medieval jewish criticism of the christian doctrine of original sin.pdf

MEDIEVAL JEWISH CRITICISM OF THE CHRISTIAN

DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

by

JOEL E. REMBAUM

With the passage of time the notion of original sin became a matter of increasing concern for medieval Jewish critics of Christianity.' The founda-

NOTE: The author gratefully acknowledges the research support for this paper provided by a grant from the Penrose Fund of the American Philosophical Society. The author also thanks the staffs of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem and the Library of the University of Judaism, Los Angeles for their kind assistance.

1. The sources studied in this essay are, in chronological order: 1) Joseph Kimbi, Sefer ha- berit (ca. 1170), in Frank Talmage, ed., Sefer ha-berit u-vikkubei RaDaQ 'im ha-noverim (Jeru- salem, 1974), pp. 21-56; hereafter Berit. 2) Jacob ben Reuben, Milbamot ha-shem (ca. 1170), ed. Judah Rosenthal (Jerusalem, 1963); hereafter Milbamot. On the dating of these two works see Rosenthal, Milhamot, introduction, pp. 8,21. 3) Ha- Vikkuab ha-meyuhas la-RaDaQ (ca. 1200), in Talmage, Sefer ha-berit, pp. 83-96; hereafter RaDaQ. On the dating of this work see Frank Talmage, "An Hebrew Polemical Treatise, Anti-Cathar and Anti-Orthodox," Harvard Theological Review 60 (1967): 326. 4) Joseph ben Nathan Official, Sefer Yosefha-meqanne (ca. 1250) ed. Judah Rosenthal (Jerusalem, 1970); hereafter Meqanne. On the dating of this work see Rosenthal, introduction, p. 17. 5) MS Or. 53, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Rome (hereafter, MS Rome 53), fragment Al (after 1250), in Judah Rosenthal, "Biqqoret yehudit shel ha-berit ha-badashah min ha-me'ah ha-13," in Charles Berlin, ed., Studies in Jewish Bibliography, His- tory, and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev (New York, 1971), Hebrew section, pp. 123-39; hereafter MS 53A1. 6) MS Rome 53, fragment B (after 1250), in Judah Rosenthal, "Pirqei vikkuah" in Saul Lieberman, ed., Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1974),

353

354 JOEL E. REMBAUM

tion of this criticism was laid by the earlier polemical writers, specifically those of the period from the second half of the twelfth through the early

3: 353-95; hereafter MS 53B. On MS Rome 53 see also E. E. Urbach, "Etudes sur la littbrature polemique au moyen-ige," Revue des etudes juives 100 (1935): 49-77; references to the fragments of the MS follow Urbach's designation. On the dating of the fragments see Urbach and Rosenthal's introductions to his editions of the fragments. 7) Vikkuah ha-RaMbaN, (ca. 1263), in C.B. Chavel, ed., Kitvei Rabbenu Mosheh ben Nahman, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1973), 1: 302-20; hereafter RaMbaN. On the dating of the Vikkuah see Chavel, 1: 300. 8) MS Rome 53, fragment A2 (after 1269), in Judah Rosenthal, "Vikkuah dati bein hakham be-shem Menahem u-vein ha-mumar ve-ha-nazir ha-dominiqani Pablo Kristi'ani," Hagut 'ivrit ba-'ameriqah 3 (1974): 61-74; hereafter MS 53A2. On this fragment and its date see also J. E. Rembaum, "A Re- evaluation of a Medieval Polemical Manuscript," AJSreview 5 (1980): 81-99. 9) Additions to Sefer ha-berit (ca. 1270) in Talmage, Sefer ha-berit, pp. 56-68; hereafter Berit add. On these additions and their dating see Frank Talmage, trans., The Book of the Covenant of Joseph Kimhi (Toronto, 1972), pp. 18, 25-26. 10) Meir ben Simeon, Milhemet miSvah (ca. 1270), MS 2749, Biblioteca Palatina, Parma; hereafter MiSvah. On the dating of this source see J. E. Rembaum, "The Influence of Sefer Nestor Hakomer on Medieval Jewish Polemics," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 45 (1978): 167-68, n. 54. 11) Solomon ben Moses de Rossi, 'Edut ha-shem ne'emanah (second half thirteenth century), in Judah Rosenthal, ed., Mebqarim u-meqorot, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1967), 1: 373-421; hereafter 'Edut. See Rosenthal's introduction, pp. 373, 376, for dating. 12) NiSSahon vetus (ca. 1300), in David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, a Critical Edition of the Ni;;ahon Vetus (Philadelphia, 1979), Hebrew section; hereafter Vetus. On the dating of the NiSahon see Berger, pp. 33-34. 13) Profiat Duran, Kelimmat ha-goyim (1396), in Frank Tal- mage, ed., Kitvei pulmos le-Profiat Duran (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 3-69; hereafter Kelimmat. On the dating see Talmage, introduction, p. 14. 14) Hasdai Crescas, Bitlul 'iqqarei ha-noerim (1397), ed. Ephraim Deinard (Kearny, N.J., 1904); hereafter Bittul. On the dating of this work see Talmage, Kitvei, introduction, p. 14. 15) Yom Tov Lipmann Muihlhausen, Sefer ha-nissahon (ca. 1405), MS 2402, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York; hereafter

Ni,,ahon. On the dating see S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 17 vols. (New York and Philadelphia, 1966-80), 9:295. 16) Daniel ben Solomon, additions and comments on 'Edut ha-shem ne'emanah (fifteenth century), in Rosenthal, Mehqarim, 1: 423-30; hereafter 'Edut add. On the dating of Daniel ben Solomon see Rosenthal, Mehqarim, 1: 377, n. 1. 17) Simeon ben $emah Duran, Qeshet u-magen (1423) (Livorno, 1762-63); hereafter, Qeshet. For dating see Baron, History 9: 295-96. 18) Elijah Hayyim ben Benjamin of Genazzano, Vikkuah (ca. 1480), in Judah Rosenthal, "Vikkulho shel R. Eliyahu Hayyim mi-genagano 'im nazir franSis- qani," Rosenthal, Mehqarim, 1:431-56 (reprint from Sura 1 [1953-54]: 156-77); hereafter Genazzano. On the dating see Rosenthal, Mebqarim 1: 431, 433. 19) Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol, Magen 'A vraham (ca. 1500), MS 2433, Jewish Theological Seminary of America. New York; hereafter Magen. On the dating of this work see D. B. Ruderman, The World of a Renais- sance Jew: The Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol (Cincinnati, 1981), pp. 62-64. 20) Yair ben Shabbetai da Correggio, IHerev pifiyyot (ca. 1565), ed. Judah Rosenthal (Jerusalem, 1958); hereafter HIerev. On the dating see Rosenthal's introduction, p. 7. 21) Isaac ben Abraham of Troki, Hizzuq 'emunah (1593), ed. David Deutsch (Sohrau, 1873); hereafter Troki. On the dating see Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, introduction to Moses Mocatta, trans., Faith Strengthened (reprint ed., New York, 1970), p. 9. 22) Anonymous critique of the Acts of the Apostles and Paul's Epistle to the Romans, MS 2252, Biblioteca Palatina, Parma, fols. 4r-5r; hereafter MS 2252. I am tentatively dating this ca. 1600. This suggestion is based on the style of the Italian cursive script and the reference on fol. Ir to Azariah de Rossi's Me'or 'einayim,

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN 355

fourteenth centuries. The later authors,2 from the late fourteenth through the mid-seventeenth centuries, incorporated practically all of the arguments raised by their predecessors and added new criticism reflecting their greater familiarity with Christian beliefs and literature. The earlier polemicists, while approaching their task from a rational, "common sense" perspective, relied heavily on Hebrew biblical and, to a lesser degree, New Testament passages. The later writers reflected a greater intellectual independence of scriptural sources. Because the earlier works are generally structured as run- ning commentaries of scriptural texts relevant to Christianity, their treatment of original sin, and other Christian doctrines for that matter, tends to be unfocused.3 The issues that are raised emerge piecemeal as the salient biblical passages are interpreted. The later works tend to be built on discussions of concepts. Consequently, a number of arguments are coalesced into coherent analyses. Such structural differences are the results of different patterns of inquiry. The earlier textually oriented critiques are, on the whole, products of the Franco-German polemical writers. The later conceptually oriented works stem from Spain and Italy and were produced by Jews who were more exposed to secular cultural influences, including philosophical traditions. The latter would, therefore, tend to be more probing in their ideological inquiry and would rely on and generate ideas and assumptions not part of the formers' frame of reference.

Significant among the assumptions found in the later writers and lacking in their predecessors is the explicit recognition of the centrality of original sin in Christian belief. This awareness is expressed in a variety of ways. Three of the authors, Hasdai Crescas, Elijah of Genazzano, and Leone Modena, begin their treatises with an analysis of this doctrine. For example, Modena's first words are: "A knowledge of the basic principle of the reli- gion of the Christians, which they see as the foundation of their faith and

which was published in November, 1573; on this date see S. W. Baron, History and Jewish His- torians (Philadelphia, 1964), p. 168. This becomes the terminus a quo for MS 2252. 23) Leone (Judah Aryeh da) Modena, Magen va-herev (1648), ed. Shlomo Simonsohn (Jerusalem, 1960); hereafter Modena. On the dating see Simonsohn, p. 5. Regarding no. 22 see Appendix, For some preliminary comments on the Jewish treatment of original sin see Berger, Debate, pp. 247-48, 323, 324; 335 and D. J. Lasker, Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Mid- dle Ages (New York, 1977), pp. 5, 18, 19, 107-8, 226.

2. See n. 1, numbers 1-12 for the earlier writers and numbers 13-23 for the later writers. 3. Two exceptions to this general statement are the Sefer ha-nisabhon of Yom Tov Lipmann

Mihlhausen and the Hizzuq 'emunah of Isaac Troki, both of which are structured according to a sequence of biblical passages but still have rather developed discussions of original sin and other Christian doctrines; see

Nisah.on, fols. 7v-10v and Troki, pp. 86-96.

