alright, take whichever part you liked among the eighty$three sections
that compose the work" I commit to giving you the 9rench translation
of them with e'planatory notes Now compare these Talmudic laws
with those of any =uropean nation a!out any matter, and you will see
that our *ewish laws !ear a striking resem!lance, and you will !e
astounded !y what these ra!!is, whom you attack, knew how to
produce two thousand years ago !y their sheer intellect alone
Thus, and I repeat this with regret, *ews and +hristians are e)ually
illogical in their attacks against me ,9or who am I, after all, that you
complain against me0 Not against me are your complaints8 3='odus
5B:E7, !ut against truth and peace, my only o!(ectives& Cavid
distinctively wrote in one of his psalms: ANI ;#A@1M, A=F#I ACA%=:
#=MA# @AMI@+#AMA#, and this is how I translate it: ,All my desires
are for peace, even though I wage war against men,8 I only do so for the
purpose of o!taining peace Alright then, me too& If I am here to give
!attle to the old commentators of the New Testament, it is to restore
peace and understanding !etween men, whose false teachings have for
too long divided them
May I succeed in this venture& May the favor of #a;hem descend upon
my work, so that it may produce in the hearts of those who read it
a!undant and !eneficial fruits, that with a unanimous spirit they will
em!race the worship of one God, and that, through my hum!le
intervention, the words of the prophet will come true 3Gephaniah ?:H7:
,9or then I will make the peoples pure of speech, so that they all invoke
#a;hem !y name and serve him with one accord8 Amen

You might also like