The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament: Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik's Commentary to the Gospels 9780812296136

Table of contents :
Contents
Foreword
Introduction: Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, the Jewish Jesus, Christianity, and the Jews
A Note on the Text
A Translator’s Foreword
THE COMMENTARIES
Dedication
A Word to the Reader
Author’s Preface
The Gospel According to Matthew, with Commentary
The Gospel According to Mark, with Commentary
Bibliography
Index of Names
Index of Texts
Acknowledgments

Citation preview

The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament

The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik’s Commentary to the Gospels

Edited, with an introduction and commentary, by Shaul Magid

Translated by Jordan Gayle Levy Foreword by Peter Salovey

University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia

JEWISH CULTURE AND CONTEXTS  Published in association with the Herbert D. Katz Center  for Advanced Judaic Studies of the University of Pennsylvania  Series Editors: Shaul Magid, Francesca Trivellato, Steven Weitzman  A complete list of books in the series is available om the publisher.

Publication of this volume was assisted by a grant om the Herbert D. Katz Publications Fund of the Center for Advanced Judaic Studies.

Copyright © 2019 University of Pennsylvania Press All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations used for purposes of review or scholarly citation, none of this book may be reproduced in any form by any means without written permission om the publisher. Published by University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4112 www.upenn.edu/pennpress Printed in the United States of America on acid-ee paper 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Solovaitsik, Eliyahu Tsevi, ha-Levi, author. | Magid, Shaul, 1958– editor, writer of added commentary. | Levy, Jordan Gayle, translator. | Salovey, Peter, writer of foreword. | Translation of: Solovaitsik, Eliyahu Tsevi, ha-Levi. Kol kore, o, ha-Talmud veha-Berit ha-hadashah. | Commentary on (work): Solovaitsik, Eliyahu Tsevi, ha-Levi. Kol kore, o, ha-Talmud veha-Berit ha-hadashah. Title: The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament : Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik’s commentary to the Gospels / edited, with an introduction and commentary, by Shaul Magid ; translated by Jordan Gayle Levy ; foreword by Peter Salovey. Other titles: Kol kore, o, ha-Talmud veha-Berit ha-hadashah. English | Commentary on (work): Bible. Matthew. | Commentary on (work): Bible. Mark. | Jewish culture and contexts. Description: 1st edition. | Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, [2019] | Series: Jewish culture and contexts | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018049427| ISBN 9780812250992 (hardcover : alk. paper) | ISBN 0812250990 (hardcover : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Matthew—Criticism, interpretation, etc., Jewish. | Bible. Mark— Criticism, interpretation, etc., Jewish. | Bible. New Testament—Relation to the Old Testament. | Rabbinical literature—Relation to the New Testament. | Judaism—Relations— Christianity. | Christianity and other religions—Judaism. | Solovaitsik, Eliyahu Tsevi, ha-Levi. Kol kore, o, ha-Talmud veha-Berit ha-hadashah. Classification: LCC BS257⒌53 .S6513 2019 | DDC 226/.206—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018049427

Frontispiece. Rabbi Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik. From Yahadut Lita: Temunot ve-Tsiyunim (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1959). Courtesy of Menachem Butler.

To Annette

“There is always something limitless in desire.” —Simone Weil

This page intentionally left blank

It is vain to think of the conversion of the Jews to Christianity before Christians themselves are converted to Judaism. —Stanislaus Hoga

The emergence of Christianity belongs to the history of Judaism. —Franz Delitzsch

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Foreword, by Peter Salovey

xi

Introduction: Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, the Jewish Jesus, Christianity, and the Jews

1

A Note on the Text

41

A Translator’s Foreword, by Jordan Gayle Levy

43

THE COMMENTARIES

Dedication

49

A Word to the Reader

51

Author’s Preface

55

The Gospel According to Matthew, with Commentary

61

The Gospel According to Mark, with Commentary

271

Bibliography

395

Index of Names

405

Index of Texts

407

Acknowledgments

425

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword

Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik’s maternal grandfather was Hayyim Volozhin, the disciple of the Vilna Gaon, who founded the great yeshiva in Volozhin. And his brother, Isaac Zev Soloveitchik, was the father of a rabbinical dynasty. That dynasty began with Isaac Zev’s son, Joseph Dov Soloveitchik (the Beit ha-Levi), who was the father of Hayyim Soloveitchik (the Brisker Rav), who was the father of the next Isaac Zev Soloveitchik (Velvele Brisker) and Moses Soloveitchik (a distinguished rabbi who emigrated om Volozhin to Khislavishi to Warsaw to New York, where he taught at Yeshiva University), who was the father of Joseph Dov Baer Soloveitchik (the Rav), late of Boston and New York, and one of the founding figures of what we now think of as Modern Orthodox Judaism. So that’s the side of the family that I think of as the “Volozhin-Brisk [Brest Litovsk] connection.” But if we track Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik’s direct descendants (rather than his brother’s), we come first to his son, Simcha Soloveitchik, who emigrated to Jerusalem, where he was known as the Londoner. His son was Zalman Yosef Soloveitchik (aer whom my brother is named), who lived in Jerusalem, where he was an apothecary and community leader. His son was my grandfather, Yitzchak Leib (Louis) Soloveitchik, who emigrated om Jerusalem to New York, where he changed the family name to Salovey. And his son, my father, Ronald Salovey, was a retired professor of chemical engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles who passed away in June 20⒙ And I am Ron and Elaine Salovey’s eldest child. Perhaps we should call this part of the family the “Jerusalem connection.” Writing about one’s lineage (yichis, in Yiddish) can sometimes come across as bragging, and there is an old saying in Yiddish that translates, roughly, as “Yichis is like a potato; the best part is in the ground.” But in case you find all this mildly intriguing rather than absolutely confusing, the bottom line is that

xii  Foreword

Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik is my great-great-great-grandfather, and he was the brother of the Rav’s great-great-grandfather. I take you through the primary boughs of my family tree, I must admit, with some pride. And growing up, I heard many stories of the famous rabbunim in my family, as well as about life in the Geula neighborhood of Jerusalem, immigration to the United States (and the changing of our name, with its odd spelling but including in it my grandfather’s desire to preserve “love”), as well as about various family connections om Hayyim Volozhin down to the Rav. But the one person I never heard about growing up was Elijah Zvi, whose writings are the subject of this fascinating book. Perhaps this was because he was an obscure figure, or perhaps it was because his direct decedents did not become rabbunim like his brother’s. But since learning about his book on the Gospels, I have always wondered if, in reality, the family knew about his writings, and chose to hide him om view. I am sure that some in my family cringed when they read the title of Shaul Magid’s article about Elijah Zvi in Tablet, “The Soloveitchik Who Loved Jesus.” I did not, although I am not sure whether Elijah Zvi actually “loved Jesus” or had other motives for writing about Christian thought. I like to believe that he was a brave soul—blind and seeking treatment in London at the end of his life—who wanted to provide a basis for Christians and Jews to respect each other, and he did that om the perspective of an observant Jew aware at all times that he was the grandson of Hayyim Volozhin. I like to believe that he chose Matthew as a focus (perhaps his first focus) in part because Matthew’s Jewish origins are revealed through his writings. I like to believe that Elijah Zvi was, quite simply, ahead of his times (at least among nineteenth-century Soloveitchiks) and that he wanted to enable what we now call on campus a “difficult dialogue.” Thank you, Jordan Levy, for the translations of my great-great-greatgrandfather’s work, and thank you, Shaul, for authoring this thoughtful and respectful—and intriguing—study of an overlooked thinker om a notable rabbinical family. His interests differed so obviously om those of his forebears and nephews, but he models for my generation of the family the significance of independent thinking (even in the context of religious orthodoxy) and the importance of seeking to understand the “other.” Peter Salovey President of the University Chris Argyris Professor of Psychology Yale University

Introduction Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, the Jewish Jesus, Christianity, and the Jews

The master om Gastinin said in the name of master om Kotzk: All authors write instructions to their books, and it is common for people to say that a book without an introduction is like a body without a soul. God also wrote an introduction [hakdama] to God’s book, and it is civility [derekh eretz], as it says: “Civility is the introduction [kadma] to the Torah.”1 —MENACHEM MENDEL OF KOTZK, Emet ve-Emunah, 69 Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik: The World of Lithuanian Yeshivas and the Soloveitchik Dynasty Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik (also known as Elias Soloweyczyk) was likely born in Slutzk, Russia, in 180⒌ He died in London in 188⒈ He was the grandson of Hayyim ben Isaac of Volozhin (1749–1821), founder of the Volozhin yeshiva in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Elijah Zvi was an early member of the Soloveitchik family, which became a rabbinic dynasty during and aer his lifetime. He was educated in the Volozhin yeshiva, the most prestigious Jewish institute of higher Jewish learning in the nineteenth century.2 Later, Elijah Zvi lived mostly an itinerant existence, traveling between Lithuania, Russia, Germany, Poland, France, and England. His work Qol Qore, which is translated here, is his Hebrew commentary to the New Testament written over the course of about a decade and published in several languages. Qol Qore’s distinction is that it is a New Testament commentary written in Hebrew by a rabbinic insider in the nineteenth century who believed that he could prove, through the use of the classical rabbinic sources, that Judaism and Christianity do not stand in

2  Introduction

contradiction to each other. Soloveitchik was the first modern Jew to write an actual commentary to the New Testament.3 Most other similar works at that time were written by Jewish converts to Christianity or by rabbinic figures who polemicized against Christianity.4 Soon aer Soloveitchik, Claude Montefiore penned a two-volume commentary to the New Testament, The Synoptic Gospels, first published in 1909 and in a second edition in 192⒎5 The first known Soloveitchik dates back to 1751: Isaac ben Joseph Soloveitchik, who moved om Brisk to Kovno, where he served as a rabbi. Isaac, his son Moshe, and grandson Joseph were considered important Jewish figures in Kovno and its environs in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Isaac ben Joseph’s grandson Joseph Soloveitchik married Rilke, a daughter of Hayyim ben Isaac of Volozhin, and became his third son-in-law.6 Joseph died quite young, leaving Rilke with two small sons: the elder, Isaac Zev; and the younger, Elijah Zvi. Isaac Zev’s son was Joseph Dov Soloveitchik (1820–1882), known as the Beit ha-Levi, aer his gloss on Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (“Code of Law”).7 He became the chief rabbi of Slutzk and then Brisk, both in Lithuania. Joseph Dov was probably the second most well-known Soloveitchik of that period, next to his own son Hayyim Soloveitchik (1853–1918), known as the Brisker Rav, who was a teacher and lecturer (maggid shiur) of the Volozhin yeshiva until the yeshiva was closed by the Russian government in 189⒉8 The Soloveitchik dynasty is oen viewed as identical to what has become known as the Brisker method of Talmud study, a highly abstract method of reasoning less interested in the legal implications of a Talmudic pericope (sugya) than its logical progression. The Brisker method was named aer its originator, Hayyim Soloveitchik of Brisk. He initiated this highly original and controversial method of study that changed the way many traditional Jews approached the Talmud.9 Volozhin was a fairly small and unremarkable town in what was then known as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the name given to a bi-confederation of Poland and Lithuania ruled by one monarch who held the titles of king of Poland as well as the grand duke of Lithuania. In its most expansive iteration, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the commonwealth encompassed a wide swath of Eastern Europe, including present-day Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Latvia, and parts of northeastern Poland. By the time Soloveitchik lived there, in the beginning of the nineteenth century, the commonwealth was under the protectorate of the Russian empire (1793–1914). It was only in 1918, aer Soloveitchik’s death, that Poland and Lithuania were established as independent countries.10 In Jewish circles, the area where Soloveitchik was born and raised was known as Lithuania (or Lita). Jews there were called Litvaks,

Introduction  3

and it was the home of the anti-Hasidic movement knows as the Mithnagdim (Opposers of Hasidism).11

Soloveitchik’s Environs Jews in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the nineteenth century lived a life largely commensurate with other parts of Eastern Europe. They had a religious and cultural hero in Vilna known as Elijah ben Solomon, the Vilna Gaon (1720–1797).12 Vilna was Lithuania’s Jewish center, known as the “Jerusalem of Lithuania.”13 Largely because of the Vilna Gaon, it became the center of traditional Jewish learning. But it was also a center of maskilic (Enlightenment) activity including reformers, Zionists, and secular Jewish literature, in Yiddish, Russian, and Hebrew. Along with Odessa, Warsaw, and Lublin (the “Jerusalem of Poland”), Vilna served as one of the great centers of Jewish creativity in modern Europe, attracting young men in search of high-level Torah study, as well as a venue for eethinking. By the 1860s, there were eighty-six study houses in Vilna alone.14 In addition to the Vilna Gaon and the Volozhin yeshiva, when scholars think about Lithuanian Jewry in the nineteenth century, they think of the Vilna printing of the Talmud, known as the “Vilna Shas,” which became the gold standard of subsequent printings.15 The three (the Gaon, Volozhin, and the Vilna Shas) are interconnected. The influx of students om around Europe to the yeshiva in Volozhin contributed to the increased demand for Talmudic tractates that standardized the Vilna printing of the Talmud for future generations. This is where Elijah Zvi acquired his knowledge of classical Jewish literature. The deans of this yeshiva, including a number of Soloveitchiks, were oen viewed as the luminaries of Talmud-centered Judaism of that period, with the Vilna Gaon as their figurehead. The yeshiva in Volozhin also produced some of the greatest Jewish figures of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in addition to members of the Soloveitchik dynasty.16 While an institute of traditional study, the yeshiva in Volozhin had a complicated relationship to educational reforms. Some of the great leaders of Jewish secularism studied for a time within its walls.17 Yiṣḥak, Hayyim of Volozhin’s son who took over the yeshiva aer his father’s death in 1821, when Elijah Zvi was an adolescent, was conversant in numerous languages and may have been open to limited forms of secular studies. For example, he attended a conference on Jewish education in 1843 sponsored by the ministry of education of the Russian government and attended by Jews of various branches of Judaism, including the German maskil Max Lilienthal.18 It was unusual for a traditional rosh yeshiva

4  Introduction

(yeshiva dean) in Lithuania to mingle with such reformers. I mention the complex nature of the Volozhin yeshiva regarding broader education only to suggest that Elijah Zvi’s unorthodox decision to devote his life to proving the symmetry between Judaism and Christianity may be part of a larger trend that emerged om Volozhin that included others who passed through the yeshiva to pursue less than traditional paths. Given that Elijah Zvi was a consummate insider, a grandson of the founder of the institution, and part of the Soloveitchik dynasty, his career choices were unusual and, one might say, unique.19 He never adopted modernity, in thought or in practice the way many others did at the time; yet he departed om the traditional mind-set that would have made his work on Christianity impossible. Unfortunately, we have almost no record of his thought processes in these matters.

An Itinerant Life The birthplace of Elijah Zvi is not known for certain, although in some of his books he adds to his name “om Slutzk, Russia.”20 There is much more known about Elijah Zvi’s elder brother, Isaac Zev, partly because Isaac Zev’s son Joseph Dov (Beit ha-Levi) became a major figure of Talmudic learning.21 The absence of Elijah Zvi in the documented histories of the period may also speak to the ways in which the family and their students found Elijah Zvi’s work problematic. There is some mystery about Elijah Zvi among those familiar with the Soloveitchik dynasty. When interviewing Jacob Dienstag, librarian at Yeshiva University in New York om 1940 to 1970, who was very knowledgeable about the Lithuanian sages of that period, Dov Hyman asked about Elijah Zvi. Hyman writes: “I once asked him about our Soloveitchik (Elijah Zvi). He deflected my question to something else and didn’t want to talk about him at all.”22 It seems safe to say that Elijah Zvi is the “forgotten Soloveitchik” in the world of Jewish scholarship, even as his works, as we will see, had some cachet among Protestant clergy who maintained interest in his project, even reprinting the Hebrew original of Qol Qore in Jerusalem in 198⒌23 There is very little known of Soloveitchik’s life, largely because he never held an official rabbinical or teaching post and, in contrast to his brother, Isaac Zev, none of his children became world-renowned Talmud scholars.24 We also must consider that Elijah Zvi’s professional choices would not have found much favor in his illustrious rabbinic family. Most of what we know about him is through his publication activities, not only as a commentator but also as an editor and a publisher.25 Elijah Zvi was active in publishing editions of classical texts, including his own work, in numerous translations (as we will see in the next section, on the text Qol Qore). Much of his publishing activity, at least early on, appears

Introduction  5

to be generated by poverty and medical needs. We know, for example, that he le Slutzk in 1844 or 1845 to seek medical help for various ailments that plagued him. He oen writes of fighting illnesses throughout his adult life and is referred to in one approbation of his work as sagi nahor, a Hebrew euphemism for blindness. We don’t know when he became blind, or how, but it seems that he was blind in his later years, while living in London. In the 1830s or 1840s, Elijah Zvi seemed to fall in love with Christianity and began a lifelong project of composing a Hebrew commentary to the New Testament. Unlike other Jews in his time with similar interests, he did not convert, and we have no record as to what might have precipitated this interest.26 As far as we know, he remained an ultra-Orthodox Jew throughout his life. It is striking how different Soloveitchik’s work on Christianity is om that of other Jews of his time, who wrote about Jesus and Christianity.27 One classic example would be the historian Henrich Graetz, whose third volume of his History of the Jews offers a strongly polemical assessment of Christianity that became standard in subsequent generations, even among liberal rabbis. The other well-known case is the Reform rabbi Abraham Geiger.28 Many of these mostly liberal rabbis who were maskilim (eethinkers) were critical of Christianity and focused largely on the historical Jesus to argue that Judaism was the religion of Jesus while Christianity was the religion about him—implying that Christianity and the teachings of Jesus need to be viewed as distinct. For most of them, their positive appraisals of Jesus was also a veiled (and sometimes not-so-veiled) critique of Christianity while using their “Jewish Jesus” as part of their case for emancipation and the inclusion of Jews into European (Christian) society.29 Soloveitchik’s approach was different. He argued for the total symmetry between the teachings of Jesus and the teaching of Moses that he sought to prove through rabbinic literature and the works of Moses Maimonides. He was well aware of how his interest in Christianity would be received in the Jewish world. He expresses both the ustration and his deep commitment in the following remark he made in the introduction to the first Hebrew edition of the commentary in 1879: I know that I will not escape om the criticism om both sides [Jews and Christians]. My Hebrew brethren will say, “What happened to R. Eliyahu! Yesterday he was one of us and today he is filled with a new spirit⁈” And my Christian brethren will say, “This one who is a Jew comes to reveal to us the secrets of the Gospel⁈ How can we accept that he speaks correctly and a true spirit dwells within him?” These two extremes are really saying one thing. That is, it cannot be that what he is speaking with his mouth is what he believes in his heart. On this

6  Introduction criticism, my soul weeps uncontrollably. Only God knows, and God is my witness that in this I am ee of sin.30

One can see om this the way Soloveitchik understood the complexity of his project and the formidable barriers he faced. This was not, for him, merely a scholarly exercise but driven by a deep belief in the benefits—even the redemptive potential—of his work.

In 1845, Soloveitchik le Slutzk and traveled to Danzig and then Königsberg, seeking financial help om various rabbis, including Jacob Joseph Zalkinor of Sklov.31 In the same year, Soloveitchik published an edition of Toledot Adam, the life of Shlomo Zalman, brother of Hayyim of Volozhin and great-uncle of Elijah Zvi, written by Ezekiel Feivel of Vilna in 180⒈ This was apparently done for financial reasons. During this time, he also began contemplating publishing an edition of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, only some of which was eventually printed. A curious thing about Soloveitchik’s publishing life is its lack of consistency. For example, he began publishing portions of Maimonides’ “Book of Knowledge” (the first volume of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah) soon aer Toledot Adam but without Maimonides’ “Laws of Idolatry” (which is integral to the book). He eventually published the “Laws of Idolatry” in a separate volume with his own commentary, part of his multivolume project called Qol Qore, which I will detail in the next section (not the same as his commentary to the New Testament, but a prelude to it). The first volume of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, likely published in Danzig or Königsberg, included a commentary likely by him; but there is no attribution of the author of the commentary or the publishing house on the ontispiece. In his separate commentary to Maimonides’ “Laws of Idolatry” published a few years later, we can see the beginning of Soloveitchik’s intellectual trajectory, which will culminate in our Qol Qore on Mark and Matthew. Commenting on Maimonides’ history of idolatry in chapter 1 of “Laws of Idolatry,” Soloveitchik writes: “Our teacher [Maimonides] brings proof om Jeremiah that even when Jeremiah was rebuking Israel for abandoning God and going aer other gods of wood and stone, he said that all nations know that only God is one; they only err by elevating those that God himself elevated.” This is a fairly close, conventional reading of Maimonides’ text, but this sentiment will again appear in his commentary to the New Testament many times, where Soloveitchik will criticize his fellow Jews who think that Christianity maintains that Jesus is God, even in one place defending the Trinity as a “great mystery.” If the ancient idolaters

Introduction  7

even knew that God was one, certainly those in antiquity who had already been exposed to the monotheism of the Israelite religion must have known so. During this early period in his publishing career (the 1840s), Soloveitchik was already interested in reaching beyond the Jewish world through translation. We have no information as to what brought him to this, although below I will discuss possible motives. He published a German translation of his edition of Maimonides’ “Book of Knowledge” in 1846 in Königsberg. In the introduction, he writes: “I decided to print these holy words, to publish this book as an aid to all. I am now here [in Königsberg] to seek help for my illness. . . . I have already published the first volume [in Hebrew]. And now I publish the second edition in German translation for those who do not know the original Hebrew.” Does this refer to Christians? We do not know.32 However, Dov Hyman found two approbations for the German edition that were apparently om non-Jews, suggesting that a non-Jewish readership existed and was desired.33 Aer this period, we have little knowledge of Soloveitchik’s whereabouts until at least the early 1850s. We do know that in 1853, he was likely in Volozhin because he was asked by Eliezer Yizhak Fried, who became dean of the Volozhin yeshiva sometime in the late 1840s, to travel to Berlin to raise money for the yeshiva, which he did.34 We also have a letter of introduction dated August 17, 1857, om a Rabbi Ettinger om Berlin. Such letters were common for Jews traveling to new communities.35 This letter was apparently used when Soloveitchik traveled to London. In 1863, Soloveitchik, likely living in London, continued his work on Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, publishing an English translation of Maimonides’ “Laws of Kings,” which appears in the last volume of Maimonides’ multivolume collection. The ontispiece states only that the work was translated by “Learned Writers” and edited and revised by Elias Soloweyczyk. In the preface to his English edition, Soloveitchik writes: “The wise observations, sound judgment and true impartiality, which stamp this learned word—Yad Hazakah36 of Moses Maimonides—has induced me to translate his pages into modern languages, as to bring it within the pale of the modern reader. I have thus issued two editions in Germany, which met with great success not only among the Jewish doctors, but also among the most eminent Christian scholars.” While we cannot be sure why Soloveitchik specifically published Maimonides’ “Laws of Kings” at this point, we may surmise that it was part of his larger work on Christianity, since the “Laws of Kings” includes Maimonides’ understanding of the criteria of messiah. Thus Soloveitchik’s Maimonides publications seem to function as a preface to his work on the Gospels. I will discuss his use of Maimonides in his commentary in a separate section below.

8  Introduction

Before we turn to the complex nature of the present translation of the text Qol Qore, we must mention an earlier work by that same title that Soloveitchik published in English in London in 186⒏ The book Qol Qore: A Voice Crying, the Law, the Talmud and the Gospel was published without Soloveitchik’s name in London, only stating that it was written by “Several Learned Men.” This text was discovered by Jacob Dienstag and given to Dov Hyman. There is no mention of this work until the preface of the 1985 reprinting of our Qol Qore in Jerusalem by Protestant printers that mentions that the work had been translated into French, German, Polish, and English. No other record had an English translation. The reason may be that this 1868 Qol Qore is not the same book as the other editions that begin to appear in 1870 with the French translation. Our Qol Qore is a commentary on the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (Luke was lost). The 1868 English Qol Qore is an elucidation and commentary on Maimonides’ “Thirteen Principles of Faith.” Aer some prefatory remarks, Soloveitchik devotes an entire chapter to each of the principles of faith, arguing that none of them stands in contradiction to Christianity. His prefatory remarks make clear that this is part of his larger project on New Testament commentary that will appear in French in 1870. Hyman makes the very plausible suggestion that Soloveitchik’s New Testament commentary was likely written in Hebrew between 1863 and 1868, at which time he published the English Qol Qore on Maimonides’ “Thirteen Principles.”37 In fact, in the 1868 English edition, Soloveitchik begins by saying: “It may, perhaps, appear presumptive of us to undertake writing a commentary on a book like the New Testament, and to choose a path that has seen trodden by so many. . . . But our object is not to comment; but be impelled by the circumstances of the times. . . . [W]e desire to institute an inquiry into the cause of an existing misunderstanding.” This assumes that this work on Maimonides’ “Thirteen Principles” is part of what will later be published as his commentary to the Gospel. By “misunderstanding,” it is not clear whether he means the desire to convert the Jews of Eastern Europe, which was becoming popular at that time, or the rising anti-Semitism fueled partly by theological precepts. Writing in a Christian voice, the author (or translator) states that the misunderstanding has three components: ⑴ “Our Jewish brethren have no faith and that the summit of the Christian belief centers in the eradication of the Law of Moses [italics in the original]”; ⑵ “That we Christians are their opponents and merely seek their subversion”; and ⑶ “That the generality of Jews, as well as Christians, being unacquainted with that which constitutes the Judaism of the present day (viz. the Rabbinic Tradition) look upon the chasm that separates Judaism om Christianity to be of such great magnitude as to render all efforts of reconciliation in vain.”38

Introduction  9

Making this even more complicated, there appear to be two editions of the 1868 English translation of Maimonides’ “Thirteen Principles.” The second one includes Soloveitchik’s name as the author on the ontispiece (but still translated by “Several Learned Men”) and includes a letter addressed to “My Christian Brethren” in Soloveitchik’s own voice that begins with “I much regret to find that there exists amongst you a deeply rooted aversion to the sayings of the Talmud.”39 This will become relevant when we examine the work of Alexander McCaul and his Old Paths below, which is a running critique of the Talmud published in London around the same time, which may have been a motivation for Soloveitchik’s project.40 One notices a few differences om the 1868 version reproduced by Hyman and what appears to be a second edition. First, the version in Hyman has the subtitle “The Law, the Talmud, and the Gospel”; and this second version has “The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament.” Second, the version reproduced by Hyman has a verse om Ezekiel 37:17 as an epigraph: And join them one to another and there shall become one in thine hand, while the other edition has a verse om Isaiah 57:17 that reads: Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, says the Lord, and I will heal him. There are many substantive differences in the body of the text as well. Most pronounced, and relevant to our concerns, is that what appears to be a second edition has a long chapter, “The Doctrine of the Trinity,” and a commentary on the first three chapters of Matthew, ending abruptly aer verse 8 in chapter ⒊ A version of the chapter “The Doctrine of the Trinity” also appears in the first Hebrew edition published in Paris in 1870.41 The confusing nature of the two versions of the 1868 English Qol Qore will likely remain unresolved. For us, what matters is that by the early 1860s, Soloveitchik appears to have completed a dra of his Hebrew commentary and began a long process of securing its translation into numerous languages. Of note before we transition to the history of the text itself is a brief mention of Soloveitchik’s relationship with Xavier Branicki (1816–1879), a Polish nobleman whom Soloveitchik seems to have greatly admired.42 Soloveitchik notes in his Hebrew edition of Qol Qore that Branicki had seen the text, apparently the 1870 French edition, and was so impressed that he personally financed its translation into Polish. As we will see below, Branicki was involved with numerous editions of Qol Qore and a constant supporter of Soloveitchik’s work. Soloveitchik mentions Branicki numerous times, noting that Branicki had a nephew who was a priest and worked in the Vatican library and that Branicki had sent him a copy of Qol Qore to be cataloged there. Branicki is one of the few Christians whom Soloveitchik mentions, apparently proud that such a nobleman and learned Christian valued his work and certainly appreciative of the financial support that he provided. Branicki also wrote a letter of support

10  Introduction

for the 1877 German edition of Qol Qore. We don’t know anything about their relationship aside om Soloveitchik’s brief remarks; but even with that sketch, we can see that he was open to engaging Christians about his project and believed them to be supportive of what he was trying to do.

Qol Qore: The Text As I mentioned above, accurately putting together the publishing history of Soloveitchik’s Qol Qore on the New Testament is complicated by various factors. First, he published an earlier work by that name, which is not a commentary to the New Testament (the text translated and annotated here) but an extended commentary on Maimonides’ “Thirteen Principles of Faith”; one edition includes a commentary to the first few chapters of Matthew. This seems to have been a prefatory text to his work on the New Testament. Second, while Qol Qore was written in Hebrew sometime in the 1860s, the first edition is a French edition translated by Rabbi Lazare Wogue (1817–1897) that appears in Paris in 1870, followed by a German edition and a Polish edition, and only then followed by the original Hebrew version.43 Since the original Hebrew commentary to Mark is not extant, we used Wogue’s French translation for Mark.44 In 1877, a German edition of Qol Qore appeared, translated om the 1870 French by Moritz Greenfeld and published in Leipzig. This edition also includes a German translation of Soloveitchik’s essay on Maimonides’ “Thirteen Principles of Faith” that had appeared earlier in English translation in 1868 but does not appear in the 1870 French translation. In 1879, a Polish edition of Qol Qore appeared om the French translation and was financed by Branicki. It was published in Paris in the printing house of Adolf Reiff. This apparently was the edition that Branicki sent to his nephew Vladimir Chatzki, who worked in the Vatican library. There is some mystery behind the first Hebrew publication of Qol Qore. The ontispiece of the Hebrew edition has it published in Paris, with no date. Hyman notes that it could not have appeared before 1879, when the Polish edition appeared, and not later than the end of 1880, when we know that Soloveitchik was already living in Frankfurt am Main. We assume that he was in Paris to oversee the publication of the Polish translation.45 The 1985 Jerusalem edition published by a Protestant mission is the text that we used in our translation although we compared it to the first Paris edition. Hyman notes that he found a Jewish apostate, Joseph Azmon, om Givatayim in Israel, who had copied the original Hebrew edition om the Alliance Israélite library in Paris (a copy now exists in the National Library in Jerusalem, where we obtained a copy) and brought that to Israel to use for the Jerusalem translation.46 To ensure

Introduction  11

as much accuracy as possible, we consulted the original Paris printing (circa 1879) and the 1970 French translation of Matthew om the original Hebrew when translating om the 1985 Hebrew reprint. We found only very small, insignificant changes (e.g., a few grammatical corrections) between the original Paris printing and the Jerusalem edition. We found the 1870 French and 1985 Hebrew basically identical except for a few instances when the French version skipped some redundancies. One unresolved problem in Soloveitchik’s commentary is determining what New Testament translation, or translations, he used. This poses a particular problem for the translator of a commentary, who would preferably like to know what version of the text the commentator was reading when he wrote his commentary. It seems clear that Soloveitchik did not know enough Greek to use the original. He likely had some facility with German and perhaps French (any English would have come later), but, given his desire to offer a decidedly “Jewish” reading of the Gospel, texts like The King James Bible would not have sufficed as our base text. A few Hebrew translations existed in Soloveitchik’s time, and we determined that he likely used at least one of them, and perhaps more than one;47 but we did not know which ones. One possibility we considered was Nehemiah Solomon’s Yiddish translation of the Gospels that appeared in 182⒈ Solomon was a convert who worked for Alexander McCaul. We thought, however, it more likely that Soloveitchik used a Hebrew translation. We chose to use the Hebrew translation of the New Testament by Franz Delitzsch (1813–1890), a noted Lutheran theologian and Hebraist who was a professor at Leipzig University. Hebraist Pinchas Lapide devotes a chapter to him in his Hebrew in the Church: The Foundations of Jewish–Christian Dialogue.48 Ismar Schorsch called Delitzsch the “finest Christian Hebraist of the nineteenth century.”49 Soloveitchik’s attraction to Delitzsch’s translation would have been Delitzsch’s attention to biblical and rabbinic Hebrew grammar and syntax. In his 1870 Hebrew translation of Paul’s “Letter to the Romans,” Delitzsch notes that translating the New Testament into Hebrew “requires not only a basic understanding of the New Testament text but the language which conditioned the thought and expression of the sacred writers even though they were writing in Greek.”50 Delitzsch’s first choice was biblical Hebrew; but when he could not find a proper word in biblical Hebrew, he chose Mishnaic Hebrew. A salient characteristic of Delitzsch’s translation is also his choice to retain the Hebrew names of the New Testament people and places.51 Even though Soloveitchik maintained that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew (commonly assumed among Jews and some Christians at that time) and Delitzsch held that they were originally written in Greek, Delitzsch readily acknowledged that Hebrew and Aramaic were the languages that the authors of

12  Introduction

the Gospels likely thought in, and thus his translation tried to replicate that as much as possible. Delitzsch’s translation was appreciated by Jewish scholars of his time. In a memorial to him, David Kaufmann of the Rabbinical Seminary in Budapest noted: “Delitzsch’s New Testament is a priceless enrichment of Jewish literature.”52 In addition, when the first Hebrew-Greek concordance was published in Tiberias in 1974, the authors based their concordance on Delitzsch’s translation.53 I have not found evidence that Soloveitchik was familiar with Delitzsch’s work; but given their shared interests in Judaism and Christianity, as well as Delitzsch’s stellar reputation among many Jewish scholars, it is likely that he was familiar with it.54 Delitzsch received his doctorate at the Leipzig University in 1842 in philology and theology and, working with Leopold Zunz, created an inventory of Hebrew manuscripts in the Leipzig city library. His work with Zunz continued, producing a version of The Tree of Life, by the Karaite Aaron ben Eliyahu; later, he worked on a translation of the Psalms with Rabbi Issacher Ber.55 Delitzsch was sometimes viewed as an apologist for Judaism in Christian circles, and he was considered philosemitic, even as he remained a missionary. As Alan Levenson notes, he retained certain anti-Semitic beliefs.56 Delitzsch emerged on the scene in 1836, in his twenties, with the publication of A History of Jewish Poetry (here one can see the affinity to Zunz, whose work focused on Hebrew liturgy). His book Jewish Artisan Life in the Time of Jesus (published in London in 1906) offered a positive rendering of Jews in the time of Jesus and placed Jesus solidly in his Jewish context. Finally, in the early 1870s, around the time Soloveitchik completed his commentary, Delitzsch published a novella, A Day in Capernaeum, which depicted a day in the life of Jesus. Important for our concerns is that the endnotes to the novella are replete with rabbinic sources to veri his reconstruction of a day in the life of Jesus, something that Soloveitchik would certainly have enjoyed.57 In fact, Levenson’s assessment of Delitzsch squares well with Soloveitchik, with a few caveats, when he writes: “Delitzsch saw no gap between the two testaments. In fact, in an extraordinary image, Delitzsch portrayed the old covenant and the new covenant standing side-by-side in the three days between Jesus’ crucifixion and his resurrection.”58 Soloveitchik, of course, would extend that symmetry much further. Yet Delitzsch never quite overcame his devotion to keeping Judaism and Christianity apart. The exact date of the publication of Delitzsch’s full Hebrew translation is not known; but we have evidence that he published the work as Eine neue hebräische Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments (A new Hebrew translation of the New Testament) in 1864 (some online references have it as 1877). It was published by the British and Foreign Bible Society in London, where Soloveitchik was

Introduction  13

living at the time. If the first date is correct, Soloveitchik, who likely wrote his original Hebrew commentary between 1863 and 1868, could easily have used it as his base text. Even if the correct date is 1877, Soloveitchik could have used it, as he continued to revise his Hebrew text until its publication. Delitzsch was said to have spent over forty years on this translation, consulting and correcting all previous translations and separately publishing a Hebrew translation of some of Paul’s epistles beforehand. Given his stature in the field of biblical scholarship, his attention to biblical and rabbinic Hebrew—which would have attracted Soloveitchik—and the fact that it appeared at a time and in a place where Soloveitchik could have easily consulted it, we chose to use Delitzsch’s The Delitzsch Hebrew Gospels: A Hebrew English Translation as the base text of the New Testament. We made some small changes—for example, we substituted YHWH (referring to God) for Delitzsch’s “Ha-Shem.” Delitzsch tried to replicate what he thought was the language of the time, as best he could. Even if Soloveitchik did not use Delitzsch, or did not use him exclusively, Delitzsch’s attention to Mishnaic and early rabbinic Hebrew, including Aramaic, coheres with Soloveitchik’s project better than any other New Testament text that we consulted. I conclude this section with a few observations on the state of Christian attitudes toward Jews and Judaism of this period and with observations regarding the Jewish roots of the Gospels. Much of the modern Christian assessment of Judaism and its role in Christianity comes om the Tübingen School, founded by Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), a Hegelian by training, who viewed Christianity as an interweaving of two forms of early Christianity; what later became known as Jewish-Christianity (also known as Petrine Christianity) and Gentile Christianity (also known as Pauline Christianity).59 This school took many forms, some leading to more positive assessments of Judaism, and some to more negative ones.60 Jewish scholars interested in Christianity, such as Abraham Geiger, in many ways were responding critically to various elements of the Tübingen School.61 One element worth noting is how Jewish sources were used to separate the two religions and how Christian scholars and missionaries became Hebraists in order to assess the value of rabbinic Judaism to the Gospels. In his study of Delitzsch and Strack, Alan Levenson introduces what sociologist Zygmunt Bauman called “allosemitism” to describe at least some of these Hebraist missionaries. Allosemitism is the Christian idea that we should offer positive appraisals of Judaism while maintaining a strict separation between the two religions. Allosemitism took both positive and negative forms in the modern Christian West, sometimes even in the work of one thinker.62 A classic example of this general approach can be found in the seminal essay by George Foot Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” published in 192⒈63

14  Introduction

Another striking example of the phenomenon of Christian Hebraism of this period, even more relevant to us, was published only one year aer Moore’s essay. The multivolume Strack-Billerbeck Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, published in 1922, was the most comprehensive collection of rabbinic sources structured as annotations to the Gospels to date. Strack, a student of Delitzsch, began the work but only finished Matthew before he died. The remainder of the work was produced by Paul Billerbeck. Strack-Billerbeck offers extensive source data of rabbinic literature on the Gospels, verse by verse. Strack’s other work on rabbinics, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (Introduction to Talmud and midrash), published in 1921, is one of the standard Christian renderings of rabbinic Judaism in a positive and even laudatory light and is still used today.64 Taken together, these works constitute perhaps the most important intervention of Christian scholarship on rabbinic Judaism in the early twentieth century. Citing thousands of rabbinic sources on New Testament scripture, this work was not treated merely as an anthology. Jewish scholar of Christianity Samuel Sandmel published a systematic critique of Strack-Billerbeck, arguing that even as it ostensibly offered a positive assessment of Judaism, in most cases the underlying claim was that Jesus’ teaching offered a better reading of the cited rabbinic texts.65 Thus while rabbinic Judaism may be necessary to fully understand the Gospels, once they are introduced what we find is that the Gospel are superior. As Levenson put it, according to Strack-Billerbeck, “the only thing wrong with Judaism was that it was not Christianity.”66 Of course, this all takes place aer Soloveitchik’s time. He likely knew little or nothing about F. C. Bauer and the Tübingen School and predated StrackBillerbeck and the conversation that ensued. The fact that Soloveitchik wrote a Hebrew commentary to the Synoptics replete with rabbinic sources—that was also published in French, German, and Polish translations four decades before Strack-Billerbeck and that seems to have been unknown to them—makes his work even more significant. The almost total eclipse of Soloveitchik’s commentary fills an important lacuna in understanding the trajectory om the Tübingen School to Strack-Billerbeck. We can say that Soloveitchik’s project and Strack-Billerbeck, while similar in some ways, are quite different. StrackBillerbeck set out to cite as many relevant rabbinic passages as they could find, what Samuel Sandmel called the “piling up of rabbinic passages.” In this sense, the work attempts to be a kind of collection even as Sandmel argues that it was not unbiased in its choices, contextualization, and interpretations. Soloveitchik never claimed to be objective, nor was he interested in simply collecting rabbinic sources. He begins his project with a very open agenda: to prove the symmetry of Judaism and Christianity on theological grounds that he

Introduction  15

hoped would diminish anti-Semitism. Therefore, he cites a rabbinic or Jewish medieval teaching only if he feels the verse needs such an interpretation to cohere with normative Judaism. Or, in some cases, he offers a rabbinic teaching as a way to clari an ambiguity in the Gospel text itself. In this sense, he begins with an assumption in concert with many in the Tübingen School about Jesus’ Jewish context. There are, however, two important differences. First, Soloveitchik does not see Jesus as deviating om the basic Jewish teachings of his time; and second, Soloveitchik believed that the Talmud and midrash, and even Maimonides, faithfully transmit normative Jewish life and law that was operative in the time of Jesus. While we now know that such an assumption is no longer viable, Soloveitchik’s rabbinic training in Volozhin trained him to think in such terms and thus he used an ahistorical assumption to make his historical argument, not only about Jesus’ Jewishness (this was assumed) but his fidelity to Judaism.67 While both Soloveitchik and Strack-Billerbeck had an agenda in the sense that both wanted us to read the New Testament in a new way, Soloveitchik was more focused on using rabbinic texts selectively to solve a problem in the text of the Gospel, while Strack-Billerbeck may have been more interested in offering the reader a wide plethora of rabbinic sources to show their influence on Jesus and perhaps the way Jesus moves beyond them. In this sense, their agendas stand in opposition: Strack-Billerbeck expressed a certain form of allosemitism while Soloveitchik sought to bring the two testaments, and both religions, closer together. In this, he makes a significant contribution to the larger discussion of Judaism and Christianity, especially coming om a traditionally trained and observant rabbinic Jew. Before moving to the question of conversion, a few comments are in order about George Foot Moore’s seminal 1922 essay “Christian Writers on Judaism.” Moore is important here because he may be one of the first Christian scholars to argue that thorough research into rabbinic Judaism is essential to understand not only the historical context but the theological message of the Gospels. He resisted the tendency of Christian scholars to focus on Apocryphal rather than rabbinic materials, claiming that the latter, even if redacted long aer Jesus’ time, better represent the lives of Jews than many non-canonical texts that may have been more limited in scope and influence.68 As opposed to using Judaism to show the categorical distinction between Judaism and Christianity, that is, a supersessionist approach, which extends om Eisenmenger through Adolf Harnack’s (1851–1930) What Is Christianity? (1901) and Wilhelm Bousset’s (1865–1920) The Religion of Judaism in the Time of the New Testament (1903), Moore took a less apologetic, or perhaps less supersessionist, stance regarding how these sources should be read and integrated into the study of the Gospels.