356 JOEL E. REMBAUM

doctrine, is what we have investigated here."4 Similarly, Elijah and Abra- ham Farissol emphasize that the doctrine of original sin is essential to Chris- tianity, and an anonymous late sixteenth-century writer suggests that its refutation would result in the crumbling of the complete structure of Chris- tian belief.5 Reflecting a like sensitivity to the subtleties of Christianity, Profiat Duran defines original sin as functioning within Christian tradition as the final cause of the incarnation.6

A closer examination of the different methodological approaches will clarify these introductory remarks. The Jewish writers were aware of the various biblical passages used by Christians to prove that all souls, even those of the righteous, were tainted by original sin and descended into hell after death. Among the prooftexts most commonly cited by the Jews are: Gen. 2:17, 15:15, and 37:35, and Ps. 51:7.7 Gen. 2:17, with the apparently redundant mot tamut ("die you shall die") was understood by certain Chris- tians as alluding to physical death in this life and the soul's suffering after death.8 In Gen. 15:15 Abraham is informed that he will join his "fathers" ('avotekha) in peace. Christians understood "fathers" as referring to Abraham's evil pagan ancestors who surely were not in heaven. Abraham was to join them, although "in peace," that is, he would not suffer great pain as they did.9 In Gen. 37:35 Jacob asserts that he would go into she'ol mourning for his son, Joseph. The term she'ol was interpreted by Christians as a reference to hell, implying that Jacob recognized that as his future resting place.'0 With the development of the notion of limbus patrum, the Christians held that the souls of the patriarchs were peacefully awaiting Jesus' first advent, at which time they would be freed and ascend to heaven." Finally, Ps. 51:7, "In iniquity I was brought to birth, and my mother conceived me in sin,"I2 was viewed by Christians as being a clear proof of the latent sinful-

4. Bittul, p. 6; Genazzano, p. 345; Modena, p. 7. 5. Genazzano, p. 436; Magen, fols. 17v, 18v; MS 2252, fol. 4v. 6. Kelimmat, p. 17. 7. On Gen. 2:17 see Meqanne, p. 36; Berit add., p. 60; NiSSabon, fol. 7v; Ilerev, pp. 97, 98;

Troki, p. 87; Modena, p. 7. On Gen. 15:15 see Milbamot, p. 49; Qeshet, p. 8a; Modena, p. 13. On Gen. 37:35 see Milhamot, p. 49; Meqanne, p. 42; MS 53B, p. 386; MS 53A2, p. 68; NiSSabon, fol. 19v; Qeshet, p. 8b; Herev, p. 87. On Ps. 51:7 see Milbamot, pp. 58-59; MS 53A1, p. 132; Kelimmat, p. 17; Qeshet, p. 7b; Modena, p. 11; see also Vetus, p. 154.

8. See Talmage, Covenant, p. 72, n. 97. 9. See Milhamot, p. 49; Genazzano, p. 435, n. 3. 10. See Berger, Debate, pp. 247-48. 11. See n. 9 above. 12. This and all subsequent scriptural translations are from the New English Bible (New

York, 1976).


ness found even in newborn children."3 These and other Christian proof- textsl4 evoked responses on the part of the Jewish writers that ranged over the entire biblical corpus.

In refuting the Christian assertion that Gen. 2:17 alludes to mors duplex, the Jews marshal an array of arguments. Among the more common responses is the suggestion that such redundancy does not point to a multi- plicity of meanings but is simply a typical aspect of biblical style. Other such repetitions can be found throughout the Bible, and to ascribe to all of them double meanings would lead to absurdities.'5 If there is any special significance to mot tamut, it is as an emphatic expression of the definitive nature of God's ultimate punishment of Adam with physical death, even though on the very day he ate the fruit he did not die.'6 Profiat Duran goes as far as to suggest that Jesus and his disciples similarly understood the passage according to its plain meaning as referring to physical death and in no way associated it with spiritual punishment.'7 Some of the Jewish polemicists rhetorically accept the notion of a dual meaning. Thus, Yair ben Shabbetai of Correggio argues: "Perhaps the purpose of the repetition [of the verb] is to teach about his death and the death of all his physical descendants."'8 And, according to Isaac Troki, mot tamut alludes to the double physical punishment meted out to Adam: 1) his death and 2) the curses he was to endure before he died. Troki is quick to note that there is no reference here to spiritual suffering.'9 Like Yair ben Shabbetai and the other Jewish writers, Troki views Gen. 2:17 only within a context of physical punishment. If one could suggest a physical-spiritual duality in the verse, a number of the writers rhetorically argue, then the most one could say was that only Adam was subjected to two such punishments. To suggest that the spiritual punishment was transmitted to Adam's children (thereby necessitating God's incarnation and death as atonement) amounts to a contradiction of Ezekiel's maxim: "It is the soul that sins, and no other, that shall die; a son shall not share a father's guilt, nor a father his son's" (18:20).20

13. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, 4:50,7. See also n. 37 below. 14. See, for example, the Christian use of 1 Samuel 28 to prove that Samuel was in hell after

his death as noted in MS 53B, p. 386. On the Jews' responses to this see nn. 32-33 below. 15. See Meqanne, p. 36; Berit add., p. 62; Herev, p. 97; Troki, pp. 94-95; MS 2252, fol. 5r;

Modena, p. 9. 16. Troki, p. 87; Modena, p. 9. 17. Kelimmat, p. 20. 18. Herev, p. 97; see also n. 17 above. 19. Troki, pp. 87-88. 20. NiSSabon, fol. 10v; lerev, p. 97. See also Modena, pp. 9-10, with no reference to Ezek.

18:20.

358 JOEL E. REMBAUM

A brief digression is appropriate at this point. Ezek. 18:20 and, alterna- tively, Deut. 24:16 ("Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; a man shall be put to death only for his own sin"), provide the Jewish critics with one of the most basic biblical responses to the doctrine of original sin. Given these clear-cut statements of what was an essential component of God's justice, the Christians' beliefs concerning mankind's spiritual culpability for Adam's sin appeared to the Jews to be contradictory and even blasphemous. Especially difficult for the Jews in this regard was the notion that the righteous, including the patriarchs and prophets who preceded Jesus, did not go to heaven.21 It is clear that similar questions circulated in Christian circles, as may be seen from Anselm of Canterbury's discussions in De conceptu virginali and Aquinas's concern in his Summa contra gentiles with the implications of Ezek. 18:20.22 To be sure, the Jewish writers remained faced with a dilemma of their own, given their acceptance of the idea that physical punishments for Adam's sin were transmitted to all his descendants.23

In response to the Christian view that, according to Gen. 15:15, Abra- ham was told that he would reside in hell, the Jews argued that the verse itself contradicts such a conclusion. Noting that Abraham was promised that he would join his fathers "in peace and be buried in a good old age," they suggest that Abraham's residing in hell, even in limbo, could hardly be considered peaceful or good.24 Moreover, the term "your fathers" need not be viewed as alluding to Abraham's immediate, pagan, ancestors. Rather, it can be understood as referring back to his righteous forefathers (Noah, Shem, Eber, and so forth) who surely made their way into heaven.25

Jacob's statement in Gen. 37:35 that he would go to she'ol mourning the loss of Joseph, is typically understood by the Jews as Jacob's accepting guilt for having been the cause of Joseph's suffering. It is argued that he mistak- enly thought he would have to undergo punishment for his own transgression.26 Many of the writers cite Jacob's expressions of relief upon his

21. See n. 20 above, and also Berit, p. 24; MS 53A1, p. 139; MS 53A2, p. 68; MiSvah, fols. 10r, 28v, 101r; Biltul, p. 6; Nissahon, fol. 7v; 'Edut add., p. 427; Genazzano, p. 436; Troki, pp. 87-88, 93. See Lasker, Polemics, p. 227, n. 25.

22. Anselm of Canterbury, De conceptu virginali, 24-26; Aquinas, SCG 4:51, 2; 52, 6. 23. See nn. 72-73, 78-81 below. 24. Milhamot, p. 51; MS 53A1, p. 139; MS 53B, p. 386; Berit add., p. 62; NiSSabon, fol. 7v;

Qeshet, pp. 8a-b; Modena, p. 14. 25. Milbamot, p. 51; Qeshet, p. 8a; Modena, p. 14. 26. Milhamot, pp. 51-52; Meqanne, pp. 42-43; MS 53B, p. 386; NiSabon, fol. 19v; Qeshet,

p. 8b; Modena, pp. 13-14.


learning that Joseph was alive and well and in the course of his talking with Joseph, when he implied that he would die in peace.27 Some respond with the argument that she'ol does not always refer to hell. It can simply mean "the grave," as numerous biblical passages indicate.28 The latter point is made by other polemicists in their responses to the Christian argument that references to she'ol by biblical figures indicate their awareness of their having to wait in hell until Jesus' coming.29

These Jewish interpretations of the passages used by Christians to demonstrate the biblical roots of the doctrine of original sin share a methodology typical of both ancient and medieval Jewish polemical exegesis. The plain meaning of the Hebrew wording is sought. Toward this end, patterns of standard language usage are noted, careful attention is paid to the exact wording of biblical phrases, and a heavy emphasis is placed on understanding words in the light of the contexts in which they appear. Christian interpretation is often viewed as being forced and artificial.30

In a similar fashion, biblical passages relating to other personalities are introduced by the polemicists to demonstrate that the righteous do not suffer in hell. Enoch and Elijah are cited as examples of righteous indivi- duals who, according to the Bible, were taken by God directly to heaven well before Jesus came upon the scene. Clearly, the Jews argue, they were untainted by Adam's sin and did not need the atonement provided by the sacrificial death of God incarnate to assume their rightful place in the world to come.31

Apparently, Christian interlocutors would refer to 1 Sam. 28, Saul's call-

27. Milhamot, p. 52, citing Gen. 45:28, 48:21, etc.; NiSSabon, fol. 19v, citing Gen. 46:30; Qeshet, p. 8b, citing Gen. 48:21; Modena, p. 14, citing Gen. 45:28, 46:30.

