1. Rabbi Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, a descendant of an illustrious Lithuanian rabbinic family, wrote commentaries on parts of the New Testament in the mid-19th century arguing for the symmetry between Judaism and Christianity.
2. His works, which were published in several languages including Hebrew, were more sympathetic to Christian doctrine than other rabbinic writings on Jesus at the time, viewing Christianity as a mirror of Judaism upholding Maimonides' 13 principles of faith.
3. While his interest in Christianity predates his major work Kol Kore, Rabbi Elijah Zvi remained an observant Jew and sought to correct Christian misunderstandings
1. Rabbi Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, a descendant of an illustrious Lithuanian rabbinic family, wrote commentaries on parts of the New Testament in the mid-19th century arguing for the symmetry between Judaism and Christianity.
2. His works, which were published in several languages including Hebrew, were more sympathetic to Christian doctrine than other rabbinic writings on Jesus at the time, viewing Christianity as a mirror of Judaism upholding Maimonides' 13 principles of faith.
3. While his interest in Christianity predates his major work Kol Kore, Rabbi Elijah Zvi remained an observant Jew and sought to correct Christian misunderstandings
1. Rabbi Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, a descendant of an illustrious Lithuanian rabbinic family, wrote commentaries on parts of the New Testament in the mid-19th century arguing for the symmetry between Judaism and Christianity.
2. His works, which were published in several languages including Hebrew, were more sympathetic to Christian doctrine than other rabbinic writings on Jesus at the time, viewing Christianity as a mirror of Judaism upholding Maimonides' 13 principles of faith.
3. While his interest in Christianity predates his major work Kol Kore, Rabbi Elijah Zvi remained an observant Jew and sought to correct Christian misunderstandings
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