16  Introduction

Moore focuses on Bousset’s The Religion of Judaism perhaps because Bousset is the most explicit of later authors in using Jewish materials, “to prove that the character and teaching of Jesus can be explained, not as having roots in Judaism, but only as the antithesis to Judaism in every essential point.”69 Bousset claimed that the essence, and error, of Judaism is that it posited a God removed om the world against the more intimate notion of God as a “heavenly Father” in Jesus’ teaching. Moore responded: “The historian can only characterize the notion that the fatherhood of God is the cardinal doctrine of Christianity and its cardinal difference om Judaism as a misrepresentation of historical Christianity no less of Judaism.”70 It is true, as Moore notes, that Bousset was not a historian; yet this kind of presentation prevents a more nuanced view of the religion in Jesus’ time. I briefly mention Moore’s attempt to expose the underlying supersessionism of Christian writing on Jews and Judaism because Soloveitchik implicitly argues similarly, without knowing the historical trajectory of Moore’s subjects. Soloveitchik’s assumption in his commentary is that rabbinic teaching—including Maimonides—can help clari the sayings of Jesus that are oen misunderstood (by both Jews and Christians) when viewed outside the rabbinic orbit. Unlike Moore, Soloveitchik is not a historian; and unlike Bousset and the others, both Christians and Jews, Soloveitchik does not view Judaism and Christianity as categorically distinct. Like Moore, he argues that it is the rabbinic corpus that can help us clari what Jesus was teaching. According to Soloveitchik, such teaching reveals that Jesus says nothing that stands in opposition to rabbinic teaching, making Jesus’ “Christianity” nothing more than a form of Judaism. Unlike Reform Jewish thinkers, om Abraham Geiger to Kaufmann Kohler, Soloveitchik does not view Jesus as a “reformer” or even a rabbinic rebel but rather a normative teacher of the Mosaic message. It would thus be interesting to ponder what Moore would have thought about Soloveitchik’s commentary, which he apparently had not seen. It is a good example of precisely what Moore was suggesting, even though it, too, had a theological agenda: the undermining of supersessionism as well as the Jewish claim of Jewish superiority. The Attempt to Convert the Jews in the Nineteenth Century: Situating Qol Qore as a Response to Conversion Before turning to the Sitz im Leben of Soloveitchik’s commentary, a short methodological note is in order. Much of New Testament scholarship in the time of Soloveitchik was based on the historical-critical method, initiated largely by the Tübingen School. In the case of the synoptic Gospels, this meant focusing on the differences between the Gospels in an attempt to decide which version was

Introduction  17

the earliest and also distinguishing the setting of each Gospel in relation to the historical Jesus. One interesting thing about Soloveitchik’s resisting this method is that it has oen been thought that the historical-critical method enabled modern Jewish thinkers to engage with the New Testament to make their case against it—or in favor of its proximity to rabbinic ideas. Soloveitchik was a harmonizer and a throwback to premodern renderings of the New Testament. His Lithuanian Talmudic training resulted in his reading the New Testament the way a Tosafist would read the Talmudic text, noticing contradictions in the text or its commentaries (usually Rashi) and using other texts to resolve the discrepancy.71 Soloveitchik oen notes an apparent contradiction in the text or its reception (that is, the way it has been viewed as anti-Jewish or against rabbinic ideology) and looks for a precedent in Talmudic literature to debunk that claim that he then reads into the text in the Gospel to solve a misunderstanding. The result is that he oen offers readings of the text that, stripped of an entire history of Christian interpretation—not only historical interpretation but also Christian anti-Jewish interpretation—yield a Gospel that may have actually been closer to earlier Jewish-Christian texts in late antiquity. One example would be a comparison of Soloveitchik with the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (fourth century), which espouses a reading of the Gospel of Matthew and an understanding of Christianity that is strikingly similar to Soloveitchik’s views.72 Since I assume that Soloveitchik did not read Pseudo-Clementines, I do not engage in comparing the two; I simply point out that Soloveitchik’s attempt to erase the categorical distinctions between Judaism and Christianity in his time takes us back to a much earlier time of what was later called “Jewish-Christianity,” likely with different considerations and different goals.73 And it is his rabbinic training in harmonization that enables him to do that.

The middle decades of the nineteenth century were incredibly fertile as well as precarious for the Jews of Eastern Europe, both for those who remained there and for those who immigrated to the West yet remained attached to the ways of their Eastern European ancestors. The Haskalah that had blossomed in Berlin with the circle around Moses Mendelssohn a few generations earlier had now made its way deep into the recesses of the Pale of Settlement, Poland, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where most Jews lived.74 For example, Alexander II’s emancipation of the serfs in 1861, as part of a larger project of reforms, enabled Jews to be more integrated into the empire.75 More important for our purposes was the reign of Alexander I during the Napoleonic period (1801–1825). As Israel Bartal suggests, Alexander I’s spiritual, even mystical, nature and traditional inclination

18  Introduction

were viewed positively by many leading rabbinic figures of the period—for example, Shneur Zalman of Liady, founder of the Chabad dynasty.76 In his Beit Rebbe, Chabad historian Hayyim Heilman writes: “On the first day of Rosh Hashanah, [the rebbe] said to me: ‘If Bonaparte is victorious, Israel will become wealthy, and its material status will rise, but they will become distant in their hearts om their Father in heaven. But if Alexander wins, Israel will be poorer, and its material status will decline, but their hearts will be closer to their Father in heaven.”77 Shneur Zalman’s astute observation of the devil’s bargain facing the Jews of his time in the Napoleonic period had another consequence that he may not have seen. Alexander’s spirituality also resulted in the initiation of a concerted effort to convert the Jews of Russia to Christianity, what Alexander firmly believed was the true spiritual legacy of the Russian Empire.78 As Bartal notes, Alexander I “believed with a full heart that he could enable the Jews to see the true tradition of the Tanakh and remove the barrier placed before them by the Talmud that prevented their belief in Jesus. And they would truly become Hebrew Christians. At this time, the Russian czar opened the gates of the empire to Christians om the West to initiate an international campaign to recti the citizenship states of the Jews of Europe.”79 In 1817, Alexander I established the Society of Israelite Christians, whose purpose was to support converts and to serve as a resource for Jews interested in converting to Christianity. Part of the spiritual bargain that Shneur Zalman spoke about but could not quite see was that religious eedom included in Alexander’s victory would be a concerted effort to convert the Jews as part of a broader and enlightened emancipatory program. As we know, Shneur Zalman’s own son Moshe converted to the Russian Orthodox Church.80

Given that this story predates Soloveitchik’s time, a few important features will play a role as we move into the nineteenth century. The first is the introduction of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews to Eastern Europe.81 This Protestant missionary organization based in England was active in the empire and Poland for much of the nineteenth century, oen using Jewish converts such as Nehemiah Solomon (1790–n.d.) and Stanislaus Hoga (1791–1860) as translators and emissaries to approach Jewish communities and teach them about conversion. This resulted in the appearance of Yiddish translations of the New Testament, the first likely translated by Solomon in 182⒈ As Jews were experiencing a loosening of restrictions in Russia and Poland during the Napoleonic period and emancipation was slowly exposing Jews to the wider world, the program of converting the Jews, not necessarily as an act of malice but ostensibly as an act of inclusion (at least in the case of Alexander I), became a serious issue for Jewish communities.82

Introduction  19

Todd Endelman argues in his comprehensive study Leaving the Fold: Conversion and Radical Assimilation in Modern Jewish History that, for the most part, Jewish conversion to Christianity in the modern period was an act of convenience rather than conviction, certainly during the Enlightenment but even beyond. It was, as he coins it, a component of “radical assimilation” whereby Jews could more easily, and more thoroughly, become part of European society.83 Endelman writes that “with few exceptions conversion was a secular rather than a spiritual act.”84 While his thesis remains a matter of scholarly debate, no one has yet looked at the obscure figure of Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik and his work as a response to this phenomenon. Aside om the fact that Soloveitchik remained largely under the radar in these debates and, as far as I have been able to determine, contributed nothing overtly to them, his interest in Christianity as illustrated in his Jewish commentary to the Gospels, written in the very decades when conversion activity was at its height in Eastern Europe, suggests that he had at least basic knowledge of what was going on.85 The role of conversion in Soloveitchik’s project is conspicuous in its absence. It seems clear, however, that as part of Lithuanian ultra-traditional society, he seemed to be a man for whom religious conviction mattered above all. While we can never know how Soloveitchik felt about conversions of convenience, his commentary does not address that audience nor would it be convincing to it, since most converts of convenience had abandoned Judaism anyway. Endelman states: “For most Jewish converts, baptism was a desacralized rite of passage and oen no more than a bureaucratic formality. It was formulaic, not transformative.”86 Soloveitchik seemed to focus on those for whom doctrine and religious truth reigned supreme; thus, he utilized the entire weight of the rabbinic tradition to make his case. That is, the extent to which he is responding to conversion at all would be a response to the convert of conviction who still lived inside the orbit of Judaism. Soloveitchik’s case, as we will see, is not that Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, the former being true and the latter being false, or even idolatrous. This would be closer to the medieval Jewish polemics against Christianity and, in a more moderate way, the Reformers’ polemical project om Abraham Geiger to Leo Baeck.87 Soloveitchik does not write his commentary to falsi Christianity or even to show its deficiencies but rather to show its common cause with Judaism—that is, to claim that it is true as Judaism is true. As I read it, Qol Qore is a text for Jews seriously considering Christian claims, wherever they have been exposed to them, and to Gentiles who have been taught to believe that Judaism is an inferior religion; thus, emancipated Jews should become Christians.

20  Introduction

This may partially explain why Soloveitchik published Qol Qore in French, German, and Polish before publishing the Hebrew original. This work essentially argues that the attempt to convert the Jew to the “true religion” is not necessary—not because Christianity is false but because both Christianity and Judaism are true. The rabbinic materials that he brings to bear in his commentary serve each community differently. For the Jew, it is to make the New Testament part of Torah. For the Gentile, it is to enable him to understand Judaism through reading it next to, and oen intertwined with, rabbinic literature. Soloveitchik hoped to convince the Gentile reader that without the rabbinic lens, the Gospel cannot be fully understood. In short, Christianity needs rabbinic Judaism for its truth to shine. For Jews who would respond by saying: “If both are true, I will convert for the sake of convenience because my lot in this world will be better by living as a Christian,” I am not sure how Soloveitchik would have responded, aside om saying that because you are born a Jew, you should remain a Jew. From his commentary, I do not think he would say that the Jewish convert has moved to a false religion. In any case, Qol Qore is an insider’s guide to the truth of Christianity through the lens of the truth of Judaism. It is a work for those seeking answers to religious questions and not an apology for Judaism against Christianity (although he does claim that most Christians simply misunderstand their Gospel). Moving to the time of Soloveitchik’s commentary, the work of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews (the London Society) continued and became more popular and arguably more effectual through the work of the missionary Alexander McCaul (1799–1863).88 McCaul was a professor of Hebrew and rabbinical literature at Kings College, London, and was offered the bishopric in Jerusalem in 184⒈ A fascinating and important figure of the nineteenth century, he published numerous works related to Judaism and Christianity. One of his most popular—and, for our purposes, most important—works is The Old Paths: Or, the Talmud Tested by Scripture: Being a Comparison of the Principles and Doctrines of Modern Judaism, with the Religion of Moses, published in London in 183⒍ McCaul was learned in rabbinic literature and fluent in its requisite languages, spent considerable time in Palestine, and lived for years among Jews in Poland, where he mastered classical Hebrew and Aramaic. Even as a missionary, he was quite a philosemite.89 He strongly defended the Jews in the 1840 Damascus blood libel, organizing a document signed by fi-seven Jewish converts to Christianity that Jews never use Christian blood for any ritual purpose.90 He also criticized Napoleon’s brother Jerome’s handling of the Jews in France.91 He was clearly not typical of missionaries of that period.

Introduction  21

The Old Paths cites copiously om the body of rabbinic literature to argue that the rabbinic sages erred in their interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and that modern Judaism, as an heir to the rabbis, is mistaken. In a later text, McCaul compares rabbinic Judaism to popery. “If asked to give you a concise yet adequate idea of this system [of rabbinic law], I should say it is Jewish popery; just as popery may be defined by Gentile rabbinism. Its distinguishing feature is that it asserts the transmission of an oral or a traditional law of equal authority with the written law of God, at the same time, like popery, it resolves tradition into the present opinions of the existing Church.”92 McCaul’s missionizing message was for Jews to return to their authentic Mosaic religion that is best represented by Protestant Christianity.93 This can be contrasted with other works, such as August Rohling’s (1839–1931) The Talmud Jew (Münster, 1871), which was an indictment of Jews and Judaism as a primitive religion that mandated attacking Christians. This was also a popular book, and Soloveitchik could have been aware of its existence, especially given its title. McCaul, in line with missionaries such as Franz Delitzsch and Hermann Strack, had a deep and abiding respect for both the Jews and Judaism, even as he maintained the superiority of Christianity. McCaul even received accolades om prominent Jews such as the important historian Isaak Markus Jost (1793– 1860). The Old Paths was popular during Soloveitchik’s lifetime. When it first appeared in 1837, it sold ten thousand copies in its first year and was reissued in a second edition in 184⒍94 While it may be unlikely that Soloveitchik read McCaul’s Old Paths in the original, as we do not know his command of English, more likely he knew of the Hebrew translation, Netivot shalom, translated by the Jewish apostate and member of the London Society Stanislaus Hoga.95 Hoga, who died in 1860, is another fascinating personality of this period whom we will discuss below. I suggest that Soloveitchik likely knew of Netivot shalom because it was a widely disseminated text on a topic that was clearly important to him. Moreover, it was covered in the Hebrew press and was the topic of numerous critical responses by well-known Jewish writers.96 Four lengthy responses to McCaul’s work came om the pens of Isaac ber Levenson (1788–1860), Samuel Joseph Fuenn (1819–1881), Eliezer Zweifel (1818–1871), and Raphael ben Elijah Kazin (1818–1871). Levenson, Fuenn, and Zweifel were prominent maskilic figures in Russia. Kazin was a rabbi in Syria. While these responses may not have been particularly well-known, they were covered in the Jewish press and illustrate the seriousness with which Jews in Russia took to McCaul’s work.97 The work of these maskilic figures was focused on the emancipation of the Jews in Russia and on civil rights. McCaul claimed that adherence to the Talmud prevented Jews om being trusted members of Russian society. This

22  Introduction

represents a nonracial kind of anti-Semitism, quite different om the hateful work of people such as Houston Stuart Chamberlain (1855–1927), Wagner’s son-in-law, whose Foundations of the Nineteenth Century is the classic antiSemitic work of that period; or Johann Eisenmenger (1654–1704).98 McCaul seemed to have wanted Jews to retain a sense of their Mosaic tradition and to become “Hebrew Christians.” Relevant to our concerns is the chosen path of Levenson’s and Fuenn’s critiques. As opposed to arguing for the essential truth of Judaism over the falsity of Christianity, each claimed in different ways that McCaul misunderstood the status of the Talmud in Judaism. Eliyahu Stern summarizes Levenson’s and Fuenn’s positions succinctly: “Levenson and Fuenn differed in important respects regarding the nature of Christianity and Judaism, but they proffered a similar basic line of defense against the charges issued by McCaul against the Talmud. Namely, they both argued that—like Catholic teachings—the Talmud was but one expression of the Jewish tradition, which was based on reason and constantly rearticulated and transmitted anew in each generation. In contrast to McCaul, who misunderstood the Talmud as a piece of sacred scripture, Levenson and Fuenn both employed the Latin word ‘tradition’ to explain the Talmud and the development of the Oral law.”99 These responses had in mind aming the Talmud not unlike the Russian Orthodox notion of “tradition” to argue that if Orthodox Christians can be trusted citizens of the empire, so can believing Jews. That is, as Stern notes, “by arguing that each religion possessed its own independent tradition Levenson hoped to persuade Russian officials that supporting the Talmud was in line with the government’s general support of ‘orthodoxy’ within each faith.” In addition, these traditions are malleable and can be altered to conform to state policies.100 While these concerns were largely political and intended for the Russian regime, Fuenn also delved into more theological reflection; he claimed that “the majority of Christian beliefs and positions were in no way opposed to Jewish beliefs and those that were, could be traced back to what was espoused in the New Testament.”101 This sounds close to Soloveitchik, although Soloveitchik would likely argue that divergences between rabbinic law and Christian doctrine are likely the result of an error in our understanding of one or the other, or both. While it is not clear that Soloveitchik had seen Levenson’s, Fuenn’s, or Zweifel’s responses to McCaul (although he certainly could have), his approach is different, perhaps toward similar ends. Soloveitchik, who was not a maskil or reformer, would agree with McCaul on one point and disagree on another. He would agree that the Talmud is an authoritative text and that Jews are bound to it (here he would disagree with Levenson and Fuenn). That is, he would reject the reformist diminution of the Talmud to deflect McCaul’s claim that it stands

Introduction  23

in the way of an enlightened Jewish polity. But he would disagree with McCaul that the Talmud is an impediment to good citizenry. Soloveitchik’s commentary is devoted precisely to show the symmetry and not the dissonance between the Talmud and the Gospel. From one perspective, Soloveitchik presents his case as a staunch traditionalist; and om another perspective, as someone open to the truth of Christian claims, albeit om a traditionalist perspective. In this sense, and when contrasted with the likes of Levenson, Fuenn, and Zweifel, he seemed to be a distinctive, even dissonant, voice among the Jews, even as his goals may have been idiosyncratically close to the maskilic position. Stanislaus Hoga, the Jewish apostate and collaborator with McCaul, is closest to Soloveitchik.102 This seems odd because Hoga was a convert to Christianity, albeit one who later seemed to return to the Jewish fold (although that is far om certain) and then defended Judaism against McCaul’s missionizing. Hoga was born as Yehezkel ben Aryeh Leib in Kuzmir, Poland, in 179⒈ His father, a maggid named Aryeh Leib, was a disciple of the celebrated Hasidic master R. Jacob Isaac Hurwitz (1745–1815), known as the Seer of Lublin. Like Soloveitchik, Hoga was raised in an ultra-traditional world of extreme piety and Talmud study. His prodigious talents resulted in attracting the attention of Polish prince Adam Czartoryski, who took the adolescent (who was already married) with him to Palawy, not far om Casimir, to study modern languages. Through a series of bizarre events, including abandoning his wife and family and running off with a local woman named Yitta, with whom he eventually had another family, Hoga converted to Christianity (with Yitta and his two daughters) and took the name Stanislaus Hoga (in his home region, he was referred to as Ḥaskel Hameshumad—Ezekiel the apostate).103 He likely met McCaul during one of McCaul’s residences in Warsaw and, according to David Ruderman, Hoga likely followed McCaul back to England and became involved with the London Society and McCaul, translating McCaul’s Old Paths into Hebrew as Netivot shalom, which became popular in Eastern Europe.104 The remaining details of Hoga’s bizarre, colorful, and tragic life are fascinating but not relevant except for the fact that he returned to Judaism later in life—although that, too, is a matter of debate—and published two works relevant to our topic. The first is The Controversy of Zion: A Meditation on Judaism and Christianity, in 1845; the second is Zir Ne’eman: The Faithful Missionary, published in 184⒎105 The Controversy of Zion is a scathing critique of missionaries who attack Jewish law and practice as antithetical to Christianity (this may be driven partly by McCaul’s Old Paths, which Hoga knew better than anyone). Ruderman suggests that the message of this later work is clear: “It is possible for a Jew to believe in Jesus without abrogating his observance of Jewish law”; thus, undermining what both religions share, by criticizing the very ritual acts that “remind Jews

24  Introduction

of their belief in one God,” is a grave error. “Christ is the crown and perfection of the law. But a Jew can only believe in him through his observance of the mitzvot, his natural covenant with God.”106 Hoga’s attack is not only against Christians but also Jewish converts who functioned as missionaries, such as Moses Margoliouth (1820–1881) whose The Fundamental Principles of Modern Judaism Investigated (1843) promoted McCaul’s anti-Talmudic agenda.107 Hoga argued that being a believing and practicing Jew was the only way for the Jew to be a good Christian. Jews need to know that. And Christians need to know that. Whether this is a repudiation of his conversion remains unclear, but it certainly changes the pattern of missionizing of the London Society. Hoga’s final work, Zir Ne’eman, goes much further than The Controversy of Zion and declares war on McCaul’s entire body of work, including The Old Paths, which Hoga translated into Hebrew; it is this work that convinces Lask Abrahams and others that Hoga was a real baal teshuvah, that he repudiated his conversion to Christianity and returned to the traditional Jewish fold (even as a convert, Hoga was critical of Jewish Reform).108 Ruderman is less convinced. While it is true that Hoga seemed to be embraced by at least some Jews in London, indicated by the fact that he published regularly during those years in the Jewish Chronicle, which is odd if he were still considered an apostate, there is no real indication or tangible evidence that Hoga ever turned his back fully on Christianity.109 If Ruderman is correct, Hoga would represent one who embodies what Ruderman calls a “mingled identity,” both Jew and Christian, or, perhaps, neither Jew nor Christian. This Hebrew Christian identity fits nicely with an oblique remark that Holga makes in The Controversy of Zion: “It is vain to think of the conversion of the Jews to Christianity before Christians themselves are converted to Judaism.”110 We can see how close Hoga comes to Soloveitchik, albeit om the opposite end of the conversion divide. My reading of Soloveitchik is that Jews need not convert to Christianity because all that is true in Christianity is part of Judaism. And Christians need not try to convert Jews for the same reason. As I mentioned above, this may be one of Soloveitchik’s goals of his commentary Qol Qore. Both religions, for Soloveitchik, express the same core value of divine unity expressed in different forms. Exhibiting this shared goal need not require diminishing the status of the Talmud (Levenson, Fuenn, et al.) or claiming the superiority of Judaism (medieval polemical literature). Many reformers in Soloveitchik’s time, such as I. M. Jost, David Friedlander, and Lazarus Bendavid, argued that rabbinic Judaism (the Talmud) had corrupted the true form of Israelite Mosaism.111 While this may have bothered him, to the extent that he was familiar with these writings, Soloveitchik seems more

Introduction  25

focused on the diminution of the Talmud as a tool of missionizing. For Soloveitchik, conversion becomes unnecessary; for Hoga, it becomes irrelevant. Hoga believed that a Jew could believe in Jesus and still live by the law. This was the essential message in his Controversy of Zion. If I am right about Hoga—and I agree with Ruderman that his choices seem more complicated than simply renouncing his conversion—he would not have to refute his conversion to return to Judaism. And Soloveitchik would not have to convert to Christianity to acknowledge its truth; he can do so solidly within his Jewish milieu—not as a reformer but as a Volozhin-trained Talmudist. In trying to contextualize Soloveitchik’s Qol Qore around the question of missionary activity and Jewish conversion to Christianity during the middle and late decades of the nineteenth century in Eastern Europe and England, I was forced to remain in the realm of speculation regarding Soloveitchik’s awareness of this activity, as he never mentions it explicitly. However, given that the issue was a popular topic in the Jewish press and was of concern for Jewish communities as they moved into and beyond emancipation, it is hard to imagine that he did not have at least cursory exposure to the phenomenon. We know that late in life, he was blind, which may have limited his ability to regularly follow the press, although we do not know when blindness came upon him. It is safe to say that Qol Qore offers a distinctive contribution to the literature on the conviction among traditional Jews in this period lending a traditional voice to the expansive and provocative rendering of the complex relationship between these two religions.

Soloveitchik’s “Maimonidean Jesus” One of the more vexing dimensions of the synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) is the question of Jesus’ claims to be the Messiah or whether others considered him to be so. In addition, one of the dominant themes in Jewish criticism of the Gospels is that such a claim is, within Jewish thinking, impossible for a variety of reasons. On this question, the legal code of Maimonides is oen invoked where, in his “Laws of Kings,” Maimonides delineates the criteria of the messianic vocation.112 On Maimonides’ criteria, Jesus as the true messiah is simply impossible. What, then, do Jews make of this claim of Christianity? One common trope was that Jesus was a false messiah, a category with precedent in Jewish literature before and aer Jesus. Contemporary Jews interested in fostering ecumenical dialogue offer less severe rejections of Jesus’ messiahship. Irving (Yitz) Greenberg, for example, made the distinction between the “false messiah” and the “failed messiah,” the latter being more applicable to Jesus than the former.113 Others, such as Byron Sherwin, suggest that Jesus represented the

26  Introduction

Joseph messiah (as opposed to the Davidic one), an idea whose roots lie in the rabbinic tradition. The Joseph messiah will appear before the Davidic one, and will die and prepare the ground for the final redemption.114 Soloveitchik takes a different tack in his assessment of Jesus’ messianic vocation. Rather than denying Jesus as messiah, something difficult to do, given the plethora of references to his messianic vocation, or making a distinction between a “false” or “failed” messiah, or the Joseph or Davidic messiah, Soloveitchik claims that the central vocation of the Messiah is to teach people the fundamental lesson of Judaism; the unity of the Creator. Thus in almost every reference to the Messiah in Mark and Matthew, Soloveitchik comments on Jesus’ success in spreading the true Gospel, the unity of God. From Soloveitchik’s perspective, this is accomplished by Jesus in a particularly successful way, to his Jewish compatriots and later to the Gentiles through Paul. This notion of divine unity is the centerpiece of Maimonides’ depiction of Judaic monotheism. In at least one place, Soloveitchik openly denies that Jesus is the Messiah and claims that most people have misread Matthew 24:5, which states: For many will come in my name, saying, “I am the mashiaḥ,” and they will mislead many. Soloveitchik states: Many will come in my name—there are those who say that Yeshua cautioned them not to be mistaken if a man comes in his name and says that he is the Messiah, that he may not mislead them. However, the meaning of this verse is difficult, for how is it possible that a man would come in the name of Yeshua and make himself out to be the Messiah? Who would believe that Yeshua sent him? And what does he mean by saying, “many will come in my name”? This is the meaning: Yeshua told them that many would come in his name claiming that he was the Messiah, and by this they will mislead many. Therefore, what he is really saying is, “I am giving you distinct signs of when the Messiah comes.”

Rather than being the Messiah, for Soloveitchik Jesus is the one who spreads the necessary condition of belief in divine unity as the prelude to the Messiah (a kind of spiritual, as opposed to political or militaristic, Joseph messiah). The extent of his success makes him a messianic figure but not the final one who comes to redeem Israel. Elsewhere in his commentary, he is less definitive in terms of Jesus’ messianic vocation. In his comment to Matthew 10:7, And as you go, call out, saying, “The Kingdom of Heaven is on the brink of arrival,” Soloveitchik comments: “The main principle that he commanded to his disciples, first of all, to allow the faith in the unity of the Creator to be instilled in their hearts.” Commenting on the “son of man,” a common trope drawn om Daniel 7:13–14 and other

Introduction  27

places to refer to a messianic figure, Soloveitchik comments on Matthew 10:23: “Before the son of man comes—which is to say, I promise you that even if they persecute you om city to city, you will not complete your travels to all of the cities of Israel until the son of man comes, that is, until one of the men who is persecuting you realizes your righteousness in that you came to instill in the heart of every single man the knowledge of the unity of the Creator.” But even here, Soloveitchik seems to distinguish between Jesus’ messianic vocation (to instill in the heart of every single man the knowledge of the unity of the Creator), which he accomplishes with tremendous success, and his status as the Messiah. On Matthew 14:14, Soloveitchik comments: “Good news of the kingdom—a distinct sign of when the Messiah will come, when all the nations will know the good news of the kingdom, which is the unity of the Creator. Jews and Christians together believe only in one God and that the Messiah will surely come, just as Yeshua promised; and when the good news of the kingdom—being the unity of God—is proclaimed to all the nations, then the end will come.” Soloveitchik uses the unity doctrine as that which unites Judaism and Christianity and Jesus’ teaching as exempliing this idea. His literal messianic vocation thus becomes, for him, beside the point. In Mark 11:10, we read: Blessed is the coming kingdom of David our father [in the name of YHWH]! Hoshana in the heights! Soloveitchik uses the opportunity to render the kingdom of David outside its purely historical setting to suggest “whose goal is the triumph of divine unity.” In Mark 14:9, Amen, I say to you that wherever this good news is proclaimed throughout the world, what she has done will also be told as a memorial to her, Soloveitchik comments: “As a memorial to her—meaning: Everywhere that my name is mentioned with honor, for having proclaimed and spread the Gospel—the good news—of the unity of God in the world, the name of this woman will also be cited for praise.” The “good news” is never about Jesus as the Messiah but about the unity of the Creator that he preaches. In Matthew 4:23, Soloveitchik renders the good news of the kingdom as “the unity of the Creator.” Passages that have sometimes been viewed as Jesus’ call for his followers to abandon their families to follow him have been rendered by Soloveitchik as teaching belief in divine unity as the ultimate sacrifice. For example, in Matthew 10:35, we read: For I have come to separate a man from his father and a daughter from her mother and a bride from her mother-in-law. Soloveitchik reads it to say: “I have come to separate—my goal is to teach you that every man must give up his life for the sake of the unity of the Creator. And this faith will cause separation between a son and his father, if the father does not believe in the unity of the Creator, for he will think his son a foreigner and an enemy.” Similarly, in Matthew 16:24: Yeshua said to his disciples, “A man who desires to

28  Introduction

follow me will disown himself, pick up his cross, and follow me”; Soloveitchik writes: “To follow me—he who wants to follow my teaching. The main principle of my teaching is that man should be prepared to give up his life for the sake of the faith in the unity of the Creator.” Soloveitchik situates Jesus’ main message as in accord with rabbinic teaching reacted through a Maimonidean lens. Spreading the belief in the unity of God is a prerequisite for the final redemption. Jesus, at times better than the rabbinic sages, fulfills that teaching. As such, his messianic role is Judaized. On the resurrection of Jesus, Soloveitchik mirrors Maimonides in eliding resurrection with the immortality of the soul. Maimonides does this in his famous “Epistle on Resurrection” in a way that is intended to deflect the criticisms that he does not believe in resurrection om comments elsewhere in his writings (even as he lists resurrection as one of his Thirteen Principles of Faith).115 Because the resurrection of Jesus is such a contentious dimension of the New Testament for Jews (even as resurrection is embedded in prophetic and rabbinic Judaism and confided in Maimonides’ “Thirteen Principles of Faith”), Soloveitchik largely deflects the issue by seeing it as Jesus’ call to the belief in the immortality of the soul, an idea that, while normative for Jews, is also not unproblematic, especially if it is presented as a substitute for resurrection.116 For example, in Matthew 16:21: From that time on, Yeshua began telling his disciples that he needed go to Yerushalayim and endure great suffering from the hands of the elders, the leading priests, and scholars, and that he would be killed, but would surely arise on the third day. Soloveitchik comments: “On the third day aer my death. Then you will understand that the faith in the immortality of the soul that I instilled in your hearts is the truth.” Earlier in that same chapter (to Matthew 16:12), Soloveitchik claims that the Sadducees did not believe in “the immortality of the soul”—not, as is usually understood, that they did not believe in the resurrection (given the Sadducees’ Hellenistic bent, they may indeed have believed in the immortality of the soul). Resurrection is taken up in a lengthy comment that Soloveitchik makes to Matthew 22:2⒊ It is worth citing his comment in full: There is no resurrection of the dead—I have already written that the foundation of the belief in the resurrection of the dead comprises two principles: the first is that the dead will rise in the time that the Creator, blessed be his name, wills it; the second is the belief in the immortality of the soul, that is, that the spirit of man does not die when it is separated om the body but that it will remain immortal and forever enjoy the pleasantness of YHWH in accordance to the good deeds that it performed in this world. Both our Jewish and Christian brothers firmly believe in these two principles, for they are united in the foundations of

Introduction  29 the religion on which the Torah of Moshe rests. Only the Sadducees turned away om the path of the Torah and the commandments and refused to believe in these two principles. Therefore, they asked Yeshua “How will it be for the dead that rise if one woman had seven husbands?”

And in a comment to Mark 12:27, we read: “Let us repeat this, for it is an important and indisputable fact: in the dual belief of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead, our Israelite brothers are in perfect accord with our Christian brothers.” Finally, on Mark 8:33, Soloveitchik is the most explicit when he writes: There was absolutely nothing impossible about them seeing Yeshua aer his death, and I cited, in the same place, that according to the Talmud, a sage distinctly revived his deceased colleague and conversed with him. Only his disciples were mistaken on the thought of Yeshua: he did not mean that he would actually resurrect physically, but that he would reappear in order to convince them, by this act, of the principle of the immortality of the soul. Read carefully my commentary in this spot, and you will then understand this passage. Petros, as well, in my opinion, was one of those who “doubted.” He believed that Yeshua spoke of a literal flesh and bone resurrection, and knowing the thing to be impossible in the temporal order, he accused him of announcing unbelievable things to them.

On Matthew 28:17, They saw him and bowed down to him, but there were some of them whose hearts were divided, Soloveitchik cites a passage om BT Mo’ed Qaṭan 28a about R. Naḥman appearing to Raba aer his death.117 Soloveitchik thus claims that while Jesus may have appeared to his disciples three days aer his death, it does not necessarily follow that he resurrected himself but rather that he appeared to them to teach them about the centrality of the immortality of the soul. Soloveitchik thus maintains two distinct but overlapping Jewish ideas: the bodily resurrection of the dead in the future end-time; and the immortality of the souls that is always operative. Jesus comes to teach his disciples about the immortality of the soul, not about his bodily resurrection (which his disciples believed, in any case). He concludes in his comment to Mark 12:27, “Let us repeat this, for it is an important and indisputable fact: in the dual belief of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead, our Israelite brothers are in perfect accord with our Christian brothers.” Soloveitchik never, to my knowledge, relates to the more strident position on resurrection in Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15:12–20: But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain. . . . If Christ has not been raised, your

30  Introduction

faith is futile, and you are still in your sins. More generally, Soloveitchik did not write a commentary to Paul’s epistles. However, he invokes Paul equently in his commentaries to Mark and Matthew and almost always in a positive light. While Paul is oen viewed as a main source of Christianity’s anti-Judaism in both Christian and Jewish historical-critical scholarship, Soloveitchik views Paul as a Pharisee through and through.118 The move to replace Jesus’ ostensible claim of bodily resurrection with the Maimonidean-infused idea of the immortality of the soul, an idea that is likely the product of medieval, not late antique, Judaism, illustrates Soloveitchik’s larger project of subverting the notion that Judaism and Christianity are categorically distinct and irreconcilable entities. The Jewish Jesus and Anti-Semitism: The Overt Context of R. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik’s Project The final theme I want to examine is less endemic to Soloveitchik’s commentary per se and more about the context (Sitz im Leben) of the project more generally. Earlier, I provided a compass to illustrate the ways in which Qol Qore may have been a response to the anti-Talmudic missionizing activity in the mid- to late nineteenth century. I say “compass” because Soloveitchik never discusses the missioning phenomenon openly; thus, even though he likely was aware of it, his intentions regarding his commentary as a response to it must remain conjecture. In terms of rising instances of anti-Semitism, however, Soloveitchik does state that be believes that his work will help resolve that age-old problem founded, in his view, on Christianity’s misunderstanding of Judaism and, just as important, its own scripture. Qol Qore was written at a time of rising anti-Semitism throughout Europe, pogroms, and the increasingly difficult position of Jews in their countries of residence. The deteriorating conditions of the Jews at this time helped create, among other things, Zionism, which, on Theodor Herzl’s reading, would help relieve anti-Semitism by removing a large segment of Jews om Europe.119 Soloveitchik was more convinced that the roots of anti-Semitism were theological and based on a misunderstanding of the New Testament by both Jews and Christians. He seemed to believe that if Jews and Christians understood the New Testament the way he did, the theological foundations of anti-Semitism would begin to wane. In a long comment to Matthew 2:1, Soloveitchik places part of the blame on the Jews, specifically in the fantastical depiction of Jesus in the anonymous medieval work Toledot Yeshu:120 “We find that the mother of Ben Stada was Miriam, and her husband was Pappos ben Yehudah, and her lover was Pandira. Her son was a bastard, and therefore they called his

Introduction  31

mother Stada because she was a harlot. From this section in the Gemara, those who lack knowledge om among both our Jewish and Christian brothers conclude that this speaks about Yeshua, who is called ‘Messiah.’ Therefore, the Christians think badly of their Jewish brothers and speak against the Gemara without limit.” In this small excerpt of a much longer comment, Soloveitchik seeks to dispel the false Jewish notion of Jesus’ birth insinuated in the Talmud, which he believed made it impossible for Jews to take the New Testament, and thus Christians, seriously; and to serve as fodder for Christian animus toward the Jews. But his most sustained comment about the impetus for his project appears in his prefatory remarks to the 1868 London edition of Qol Qore: The Law, the Talmud, and the Gospel. But our object is not to comment; but impelled by circumstances of the times, so eventful in themselves, and so important in their bearing as to the cause of the Lord, we desire an institution inquiry into the cause of an existing misunderstanding. For since the fire of dispute has been kindled in the camp of our Hebrew brethren, it has divided the worshipers of God into two sections, the one Jews, and the other Christians. Does it not appear marvelous to contemplate that aer the lapse of centuries, when empires have crumbled into the dust, monarchies have ceased to exist, dynasties have fallen into decay . . . and yet that fire of contention has not ceased, but is still raging with its primitive fury.121

Locating the roots of Christian anti-Semitism has a long history among Jews, and Soloveitchik is certainly not the first to claim that it is rooted in theological animus initiated by Jewish and Christian scriptures. And most of his colleagues om the traditional world of Eastern Europe were not optimistic about solving this problem, although some maskilim in these areas had more optimistic views. For example, Naali Zvi Berlin (Neziv), a leader of the Volozhin yeshiva who was likely in Volozhin before Soloveitchik moved to England (Berlin headed the yeshiva during 1854–1892), wrote a short tract, Se’ar Yisrael (Remnants of Israel), which argued for the ontological nature of anti-Semitism on the midrashic principle of “Esau hates Jacob.” This popular work, published numerous times, likely embodied the sentiments of Soloveitchik’s world.122 The popular notion that anti-Semitism was somehow embedded in Christianity, or Gentiles more generally, such that it could not be uprooted, was a notion that Soloveitchik openly contested; undermining it was the backbone of his life’s work. Soloveitchik is one of the few traditional rabbis in general, and certainly in Eastern Europe, who wrote more positively about the possibility of diminishing anti-Semitism, at least in those decades. He claimed that the fault lay with Jews

32  Introduction

and Christians—Jews because they refuse to take the New Testament seriously and Christians because they refuse to acknowledge the symmetry between the teaching of the Gospel and Judaism. An exception to this rule was Ya’akov Emden (1697–1776), a leading central European rabbinic figure and one of the most celebrated rabbinic authorities of his generation.123 It is thus predictable that Soloveitchik would cite Emden’s thoughts about Christianity, which were, in his time, revolutionary in their own right.124 Comparisons between Emden and Soloveitchik are reasonable, and Soloveitchik himself may have viewed Emden as a precedent.125 Upon closer examination, however, Emden and Soloveitchik have little in common other than their belief in the morality (and non-idolatry) of Christianity and their belief that Jesus did not come to eradicate the law for Jews. Unlike Soloveitchik, Emden, who was familiar with the Gospels (he cites them oen) never wrote extensively about them and never quite claimed, as Soloveitchik did, that there is no categorical distinction between Judaism and Jesus’ “Christianity.”126 Emden does mention in at least one place that he thinks that many Christians “would be diligent in the analysis of the Gemara . . . and still today are found among them many learned ones who love our Talmud and study it.”127 But in general, Emden’s positive assessment of Christianity, certainly provocative in his day, especially given his stature, does not make the more radical claims of symmetry between Judaism and Christianity that Soloveitchik proposes in his commentary. Perhaps part of the difference between them is the underlying context of each one’s work. Emden, as J. J. Schachter notes, used Christianity as a way to falsi and demonize Sabbateanism as a new religion, one that should be condemned by Jews and Christians alike.128 Soloveitchik may have been responding to the increased conversion of Jews to Christianity through the missionary work of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews and other organizations. His commentary may thus be more focused on teaching missionaries why converting the Jews is unnecessary (which is why he published his commentary in German, French, and Polish before he published the original Hebrew) and to teach Jews why they need not convert in order to live an authentic Jewish life that coheres with the teachings of Jesus. Both Emden and Soloveitchik seem to believe that their positive assessments would curb anti-Semitism, a goal that, as we know, was unsuccessful. At any rate, in looking for some precedent for Soloveitchik’s commentary, Emden, whose work on this subject and others was likely familiar to Soloveitchik, would be a good candidate. Soloveitchik concludes that his commentary resolved three basic misunderstandings between Jews and Christians: “I. That our Jewish brethren regard us [Christians] as those who have no faith, and that the summit of the Christian

Introduction  33

belief centers in the eradication of the law of Moses. II. That we Christians are their opponents, and merely seek their subversion. III. That the generality of Jews, as well as Christians, being unacquainted with what constitutes the Judaism of the present day (viz. the Rabbinic tradition) look upon the chasm that separates Judaism om Christianity to be of such magnitude as to render all efforts of reconciliation in vain.”129 George Ekeroth, then director of the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies and Research, wrote a short introduction to the 1985 reprint of the Hebrew Qol Qore, in which he succinctly made the case for why this obscure book om over a century ago should be reprinted. The author’s original motivation is an attempt to bring peace and understanding between Judaism and Christianity. He implied that if this could be achieved, it had the potential of bringing peace to the whole world. We don’t have evidence that his objective was realized to any great degree during his lifetime. In view of the great progress that has been made in recent years in dialogue between Jews and Christians, at least at the academic level, it is possible that the book was written “for such a time as this.”130 Whether such a prediction is true, I do not know; but it speaks to the overt intention of Soloveitchik’s work, even a kind of messianic optimism that this work could “bring about world peace.” This commentary, constructed by someone deeply knowledgeable of classical Judaism, executed with passion, candor, and sincerity, and driven by an unyielding, albeit naïve, belief that the author had solved a millennia-old problem, offers us a window into the mind of one Eastern European Jew in modernity who courageously cononted what Jews mostly took for granted: the irreconcilability of Judaism and Christianity. The history of the twentieth century was not kind to Soloveitchik’s prediction, and, perhaps partly as a consequence, his work wallowed in obscurity until now. Perhaps in this century, we can examine it anew, not necessarily as a template for the reconstruction of Judaism and Christianity as much as a valiant attempt to bend the arc toward an era of coexistence and tolerance built on the dunghill of mutual animus and hatred.