28. Milbamot, p. 52; Vetus, p. 18; Qeshet, p. 8b; Troki, pp. 95-96; Modena, p. 13. 29. MS 53A2, p. 69; HIerev, p. 99. Verses commonly cited to prove this point are Gen. 3:19;

Ps. 89:49; Job 14:13. 30. See Berger, Debate, pp. 9-13; Lasker, Polemics, pp. 3-4. It has been suggested that an

important factor in the medieval Jewish exegetes' emphasis of the plain meaning of the biblical text (peshat) was a felt need to respond to the Christians' allegorizing; see E. M.

Lipschtitz, R.

Shelomoh Yisbaqi (Warsaw, 1912), pp. 163-64. See also E. I. J. Rosenthal, "The Study of the Bible in Medieval Judaism," in G. W. H. Lampe, ed., The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. (Cambridge, England, 1969), vol. 2: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation, pp. 252-79, esp. 260-74; and Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, 1964), pp. 149-72. For a Christian reaction to Jewish repudiation of Christian exegesis see the statement of Bartholomew, bishop of Exeter, cited in Smalley, pp. 170-71. For an example of a third century c. L. application of this methodology in a polemical argument see Rabbi Simlai's discussion with the minim (sectarians), P. T. Berakhot 12d-13a, cited in R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London, 1903), pp. 255-66, 424-25.

31. MS 53A1, pp. 132, 139; NiSSabon, fol. 10r; Magen, fol. 20r; Troki, p. 90.

360 JOEL E. REMBAUM

ing on the dead Samuel's spirit, as proof that the prophet was in hell. How could the witch's demonic powers pluck Samuel from heaven?, they would ask. In response the Jews point to Samuel's initial words to Saul upon his return from the dead: "Why have you disturbed me. . . ?" (1 Sam. 28:15) and ask: Were the prophet in hell, would he complain in this way? Would he not be overjoyed to be given a respite from his infernal abode?32 Yom Tov Lipmann Mdihlhausen adds that during the initial year after death the soul returns to the body to mourn its death. Thus the witch was able to call up Samuel's soul because it was, at that time, in Samuel's grave. This answer reflects a rabbinic interpretation whose incorporation in the argument must have been strictly for the Jewish reader of the ha-NiSSahon. It is difficult to imagine that a Christian would be impressed by this retort.33

Passages from the Psalms also serve the Jews' ends by proving that David did not descend into hell. Ps. 16:9-10, 25:11-13 are often cited, with the emphasis placed on 16:10 ("for Thou wilt not abandon me to Sheol ...") and 25:13 ("he shall enjoy everlasting prosperity"-literally, "his soul shall rest in goodness"). Regarding the former, the Jews are willing to understand she'ol as referring to gehenna and not simply the grave. And, they note the use of the term hasidkha in 16:10, which is understood to be an allusion to David, who because of his piety and righteousness was saved from hell, and not because of Jesus' atoning for Adam's sin and freeing the souls of the righteous from Satan's clutches. As with God's promise to Abraham (Gen. 15:15), the use of tov, "goodness," in 25:13 is understood as precluding David's residing in hell and indicating his receipt of heavenly rewards.34

Such exegesis on passages from Psalms, demonstrating David's righteousness and freedom from the effects of original sin, stands in stark contrast to one comment on Ps. 51:7, referred to above.35 Jacob ben Reuben, in a sharp rhetorical remark in his Milhamot ha-shem, tells his Christian disputant: "This time you have in fact been ensnared by the words

32. Meqanne, p. 66; MS 53B, p. 387; NiSSahon, fol. 8r; Modena, p. 14; see n. 14 above. 33. NiSSahon, fol. 8r; see also MS 53B, p. 387. The rabbinic idea is in B. T. Shabbat 152a,

152b-53a; see also Tanhuma, Va-yiqra 8. Joseph ben Nathan responded to a Christian in a rather innovative fashion by suggesting that the witch did not use demonic powers to wrest Samuel's spirit from heaven, but used rather the power of God's name to achieve this miracu- lous feat; see Meqanne, p. 66.

34. Meqanne, pp. 102-3; MS 53A1, p. 132; MS 53B, p. 386; MS 53A2, p. 69; Vetus, p. 18; NiSSahon, fols. 8r, 103v; 'Edut add., p. 427; Modena, p. 8. Another passage from Psalms used in this context is 86:13.

35. See n. 7 above.


of your own mouth. For, indeed, all creatures born of woman are immediately inflicted with the sin of Adam upon entering the world, as Scripture states: 'In iniquity I was brought to birth and my mother conceived me in sin.' And, since this god was born of woman, this verse can, likewise, be applied to him. Sin and guilt are found within him. .... ."36 The very passage that functions for Christians as a key prooftext for the doctrine of original sin37 is directed against the very person who is to be the antidote for that sin, Jesus.

The Jewish critics use two additional biblical statements that are note- worthy. One is Gen. 3:14-19, the spelling out of the punishments Adam, Eve and the serpent are to suffer for their rebellion against God. This is cited by writers who point out that suffering in hell is not listed among the speci- fied penalties.38 Generalizing on this issue, Modena contends that if the whole matter of Adam's sin and Jesus' atonement were truly a significant theological issue, then Moses and the prophets should have explicitly warned people of the fact and urged them to believe in Jesus. Mere hints and allusions, he argues, would have been to no avail.39 The second biblical notion referred to by a number of polemicists is the oft-repeated maxim that God punishes children for their fathers' sins down to the fourth generation.40 They argue that from this idea it is clear that sin transfers down to four generations, at the most, and that this contradicts the Christian belief that Adam's sin passes to all subsequent generations.41

These arguments, as well as others, typify the Jews' employment of biblical material in their criticism of the doctrine of original sin. As noted above, this methodology is especially characteristic of the earlier Franco-German polemics. It is also employed, however, by the later Spanish and Italian writers, who build on the polemical traditions that preceded them. A significant number of the Jewish polemicists also employ New Testament passages to demonstrate the untenability of the belief in original sin. Given the paucity of explicit references to this idea in the New Testament, relatively

36. Milhamot, pp. 58-59. 37. See n. 13 above. See also the discussion of the significance of Ps. 51:7 (51:5 in the Chris-

tian Bible) for the Christian doctrines of original sin and virgin birth in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago, 1971), pp. 289-90.

38. MS 53A1, p. 132; MS 53A2, p. 69; NiSSahon, fol. 10v. 39. Modena, p. 19. 40. Ex. 20:5, 34:7; Num. 14:18. 41. MS 53A1, p. 132; MiSvah, fols. 10r, 101v; NisSahon, fol. 7v. See also Anselm, De con-

ceptu, 24-25.

362 JOEL E. REMBAUM

few New Testament citations are found in the Jewish arguments on this subject. The two exceptions to this rule are the critiques of original sin presented in Profiat Duran's Kelimmat ha-goyim42 and in Simeon ben Semab Duran's Qeshet u-magen.43 If there is considerable similarity in the early and late polemical exegesis of the Hebrew Bible, there are some striking differences in the respective usages of New Testament material. While both the early and the late polemicists incorporate synoptic traditions in their criticism of original sin, only the later writers delve into the Pauline sources and the Book of Acts. This is evidence of the increasing Jewish familiarity with the New Testament that evolved with the passage of time and points to a general pattern of New Testament use that can be seen in Jewish criticism of other Christian doctrines.44

Undoubtedly, the most commonly referred to New Testament passage, appearing in early and late polemical responses to original sin, is Luke 16:19-31, the parable of Lazarus and the wealthy man. Employing the same argument used in conjunction with the biblical traditions regarding Abra- ham, David, and, especially Enoch and Elijah,45 the Jewish critics note that the story clearly indicates that Lazarus and Abraham were in heaven. Since this situation existed before Jesus' coming, they continue, one must con- clude that Adam's sin does not keep the righteous out of heaven and that Jesus' death affords no necessary atonement for original sin.46 To reinforce his point, the author of NiSsahon vetus notes that Abraham tells the rich man that the way to stay out of hell is to listen to Moses and the prophets.47 Thus, this gospel tradition is presented as negating original sin and its implications and as affirming the Jewish belief that righteous acts in conformity with the Torah constitute the way to heaven.

Citing Jesus' declaration to the Pharisees that, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. . . . I did not come to invite the virtuous people, but sinners" (Matt. 9:12-13), a number of polemicists argue that according

42. Kelimmat, pp. 17-23. 43. Qeshet, p. 8a. 44. The one exception to this pattern of increasing familiarity with the New Testament on

the part of later polemical writers is Sefer Nestor ha-komer. This early medieval tract contains numerous references to New Testament books outside the Synoptics; see Rembaum, Nestor, pp. 155, 158-60.