Notes 1 The phrase derekh eretz kadma le-Torah was popularized by R. Shimshon Rafael Hirsch but was based on midrash Leviticus Rabbah 9:⒊ It literally means “derekh eretz precedes Torah.” The Kotzker rebbe turns the word kadma om a verb to a noun to mean “introduction” (hakdama). 2 See Shaul Stampfer, Lithuanian Yeshivas of the Nineteenth Century: Creating a Tradition of Learning (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2012), 190–233; and see Israel Cohen, Vilna (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003). 3 See J. A. Vorster, “Jewish Views on Jesus: An Assessment of the Jewish Answer to the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pretoria, 1975), 89, 90. Cf. Donald Hagner, The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1997), 28n19: “Probably the first Jew to write a commentary to the New Testament was Elie Soloweyczyk, who wrote in Hebrew and published his work in Paris in 187⒌ It was later translated into French

34  Introduction and German.” Hagner gets the publishing information a bit wrong. It was originally written in Hebrew and first published in French, German, and Polish before it was finally published in the Hebrew original, soon before Soloveitchik’s death. 4 One exception to the rule is the work of Jacob Emden (1697–1776). While Emden did not translate the Gospels, his work on Christianity om a rabbinic perspective was not polemical but quite conciliatory. Below I will discuss Emden and how Soloveitchik viewed him as a role model. Work of Jews on Jesus and Christianity flourished in the early decades of the twentieth century, but Soloveitchik seems to have been the first to publish a commentary on the Gospels. 5 Montefiore sought the help of Israel Abrams for his commentary. Abrams was an expert in rabbinic literature and a professor at Cambridge University. His own work on Christianity was published in 2 vols. as Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (1902 and 1929). 6 On Hayyim of Volozhin, see Norman Lamm, Torah Lishma (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989); M. S. Shmuckler, Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin [in Hebrew], 2nd ed. (Jerusalem, 1968); Esther Iznamin, “The Structure and Content of Nefesh Ha-Hayyim of R. Hayyim of Volozhin” [in Hebrew], in Ha-Gra u-Veit Midrasho (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2003), 185–196; and my “Deconstructing the Mystical: The Anti-Mystical Kabbalism in Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin’s Nefesh Ha-Hayyim,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 9, no. 1 (1999): 21–6⒎ Most recently, see Avinoam Frankel, Nefesh HaTzimtzum, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2015). I will explain Soloveitchik’s relationship to Hayyim of Volozhin in the section below on Soloveitchik’s lineage. 7 See Hayyim Karlinsky, First in the Genealogical Chain of Brisk: The Gaon Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, His Life, Times, and Activities [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute, 1984). 8 See ibid.; and Dov Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik: The Man and His Writings [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Published privately by author, 1995). On the closing of the Volozhin yeshiva, see Stampfer, Lithuanian Yeshivas, 190–23⒊ 9 Much literature has been written on the Brisker method. For one concise yet seminal essay, see Aharon Lichtenstein, “What Hath Brisk Wrought: The Brisker Method Revisited,” Torah U-Maddah Journal 9 (2000): 1–⒙ 10

See I. Cohen, Vilna, 253–28⒉

11 In general, see Allan Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997). Vilna was also a center of secular Jewish literary activity, Yiddishism, Zionism, and religious reform. Before World War II, about 160,000 Jews were living in the region that would become Lithuania; about 7 percent of the population was Jewish, many of whom were murdered by the Nazi onslaught. 12 On the Vilna Gaon, see Eliyahu Stern, The Genius: Elijah of Vilna and the Making of Modern Judaism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013); and Immanuel Etkes, HaGra: Yaḥid be-Doro (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 2000). On the history of the Jews of Vilna, see I. Cohen, Vilna; and Etkes, “Vilnius,” in YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe, http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Vi. 13 See Yisrael Klausner, Vilna, the Jerusalem of Lithuania: The First Generations 1495–1881 [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv, 1988). 14 Ezra Mendelsohn, Class Struggle in the Pale: The Formative Years of the Jewish Workers Movement in Tsarist Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), ⒏ Cf. Eliyahu Stern, Jewish Materialism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), chap. ⒉ 15 The printing of the entire Talmud by the Romm family went through various printings in the 1820s, 1850s, and 1880s. In many ways, the Vilna printing was a reproduction of a less-known Slavuta edition. The appearance of the Slavuta edition largely coincided with the opening of the Volozhin yeshiva, which created a much broader need for the production of Talmudic tractates to serve the growing student body. See, e.g., Samuel Meir Feigensohn, “The History of the Romm Printing,” in Yahadut Lita, ed. H. Bar Dayyan (Tel Aviv: Association of Lithuanian Jews in Israel, 1959–1984), 268–296; Mordechai Breuer, Ohalei Torah: The Yeshiva, Its Structure, and Its History [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 2003), 269 ff. Cf. Michael Stanislawski, “The ‘Vilna Shas’ and East European Jewry,” in Printing the Talmud, ed. S. Lieberman Mintz and G. Goldstein (New York: Yeshiva University, 2005), 97–102; and Barry Wimpfheimer, The Talmud: A Biography (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017). 16 Those figures include the first chief rabbi of Palestine, Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935); the poet laureate of the Hebrew language, Hayyim Naḥman Bialik (1873–1934); and one of the major literary figures of Zionism, Yosef Micah Berdyczewski (1865–1921). 17

On Hayyim of Volozhin’s attitude toward educational reform, see Stampfer, Lithuanian Yeshivas, 4⒊

18

See ibid., 5⒏ Stampfer is unsure of what Yiṣḥak of Volozhin’s intentions were in attending this conference.

19 However, as we can see om the contemporary descendants of that family dynasty, Joseph Dov Baer Soloveitchik (known as the Rav) (1903–1993) and his son Haym Soloveitchik (b. 1937), both chose less than predictable paths within the Orthodox world. Joseph Soloveitchik became the founder of Modern Orthodoxy in America, and his son Haym became an internationally acclaimed historian of medieval Jewish literature. 20

E.g., in the 1846 Königsberg German translation of Maimonides, “Book of Knowledge.”

Introduction  35 21 E.g., in Hayyim Karlinsky’s exhaustive study of the Brisk (Soloveitchik) dynasty, there is a long section on Isaac Zev and merely a mention of Elijah Zvi. See Karlinsky, First in the Genealogical Chain of Brisk, where Elijah Zvi is mentioned, in passing, twice, on pp. 42 and 29⒍ 22

Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, ⒒

23 I will discuss the printing history of Qol Qore below. It seems that there are slight, but insignificant, changes in the 1985 Jerusalem edition. 24 The attention paid to Isaac Zev Soloveitchik in Karlinsky, First in the Genealogical Chain of Brisk, is due to the fact that his son Joseph Baer (Beit ha-Levi) became a famous rabbinic scholar. 25 This is somewhat ironic, as the Soloveitchik dynasty was known for not publishing much of their work in their lifetimes—in most cases, one book of teachings, usually aer the death of the author. 26 Two examples among many om Soloveitchik’s generation who converted and published on Christianity were Aled Edersheim (1825–1889), who converted to Christianity and wrote The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (1988); and Moshe Margoliouth (d. 1881), who wrote numerous anti-Talmud missionary tracts. There is also Nehemiah Solomon, who likely produced the first Yiddish translation of the New Testament; and Stanislaus Hoga, the convert who translated Alexander McCaul’s missionary tract The Old Paths. Below, I will discuss Solomon and, more extensively, Hoga. Another example would be Augustus Neander (1798–1850), born David Mendel, a German Jewish convert who became perhaps the most prominent Church historian of his generation. Soloveitchik may have also been aware of Luigi Chiarini, who published a scathing attack against the Talmud, Theorie du Judaïsme, in 1830. Chiarini was part of a Christian committee established in Warsaw in 1825 to encourage Polish Jews to assimilate. Leopold Zunz knew of his work. See Ismar Schorsch, Leopold Zunz: Creativity Is Adversity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017), 6⒍ There were, of course, many Jewish converts to Christianity who wrote works on the New Testament, some in Hebrew. One striking example is Immanuel Frommann, who converted to Christianity and wrote a Hebrew kabbalistic commentary to Luke. See Elliot R. Wolfson, “Immanuel Frommann’s Commentary on Luke and the Christianizing of Kabbalah,” in Holy Dissent: Jewish and Christian Mystics in Eastern Europe, ed. G. Dynner (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2011), 171–22⒉ 27 See, e.g., in Matthew Hoffman, From Rebel to Rabbi: Reclaiming Jesus and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007); and George Berlin, Defending the Faith: Nineteenth-Century American Jewish Writings on Christianity and Jesus (Albany: SUNY Press, 1989). Cf. Eliyahu Stern, “Catholic Judaism: The Political Theology of the Nineteenth-Century Russian Jewish Enlightenment,” Harvard Theological Review 109, no. 4 (2016): 483–5⒒ An exception to this rule might be Moses Mendelssohn, who lived in an earlier generation but exhibited a sympathy toward Jesus, at any rate, that coheres with Soloveitchik. See, e.g., the lengthy discussion in Jonathan M. Hess, “Mendelssohn’s Jesus: The Frustrations of Jewish Resistance,” in idem, Germans, Jews, and the Claims of Modernity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 92–13⒌ Hess argues that Mendelssohn’s Jerusalem, more than a defense of Judaism, is a critique of Christianity—in particular, a critique of Christianity’s distortion of Jesus, who Mendelssohn held was a gentle Jewish reformer and one who argued in favor of the law. Hess argues that Jesus was, for Mendelssohn, “as both a critic of Christian imperialism and a polemicist for Jewish emancipation” (96). 28 See Susannah Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). Graetz was especially critical of the “Jewish-Christianity” of works like Pseudo-Clementine’s Homilies, which, quite similar to Soloveitchik (who likely did not know this text), argued for the symmetry between Judaism and Christianity. On this, see Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Modern Jewish Rediscovery of ‘Jewish Christianity,’ ” in idem, Jewish Christianity and the History of Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 320–32⒋ 29 See, e.g., Uriel Tal, Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion, Politics, and Ideology in the Second Reich 1870–1914 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975), 160–22⒉ 30

Soloveitchik, Qol Qore (Hebrew ed., 1879), 15; and Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, 13⒉

31

See Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, ⒒

32 Another interesting figure of that time who may have known Soloveitchik was Michael Levi Rodkinson. Rodkinson (also known as Frumkin) is a fascinating character, publisher of Hasidic hagiography, editor of numerous journals, translator of the Talmud into English, ex-Hasid and moderate reformer. Rodkinson lived in London at the same time as Soloveitchik and may have traveled in the same circles, although I have not found any evidence of their acquaintance. They shared an aristocratic pedigree: Soloveitchik was the grandson of R. Hayyim of Volozhin; and Rodkinson was the grandson of R. Aaron of Starosselje, the celebrated disciple for R. Shneur Zalman of Liady, who ended up rejecting the dynastic succession of Chabad and began a small branch of Chabad aer R. Shneur Zalman’s death. R. Aaron’s Sha’ar ha-Yihud ve-Emunah is considered one of the great Hasidic texts in the Chabad tradition. While as far as we know, Soloveitchik remained an ultra-Orthodox Jew, Rodkinson eventually moved toward the Haskalah. Yet he remained a defender of tradition and produced a “new” Talmud in English translation that removed all the superstitious elements. Rodkinson also worked against anti-Semitism, believing that if Christians knew the Talmud without its irrational components, they would not be against it. Rodkinson was much more in the thick of the Jewish world of his time than Soloveitchik and suffered immense resistance for his work and his personal life. And Rodkinson didn’t seem to have an interest in Christianity, even as he was oen accused of collaborating with

36  Introduction missionaries. On Rodkinson, see Jonathan Meir, Literary Hasidism: The Life and Work of Michael Levi Rodkinson (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2016). 33

Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, 40.

34

See Stampfer, Lithuanian Yeshivas, 63, 6⒋

35

Ibid., 4⒊

36 Yad Hazakah, or “strong hand,” is the traditional euphemism to describe Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (Code of Law). 37

Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, 13⒋

38

Qol Qore: A Voice Crying (London: Elliot Stock, 1868), ⒊

39

Qol Qore: The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament (London: Rabbi Elias Soloweyczyk, 1868).

40 See Alexander McCaul, The Old Paths, or the Talmud Tested by Scripture, Being a Comparison of the Principle and Doctrines of Modern Judaism with the Religion of Moses and the Prophets (London: London Society’s House, 1880). Even if Soloveitchik never read The Old Paths, McCaul was part of a much wider circle of missionaries who were attempting to convert Jews at that time. Soloveitchik surely was aware of the larger phenomenon even if he may not have been aware of McCaul. 41

See Qol Qore or The Talmud and the New Testament (Paris: Polyglotte de Charles Blot, 1870), 50–5⒍

42 Branicki was a wealthy Polish nobleman who accompanied Napoleon during the Crimean War. He was known for becoming owner of the Montrésor Château in 1849 and was a politician and a financier, involved in the creation of the Banc Crédit Commercial de France in 185⒏ See the blog “Social History in the Touraine: Central France,” https:// jimmcneill.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/montresor-sure-%e2%80%98tis-a-little-bit-of-poland-in-the-touraine. 43 Wogue was a respected rabbi who was educated in France. In 1851, Salomon Munk and Adolph Franck established a chair of Jewish history at the Ecole Centrale Rabbinique at Metz; Wogue held that chair until his retirement in 189⒋ He was prolific and known for his French commentary to the Pentateuch with annotations om rabbinic sources (1860–1869). We do not know anything about his relationship to Soloveitchik but can assume that if he did the translation, he had some regard for the author and his work. His edition of Qol Qore is listed in the bibliography of the entry on him in The Jewish Encyclopedia. For a short, largely positive, review of Wogue’s 1870 translation, see “Bulletin Bibliographique,” in Archives Israélites: Revue Politique, Religieuse et Litteraire (April 15, 1870). I want to thank Eliyahu Stern for this reference. 44 A second edition of the French translation, just to Mark, appears in 187⒋ Soloveitchik noted that a few pages of the 1870 edition were lost at the printers, so he republished his commentary to Matthew in 1874 and 187⒌ Regarding the French scene, it is worth noting that Joseph Salvador, born of a Jewish father of Spanish descent and a Catholic mother, published (in 1838) his Jesus-Christ et sa doctrine, one of the earliest works by a Jew (Salvador identified as a Jew) on Jesus. It is unclear whether Soloveitchik knew of Salvador’s work. One would assume that Wogue knew of its existence. 45

Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, 9⒌

46 Ibid., 1⒑ Hyman notes differences in the 1985 edition, but they did not seem to be substantive enough to question the use of it as our base text. 47 The history of Hebrew translations of the New Testament goes back to Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut (mid-fourteenth century), who translated Matthew into Hebrew in his ‘Even Bohan, known as “The Shem Tov Matthew,” published in 1380. Other Hebrew editions of Matthew appeared in the Middle Ages as well, including Munster Matthew (1537), by Sebastian Munster; and Du Tillet Matthew (1553), by Jean du Tillet. In modern times, we have a Hebrew translation of Luke published in Leipzig in 1735 by Immanuel Frommann that includes a rabbinic commentary. Frommann was a Jewish apostate as well as a kabbalist. The London Society for Promoting Christianity, founded in 1809, supported a Hebrew translation of the New Testament undertaken by Judah d’Allemand. Matthew was published in 1813, Mark in 1815, and Luke in 18⒗ Alexander McCaul, who ran the London Society for Promoting Christianity, solicited a revision of earlier Hebrew translations employing Jewish apostate Stanislaus Hoga and Johann Christian Reichardt. This new edition appeared in 1840. Another Hebrew translation of note is that of the Jewish apostate Isaac Salikinsohn, who lived in London, where he served as a Presbyterian minister. His Hebrew translation of the New Testament was published in 1886, but Delitzsch’s was considered more reliable by many scholars. Delitzsch used all these translations in his own edition, which appeared around the time Soloveitchik was writing his commentary. 48 Pinchas E. Lapide, Hebrew in the Church: The Foundations of Jewish–Christian Dialogue (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), esp. 82–9⒋ The original Hebräisch in den Kirchen was published in 197⒍ In his Israelis, Jews and Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 49, Lapide notes that Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation of the Gospels was used in Israeli secondary school curricula to teach students about Christianity. 49

Schorsch, Leopold Zunz, 19⒎

50 Cited in Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 8⒋ It should be noted that Delitzsch was also a figure who attracted the attention of other traditional Jews who were engaged in Hebrew printing. For example, Michael Levi Rodkinson was

Introduction  37 in contact with Delitzsch about various matters of Hebrew and translation. See Michael Levi Rodkinson, Pentateuch: Its Languages and Its Characters (Chicago, 1894); and Meir, Literary Hasidism, 3⒋ 51 One strange feature of the French Mark commentary is that it is obviously edited in order to match the common Christian French Bible translation that they used. Jordan Levy was able to discern this by reading the French translation of Matthew that exists as she was simultaneously translating it om Hebrew. 52 Kaufmann wrote glowingly on Delitzsch as a scholar and translator. See David Kaufmann, “Franz Delitzsch,” in his Gesammelte Schriften (Frankfurt am Main, 1908). In English, see Kaufmann, “Franz Delitzsch,” Jewish Quarterly Review (o.s.) (1890): 386–39⒐ 53

Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, 9⒈

54 On Delitzsch, see Alan Levenson’s superb essay, “Missionary Protestants as Defenders and Detractors of Judaism: Franz Delitzsch and Hermann Strack,” Jewish Quarterly Review 92, nos. 3–4 (January–April 2002): 383–4⒛ 55

Ibid., 38⒌

56

Ibid., 408–4⒓

57

Ibid., 392–39⒋

58 Ibid., 39⒋ I say certain caveats because Delitzsch remained a firm believer in the superiority of Christianity. While defending the Talmud, he did so only to view it as a legitimate and worthy precursor to the Gospel. What Delitzsch did accomplish was to resist the liberal Protestant attempt to sever Judaism om Christianity that is perhaps most famously articulated a few decades later by Adolf Harnack in his What Is Christianity? (later published as The Essence of Christianity). 59 On the Tübingen School, see Horton Harris, The Tübingen School: A Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C. Bauer (Ada, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1990). 60 See Tal, Christians and Jews in Germany. Tal argues that much of this theological activity was geared ard a negative assessment of Judaism that led to more activist anti-Jewish movements. For a different analysis, see Christian Wiese, Wissenschaft des Judentums und protestantische Theologie im wilhelmischen Deutschland (Tübingen: de Gruyter, 1999). 61

See S. Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus, 106–16⒈

62 See Zygmunt Bauman, “Allosemitism: Premodern, Modern, Postmodern,” in Modernity, Culture, and the Jew, ed. B. Cheyette and L. Marcus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 143–15⒍ Cf. A. Levenson, “Missionary Protestants,” 387, 38⒏ 63

George Foot Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” Harvard Theological Review 14 (1921): 197–25⒋

64 In English, see Hermann Strack, Introduction to Talmud and Midrash (New York: Meridian, 1959). It was reprinted by T & T Clark in 1991 and by Fortress Press in 1992 and 199⒍ 65

Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1–⒔

66 See A. Levenson, “Missionary Protestants,” 40⒈ In sum, Levenson claims that Strack and Billerbeck were both philosemitic and anti-Semitic simultaneously, what Bauman called “allosemitic.” “They compartmentalized their theological philosemitism and antisemitism, allowing each full play.” 67 Later scholars, such as Samuel Sandmel, E. P. Sanders, John Collins, and Daniel Boyarin, continue the exploration of Jesus with regard to his fidelity to the Judaism of his time. 68 Whether Moore was correct in his assertion about the representative nature of rabbinic texts is a matter of scholarly debate. 69

Moore, “Christian Writers,” 24⒈

70

Ibid., 24⒊

71 The Tosafists were a circle of medieval French commentators of the Babylonian Talmud, some descended om Rashi, who initiated a method of Talmudic analysis called pilpul, or casuistry, solving textual dilemmas, many of their own creation, by evoking other rabbinic passages that they would then connect to the problematic text at hand. In the Lithuanian centers of Talmud study, this method was widely adopted. For a definitive study in English, see Ephraim Kanarfogel, The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2012). 72 See Annette Yoshiko Reed, “Secrecy, Suppression, and the Jewishness of the Origins of Christianity,” in idem, Jewish Christianity and the History of Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017). I want to thank Reed for sharing her chapter with me in dra form. The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies claims to be an account of Clement of Rome’s conversion to Christianity and his travels with the apostle Peter. Its importance is the way it depicts Judaism and Christianity as two parts of one larger system, not meant to stand in opposition to each other. 73

See Reed, Jewish Christianity and the History of Judaism.

74 Four-fihs of the Jews lived in Eastern Europe in this period. On the Haskalah more generally, see Shmuel Feiner, The Jewish Enlightenment, trans. Chaya Naor (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003). Olga Litvak, Haskalah: The Romantic Movement in Judaism (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2012), challenges

38  Introduction many of Feiner’s claims about the Haskalah and focuses on its flourishing in Eastern Europe in the nineteenth century. She argues that, as opposed to the rational ame in which it is usually understood, the Haskalah, especially but not exclusively in Eastern Europe, was much closer to the Romantic movement and far less antagonistic to tradition than normally thought. 75 See W. Bruce Lincoln, Alexander’s Great Reforms: Autocracy, Bureaucracy and the Politics of Change in Imperial Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1990). 76 See Israel Bartal, “British Missionaries in the Environs of Chabad” [in Hebrew], unpublished manuscript. I want to thank Professor Bartal for making this available to me in advance of its publication. Cf. Agnieszka Jagodzinska, “English Missionaries Look at Polish Jews,” Polin 27 (2015): 89–1⒗ 77

Hayyim Heilman, Beit Rebbe (Berditchev, 1902), 93, 94, cited in Bartal, “British Missionaries,” ⒈

78 See, e.g., John Klier, “State Politics and the Conversion of the Jews in Imperial Russia,” in Of Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia, ed. Rovert Geraci and Michael Khodarkovsky (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), 92–1⒓ As it happened, Shneur Zalman of Liady’s son Moshe converted to Russian Orthodox Christianity. See David Assaf, Untold Tales of the Hasidim: Crisis and Discontent in the History of Hasidism (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2010), 29–9⒌ For two important studies of conversion to Christianity in an earlier period, see Elisheva Carlebach, Divided Souls: Converts from Judaism in Germany 1500–1750 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001); and Todd Endelman, Leaving the Fold: Conversion and Radical Assimilation in Modern Jewish History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015). 79

Bartal, “British Missionaries,” 17 (my translation).

80

See Assaf, Untold Tales of the Hasidim, 29–9⒌

81 See William Thomas Gidney, The History of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews from 1809–1908 (London, 1908); and Agnieszka Jagodzinska, “Reformers, Missionaries, and Converts: Interactions Between the London Society and Jews in Warsaw in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” in Converts of Conviction, ed. D. Ruderman (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), 9–2⒍ 82 The stewardship of Nicholas I, who ruled 1894–1917, limited the work of the London Society and did not support the project of converting the Jews. 83 See Endelman, Leaving the Fold, 6–⒑ Endelman does, of course, treat important cases of conversion om conviction. See ibid., 225–27⒍ Responding to Endelman, Litvak writes: “Trained in the Anglo-American school of social history, Endelman was more interested in Jewish ‘peddlers and hawkers, pickpockets and pugilists’ than in rabbis, reformers, and their middle-class patrons.” See Litvak, Haskalah, 5⒈ On the project of the Russian government’s programto convert the Jews and more about educating them to be good Europeans, see Michael Stanislawski, Tsar Nicholas I and the Jews: The Transformation of Jewish Society in Russia 1825–1855 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1983), 66–6⒐ 84

Endelman, Leaving the Fold, 1⒘

85 I have checked a series of databases of English, Hebrew, and Yiddish periodicals in England during Soloveitchik’s lifetime, and his name does not appear either as an author or as a subject. This suggests that he was not an active participant in these debates, although the extent to which he knew about them remains unknown. 86

Endelman, Leaving the Fold, 36⒉

87 Baeck’s The Essence of Judaism, first published in 1905, was a direct response to Adolf Harnack’s attack on Judaism titled The Essence of Christianity (German title was Was ist Christentum?), published in 190⒉ In a later essay, “Romantic Religion,” Baeck takes aim at Pauline Christianity and argues for Judaism’s superiority as a rational religion. For another example of a Jewish thinker who tried to argue for the utter incompatibility of Judaism and Christianity, see Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, Judaism and Christianity: The Differences (New York: Jewish Book Club, 1943). 88 On McCaul, see David Ruderman, “Towards a Preliminary Portrait of an Evangelical Missionary to the Jews: The Many Faces of Alexander McCaul (1799–1863),” Jewish Historical Studies 47 (2015): 48–69; and E. Stern, “Catholic Judaism. 89 McCaul served as a missionary for the London Society in Warsaw, 1821–1830. On the London Society in Warsaw, see Jagodzinska, “Reformers, Missionaries and Converts,” 14–2⒈ Philosemitism was not uncommon among Protestant missionaries. Franz Delitzsch also cultivated many iendships with Jews, even learning Yiddish, and defended Jews against anti-Semitic accusations. The same was true of Hermann Strack, who published two works of his defense of Jews in German: May Jews Be Called “Criminals” on Account of Their Religion, court proceedings of his 1893 defense of Jews in Berlin; and The Jews and Human Sacrifice, based on 1891 court testimonies he gave in the trial of Esther Solymosi. 90 See William Ayerst, “The Rev. Dr. McCaul and the Jewish Mission,” Jewish Intelligence and Monthly Account of the Proceedings of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, n.s. 4 (1864): 31–34, cited in Ruderman, “Towards a Preliminary Portrait of an Evangelical Missionary to the Jews,” 51, 5⒉ Cf. Endelman, Leaving the Fold, 24⒍ 91

McCaul, The Old Paths, 24–32; and E. Stern, “Catholic Judaism,” 49⒈

Introduction  39 92

Alexander McCaul, Sketches of Judaism and Jews (London, 1838), ⒉

93

See McCaul, The Old Paths, 65⒉

94 See David Feldman, Englishmen and Jews: Social Relations and Political Culture 1840–1914 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994), 54, 5⒌ 95 Even before coming to England, Soloveitchik likely had at least heard of McCaul’s work. In a letter om Isaac ber Levenson to David Luria in 1872, reflecting back on the late 1830s, Levenson writes: “McCaul’s work was read widely. Circulating in Vilna and St. Petersburg.” Cited in E. Stern, “Catholic Judaism,” p. 8 in typescript and n. 3⒈ 96

On this, see E. Stern, “Catholic Judaism.”

97

See ibid., 485–48⒍

98 Houston Stuart Chamberlain, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (Elibron Classics, 2005). The Elibron Classics edition is a facsimile of the 1911 Munich edition. 99 E. Stern, “Catholic Judaism,” 49⒏ Others, such as Franz Delitzsch, argued similarly. Delitzsch favored Reform Judaism precisely because it diminished the Talmud in favor of prophetic Judaism, thus coming closer to the Jesus movement. See A. Levenson, “Missionary Protestants,” 4⒑ 100

E. Stern, “Catholic Judaism,” 501–50⒊

101

Ibid., 50⒋

102 On Hoga, see Beth-Zion Lask Abrahams, “Stanislaus Hoga—Apostate and Penitent,” Transactions: Jewish Historical Society of England 15 (1939–1945): 121–149; and David Ruderman, “The Intellectual and Spiritual Journey of Stanislaus Hoga: From Judaism to Christianity to Hebrew Christianity,” in idem, Converts of Conviction, 41–5⒊ I want to thank Professor Ruderman for making this text available to me before its publication. 103

See Lask Abrahams, “Stanislaus Hoga,” 13⒐

104 See Ruderman, “The Intellectual and Spiritual Journey of Stanislaus Hoga,” 4⒋ For more on Hoga’s relationship to McCaul, see Ruderman, “Towards a Preliminary Portrait of an Evangelical Missionary to the Jews.” 105 For an analysis of these works in some detail, see Ruderman, “The Intellectual and Spiritual Journey of Stanislaus Hoga.” 106

Ibid., 9, 10 (in typescript).

107 Margoliouth studied in the yeshivas of Grodno and Ger before abandoning his family in Poland and migrating to England. He published a book about his trip to Palestine, with much autobiographical information, as A Pilgrimage to the Land of My Fathers in 1850. Cf. Endelman, Leaving the Fold, 242–24⒊ 108 On Hoga’s critique of Reform, see Lask Abrahams, “Stanislaus Hoga,” 128: “He writes with vigor against the tendency of new-fashioned Jews of our age, and especially of some so-called Rabbis in Germany who wish to not be Jews but Germans.” On Hoga’s return to Judaism, see Shnayer Leiman, “The Baal Teshuva and the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy,” Judaic Studies 1 (1985): 3–26 109

See Ruderman, “The Intellectual and Spiritual Journey of Stanislaus Hoga,” 14 (in typescript).

110

Cited in Lask Abrahams, “Stanislaus Hoga,” 12⒏

111 On this, see Ismar Schorsch, “From Wolfenbüttel to Wissenscha,” in idem, From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism (Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1994), 233–25⒋ 112

See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Kings,” chaps. 11–⒓

113 Irving (Yitz) Greenberg, For the Sake of Heaven and Earth (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004), esp. 148–15⒊ 114 See Byron Sherwin, “Who Do You Say That I Am (Mark 8:29): A New Jewish View of Jesus,” in Jesus Through Jewish Eyes, ed. B. Bruteau (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 31–4⒋ 115 For a lengthy discussion of this idea, see Maimonides, “Epistle on Resurrection,” in Epistles of Maimonides: Crisis in Leadership, trans. A. Halkin (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993), 246–280. More generally, see Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006). 116 This issue was the subject of debate between Samuel David Luzzatto (1800–1865) and Nachman Krochmal (1785–1840), both of whom lived during Soloveitchik’s lifetime. Luzzatto’s critique of Maimonides’ rejection of resurrection is defended by Krochmal in a sharp letter. See Krochmal, More Nevukhei Ha-Zeman (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2010), 427–43⒉ 117 BT Mo’ed Qaṭan 28a, “Raba sat before Rabbi Naḥman. He saw him going to sleep [dying]. . . . Raba said to him: “Appear to me, master, in a dream.” He appeared to him. Raba asked him: “Did you, master, suffer pains?” Rabbi Naḥman said to him: “[As little] as taking hair out of a glass of milk [i.e., the separation of the soul om the body is as easy and sweet as that].” 118 See John G. Gager, Who Made Early Christianity?: The Jewish Lives of the Apostle Paul (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015), 17–5⒉ Others explore similar views. See, e.g., E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish

40  Introduction People (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983); Krister Stendhal, Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1976); Lloyd Gaston, Paul and Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987); Daniel Langton, The Apostle Paul in the Jewish Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); and Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). Of those mentioned, Gager makes the strongest case of Paul’s affinity with the Pharisees, which dovetails with Soloveitchik’s view. 119 See Theodor Herzl, “A Solution to the Jewish Question,” repr. in Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Readings on Society, Politics, and Foreign Relations, Pre-1948 to the Present, ed. Jehuda Reinharz and Itamar Rabinowitz (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2008), 16–⒛ Cf. Herzl, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (Tel Aviv: Herzl Press, 1960), 9–⒑ 120 See Peter Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu: The Life Story of Jesus, 2 vols. and database, ed. M. Meerson and trans. Yaakov Deutsch (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 121

Qol Qore (London, 1868), 1, 2; and Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, 54, 5⒌

122 Naphtali Ẓevi Berlin (Neziv), “Se’ar Yisrael,” first published in his Rinat Yisrael and again as an appendix to Neziv’s commentary to Song of Songs. On the Neziv, see Gil Perl, The Pillar of Volozhin: Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin and the World of Nineteenth-Century Lithuanian Torah Scholarship (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2012). Neziv’s small tract on anti-Semitism was published in English by Howard Joseph, Why Antisemitism?: A Translation of “The Remnant of Israel” (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996). 123 A few other rabbis in this period exhibited a positive view toward Christianity. One, Jonathan Eybeshutz (1690–1764), was a protagonist with Emden on the question of Sabbateanism but, like Emden, was quite sympathetic to Christianity. Eliezer Fleckeles (1754–1826) was also engaged in the anti-Sabbatean controversy but, like Emden and Eybeshutz, was sympathetic toward Christianity. Of these three figures, Soloveitchik mentions only Emden. 124

See, e.g., in his preface to the 1870 Paris ed. to the Hebrew Qol Qore.

125 Much has been written on Emden’s attitude toward Christianity. See, e.g., Harvey Falk, “Rabbi Jacob Emden’s Views on Christianity,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19, no. 1 (1982): 107–111; and, most recently, Jacob J. Schachter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden, Sabbateanism, and Frankism: Attitudes Toward Christianity in the Eighteenth Century,” in New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations: In Honor of David Berger, ed. J. J. Schachter and E. Carlebach (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 360–396; and Pawel Maciejko, Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement: 1755–1816 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), 127–15⒎ 126 This claim by Soloveitchik is not a novum but has precedent among certain Christians as far back as the third or fourth century, most prominently in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which were viewed by people such as Reform theologian Kaufmann Kohler as proof of the symmetry between the two religions. See, e.g., PseudoClementine Homilies ⒏6–7, which reads: “Jesus is concealed om the Hebrews, who have taken Moses as their teacher, and Moses is hidden om those who have believed Jesus. . . . For there is a single teaching by both, God accepts one who has believed either of these.” Others, such as the eighteenth-century Deist John Tolland, in his Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile, and Mahometan Christianity (London, 1718), make this case as well. Kohler wrote his essays on Christianity aer Soloveitchik, and there is no indication that Kohler knew about Qol Qore (even though he studied with Samshon Rafael Hirsch, who we know had a copy of the book!), and it is not at all clear that Soloveitchik had read Pseudo-Clementines or even Graetz’s work published in his lifetime (Graetz also cites Pseudo-Clementines). See Kaufmann Kohler, “Clementina, or Pseudo-Clementine Literature,” in Jewish Encyclopedia 4:114–116; and, more generally, Yaakov Ariel, “Christianity Through Reform Eyes: Kaufmann Kohler’s Scholarship on Christianity,” American Jewish History 89 (2001): 181–191; and Reed, “Secrecy, Suppression, and the Jewishness of the Origins of Christianity.” 127 Emden, ‘Etz Avot (Amsterdam, 1751), to M Avot 5:22, ‘Etz Avot 58b, cited in Schachter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden,” 366n⒑ 128

See, e.g., Schachter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden,” 38⒏

129 Qol Qore (London, 1868), ⒊ Writing for a Christian audience, the prefatory note speaks of “we” with regard to Christians. Either this was rhetorical on Soloveitchik’s part, or a Christian wrote these words summarizing Soloveitchik’s sentiment. 130

Qol Qore (Jerusalem, 1985), 8, 9; and Hyman, Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, 126, 12⒎

A Note on the Text

As far as we know, Soloveitchik’s Qol Qore consisted of a commentary to Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Luke has not survived. The commentary to Mark survives only in an 1870 French translation by Rabbi Lazare Wogue (1817–1897). The first Hebrew edition of Matthew was published in Paris in the late 1870s, probably 187⒐ The ontispiece of the first Hebrew edition has no date. We agree with Dov Hyman about the late 1870s date because we know that Soloveitchik had le Paris by 1880 and was living in Frankfurt am Main; we assume, with Hyman, that he was in Paris to oversee the first Hebrew edition as well as a Polish translation om the French that appeared in Paris in 187⒐ A reprint of the first Hebrew edition of Matthew appeared in a Jerusalem edition in 1985, published by a Protestant mission. We initially did an international search for an original copy of the Hebrew edition of Matthew. The only copy of that edition we could find was cataloged in the Alliance Israélite in Paris, but they could not locate it. We did find a copy of the Alliance Israélite Paris edition of Matthew in the National Library in Jerusalem and were able to compare it with the 1985 Jerusalem reprint. We found the editions almost identical, with small incidental and nonsubstantial changes and some grammatical corrections om the Paris edition. We decided that the 1985 edition was the best base text to use for our work and incorporate the necessary changes om the Paris edition. For Mark, we used the original 1870 French translation.