45. See nn. 24, 25, 31, 34 above. 46. Berit, pp. 24-25; RaDaQ, p. 89; MS 53A1, p. 132; Vetus, pp. 135-36; Kelimmat, pp.

19-20; NiSyahon, fol. 9r-v; Qeshet, p. 8a; Troki, p. 94. 47. Vetus, p. 136.


to Jesus himself the righteous do not require salvation.48 Again original sin and Jesus' soteriological function are depicted as being irrelevant to the righteous. An anonymous source turns this point into a reductio ad absur- dum, arguing that if Jesus saved only the sinners, then it must be concluded that the righteous were left in gehenna! He goes on to suggest: "But in truth [Jesus] descended to gehenna because there was to be his punishment for making himself a god so that the world might err concerning him. And when they that erred and died saw him, they thought he had come to take them up out of gehenna. But after he descended he had no power, because a demon can cause things to enter gehenna but cannot take them out. .. ."49

Matt. 15:24 enables the Jewish critics to raise a moral issue that challenges the justice inherent in the notion of original sin. Noting that Jesus told the Canaanite woman, "I was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and to them alone," Modena, in a manner representative of a number of writers, asks:

If, indeed, he was sent to them so as to benefit them and save them, they being the "masters," while the rest of the nations he called "dogs,"50 how did he decree with divine wisdom that his death would be at their hands? For he had already said that he would be handed over to the Jews for crucifixion, as we said, so that by this sin they and all their seed would be lost, body and soul. And since he had to die to redeem all, and he wanted this to be at the hands of men, why did he not go into Edom, Ammon, and Moab or some other foreign nation so that they would have transgressed, and not his brethren, the people closest to him, his own flesh, namely, the Jews, the very people to whom he was sent? For indeed God, blessed be He, makes the causes and the means appropriate to the ends.5'

Modena has woven together into a coherent statement three distinct points that recur separately elsewhere, sometimes in conjunction with the Gospel passage and sometimes not: 1) Jesus came for the sins of Israel. Profiat Duran focuses on this point to argue that Jesus did not come to atone for universal human sin.52 2) It is unjust that the very people who were to be

48. Vetus, p. 18; Kelimmat, p. 19; Qeshet, p. 8a. 49. MS 53B, p. 387. The Jewish association of Jesus with demons is first mentioned in the

New Testament; see Matt. 9:34, 12:24, etc. This is also reflected in rabbinic traditions concerning Jesus; see David Rokeah, "Ben Sitra is Ben Pantera" [Hebrew], Tarbiz 39 (1970): 18.

50. Matt. 15:26-27. 51. Modena, p. 18. 52. Kelimmat, p. 19. See also Qeshet, p. 8a.

364 JOEL E. REMBAUM

saved were rendered guilty through their role in the act that brought about the salvation. The NiS4ahon vetus traditions raise this question.53 3) In the divine scheme of justice, the means must be consistent with the ends. Simi- larly, Crescas, arguing rhetorically, suggests that the perpetrating of one transgression, and a major one at that-the Jews' responsibility for Jesus' death-is not justified by the atonement afforded for another, indeed a minor, transgression-Adam's eating from the tree. The cure, says Crescas, comes in the form of a reversal of behavior. Thus, the remedy for sin is in fulfilling divine commands or in worship.54 Modena's arguments and those of other critics noted above represent aspects of a larger question yet to be discussed: How can the doctrine of original sin be tenable when it generates so much injustice?"

We now turn to the most extensive use of New Testament sources found in any of the critiques of original sin surveyed in this study. Profiat Duran, in the third chapter of his unique polemic, Kelimmat ha-goyim, cites over forty passages from eleven New Testament books.56 An analysis of how Duran employs each of these passages will not be undertaken. Due to the uniqueness of Duran's approach and arguments, however, a detailed summary of his critique is warranted.

Duran begins his discussion with a summary of Christian teachings concerning original sin." These are presented as the opinions of the mat'im, "the deceivers," Christian authorities of the generations after Jesus and his immediate circle of disciples. The latter, whose teachings comprise the traditions of the New Testament, Duran calls the to'im, "the erring ones," who were intent on adhering to God's law but who out of ignorance arrived at a mistaken understanding of it. The mat'im not only erred but also knowingly perverted the teachings of the to'im, thereby misleading Christianity into a distorted perception of what Christian doctrine ought to have been.58

53. MS 53A1, p. 128; Vetus, p. 122. 54. Bittul, pp. 20-2 1. Crescas's notion that an antidote should be an opposite of the disease

to be cured has its parallel in medieval medicine. Maimonides, for example, following Galen, divided poisons into two kinds, those that produce fever and an excited soul and others that generate cold and depression. The cures for the former were to be mild and quieting, while the remedies for the latter were to be stimulants. See Harry Friedenwald, The Jews and Medicine, 2 vols. (New York, 1967), 1: 209.

55. See nn. 82-97 below. 56. Kelimmat, pp. 17-23; see Talmage's index of New Testament passages, Kelimmat, pp.

97-99. 57. Kelimmat, pp. 17-18. The specific Christian theory of original sin reflected in Duran's

presentation will be discussed in n. 135 below. 58. For Duran's description of to'im and mal'im see Kelimmat, p. 4; see also Talmage's dis-

cussion in Kelimmat, introduction, pp. 19-25.


Duran then proceeds to survey the New Testament sources used by the mal'im to support their opinions regarding original sin. He quotes Romans 5:8-21, 6:5,8-9, 7:24-25 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 as constituting the foundation for their belief. 59 The citation of these passages is prefaced by the following remarks which indicate the direction Duran's critique is to take: "However, Jesus did not mention this in his statements at all, even though he often said that it was necessary for the son of man to die.60 They concluded from this that this necessity means that it was for the salvation of the human race and that it would be an atonement for that sin. This is, however, their own opinion and a notion with no proof."61 Duran concludes this presentation by noting the New Testament verses from which the mat'im derived their view that salvation from original sin was afforded only to those who believed in Jesus (Romans 3:22; John 3:36; Romans 9:33). According to this notion the souls of these believers would enjoy eternal bliss after Jesus, through his crucifixion and resurrection, opened the gates of heaven.62

In responding to what he considers to be an erroneous interpretation on the part of the mat'im of the teachings of the New Testament, Duran offers what amounts to his own theory of systematic Christian theology based on his own understanding of the meaning of Christian Scripture. Like other Jewish writers he learns from Matt. 9:12-13 that Jesus came only for the sake of people who personally sinned. The righteous, therefore, have no need of his saving power.63 Salvation offered by Jesus is achieved, according to Duran, by following God's law. Deeds, not faith, determine whether one is judged to be righteous or sinful. In developing this argument Duran notes that Jesus instructed his disciples to become like little children so that they could inherit the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:2-4). Jesus also pointed to certain of the ten commandments as the key to achieving eternal life (Matt. 19:16-19), and he urged his followers to pay heed to the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23:2-3). The evil actions of the Pharisees and the wealthy are cited by Jesus as impediments to heaven (Matt. 23:13; Luke 18:25; Matt. 19:24). The story of Lazarus (Luke 16:19-25) proves that the righteous Abraham did not reside in gehenna. Throughout his discussion Duran emphasizes that these dicta of Jesus render untenable the theories of original sin propounded by the mal'im.64

59. Kelimmat, pp. 18-19. 60. See, for example, Matt. 17:22-23, 20:18, 26:2, 24. 61. Kelimmat, p. 18. 62. Kelimmat, p. 19. 63. Kelimmat, p. 19 where Matt. 15:24 is also used. See also n. 48 above. 64. Kelimmat, pp. 19-20. See also n. 46 above for other Jewish references to the Lazarus

story.

366 JOEL E. REMBAUM

Moving toward an explication of what the New Testament does, in fact, say about Adam's sin, Duran first suggests his own understanding of New Testament psychology, a theory grounded in philosophical notions.65 Unlike the adherents to the true law, Jesus and the to'im held to a mistaken notion regarding the nature of the human soul. The former recognize that the soul is included in the category of incorporeal substances,66 while the latter believed the soul to be a material thing, composed of a very fine material substance.67 This is evident from Jesus' statements regarding himself and regarding Lazarus (Luke 16:23) and from the Christian belief that Jesus was seated at God's right hand (Matt. 26:64, Luke 22:69, etc.). Duran contends that it would be heretical for Christians to suggest that these allusions to the soul's materiality be understood figuratively. He also argues that this concept is associated with the Christian notion of caelum em- pyreum.68

As regards Adam's sin, Duran offers the following conceptualization based on his exegesis of the New Testament. The to'im understood Gen. 2:17 to refer to physical death, rather than a spiritual punishment that was decreed against Adam and his descendants. It was for this that Jesus' death and crucifixion afforded atonement. Those who believe in Jesus will return to life, body and soul, while the nonbelievers will go to gehenna, body and soul. The punishment in gehenna is, therefore, physical in nature, as Jesus noted in Matt. 13:41-42. Jesus and Paul saw the reward for Jesus' believers taking place on resurrection day, when they would attain eternal life, also called the kingdom of heaven, and when they would assume an angelic status. Jesus and Paul emphasized that Jesus' atonement allowed for this resurrection and constituted the nullification of bodily death that was Adam's punishment. Paul, morevoer, expected the resurrection to take place imminently. Duran weaves this interpretation around the following

65. Kelimmat, p. 20. 66. 'Agamim nivdalim. For discussions of these terms see H. A. Wolfson, Crescas' Critique

of Aristotle (Cambridge, Mass., 1929), pp. 292-95, 328, 574-75, 666. 67. Among the medieval philosophers who are aware of and criticize definitions of the soul

as a material substance are Saadya (see Alexander Altmann, trans., Saadya Gaon: Book of Doctrines and Beliefs, in Three Jewish Philosophers [Cleveland, New York, and Philadelphia, 1960], pp. 143-44, and see especially Altmann's notes), William of Auvergne in his De anima (see E. A. Moody, Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Science, and Logic [Berkeley, 1975], pp. 23-28), and Aquinas, in SCG, 2:49-50. To be sure, none of these relate the issue of the soul's material nature to Jesus and his followers.

68. Kelimmat, p. 20, n. 23.


passages: Matt. 13:41-42, 22:23-32, 24:1-31,34; Acts 23:6-8, 24:15, 26:23; Romans 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:20,32.69

Lest the reader assume that there is merit in these New Testament ideas on sin and Jesus' saving powers, Duran concludes his remarks on original sin with these words: "Indeed it has already been seen how they went mad, and that more than all of them Jesus went mad in this matter and, similarly, in his giving those who believed in him special signs through which they would be recognized and set apart from others. [A quotation from Mark 16:17-18 follows.] There is no doubt that all of this is an absolute false- hood."70 With his interpretation of the New Testament's view of Adam's sin and punishment, the soul, and Jesus' salvation in strictly physical terms, Duran seeks to undermine the orthodox Christian spiritual conception of original sin and Jesus' soteriological role. In this emphasis on the physical aspects of Adam's sin and on the spiritual benefits of Torah, Duran is well within the mainstream of the Jewish polemical tradition, as will be shown presently.