This page intentionally left blank

A Translator’s Foreword

Rabbi Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik was a nineteenth-century Orthodox rabbi, Maimonidean scholar, and an unlikely contributor who lent his voice to commenting on the Gospels. He perceived a striking resemblance between the writings of the New Testament and many of the teachings in the Talmud and was determined to point out all the similarities in his commentaries on the books of Matthew and Mark. Although Soloveitchik allegedly wrote commentaries on all four of the synoptic Gospels, only those on Matthew and Mark are known to be extant. Both were originally composed in Hebrew and translated into French by Soloveitchik’s colleague Rabbi Lazare Wogue. The Hebrew commentary on Matthew still exists, and the translation before you comes directly om Soloveitchik’s Hebrew. To our knowledge, the commentary on Mark exists only in Wogue’s French; therefore, my English translation comes om the French text. Currently, with the exception of this edition, these works are not known to be fully or formally available in English. Soloveitchik dedicated much time and energy to providing the world with a Jewish commentary on what he deemed the extraordinarily Jewish literature of the Gospels. He endeavored to return the Gospels to their proper Jewish, rabbinic milieu, placing Jesus and his disciples back into their original context, religion, and culture. He demonstrated this by writing his commentary in a traditional Jewish format. Perhaps the profundity of Soloveitchik’s self-appointed task is lost on us as modern students of religion and biblical literature. His works were in no way received well, as he explains in his introduction. For most Jews during Soloveitchik’s day, the New Testament was still commonly seen as a primary source of anti-Semitism as well as a book assumed to be overflowing with idolatrous teachings. Soloveitchik did not hold to these views. He recognized a Jewish,

44  Translator’s Foreword

and even Talmudic, tenor of the New Testament writings and labored to show Jews and Christians that Jesus and his disciples were Jews who observed the Law of Moses and kept many of the “traditions of the elders” of their era. This type of positive, Judeo-centric commentary—written by an Orthodox Jew—was groundbreaking and practically unheard of in Soloveitchik’s day. Typically, when Jesus is referenced in Jewish literature, the shortened name “Yeshu” is used. This is purported to be a pejorative acronym (yimaḥ shemo vezikhro, “may his name and memory be blotted out”). Soloveitchik did not use this name; instead, he chose to use the name “Yeshua,” Jesus’ full Hebrew name. Doing so was pointedly intentional and fit his ethos of bringing Jesus into his Jewish context, reminding Jews and Christians of Jesus’ Israelite and Jewish identity. Therefore, in my translation of Soloveitchik’s commentary, I use the name “Yeshua” instead of “Jesus,” to honor his aim. Since Jesus’ name appears in its Hebrew form, I also chose to transliterate all Hebrew names of Jewish characters who appear in the Gospels, in order to maintain consistency. This convention assists Soloveitchik in his goal of the Gospels being read originally as Hebrew, Talmudic-style literature. So as not to weary the reader with too many perhaps unfamiliar Hebrew names, all characters who appear in the Old Testament retain their conventional anglicized names (for example, Abraham, Moses, Elijah); all who lived aerward, including the ancient sages of the Talmud and Mishnah, retain their Hebrew names. The only exception are names of Greek or Roman origin; they retain their conventional anglicized forms (Herod, Alexander, Pilate). As a source text for his commentary, Soloveitchik likely used an early edition of Franz Delitzsch’s famous Hebrew translation of the New Testament. Delitzsch was a German Hebraist and a contemporary of Soloveitchik’s who was respected in both Jewish and Christian worlds. Since my translations retain Hebrew names, and Soloveitchik used a Hebrew translation of the Gospels as his source text, I used an English New Testament edition directly based on Delitzsch’s scholarship: The Delitzsch Hebrew English Gospels (DHE), published by Vine of David Press. This English translation of the Gospels retains all Hebrew names of persons and places. As for biblical citations, all translations are my own; I consulted other editions such as the ArtScroll Stone Edition Tanakh, the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) Tanakh, and the English Standard Version (ESV) Bible. I did this in order to retain consistency with transliteration, representing the Tetragrammaton with “HaShem” instead of “the LORD,” and to accurately convey a specific idea or word that Soloveitchik might be emphasizing that might not be as clearly or accurately represented in a standard Bible translation. Translations of Jewish literature are my own, for the same reasons.

Translator’s Foreword  45

Soloveitchik’s words have been as carefully and precisely translated as possible, and his ideas and opinions have not been censored or summarized. His unique approach to the Gospels remains intact, in his own words. This translation will once again enable Soloveitchik to illuminate the connections that he saw between the Jewish literature of the Gospels and the Talmud. The text of Soloveitchik’s commentary on Mark and Matthew includes annotations and commentary by Shaul Magid. Jordan Gayle Levy

This page intentionally left blank

THE COMMENTARIES

This page intentionally left blank

Dedication

To Mr. Maurice Schlesinger

While writing this commentary of the New Testament, I had no other goal, as I have said in the first volume, but to reconcile these two enemy sisters: the Church and the Synagogue.1 I wanted to prove that this centuries-old enmity was based on dreadful misunderstandings through false interpretations by everyone—Jews and Christians—that were made concerning the words of Yeshua and the Apostles, who tried to instill in humanity the love of ONE GOD and the love of one’s NEIGHBOR. No one more than you, dear sir, professes these righteous beliefs and puts them into practice. More than anyone, you merit my affection for the nobility of your soul and my gratitude for all your generosity. For all these things, allow me to pay you my respects with this second part of my work. THE AUTHOR (R. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik)

1 When the word “Synagogue” is used in this work with a capital S, it indicates that Rabbi Soloveitchik is referring to the entire congregation of Israel, i.e., all the Jewish people, much in the same way that the “Church” is used to refer to the body of Christian believers.

This page intentionally left blank

A Word to the Reader

Before continuing with this work, I feel the need to give thanks to the Almighty, who has brought me this far, and has inspired generous men with the thought of helping me to accomplish my task. It was with incredible difficulty that I could even successfully complete the publication of the first volume. It has been three years since I was in Paris, with unending troubles, unending anxiety for the next day—and occasionally, even for the present day—barely having clothing to cover myself, a piece of bread to calm my hunger, or shelter to rest my head under. I have battled and I have triumphed. Despite all the material difficulties, I was able to complete the first part of my commentary with the help of a generous audience, and the reception given to the first publishing has rewarded my perseverance. Like Abraham’s servant, I saw that “God has led me on the right path,” and I determined to walk it to the very end. But how do I reach it under the twofold burden of old age and poverty? For the meager sum received om the sale of a few hundred copies—a sum greatly reduced by printing costs, as well as other costs—could not bring me financial relief, nor could it bring me the spiritual eedom essential to an undertaking of this importance. However, the Almighty is never unfaithful to those who put their trust in him. The powerful God, to whom I pleaded my case, whose Torah I glorified, who placed the idea in my heart of reconciling his children, has always watched over me and has never abandoned me in this endeavor. My book fell into the hands of a gentleman, an Israelite who loves God and men, passionate for justice, kind beyond all comprehension, compassionate to all who suffer: Mr. Maurice Schlesinger, a simple merchant, yet a man who, in his youth, immersed himself in the great works of philosophy and religion. What is strange to me is that, responding to his own convictions and dearest hopes, he wanted to make

52  A Word to the Reader

my acquaintance, converse with me about the lo goal that I pursue, inquire of my personal well-being, and was distressed over my destitution, for his eyes revealed more to him than my mouth could. He cried: “Here is piety, and here is its reward! [zo torah ve-zo sekharah, ‫]זו תורה וזו שכרה‬.” And he resolved to put an end to this distressing situation, to remove this dreadful obstacle that halted my steps; and, assisted by his virtuous wife, to whom I am equally grateful, he provided in great measure for my most urgent needs. But that is not all. The present was sure, but the future still needed to be secured. This gentleman spoke with some other men, honorable hearts like his own, favorably disposed them toward me, and formed a small society that assumed the responsibility of providing for my needs om then on, so that I could attend to the holy task that I assumed without such bitter worries, and their generosity added to the production of my book and allowed me to live and to feed my family. It is a need of my heart, as well as an imperative for my conscience, to proclaim the names of these generous protectors of mine in my old age. I must completely disregard their modesty. The gentlemen are: Raphaël BISCHOFFSHEIM, Count Xavier de BRANICKI, the Count de CAMONDO, Jules DAVID, ETTINGHAUSEN, FALLEK, Jérôme FRANCK, Joseph HALPHEN, Salomon HALPHEN, HECKLER, Henri HIRSCH, James LEVERSON, Georges LEVERSON, Dr. Edouard MEYER, Adolph MEYER, Léon PECZENICK, REITLINGER (on Rue Lafayette), REITLINGER (on Rue Pourtalès), Maurice SCHLESINGER, Henri de SCHWABACHER, and Léopold TAUB. May God return to these wonderful, charitable men all the good they do for an old man! May they receive his most precious blessings, as they truly deserve! May the words of the prophet be fulfilled for them and their children.1 “You who share your bread with the hungry, and take the wretched poor into your home, when you see the naked, to clothe him, who do not ignore the suffering of your kin—your light shall burst through like the dawn, and your healing spring up quickly; your virtue shall march before you, and YHWH will welcome you into his glory. Then, when you call, YHWH will answer; when you cry, he will say: ‘Here I am!’ YHWH will guide you always, he will give you strength to your bones, he will satis your soul and your thirst, and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring whose waters do not fail.” These are the wishes of your servant, O my God, and this is the prayer he addresses to you om the deepest depths of his heart on behalf of your chosen ones! E. S. 1

Isaiah 58:7 and on.

A Word to the Reader  53

Nota bene—The first volume of Qol Qore was finished at the end of 187⒊ Some difficult circumstances forced me to publish the last pages in great haste; consequently, my skillful and accommodating French translator, Chief Rabbi Wogue, was unable to revise the ending, where several mistakes slipped by and some important annotations were missed. Also, a few pages were misplaced during the printing process, and since a few copies are incomplete, it will be necessary to reprint a part of the first volume. This reprinting, which will be done as soon as possible, will be accompanied by: 1) an alphabetical index; and 2) an erratum, where the errors and omissions will be carefully indicated. I ask for a little patience om my gracious readers

This page intentionally left blank

Author’s Preface

Notwithstanding the contrary misconception, the New Testament is in no manner contrary to the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) or to the Talmud. This commitment I have made, regarding the first Gospel, I was able to carry out, thanks be to God; I continued my commitment with the completion of the second. However, a few words are necessary to begin. Many highly placed people—whether so placed for their intelligence, good fortune, or social rank—have applauded my attempt: some, because they already shared my ideas or adopted them aer reading my book; and others, without any conviction, at least respected the sanctity of my goal and the great importance of the result that I pursue. Both groups urged me to persevere, and their encouragement has, in no small way, contributed to supporting me in my efforts. But alas! In this situation, as in all others, one can always count on extreme opinions Moreover, in wanting to reconcile the two adversaries, one risks turning them against each other. Aside om some favorable reports that I just mentioned, quite a few others were not so favorable. Jews, as well as Christians, either with fanatical personalities or dominated by false prejudices, have bombarded me with objections that, I believe, would be useful to answer. My fellow Israelites have said: “Putting the Gospel and the Talmud on the same level—what audacity on the part of the author! Undoubtedly, there could be some good things in the former, but we do not know the source. We do not know who told it to them. Where is, then, their authority? On the contrary, in the Talmud, nothing is anonymous; we find the sources everywhere, even in some of the oral laws that can be traced back to Moses, the direct interpreter of the Almighty. We find them even in remote individual statements, coming om well-known men—respected scholars of whom tradition teaches us their names

56  Author’s Preface

and genealogies. ‘All their words are as coals of fire’ (Pirkei Avot 2:10),1 and the author is not aaid of burning himself! His book is an attack against the sanctity of the Talmud, and to compare the New Testament to it is a sacrilege.” The Christians, on their part, agree that it is indeed a sacrilege, but in the opposite sense. “The New Testament is divine, the Talmud is only a human work; not only is it a human work, but it is inconsistent and contradictory. What one rabbi permits, another forbids; or if one says white, the other says black. The New Testament is completely different. It has one teaching, and this teaching is so beautiful, so holy, so beneficial to mankind, that it could come om no other source but om God.” This is what they say, and here is my response: Fellow Israelites, I know just as well as you the holiness of the Talmud and its precious value; I was nourished by it since infancy, and I learned to revere it. But believe me, arguments like yours cannot glori it, and our rabbis would certainly disapprove of them if they were to come back om the dead. Just and impartial toward everything, they do not systematically condemn man or book, and they know how to deliver justice even to those they reprove. Rather, you can see what they say about the book Ben-Sira (BT Sanhedrin 100b): “ ‘It is not permitted to (habitually) read the books of heretics.’ ‘Neither,’ adds Rav Yosef, ‘the book of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus; because—says Rashi—of the nonfactual and exaggerated things that one finds within it). However,’ says Rav Yosef again, ‘the good things one finds in it can be read and commented upon.’ ” So here is a book that the Talmud forbids reading, and yet it does not reject the fact that it contains something good; it even elevates it and recommends it in a number of citations (ibid.) and proves that it accepts the good and the truth wherever it encounters them. Plus, as a side note, the Ben-Sira of the Talmud is not the work of Yeshua ben-Sira or ben-Siraḥ, who appears in our Bibles under the name Ecclesiasticus, but the work of another less known (I have a copy), where one finds, in effect, much stupidity and nonsense.2 But let us move on. Is not the harmony between men as great and precious a thing as peace? This same Talmud, whose cause you believe you are defending—is not all of it worthy of the most magnificent praise? Here is what we read in BT Sukkot 1 The full mishnah reads: “Each of these disciples had three maxims. R. Eliezer: “A iend’s honor must be as dear to him as his own. Do not allow yourself to be easily angered. Repent one day before your death.” [He also said:] “Warm yourself before the light of the wise, but beware of their embers, perchance you may be singed; for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss is that of a fiery serpent; and all their words are as coals of fire.” The apparent use of this mishnah in Soloveitchik’s imagined rabbinic response to his work is that he is being too flippant with rabbinic statements, using them against tradition. The imagined admonition is that the words of the sages can be as dangerous as they are sacred. 2 On R. Yosef ’s prohibition to reading Ben-Sira, Rashi comments: “It contains many useless things [‫]דברי הבאי‬ and would thus take away om Torah study [‫]ביטול תורה‬.” Soloveitchik’s implied comparison between Ben-Sira and the New Testament suggests that while the former does not contain any theological heresy, neither does the latter.

Author’s Preface  57

53b, to cite one single, curious passage: “If, in order to reconcile man and wife, God has permitted that his name, which was written in sanctity, be erased by the priest, how much more beautiful is it to reconcile all of humanity!”3 This is precisely the goal that I aspire to, that every student of Torah must aspire to, every Israelite and every man worthy of that name; and you, my brothers, you would disapprove of my efforts! Let me tell you, such words do not come om wisdom. And you Christians, my brothers, who claim that I insult the Gospel by putting the Talmud on the same level, do you not know that this Talmud that you so thoroughly despise deserves your gratitude and that, without it, the name of your “Christ” would perhaps have long ago fallen into oblivion? Actually, many a famous writer has denied the existence of Yeshua, called the Messiah, and many even deny it in our present day, by failure of knowing the Talmud, which, as we will see, strictly mentions his existence.4 What is more, one of your greatest writers, Voltaire, spoke of him in terms that still outrage you, trusting alleged Israelite documents that absolutely do not agree with the Talmudic sayings. Here is an example of a portion om Voltaire’s The Important Examination of the Holy Scriptures by Lord Bolingbroke, chapter 10: “It is said in the book Toledot Yeshu, that Yeshua was the son of a woman named Miriam, married in Bethlehem to a poor man named Yoḥanan. In the village, there was a soldier whose name was Yosef Pantera, a very handsome man with a strong build; he fell in love with Miriam, and Miriam became pregnant by Pantera; Yoḥanan, confused and despairing, le Bethlehem and hid in Babylon, where there were still many Jews. Miriam’s behavior disgraced her; her child Yeshu was declared a bastard by the judges of the city, etc.”5 This whole story is a lie om beginning to end. That there was a certain Pantera (Pandira or Pandera, according to the Talmud) who courted a certain Miriam and that their relations may have birthed a son in adultery, as the Talmud states—fine. But that this child was Yeshua, the founder of Christianity: there is no trace of this whatsoever in the Talmud. Not only that, as I also demonstrated at length in the first volume (Mattai 1:18): the chronological information establishes that the child of Pandera absolutely could not have been 3 The test of the waters of jealousy, whose formula consisted of a curse, contained the holy Tetragrammaton, which was written by the priest and then mixed with water and dust (Numbers 5:17–23). If this test showed that the woman is question proved to be faithful—that is, she did not physically react to to drinking the potion— as the Talmud says, good relations would be reestablished between husband and wife. 4 On this, see R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (New York: Reference Books, 1966); and, more recently, Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007). 5 On Toledot Yeshu, see Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu; and David Biale, “Counter-History and Jewish Polemics Against Christianity: Toledot Yeshu and Sefer Zerubavel,” Jewish Social Studies 6, no. 1 (1999): 130–14⒌

58  Author’s Preface

Yeshua the Messiah, but I proved (ibid.) through irrefutable texts that the real Yeshua was held in high esteem by our most revered rabbis, who cite his words with approval, even though they differ with him on certain issues. And you vili the Talmud, which honors your Messiah and speaks of his doctrine with praise! Frankly, is this not ingratitude or, at the very least, blindness? So, then, do you know this Talmud of which you speak with such disdain, this Talmud that you believe unworthy of being equaled with the Gospel? Do you not know—touching on only one of its merits—that this is a monument beyond all comparison of jurisprudence, profundity, and judicial ingenuity? Listen. In the Middle Ages, there was an illustrious Israelite, the crowning glory of the Synagogue and of humanity; medical doctor and astronomer, philosopher and theologian, exegete and Talmudist, wonderful writer and beloved man: Maimonides.6 This man, who was the doctor of the sultan of Egypt, the famous Saladin, surpassed all his contemporaries with his extensive knowledge, as his numerous works testi, the greatest of which we have quoted om in the first volume. One of these works, and one of the most significant, is the Mishneh Torah, otherwise called Yad HaḤazaqah (The strong hand); it contains the complete Mosaic and rabbinical law according to the Talmud, and he has, in a way, made an inventory of all the discussions in order to give us the last word.7 The work of Maimonides comprises fourteen main books divided into eighty-three parts, which are themselves subdivided into 985 chapters, each of which is composed of an oen considerable number of paragraphs (halakhot), treating every particular case with reverence.8 6 On Maimonides, see Joel Kraemer, Maimonides: The Life and World of One of Civilization’s Greatest Minds (New York: Doubleday, 2010); and Moshe Halbertal, Maimonides: Life and Thought (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013). 7 See Isadore Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah) (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982). 8 Here is the textual list of the parts in question: I) ⒈ The Principles of the Torah; ⒉ Lifestyle and Behavior; ⒊ The Study and Teaching of the Torah; ⒋ Idolatry; ⒌ Repentance. — II) ⒍ The Shema; ⒎ Prayer, the Priestly Blessing; ⒏ Tefillin, Mezuzah, Torah Scrolls; ⒐ Tzitzit; ⒑ Blessings; ⒒ Circumcision. — III) ⒓ Shabbat; ⒔ ‘Eruvin; ⒕ Yom Kippur; ⒖ Festivals; ⒗ Matzah (Unleavened Bread); ⒘ The Shofar, the Sukkah, the Lulav; ⒙ The Temple Tax; ⒚ Sanctification of the Month; ⒛ Fasts; 2⒈ Purim and Hanukkah. — IV) 2⒉ Marriage; 2⒊ Divorce; 2⒋ Levirate Marriage; 2⒌ Virginity (seduction, abduction); 2⒍ Adultery. — V) 2⒎ Forbidden Sexual Relations; 2⒏ Forbidden Foods; 2⒐ Animal Slaughter. — VI) 30. Oaths; 3⒈ Vows; 3⒉ Nazirites; 3⒊ Consecrations. — VII) 3⒋ Mixtures; 3⒌ Gis to the Poor; 3⒍ Offerings to the Priest; 3⒎ Tithes; 3⒏ The Second Tithe, etc.; 3⒐ First Fruits, etc.; 40. The Sabbath Year and the Jubilee. — VIII) 4⒈ The Temple; 4⒉ Temple Utensils and Servers; 4⒊ Conditions of Entry into the Holy Places; 4⒋ Things Forbidden on the Altar; 4⒌ Sacrifices; 4⒍ Daily and Additional Sacrifices. 4⒎ Holy Things That Become Defiled; 4⒏ The Service on Yom Kippur; 4⒐ Sacrilege. — IX) 50. The Passover Sacrifice; 5⒈ (Individual) Festival Offerings; 5⒉ Firstborn; 5⒊ Sacrifices for Errors; 5⒋ Purification Sacrifices; 5⒌ Substitutions for Sacrifices. — X) 5⒍ The Impurity of a Corpse; 5⒎ The Red Heifer; 5⒏ Leprosy; 5⒐ Things That Make Beds and Seats Impure; 60. Other Sources of Impurity; 6⒈ Impurity of Food; 6⒉ Impurity of Clothing and Utensils; 6⒊ Purification. — XI) 6⒋ Property Damage; 6⒌ The; 6⒍ Robbery and Loss; 6⒎ Injury; 6⒏ Murder; Protection of Life. — XII) 6⒐ Sale; 70. Acquisitions and Gis; 7⒈ Sharing and Joint Ownership; 7⒉ Agents and Partners; 7⒊ Slaves. — XIII) 7⒋ Hiring; 7⒌ Borrowing and Depositing; 7⒍ Financial Debt; 7⒎ Civil Action; 7⒏ Estates. — XIV) 7⒐ The Courts and Their Jurisdiction; 80. Testimony; 8⒈ Authority of the Sanhedrin, Its Powers and Limits; 8⒉ Mourning; 8⒊ The Monarchy and Rules of War. (A few years ago, I published the first five sections, with commentary in Hebrew, English, and German.)

Author’s Preface  59

Take whichever part you like among the eighty-three sections of the work; I commit to giving you the French translation of them with explanatory notes. Now compare these Talmudic laws with those of any European nation about any matter, and you will see that our Jewish laws bear a striking resemblance, and you will be astounded by what these rabbis, whom you attack, knew how to produce two thousand years ago by their sheer intellect alone. Thus, and I repeat this with regret, Jews and Christians are equally illogical in their attacks against me. For who am I, after all, that you complain against me? Not against me are your complaints (Exodus 16:8), but against truth and peace, my only objectives!9 David distinctively wrote in one of his psalms: Ani shalom ve-khi adaber hemah la-milḥamah (‫)אני שלום וכי אדבר המה למלחמה‬, and this is how I translate it: “ ‘All my desires are for peace; even though I wage war against men,’ I only do so for the purpose of obtaining peace.” All right, then—I, too! If I am here to battle with the old commentators of the New Testament, it is only to restore peace and understanding between men, whose false teachings have for too long divided them. May I succeed in this venture! May the favor of YHWH descend upon my work, so that it may produce in the hearts of those who read it abundant and beneficial uits, that with a unanimous spirit they will embrace the worship of one God, and that through my humble intervention, the words of the prophet will come true (Zephaniah 3:9): For then I will make the peoples pure of speech, so that they all invoke YHWH by name and serve him with one accord. Amen.

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

This page intentionally left blank

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, WITH COMMENTARY

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1

1 The book of the toledot of Yeshua the mashiaḥ, son of David, son of Avraham. Toledot (i.e., generations; genealogies)—Even the Greek says this.1 Apparently, this would be a miracle, since Yeshua had neither wife nor children. Perhaps this means “his disciples,” for even the disciples are called “children,” as it is written: And the children of the prophets came (2 Kings 2:3). The meaning of this passage is “disciples.”2 However, this is not possible, for Mattai explains where Yeshua came om, not what came from him (i.e., progeny).3 Therefore, noble reader, see chapter 15, where I correctly asserted that the book of Mattai was written in Hebrew and that toledot (genealogies) was the word that was written there. Toledot (whose root comes om the verb laledet, “to give birth”) is a common noun used concerning the offspring of a person, or concerning events that have happened to him, as in: You do not know what the day will give birth to (Proverbs 27:1).4 Even the word “book” (sefer) is a common noun, which sometimes employs the plain meaning, and sometimes

1

The Greek reads geneseos.

2 Interestingly, in the entire Tanakh, the phrase “children of the prophets” appears only with regard to Elisha in 2 Kings 2:4 and ⒍ See Rashi on 2 Kings 4:1, “All instances of ‘children of the prophets’ in the Torah mean disciples [talmidei] of the prophets.” 3 The interchange of “children” or “generations” and disciples appears in Rashi’s comment to Numbers 3:⒈ These are the generations of Aaron and Moses on the day God spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai. Rashi notes that the Torah mentions only Nadab and Abihu, who are the progeny of Aaron, and does not address the progeny of Moses. Rashi comments: “The verse mentions only the sons of Aaron. They are called ‘the generations of Moses’ because Moses taught them Torah. This verse teaches us that anyone who teaches his iend [ḥavero] Torah, it is as if he had given birth to him.” 4 See also Genesis 2:4, These are the generations of heaven and earth, where this also alludes to birth. In terms of birth literally, see Genesis 25:19 and Ruth 4:18, And these are the generations of Pereṣ, Pereṣ gave birth to Ḥezron, etc. Since this refers to the messianic lineage, it may have influenced Mattai’s use of the term.

64  Gospel According to Matthew

the meaning should be understood as “a story of events.”5 Therefore, Mattai recounts what happened to Yeshua, who came om the line of David. Thus, similarly we find, And these are the generations [toledot] of Jacob (Genesis 37:2), yet it does not count the generations, but rather the events that happened to him with Joseph. Avraham—Perhaps one would wonder why the genealogy given in Luke (3:23 and on) extends all the way back to Adam, while Mattai’s begins om Abraham. By doing this, Mattai is implying that just as Abraham was the first to instill monotheism in the hearts of people who did not know YHWH, teaching them to cast away their idols and worship YHWH alone, so, too, was Yeshua the first one to instill this in the hearts of those who participated in idolatry, even in the hearts of those Jews who lacked knowledge and did not know YHWH. He instilled in their hearts the oneness of God—may his name be blessed—in order that each man would abandon his idols and worship YHWH alone, the one and only God.6 2 Avraham fathered Yiṣḥak, and Yiṣḥak fathered Ya’akov, and Ya’akov fathered Yehudah and his brothers, 3 and Yehudah fathered Pereṣ and Zeraḥ by Tamar, and Pereṣ fathered Chetzron, and Chetzron fathered Ram, 4 and Ram fathered Amminadav, and Amminadav fathered Naḥshon, and Naḥshon fathered Salmon, 5 and Salmon fathered Boaz by Raḥav, and Boaz fathered ‘Oved by Rut, and ‘Oved fathered Yishai.7 From Raḥav—I do not know his source for this, for it is neither in the Torah nor the Talmud. However, in BT Megillah 14b, it is said that eight prophets came om Rahab, who became a proselyte, and then Joshua married her. It could be that Salmon married a woman om Rahab’s family and she gave birth to Boaz.

5 This could be referring to the famous passage at the beginning of Sefer Yeṣirah 1:1, “in three books, sefer, sofer, ve-sippur.” 6 On the midrashic rendering of Abraham as the first one who abandons idols for the one God and its implications regarding the history of Israelite religion, see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Idolatry,” 1:⒊ Portraying Jesus as Abraham may be, for Soloveitchik, a surreptitious attack on the ostensible “idolization” of Jesus in some forms of Christianity aer the Council of Nicaea. Jesus was, in Soloveitchik’s reading, an iconoclast in the spiritual line of Abraham, even though he is om the biological line of David. The link between Abraham and Jesus is something that we see more explicitly in the epistles of Paul. 7 If that is the case, then the Davidic line includes proselytes on both sides: Boaz being the progeny of Rahab, of Canaanite origin; and Ruth, of Moabite origin. Moreover, some ancient sources suggest that Tamar was a proselyte as well (see The Jewish Annotated New Testament, Matthew 1:3, p. 3), while others say that Tamar was om the family of Shem. See Genesis Rabbah 85:⒑

Gospel According to Matthew  65

6 And Yishai fathered David the king, and King David fathered Shlomoh by the wife of Uriah, By the wife of Uriah—“From she who was the wife of Uriah,” for Uriah was already dead when Solomon was born. Nevertheless, the name of Uriah is mentioned, just as we find, And his second son, Chileab, son of Abigail, the wife of Nabal the Carmelite (2 Samuel 3:3), for at the same time that Chileab was born, Nabal died. However, it is clear om what is written (1 Samuel 25) that prior to this, Abigail was the wife of Nabal. Why is it that in every generation, the name of the mother is not mentioned except for these four: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Abigail? Here is the meaning: Isaiah said: My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not my ways, declares YHWH (Isaiah 55:8). When we examine the action of Judah and Tamar, according to our natural, weak opinion, it stands to reason that they would have illegitimate children, for she was his daughter-in-law. And do not say, “This was before the giving of the Torah.” Did not Judah himself say, Bring her out and let her be burned (Genesis 38:24)? Even here, which was before the giving of the Torah, they thought of prostitution as a great abomination.8 Nevertheless, all the kings of Israel are descended om her, and God forbid that we should question the conduct of YHWH. Concerning Judah saying, She is more righteous than I (Genesis 38:26), the Talmud says: “A voice came om heaven and said, ‘These secret things issued om me’ ” (BT Makkot 23b), which is to say, it is not for you to question the ways of YHWH, for these things are bound and secret, belonging only to him. Rahab was a prostitute,9 and aer she became a proselyte, eight prophets issued om her. Ruth was a Moabite, and the Torah warns: No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the congregation of YHWH; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the congregation of YHWH (Deuteronomy 23:4). Nevertheless, we say: “The Holy One, blessed be he, said to Abraham: ‘I have two good blessings with which to bless you by: Ruth the Moabite and 8 Judah thought that Tamar committed merely prostitution, but according to the Torah (which was given later), there is another restriction: If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely die (Leviticus 20:12). It is clear in this narrative that Judah did not know at the time of this occurrence that it was Tamar, his daughter-in-law. Moreover, it seems that Soloveitchik gets this wrong. Even if prostitution was an abomination before the Torah, the penalty would not be death by burning. Rashi suggests that she was om a priestly family and thus her sexual promiscuity (zenut) was punishable by death (of course, this assumes that the laws of the Torah were operative even before Sinai). Naḥmanides disagrees by stating that even if she was of priestly lineage, the penalty for her zenut in this case would still not be death. Rather, Naḥmanides suggests that Judah was a royal guardian in the land, and, in this case, Tamar’s zenut was not judged like all the others. Rather, he judged her ex cathedra and convicted her of desecrating his father’s name. It was not a case of judgment according to the law. He then cites cases in certain areas of Spain in his time when a woman convicted of cheating on her husband would be handed over to her husband, who would punish her as he wished. 9

Joshua 6:25 and Ruth Rabbah 1:⒈

66  Gospel According to Matthew

Naamah the Ammonite’ ” (BT Yevamot 63a). And regarding the wife of Uriah, is it not explicitly said that David would be punished for the offense he committed (2 Samuel 12:10)?10 Nevertheless, when Solomon was born, it is written (ibid., 12:24): YHWH loved him. In all these matters, we can see that our intellect is limited in understanding the ways of YHWH. The writer of this book knew that it would come into the hands of men who would investigate to find out who Yeshua’s father and mother were, one person saying one thing, another person saying something else. Therefore he mentions four women om whom, according to our limited intellect, should have birthed illegitimate children; yet the opposite is true. All the kings of Israel came om them. And so even now, do not investigate who his father or mother is; rather only let his teaching and guidance concerning the Master of Truth be impressed upon you, and accept truth om anyone who speaks it.11 7 and Shlomoh fathered Reḥav‘am, and Reḥav‘am fathered Aviyah, and Aviyah fathered Asa, 8 and Asa fathered Yehoshafaṭ, and Yehoshafaṭ fathered Yoram, and Yoram fathered Uzziyahu, Yehoshafaṭ . . . Yoram . . .Uzziyahu—this appears in 1 Chronicles 3:10–⒒ However, according to verses 11–12, this is the order of the generations: Yoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah. We find that three generations are omitted here, and “Uzziah” is written here instead of “Azariah.” 9 and Uzziyahu fathered Yotam, and Yotam fathered Aḥaz, and Aḥaz fathered Yeḥizkiyahu, 10 and Yeḥizkiyahu fathered Menasheh, and Menasheh fathered Amon, and Amon fathered Yoshiyahu. 11 And Yoshiyahu fathered Yehonyahu and his brothers at the time of the exile of Bavel.

10 Therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house because you spurned me by taking the wife of Uriah the Hittite and making her your wife. 11 This last line, “and accept truth om anyone who speaks it,” is taken om Maimonides’ Eight Chapters, a commentary to the Mishnah and introduction to Pirkei Avot: “Hear the truth om whoever tells it.” It appears that Soloveitchik is trying to deflect all Jewish criticisms of Jesus’ genealogy by suggesting that the Jewish tradition oen creates genealogies that counter its own laws and standards. The critique, or praise, of Jesus should be limited to his message and not be an investigation of the messenger. As Maimonides suggests in his Eight Chapters, the messenger is not relevant.

Gospel According to Matthew  67

Yehonyahu—according to 1 Chronicles 3:14, Josiah fathered Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim fathered Jeconiah. We can see that yet another generation is omitted here. 12 After the exile to Bavel, Yehonyahu fathered She’altiel, and She’altiel fathered Zerubbavel, She’altiel . . . Zerubbavel—according to 1 Chronicles 3:19, Zerubbavel was the son of Pedaiah, and Pedaiah was the son of She’altiel. We can see that yet another generation is omitted. 13 and Zerubbavel fathered Avihud, and Avihud fathered Elyakim, and Elyakim fathered Azzur, Avihud—we do not find in scripture that Abihud was the son of Zerubbavel. Even all of the ten generations om Avihud to Joseph, the husband of Miriam, are not found anywhere in scripture. 14 and Azzur fathered Ṣadok, and Ṣadok fathered Yakhin, and Yakhin fathered Elihud, 15 and Elihud fathered Elazar, and Elazar fathered Mattan, and Mattan fathered Ya’akov, 16 and Ya’akov fathered Yosef, the husband of Miriam, from whom was born Yeshua, who is called mashiaḥ. 17 Thus, all of the generations from Avraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the exile of Bavel were fourteen generations, and from the exile of Bavel to the mashiaḥ were fourteen generations. 18 And this was the manner of the birth of Yeshua the mashiaḥ: Miriam his mother was betrothed to Yosef, but before he came to her she was found pregnant from the Holy Spirit. From Avraham—om Abraham to David is fourteen generations. The total is forty-two generations. However, in reality you only find forty-one generations. From the words of the author, it seems that he counts Jeconiah twice because Jeconiah is not specifically mentioned when he says: from Avraham to David, from David to the exile in Bavel, and from the exile in Bavel to the mashiaḥ; [instead of saying: “om David to Jeconiah, and om Jeconiah,” etc.]. . . . As I argued in verse 8, and in verses 11 and 12, five generations are omitted and not

68  Gospel According to Matthew

included in the three series of the fourteen generations. In my commentary on Luke 3:24, I explain this more clearly. Before he came to her (or, before they became one)—it used to be the custom for the groom to become engaged to the virgin and consecrate her to himself in accordance with the faith of Moses and Israel. She would then be his wife in every way. Until the time of the marriage, he remains in his own house, or his father’s house, and she is in her father’s house. Aer this, he marries her and becomes one with her. This is the meaning of “before he came to her,” that is, before the wedding.12 From the Holy Spirit—among our Christian brothers, there are two schools of thought. One group believes in accordance with their writings, namely, that Yeshua was born without the strength of a man, for they say, “Is anything too wondrous for YHWH?” Those who do not believe this are thought of as children with no faith in them. Those who belong to the second group quote King Solomon and say, There is nothing new under the sun. Therefore, the second group says: “We cherish the words of Yeshua and cling to his teaching; however, when it is written that she was found pregnant from the Holy Spirit, there is a hidden meaning.” They say: “Those who believe in the plain meaning of things not only demonstrate their foolishness, but blaspheme the living God!” I, the commentator, am not worthy to decide between these two opinions.13 19 Now Yosef, her husband, was a righteous man and did not want to subject her to disgrace. So he said, “I will send her away privately.”14 12 As explained at great length in BT Ketubot, chap. 1: during the period between the engagement and the wedding—usually lasting up to a year—the couple has the status of semi-marriage, such that if the woman were with another man during that time, she is considered an adulteress, according to halakhah. To solve this problem, nowadays the betrothal and the marriage both happen simultaneously under the wedding canopy. “Engagements” today do not have halakhic import and are considered more gestures of intent. The Talmud explains that the reason for the time of separation in rabbinic times is to give the groom time to build a house and the bride’s family time to raise the money for the wedding and her wedding gown. Soloveitchik may be interpreting that the phrase “before he came to her” could mean that Joseph had sexual relations with Miriam between betrothal and marriage. Even if this were so, it would not constitute a major transgression in rabbinic law, and a child om that union would have no legal stigma in the community. 13 The debate about the virgin birth is a central part of medieval Chriatin polemics against Christianity and not really an inner-Christian debate. It is, in some way, rooted in the Greek rendition of the Hebrew term ‘almah (“maiden”) in Isaiah 7:14 and six other times: Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:26, Proverbs 30:19, and Song of Songs 1:3 and 6:⒏ The Greek (Septuagint) translation parthenos can be rendered as “virgin.” Another less-known source can be found in Targum Jonathan to Genesis 38:26, the verse where Judah acknowledges that Tamar’s child is his. This is connected, as we saw earlier, to the Davidic messianic lineage. The verse reads: “And Yehudah recognized them and said, “[Tamar] is more right than I [Judah].” The Hebrew term is ṣidkah mimeni (she is more right than I). Targum Jonathan reads it differently: “She is more right om me.” The Targum writes: “Judah recognized them and said, ‘she is right.’ ‘From me’—a divine voice [barat qala] fell om heaven [and said]—‘om me’ [da’min kadamei].” While this does not exactly make a case for virgin birth, it certainly is suggestive with regard to where the term “om me” (mimeni) comes om. Cf. BT Soṭah 10b for a similar reading. 14 “Send her away” implies divorce. See M Nedarim 11:⒓ As to the two thoughts among Christians regarding the virgin birth, Soloveitchik is likely referring to the nineteenth-century quest that sought to find the historical Jesus as opposed to the divine Christ. While he did not begin this search, David Friedrich Strauss’s The Life of Jesus

Gospel According to Matthew  69

20 He was thinking this way, but then an angel of YHWH appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Yosef son of David! Do not be afraid to take Miriam, your wife, for what has been formed within her is from the Holy Spirit. Is from the Holy Spirit—Since my Jewish and Christian brothers are both mistaken on what the Holy Spirit is, I will explain it to them. It is written in Tanna Devei Eliyahu (chapter 9): “I bear witness before the heavens and the earth that Israel and the nations of the earth, man and woman, manservant and maidservant—the Holy Spirit rests upon all of them in accordance with their actions.” If every man adjusts his actions, speech, and thoughts for the better, he will draw the Holy Spirit of God to himself, in that God will help him to do good as is his desire. And further still, in accordance with his good deeds, he will be able to know the hidden and unknown things, and he will be able to know the future, and this is the meaning of the Holy Spirit. This is what was being said in the passage above om Tanna Devei Eliyahu. We will speak more about this concept later. 21 She is giving birth to a son, and you are to name him Yeshua, because he will save his people from their sins. He will save, etc.—this means that he will teach the people how to serve YHWH so that they may not sin, and if they do sin, he will teach them how to return in repentance to YHWH and how to return in such a way that they may be saved om their sins. From this section, there is clear evidence that Mattai was written in Hebrew. Take a look, most honored reader: And an angel of YHWH said to her: “Behold you are with child and you shall give birth to a son and you shall call his name Yishma’el, for YHWH has heard your suffering” (Genesis

(1835–1836) was an influential study that, among other things, openly denied the myth of the virgin birth and sought to situate Jesus very much in his Jewish context. The classic collection of these studies can be found in Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1961). This trajectory has continued among both Christian and Jewish scholars to the present. For examples of Jews who wrote on the Jewish Jesus in English, see Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, trans. H. Danby (New York: Macmillan, 1925); Morris Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition (New York: Macmillan, 1950); Samuel Sandmel, We Jews and Jesus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965); Geza Vermes, Jesus in His Jewish Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003); David Flusser and R. Steven Nolty, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007); Shalom Ben-Chorin, Brother Jesus: The Nazarene Through Jewish Eyes, trans. J. S. Klein and M. Reinhart (Atlanta: University of Georgia Press, 2012); S. Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus; Amy-Jill Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2007); Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews (New York: Vintage, 2000); Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud; and Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: New Press, 2012).