The second major category of Jewish criticism of original sin is com- prised of arguments based on reason or common sense. Here too, details of philosophical theories occasionally appear, especially in discussions of human physical and psychological qualities as they relate to sin.71 The matter of the physical versus the spiritual aspects of human sin will be the first topic addressed below. Other topics to be analyzed include the injustice of original sin, the inadequacy of Jesus' sacrifice as atonement for sin, empirical proofs of the persistence of the effects of Adam's sin after Jesus, the untenability of certain notions relevant to the doctrine of original sin, and the Jewish antidotes to human sin. Additionally, the evolution of these critiques through the period under discussion will be noted. The arguments that distinguish between the physical and spiritual implications of Adam's sin begin to appear in the works of Spanish and Southern French Jewish critics of Christianity of the second half of the thirteenth century. Such argumentation is not found in polemical literature of Northern France and Germany until after 1400, and it is most prominent in the writings of the later Spanish and Italian polemicists. This theme is linked to philosophical and rationalis-

69. Kelimmat, pp. 20-21. Duran's concluding arguments, Kelimmat, pp. 22-23, focus on the problems created by the delay in Jesus' second advent and the attempts by the mat'im to resolve them.

70. Kelimmat, p. 23. 71. See nn. 66-67 above.

368 JOEL E. REMBAUM

tic issues and to subtleties of Christian doctrine of which the later Spanish and Italian Jews would be more aware.

Nal.manides is the first of the polemical writers to suggest that the conse-

quences of Adam's sin cannot be transmitted through Adam's soul to the souls of his descendants. His own soul, Nabmanides argues, is as closely linked to the soul of his father as it is to that of Pharaoh, and, he continues mockingly, it can hardly be said that he will go to hell for the sin of the ruler of Egypt.72 Later writers consistently use this point as a basic element in their critiques of the spiritual culpability of humanity for Adam's sin. Like Nabmanides, they admit to the transmission of physical punishments, given the perceived continuity of God's decrees against Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:16-19. Souls, however, even according to Christians, are individually created by God ex nihilo for each new human and carry none of the qualities of their parents' souls. Therefore, only physical factors are hereditary, and if there is a transmission of sinful tendencies from Adam it cannot be at the psychic level. Explicitly or implicitly the Jewish writers view this point as a profound challenge to orthodox Christology because it invalidates the necessity for the incarnation and crucifixion.73

Nah.manides' contemporary in Southern France, Meir ben Simeon of

Narbonne, who was familiar with the Christian heresies of the thirteenth century,74 incorporates this argument into a refutation of both original sin and infant baptism in a manner reminiscent of the Pelagian heretics of Augustine's era. He asks: Why is it that a child, born of Christian parents, must be baptized? The child's soul, newly created, is pure. The child is in- capable of sinning, and the parents, having been baptized, are free of original sin. Should not the child inherit paradise without baptism?"7 This question reemerged in Christian circles in the later Middle Ages.76

72. RaMbaN, p. 310. 73. RaMbaN, p. 310; Misvah, fols. 28v-29r, 102r; Bitjul, pp. 6, 14, 18; NiSSahon, fol. 7v;

Genazzano, pp. 436-37; Magen, fol. 20r; flerev, p. 97; Troki, p. 88; MS 2252, fol. 4v; Modena, pp. 10, 11. On the Christian belief in the creation of each soul see Aquinas, SCG, 2:83-89; and on questions regarding the soul transferring the effects of original sin see SCG, 4:51,4; 52, 8.

74. Meir explicitly refers to heretics and their beliefs in his Milbemet misvah; see MiSvah, fol. 215r-v, where he defines their beliefs in the following terms: "They believe in two deities, one good and one evil; they say that everything beheld by the eye's sense of sight is not the creation of the one good God, may He be blessed; they are willing to destroy their bodies and to renounce ownership of their money." See also Misvah, fol. 42v.

75. Miyvah, fols. 53r-v, 102r. 76. Regarding the Pelagian criticism of original sin see Aquinas, SCG, 4:50, 2 and 52, 19;

and on the Pelagian critique of child baptism see the decree on original sin of the Council of Trent in J. H. Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches (Atlanta, 1973), pp. 406-7.


Meir ben Simeon and, later, Abraham Farissol use the notion of the soul's creation ex nihilo to criticize the doctrine of original sin in yet another way that echoes the ideas of Christian heretics. Thus, Meir argues that Christians believe that the human soul is created ex nihilo. This being so, he asks, how can the soul be at all affected by a preexisting sin? The Christians, he continues, will respond that when it comes into contact with the body that carries the taint of Adam's sin, transmitted through the parents' bodies, it itself becomes tainted. However, Meir responds, this leads to a conclusion that blasphemes God. The soul, a pure spiritual essence, yearns for a spiritual existence. It resides in the body against its own will and in conformity with the will of God. Why should God require the soul to be blemished by contact with a tainted body and then punish the soul because of that contact? God is made to appear unjust. The echoes of Cathar thinking can be heard in this critique.77

In developing their contentions that Adam's sin, and human sin in general, is strictly physical, certain of the writers emphasize that sin or the potential to sin were inherent in human nature as created by God. Farissol argues that God commanded Adam to use the knowledge of good and evil and the free will with which he was created to avoid eating the fruit of the tree. By not tasting the sweetness of physical pleasure, he would remain in a state of pure rationality and in touch with the divine, and he would live eternally. Adam, however, revolted and ate the fruit, thereby causing a change in his nature. His rationality was compromised by the sensation of physical passions, and the admixture of physical elements with his rational essence initiated a process of decay. As a consequence, Adam suffered two deaths: 1) his soul no longer benefited from God's providential care, attain- able through his formerly unadulterated rational faculty; 2) physical death awaited him due to the decay that set in when he followed his senses and not his reason and ate from the tree. This decay-inducing admixture was physically transmitted to his descendants."78 According to this definition, circum-

77. Mipvah, fols. 52v-53r, 102r-v. See also Bittul, pp. 15-16. Some Cathars held that it is bad for souls that are pure spirit to be placed in bodies where they become defiled by contact with the material body. To suggest that God intentionally brings about this process only to punish the soul would, in the light of this Cathar idea regarding which orthodox Christians were sensitive, tend to reinforce the heretics in their blasphemies regarding the evils of the creator God. On these Cathar beliefs see Steven Runciman, The Medieval Manichee (Cam- bridge, England, 1947), pp. 148-51; Arno Borst, Die Katharer (Stuttgart, 1953), pp. 143-51; Milan Loos, Dualist Heresy in the Middle Ages (Prague, 1974), pp. 115, 136-41, 264, 284-85.

78. Magen, fol. 18r-v. For further discussion of this aspect of Farissol's thinking see n. 105 below. A similar emphasis on the corrupting effects of the sin on the composition of the ele-

370 JOEL E. REMBAUM

cision and Torah, which curb and redirect physical desires, are the means for dealing with the consequences of Adam's sin.79

Like Farissol, Modena sees Adam's sin as primarily being a failure to exercise his intelligence in the face of physical temptation."0 He suggests that the imbalance in man's physical nature caused by Adam's sin resulted in an inclination toward evil that does affect the individual's soul once it comes in contact with the body. The soul is influenced toward evil by this inclination, sins, and is consequently punished. In this way it can be said that Adam's sin defiles the souls of his progeny. On this point Modena would agree with Christian thinkers such as Petrus Galatinus and with the biblical and rabbinic passages to which he refers. This apparent compromise must be seen as an attempt to insure that these Christian opinions are perceived by the Jewish reader of the Magen va-berev as differing from the orthodox Chris- tian doctrine of original sin in that they do not necessitate an incarnation by the son of God. To this end Modena notes that, according to the prophets, the true messiah will cleanse human bodies from the evil incarnation, thereby returning man to the purified state in which he found himself before Adam sinned.8

The centrality in Jewish polemics of the claim that the doctrine of origi-

ments of the human body can be found in NisSahon, fol. 7v. See also MS 2252, fol. 4v. The ideas that passions emanate from the material aspect of man and that human beings can be tempted by physical desires away from the higher intellectual pursuits are discussed by Maimonides in his Guide of the Perplexed, 2:8, 33.

79. Magen, fol. 18v. See also, Phinehas Halevi of Barcelona, Sefer ha-hinnukh, ed. Charles Wengrov (Jerusalem and New York, 1978), pp. 62-64 on the Torah as the vehicle for directing human intelligence away from the physical. Regarding the authorship of Sefer ha-hinnukh see Israel Ta-Shma, "Mehabbero ha-'amitti shel Sefer ha-binnukh," Kiryat sefer 55 (1980): 787-90. On Torah as the antidote for the evil inclination, see Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1901-06), s.v. "Yezer ha-Ra."