70  Gospel According to Matthew

17:11). Because he has heard is the reason you shall call him Ishmael, for the name Ishmael means “God has heard.” It is the same with Isaac: And Abraham called his son Isaac. This name gets its meaning om Sarah’s laughter (Genesis 21:3, 18:12–15). It is the same with Jacob: And his hand was gripped to the ankle [ekev] of Esau, so he called his name Jacob (Genesis 25:26). Even here, the name has the same meaning as the action taking place. And you will see many instances of this where the child is named according to what happens during the time of his birth. If Mattai was written in the Hebrew language, then the angel would have said: “And you shall call his name Yeshua, for he will save [yoshia] etc.,” for then in the Hebrew language the name matches the context; but if it was written in Greek, then the name does not match. 22 All this happened in order to fulfill the word of YHWH that he spoke through the prophet, saying, 23 “Look! The ‘almah is pregnant and giving birth to a son, and they will name him Immanuel,” which is interpreted, “God is with us.” The ‘almah [young woman] is pregnant—this verse is om Isaiah 7:⒕ Concerning this, there is a great divide between our Jewish and Christian brothers. The Christians have placed this prophecy in Isaiah as the chief foundation of their faith in saying that it prophesied about Yeshua, that he would be born without the strength of a man, citing and the young woman (virgin) will conceive . . . and this young woman (virgin) is Miriam, who became pregnant without the strength of a man. And our Jewish brothers reject this principle, and the flame of this dispute blazes all the way up to the heavens, and there is not enough water that could extinguish it. With all due respect to our Jewish and Christian brothers who are mistaken in their understanding of these matters of the New Testament, and in order to calm the argument, I must clari this matter for them. It is written: And it was in the days of Ahaz . . . king of Judah, Retzin king of Aram, and Pekach son of Remaliah king of Israel rose up against Jerusalem to make war with her (Isaiah 7:1), and in verse 4 (ibid.): And say to him: Be firm and be calm, do not fear, and do not lose heart on account of these two smoldering stubs of firebrands. And in verse 10, it is written: And YHWH continued speaking to Ahaz. Our Christian brothers interpret, “behold the young woman [virgin] will conceive” about Miriam, and “she will bear a son” about Yeshua. The verse there speaks about her pregnancy, that it shall be a sign. Our Jewish brothers contest in this manner: a) you say that Isaiah prophesied concerning Miriam, but did not Miriam live over six hundred years aer Ahaz

Gospel According to Matthew  71

and Isaiah, and did Isaiah say “will give birth” instead of “has given birth”? And b) didn’t Isaiah say, “Therefore YHWH will give you a sign, behold the young woman is with child and about bear a son”? If the young woman conceiving refers to Miriam, what kind of sign would it have been to Ahaz, since this happened six hundred years aer his death? Thus, our Jewish brothers interpret behold the young woman is pregnant as concerning the wife of Isaiah the prophet, as it is written, I will be intimate with the prophetess (Isaiah 8:3). And he called her “young woman” (‘almah), as in how a man has his way with a young woman [‘almah] (Proverbs 30:19). And [she] will call him—which is to say, his mother will name him. Immanuel—meaning that he will be a complete tzaddik, as the scripture attests (Isaiah 9:5): For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and authority shall be upon his shoulders; and he shall be called Pelei Yo’eṣ (Wonderful Counselor), El Gibbor (Mighty God), Avi-Ad (Everlasting Father), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace). . . . Therefore, Isaiah answered and said to Ahaz that this would be a sign for him, that before the lad knows to reject evil and choose good, the land of the two kings whom you dread shall be abandoned (Isaiah 7:16), and indeed this was the sign during the days of Ahaz. Honored reader, I have brought these two opinions before you, this one saying this and the other saying that, and meanwhile the flame of the controversy has not subsided. However, with all due respect to my Jewish and Christian brothers, they have both interpreted this verse of ours incorrectly. See now, dear reader, that om verse 20, beginning with He was thinking until verse 24, beginning with Yosef woke up, everything Yosef saw was in a dream, as it is written, And an angel of YHWH appeared to him in a dream. And the angel explained: “She will give birth to a son and you shall call his name Yeshua, for he will save his people om their sins”; and the angel again said to him in the dream: “In order to fulfill the word of YHWH that he spoke through the prophet.” This means that just as the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled to Ahaz when he told him that his wife would “conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel,” so, too, the child that will be born of Miriam shall be called Yeshua, for he will save his people om their sins.15 15 The use of a dream to ameliorate an event that seems to counter reason is a tactic that Soloveitchik imports om Maimonides’ reading of the three angels who approach Abraham’s tent to tell him of the impending pregnancy of Sarah (Genesis 18:1–15). Maimonides is dealing with the problems of Abraham seeing angels in a wakened state and thus suggests that the entire story is a dream that Abraham had (seeing angels in a dream is not a problem for Maimonides). Soloveitchik uses this dream interpretation to steer away om the Christian idea of virgin birth and om the Jewish critique of virgin birth. See Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed I:43, on angels that are disembodied creatures; and II:42, for the story of the angels and Abraham as a dream. In Jesus in the Talmud, 20–22, Schäfer argues that the Jewish story of Jesus’ birth in BT Sanhedrin 104b (he uses the Munich 95 manuscript written in Paris in 1342) is an intentional counternarrative to the Gospel story in order to subvert any claim of Davidic lineage to Jesus as well as invalidate his miraculous birth. This Talmudic rendition made its way to the anonymous medieval Toledot Yeshu and subsequently became standard fare in traditional Jewish circles until the nineteenth century.

72  Gospel According to Matthew

Therefore, the prophecy is not cited here because she became pregnant but because of the name they gave him. This is why the name El Immanu (i.e., Immanuel, God is with us) is repeated. This is only about the name, not the pregnancy. Look further on in chapter 7, concerning the prophecy of Jeremiah, and you will see that it is the same there. Now the difficulty that our Jewish brothers have with the New Testament is gone, and in these words there is the power to quiet the baseless hatred in the heart of everyone who understands. 24 Yosef woke up from his sleep and did what the angel of YHWH had commanded. He brought Miriam into his house, 25 but he did not know her until after she had given birth to a son [her firstborn]. And they named him Yeshua. Her firstborn—this means that she had other children aer the birth of Yeshua, which is made clear in Mattai 13:55 and Markos 6:3: “Is he not the son of the crasman? Is not his mother’s name Miriam, and his brothers Ya’akov and Yosei and Shimon and Yehudah?” However, Professor Biesenthal, in his commentary on Luke 2:7, put forth this opinion and decided that she did not have any other children. He has his evidence, but there is nothing compelling about it. However, for our purposes, it does not matter whether she had other children; but this we know for certain: that aer the birth of Yeshua, Yosef lived with Miriam as everyone who is married does, for this is what the writing says: “He did not know her until after she had given birth to a son, her firstborn.” This means that aer she gave birth, he knew her.

CHAPTER 2

1 In the days of King Hordos, when Yeshua was born in BeitLeḥem of Yehudah, magi came from the land of the east to Yerushalayim.16 In the days of King Hordos—that is, Herod I (aka Herod the Great). Honored reader, this ancient baseless hatred has been glowing in the hearts of our Christian brothers against our Jewish brothers for over 1,800 years. They said that our fathers struck down their messiah for no wrong that he committed and that we must suffer for the wickedness of our fathers, and they seek his blood om our hands. Until now, their fury has not been appeased, as we saw with the events in Romania, and they deem it a mitzvah to seek vengeance for his blood om the hands of their Jewish brothers. Even among our Jewish brothers who lack understanding and who suppose that Yeshua of Nazareth is the cause of the evil that happens to them, some accuse their Christian brothers and their messiah; and the fire of the controversy continues to grow.17 Therefore, I saw it as incumbent upon myself to show everyone that it was not the hand of the Jews that put him to death, and I will show that both our Jewish and Christian brothers are mistaken in their

16

King Herod ruled as king of Judaea, 37–4 bce.

17 The notion that “Jesus . . . is the cause of evil that happens to them” is a common idea in Jewish folkloric literature. The anonymous medieval book Toledot Yeshu depicts Jesus as a magician and a kind of demonic figure. On Toledot Yeshu, see Amos Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 32–49; Biale, “Counter-History and Jewish Polemics Against Christianity”; and Ora Limor, “Judaism Examines Christianity: The Polemics of Nestor the Priest and Sefer Toledot Yeshu” [in Hebrew], Pe’amim 75 (1988): 109–12⒏ The notion that Jesus rises at midnight on Christmas Eve and does harm to the Jews was a common superstition in the Middle Ages. It gave rise to a Jewish custom, called Nittel Nacht, of abstaining om studying Torah so as to not give power to the demonic forces operative on that night. See Marc B. Shapiro, “Torah Study of Christmas Eve,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 (1999): 319–35⒊

74  Gospel According to Matthew

understanding of this.18 And even if one can find something in the Talmud against Yeshua, this is not the Yeshua that our Christian brothers hold on to as Messiah, for he was a different Yeshua, and they did not live in the same time period, which I will show using reliable historical writings.19 In the book Universal History, which was printed in London in 1754, in chapter 10, page 675, it is written that the Temple was destroyed seventy years aer the birth of Yeshua of Nazareth; and in the same place, it says that Yeshua was killed when he was thirty-three years old. This means that he died thirtyseven years before the destruction of the Temple.20 Now let us search through the Talmud in all the sources that mention Yeshua of Nazareth, and we shall see that nothing evil is spoken against Yeshua (the one called “Messiah”) at all, although we do not deny that there was a dispute between the two sects—between the Pharisees and Essenes. The sages of the Talmud were Pharisees, and Yeshua and all those who accompanied him were om the Essene sect, as we will clari later.21 But every dispute about Yeshua that we find only concerns how man should conduct himself in accordance with the Torah, in order that he may be able to walk on the path of life, worshiping YHWH who is one, as will be explained. In BT Sanhedrin 107b, it is said that there are three things that the le hand pushes away and the right hand brings near (see also BT Soṭah 47a). One of the three is a child his father, or a student his rabbi. The meaning is that he will not push away his son with both hands, nor will a rabbi push his student away with both hands: And not like Yehoshua ben Perachyah, who pushed Yeshua of Nazareth away with both hands. And what did Yehoshua ben Perachyah do? When King Yannai killed all the sages, the sister of Shimon ben Shetach hid him. She was the wife of King Yannai. Then Yehoshua ben Perachyah fled to Alexandria, Egypt, with 18 Jewish polemics against Christianity was a veritable industry in the Jewish Middle Ages. See, e.g., Daniel Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages (Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2007); and David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of Nizzahon Vetus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993). 19 Much scholarly work has been done in the past forty years regarding Jesus’ ostensible appearance in the Talmud. Soloveitchik iterates the idea common in his time that the reference to Yeshu in BT Sanhedrin and other sources is not the historical Jesus but another man by that name. The classical study of these sources can be found in Herford, Jesus in the Talmud and Midrash. Cf. Johann Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaliche Buchgesellscha, 1982); Vermes, Jesus in His Jewish Context. For more recent scholarship, see Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud; and Richard Freund, “The Myth of Jesus in Rabbinic Literature,” in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response? ed. Daniel Breslauer (Albany: SUNY Press, 1997), 191–2⒗ 20 This is likely referring to George Sale’s An Universal History, from the Earliest Account of Time, first published in London in 1747–6⒏ Vol. 10 includes “The History of the Jews.” 21 The Essene hypothesis was a commonly held belief at the time Soloveitchik was writing; its origins lie in the words of Josephus, but Jesus’ connection to the Essenes has come under scrutiny in recent scholarship. For a recent study, see Joan E. Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

Gospel According to Matthew  75 his disciple Yeshua. When there was peace and the persecutions stopped, he got up and le. He came across an inn, and there they gave him great honor. He said: “How lovely is our hostess!” He [Yeshua] said to him: “Rabbi, her eyes are dim.” Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: “Wicked one, this is what you concern yourself with⁈” [meaning, you observe the eyes of the hostess who is the wife of another man⁈] He brought out four hundred shofars and excommunicated him. Yeshua came before Rabbi Yehoshua many times and said: “Receive me in repentance!” But he did not receive him. One day, Yeshua came before Rabbi Yehoshua and he decided to receive him back. Rabbi Yehoshua was reciting the Shema, so he signaled him with his hand, but Yeshua thought that he was pushing him away. Yeshua went and bowed down to the moon. Rabbi Yehoshua said: “Repent!” Yeshua said to him: “This is what I have learned om you: anyone who sins or causes many to sin is not able to repent.” A sage said: “Yeshua practiced magic and caused Israel to sin.” Aerward, they judged him and stoned him.22

Those who lack knowledge om among our brothers, the children of Israel, and our Christian brothers, think that this is the same Yeshua that they call “Messiah.” Honored reader, please see just how mistaken they are in their understanding! In Pirkei Avot, chapter 1, the order of the leaders of the Sanhedrin is listed. Aer Yehoshua ben Perachyah came Yehudah ben Tabbai; aer that, Shemayah and Avtalyon; aer them, Hillel the Prince. We find that om Yehoshua ben Perachyah to Hillel is four generations. And it is said in BT Shabbat 15a: “Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel, and Shimon led the Sanhedrin 100 years before the destruction of the Temple.” Therefore, om Yehoshua ben Perachyah to Hillel was four generations, and a hundred years om Hillel to the destruction of the Temple. Yeshua (the one they call “Messiah”), however, was born seventy years, and was killed thirty-seven years, before the destruction of the Temple. Thus, the mistake can be seen, and the hatred between Jews and Christians is baseless hatred (sin’at ḥinam). In BT Shabbat 104b, it is said: He who scratches a mark on his flesh (on Shabbat)—Rabbi Eliezer required a sin offering and the sages dismissed it. . . . Rabbi Eliezer said to the sages: “Did not Ben Stada bring sorcery om Egypt through scratching his flesh [meaning: we see that scratching is considered writing].” They said to him: “He was a fool, and fools cannot be as proof.” The Gemara argues: “Ben Stada [i.e., son of Stada]? He is the son of Pandira!” [meaning: how can you say that he is the son of Stada?] Rav Ḥisda said: “The husband was Stada; the lover was Pandira.” The Gemara 22

On this, see Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 16–2⒋

76  Gospel According to Matthew argues again: “The husband was Pappos ben Yehudah! [meaning: how can you say that the husband was Stada?] Rather, his mother was Stada” [meaning: he is called son of Stada because his mother was called Stada]. The Gemara continues to argue: “His mother was Miriam the hairdresser! And as they say in Pumbedita, that woman turned away om her husband.”

We find that the mother of Ben Stada was Miriam, and her husband was Pappos ben Yehudah, and her lover was Pandira. Her son was a bastard, and therefore they called his mother Stada because she was a harlot. From this section in the Gemara, those who lack knowledge om among both our Jewish and Christian brothers conclude that this speaks about Yeshua, who is called “Messiah.” Therefore, the Christians think badly of their Jewish brothers and speak against the Gemara without limit.23 See, honored reader, how misguided they are in their understanding. How can it be possible that the one called Ben Stada was the same man as Yeshua, their messiah? For his mother’s husband was Pappos ben Yehudah, and Pappos was imprisoned with Rabbi Akiva, just as we find in BT Berakhot 61b: It was only a few days later that Rabbi Akiva was arrested and put in jail. Pappos ben Yehudah was also arrested and imprisoned with him. Rabbi Akiva said to him: “Pappos, who brought you here?” He answered: “Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, for having been arrested for studying Torah (for it was against the law to study the Torah, but Rabbi Akiva still studied it); woe to Pappos, who was arrested for idle matters.”24

Rabbi Akiva was the disciple of Rabbi Eliezer the Great, as we find in BT Sanhedrin 68a; and Rabbi Eliezer was the disciple of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai; according to Pirkei Avot 2:8, “Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai had five disciples,” and Rabbi Eliezer is listed as one of them. And in the days of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, the Temple was destroyed, as we find in BT Giṭṭin 56a–b. Now see, om the destruction of the Temple to Rabbi Akiva is three generations—Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Akiva. Thus, how can it be possible that Ben Stada, the son of Miriam, is the same as Yeshua, their messiah? Was not Pappos ben Yehudah her husband, the one who was imprisoned with Rabbi Akiva? Rabbi Akiva lived three generations aer the destruction of the Temple, and Yeshua their messiah was born seventy

23

See ibid., 15–24, and Herford, Jesus in the Talmud and Midrash, 35–56; and J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 2⒊

24 See also BT Giṭṭin 90a, where a man named Pappos ben Yehudah apparently lived a century aer Jesus. Cf. Bernard Pick, Jesus in the Talmud (Chicago: Open Court Press, 1913), 16, ⒘

Gospel According to Matthew  77

years before the destruction. Plus, nowhere is it written that Ben Stada’s name was Yeshua. It is also written in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 67a) that what occurred with Ben Stada happened in the city of Lod, and Yeshua, their messiah, was killed in Jerusalem. We also find in the Gemara, in BT Avodah Zarah 17a, that Rabbi Eliezer told this story: Once, while I was walking in the upper market of Tzippori, I found one of the disciples of Yeshua of Nazareth, and his name was Yakov of Kefar Seḥanya. He said to me: “It is written in your Torah, You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the payment of a dog into the house of YHWH your God to fulfill an oath (Deuteronomy 23:19). What can you do with it? Can you use it to build the bathroom facilities for the high priest [in the room that he resides in within the Temple during the seven days preceding Yom Kippur]?” I did not say anything to him. He said to me: “This is what Yeshua of Nazareth taught me: ‘From the fee of a prostitute they were collected, and from the fee of a prostitute shall they return’ (Micah 1:7).” This word pleased me.

Now, honored reader, you can see that I have shown you a few passages in the Talmud where a Yeshua “of Nazareth” is mentioned, and each and every one of them lived in different time periods. The Yeshua who was the disciple of Yehoshua ben Perachyah lived about two hundred years before the destruction of the Temple; and Yeshua, their messiah, was born seventy years before the destruction. We have already discussed the passage of Ben Stada, who lived three generations after the destruction of the Temple. Now, for the wise person, it is easy to perceive that Yeshua, their messiah, is the one mentioned in BT Avodah Zarah. Notice what was written there, that Rabbi Eliezer—who was the disciple of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, in whose lifetime the Temple was destroyed—spoke with Yakov of Kefar Seḥanya; this is Yakov the shaliaḥ, the one mentioned in the New Testament, who was the disciple of Yeshua of Nazareth. I will not deny that it appears that, according to the Talmud, there was a dispute between the two sects, for Rabbi Eliezer was om the sect of the Pharisees and Yeshua of Nazareth was om the sect of the Essenes. Nevertheless, they did not reveal their dispute in this passage, and Rabbi Eliezer was fond of the teachings of Yeshua and even said, “This word pleases me.” Nowhere in the Talmud is anything evil spoken about this Yeshua, Yeshua of Nazareth. Along with this, I will show you om Roman history and om the Talmud that the hand of the Jews was not against Yeshua and that they did not cause the death of Yeshua, their messiah; rather, it was Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor. I will show this in another location.

78  Gospel According to Matthew

Therefore, it is incumbent upon anyone who loves truth and peace, especially those who teach and lead the many, to inform their Christian brothers that they are mistaken in this matter. It is incumbent upon them to eradicate and uproot their baseless hatred that is concealed in their hearts toward our Jewish brothers.25 2 They said, “Where is the king of the Yehudim who was born? For we have seen his star in the east and have come to bow down to him.” Where is the king of the Yehudim?—the wise men were stargazers, as it is written: “We have seen his star in the east.” The stargazers were very wise and were not mistaken about all things entirely, as it is said: Let them stand up and save you now, the scanners of heaven, the stargazers, who announce month by month what will come upon you (Isaiah 47:13). And it is said in the midrash (Vayeshev, chap. 5): “ ‘That which will’ and not ‘all that which will.’ ” This means that they do not see everything completely. Thus, the stargazers saw that he was born but not where he was born; hence, they ask, “Where is the king of the Jews?”26 3 When King Hordos heard their words, he was disturbed, and all of Yerushalayim along with him. Was disturbed—for Herod was a servant of a Hasmonean king, as we find in BT Bava Batra 3b. And the king promoted him above all the commanders, for he was successful in battle. Aerward, he killed his benefactor and appointed himself as king. Therefore, when he heard that the king of the Jews was born, he feared that he would be overthrown. For this is what King Solomon said: A servant who is pampered in his youth will come to a bad end (Proverbs 29:21).27 4 So he assembled all the leading priests and scholars of the people and inquired of them, saying, “Where will the mashiaḥ be born?” 25 It is noteworthy that Soloveitchik is imploring his Jewish readers to inform Christians that they are mistaken in thinking that the Jews killed Jesus. But this is as much a lesson to the Jews that the nefarious characters mentioned in these Talmudic passages and, by extension, in Toledot Yeshu, are not references to Jesus at all. Thus Toledot Yeshu, which still had a major influence in traditional circles, was errant and the source of great misunderstanding for the Jews, aside om being a source for Jewish anti-Semitism among the Christians. Cf. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 7⒋ 26

“Star” can also be a reference to an angel, as in Numbers 24:17 and the Testament of Levi 18:⒊

27 This also may refer to Pharaoh’s fear that an Israelite would arise to overthrow him (he also heard that prophecy through one of his magicians) and thus decreed that all firstborn male Jews be killed. This led to Moses being raised in Pharaoh’s house and, in the course of time, overthrowing his authority regarding the Israelites’ eedom om slavery. See Exodus 1:22 and BT Soṭah 12b.

Gospel According to Matthew  79

5 They told him, “In Beit-Leḥem of Yehudah, for this is how it was written by the prophet: In Beit-Leḥem of Yehudah—we find in the Jerusalem Talmud, in Berakhot 2:4: Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Ibbo said: “A Jew was working his field, and his ox began to bellow. An Arab passerby heard the voice of the animal and said: ‘Jew! Jew! Unharness your ox; he is announcing that the Sanctuary will be destroyed!’ [meaning: since the Temple was about to be destroyed, he needed to stop his work and pray for it to be spared. The Arab understood that the animal was alerting the Jew about this.] The ox bellowed a second time, and the Arab said: ‘Jew! Jew! Harness your ox to the plow again, for he is announcing that King Messiah is about to be born.’—‘What is his name?’—‘Menachem.’—‘And his father’s name?’—‘Hezekiah.’—‘Where will he be born?’—‘In the city of the king, in Bethlehem of Judaea.’ ”

6 ‘You, O Beit-Leḥem of the land of Yehudah, are not least among the chiefs of Yehudah, for from you will go forth a ruler who will shepherd my people Yisra’el.’ ” And you Beit-Leḥem of the land of Yehudah—this verse comes om Micah 5:1, where it says: And you, Bethlehem, Ephrat, smallest of all the thousands of Judah, from you will go forth a ruler for me in Israel. I do not know who made this translation error—whether it was the Frenchman who translated it om the Greek, or whether it was the person who originally translated it into Greek om the Hebrew. We stipulate in chapter 16 that Mattai was written in Hebrew.28 7 Then Hordos summoned the magi secretly and questioned them to find out the time when the star was seen. The time—for he knew he would need to search for the children that were born during that time and aer. His intention was to kill the boy, which we know om his actions and om the plot he devised in verse 16 of this chapter.29

28 Matthew paraphrases Micah 5:2: And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath, least among the clan of Judah, from you one shall come forth, to rule Israel for me. One whose origin is from old, from ancient times. This is also a reference to the savior. 29 This is even a clearer reference to Exodus 1:24 and BT Soṭah 12b. It is perplexing that Soloveitchik did not make the connection to Moses’ birth that seems to be strongly implied here.

80  Gospel According to Matthew

8 He sent them to Beit-Leḥem, saying, “Go. Thoroughly search out the matter of the boy. When you have found him, tell me, so that I may go and bow down to him, too.” Thoroughly search out—he intended to deceive them. 9 When they heard the words of the king, they departed. And the star they had seen in the east moved in front of them until it came and stood still over the place where the child was! 10 They saw the star, and they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy. 11 They came into the house and found the child with Miriam, his mother. They fell upon their faces and bowed down to him. Then they opened their treasuries and presented to him a gift of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 12 They were commanded in a dream not to return to Hordos, so they departed to their land by a different route. 13 After they had departed from there, an angel of YHWH appeared to Yosef in a dream, saying, “Get up! Take the child and his mother, and flee to Mitzrayim, and remain there until I tell you, because Hordos is seeking to take the boy’s life.” 14 So he got up, took the boy and his mother by night, and fled to Mitzrayim. 15 They remained there until the death of Hordos, fulfilling the word of YHWH through the prophet, saying, “Out of Mitzrayim I called my son.” Out of Mitzrayim I called my son—this verse comes om Hosea 11:1: I loved Israel when he was a child, and out of Egypt I called my son. The plain meaning of the verse refers to Israel as a whole. This is the meaning: when the people of Israel were still children in Egypt—in other words, when they were still immature regarding the commandments—I called my son, as it is written, Israel is my firstborn son (Exodus 4:22). Thus, many contest and ask why Mattai took this verse out of its plain interpretation. See what I wrote in verse 23, and you will be able to understand.30 16 When Hordos saw that the magi had tricked him, he was extremely angry, so he sent orders and killed all the children in Beit30 The intent to replicate Jesus’ life with that of Moses seems obvious. Egypt was also oen considered a place of refuge. See, e.g., 1 Kings 11:40, 2 Kings 25:2⒍ We can also assume this with regard to Jesus’ appearance on the mountain aer his death in Matthew 28:⒗ See Deuteronomy 32:4⒏

Gospel According to Matthew  81

Leḥem and all the surrounding area, from two years old and under, based on the time he had determined from the magi. And all the surrounding area—the villages belonging to Bethlehem, for he did not know if he was born in Bethlehem or in its surrounding areas. 17 Then were fulfilled the words spoken by Yirmeyah the Prophet that say, 18 “A voice is heard in Ramah, wailing and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be consoled for her children, for he is gone.” A voice is heard in Ramah—this verse comes om Jeremiah 31:⒖ This verse speaks of the people of Israel, and this is clear throughout the whole chapter. Why, then, did Mattai take this verse out of its original context? I will explain in verse 2⒊ 19 After the death of Hordos, an angel of YHWH appeared to Yosef in a dream in the land of Mitzrayim. 20 He said to him, “Get up! Take the child and his mother and go back to the land of Yisra’el, because those who sought the child’s life are dead.” 21 So he got up, took the child and his mother, and came to the land of Yisra’el. 22 But when he heard that Archelos reigned in Yehudah in place of his father Hordos, he was afraid to go there, so he was instructed in a dream and set off to the lands of the Galil. 23 He came and settled in the town called Netzeret, fulfilling the word spoken by the prophets, that he will be called a Noṣri. He will be called a Noṣri—this seems to be an allusion to Jeremiah 31:6: “For there is a day when the watchmen [noṣrim] will proclaim on the mountain of Eayim: ‘Come, let us go up to Zion, to YHWH our God!’ ” A prominent Christian sage asked me: “Does not noṣrim mean ‘watchmen’ and ‘guardians’? Then why does the author take it out of its simple meaning when he writes, ‘fulfilling the word spoken by the prophets, that he will be called a Noṣri,’ as if it were plainly written in the prophets that he would live in the town of Nazareth in order that he would be called a Noṣri?” I answered him: “Were not most, or all, of the New Testament writers Jews? And most of them were om the sect of the Pharisees, thus being students of

82  Gospel According to Matthew

the Talmud.31 Even Paul the shaliaḥ said: ‘I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee’ (Acts 23:6), and ‘I grew up at the feet of Gamliel’ (ibid., 23:3).32 Even those om the Essene sect held to the same Torah, the Torah of Moses, and only differed with the Pharisees on certain matters.” I will explain this in greater detail later. This partial controversy between the two sects did not prevent the Essenes om using the Pharisaic interpretation method.33 They did so out of necessity, for the Torah and its interpretation both came om one source. We have already seen this om the question posed by Yakov of Kefar Seḥanya, the disciple of Yeshua of Nazareth, and also his response to Rabbi Eliezer, which can be found above in verse ⒈ Honored reader, I will now explain the interpretation methods of the Talmud, and you will see that the writers of the New Testament were Talmudists. When Moses our teacher received the Torah om the mouth of the Almighty, he received every single commandment and its interpretation. The commandment is called “written Torah,” and its interpretation is called “oral Torah,” for Moses was not permitted to write down the oral laws, nor was he permitted to merely speak the written Torah, as we find in BT Giṭṭin 60b: “You are not permitted to transmit the written commands orally, nor are you permitted to transmit the oral commands through writing.” And the oral Torah is the Talmud. The Talmud is called the “oral Torah” because it contains interpretations of commandments that were passed on om generation to generation, beginning with Moses our teacher, peace be upon him. There are also things in the Talmud whose origin have been forgotten. Every sage of the Talmud interpreted a command according to his own opinion, but every one of them strengthened his opinion with words om the written Torah. Also, in the Talmud there are regulations and restrictions that they imposed upon themselves so that they would not come close to transgressing a prohibition of the Torah. They support it through scripture, saying that the Torah is precise in its language, and on the basis of a word or even a letter that appears to be superfluous, they made a regulation or restriction. They always support their opinion with scripture, and if their opinion does not seem to match what is written in the Tanakh, they will say, “Read this passage this way, and not this

31 While the Talmud was not compiled until centuries later, and Soloveitchik was certainly aware of the approximate date of its completion, he seems to mean that they were students of Pharisaic law, which would eventually become the foundation for the Talmud. But more generally, Soloveitchik does not have a real historical sense of the development of Jewish literature in late antiquity. On the problems of using the Babylonian Talmud to ascertain any historical truth about the Jesus event or early Christianity, see Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 12⒐ 32 The relationship between Paul and the Pharisees and Pharisaic law in general is complicated. See, e.g., Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People; and idem, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), esp. 65–142; and Gager, Who Made Early Christianity?. 33

The method that became known as pesher was used by the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Gospel According to Matthew  83

way,” and they may change the order of the words in order to support their interpretation.34 Those who are gullible believe that their intent is to change the words of the living God in order to support their own words. And if—God forbid—that was their intent, who would have listened to or received their interpretations? However, the wise person will realize that they intended only good. And now, my beloved iends, see that every difficulty that you had concerning the New Testament has been resolved. In summary, regarding the matter of the verse “fulfilling the word spoken by the prophets, that he will be called a Noṣri,” obviously there is no explicit passage like this in the prophets. However, Mattai did what the sages of the Talmud do, and relied, as it seems, on the passage in Jeremiah 31:6: The watchmen [Noṣrim] will proclaim, which has a different application in scripture.

34 This synopsis of Talmudic law and method is schematic and simply a way for Soloveitchik to remind his Jewish readers, and inform his Christian ones, about the rabbinic method that Soloveitchik believes underlies New Testament interpretation. For a more expansive discussion of this method, see David Weiss Halivni, Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara: The Jewish Predilection for Justified Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986).

CHAPTER 3

1 In those days, Yoḥanan the Immerser arose, and he would call out in the wilderness of Yehudah, saying, Yoḥanan the Immerser—this is Yoḥanan ben Zekharyah, who is mentioned in Luke.35 There are a variety of opinions on how old Yoḥanan was at this time. In my opinion, he was about thirty years old, since Yoḥanan was older than Yeshua by approximately six months, as it is written: “Look! Your relative Elisheva . . . is also pregnant and will bear a son in her old age. This is her sixth month” (Luke 1:36). And it is written: “And he was in the wilderness regions until the day he appeared to Yisra’el” (ibid., 1:80). And in verse 13 of this chapter, it says: “Then Yeshua came to Yoḥanan, to be immersed by him.” And therefore we can see that at the same time that Yoḥanan began to proclaim repentance to the people, Yeshua was immersed by him, and it is written (Luke 3:23): “Yeshua began his work, and he was about thirty years old.” Then he was tested by Satan, and then began to teach many (Luke 4:1 and on). From here, we can see that Yoḥanan was approximately thirty years old. 35 John the Baptist is mentioned in Josephus’s Antiquities 18:116–119 as a popular figure who was admired by some Jews. Many nineteenth-century historians thought that John the Baptist was likely part of the Essene sect that lived mostly in the caves around Qumran in the Judaean desert. Today, that view is less common. Immersion in the mikveh was a common practice among pietists (and remains to this day among pious Jews) as an act of purification. It was required for those who entered the Temple grounds and remained a legal requirement of purification om menstruation in rabbinic law. The link between purification om sin and divine atonement using the term mikveh can be found in M Yoma 8:⒐ There is an entire Mishnaic tractate, Mikva’ot, that deals with mikveh and its uses. On its use as purification om menstruation, see Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, Menstrual Purity (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002). For one who maintained John the Baptist’s Essene connection, see David Flusser, on John the Baptist in his Jewish context, in Jewish Sources in Early Christianity: Studies and Essays [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Sefarit Poalim, 1979), 81–112; for a shortened version in English, see Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (New York: Adama Books, 1987), 45–48; and idem and R. Steven Notley, Jesus (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1997), 37–5⒌ For recent views, see Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist Within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997); and Bruce Chilton, “John the Purifier,” in Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration, ed. idem and C. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 203–2⒛

Gospel According to Matthew  85

2 “Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is on the brink of arrival!” The kingdom of Heaven is on the brink of arrival—meaning that soon we will all know that the Blessed One is unique and is king of the universe.36 3 For this is the one whom Yeshayah the Prophet prophesied about, saying, “A voice is calling in the wilderness, ‘Clear the way of YHWH; make his highways straight!’ ” For this is the one—meaning that Isaiah hinted about him when he said (40:3): “A voice is calling in the wilderness, ‘Clear the way of YHWH; make his highways straight!’ ” 4 Yoḥanan’s clothing was camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and forest honey. And forest honey—Yoḥanan was om the Essene sect, and they sustained themselves with very little. See what Josephus wrote in Wars of the Jews, book 2, chapter 8, concerning the customs of the Essenes, and you will see that Christians today have many of the same practices as the ancient Essene sect.37 5 Yerushalayim went out to him, as did all of Yehudah and all of the plain of the Yarden River. 6 They were immersed through him in the Yarden River, confessing their sins. Confessing their sins—as it is written: He who confesses his sins and gives them up will find mercy (Proverbs 28:13). And if he does not confess or give up his sins, he is likened to one who immerses himself [in the mikveh] while holding a reptile in his hand. And it is said in BT Ta’anit 16a: A man who has committed a great transgression and confesses it but does not turn om it, to what can he be compared? To a man who catches a reptile in 36 Soloveitchik seems to be paraphrasing Zechariah 14:9: And the LORD shall be king over all the earth; in that day there shall be one LORD and one name. 37 See Josephus, The Jewish War 2:119–16⒍ See also Josephus, Antiquities 13:171–173, 18:18–22; and Josephus, Life 1:⒐ In fact, Josephus’s description of the Essenes does not really resemble contemporary Christians. It does perhaps resemble different forms of monastic orders but certainly not the average Christian—not in Soloveitchik’s time, and not in ours. The notion that Jesus was part of the Essene community and that John the Baptist became a central figure in the Jesus movement was common when Soloveitchik was writing, and he seems to be simply reiterating what was conventional wisdom regarding the symmetry between Essene practices as described in Josephus and what later became Christianity. See David Flusser, The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect (New York: MOD Books, 1989), 15–2⒈

86  Gospel According to Matthew his hand, for even if he immersed himself in all the waters of the earth, he would not have truly been immersed. If he throws it om his hand, and intends to be immersed in 400 se’ahs of water, the immersion is immediately accredited to him, as it says: He who confesses his sins and gives them up will find mercy. (Proverbs 28:13)38

7 When he saw many of the Perushim and Ṣaddukim approaching to be immersed, he said to them, “Children of vipers! Who enlightened you to be rescued from wrath that will ultimately come? 8 So, then, produce the fruit that is fitting for teshuvah.” The fruit that is fitting—this means that they should do complete repentance and that they should not return to foolishness. Then the repentance will bring forth uit that is fitting, for they will repair themselves by doing good, and then they will save themselves om the coming destruction.39 9 Do not think in your hearts, saying, “Avraham is our father,” for I say to you that from these stones, God is able to raise up sons of Avraham! Avraham is our father—and if you do not correct your actions and you say, “We rely on the merit of Abraham our father,” this will not save you, for I tell you that God can raise up sons of Abraham om these stones. In other words, om these people, whose hearts are as hard as stone om their idolatrous worship, God can raise up sons for Abraham, for they will convert and Abraham will be their father.40 10 The ax has already been placed at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire! Root of the trees—this means: the merit of the fathers has already ended, and this is the root, for they have already eaten of their merit, as we find in BT Shabbat 55a:

38

The Talmudic passage concludes with Lamentations 3:41: Lift up our hearts with our hands to God in heaven.

39 On the need to repent and not return to one’s sins as a sign of complete teshuvah, see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Repentance,” 1:1, 4:⒈ See also BT Yoma 87b. 40 Soloveitchik’s explanation appears to gesture toward God telling Moses in Exodus aer the sin of the golden calf that he could destroy the Israelites and raise up another nation. See Exodus 32:⒑ On the notion of the “merit of the patriarchs,” see Genesis Rabbah 60:⒉

Gospel According to Matthew  87 When did the merit of the fathers end? Rav said: “Since the days of Hosea, son of Beeri.” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: “Since the days of Elijah.” And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “Since the days of Hezekiah, as it says: Abundant authority . . . for now and evermore, the zeal of YHWH of Hosts shall bring this to pass (Isaiah 9:6) and not the merit of the fathers.”

Every tree that does not produce good fruit—this means that the person must mend his ways. 11 See, I am immersing you in water for teshuvah, but the one coming after me is mightier than I am, whose sandals I am unworthy to carry, and he will immerse you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. In water for teshuvah—so that you will repent om your sins and be ready to attain the Holy Spirit. But the one coming after me is mightier than I am—this means: he is more righteous than I, as it is found in Pirkei Avot, chapter 4: “Who is mighty? He who conquers his instinct.” He will immerse you in the Holy Spirit and with fire—this means: he who is righteous will succeed in attaining the Holy Spirit, and he who does not mend his ways will be brought through fire, as it is explained in the next verse. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand. He will winnow his threshing floor and gather the grain into his storehouse, but the chaff he will burn with a fire that will not be extinguished. 13 Then Yeshua came from the Galil toward the Yarden to Yoḥanan, to be immersed by him. Then—according to Luke (3:23), Yeshua was about thirty years old. 14 But Yoḥanan tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be immersed by you, and yet you come to me?” 15 Yeshua answered and said to him, “Permit me, for so it is appropriate for both of us to fulfill the entire ṣedakah,”41 so he permitted him. To fulfill the entire ṣedakah—when the crowd saw that he was being immersed for the sake of teshuvah, everyone would think: “If he, Yeshua, is immersed for the sake of teshuvah, then what have we to say for ourselves?” 41 See, e.g., Jeremiah 23:5–6 and 33:15–⒗ We see that this is about the Davidic line, which Matthew previously recorded as Jesus’ lineage.

88  Gospel According to Matthew

16 When Yeshua was immersed, he quickly came up out of the water. Heaven was opened to him, and he saw the spirit of God descending in the likeness of a dove, and it rested up on him. And he saw—meaning he acquired it, as in, and they saw the God of Israel (Exodus 24:10), for he who interprets it in the plain meaning insults and curses God. The meaning is that he obtained the knowledge of how his spirit is bound to its source, as I wrote in Mattai 1:⒛ For every single man who follows aer his spirit and not the desires of his flesh, his spirit is bound to the source om which it was fashioned, and because of this, he draws the holiness om above to himself.42 And this is why the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove, as we find in the midrash: “Israel is likened to a dove, and just as a dove unites only with its partner, so, too, Israel turns only to the one God.” 17 Then there was a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am pleased.” My beloved son—this means: a man such as this who behaves in accordance with his spirit and does not go aer the desires of his flesh—he is my beloved son and I delight in him, as I will explain further in 4:⒊

42 Soloveitchik draws the reader away om any sense that Jesus saw the spirit of God, and he uses an allegorical reading of the verse. But this is strange because there are numerous prophetic passages where the prophet “sees” the divine. See, e.g., Ezekiel 1:1; Isaiah 11:2, 42:1, 63:⒚ In terms of a voice om heaven (bat qol), we have that even in rabbinic literature, e.g., BT Berakhot 3a, 12a; BT Shabbat 33b; BT Pesaḥim 114a; BT Soṭah 10b. Soloveitchik, who appears here and elsewhere to be aligned with Maimonidean theology, is not comfortable with literal renderings of these verses and, following Maimonides, uses allegory to redirect their meaning away om any somatic experience of the divine.

CHAPTER 4

1 Then the spirit carried Yeshua into the wilderness so that the Satan could test him. 2 After his fast for forty days and forty nights, he became hungry.43 After his fast for forty days—this is what he saw in a prophetic vision, and it seemed to him as if he were brought into the desert and as if he had fasted for forty days. The truth is that all three temptations would not have lasted for more than an hour or two.44 3 Then the tester approached him and said, “If you are the son of God, speak to these stones, and they shall become bread.” If you are the son of God—it is seemingly amazing that Satan would ask, “If you are the son of God,” when it is clearly written, “and this was the manner of the birth of Yeshua. . . . Before they came together, she was found pregnant om the Holy Spirit.”45 We also find that God tempted Abraham and that he said to him: Take your son . . . and offer him as a burnt offering (Genesis 22:2). He tested him to see whether he feared God and would obey his commands, or whether he did not fear God and would refuse. And when, with a pure heart,

43 The test, of course, has a parallel in the tests of Abraham in Genesis that culminated in the sacrifice of Isaac. See Pirkei Avot 5:⒌ The forty-day fast mirrors the fasts of Noah, Moses, and Elijah. See Genesis 7:12; Exodus 24:18, 34:28; 1 Kings 19:⒏ 44 It is not clear why Soloveitchik needs to diminish the fast of Jesus. Apparently, as with the case of “seeing the divine,” earlier in chap. 3, Soloveitchik wants to naturalize Jesus as much as possible, even denying him what certain prophets experienced. 45 It is not clear what Soloveitchik is getting at. In chap. 1, he argued that Jesus was not “the son of God” in the literal sense (he insinuates that Joseph may have had sexual relations with Mary between engagement and marriage) and that the Holy Spirit is something that can rest on anyone. Here he seems to take that earlier verse more literally.

90  Gospel According to Matthew

he did as YHWH commanded him, YHWH said to him: “Now I know that you fear God.” We also find in Job that God tested him and afflicted him with harsh sufferings to know whether his heart was filled with YHWH, in which case he would receive them in love. However, here the test is whether Yeshua could make bread om the stones. 4 He answered and said, “See, it is written, ‘Man does not live on bread alone but on everything that comes out of the mouth of YHWH.’ ”46 Man does not live on bread alone—Yeshua answered him with this. It would appear that Yeshua’s answer is not befitting of the question; however, the matter is this: I have already written and clarified that every man is composed of a body and a soul. The nature of the body is to go aer what the eyes see and give in to the thoughts of the heart, and the nature of the soul is to elevate itself and all its intention only in order to please its Maker in deed and in word. The man who obeys the soul will strive to do good deeds before God and man, and he will speak nothing but words of wisdom and morality. He will not even think any thoughts of vanity at all, for he will sancti his every moment with thoughts of taking account of his soul. The body and the soul are truly in opposition to each other at every moment. And so it is spoken of in the letter to the Galatians (5:17): “The desires of the flesh are against the spirit, and the desires of the spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other.”47 Every man who always follows his spirit and not the desires of his flesh, his spirit will conquer his flesh, and such a man will be called a son of God, as it is said in Revelation 21:7: “The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.” The meaning of this is: he who conquers the desire of his flesh will inherit everything, in this world and in the world to come, and he will be called a son of God. And also, in Mattai 5:9 it is said: “O, the gladness of those who pursue peace! For they will be called sons of God.” And in verse 44 (ibid.): “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who hurt you and pursue you, so that you will be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” I have now clearly shown you that every man who follows his spirit and not the desires of his flesh—he is called a son of God. And everyone who follows 46 See Deuteronomy 8:⒊ All of Jesus’ answers here are om Deuteronomy, the most o-cited Toraic book in the New Testament. 47 This is the classic Neoplatonic amework that informs medieval Jewish pietism. Two great exemplars of this are Baḥya Ibn Paquda, Ḥovot HaLevavot; and Elijah da Vidas, Reishit Ḥokhmah. For a scholarly collection of the relationship between Judaism and Neoplatonism, see Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, ed. Lenn Goodman (Albany: SUNY Press, 1992).

Gospel According to Matthew  91

the desires of his flesh will be called a slave to the desires of his flesh. This is also in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 10a):48 Tornos Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva: “If your God loves the poor, why does he not provide for them?” Rabbi Akiva said to him: “So that through them we will be saved om the punishment of Gehenna.” Tornos Rufus said to him: “On the contrary, it is this that condemns you to Gehenna! I will tell you in a parable to what this can be compared: it is like an earthly king who became angered with his servant and put him in prison, and he commanded that he should not be given food or water. And one man went and gave him food and water. When the king heard, would he not be angry with the man? And you are called ‘servants,’ as it is written: For the children of Israel are my servants (Leviticus 25:55).” Rabbi Akiva said to him: “I will tell you in a parable to what this can be compared: it is like an earthly king who became angered with his son and put him in prison, and he commanded that he should not be given food or water. And one man went and gave him food and water. When the king heard, would he not send him a present? And we are called ‘sons,’ as it is written: You are sons of YHWH your God (Deuteronomy 14:1).” He said to him: “You are called both ‘sons’ and ‘servants.’ When you perform the will of the Omnipresent, you are called ‘sons’; when you do not do the will of the Omnipresent, you are called ‘servants.’ ”

It is important to understand why the Talmud and the New Testament call the man who does the will of the Omnipresent a “son of God.” This is the reason: it is impossible to achieve knowledge of YHWH, blessed be his name, except through the works that he has done. When we gaze at the vast array of the heavens and all the armies therein, then we will know his greatness and magnificence. When we contemplate the soul of man that was created by God—the most mysterious of all the created things that we can perceive—and when we examine its nature, we know that it exists, even though it has no body or essence that we can perceive.49 From this magnificent and mysterious creation, we can know that God exists and that he is not corporeal. All creation, which is composed of body and spirit, does not have the ability to perceive his being. And when we want to know 48 See Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, 25–70. Soloveitchik, interestingly, sets up the Talmudic passage with a series of New Testament citations that point to a nonliteral reading of son of God. It appears that his intention is to use Bava Batra 10a as a kind of prooext for Revelations 21:7 and Matthew 5:⒐ 49 The notion that all knowledge of God comes through knowledge and understanding of God’s actions (i.e., creation) is a classic Maimonidean locution expressed in Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed. See, e.g., in Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of the Foundations of the Torah,” 2:⒉ “What is the way to love and fear God? When a person contemplates God’s actions and wondrous creations and understands om this God’s wisdom, and that there is no limit or end to all this, he immediately loves and praises him and in him swells this great desire to know the Great name.” See Guide of the Perplexed III:51–5⒊

92  Gospel According to Matthew

the nature of a man, who is far om us and impossible to see, in seeing and knowing his son we then know a little about the character of his father. And so it is with the spirit of man, which is a part of God above, which descends and comes down in the body of man. Through it, we recognize the existence of the Creator, blessed be his name, and we know that he is not corporeal and that we cannot perceive his essence. Therefore, he is called “son of God.” We also find that YHWH said, concerning Solomon: I will be his father, and he shall be my son (2 Samuel 7:13). It also says this in 1 Chronicles 22:⒑ And in 28:6–7 (ibid.): your son Solomon will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. . . if he keeps firmly to the observance of my commandments and rules as he does now. Now we can see that Solomon was called a son of God when he was performing the will of the Omnipresent. Now we can understand the testing question, if you are the son of God. This is the meaning: “You believe that if you do the will of the Omnipresent and believe in the ability of the Creator, man can live off of stones as if they were bread?” Yeshua answered him: “I believe with all my heart in the Torah of Moses, as it is written: Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of YHWH (Deuteronomy 8:3).” 5 Then the Satan carried him to the Holy City and stood him on the corner of the roof of the Holy Temple. 6 He said to him, “If you are the son of God, fall down, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels regarding you; upon their palms they will bear you, so that your foot will not strike a stone.’ ” If you are the son of God—meaning, if you really and truly believe in YHWH and the Torah of Moses and the Prophets, throw yourself down. It is clearly written (Psalm 91:11–12): He will command his angels regarding you; upon their palms they will bear you, so that your foot will not strike a stone. 7 But Yeshua answered, “It is also written, ‘You shall not test YHWH, your God.’ ”50 But Yeshua answered—as he said: “I believe with complete faith in the Torah of Moses and the Prophets, and in the ability of YHWH, blessed be his name, that everyone who places his trust in him will not have evil befall him. However, I will not be able to do this—to fall down—for it is clearly written, You

50

Deuteronomy 6:16 and Isaiah 7:⒓

Gospel According to Matthew  93

shall not test YHWH, your God (Deuteronomy 6:16).” And it is found in the Talmud (BT Ta’anit 9a): Rabbi Yoḥanan met the child of Resh Lakish. He said to him: “Tell me the verse you are studying.” He said to him: “Tithe, you shall tithe.” Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: “What is the meaning of ‘Tithe, you shall tithe’?” He said: “Tithe so that you will become wealthy.”51 Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “From where do you know this?” He said: “Try it yourself and see.” Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “Is it permitted to test the Holy One, blessed be he? Is it not written, ‘You shall not test YHWH!’ ” He said to him: “This is what Rabbi Hoshaya said: ‘There is one exception to this command, as it is written: Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house, and test me this, says YHWH of Hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, until it is beyond enough (Malachi 3:10).’ ”52

8 Once more, the Satan carried him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 He said to him, “All of this I will give to you if you bend and bow down to me.” 10 But Yeshua said to him, “Depart from me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall bow down to YHWH, your God, and you shall serve him only.’ ” You shall serve him only—this verse does not appear anywhere in the Tanakh; however, we do find: Fear YHWH, your God, and serve him (Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20). And the word “only” is added in accordance with the Septuagint translation.53 Within the answer that he gave Satan, we understand how he was trying to test him. When Satan saw that Yeshua’s faith in the one God was strong, he then requested that he bow down to him (Satan), and he would be the mediator between Yeshua and the Creator. Concerning this, Yeshua answered him: “Depart om me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall bow down to YHWH, your God, and you shall serve him only.’ ” This is what he means: we do not need any mediator. Our eyes hang only upon him, blessed be his name.

51 In Hebrew, the words “tithe” and “wealth” share the same three-letter root (‫)עשר‬. Thus, the child of Resh Lakish understood ‫ עשר תעש‬as tithe and you shall become wealthy. 52

Cf. BT Shabbat 32a.

53 This is interesting in that it is not clear that Soloveitchik knew Greek. Perhaps he heard this om one of his Christian interlocutors. In any case, Soloveitchik quotes an uncommon reading of the Septuagint that appears in only one manuscript, Codex Alexandrinus. Thanks to Annette Yoshiko Reed for that point. See also 1 Samuel 7:⒊

94  Gospel According to Matthew

And this is what David said: YHWH is near to all who call on him; all those who call upon him in truth (Psalm 145:18). And so it says in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhot, chapter 9, halakhah 1, paragraph 63a): Rabbi Yudan said: “A man has a patron. When a day of trouble comes upon him, he does not enter [the house] of his patron immediately [to request help]. Rather, he comes and stands at the entrance of his patron’s gate, and he calls to his patron’s servant or a member of his house. Then he, in turn, will say: ‘Soand-so is standing at the entrance of your courtyard. Should I let him enter or leave him be?’ However, the Holy One, blessed be he, is not like this. For he says: ‘If a man is in trouble, he should not call to Michael or Gavriel, but he should call to me, and I will answer him immediately.’ For it is written: And it shall be that everyone who calls upon the name of YHWH shall escape (Joel 3:5).”

This is the meaning: he does not need any mediator; he needs only to cry out to YHWH alone. 11 Then the Satan let him alone, and angels came to him and attended to him. Angels came to him and attended to him—he saw all this in a vision, in the spirit, as I explain in Markos 1:⒔ And I will explain the meaning of the angels attending him, with God’s help, in another location.54 12 When Yeshua heard that they had arrested Yoḥanan, he went to the land of the Galil. They had arrested Yoḥanan—for Herod, the ruler, had imprisoned him because Yoḥanan had rebuked him for marrying the wife of Philip his brother, as it is written in Markos 6:⒘ 13 He went out from Netzeret and came to live in Kefar Naḥum, which is on the seashore, at the border of Zevulun and Naftali, 14 fulfilling what was said by Yeshayah the Prophet, 15 “The land of Zevulun and the land of Naftali, the way of the sea, across the Yarden, Galil of the nations—55 54 This again adopts the Maimonidean notion that a human cannot see angels in a wakened state. See Guide of the Perplexed II:4⒉ 55 “Galil of the nations” likely refers to the Gentile population of the Galilee. During Jesus’ life, the Galilee had a large Israelite/Jewish population and also a large Gentile population. See Josephus, Antiquities 13:337 and 18:3⒎ Cf.

Gospel According to Matthew  95

16 The people walking in darkness saw a great light; to those dwelling in a land of the shadow of death, light dawned upon them.” Light dawned upon them—this verse comes om Isaiah 8:23–9:1, with a slight variation: For there shall be no gloom for her who was in anguish, as in a former time . . . light dawned upon them. The plain meaning of these verses teaches about the exile of Israel by the hands of the Assyrians and of what happened to the land of Judah in the days of King Hezekiah when he defeated the army of Sennacherib. However, I have already written that it is the custom of the Talmudists to extract a verse om its original context and support their teachings with one or two words of the verse; and the writers of the New Testament were mostly, if not all, Talmudists.56 Since they saw that Yeshua instilled in the heart of every person the faith in the unity of the Creator, they based their teachings on the phrase light dawned upon them. 17 From this time on, Yeshua began calling out to proclaim and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is on the brink of arrival!” From this time on—om the time of Yoḥanan’s arrest, Yeshua began to call to the people to repent, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is on the brink of arrival!” Just as it is written: For the thing is very close to you (Deuteronomy 30:14). Meaning: Whoever wishes to repent with a pure heart will come very close to understanding that God is the king of the universe and that he is unique. 18 While he was walking beside the Sea of the Galil, he saw that two men who were brothers—Shimon who is called Petros and his brother Andrai—were casting their net into the sea because they were fishermen. Who is called Petros—in Greek, petros means stone. He called him Petros [Peter] because he was going to make him the foundation of the institution upon which he will build his house of study, as is explained in Mattai 16:⒙57 BT Shabbat 146a. 56 I.e., that they were adept at the midrashic method of interpretation. See, e.g., Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, 61–6⒍ This seems like a polemical comment, as Soloveitchik knew that most New Testament scholars of his time were not looking at the Talmud. In fact, people such as Alexander McCaul argued just the opposite: that the Talmud was precisely the problem. We can see that this continues into the work of Adolf Harnack and others in the early twentieth century. To Soloveitchik’s point, see Susan Docherty, “New Testament Scriptural Interpretation in Its Early Jewish Context,” Novum Testamentum 57 (2015): 1–⒚ 57

It was very common at that time for people to have both Hebrew and Greek names. Andrai is Andrew.

96  Gospel According to Matthew

19 He said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you into fishers of people.” Fishers of people—to cause them to turn in repentance and to instill in their hearts the unity of YHWH. 20 So they quickly left their nets behind and followed him. 21 When he moved on from there, he saw two other men who were brothers—Ya’akov ben Zavdai and his brother Yoḥanan—in a boat with their father, Zavdai, mending their nets, and he called to them. 22 They quickly left the boat and their father behind and followed him. 23 Then Yeshua traveled around in all the Galil. He taught in their synagogues, he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom, and he healed every sickness and every disease among the people. The good news of the kingdom—the unity of the Creator.58 Sickness—those who have sickness of the soul. And every disease—those whose bodies are diseased. It was the custom of all the sages of the Talmud to preach in public and to request bodily healing for the many, as we find in BT Avodah Zarah 28a: Rabbi Yoḥanan suffered om scurvy (in his gums). He went to a certain [non-Jewish] woman. She gave him treatment on Thursday and Friday. He said to her: “What about tomorrow [in other words, tomorrow is the Sabbath and I must preach to many; what will I do]?” She said to him: “You will not need the medication tomorrow.” He said to her: “And what if I do need it?” She said: “Do you swear that you will not reveal it?” He swore to her: “I swear to the God of Israel I will not reveal it.” She revealed it to him. The next day, he went out and revealed it in his sermon. For he said: “I swore that I would not reveal it to the God of Israel, but to the people of Israel I will reveal it!”

Therefore, he revealed it for the good of the community of Israel. 24 His renown went out in all the land of Surya, and they brought to him all the sick people—those afflicted with any illness or painful condition, those in the grip of demons, those struck by the moon, and those who were paralyzed—and he healed them. 58 Here, as elsewhere, Soloveitchik focuses on Jesus’ (Jewish) message (the unity of the Creator), as opposed to his apocalyptic or messianic status.

Gospel According to Matthew  97

Those struck by the moon—a sickness that comes om sleeping while exposed to the brightness of the moon, as we find in BT Pesaḥim 111a: “And he who sleeps in the shadow of the moon, his blood is on his own head,” for demons reside in its shadow. 25 Huge crowds followed him from the Galil, from the Ten Cities, from Yerushalayim and Yehudah, and from beyond the Yarden.

CHAPTER 5

1 When he saw the crowd of people, he ascended the mountain and sat there, and his disciples approached him. 2 He opened his mouth and taught them, saying, 3 “O, the gladness of the poor in spirit! For theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. Poor in spirit—honored reader, I have promised to explain to you the controversy between the Pharisees and the Essenes. Now I shall begin to explain. The Pharisees would say that in every single attribute, man must take the moderate path and not lean to any extreme, so that he will not be overly evil nor will he be overly righteous (Ecclesiastes 7:16–17). For example, the Torah says: If there is a needy man among you . . . you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand against your needy brother (Deuteronomy 15:7).59 What, then, is the limit to giving charity? The Torah says that every man must give a tenth of all his goods. The sages of the Talmud, who were Pharisees, said: “He who spends liberally (in generosity) should not give more than five percent, or else he may someday be in need. Once, there was a man who wanted to give more than five percent, but his iend would not allow him” (BT Ketubot 50a). This is the middle road.60

59 This rabbinic depiction of the “middle path” is Soloveitchik’s adaptation of the Maimonidean “golden mean.” Maimonides adopts om Aristotle’s Ethics reacted through the Islamic theology of ‘Al Farabi and others. See Maimonides’ Eight Chapters in his commentary to the Mishnah on Pirkei Avot. While this is certainly true in some cases in rabbinic literature, there are many instances of extreme, even ascetic, behavior. See, e.g., as discussed at length in Eliezer Diamond, Holy Men and Hungry Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), esp. 21–58, 93–1⒛ David Flusser views the Beatitudes here in a more Essene light. See Flusser, “Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit,” Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960): 1–⒔ A similar version can be found in Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 12–1⒕ 60

See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Charity.”

Gospel According to Matthew  99

The Essenes would say that every single man needed to give everything he had to the poor and not leave anything for himself. And this is what Yeshua said: “If you desire to be complete, go sell your possessions and give to the poor” (Mattai 19:21), and so, too, in every other attribute. The Essenes said that in order to enter into eternal life, man must practice every good attribute to the extreme. It is only concerning the most odious attribute—pride—that the Pharisees and the Essenes completely agreed. For the Pharisees said that it was incumbent upon man to distance himself om this evil attribute and that man should be incredibly humble so as not to allow any pride to remain in his heart at all.61 When Yeshua said, “O, the gladness of the poor in spirit,” he meant that man should be incredibly humble. And this is what we find in Pirkei Avot 4:4: “Be very, very humble, for the hope of man is worms.”62 In other words, man may be proud and haughty, but he always knows that one day he will die, and his hope is to be eaten by worms. Therefore, it is imperative for him to completely eradicate all pride om his heart.63 4 O, the gladness of those who mourn! For they will be comforted. Those who mourn—those same dejected people who are poor in spirit are like mourners in this world. Happy are they, for the Holy One, blessed be he, sends them afflictions in this world because of their transgressions so that they will be rescued om the judgment of Geihinnom in the world to come. This concept is also in Luke 16:19–25 in the story of Lazarus the poor man. And in the Talmud (BT ‘Eruvin 41b):64

61 Much of this is based on Josephus. See Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Essenes in Philo and Josephus,” in Qumran Between the Old and New Testament, ed. F. H. Cryerah and T. L. Thompson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 32–6⒏ 62 Maimonides uses this mishnah to argue that humility is the one human trait that should not adhere to the principle of the golden mean, i.e., that one should aspire to live in humility in the extreme. See Maimonides’ Eight Chapters; and Ovadia Bartenura, commentary to Pirkei Avot 4:⒋ 63 The literature on the Essenes and their doctrines is voluminous, and the theories as to Jesus’ relationship with them are vexing. For seminal studies on the Essenes, see Geza Vermes and Martin Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989); Albert I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (Leiden: Brill, 1997); and Shemaryahu Talmon, The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989). More recently, see Steve Mason, “What Josephus Says About Essenes in His Judean War,” in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honor of Peter Richardson, ed. S. Wilson and M. Desjardine (Waterloo, ON: Wiled Laurier University Press, 2000), 434–467; Kenneth Atkinson and Jodi Magness, “Josephus’s Essenes and the Qumran Community,” Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): 317–342; and Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea. 64 This also resembles prophetic teaching in Isaiah 61:1–3 and 66:⒑ Soloveitchik certainly knows these verses and apparently chose to focus on the parity between this famous sermon of Jesus and rabbinic teaching.

100  Gospel According to Matthew There are three groups of people who will not see the face of Gehenna, and one of them is those who suffer om poverty. The Holy One, blessed be he, will afflict him with poverty in this world so that he will be rescued om the judgment of Gehenna.

5 O, the gladness of the humble! For they will inherit the earth. The humble—this is also in the Talmud (BT Sukkot 29b): “On account of four things is the property of owners confiscated by the treasury, and one of them is arrogance. . . . However, concerning the humble, it is written: And the humble shall inherit the earth, and they shall delight in abundant peace (Psalm 37:11).” 6 O, the gladness of those who hunger and thirst for ṣedakah! For they will be satisfied. For they will be satisfied—and in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 10a): Come and see that the ways of God are not like the ways of flesh and blood. These are the ways of flesh and blood: a man brings a large gi to the king; perhaps it is accepted, perhaps it is not . . . perhaps he will see the face of the king, perhaps he will not. However, the Holy One, blessed be he, is not like this. If a man gives a coin to a poor man, he is worthy to receive the Divine Presence, as it is said (Psalm 17:15): I, in righteousness,65 will see your face; when I awake, I will be satisfied with your likeness.

This is the meaning: because of the charity that I gave to the poor, I will be worthy to see your face and be satisfied in the world to come in the awakening— that is, in the immortality—of the soul. 7 O, the gladness of the compassionate! For they will be shown compassion. For they will be shown compassion—as we find in the Talmud (BT Shabbat 151b): “Everyone who has compassion on all creatures will have compassion om heaven, and everyone who does not have compassion on all creatures will not have compassion om heaven.”

65 The word used here in Hebrew is ṣedek (lit., “justice”), but it also is directly related to the word ṣedakah (“righteousness,” “charity”).

Gospel According to Matthew  101

8 O, the gladness of the pure of heart! For they will behold God. They will behold God—there are those who interpret this concept of “seeing” as “comprehension” or “perception,” as in, My heart has seen much wisdom and knowledge (Ecclesiastes 1:16), for we cannot interpret this literally, as it is written: For man cannot see me and live (Exodus 33:20). Even Yoḥanan said, “No one has ever seen God” (Yoḥanan 1:18).66 However, I do interpret this word as “fear,”67 as we find in the Talmud (BT Bava Metzi‘a 58b): “Concerning everything that is known to the heart, it is said, ‘and you shall fear your God.’ ” 9 O, the gladness of those who pursue shalom! For they will be called sons of God. Sons of God—it is important to understand why those who make peace are called sons of God. According to the Talmud (BT Shabbat 10b): His [God’s] own name is Peace, for it is written: And he called it YHWH is peace (Judges 6:24). In other words, Gideon called the Holy One, blessed be he, “peace.”

And we find in the Talmud (BT Yevamot 65b): Great is peace, for even the Holy One, blessed be he, changed what was said, for in the beginning it was written: “And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment? And my master is old.’. . . And YHWH said to Abraham, ‘Why did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I truly give birth as old as I am?’ (Genesis 18:12–13).”

Every man who is righteous and cleaves to the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be he, and makes and pursues peace is called a son of God, as we wrote above in Mattai ⒋68

66

Yet, of course, Deuteronomy 5:5 states: “face to face to I spoke to you.”

67 Soloveitchik is interpreting the word ‫ יראו‬as “they will fear” instead of “they will see,” as the verbs “to see” and “to fear” share the same Hebrew root. In other Hebrew translations of the New Testament, the word ‫ יחזו‬is used; this word clearly signifies “seeing” or “obtaining a vision.” 68 As noted earlier, the “son of God” appellation has a long and complex history. For a recent and fairly concise exploration, see Boyarin, “From Son of God to Son of Man,” in his The Jewish Gospels, 25–70. Cf., more extensively, Adela Yarbo Collins and John Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: MI: Eerdmans, 2008).

102  Gospel According to Matthew

10 O, the gladness of those who are pursued on account of ṣedakah! For theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. Those who are pursued—In BT Bava Kama 93a: “A man should be of the pursued and not of the pursuers, for there are none among the birds more pursued than the doves and pigeons, yet scripture made them permissible for the altar.” Ṣedakah—for there are people who do acts of charity and kindness, and there are people who will pursue them for that. 11 O, your gladness if they insult you and pursue you, falsely speaking all kinds of evil about you for my sake! 12 Be happy and rejoice because your reward in heaven is great, for so they pursued the prophets who were before you. Your reward . . . is great—in BT Shabbat 118b: “Rabbi Yosei said: ‘May my portion be of those who are suspected but are innocent.’ ” 13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt becomes tasteless, with what could it be salted? See, it is no longer useful for anything except to be cast outside, and it becomes something for sons of men to trample. You are the salt of the earth—up until now, he taught his disciples the good attributes that they should teach to the people and instill in their hearts. Now he begins to teach the disciples how to conduct themselves, for they should not imagine that if they conduct themselves in an unworthy manner that they will inherit life in the world to come. Absolutely not! Thus he told them this parable: very seldom does someone eat without using salt to season the food, for the food becomes even more nutritious and delicious with this condiment, with the condition that it retains its saltiness. It is the same for you. If you are not strict with yourselves and are not cautious even in the simplest matter, know that even for this, God will bring you into judgment, for he is greatly terriing to all those around him and scrutinizes the righteous like a strand of hair, just as we find in the Talmud (BT Bava Kama 50a): It once happened that the daughter of Neḥonya, the digger of wells, fell into a large pit. They came and notified Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa. During the first hour, he said to them: “She is fine.” During the second, he said to them: “She is fine.” During the third, he said to them: “She has come out.” They asked her: “Who lied you out?” She answered them: “A ram happened upon me and an old

Gospel According to Matthew  103 man leading it” [the ram of Isaac and Abraham—in other words, the merit of the forefathers]. They asked Rabbi Ḥanina: “Are you a prophet?” He answered them: “No, I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet, but this is what I said: Shall that to which a righteous man has devoted himself (Nechonya to his welldigging) become a stumbling block to his progeny?” Rabbi Acha said: “Even so, his son died of thirst, as it is said . . . terrifying to all those around him (Psalm 89:8).”

14 You are the light of the world. A city that sits on the mountain will not be hidden, 15 nor do people kindle a lamp just to put it under the bushel measure, but on the menorah, to illuminate all who are in the house. You are the light of the world—verses 14 and 15 open our eyes to understand why Yeshua repeats the penalty twice in the statement, “to be cast outside, and it becomes something for sons of men to trample.” For they have a greater responsibility, and their conduct must be an example to others, thus demonstrating the correct path to all creatures and illuminating it for them. And we find in BT Shabbat 54b: “Anyone who is able to forbid the people of his house om transgressing and does not is seized on account of the them; if he can forbid the people of the town om transgressing and does not, he is seized on account of them; if he can forbid all the world om transgressing and does not, he is seized on account of the whole world.”69 Therefore, this is what Yeshua means: you are the light of the world, lighting up the whole world and teaching them the good and correct path, and it is incumbent upon you to forbid them om transgressing. And if—God forbid—they depart om the good path, you will be seized on their account not just because of this but for an even greater evil that you did—through your evil deeds, you will have caused them to go down their evil paths. Thus, you will only be worthy to be thrown out and trampled by men.70 16 So also, shine your light before sons of men, so that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father who is in heaven. 69 Interestingly, Rashi in “on account of the whole world,” notes: “In all of Israel like a king or prince who can rebuke him and he will conform [because of the fear one has of the king or prince].” Soloveitchik leads the reader to believe that it is a more universal claim. In fact, Rashi’s reading of this passage that Soloveitchik uses to support Matthew 5:14 would support Soloveitchik’s basic premise that Jesus was preaching exclusively to Israel. 70 See, e.g., Isaiah 49:6: I will also make you a light of nations, that my salvation may reach the ends of the earth. Cf. Daniel 12:⒊ Soloveitchik adopts the common reading of the verse to refer to Israel’s mission in the world that is here expressed through Jesus. For another reading of this and relevant verses, see David Novak, Judaism and Zionism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 13⒈ Novak argues that the context of the Isaiah verse suggests that it is not Israel’s mission to bring divinity to the world but rather that is what God will do in the end-time. I.e., there is no proselytizing mission of the Jews in Novak’s understanding of the covenant.

104  Gospel According to Matthew

And praise your Father who is in heaven—this is also in the Talmud (BT Yoma 86a): Love YHWH your God . . . so that the name of heaven will be loved because of you. He who studies Torah and ministers to the disciples of the sages, who is upright in business and deals kindly with all creatures, what will be said concerning him? “Happy is his father who taught him Torah; happy is his rabbi who taught him Torah. This man has learned Torah, and see how pleasant are his ways, how proper are his deeds, for concerning him, scripture says (Isaiah 49:3): You are my servant, Israel in whom I will glorify myself. However, he who studies Torah and ministers to the disciples of the sages but who is not upright in business and does not deal kindly with all creatures—what is said concerning him? “Woe to this man who learned Torah. Woe to his father who taught him Torah; woe to his rabbi who taught him Torah. See how rotten his deeds are and how dirty his ways are! Concerning him, scripture says (Ezekiel 36:20): These are the people of YHWH, and they were made to leave his land.”71

17 Do not imagine that I have come to violate the Torah or the words of the prophets. I have not come to violate but to fulfill. Do not imagine—meaning: Do not think that the good attributes that I caution you to perform are the main principle of the Torah and the commandments that the Torah commands you to do are merely secondary, for if so, you may—God forbid—violate one of the commandments. Therefore, I caution you not to violate even one of the smallest commandments. And in my teaching you the good attributes, I am thereby supporting the Torah. The main principle is good works, just as Yeshua himself said in 7:21: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘My master! My master!’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but rather the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven,” for the main principle is to do and to obey. For he only came in order to strengthen them so that they would perform the commandments in their entirety. But to fulfill—the word should be ‫“( להקים‬to uphold”) and not ‫“( למלאות‬to fulfill”). There are those who argue that it should say, “to fulfill.” However, this

71 Soloveitchik seems to be using the verse in this context to warn his Jewish readers that Torah study without moral behavior is an abomination. To his Christian readers who have largely viewed Judaism through Paul’s critique of the Law, he suggests that the Talmud itself is aware of Paul’s critique and addresses it directly, i.e., that the binary of letter and spirit of the Law is not operative in rabbinic teaching. On Paul’s critique of the law, see Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People; Jacob Taubes, The Political Theology of Paul, trans. Dana Hollander (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003); and Boyarin, A Radical Jew. It may be, though, that Soloveitchik does not have Paul in mind here. For a more recent analysis of this anti-Pauline trope that dominated earlier scholarship on the Jewish Jesus, see John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

Gospel According to Matthew  105

is a complete mistake, for the scriptures are already full, as it says: Every word that I command of you today you shall guard and perform; do not add to it, and do not subtract from it (Deuteronomy 13:1). Therefore, Yeshua cautions them not to cancel even a stroke om the Torah, as it is written: “Do not subtract om it.” The common interpretation of “to uphold” is “to support,” just as it says: Cursed is he who does not uphold the words of this Torah or follow them (Deuteronomy 27:26). Everyone must support the Torah; in other words, everyone to whom YHWH grants wisdom must teach knowledge to the people so that they will learn and understand how to perform the commandments. And everyone to whom YHWH grants wealth must support those who study Torah so that the Torah will not—God forbid—disappear.72 18 For, amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one yod or one thorn will pass away from the Torah until all has been established. Until heaven and earth pass away—in Jeremiah 33:25: Thus said YHWH, “Just as I have established my covenant with day and night and the laws of heaven and earth.”. . . We find in BT Avodah Zarah 3a: “This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be he, made a condition with the works of creation and said: ‘If Israel accepts my Torah, well and good. And if not, I shall return you to emptiness and void.’ ” Not one yod—even if there is a yod or a stroke that seems superfluous to us, know that they were not written in vain. There is certainly a hidden meaning to them. 19 Therefore the man who violates one of these small mitzvot and teaches sons of men to do like him will be called small in the kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. Small—and this is in the Talmud (Avot 2:1): “Be as scrupulous with a light commandment as with a weighty one, for you do not know the rewards of the commandments.”73 72 Maintaining the complete Torah in messianic times is a rabbinic precept, e.g., BT Sanhedrin 90a, Exodus Rabbah 6:1, and Leviticus Rabbah 19:2, and is codified in Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Kings,” 11:4: “And if a king om the House of David rises and engages in Torah and mitzvot like his father David, the written law and the oral law, and if he compels all of Israel to follow him and to fight the wars of God, this person has the stature of the messiah.” It should be noted that this verse is foundational in attesting to the Jewishness of Jesus among both ancient “Jewish-Christians” as well as modern Jewish scholars on Judaism and Christianity. Soloveitchik’s reading adds interesting nuance to this position in his comment about fulfilling something that is already “full.” 73

See, e.g., in Deuteronomy 22:6–7; M Kiddushin 1:10; and BT Shabbat 70b.

106  Gospel According to Matthew

Whoever does—this means: it is not enough that he does them; and since performance of the commands is the main principle, he must teach others so that they, too, will know that it is the main principle. Then he will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.74 20 For I say to you, if your ṣedakah is not greater than the ṣedakah of the scholars and the Perushim, you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven. If your ṣedakah is not greater—the truth is that performing the commandments is the main principle of the Torah, but if you perform them and do not adhere to the good attributes, you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven, as we find in the Talmud (BT Shabbat 31a–b): “Everyone who follows the Torah but does not have fear of Heaven, he is like a treasurer entrusted with the inner keys, but not the outer keys. How will he enter?” The Torah is likened to inner keys, for Torah and performing the commandments is the main key. However, in order to come to the goal of the Torah and the commandments, good attributes are required. Continuing in BT Shabbat 31b: “Woe to him who has no courtyard but makes a gate in order to enter it.” In other words, woe to the man who has no fear of Heaven and yet still engages in Torah study. He must first prepare a place in which the Torah can be upheld, that is, he must puri his heart through the fear of YHWH and good attributes; then the Torah and the good attributes will together quali him to enter the kingdom of Heaven.75 21 Have you not heard that it was said to the first ones, “You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be liable to a court of law”? 22 Yet I say to you that whoever is enraged against his brother baselessly is liable to a court of law, and whoever says to his brother, “Reka,” is liable to a Sanhedrin, and whoever calls him a reprobate is made liable of the fire of Geihinnom.76 Whoever is enraged—now Yeshua begins to clari his words and demonstrate to everyone that a man who does not possess the good attributes will transgress 74 This seems implied in Maimonides’ “Laws of Kings” above, ‫( ויכוף בכל ישראל לילך בה‬lit., “compels all of Israel to follow them”). 75

Soloveitchik is intent on showing that Jesus’ comments are solidly in line with rabbinic teaching.

76 See, e.g., M Bava Kama 8:1, M Ketubot 3:7, and BT Bava Metzi‘a 58b. While initially a valley south of Jerusalem where apparently child sacrifices were still brought (e.g., 2 Kings 23:10 and Jeremiah 3:71), in both early Christianity and rabbinic teaching, Gehinnom became equated with purgatory or hell. See, e.g., BT ‘Eruvin 19a and BT Pesaḥim 54a.

Gospel According to Matthew  107

the entire Torah. It is written in the Torah, “You shall not murder.” He will think that if he has not killed any man, he is an upright man and has not transgressed the command “you shall not murder.” Yet Yeshua tells them: whoever is enraged against his brother baselessly is liable to a court of law, for this evil attribute will lead him to kill a man, as we find in BT Shabbat 105b: He who tears his garment in anger, he who breaks his vessels in anger, and he who scatters his money in anger, you shall regard as an idolater, for these are the tenets of the evil inclination. One day, it tells him, “do this,” and the next day, it will tell him, “do that,” until it tells him, “worship idols,” and he will do so.

Thus we can see that the attribute of anger can cause a man to become an idolater. So, too, the attribute of hatred can cause a man to murder. Reka—as we find in BT Bava Metzi‘a 58b: “Anyone who humiliates his iend in public, it is as if he shed his blood. . . . When he came his cheeks were red, and when he le they were white.” The fire of Geihinnom—we also find in the Talmud (ibid.): “All who descend to Geihinnom ascend again, except for three groups of people: . . .those who humiliate their iends in public.” 23 Therefore, if you are offering your sacrifice at the altar and remember that your brother has a dispute with you, 24 leave your sacrifice there in front of the altar, and go, atone before the face of your brother, then afterward come and offer your sacrifice. Go, atone—in BT Yoma 85b: “Transgressions that are between man and the Omnipresent, Yom Kippur will atone for them. Transgressions that are between man and his iend, Yom Kippur cannot atone for it unless his iend wills it.”77 25 Act quickly to settle your dispute with a man while you are still on the road with him, or else the man of your dispute will turn you over to the judge, and the judge will turn you over to the officer, and you will be sent to jail.

77 While this may be true, it is not clear that BT Yoma 85b is a good prooext for Jesus’ point. Jesus is clearly making a hierarchical distinction that mitzvot between individuals are of a higher status than those between the individual and God. This hierarchy, which became popular in nineteenth-century Reform Judaism, is highly contested in the rabbinic and subsequent legal-code tradition. Generally, see M Yoma 8:10, Genesis Rabbah 93:1, and Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Repentance,” 2:⒐ Yet there is a tradition of seeking reconciliation with one’s neighbor before one’s reconciliation with God. See, e.g., Pirkei Avot 3:⒑

108  Gospel According to Matthew

Act quickly—up until now, he admonishes them that they must appease their iend even if he sinned against him in speech, as he said in verse 23, “your brother has a dispute with you.” Now he admonishes them with: if you have a public dispute between yourself and your brother, act quickly to settle the dispute, or else he will turn you over to the judge, and then you will surely be forced to settle the dispute. 26 Amen, I tell you, you will not get out from there until you have paid the last prutah. 27 You have heard that it was said to the first ones, “You shall not commit adultery.” 28 Yet I say to you, whoever gazes at a woman to covet her has surely committed adultery with her in his heart. Committed adultery with her in his heart—this is also in the Talmud (BT Yoma 29a): “Thoughts of transgression lead to transgression.”78 29 And if your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and cast it away from you. It is better for you that one of your members is lost than for your entire body to descend to Geihinnom. If your eye causes you—we find in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhot 1:5): Do not stray because of your heart and because of your eyes (Numbers 15:39). Rabbi Levi said: “The heart and the eye are two procurers of sin, for it is written (Proverbs 23:26), My son, give your heart to me, and let your eyes watch my ways. The Holy One, blessed be he, said: ‘If your heart and eyes belong to me, then I know that you are mine.’ ” 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you. It is better for you that one of your members is lost than for your entire body to descend to Geihinnom. If your right hand causes you—and this is in the Talmud (BT Niddah 13b): “What does the passage mean, Your hands are stained with blood (Isaiah 1:15)? It

78 This rabbinic source does not necessarily prove the point that may be suggested here—that the sins of the heart are equated with the sins of actions. From a legal perceptive, sins of the heart are not actionable, although it is arguably the case that Jesus was making a heuristic, rather than a legal, claim. Sins of the heart become more prominent in the medieval pietistic tradition, e.g., Baḥya Ibn Paquda, Ḥovot HaLevavot (Duties of the heart) and later in the moral/kabbalistic tradition, e.g., Elijah da Vidas, Reishit Ḥokhmah (First of wisdom).

Gospel According to Matthew  109

speaks of adulterers. Rabbi Yishmael taught: ‘You shall not commit adultery— there shall not be any adultery between your hand and your foot.’ ” 31 It was said, “If a man sends his wife away, he must give her a certificate of divorce.”79 32 Yet I say to you, one who sends away his wife other than for a matter of promiscuity brings her into the grasp of adulteries, and he who takes the divorced woman as a wife is an adulterer. Other than for a matter of promiscuity—we find in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 22a): “Come and see how difficult it is to divorce, for King David was permitted a union but not a divorce.” The meaning of this is that the king was not allowed to take more than eighteen wives, and when King David was advancing in years and they covered him in bedclothes but he did not feel warm (1 Kings 1:1), he was permitted a union with Abishag the Shunamite, but he was not permitted to divorce one of his eighteen wives and take Abishag as his wife. And continuing in BT Sanhedrin 22a: Rabbi Eliezer said: Anyone who divorces his first wife even the altar sheds tears, as it is said (Malachi 2:13–14): And you also do this: you cover the altar of YHWH with tears, weeping, and moaning, so that he does not accept the offering or receive favor om you. But you say: “Because of what?” Because YHWH was a witness between you and the wife of your youth whom you have betrayed, even though she is your companion and your covenanted wife!80

And in BT Giṭṭin 90b, it is said: “I hate divorce (Malachi 2:16). . . . Rabbi Yoḥanan said: ‘He who divorces his wife is hated.’ ” In other words, the one who divorces his wife is hated by the Holy One, blessed be he. And we find in BT Giṭṭin 90a: “A man shall not divorce his wife unless he finds in her something indecent, as it is said (Deuteronomy 24:1), for he has found something indecent in her . . . and he has two witnesses.” This means that she becomes prohibited to him because of the indecency, but only if there is clear testimony. And he who takes the divorced woman—that is, he who divorces his wife over a matter of indecency and another one takes her as his wife—he is an adulterer. This is also in the Talmud (BT Giṭṭin 90b):

79

See Deuteronomy 24:1–⒋

80 But see M Giṭṭin 9:9: “Beit Shammai says, ‘A man should not divorce his wife unless he finds her guilty of promiscuity.’. . . Beit Hillel says, ‘even if she burned his food.’. . . Rabbi Akiva says, ‘even if he finds another more beautiful.’ ”

110  Gospel According to Matthew She leaves his house and goes and becomes the wife of another (Deuteronomy 24:2). The scripture calls him “another,” saying that he is not the companion of the first man. The one expels wickedness om his household, and the other allows wickedness to enter. If the second man is lucky, he will send her away also, as it is said: And the last man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:3). And if he does not, she will bury him, as it says (ibid.): Or the man who marries her last will die. He is deserving of death, for the first expelled wickedness om his household and the second allowed wickedness to enter.