80. Modena, pp. 7-8. 81. Modena, pp. 11-12, Modena notes a similarity between Jewish and Christian thinkers

who define the consequences of Adam's sin as the unleashing of the evil inclination; see Modena, p. 10. Galatinus relied heavily on Raymundus Martini's Pugiofidei for his knowledge of rabbinic sources, and given the latter's association of the Jewish evil inclination with an Aquinian view of original sin, it is not surprising to find Modena responding to Galatinus's use of Jewish sources in the way he does. Modena (ibid.) is also sensitive to Aquinas's views on original sin and to how they parallel, to some degree, Jewish notions. On Galatinus see Modena, p. 3-5. On Martini's linking of Aquinas's notions of original sin with rabbinic traditions concerning the evil inclination see Jeremy Cohen, "Original Sin as the Evil Inclination- A Polemicist's Appreciation of Human Nature," Harvard Theological Review 74 (1981): 495-520. On the idea that the messiah will purify humans from original sin see Sefer ha-hinnukh, p. 66.


nal sin results in great injustices has been noted.82 The expression of this argument takes many forms as it evolves with the passage of time. We have already seen how universal was the Jewish response that it is a principle of divine justice that sons are not punished for their fathers' sins and that belief in original sin would contradict this principle.83 The Christian claim that Jews are culpable for Jesus' death moved Jewish polemicists to respond that this, too, represented a perversion of justice on God's part, as discussed above.84 Implicit in the previously noted discussion of God's forcing souls to inhabit defiling bodies and to suffer because of the taint of sin is the matter of an imperfection in God's justice."8 In general, questions relating to divine justice are developed in the earlier works within the context of discussions of those biblical passages that directly address the issue. The later works continue this line of scriptural argumentation, but because of their thematic structure they pose additional questions based on a rationalistic probing of Christian ideas.

The most basic question posed by the Jewish writers relates to the very heart of the Church's christological doctrine: If Adam sinned, why should the son of God, who committed no sin, die? The guilty should die, not the innocent.86 To be sure, this narrow point skirts the issue of the necessity of Jesus' death as just compensation to God for Adam's sin. This matter is independently dealt with by many of the polemicists.87 Often, the question of divine justice is similarly handed as a separate matter. These two points are linked, however, by Yair ben Shabbetai of Correggio. If Jesus were truly guiltless and pure, he argues, then he would not have perverted justice by justifying evil through his death.88 The author directly addresses the Chris- tology of Anselm of Canterbury with its emphasis on the necessary functioning of the Deus-Homo, whose human element was free of sin, as a sacrifice restoring humanity to a state ofjustitia before God.89 Citing Deut. 25: 1, Yair suggests that authentic divine justice seeks to justify the righteous.

Rhetorically accepting the Christian notion that the process of atonement for original sin must be initiated by God, some writers point to ways

82. Lasker, p. 107. 83. See nn. 20-21 above. 84. See nn. 51-55 above. 85. See n. 77 above. 86. Berit add., p. 61; Magen, fol. 19r; MS 2252, fols. 4v, 5r; Modena, pp. 16, 17. 87. See, for example, nn. 98-102 below. 88. Herev, p. 98. A similar point is made by Crescas, Bittul, pp. 19-20. 89. Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus homo, 2:1-7.

372 JOEL E. REMBAUM

God could have forgiven mankind without perverting justice. The omnipotent God can simply will forgiveness; He can say "I forgive" and His word is actualized.90 Modena argues that Aquinas recognized that there are ways other than through Jesus' death that man could have been forgiven. He cites Aquinas as having stated that unlike a human king who is bound by law, God need not have punished humanity because of Adam's sin. No one other than God would have been uncompensated were man not punished, and God does not need such compensation.9' In selecting this Aquinian statement, Modena is employing a Christian source to respond to what had become an important aspect of Christian thinking regarding the necessity of the incarnation and crucifixion. Since the days of Anselm Christians held that divine justice required that satisfactio be made to God because His honor had been impugned by man's not subjecting himself to God's will. Because of the impediment of original sin only the Deus-Homo, Jesus, could appropriately compensate God.92 Modena, relying on Aquinas, attempts to show that God did not require such restitution, especially since it contra- dicted the essence of God's system of justice in which the individual is held responsible for his own acts.

It was previously shown how the Jewish authors, relying on Hebrew biblical and New Testament sources, strongly denied the Christian contention that the biblical patriarchs and heroes waited in hell for Jesus' advent.93 This response is part of the Jewish denial of the notion that the righteous, who also bear the taint of original sin, do not immediately ascend to heaven upon their demise.94 To the Jews this belief ascribed so great an injustice to God as to be tantamount to blasphemy.95 A number of polemicists ask how it could be that the prophets and the other righteous ones who partook of God's glory in the course of their physical existence would, after dying and being freed of their material bodies, be denied this glory. This appeared to them to be unjust and unreasonable.96

90. MS 2252, fol. 5r; Modena, pp. 16-17. See n. 112 below. 91. Modena, p. 16, quoting Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3:q. 46, a. 1-3. 92. Anselm, Cur Deus homo, 1:11-15, 16-21, 25 and see n. 89 above. On Aquinas's treat-

ment of Anselm's notions see J. M. Colleran, trans., Why God Became Man, by Anselm of Can- terbury (Albany, 1969), pp. 47-48.

93. See nn. 7, 9-11, 24-34 above. 94. See Aquinas, ST, 3:q. 52. 95. Berit, p. 24; MS 53A2, p. 68; Bittul, pp. 14-15; Modena, p. 13. This argument is also

found in one of the oldest of the Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Sefer Nestor ha-komer; see Abraham Berliner, ed., Sefer Nestor ha-komer (Altona, 1875), p. 10.

96. 'Edut add., p. 427; Genazzano, p. 437; Magen, fols. 18v, 19v, 20r; Modena, p. 13.


Hasdai Crescas, taking a slightly different tack, argues that if Adam, before his sin, would have inherited eternal bliss, then Abraham and the other righteous people were even more worthy of God's gracious rewards. Adam was created free of sin and its effects. Abraham, however, was born into a state in which defiling sin could have overwhelmed him. Yet he over- came sin and led a virtuous sin-free life. It would have been a great injustice on God's part if Adam, though small in virtue, would have merited a place in the world to come and Abraham, abundant in virtue, overcoming sin, and loyally serving God, would have been denied such a reward.97 Implicit in all these discussions is the fundamentally different Jewish and Christian understanding of the effectiveness of human deeds in the reconciliation of a sinner with God.

An essential element in the Christian conceptualization of the necessity of Jesus' atonement for original sin is the notion that a sin against infinite God requires an atonement that is, similarly, infinite in its proportion. Thus, only the Deus-Homo, incorporating the natures of both God and man, could make adequate restitution to God for human sin.98 In response the Jews argue that a merciful and gracious God does not require an infinite punishment or atonement.99 The anonymous author of MS Parma 2252 pro- vides us with one of the most comprehensive Jewish challenges to this notion. He suggests that all sins against God, past and present, should be considered infinite in scope, and, therefore, Jesus should regularly come to be crucified for man's continuing sinfulness toward God. Which of Jesus' natures received the punishment, he asks. If it was the human, material nature then it would be to no avail since this nature is finite. If it was the divine nature that was punished, then an absurdity would result, inasmuch as even the Christians would agree that God is unmoved and unaffected by accidents. God, he continues, foresaw that man would sin and still He created him with free will. In anticipation of man's sinning God created the antidotes to sin: repentance and finite punishment. Both repentance and the finite punishment Adam suffered were from God, the infinite being. There- fore, from God's perspective they, too, are infinite and adequately provide atonement for the transgressions against Him.'00 Certain of these points can

97. Bittul, pp. 14-15. 98. See n. 92 above. Crescas alludes to this in some detail; see Bittul, p. 12. 99. Magen, fol. 19r; Hlerev, pp. 97-98; Modena, p. 17. Yair ben Shabbetai cites Joseph

Albo as the source of his thinking on this matter; see Herev, p. 98, referring to Sefer ha- 'iqqarim, 4:38, and see Herev, p. 98, n. 19.

100. MS 2252, fols. 4v-5r.

374 JOEL E. REMBAUM

also be found in other late works, all of them originating in Italy in the period 1500-1650.10' Farissol makes the additional point that man is, after all, finite, and since it is proper that the punishment be made to fit the crime, the finite sin of man required only a finite punishment.'02

Another approach taken in refuting the notion of the infinite propor- tions of Adam's sin is simply to deny the gravity of the sin. This argument appears in the NiSSahon vetus and recurs in sixteenth and seventeenth century Italian works as well.103 There is some similarity in the argument as posed by the author of the NiSSabon and Modena. Both suggest that Adam did not exercise common sense in accepting the fruit from Eve. They argue that the sin was inadvertent in the sense that Adam did not intend to rebel. Other more grave transgressions, such as Cain's murder of Abel or the golden calf, the latter representing an overt denial of God, did not result in infinite punishment or the condemnation of souls to hell.'04

Crescas is aware of the Aquinian notion that Adam was created with divine gifts that placed him, prior to his sin, in a status superior to that of the mere natural. The sin, according to this concept, resulted in the loss of these supernatural gifts, particularly divine grace. Thus, the effects of original sin were all the greater because of the lofty condition in which man had previously existed. This sin was carried down in human nature and required a proportionately supernatural atonement to restore to man the gift of grace that he lost.'05 Crescas interprets this to mean that since Adam was so per- fected, the magnitude of the sin he committed was increased.'06 Reflecting

101. Magen, fol. 20r; Hierev, p. 98; Modena, p. 17. 102. Magen, fol. 19r. 103. Vetus, pp. 153-54; Magen, fol. 19r; MS 2252, fol. 5r; Modena, pp. 7-8. 104. Vetus, pp. 153-54; Modena, p. 8. 105. See Billul, p. 12. On this notion in Aquinas see C. J. Keating, The Effects of Original

Sin in the Scholastic Tradition from St. Thomas Aquinas to William Ockham (Washington, D.C., 1959), pp. 8-27, and the Aquinian sources noted there. Farissol, like Aquinas, defines Adam's sin as an act of disobedience in which Adam forsook his rationality for the sake of physical desires, the result being a loss of providential protection and death; see Magen, fol. 18r. Farissol, also like Aquinas, sees the rebellion and its consequences as emerging out of a human nature that is not essentially evil. In Aquinas this results in a qualified definition of original sin when compared, for example, to Augustine's definition; see Keating, ibid., and Cohen in n. 81 above. This concept of Adam's sin allows Farissol to argue that since that sin was an outgrowth of human nature as created by God, it was not as heinous as the sins of the generation of the flood and other similar sins. Consequently, argues Farissol, it does not warrant the significance ascribed to it by Christianity. For another perspective on this passage of the Magen 'Avraham see n. 78 above.

106. See Aquinas, ST, 2 pt. l:q. 73, a. 10.


this point, although ignoring the full scope of Aquinas's thinking, Modena attempts to demonstrate the insignificance of Adam's sin by noting that it was only because of his perfection that Adam was held culpable for the minor infraction he committed. Had he been a normal human, his sin would not have resulted in the dire punishments from which he suffered. The implications of this point is that normal humans, the descendants of Adam, should not suffer for Adam's minor sin.107

One of the most venerable Jewish arguments against original sin is most lucidly enunciated by

Nai.manides. Responding to his interlocutor's claim

that Adam's sin was nullified by Jesus, Nahmanides asserts that the Chris- tians have created a very convenient theory. The punishments of Adam and Eve detailed in Genesis (3:16-19), punishments of which the human senses are readily aware, are still in effect and were not atoned for by Jesus. The Christians say that the punishment of souls in gehenna, not referred to in the Genesis account, was nullified. Yet this claim is not subject to empirical verification; no one can disprove it. He suggests that the Christians send someone to give eyewitness verification before they ask people to believe this idea.'08 This point, in one form or another, is incorporated into thirteen other sources, spanning the period from the twelfth through the seventeenth centuries. 09

Arguing from a philosophical foundation, a number of polemicists reject the original sin doctrine because it leads to untenable theological assumptions. The incarnation is an impossibility, says Crescas, therefore the redemption upon which it depends is impossible." How can God materia- lize and be affected by accidents, asks Farissol. How can He who is not subject to death die to atone for a human choice to incline toward the senses, he continues. Farissol concludes that Christianity requires a belief in the impossible.''

Another challenge to the theological implications of original sin, not philosophical in the strict sense of the term, is raised by Yom Tov Lipmann

107. Modena, p. 8. 108. RaMbaN, p. 310. 109. Berit, p. 24; Meqanne, pp. 36-37; MS 53A1, p. 132; MS 53A2, pp. 63, 69; Berit add., p.

61; MiSvah, fols. 53v, 102v-103r; 'Edut, pp. 420-21; Nisyabhon, fol. 10v; Qeshet, p. 8a; Genaz- zano, pp. 435, 437; Magen, fols. 20v, 21r; MS 2252, fol. 4v; Modena, pp. 14-15.

110. Bitful, p. 20. Incarnation is discussed more fully by Crescas in the fourth chapter of his work; see Bittul, pp. 40-54.

111. Magen, fols. 19r, 21r. See also Modena, pp. 15-16. For a more detailed study of the Jewish critique of the incarnation see Lasker, pp. 105-34.

376 JOEL E. REMBAUM

Miihlhausen and Modena: The necessity of the incarnation and crucifixion as the antidotes for original sin implies impotence on God's part. If the Christians truly believed God to be omnipotent, they would not hold such notions. I 2

Original sin and its corollary, limbus patrum, are also seen as inventions to cope with inherent flaws in elements of Christian tradition. Profiat Duran, and Simeon Duran and Modena after him, suggest that Jesus invented the idea of original sin to validate himself in the face of his failure as a messiah.," In a similar vein Modena contends that the idea of limbo was an invention by Christian theologians to provide an answer to the potentially overwhelming question of how a just God would cause the patriarchs and prophets to suffer in hell."14

Recognizing that Adam sinned and that man continues to be plagued by the seductive evil inclination, many of the Jewish writers, in the process of refuting the notion of original sin, suggests typically Jewish solutions as to how people can overcome sin: adherence to the commandments and repentance.'I5 As noted above, certain polemicists show that even Jesus urged his disciples to follow the law."16 A number of authors indicate that the Torah was the antidote to Adam's transgression. This idea is grounded in Rabbinic notions that associate the Torah with the control of the yeSer ha-ra', the "evil inclination," or with the cleansing of people of the zuhamah, the "filth," introduced into humanity by the snake.'7

One of the most original statements on behalf of the power of Torah to counteract Adam's sin is found in Isaac Troki's Hizzuq 'emunah." Troki combines the two approaches noted above, namely, a New Testament citation in favor of Torah and an understanding of Torah as the remedy for the effects of Adam's sin. He quotes Romans 5:14, where Paul states: "Death held sway from Adam to Moses." From this Troki learns that Paul recog-

112. NiVSahon, fol. 8v; Modena, p. 16. See also nn. 90-91 above. 113. Kelimmat, p. 17; Qeshet, p. 7b; Modena, p. 20. 114. Modena, pp. 13, 14. 115. Regarding following the law see n. 79 above. See also Bittul, pp. 16, 21-22 and pp.

64-83 for Crescas's extended discussion on the significance of the Torah; Genazzano, pp. 438-39; Troki, pp. 91-93; Modena, p. 14. On repentance see Magen, fols. 19v, 20v; Herev, p. 97; MS 2252, fols. 4v, 5r; Modena, pp. 8-9. In these arguments physical punishment is an assumed component of the penitential process.

116. See nn. 47, 64 above. 117. See n. 79 above; Troki, pp. 91-93. On the Torah and the removal of the filth of the

snake see B. T. Yevamot 103b. 118. Troki, pp. 91-93, 339.


nized the Torah, given by Moses, as bringing an end to the death that Adam introduced. According to Troki, Lev. 18:15, admonishing the Israelites to keep God's law so they can live, was understood by Paul as the corrective to Gen. 2:17, with its warning of death as the punishment for eating the fruit of the tree. It is evident, argues Troki, that law-abiding Jews do not physically live forever. Hence, he concludes that the "life" mentioned in the Leviticus passage was seen by Paul as referring to spiritual life. If Adam's sin was the cause of spiritual death, then the Torah of Moses was the key to spiritual life. Jesus, according to Troki's understanding of Paul's words, cannot be the means for the soul's salvation. Troki reveals a good sense of the ironic in this presentation. Paul, whose statement in Romans 5:12 serves as one of the most basic New Testament sources for the doctrine of original sin and whose unique contribution to Christian doctrine is his assessment of the law's inadequacy in justifying man before God, is represented as a pro- ponent of Torah as the antidote to Adam's sin.

A review of our sources allows us to arrive at the following conclusions regarding Jewish criticism of original sin in the Middle Ages. As Jewish familiarity with and interest in this subject grew with the passage of time, a tradition of polemical arguments against original sin evolved, with later critics relying on earlier sources as well as developing new critiques."I9 Citing both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, Jews denied that there was any biblical evidence to support the Christian belief in original sin. They contended that this concept led to a number of absurd and blasphemous conclusions regarding God and divine justice. Given the Jewish concept of the evil inclination, Jews were generally willing to admit that the effects of Adam's sin were physically transmitted to all of Adam's descendants. They categorically denied, however, that Adam's sin generated a permanent spiritual corruption that was transmitted to the souls of all humans. Jews also denied a causal relationship between souls. Therefore, the Jews saw no need for a divine incarnation to atone for original sin. Torah and repentance, said the Jews, control the effects of man's physical taint and prepare the soul for eternal life, while reward and punishment of the soul depend strictly on how people act.

It is clear that throughout the period under investigation, from the late thirteenth through the mid-seventeenth centuries, Jews were aware of

119. A comparison of the works of Crescas, Farissol, the author of MS Parma 2252, and Modena, for example, gives a clear indication of the transmission of arguments from ca. 1400 through ca. 1650.

378 JOEL E. REMBAUM

numerous orthodox, philosophical, and heretical Christian notions relevant to the original sin doctrine.120 In his Summa contra gentiles Thomas Aquinas cites a number of questions that could be raised regarding original sin and its resolution. Among them are the following,'2' all of which can be found in the Jewish polemical sources:

For the sin of one man is not imputed as fault to others. So Ezekiel [18:20] says: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." And the reason for this is that we are neither praised nor blamed except for the things which are in ourselves. But these are the things to which we are committed by will. There- fore, the sin of the first man is not imputed to the entire human race. 22

But let it be said that we sinned in Adam as if originally the sin came from him to us through nature. Even this seems impossible, for since an accident does not pass from one subject to another, it cannot be passed on unless the subject is passed on. But the subject of sin is the rational soul, which is not passed on to us from our first parent, but is created by God in each and every one, as was shown in Book II. Therefore, it is not by origin that the sin of Adam flowed on to us.123

Further, if the sin of our first parent flows into others because they have their origin in him, then, since Christ had His origin in our first parent, He, also, it seems, was subject to original sin. And this is foreign to the faith.124

If the sin of the first man, moreover, was by origin propagated to his descendants, by the same measure the sins of other parents pass down to their descendants. And in this way the latter would always be more burdened with sins than the earlier generations. This must follow, especially, if in fact, the sin passes on from the parent to the offspring, and the satisfaction cannot pass on.'25

Once more: if it was suitable for God to become man, this had to be for some

120. See nn. 8-11, 22, 57, 59, 62, 65-68, 73-74, 76, 77, 81, 88-89, 91, 98-102, 105, 113-14, 118.

121. Aquinas, SCG, 4:51, 2, 4, 5, 14; 4:53, 3, 10, 17, 23-26. Translations are from C. J. O'Neil, trans., Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book Four: Salvation (Notre Dame, 1975), pp. 215, 217, 224-27.