33 Again, you have heard that it was said to the first ones, “You shall not swear falsely, but you shall perform your oaths to YHWH.”81 34 Yet I say to you, you shall not swear any oath—not by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 nor by the earth, for it is his footstool, nor by Yerushalayim, for it is the city of the great King. You shall not swear any oath—it is written (Leviticus 19:12): You shall not swear falsely by my name. No one should think that it is permissible to swear falsely as long as they not do so in the name of YHWH; therefore he said, “you shall not swear any oath.” This is also in the Talmud (BT Nazir 3b): Where is it said that if someone says, “by my right hand,” it is an oath? It is said (Isaiah 62:8): YHWH has sworn by his right hand. And where is it said that if someone says, “by my le hand,” it is an oath? It is said (ibid.): . . . and by the arm of his strength.

Therefore Yeshua said not to swear by heaven, nor by earth, nor by Jerusalem, for the name of YHWH is upon them, as it is written (Isaiah 66:1): The heavens are my throne and the earth is my footstool. 36 Not even by the life of your head shall you swear, since you are unable to turn one hair black or white. Black or white—this is also in the Talmud (BT Shavuot 38b–39a): When the judges impose an oath upon a man, they say to him: “Know that the entire world shook in the hour when the Holy One, blessed be he, said on Sinai, ‘You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain.’ ” And generally, 81

Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; Deuteronomy 5:11, 21:21–2⒊

Gospel According to Matthew  111 the punishments for all the transgressions of the Torah will be exacted in two or three generations, but for swearing falsely, the punishment is immediate.

In other words, they will not have the opportunity to await their hair turning white, that is, old age; there is not even the opportunity to await for a short time until one strand of hair turns black, for the punishment will be immediate. 37 Instead, let your words be “yes, yes; no, no”; anything beyond this is from the evil one. Yes, yes—as we find in the Talmud (BT Bava Metzi‘a 49a): “Let your ‘yes’ be just and your ‘no’ be just.” This is the meaning: when you say yes or no, uphold your words and justi them. 38 You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” An eye for an eye—we find in the Talmud (BT Bava Kama 84a): Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai said: “Eye for an eye—this means monetary compensation. You say monetary, or perhaps it actually means an eye as compensation? If a blind man exacts retribution by causing blindness . . . how can I uphold ‘eye for an eye’ when the Torah says that there will be one legislation for you, equal punishment for everyone?”

39 Yet I say to you, do not retaliate against the wicked person. To the one who strikes you upon the right cheek, turn the other as well. Do not retaliate against the wicked person—this means do not exact vengeance on him or receive retribution by beating him. It says in the Talmud (BT Ḥullin 89a): “The world exists only on account of he who restrains himself in the hour of contention.” The early sages said: “A man has never insulted me more than one time, for the first time I bore my insult so that he did not insult me a second time.” Thus, suffer the first blow and turn the other cheek toward him also, and he will certainly not strike you again.82

82 See also Lamentations 3:30: Let him offer his cheek to the smiter, let him be surfeited with mockery. But also see Deuteronomy 7:1: When the Lord brings you to the land that you are to enter and possess . . . you must doom them to destruction; grant them no mercy and give them no quarter.

112  Gospel According to Matthew

40 If someone wants to quarrel with you and take your tunic, give him your cloak as well. Take your tunic—for Yeshua belonged to the Essene sect, which said that everyone must give his iend everything that he has. However, the Pharisees said that everyone must practice moderation—especially in giving charity, for your life is not worth less than your iend’s.83 41 If someone forces you to walk a mil with him on the road, go with him two. 42 If one asks of you, give it to him, and if one comes to borrow from you, do not turn his face away from you. If one asks of you—as we find in the Talmud (BT Bava Metzi‘a 31b): You shall surely give to him (Deuteronomy 15:10). I must give a large gi (if I am able). Where do I learn that I must also give a small gi? From the saying, “You shall surely give in every situation.”

In other words, if you are unable to give much, then give a little. Therefore Yeshua said, “If one asks of you, give it to him.” And the meaning is this: you are not permitted to turn him away empty-handed. You must give to him according to your ability, whether it be a little or a lot. And if one comes to borrow—if you see that your iend wants to request a loan om you but he is ashamed, do not turn your face away om him, as we find in BT Sanhedrin 76b: “He who lends a sela to a poor man in his hour of distress, this is what scripture says concerning him: Then you will call and YHWH will answer (Isaiah 58:9).” 43 You have heard that it was said, “Love your fellow” and “Hate your enemy.” Hate your enemy—this is not written anywhere in the Torah. However, it does say, You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18). But this is his meaning: it is written in the Torah “Love your neighbor as yourself,” but you 83 There are many scholars, such as Kaufmann Kohler, Shalom Ben-Chorin, and E. P. Sanders, who maintain that Yeshua was actually much closer to the Pharisees than the Essenes. “In the nineteenth century the tendency was to count Jesus among the Essenes, but that now appears to be incorrect, given that he did not share their abstinence and in no way rejected the enjoyment of wine”; Ben-Chorin, Brother Jesus, ⒖ I.e., the critique of the Pharisees in Matthew, at least om the mouth of Jesus, was an imminent critique rather than an external critique.

Gospel According to Matthew  113

erred and said that the Torah meant only to love your neighbor and not your enemy; therefore I tell you to love your enemies. For it says in scripture: If your enemy falls, do not be happy; if he trips, do not let your heart rejoice (Proverbs 24:17).84 44 Yet I say to you, love your enemies [bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you], and pray for those who [hurt you and] pursue you. Do good to those who hate you—this is also in the Talmud (BT Bava Metzi‘a 32b): “If a dear iend needs unloading and an enemy needs loading, you must help the enemy in order to subdue his evil inclination.” In other words, if his dear iend needs help unloading, and his enemy needs help loading—it is incumbent upon him to first help the enemy in order to overpower the hatred. Another passage states (Exodus 23:5): When you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden and would refrain from lifting, you shall help him lift it. In other words, do not let him li it on his own; rather, help him unload the burden. And if two men request a favor om you and you cannot help both of them, you must do the will of your enemy in order to subdue his evil inclination. This is what Yeshua meant when he said, “Do good to those who hate you.” Pray for those who hurt you—as we find in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 12b): Anyone who is able to request mercy for his iend and does not is called a sinner, as it is said: Far be it from me to sin against YHWH and keep from praying on your behalf (1 Samuel 12:23). . . . And I, when they were sick, was dressed in sackcloth, and I fasted; may my prayer return to me (Psalm 35:13).

This was David’s prayer for his enemies. 45 So that you will be sons of your Father who is in heaven, who makes his sun shine for the evil and for the good and sends rain on the righteous as well as upon the wicked. So that you will be sons—when you cleave to the good attributes of the Holy One, blessed be he. Just as he makes his sun shine and the rains fall on the good and the evil, so, too, you, when you go on your way and pray for your enemies as you do for your loved ones, then you will be sons of your Father who is in heaven. This is in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 39a): 84

See Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 474–48⒊

114  Gospel According to Matthew Caesar said to Rabban Gamliel: “You say that when ten of you Jews gather together, the Shekhinah rests among you. How many Shekhinahs are there?” Rabban Gamliel called to Caesar’s servant. He touched him on the neck and asked him: “Why does the sun enter the house of Caesar?” The servant answered: “The sun rests upon the whole world.” Rabban Gamliel retorted: “And if the sun, which is one of many thousands of servants of the Holy One, blessed be he, rests upon the whole world, how much more so his Shekhinah!”

Sends rain on the righteous as well as upon the wicked—it is written: YHWH is good to all (Psalm 145:9). It is also written: YHWH is good to those who hope in him (Lamentations 3:25). At first glance, there seems to be a contradiction here. There is a parable of a man who had a garden. He watered everything, and when he harvested, he harvested only the good plants. So, too, the Holy One, blessed be he, fills the entire world with goodness and nourishes both the good and the evil.85 46 For if you love those who love you, what is your reward? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 47 And if you ask of the shalom of only your brothers, what is your praise? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore, be complete, just as your Father who is in heaven is complete.

85 See the parallel in BT Ta’anit 7b. Cf. Deuteronomy Rabbah 7:7 to Deuteronomy 28:12; also Yalkut HaMahiri to Psalms, ed. S. Buber to Psalm 65:2⒎

CHAPTER 6

1 Guard yourselves from doing your ṣedakah before sons of men to be seen by them.86 For if so, you will not have a reward from your Father who is in heaven. Before sons of men—concerning the verse, For God shall bring every work into judgment concerning every hidden thing, whether good or bad (Lamentations 12:14), the Talmud says (BT Ḥagigah 5a): “Why whether good or bad? [What does good have to fear om judgment?] The school of Rabbi Yannai said: There was a man who gave charity to a poor man publicly, and Rabbi Yannai saw the man who gave the zuzim to the poor man publicly. He said to him: ‘It would have been better for you not to have given him what you just gave him so that you would not have embarrassed him.’ ”87 2 So when you do ṣedakah, do not blast a shofar in front of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and public squares so that the people will praise them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. They have received their reward—they have already received their reward in this world, for it was given to them by human beings. 3 But as for you, when you do ṣedakah, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. 86

The Greek reads ṣedakah as dikaiosyne, which is perhaps more commonly translated as “righteousness.”

87 Maimonides also notes the preference of charity being given anonymously. See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Gis to the Poor,” 10:⒐ Cf. BT Sukkot 49b.

116  Gospel According to Matthew

Do not let your left hand know—this is in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 10a–b): It is written, Righteousness delivers from death (Proverbs 10:2), and it is written, Righteousness delivers from death (Proverbs 11:4). Why this double mention of righteousness? One delivers man om an unnatural death, and one delivers man om Gehenna. . . . Which one delivers man om an unnatural death? A man who gives without knowing to whom he is giving; the poor man who receives without knowing om whom he is receiving: this is the righteousness that delivers om death. Concerning the man who gives charity and does not know to whom it was given, this excludes the practice of Mar Ukba. Concerning the man who receives and does not know om whom he receives, this excludes the practice of Rabbi Abba. [And this is the practice of Mar Ukba and Rabbi Abba: Mar Ukba would put four zuzim through a door slot for the poor of his neighborhood; the poor would not know who gave it to them but he (Mar Ukba) would know to whom he gave. Rabbi Abba would throw zuzim behind him in order to help the poor; the poor would know om whom they had received it, but he (Rabbi Abba) would not know to whom he had given (Rashi, BT Bava Batra 10b. This is om BT Ketubot 67b)]. Then what should man do? He should put it into a charity box. And when adding to it, he should be as trustworthy as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Tradyon.

And this is the meaning of, “Do not let your le hand know what your right hand is doing.” This is what happened: “When Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma was sick, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Tradyon went to visit him. . . . He [Rabbi Yosei] said to him: ‘Rabbi, what am I in regards to the world to come?’ He [Rabbi Ḥanina] said to him: ‘Have you done any good deed?’ He said to him: ‘I once mistook Purim money for charity money, and I distributed it to the poor.’ He said to him: ‘If so, then may your portion be my portion and your lot my lot’ (BT Avodah Zarah 18a).” 4 so that your ṣedakah will be in secret, and your Father who sees the secret things will openly be generous to you. 5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to pray as they stand in the synagogues and in the corners of the marketplaces in order that they may be seen by sons of men. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But as for you, when you pray, go into your room, close your door behind you, and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees the secret things will openly be generous to you. And pray to your Father—as it is written, to love YHWH your God and to serve him with all your heart (Deuteronomy 11:13). And we find in BT Ta’anit

Gospel According to Matthew  117

2a: “What is worship of the heart? Prayer.” And when a man prays with all his heart, he is sure that it will be answered. And we find in BT Berakhot 28b: When Rabbi Eliezer was sick, his students came to visit him. They said to him: “Our rabbi, teach us the ways of life and through them we will merit the world to come!” He said to them: “. . . and when you pray, know before whom you are standing and for that you shall merit the world to come.”

This means that you must know before whom you are standing so that you will pray with fear and intent. Therefore, Yeshua said, “When you pray, go into your room and close the door,” in order that you will be able to pray with intent and with a full heart. To your Father who is in secret—this means pray to YHWH, who knows the secrets of the hearts of men and all their needs, and then your heart will be certain that he will reward you openly. 7 And when you pray, do not babble like the Gentiles who say in their heart, “By the abundance of our words, we will be heard.” By the abundance of our words—this is also in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 61a): “Let man’s words always be few before the Holy One, blessed be he, as it is written, . . . for God is in heaven and you are on earth; therefore let your words be few (Ecclesiastes 5:1).”88 8 But as for you, do not imitate them, because your Father knows all your needs before you ask of him. 9 Therefore, this is what you should pray: Our Father, who is in heaven, may your name be sanctified. 10 May your kingdom come; as your will is done in heaven, may it also be on earth. May your kingdom come—that everyone would know the power of your kingdom, that you are unique and that you are the king of the universe, and may your name be sanctified by this.89 May your will be done in heaven and on earth—the will of the Holy One, blessed be he, is only to benefit his creation. Only our transgressions cause us

88

Cf. BT Berakhot 55a, where wordiness in prayer is discouraged.

89 This resembles the traditional Kaddish prayer that became popular during the rabbinic period and may have even earlier roots. See BT Yevamot 79a; BT Soṭah 49a.

118  Gospel According to Matthew

not to be able to receive his goodness; therefore we should pray, “may it be according to your will.” And the meaning of this is: may your will be done on earth as it is done in heaven, for there are no sinners there. 11 Give us the bread that is our allotment today. Give us—this is also in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 30a): “A man should always associate himself with the congregation” (i.e., man should not pray alone), for “give us” is in the plural, and within a congregation, his prayer shall be heard. Today—and in the Talmud (BT Soṭah 48b): “Everyone who has a piece of bread in his basket and yet says, ‘What will I eat tomorrow?’ belongs to those who are little in faith.” Therefore there is no need to request daily bread except once. 12 And pardon us our debts, as we also have pardoned those indebted to us. As we also have pardoned those indebted to us—as it is found in the Talmud (BT Megillah 28a): “The disciples of Rabbi Nehunya ben HaKanah asked him: ‘How did you merit such a long life?’ He said to them: ‘I never honored myself through the disgrace of my iends, nor did I ever go to sleep without forgiving any man who had wronged me.’ ” And in the same manner, before he would get into his bed, Mar Zutra would say: “May every man who distressed me be forgiven.” 13 And do not bring us into the hands of testing, but rescue us from what is evil. [For yours is the kingdom and the power and the majesty, forever and ever. Amen.] Into the hands of testing—as we find in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 107a): A man should never bring himself into the hands of testing, as David, king of Israel, brought himself into the hands of testing [as it says in Psalm 26:2—Examine me, YHWH, and test me], and he failed . . . [and concerning this, David said:] You have tried my heart, you have visited it at night, you have tested me and have found no evil; my mouth has not transgressed (Psalm 17:3). David then said: “If only a bridle had fallen in the mouth of my enemy (meaning, my own mouth), that I would not have said something like this.” This means: “If I had not said, ‘Examine me, YHWH, and test me,’ then I would not have come into the hands of testing.”

Rescue us from what is evil—as we find in the Talmud (BT Kiddushin 81b): “Rabbi Ḥiya bar Abba had the custom of falling on his face (in prayer), saying: ‘Merciful

Gospel According to Matthew  119

One, save us om the evil inclination.’ ” And in BT Sukkot 42b: “The inclination of man overpowers him every day and seeks to kill him . . . and if it were not for the Holy One, blessed be he, to help him, man could not survive.” 14 For if you pardon sons of men for their sins, your Father who is in heaven will also pardon you. 15 And if you do not pardon sons of men, your Father will not pardon your sins. Will not pardon your sins—as we find in the Talmud (BT Rosh Hashanah 17a): “He who passes over his right to exact legal punishment is forgiven of all his iniquities, as it is said: Pardoning iniquity and forgiving transgression (Micah 7:18). Whose iniquity does God pardon? He who forgives transgression.” 16 And when you fast, do not be gloomy like the hypocrites, who change their appearance to show other people that they are fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. They have received their reward—why is it that if one does these three things— that is, righteousness (charity), prayer (see verses 2 and 5 above), and fasting—in order to obtain honor om men, he says, “Behold, their reward is with them”? The reason is that they have already received their reward in this world, in that they received it om men. For it is well known that the Holy One, blessed be he, repays measure for measure. When man does any good deed, whether it be charity, prayer, fasting, or things such as these, the court that is in the world to come rewards him. We have already written: “In the world to come, there is no eating or drinking . . . righteous ones sit with their crowns upon their heads, and they delight in the splendor of the Shekhinah” (BT Berakhot 17a). And this is said about the good deeds that the righteous perform in this world, that for this reason they are permitted to delight in the splendor of the Shekhinah. This is to say, the reward in the world to come is spiritual and does not entail physical pleasure. However, even the honor they receive om men in this world is spiritual pleasure, for receiving honor does not consist of eating and drinking. In summary: “Behold, their reward is with them”—compared to the reward in the world to come, which has no eating or drinking—for they have already received honor in this world, and receiving honor does not constitute eating or drinking.90

90

On these themes more generally, see Diamond, Holy Men and Hungry Artists.

120  Gospel According to Matthew

17 But as for you, when you fast, apply oil to your head and wash your face, 18 so your fasting will not be seen by sons of men, but rather by your Father in secret, and your Father who sees the secret things will openly be generous to you. Do not be seen fasting—as we find in the Talmud (BT Sukkot 49b): He has told you, O man, what is good and what YHWH requires of you; to do justice, love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:8). To walk humbly with your God means to attend funerals and to welcome the bride into the ḥuppah.

Meaning that if one must spend time attending funerals or welcoming a bride, one must do it with humility. And if the Torah says to walk humbly when performing the things that are usually done openly, how much more so should we act humbly when doing the things that are usually performed in secret. 19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and rottenness consume them, and thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and rottenness do not consume them, and thieves do not break in and steal. Treasures in heaven—as it says in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 11a): This is related to King Monobaz (son of Queen Helena, who had converted to Judaism), who squandered his treasures and his fathers’ treasures in years of scarcity. His brothers and his father’s house said to him: “Your fathers stored up and added to the treasures of their fathers, and you squander them.” He said to them: “My fathers stored up treasures below, and I am storing up treasures above, as it is said: Truth springs forth from the earth, and righteousness looks down from heaven (Psalm 85:12). My fathers stored up treasures in a place where it could be tampered with, but I stored up treasures in a place where it cannot be tampered with, as it is said: Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne (Psalm 89:15). My fathers stored up something that does not bear uit, but I have stored up something that does bear uit, as it is said: Say of the righteous that it shall be well with him, for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds (Isaiah 3:10). My fathers stored up wealth, but I have stored up treasures of souls, as it is said: The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who is wise wins souls (Proverbs 11:30). My fathers have stored up for others, and I have stored up for myself, as it is said: And it shall be righteousness unto you (Deuteronomy 24:13). My fathers stored up

Gospel According to Matthew  121 treasures for this world, and I have stored up treasures for the world to come, as it is said: And your righteousness shall go before you, and the glory of YHWH shall be your rearguard (Isaiah 58:8).”

21 For in the place where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. There your hearts will be also—meaning: In addition to the benefit that you will receive om giving charity, your hearts will also be in the place where your treasures are, and your treasures will be in heaven. Therefore, your thoughts should concern spiritual matters; do not pursue the lusts of the flesh. 22 The lamp of the body is the eye, and if your eye is whole, your entire body will be illuminated. The lamp of the body is the eye—the Talmud says (Avot 2:9): “Go out and see which is the correct path that man should follow. Rabbi Eliezer says: ‘A good eye.’ He [Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai] said: Go out and see the evil path om which man should distance himself. Rabbi Eliezer said: ‘An evil eye.’ ” This is to say, the person with a good eye is satisfied with what he has, and he does not hasten to become wealthier; rather, he rejoices in the lot that YHWH apportioned to him. And as our sages of blessed memory said (BT Shabbat 25b): “Who is wealthy? He who is content with his wealth.” In other words, one who rejoices in his portion, whether small or great. The one with the evil eye is the opposite of this, for he will not be satisfied with wealth; therefore, life for him is a constant torment. Concerning him, King Solomon said: All the days of the poor are wretched (Proverbs 15:15); for with every coin that he spends, he will fear becoming poorer. And he shall have no rest at night, for he is greedy toward others. For when he sees his companion succeeding, this will cause him to lose sleep. We have already said that man is composed of body and spirit, and they are always at odds with each other at every single moment. By the nature of the body, man is always ready to follow aer the lusts of his heart, but by the nature of the discerning spirit, he is ready to walk the good and correct path. This is also in Galatians 5:17: “For the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.” When the strength of the spirit overcomes the strength of the body, it is then that his body surrenders to his spirit and he is compelled to assist his soul in extracting strength to perform all the good attributes. And if, God

122  Gospel According to Matthew

forbid, the power of the body should overcome the spirit, then the spirit will be compelled to surrender to the body and will be forced to assist the body in trickery in order to extract the strength to perform every bad attribute. And by this, you will understand what was said by our sages of blessed memory (BT Shabbat 119b): On erev Shabbat, two ministering angels accompany a man home om the synagogue—one good and one evil. When he comes to his house and finds the light glowing, the table set, and the bed made, the good angel says: “May you have another Sabbath like this one,” and the bad angel answers “Amen,” against his will. However, if he does not find these things, the evil angel says: “May you have another Sabbath like this one,” and the good angel answers “Amen,” against his will.

This is the meaning: the two angels are the body and spirit of every man. The spirit is called the good angel, for its desire is only to do good for the man. The body is called the evil angel, for the nature of the body is to choose only evil. Now when a man comes home om synagogue and sees the light glowing and the table set, he rejoices in his portion that YHWH allotted to him; and with his bed made, he sleeps at night and does not worry about the next day or what will happen aer the Sabbath, because he has placed his assurance in YHWH, who invites him to partake of his provision and daily bread. Then the evil angel—the strength of the body—surrenders to his soul, and against his will answers, “Amen.” And if he is not satisfied with the few things he has and does not rejoice in his portion, then his soul surrenders to the powers of his body and, against its will, answers, “Amen.” Therefore, Yeshua said, “The lamp of the body is the eye.” This means, the Holy One, blessed be he, gave you a light—a spirit—as it is written, For the lamp of YHWH is the soul of man (Proverbs 20:27), and it is the eye that will illuminate the good path on which you shall go.91 If your eye is whole—you shall follow only aer the powers of your spirit; then the whole body will be filled with light; and even the body, which by its nature is only ever evil, will surrender to the soul and assist it in extracting every good attribute through deeds.92 23 But if your eye is evil, your entire body will be darkened—and if the light within you is darkened, how great is the darkness! 91 Light is oen used as synonymous with righteousness. See, e.g., Isaiah 60:20, Psalm 25:13, 104:2; Proverbs 6:22, 50:30; Daniel 2:2⒉ 92 Rabbinic midrash on Genesis suggests that Adam’s body was originally made of light (‫ )אור‬and aer the sin turned to skin (‫)עור‬. Therefore the purification of the body through righteousness is the return of skin to light.

Gospel According to Matthew  123

And if your eye is evil—if you follow only aer the lusts of your body, then your whole body will become dark and will be drawn only toward evil attributes, until the light that is within you—the spirit—becomes dark and surrenders to the body. 24 A man is not able to serve two masters. For he will hate the one and love the other, or he will cling to one and despise the other. You are not able to serve both God and mamon. Two masters—this concept is a continuation of the first. Just as a man cannot serve two masters who are in opposition to each other, one saying, “Dress in black clothing,” and the other saying, “Dress in white clothing,” one saying, “Do this,” and the other saying, “Don’t do this,” so, too, can man not serve both God and money. If you desire to serve money, your eye will not be satisfied with wealth and you will not be able to serve God. And if you want to serve God, then you must be happy with your portion, put your trust in him, and not worry about tomorrow. 25 Therefore I say to you, do not worry for your lives, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will we drink?” Or for your bodies, saying, “What will we wear?” Is not the life more precious than food and the body more precious than clothes? 26 Watch the birds of heaven and see: They do not plant, and they do not reap, and they do not gather into granaries, but your Father who is in heaven sustains them. Are you not far more important than they are? Watch the birds of heaven—as we find in the Talmud (BT Kiddushin 82b): Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: “In all my days I have never seen an animal or a bird that worked a trade, and they are sustained without grief. They were created to serve me, and I was created to serve my Maker! Is it not only fair that I should be sustained without grief⁈ It is because I have acted wickedly that I have deprived myself of my provision.”

You are more important than they—for they were created to serve you, and you were created to serve your Maker. 27 And who among you, by worrying, is able to add one ‘ammah to his stature?

124  Gospel According to Matthew

Add one ‘ammah to his stature—man is not permitted to worry so that he will not be considered one of the small in faith, but also because his worry does not benefit him, just as one cannot add one hour to his life or one inch to his stature through worrying. Every man should only trust in YHWH, blessed be his name, for YHWH, in his mercy, watches over all of his creatures. 28 As for what to wear, why do you worry? Observe the lilies of the field that grow: 29 They do not work hard and they do not weave, but I say to you that even Shlomoh in all his splendor was not clothed like one of them. 30 If this is how God clothes the hay of the field, which today is sprouting and tomorrow is cast into the oven, will he not do the same for you, too, small ones in faith? 31 Therefore, do not worry, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will we drink?” or “What will we wear?” 32 For the Gentiles request all of these. Does your Father who is in heaven not know that you need all these? 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his ṣedakah, and all these things will be added to you. The kingdom of God—before you ask for your daily bread, first ask that the whole world should know that he, blessed be his name, is one and only and king of the universe. Then aerward, ask that in his mercy he would be charitable to you and give you your daily bread. And all these things will be added to you—this is in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 63a): “Whoever shares the name of heaven in times of distress will have his sustenance doubled.” That is to say, in his time of distress he throws his soul aside and requests that everyone would know the unity of God, blessed be his name, and aerward he requests his mercy before presenting his needs, then his sustenance is doubled. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow because tomorrow will worry for itself. It is sufficient for trouble to come at its time. Do not worry about tomorrow—as we find in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 100b): Do not worry about the trouble tomorrow holds, For you do not know what the day will bring (Proverbs 27:1), for perhaps there will be no tomorrow, and he will be found weeping over a world that is not his. It is written in the Torah: And

Gospel According to Matthew  125 Moses said to God: “Behold, I came to the children of Israel and I said to them, ‘The God of your fathers sent me to you,’ and they said to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses: “I will be that which I will be” (Exodus 3:13–14).

And concerning this, the Talmud (BT Berakhot 9b) says that with these words, Ehyeh asher ehyeh (lit., “I will be what I will be,” or “I am that I am”), this is what the Holy One, blessed be he, was alluding to: “I was with you when you were in this present slavery, and I will be with you in the slavery of the kingdoms (the future exile).” Moses said to him: “Master of the Universe, let us worry about trouble when it comes!” The Holy One, blessed be he, said to him: Go tell them, I will be has sent me to you” (Exodus 4:14). That is to say, Moses supposedly said to the Holy One, blessed be he: we will complain about the trouble when it comes upon them, but why do you trouble them now with this hard word? Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be he, agreed that his hint about the future troubles would be annulled and concluded with the word “Ehyeh [I will be].”93

93 In this rendering of the Lord’s Prayer and what follows to the end of chap. 6, Soloveitchik simply cites relevant rabbinic passages that illustrate the same sentiment that Jesus expresses in his teaching. This is an easy case to make, as Jesus is clearly drawing om the ethos of his time and place. The message that Jesus conveys reflects (if not more explicit iterations) the ancient Israelite society in which he lived. We can see, e.g., that Soloveitchik writes polemically or argues that Christians and Jews are misreading the Gospel. There is little for Jews and Christians to disagree about in this chapter. Soloveitchik merely provides rabbinic references for Jesus’ words.

CHAPTER 7

1 Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. Do not judge—the meaning is this: every man has his good qualities and his faults. Thus, he should be careful not to judge his iend according to the degree of his faults, but rather according to the degree of his good qualities. Do not dwell on his faults and judge him with severity, but with favor, as we find in the Talmud (BT Shabbat 127b): “He who judges his companion with favor will be judged with favor.”94 2 For with the judgment that you judge, you will be judged, and with the measure that you use to measure, it will be measured to you. With the measure that you use to measure—this is essentially the same as what was said previously, that the Holy One, blessed be he, repays measure for measure. Therefore, when you judge your companion with favor, the Holy One, blessed be he, will judge you with favor. This is also in the Talmud (BT Soṭah 8b): “The measure with which a man measures will be measured to him,” both for good and for bad. And it continues (BT Soṭah 9b): “Samson followed aer his eyes [as it is written: For she pleases me (Judges 14:3)]; therefore the Philistines gouged out his eyes, as it is written, The Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes (Judges 16:21).” And also for good, as we find in BT Bava Metzi‘a 86b:

94 The notion of judging according to “one’s merit” (‫ )לכף זכות‬is a common trope in rabbinic and Jewish pietistic and legal thinking. E.g., see Pirkei Avot 1:6; BT Kiddushin 40b; BT Shavuot 30a; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Knowledge,” 5:7, “Laws of Repentance,” and “Laws of the Sanhedrin,” 23:⒑ In pietistic works such as Sefer Ḥasidim, Ḥovot HaLevavot, Sha’arei Teshuvah, and Reishit Ḥokhmah (among many others), this idea is ubiquitous.

Gospel According to Matthew  127 Everything that Abraham himself did for the ministering angels, the Holy One, blessed be he, did for his children. And everything that Abraham did through a servant that he sent, the Holy One, blessed be he, did for his children through a servant that he sent.

And this is how it is explained: “And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf.” He himself ran and took a calf; therefore, the Holy One, blessed be he, swept up quail for his children, as it is written: A wind from YHWH started up, swept quail from the sea and strewed them over the camp (Numbers 11:31). Abraham gave water through an emissary, as it is written: Let a little water be brought; bathe your feet (Genesis 18:4). The Holy One, blessed be he, also gave water to his children through an emissary—that is, through Moses—as it is written: Strike the rock and water will issue from it, and the people will drink (Exodus 17:6). 3 Why is it that you see the speck in the eye of your brother, but the log that is in your eye, you do not notice? 4 How can you say to your brother, “Permit me, and I will remove the speck from your eye,” when the log is in your eye? When the log is in your eye—as we find in the Talmud (BT ‘Arakhin 16b): Rabbi Tarfon said: “I wonder if there is anyone in this generation who accepts reproof. If anyone says to him: ‘Remove the speck om between your eyes,’ he would respond: ‘Remove the log om between your eyes!’ ” This is to say, if one were to reprove someone for a light offense, the other would respond and reprove him for a grave offense. 5 Hypocrite, remove first the log from your eye, and afterward, you will surely see to remove the speck from the eye of your brother. Remove first—and this is what it says in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 60b): “Straighten yourself out, then aerward straighten out others.” 6 Do not give the qodesh to the dogs, and do not throw your pearls before the pigs, or else they will trample them with their feet and then turn and tear you apart. The [holy thing] to the dogs—do not give the good teaching that I give you to indecent people. They will trample them—this means: perhaps you will err in your words and they will interpret them incorrectly, and it is not enough that they should be

128  Gospel According to Matthew

mistaken, but they will also cause you great harm, as we find in the Talmud (BT Ḥullin 133a): “He who teaches an indecent disciple falls into Gehenna.” 7 Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks will receive; everyone who seeks will find; and for one who knocks, it will be opened. Everyone who asks will receive—this is in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 32b): “If a man sees that he has prayed and it has not been answered, he shall pray again, as it is said: Hope in YHWH; may your heart be strong and of good courage, and hope in YHWH (Psalm 27:14).”95 Everyone who seeks will find—and this is in the Talmud (BT Megillah 6b): “If a man says to you, ‘I have labored [in the Torah] and have not found,’ do not believe him. Or if he says, ‘I have not labored and I have found,’ do not believe him. But if he says, ‘I have labored and I have found,’ then believe him.” For one who knocks, it will be opened—this is also in the Talmud (BT Yoma 38b): “If a man comes to puri himself, he will be helped.” 9 Is there a man among you whose son will ask him for bread, and he will give him a stone? 10 And when he asks him for a fish, will he give him a snake? 11 See, you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children. Even more so, will not your Father who is in heaven give only good things to those who ask of him? 12 So, then, whatever you want sons of men to do to you, do the same to them, for this is the Torah and the Prophets. Do the same to them—if you want that the Holy One, blessed be he, should fulfill all your requests, pay attention to fulfill the will of your companions, just as you want them to fulfill yours, and then the Holy One, blessed be he, will certainly fulfill your requests. The Torah and the Prophets—as it is written, And you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18). 13 Come in through the narrow entrance, for wide is the entrance and expansive is the way of Avaddon, and many are those who enter it.

95

Cf. Psalm 37:4; Proverbs 8:17; Isaiah 55:6; BT Berakhot 4b; and BT Megillah 6b.

Gospel According to Matthew  129

Come in through the narrow entrance—in order to understand his intent, I must explain these words of the Talmud (BT Menaḥot 29b): This world was created with the letter hey [‫]ה‬, and the world to come was created with the letter yod [‫]י‬. And why was this world created with a hey? Because it resembles an exedra,96 in that all who wish to go astray and leave it will leave. And why is the leg of the letter hey suspended? To show that he who repents will be permitted to reenter it.

This is the meaning of the passage: the letter hey resembles an exedra. It is open on the bottom like the wide gate through which all those who wish to leave the way toward an evil culture may exit, for every man is given the authority to go down any path that he desires, and he who goes to defile himself, the door will be opened for him. And the meaning of “a suspended leg” is the narrow opening above, on top of the suspended leg of the letter hey. He who comes to puri himself and return in repentance will be helped; therefore, an extra opening was added up top in order to receive him in repentance. And it continues (ibid.): “Why was the world to come created with the letter yod? Because the righteous who are in it are few.”97 Now you will understand the words of Yeshua when he says, “Come in through the narrow entrance”: repent and come through the narrow entrance that is in the letter hey, and do not go through the wide gate, for it leads to Avaddon.98 However, the narrow path, even though the entrance is tight and very difficult to return through, leads to life, life in the world to come, where there are few righteous. 14 But narrow is the entrance and constrained is the way of life, and those who find it are few. 15 Guard yourselves from prophets of falsehood, who come to you dressed like sheep, but inside they are predatory wolves. Guard yourselves—he cautioned them because of people comporting themselves as prophets who will come and teach them and will change his words, as it is said in Acts 20:29–30: “I know that aer my departure, fierce wolves will 96

An exedra is a structure that is closed on three sides and open on the fourth.

97 The open hey (‫ )ה‬is a source for much kabbalistic speculation as well. In addition, the difference between the open mem (‫ )מ‬versus the closed mem (‫ )ם‬is also used in similar ways in kabbalah, the closed mem referring to the messianic era, when everything returns back to the primordial womb. This is especially true in Sabbatean teaching. On the open and closed mem, see BT Shabbat 104a. On its use in Sabbateanism, see Yehuda Liebes, Sod Ha-Emunah Ha-Shabta’ut (Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik, 1995), 63–6⒋ 98

I.e., perdition; hell.

130  Gospel According to Matthew

come in among you, not sparing the flock; and om among your very own, there will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples aer them.” Therefore, Yeshua cautions them om the beginning: carefully guard your souls, for they come with words of flattery and they lie in ambush like wolves to draw you away om the one God. And if you say, “How will we know if they speak truth?” he speaks about this in the next verse.99 16 You can clearly recognize them by their fruit: Do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from briars? By their fruit—this is to say, om the disciples who come aer them. If their future disciples follow the Torah and the Prophets and also teach others to serve YHWH who is one, then YHWH spoke through them, for there is no good tree that bears bad uit.100 17 So every good tree produces good fruit, and the rotten one produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to produce bad fruit, and a rotten tree will not produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 Not everyone who says to me, “My master! My master!” will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but rather the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Not everyone who says to me, “My master! My master!”—Yeshua speaks on this topic so many times. He already cautioned (Mattai 5:19): “The man who violates one of these small mitzvot . . . will be called small in the kingdom of Heaven.” And this is what we find in Pirkei Avot 1:11: Avtalyon would say: “Scholars, be careful with your words, for you may be exiled to a place with evil waters, and the disciples who come aer you will drink om them and die, and the name of Heaven will be desecrated.”

99 On the warning against the false prophet, see Deuteronomy 13:1–5; Jeremiah 6:13–14; Ezekiel 22:27, 28; Zechariah 13:⒉ Cf. BT Sanhedrin 90a, where the Talmud speaks of Hananiah ben Azor, who starts out as a true prophet and becomes a false prophet. On the laws of false prophets, see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of the Foundations of the Torah,” 9:1–5, 10:⒈ 100

“Fruits” refers to actions. See Proverbs 11:30 and 1 Samuel 24:⒕

Gospel According to Matthew  131

“Evil waters” is another name for people who do not believe in the one God. Therefore, he cautioned—scholars, be careful of your words when you teach the masses, and let there not be room in your words that would support another interpretation that you did not intend, for if people who do not believe in the one God listen to you, they will interpret your words—in your name—according to their own beliefs. And the disciples who will listen to them will think that this is what you believed, and the name of heaven will be desecrated, as it happened to Antigonus with Zadok and Beitus.101 And this was the act that caused Zadok and Beitus to be exceptional (which is to say, that they deviated om the ways of most of the public). “Antigonus of Socho received [the oral law] om Shimon the Righteous. He would say: ‘Do not be like slaves who serve the master in order to receive a reward; rather be like slaves who serve the master without expecting a reward’ ” (Pirkei Avot 1:3; and see Avot de-Rabbi Natan, chap. 5). The intent of Antigonus was that they should serve YHWH om a place of love and not for selfish gain. For he who serves YHWH so that YHWH will pay him his recompense only loves himself and the prize before him. Antigonus had two disciples: Zadok and Beitus. When they heard these words of the rabbi, they misunderstood him. They thought that the intent of the rabbi was that they should not hope in the reward of the world to come, and they said: “Behold, the rabbi says in his teaching that there is no eternal reward or punishment for man and that there is no ordinance to support them.” And they became the exception, in that they blasphemed and denied the immortality of the soul and the existence of the world to come. And they were called Ṣaddukim (Sadducees), and even the New Testament highly cautions remaining far away om them and not getting trapped within their evil theology. And when Yeshua saw what had happened to the disciples of Antigonus of Socho, who had misunderstood the words of their rabbi and then formed this evil sect, he greatly feared that his disciples would misunderstand his words when they heard him teach that man must comport himself with good attributes. For it would be possible that they would think that the most important thing was these attributes and that performing the commandments was not important. Therefore, he cautions om the very beginning that man should not violate the commandments. And when he finished his teaching, he said: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘My master! My master!’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but rather the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven,” for the most important thing is performing the commandments. 101 See, e.g., Rabbenu Yonah Gerondi’s commentary to Pirkei Avot, 2:⒙ Cf. Midrash Shmuel on Pirkei Avot 1:11: “Perhaps he will be exiled to a place where there are heretics, which is the place of ‘evil waters.’ ” Sefer Derekh Ḥayim on Pirkei Avot 1:10 calls “evil waters” “students who are not behaving properly.”