122. See nn. 20-22 above. 123. See nn. 72-73 above. 124. See n. 36 above. 125. Misvah, fol. 10r; MS 2252, fol. 4v.


utility coming therefrom. But whatever be the utility granted, since God is omnipotent He could produce this utility merely by His will. Therefore, since it becomes anything whatsoever to be done as quickly as possible, it was un- necessary for a utility of this sort that God unite human nature to Himself. 26

There is more. If it was necessary for human salvation that God take on flesh, since there were men from the beginning of the world, it appears that from the beginning of the world He ought to have assumed human nature, and not, so to say, in the last days, for it seems that the salvation of all the preceding men was passed over.127

It seems, furthermore, impious and cruel to command an innocent to be led to death, especially on behalf of the impious who are worthy of death. But the man Christ Jesus was innocent. Therefore, it would have been impious if at the command of God the Father He had undergone death.'28

What is more, sin is not expiated by sin, but increased. Then, if Christ had to satisfy by death, His death should have been such that no man sinned therein; that is to say, He should have died not a violent, but a natural, death.'29 If Christ, moreover, had to die for the sins of men; since men sin frequently He should have had to undergo death frequently.130

Now, let one say that it was especially all because of original sin that Christ had to be born and to suffer, and that sin had infected the whole human race when the first man sinned. But this seems impossible. For, if other men are not equal to satisfying for original sin, neither does the death of Christ seem to have been satisfactory for the sins of the human race, since He Himself died in His human, not in His divine, nature.'3'

Furthermore, if Christ made satisfaction enough for the sins of the human race, it seems unjust that men still suffer the penalties which were brought in, Scripture says, by sin.132

It stands to reason that the Jewish critics of Christianity would be eager to

126. See nn. 90, 112 above. 127. RaDaQ, p. 94; MS 53A1, p. 131; MS 53A2, p. 65; Berit add., p. 62; NiSSabon, fol. 10r;

Magen, fol. 20v. 128. Biltul, pp. 19-20; Magen, fol. 19r; MS 2252, fol. 5r; Modena, pp. 16, 17. 129. See nn. 51, 54 above. 130. Magen, fol. 20r; MS 2252, fol. 4v. 131. See n. 100 above. 132. See nn. 108-9 above.

380 JOEL E. REMBAUM

incorporate into their polemics any questions regarding original sin, or any other doctrine, that were circulating in Christian circles.

Jewish familiarity with certain of the more subtle aspects of Christian thinking on original sin is evident, particularly in the works of the later authors. Crescas's familiarity with aspects of Aquinas's thought on the subject was noted above.'33 Modena is aware of Aquinas's defining original sin as an intrinsic aspect of human nature, akin to the Jewish evil inclination.'34 Duran, in his summary of the original sin doctrine, notes that distinction between original and actual sin, a notion highlighted by Anselm and incorporated into later Christian ideology.'35

With the passage of time, Jewish criticism of the doctrine of original sin became more sophisticated and more firmly rooted in the sources of Chris- tian teaching. Traditions of polemics emerged, yet each new generation of writers gained new insights into the workings of this seminal Christian belief and prepared more incisive critiques of it. The Jews' needs to confront the missionary activity of the friars, to stem the tide of apostasy, to help the relapsed conversos return to Judaism, and from the mid-sixteenth century on, to withstand the repression of the papacy moved Jewish intellectuals to shore up the ideological ramparts of Judaism. Part of their response was to move on the offensive by waging ideological warfare through the creation of a new genre of literature, the polemic. Criticism of original sin evolved into a major component of this literary attack on Christianity.

University of Judaism 15600 Mulholland Drive Los Angeles, CA 90077

133. See n. 105 above. 134. Modena, p. 10, n. 12 and p. 11, n. 10 referring to ST, 2 pt. 1:q. 81, 82; see also n. 91

above. 135. Kelimmat, p. 17; and see Anselm, De conceptu, 22-23.


Appendix

The following is the comment on Romans 5:12 from the heretofore unpublished MS Parma 2252, fols. 4r-5r (see no. 22 in n. 10 above). It contains an enumerated listing of twenty arguments against the doctrine of original sin. The numbering of the arguments is in the margin of the MS with an interlinear mark placed in the text over the beginning of the argument. For convenience the enumeration has been placed in the text of this transcription and each number appears in boldface.

munnn '2= -iW ;10 r i1v7 11 inKi DrNx W1 a "' n 1002l pion wnzw in ? ... :7nlx NW ~v 11 rriv D n 1run' p1 Pm o inin p1i ploin 1 1 1ou pin

x,' x? 7jn $pn', 1m'2 ? ?y I]in' 'fn -11n D1 2X-n -112Y2 72-M VD 7jX '" 'N' [4V]

p 'in' '1 r Imr,2 mI V"

ll 1 t1a '= ':n irn Kn nrinn 'mr 'i11 i Nm

"1 31in-1 1 " 1r lS

"r1' "r "11" "' I 1a7"T" 1in 1 i * '? n 1

71i '

,'i K1'

,1 .1"

n im rin'ri Iti iND ;nImy Y-m mu1 Y1ir n3 T r 1S11'Y i1?y nny" Xv p1in pD '3 19N 1n r in r i 13v ; i '132 n3 2i DN ou o 'xk n 1 n X91 01iDu Y 2u2 711 "3 19 D*'lli rr28w10n '?Inz 2nD -1w1' onvinrl DWxln 7' W""D Y:u :2 SI p1i 1r1n 20 311 Wr1in Y1-i 0m1y xn13 i mW 1n1 W ix mynw 1ix Dunb -VY3 DfN 7~

TY,1 '2 :}i W9 2D W0

WC~nik $ ;1 in 10

. 1: 11n ?Di3 '1 . ?nri D*END; D'ovi f K ni ,nnr in rv n

19- 16: I Wi'i . P'1 :1r1Yn1n Y-i 01um :* 7' $3 r 1ni jzSD11972 0in ni 0 uv 1mv 11i ii nyn rimn an1;1 7 'DW 0 1 nrn 10o i n iorv l ni uu 7,1 x2 tW JD WW W 1 7: WCu D3 n $3 ntn K:2 DNW my1 Pt :nni-ign nnD rrmn xin 1 nr1x unninx ni-no', ?,,Dn nuln 1inWm11'rNx Dunivn3n, Dfn o313:7)D noinn, vn1y -ron xC YNW in"nn p'Iwrin 018 py .20:n" ?NXjtnq .1 .77 :7'017) "" .2 .21:n nsX'WN1: .3 .19-16: 1 n"X't1: .4

382 JOEL E. REMBAUM

?Yni ?:nvn wn1y-n p1xrn nr'ri p n, zn ?y: 912 rrnp }1 10 01 -ox rinv* i '

:2, "Tn i,,n nnn n, Sn ba lnn S ,~2 rnn, x~ n,"n

'w11 rpr 1 pwr n N v nT n ?2 '*2~ Don inny

1l, un v? ; m v$ W mi 'f' :m ifl' nn '35:2 f n ?11~ 'fx 0P 1 myix1o r V Inv nfin n K"N

?Y:2,'ln rrv x p rnUK i gri n 1-p nun oxi w, riV ,in m flX i'13K n" f17"r :Yvn ni n :Rza 7,l rnn

, o onl Szvvn -rn rr nipf n f -iinxn oxi n

n Dn

min n 'll i' NV w D Dunfl mui Y-fl, n01 57 1 n $ ' wri 'ri ni l')v nft L X", Dniviw nln m3;rD 1:2 DUK Kun" Xl1 (:21U -,IVY) -1iv Y78 : Ivr7Y TNX Y1DM"W DoN xunlw Tin m902 r 0n190 nx win pD N Dx W o 21xv ? 1V1Ynn -21Wnl n 1Di

:1:' 1 ,

e .6

6. :9

,Ry , l .9 vn13n2 rorr im D 1 p oxi 7nwn nrnnnD n,?zn ?: 92 Kimr 7n13n wyn niv wvnn x

.n :1O? nI,'jn .10

o'lD- ?1in1 DPi n ty 9 n 1n1l.

In r ,1 1 v31'1 nSo ny. ITu. nW "'sW .12" IDm"W10 Tn Vg WvW 1"@ :Y-11 "W onninxs ?z ?ivl onninx ni-no- -no9 x0 1 min 0Ur int3 x? UK ninn nin vi3n 15?u o10rn-n il mr1" n:n 1:2 KwW o-rxv Pannio Inw8' n1'2W Dmr2 m* 1KN '-x 9Wlin y v nw0 in't r1i 07 ] 1r Ilx * 1 1r' wipnrn 5n ;Nxin n1vx1 101i21 i lnnr 1119037 Klt 8 nlin' nin a*Wrrv1 x? DUK ? )n 1 t"e :-100n "12% 10on'linni nnbn ninD 17yyn pyy yinvn Yvnv '112 DTOV M3 7"K 12 Dal-T- inn ?y p 1 "K8 Wr 1 1"K 1 2 'N 01u W')V.I* ?:)1q n19n5 1'ly -9 Nn 1x500 T 5y u3vn-i 0 -Ty 15 100nn -T 5y r 9 win 1i -7w1 m"4 .IT 5nDS 1-9 .3 9nYs Np 00Y09 X u X 99 01 Y"5yo o :#-TM5 05MDI5 51n' .9 W 1nYy I'Nx YY- n5-qNx 5r1u 101' Tin2 pru -no -9 -i= -7w P: 19 :0-n v-Wx p19 -nnyn Dm110i Do7 -'D 1-9nn) rnw n D- '9D n xD1) -n03 Tin' pwx-in muT1 p y no1r 1S91 71 iW9 x1in inn,95 mn<q>3v11 Dmi9-TY;I n1=C) 5-gyn wrx n5-9w1 m9n mr-nin n1VEUr

.1:4 nn9xv nn 00 .6 .17::1 nnvxn ? "3 W1xvr 9 ID Y.7 .37:l M 0990 .8 .n9010n rNunpr .9 .07171 3 mN ;7bin; .12

medieval jewish criticism of the christian doctrine of original sin.pdf

Documents

hameah ha

sefer ha berit

ha vikkuab hameyuhas

vikkuah haramban

milbamot hashem

ms rome

judah rosenthal jerusalem

ms 53a1