132  Gospel According to Matthew

22 It will be that on that day, many will say to me, “My master, my master, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name do many wonders?” Did we not prophesy in your name?—We believe in your name. Everything that we did, we did in your name. When we prophesied, when we drove out demons, when we did wonders—we did them all in your name because we believe in you. 23 Then I will answer them, saying, “I have never known you. Depart from me, workers of evil!” I have never known you—meaning: Did I come to teach you to believe in me? I came to teach you good attributes and to cause the belief in the one God to take root in your hearts, and to teach you to guard his Torah and his commandments. And you did not do as I taught you, so depart om me, workers of evil. 24 So anyone who hears these words of mine and does them, I will compare to a wise man who built his house on a rock. And does them—meaning: He who hears my words and believes in the one God and performs the commandments—for the most important thing is to do these—shall create a foundation that will not fall, and even if all the winds of the world come, they cannot cause him to move om his place. 25 The rain fell, the streams flooded, the winds blew, and they touched that house, but it did not fall because it was founded upon the rock. 26 But whoever hears these words of mine but does not do them, I will compare to a foolish man who built his house upon the sand. And does not do them—if he does not perform all the commandments written in the Torah, to what avail is it if he possesses good attributes? Because he did not make a foundation—that is, perform the commandments—and the moment that the winds blow, the structure that he built will fall, as it says in the Mishna (Avot 3:17): Everyone whose wisdom is greater than his deeds, to what can he be compared? To a tree with many branches and few roots; then comes the wind and uproots it and turns it on its face, as it is written (Jeremiah 17:6): He shall be like a

Gospel According to Matthew  133 bush in the desert, which does not sense the coming of good. It is set in the scorched places of the wilderness, in a barren land without inhabitants. However, everyone whose deeds are greater than his wisdom, to what can he be compared? To a tree with few branches and many roots, for even if all the winds of the world come, they will not be able to move it om its place, as it is written (ibid., 17:8): He shall be like a tree planted by waters, sending forth its roots by a stream; it does not sense the coming of the heat, its leaves are ever fresh; it has no care in a year of drought, it does not cease to yield fruit.

27 The rain fell, the streams flooded, the winds blew, and they encountered that house. It fell, and its collapse was great. 28 When Yeshua finished saying these words, the crowd was astonished by his teaching, 29 for he was teaching them as a man of authority, and not like the scholars.102 As a man of authority—he would not flatter anyone, and even to the people who believed in him, he said: “I have never known you; depart om me, workers of evil.” This is the meaning: It is not my desire that you believe in me; rather, my will is that you would believe in the lessons that I teach you; that you would believe with a complete heart that YHWH is one and that you would perform his commandments. This is also in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 19a): The slave of King Yannai killed a man. Shimon ben Shetach (brother-in-law of King Yannai) said to them [the sages]: “Set your eyes on him [the slave] and let us judge him.” So they sent word to the king: “Your slave has killed a man.” Then Yannai sent him to them. They sent him word, saying: “Come here as well, for his master must testi. For the Torah says: ‘The owner of the ox must come and stand by his ox.’ ” Yannai came and sat down. Shimon ben Shetach said to him: “King Yannai! Stand on your feet and let the witnesses testi against you. For you do not stand before us, but you stand before the one who spoke and the world came into being, as it is said: The two parties to the dispute shall stand before YHWH (Deuteronomy 19:17). Yannai said to him: “I will not do as you say, but I will do what your colleagues say.” Shimon ben Shetach turned to the right, 102 What was astonishing was not the teaching, at least not according to Soloveitchik, who believed that it was fully in concert with Pharisaic teaching. What was astonishing was that Jesus taught it without deference to rabbinic authority. If so, this would itself be a breach in rabbinic teaching. We have Pirkei Avot 1:10; Shemayah and Avtalyon received teaching om them. Shemayah said, “Love the kingdom and hate authority.” This may have referred to the Roman authority. Yet the centrality of rabbinic authority is central to the rabbinic project. See, e.g., BT Sanhedrin 92b. For an extensive analysis, see Shalom Rosenberg, “Emunat Hakhamin,” in Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century, ed. I. Twersky and B. Septimus (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 285–34⒉

134  Gospel According to Matthew then le, and their heads faced the ground, for they feared King Yannai. Shimon ben Shetach said to them: “Are you all mind readers [i.e., flatterers]?” The Mind Reader will come [i.e., the Holy One, blessed be he, who knows all thoughts], and he will call you to account.” Immediately, Gabriel came and smote them to the ground and they died.103

103 Soloveitchik may be downplaying the extent to which “as one having authority” means “against the Pharisaic authority.” This coheres with his general approach, which seeks to place Jesus fully inside the Jewish orbit.

CHAPTER 8

1 He descended from the mountain, and a great crowd of people followed him.104 2 Then a man who was a meṣora came and bowed down to him, saying, “Master, if you are willing, you are able to purify me!” If you are willing, you are able purify me—this is found in the Talmud (Avot 2:4): “Make his will your will so that he will make your will his will.” And the leper was one of those who accompanied Yeshua, and so he said to Yeshua: “Do you not do the will of the Omnipresent and teach the entire world to believe in YHWH, who is one? Certainly the Holy One, blessed be he, would also do your will. Therefore, if you are willing, you can puri me.” And Yeshua answered him: “I am willing. Be pure!” 3 Yeshua reached out his hand and touched him and said, “I desire. Be pure!” And in an instant, he was healed of his ṣara’at. 4 Yeshua said to him, “See to it that you do not relate this to anyone, but go show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifice that Moshe commanded for testimony to them.” For testimony to them—as a testimony to them that I did not come to violate the Torah, God forbid! Rather, I came to uphold the Torah.105

104

The descent om the mountain seems an obvious correlate to Moses’ decent om Sinai, e.g., Exodus 34:2⒐

105 In Leviticus 14:2–9, we have the description of how the meṣora (leper), aer he is healed, must approach the priest in the Temple to bring a sacrifice. Soloveitchik uses this reference to the Law of Moses, “that Moshe commanded,” as an illustration of Jesus’ fidelity to the Law. Predictably, the secrecy that Jesus commands, which appears as part of the messianic secret that pervades Israelite and later Jewish literature, is passed over by Soloveitchik, who does not want to view Jesus in a messianic light.

136  Gospel According to Matthew

5 As he was entering Kefar Naḥum, a certain centurion approached him and begged him, saying, 6 “Master, listen! My boy has become bedridden at home. He is paralyzed and suffering terribly!” 7 Yeshua said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 The centurion answered, saying, “Master! I do not deserve for you to come under the shade of my roof. Please just say the word and my boy will be healed.” Just say the word—he means: please pray to YHWH on behalf of my servant, and I am certain that the Holy One, blessed be he, will hear your prayer and he will be healed. 9 “For I am a man who is under authority, and there are soldiers under my command. I tell one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and another, ‘Come!’ and he comes. I tell my servant, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” 10 Yeshua heard this and was amazed, and he said to those following him, “Amen, I say to you, even in Yisra’el, I have not found faith as great as this!” Faith as great as this—meaning that prayer is service of the heart, as we wrote in 6:⒍106 And he who prays with a perfect heart and believes in the one God, YHWH will certainly hear his prayer. Therefore he said that he has not found such a great faith in the unity of the Creator, even in Israel. 11 “I say to you, many will come from east and west to recline with Avraham, Yiṣḥak, and Ya’akov in the kingdom of Heaven, 12 but the sons of the kingdom will be driven away to the outer darkness. In that place, there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.”107 Sons of the kingdom—they are the sons of Israel, who are called sons of the Omnipresent, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:1): You are sons of YHWH, your God. And Paul also said to the Romans: “For they are Israelites, and to them is the adoption as sons” (Romans 9:4). Will be driven away to the outer darkness—those who do not believe in the unity of the Creator.

106

See Maimonides, “Laws of Prayer and Priestly Blessing,” 1:⒈ This is based on Deuteronomy 11:⒔

107

See Psalm 112:⒑

Gospel According to Matthew  137

13 Yeshua said to the centurion, “Go. It will be done for you according to your faith.” His boy was healed at that very hour. According to your faith—just as you have believed in YHWH, so it shall be for you, for the Holy One, blessed be he, will hear your prayer and give you the requests of your heart. His boy was healed at that very hour—and so we find in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 34b): It happened that Rabbi Gamliel’s son fell ill. He sent two sages to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa to request he pray for mercy for him. When he saw them, he went up to an upper chamber to request mercy on his behalf. When he came down, he said to them: “Go, for the fever has le him.” They asked him: “Rabbi, are you a prophet?” He said to them: “I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet. However, this is what I have learned: If my speech is fluent, my prayer is accepted.” They sat and wrote down precisely the time that he had said this, and when they returned to Rabban Gamliel, he said to them: “By the Temple service! You were not a minute too soon or a minute too late. For at this exact time, the fever le him and he asked us for water to drink.”

14 Yeshua entered the home of Petros and saw his mother-in-law bedridden and sick with a fever. 15 He touched her hand, and the fever faded, and she got up and served them. He touched her hand—and we also find in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 5b): “Rabbi Yoḥanan fell ill, and Rabbi Ḥanina came to him. . . . He said to him: ‘Give me your hand.’ He gave him his hand and he raised him.”108 16 At evening time, they brought him many who were gripped by demons, and he drove out the spirits with the word of his mouth, and he healed all the sick, 17 fulfilling what Yeshayah the Prophet spoke, saying, “He has lifted our sicknesses and carried our sufferings.”

108 Soloveitchik invokes this Talmudic parallel to healing, and there are others, to illustrate that this is not faith healing but simply the result of strong petitionary prayer. Jesus has not transgressed any law. This might also be a subtle critique of the use of this verse, since this verse of Jesus’ healing powers is oen used as a sign Jesus’ messianic status. Soloveitchik makes it into a classic case of rabbinic pious behavior. I want to thank Annette Yoshiko Reed for this observation.

138  Gospel According to Matthew

He has lifted our sicknesses—this is om Isaiah 53:⒋ This is the meaning: he will heal our diseases. But there are those that contend with this. “Is it not written in the first letter of Peter the apostle (2:23), ‘Who himself bore our sins in his body on the tree,’ and the foundation for this comes om ‘he has borne our diseases,’ the meaning of which being that he suffered evils on our behalf?” However, here in Mattai 8:17, Yeshua has not yet suffered evils. Thus, this is the meaning of ‘he has borne our diseases’—he healed them. The aforementioned verse states: “And he healed all their diseases in order that the word of Isaiah the prophet would be fulfilled: ‘He has borne our diseases and has suffered our illnesses’ ” (vv. 17–18). Truly, there is no difficulty here. See what we have written above in Mattai 2:23, that the writers of the New Testament were mostly, or entirely, masters of the Talmud. And just as masters of the Talmud, they would use a verse to prove their statements, and even go so far as to take it out of its original, plain context, in order to use it to allude to the subject in question,109 and they do not intend to say that this is the true meaning of the verse. 18 When Yeshua saw the large crowd of people around him, he gave the instruction to cross from there to the other side of the sea. 19 One of the scholars approached him and said to him, “Rabbi, let me follow you wherever you go.” 20 Yeshua said to him, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the son of man does not have a place to rest his head.” A place to rest his head—he said this concerning himself. “I, myself, do not have a place to rest my head, and you want to go with me!” It would seem that he did not want to add him to his group, for Yeshua belonged to the sect of the Essenes, and they had a rule that they would not accept anyone into their group until they examined him for a certain amount of time. Also in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 28a): “Rabban Gamliel issued a proclamation, saying: ‘Every disciple whose interior is not like his exterior will not enter the beit midrash.’ ” This means that he would not accept any disciple until he examined him and found that his interior was as his exterior. 21 A different man from among the disciples said to him, “Master, permit me, and I will go first to bury my father.”

109

2 Peter (2:25) adds and supports Isaiah’s word in 53:5—“and by his wounds we are healed.”

Gospel According to Matthew  139

22 Yeshua said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their dead.” Follow me—this was one of his disciples whom he had checked to make sure that his interior was as his exterior. Therefore, he said to him immediately, “Follow aer me,” and did not even allow him to bury his father.110 Leave the dead to bury their dead—this is to say, let the wicked ones bury them, who are called dead while they are still living. Paul also says (1 Timothy 5:6): “She who is self-indulgent is dead even while she is living.” This is the meaning: he who follows aer the lusts of his heart, even while he is living, he will be called dead, as we find in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 18b): The dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5), these are the wicked ones who are called dead while they are yet living. 23 He went down to the boat, and his disciples went down with him. 24 There was a great storm on the sea, to the point where the waves would cover the boat, but he was sleeping. 25 His disciples approached him and woke him, saying, “Save us, our master. We are perishing!” 26 He said to them, “Small ones in faith, why are you afraid?” He got up, reprimanded the winds and the sea, and there was a great silence. And there was a great silence—and so we find in the Talmud (BT Bava Metzi‘a 59b): Rabban Gamliel was traveling on a ship, and a great wave arose to drown him. He said: “It would appear that this is on account of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkanos (who was excommunicated).” He stood up and said: “Master of the universe, you know well that I did not do this for my own honor or for the honor of my father’s house, but for your honor, so that strife would not multiply in Israel.” Then the raging sea subsided.

27 The men were amazed and said, “Who is he, then, that even the winds and the sea listen to him?”

110 This seems to counter rabbinic law, e.g., BT Berakhot 18a. In fact, burying the dead is one of the two mitzvot that one is commanded to cease om Torah study in order to fulfill, the other being partaking in a marriage celebration. See BT Megillah 3b. If we view Jesus as having a messianic vocation, this might be an exception, but Soloveitchik does not view Jesus in that light. Thus, it is surprising that he simply passes over this verse with no comment.

140  Gospel According to Matthew

28 When he came to the other side of the sea, to the land of the Gadriyim, two men who were gripped by demons met him as they were coming out from the tombs, and they were so belligerent that no one was able to cross that road. 29 They were screaming, saying, “What do we have to do with you, Yeshua, son of God? Have you come here to afflict us when it is not time?” 30 There was a herd of many pigs there, grazing at a distance from them. 31 The demons begged him, saying, “If you drive us out, let us enter the herd of pigs.” The demons begged him—and so we find in the Talmud (BT Pesaḥim 112b): From the very beginning, there were demons. Once a demon encountered Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and said to him: “If heaven had not declared concerning you, ‘Be careful of Ḥanina and his teaching’—I would have threatened to put you in danger.” Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: “If I am important in heaven, then I decree this concerning you: you shall not cross over to this place ever again.” The demon said to him: “I implore you, permit me a place for just a short time.” He permitted him to stay for Sabbath evenings and the evenings of the fourth day.111

32 He said to them, “Go!” They came out and entered the herd of pigs, and the entire herd of pigs rushed down the slope into the sea, and they died in the water. 33 The herders fled, and they came to the town and told about everything that had happened to the men gripped by demons. 34 The entire town went out to meet Yeshua, and when they saw him, they requested that he leave their region. They requested that he leave their region—I do not know why they did not want him to come to their region; perhaps it was because they were aaid when they saw his might and the wonders that he performed. This resembles 111 Instances of exorcism exist throughout the Jewish tradition, even to this day. For a study of this phenomenon, see Gedalyah Nigal, Magic, Mysticism, and Hasidism: The Supernatural in Jewish Thought (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1977); and J. H. Chajes, Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).

Gospel According to Matthew  141

what the woman om Zidon said to Elijah: What is it to me or to you, man of God? Have you come to remind me of my transgressions and to cause my son to die? (1 Kings 17:18). However, in my opinion, there was a scribal error here. I believe that the herders said that the demons implored Yeshua not to cross over into their region.

CHAPTER 9

1 He went down into the boat, crossed over, and came to his own town. 2 They were bringing to him a man with paralyzed limbs, who was laid upon a bed. When Yeshua saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Be strong, my son. Your sins are forgiven!” Be strong, my son. Your sins are forgiven!—in order to understand the whole passage, I must first preface with a passage om the sayings of our sages of blessed memory (BT Berakhot 33a): In a certain place, there was once a lizard that used to injure people. They came and informed Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa of this. He said to them: “Show me its hole.” They showed him its hole. He placed his heel over the hole. The lizard came out and bit Rabbi Ḥanina, and the lizard died. He put it on his shoulder and brought it to the beit midrash. He said to them: “Look, my sons. It is not the lizard that kills; rather, it is sin that kills!”

Now you will understand the words of Yeshua: my son, know that troubles come upon a man only as a result of his transgressions. Now, my son, be strong in repentance, and then your sins will be forgiven and you will surely be healed. However, certain scholars did not understand this, and they said that he was blaspheming.112

112

Cf. BT Berakhot 58a, where there are numerous cases of sages using divine power for blessing and curses.

Gospel According to Matthew  143

3 But then some of the scholars said in their hearts, “He is blaspheming!” 4 But Yeshua perceived their thoughts and said, “Why are you thinking of evil in your hearts? 5 For what is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’?” Your sins are forgiven—for it is not the lizard that kills; rather, it is sin that kills. Therefore, there is no difference if I say to him, “Your sins are forgiven,” or if I say to him, “Arise and walk.” 6 “But in order that you may know that the son of man has the authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic, “Arise, pick up your bed, and walk home.” In order that you may know—this is why I said, “Be strong, my son. Your sins are forgiven!” in order that you may know that the son of man has authority. This is to say, every man has the authority to be strengthened in repentance, and his sins will be forgiven him. There is nothing that stands between a person and repentance. Even if he were wicked all his days and repents in the end, all of his transgressions are erased.113 7 So he arose and went home. 8 The crowd of people saw, and they were astonished and praised God, who gave such authority to sons of men. And they were astonished—they were astonished at him saying that repentance covers over all.114 And praised God—they praised God for giving such large authority to the sons of men that they could be strengthened in repentance and their sins would be forgiven them. 113 See, e.g., Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Repentance,” 2:⒈ “Even if a person sins his entire life and repents on the day of his death and dies in the midst of that repentance, all his sins are forgiven. . . . From this, we learn that if one recognizes his Creator and repents before he dies, he is forgiven.” Soloveitchik certainly knows that Matthew 9:6 is usually read as a messianic title and thus he deflects the messianism to suggest that “son of man” is simply a title of a pious man, stressing the centrality of repentance, and not a reference to a messianic figure. This takes the term “son of man” back to its probable biblical sense. 114 Soloveitchik deflects any reaction to supernatural healing. He says that the crowds are only reacting to Jesus’ teaching that “repentance covers all.” But why would this be so astonishing? If this is identical to rabbinic teaching (recorded much later but, according to Soloveitchik, operative in Jesus’ time), why would the crowd be so astonished to hear Jesus speak it?

144  Gospel According to Matthew

9 When Yeshua passed on from there, he saw a man sitting at the tax office whose name was Mattai. He said to him, “Follow me,” and he arose and followed him. Whose name was Mattai—this is Mattai the tax collector mentioned in chapter 10, verse ⒊ However, in Luke 5:27, it is written: “Aerward he went out and saw a certain tax collector named Levi.” Perhaps he changed his name to Mattai (i.e., Mattityahu). 10 As he was reclining in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and reclined with Yeshua and his disciples. 11 The Perushim saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your rav eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Why does your rav eat . . .—this resembles a passage in the Talmud (BT Pesaḥim 49a): “Every wise disciple who feasts much in many places, eventually will destroy his house . . . and many quarrels will come upon him.”115 12 Yeshua heard and said to them, “The strong do not need a healer, but those who are sick. 13 But as for you, go and learn what it is that is said, ‘I have desired kindness and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous but the sinners [to teshuvah].” I have desired kindness—as we find in the Talmud (BT Ketubot 96a): “Anyone who prevents his disciple om serving him, it is as if he prevented him om [doing an act of ] kindness.” Therefore he said, I have desired kindness and not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6). 14 The disciples of Yoḥanan approached him and said, “Why is it that we and the Perushim often fast, but your disciples do not fast?” Why is it that we . . . fast—in order to fully understand this—why the disciples of Yoḥanan and the Pharisees fast, and why Yeshua prevents his disciples om fasting—I must clari the words of the Talmud, and then the opinions of the Pharisees and Yeshua will be established together. We find in the Talmud (BT Ta’anit 11a): 115 Tax collectors who worked for the Roman Empire were oen considered enemies and untrustworthy by the rabbis. See, e.g., M Bava Kama 10:1 and BT Sanhedrin 25b.

Gospel According to Matthew  145 Shmuel said: “Anyone who fasts is called a sinner.”. . . Rabbi Elazar said: “He is called holy.” And this is their reasoning: It is written (Numbers 6:2): If anyone, man or woman, explicitly utters a nazirite’s vow, it is forbidden for them to drink wine all the days of their vow; they shall also not defile themselves by any dead person. And if a person dies suddenly near him, he shall then bring an offering and make expiation on his behalf for the guilt that he incurred through the corpse (Numbers 6:9–11).

And continuing in the Gemara (BT Ta’anit 11a): Shmuel had the same opinion as the following Tanna. . . . This is what the Talmud says: “and make expiation on his behalf because he sinned by reason of the soul.” Against which soul did he sin? It is because he denied himself wine. This can be deemed a matter of minor to major: and if this man who only denies himself wine is called a sinner, how much more so he who denies himself everything! Rabbi Elazar says that he shall be called holy, as it is said: “He shall be holy, he shall let the locks of his hair grow long.” And if this man who only denies himself one thing is called holy, how much more so he who denies himself everything!

Now we can see that both opinions can be found in the Talmud. The disciples of Yoḥanan and the Pharisees said to Yeshua: “Why do your disciples not fast?” For the scriptures are filled with passages where the one who fasts is called holy, as it is written, “He will be holy.” Concerning this, Yeshua responded to them: “You do not understand.” Then he replied and told three parables (15–17), which, at first glance, seem to be about the same thing; however, they concern different matters. And so he said to them: know that those whose souls are sick and whose bodies are sick are the same. Those whose bodies are sick need a physician to perform the three most vital functions: 1) He must know what the sickness is so as not to administer the incorrect medication and the patient dies; 2) he must be cautious with the amount of medication he administers so that he may be able to gradually return the sick man to health; and 3) he must limit the amount of time that he administers the medication to two or three times a day. And if he takes everything at once, not only will it not be useful, but it will harm him all the more. So, too, must those whose souls are sick be cautious about three main things. And so Yeshua said to them: just as you have said, so it is. He who fasts is called holy, for fasting causes the body to be in submission to the soul, and the result

146  Gospel According to Matthew

is the covering of sins. However, if he does not guard these three things that I am telling you, his ruin will be greater than his rehabilitation.116 15 Yeshua said to them, “How can sons of the wedding canopy mourn while the groom is still with them? Listen—the days are coming and the groom will be taken from them, and then they will fast. How can sons of the wedding canopy . . .—one must know the proper time to fast, for there is a season for everything under heaven, a time for weeping and a time for laughing.117 How can the sons of the canopy mourn when the groom is still with them? So they are not able to fast while I am still living and learning Torah with them, for if they fast, they will not be able to study the Torah. It is better that they not fast and study more, as we find in the Talmud (BT Ta’anit 11b): “A wise disciple may not afflict himself with fasting, for he thereby diminishes his heavenly work.”118 16 No one puts a new patch on a worn-out garment, because the piece would become detached from the garment, and the tear would be made worse. No one puts a new patch—when one wants to fast, he intends for the fast to be a covering for his transgressions. But he needs to change his ways for the future and abandon his sins, so as not to return to them anymore, for this is the main point of repentance. And he will give righteousness according to his power, as our sages of blessed memory say (BT Berakhot 6b): “The reward of fasting is righteousness.” This is to say, the most important component for receiving the reward om fasting is giving charity to the poor. And when he abandons his sins and repairs his ways, then he will be like a new creation and fasting will avail him as a new patch on a new garment. But when he does not repair his ways, then he will resemble the one who puts a new patch on a worn-out garment and the tear is made worse.119 17 People do not put new wine into used wineskins, or else the wineskins would be split open, the wine would be poured out, and the 116 For an analysis of these and other rabbinic texts of fasting and asceticism, see Diamond, Holy Men and Hungry Artists, 93–13⒉ 117

Ecclesiastes ⒊

118

This Talmudic passage actually takes on halakhic weight. See Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayim 571:⒉

119 See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Repentance,” 14:2: “brothers, not sackcloth and not fasting but only repentance will complete [forgiveness].”

Gospel According to Matthew  147

wineskins would be ruined. Rather, people put new wine into new wineskins, so both will be preserved together.” People do not put new wine—he is greatly cautioning against letting fasting cause harm, whether to the soul or to the body. To the soul, for fasting can cause anger, which is a very bad attribute, and he who comes under the rule of anger comes under the rule of error.120 And to the body, for if the person cannot bear to fast and suffers in doing so, he mistreats his body and resembles the one who puts new wine in old wineskins and the wineskins split open.121 Concerning this, Solomon in his wisdom said: A man who is kind benefits himself, but a cruel man hurts himself (Proverbs 11:17). This means, he who does good does good to his soul, but not with fasting, for with this he troubles his flesh and is nothing but cruel. He must conduct himself with good attributes, to love his neighbor as his own body, and to do well in every work that YHWH gives him. In short, he who wishes to fast must straighten his ways so that his ruin will not be greater than his rehabilitation. 18 As he was speaking these words to them, one of the officers came and bowed down to him and said, “At this very moment, my daughter is dying. Please come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” 19 Yeshua arose and followed him, he and his disciples. 20 But then, a woman with a flow of blood for twelve years approached from behind him and touched the corner of his garment. 21 For she said in her heart, “If only I touch his garment, I will be saved.” If only I touch his garment, I will be saved—I will preface and present a passage om the Talmud in order to understand this. In BT Shabbat 32b, it is said: He who is careful to observe the command of tzitzit (inges) will be served by 2,800 slaves, for it is said (Zechariah 8:23): Thus says YHWH of Hosts: In those days, it shall come to pass that ten men from every nation and tongue shall take hold—they will take hold of the corner of the garment of a Jew, saying: “We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”

120 See MaHarSha (R. Shmuel Eidles, 1555–1631) to BT Bava Batra 145b: “Everyone who gets angry increases stupidity” (tipshut). Cf. BT Yoma 22b–23a. 121 Soloveitchik is doing something quite interesting, since the wineskin metaphor is oen used to suggest Jesus’ message as the creation of a new “religion.” His use of the metaphor as referring to the body (i.e., fasting) puts it solidly inside the Jewish pietistic tradition.

148  Gospel According to Matthew

And so, the Talmud believes that there are seventy nations, and ten men om each nation will take hold, and ten multiplied by seventy equals 700; and every Jew has four tzitzit, one on each of the four corners of his garment, and four multiplied by 700 equals 2,800. This is the intent: Behold, days are coming when all will know of the unity of the Holy One, blessed be his name, and when they see that YHWH, the God of Israel, is truly one, they will take hold of the corner of the garment of a Jew—which is to say, by whichever commandment it may be—and they will say, “We will come with you, for we have heard that God is with you.” Now you will understand the woman’s intent. When Yeshua came and instilled in every man the knowledge of the unity of the Creator, then the woman said: “If only I touch the corner of his garment [the tzitzit, a symbol of faith in the unity of YHWH], I will be saved.” At this, Yeshua said to her: “Be strong, my daughter. Your faith has healed you.” 22 Yeshua turned and saw her and said, “Be strong, my daughter. Your faith has saved you.” The woman was saved from that time on. 23 Yeshua came to the house of the officer and saw the pipers with flutes and the groaning people, and he said, 24 “Go away from here, for the child is not dead; she is only sleeping.” And they mocked him. 25 When they cleared the people from there, he came into the house and took hold of her hand, and the girl arose. Took hold of her hand—and so we find in BT Berakhot 5b: “Rabbi Yoḥanan fell ill. Rabbi Ḥanina entered . . . and he raised him.” See above in chapter ⒏ 26 The news about this spread throughout that whole land. 27 Yeshua passed on from there, and two blind men followed him, and they were shouting, saying, “Be gracious to us, son of David!” 28 And when he came to the house, the blind men approached him, and Yeshua said to them, “Do you believe that it is in my hand to do this?” They said, “Yes, our master!” Do you believe—if you believe in the one God, I will be able to save you. If not, I will not be able to save you. They said to him: Yes, my master, we believe in the one God. 29 He touched their eyes and said, “May it be to you according to your faith!”

Gospel According to Matthew  149

According to your faith—which is to say, if you believe with your whole heart in YHWH, who is one, you will certainly be healed. 30 Their eyes were opened, and Yeshua warned them, and he said, “Make sure that it is not made known to anyone.” Their eyes were opened—and so we find in BT Ḥagigah 3b: “It happened to Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit that Rabbi Elazar punished him with blindness; however, aer he was calmed, he said, ‘May it be granted that Rabbi Yossi’s sight be returned to him!’ And his eyes were opened.”122 31 But when they left, they proclaimed the news throughout that whole land. 32 They went out, and then people brought to him a mute man gripped by a demon. 33 He drove out the demon, and the mute man began to speak, and the crowd of people was amazed and said, “Nothing like this has ever been seen in Yisra’el!” And the mute man began to speak—and so we find in the Talmud (BT Ḥagigah 3a): There were two dumb men in the neighborhood of Rabbi—sons of the daughter of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgada and, according to others, sons of the sister of Rabbi Yoḥanan—who, whenever Rabbi entered the beit midrash, went in and sat down before the sages and nodded their heads and moved their lips. And Rabbi requested mercy for them and they were cured.

34 But the Perushim said, “He drives out demons by the prince of demons!”123 35 Yeshua circled through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and he healed all the sick and diseased among the people.

122 Throughout his commentary, Soloveitchik counters miracle stories in the Gospel by citing parallel miracle stories in the Talmud to suggest that such stories are very much part of the normative rabbinic tradition. This is yet another example. 123

See, e.g., BT Sanhedrin 43a.

150  Gospel According to Matthew

The good news of the kingdom—he implanted in their hearts the unity of the Creator, blessed be his name.124 36 Whenever he saw the crowds, his compassion was stirred for them, because they were fainting and scattered like a flock without a shepherd. 37 Then he would speak to his disciples, saying, “The harvest is great, but the workers are few.125 38 Therefore, implore the owner of the harvest to send workers to his harvest.” To send workers—just as we find that Moses said: Let God, the source of the breath of all flesh, appoint someone over the community who shall go out before them (Numbers 27:16–17). Thus Yeshua told them to implore YHWH to send them men who would be worthy to teach the knowledge of the one God, and he immediately called his disciples and commanded them.

124 Soloveitchik inserts this short comment to deflect any claim of messianism that “the good news” implies in Christian interpretation. One could say that the widespread recognition of the unity of God is itself a messianic condition, but there is still quite a separation between the “good news” being the recognition of the unity of God and Jesus as the Savior and Messiah. 125

Compare to Pirkei Avot 2:⒖

CHAPTER 10

1 He called to his twelve disciples and gave them authority over spirits of impurity, to drive them out and to heal every sickness and disease. 2 These are the names of the twelve shliḥim: the first is Shimon, who is called Petros, and his brother Andrai, Ya’akov ben Zavdai and his brother Yoḥanan, 3 Pilippos and Bar-Talmai, Toma and Mattai the tax collector, Ya’akov ben Chalfai and [Labbai, who is known as] Taddai, 4 Shimon HaKannai and Yehudah Ish-Kriyot, his betrayer. 5 Yeshua sent out these twelve and commanded them, saying, “Do not go on the road to the Gentiles, and do not enter any towns of the Shomronim. To the Gentiles—just as he said earlier: “Do not give the holy thing to the dogs.”126 6 Go to the lost sheep of the house of Yisra’el. 7 And as you go, call out, saying, “The kingdom of Heaven is on the brink of arrival!” The kingdom of Heaven—the main principle that he commanded to his disciples first of all, to allow the faith in the unity of the Creator to be instilled in their hearts.127 126 This squares nicely with Matthew 28:19, where Jesus seems to expand his mission to the nations: “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit.” 127 Soloveitchik again denies that there is any messianic impulse here, even though the “kingdom of Heaven” is clearly a reference to messianic times in rabbinic literature. See, e.g., Pesikta Rabbati 2, interpreting Zechariah 14:9 and Isaiah 40:⒊

152  Gospel According to Matthew

8 Heal the sick, purify the meṣoraim, raise the dead, and drive out the demons. Freely you have taken; freely you shall give. Freely you shall give—this is also in the Talmud (BT Nedarim 37a): “It is written: See, I have taught you laws and rules as YHWH has commanded me (Deuteronomy 4:5). Just as I have taught you eely, so, too, you must teach eely.”128 9 Do not take gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, 10 or a sack for the road, or a second tunic, or shoes, or a staff, since it is appropriate for a worker to receive enough for his living. For a worker to receive enough for his living—and this is in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 10b): “He who wants to benefit om hospitality, let him benefit as Elisha did.” For we find that Elisha benefited om the hospitality of others. 11 Whatever town or village you enter, seek out who is worthy within it, and remain there until you leave. Seek out who is worthy within it—as we wrote further above, the Essenes would not receive any man until they knew that he was worthy to be inducted into their community. 12 When you come to the house, ask of its shalom. When you come—this means: this is how you will know if the man is worthy or not. By this, you will examine him, as we find in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 6b): Anyone who knows that it is customary for his iend to greet him with peace, he shall greet him with peace first, as it is said, Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15). And if he is greeted and does not return it, he is called a robber, as it is said, It is you who have ravaged the vineyard; what was robbed from the poor is in your houses (Isaiah 3:14).

Although robbing the rich is still robbery, here the passage speaks of robbing the poor, even though there is nothing to steal om him, and not returning a greeting of peace to him is stealing om him the only good he possesses. Therefore, Yeshua tells them to give the greeting first, and with that, they will be able to examine the people. 128

Cf. Pirkei Avot 1:3; and Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Studying Torah,” 3:⒍

Gospel According to Matthew  153

13 It will be that if the house is worthy, your shalom will come upon it, and if it is not worthy, your shalom will return to you. If the house is worthy—that is, if your greeting of peace returns to you, then your greeting will come upon it, and you will associate it. And if it is not worthy, that is, if your greeting of peace is not reciprocated, your greeting will return to you, and this means: do not be associated with it.129 14 If anyone does not receive you or listen to your words, leave that house and that town and shake the dust off your feet. Shake the dust off—the house is not worthy for you to even touch its dirt with the bottom of your feet. 15 Amen, I say to you, it will be easier for the land of Sedom and Amorah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16 Look! As I send you out, it is like sending sheep among wolves. Therefore, be as shrewd as snakes but as innocent as doves.130 As innocent as doves—there shall be no deception in your hearts. However, you need to know that they will not conduct themselves this way, for they are like wolves that want to devour. Therefore, be as shrewd as snakes. This is in the Talmud (BT Megillah 13b): “Is it permissible for the righteous to be deceptive? Yes. (As it is written in 2 Samuel 22:27) With the pure you act in purity, and with the perverse you are wily.” 17 Guard yourselves from sons of men, for they will hand you over to courts, and they will strike you with whips in their synagogues. Guard yourselves—in certain instances, I permit you to be shrewd in order to guard yourselves om evil men who will inform on you, hand you over, and so on. 18 You will be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. For my sake—for the sake of the good that I teach you. 129

On the importance of hospitality, see BT Shabbat 127a.

130

On being shrewd as snakes, see Song of Songs Rabbah 2:30.

154  Gospel According to Matthew

For a testimony—compared to the testimony of lies that the evil men will testi against you in order to punish you. 19 When they hand you over, do not worry about how you will speak or what you will speak, for it will be given to you at that very time what to say. Do not worry—this means: even though I know that they will hand you over, nevertheless, be innocent and let there not be any deception in you, and do not worry at all about how or what to say. 20 Because you are not the ones speaking, but the spirit of your Father. He is the one who speaks with your mouths.131 But the spirit of your Father—if you will be innocent and perfect, then the spirit that the Holy One, blessed be he, placed within you will teach you what to say, as we find in the Talmud (BT Nedarim 32a): “He who perfects himself, the Holy One, blessed be he, perfects him, as it is said: With the loyal, you deal loyally; with the perfect hero, you deal perfectly (2 Samuel 22:26).” 21 A brother will betray his brother to death, and a father will betray his son, and children will rise up against their fathers and kill them, 22 and you will be hated by everyone for the sake of my name. But the one who keeps waiting until the time of the end will be saved. The one who keeps waiting—if you keep holding on until the end, you will be saved and you will be considered great, for the Pharisees will see and understand that I did not come to annul the Torah but rather to strengthen and uphold it. Even the Gentiles will cast away their silver idols and will believe in the one God, and you will be considered great, as our sages of blessed memory say (BT Nedarim 32a): “He who perfects himself, good fortune will be his.” 23 If they pursue you in one town, flee to another, for amen, I say to you, you will not have finished passing through the towns of Yisra’el before the son of man comes.

131 The notion of God speaking through human beings is ubiquitous in Hasidic literature, some of which Soloveitchik was likely familiar with. The phrase “the Shekhinah speaks in his throat” (‫ )השכינה מדברת מתוך גרונו‬is common. For examples, see R. Moshe Teitelbaum of Ohel, Yismach Moshe 134a, 137a, and 150b; R. Haim Elazar Shapira of Munkacz, Bnei Yissachar, essay on Sivan, 2, and essay on Tammuz, ⒌

Gospel According to Matthew  155

Before the son of man comes—which is to say, I promise you that even if they persecute you om city to city, you will not complete your travels to all the cities of Israel until the son of man comes, that is, until one of the men who is persecuting you realizes your righteousness in that you came to instill in the heart of every single man the knowledge of the unity of the Creator.132 Perhaps he intended this to be about Paul, who, om the beginning, was one of the persecutors, and aerward, when he realized that they only came to strengthen the Torah and to instill the knowledge of the unity of the Creator in the heart of everyone, boldly admitted that he persecuted them for no reason.133 24 A disciple is not exalted above his rav, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for a disciple to be like his rav and for a servant to be like his master. If they have called the owner of the house Baal Zevul,134 the same will be for the people of his house. 26 Therefore, do not fear them, for there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and there is nothing hidden that will not be made known. Therefore, do not fear them—he began to strengthen their hearts so that they would not be beaten by the troubles that come upon them. He said: Is it not sufficient that you should be like me? For they persecute me as well and say that I work all my wonders with the help of demons, but in the end, the truth will be revealed, for there is nothing hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I say to you in darkness, speak it out in the light. What is whispered in your ears, proclaim it from the housetops. 28 Do not fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear the one who is able to destroy both the soul and the body in Geihinnom.

132 In Daniel 7:13–14, the “son of man” seems close to a messianic figure, but even there, it could easily be read in its context as an angelic figure. The messianic reading comes a bit later—for example, in the first century bce, with 1 Enoch 71:⒕ Soloveitchik downplays this to suggest that it is all about spreading the truth of the unity of God. For a recent and provocative reading of Daniel on this phrase, see Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, 25–70. 133 Although Soloveitchik does not oen address Paul directly, he does quote Paul equently as a prooext, e.g., Galatians, and, against most of Jewish readers of Christianity of his time, does not generally view him negatively. Paul is not anti-Torah but comes to realize that Jesus only came to strengthen Torah, and thus he regrets his earlier persecution of the Jews. Setting aside the historicity of such a claim, presenting Paul as understanding the true “Jewish” intentions of Jesus is innovative. 134 This is a play on words. Although Baal Zevul is a reference to a pagan deity or demon, it also literally means something similar to baal habayit, “master of the house.”

156  Gospel According to Matthew

Do not fear those who kill the body—he warned them that they may have to give up their lives in the sanctification of God’s name in order to proclaim the unity of God, blessed be his name, to the masses, for they are only able to kill the body.135 29 Are not two birds sold for an issar? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father. Are not two birds sold—this is the reason that he said that they will give up their lives in the sanctification of God’s name, for he had already instilled in their hearts the belief in the provision of the Creator, blessed be his name, over all of his creation. 30 And as for you, even the hairs on your head are all numbered. Even the hairs on your head—this is also in the Talmud (BT Ḥullin 7b): “No one bruises his finger down here on earth unless it is decreed for him in heaven.” Therefore, you know that everything that befalls you comes om heaven. It is not sufficient that man must give up his life for the sake of spreading the belief in the unity of God, blessed be his name; rather, you must also accept the troubles with love. From verse 8 until here, he warns them about three things: not to be beaten by the troubles that come, not to let their hearts fall, and to receive the troubles with love. 31 So do not fear; you are more precious than many birds. 32 See, everyone who acknowledges me before man, I will also acknowledge him before my Father who is in heaven, Who acknowledges me—this he said against the people who falsely accused him of doing wonders through Baal Zevul. Thus, everyone who acknowledges me, that is, anyone who judges me favorably, the Holy One, blessed be he, will judge him favorably, as we find in the Talmud (BT Shabbat 128b): “He who judges his iend favorably will be judged favorably.” 33 but whoever disowns me before man, I will also disown before my Father who is in heaven.

135 On the laws regarding martyrdom for the sake of God’s name, see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of the Foundations of the Torah,” chap. ⒌

Gospel According to Matthew  157

Disowns me—whoever condemns me, the Holy One, blessed be he, will also condemn and torment him, as we find in the Talmud (BT Shabbat 97a): “He who is suspicious against innocent men is bodily afflicted.” 34 Do not think that I have come to cast shalom upon earth. I did not come to cast shalom but a sword. Do not think—this is concerning verse 28, where he commanded them to give up their lives in order to instill in the heart of every man the faith in the unity of the Creator. Therefore, he said that they should not think that he has only commanded them to give up their lives for the sake of the sanctification of God’s name and that all those who dwell on the earth will have peace, even if they do not believe in the unity of the Creator. This will not be, for anyone who does not believe in the unity of the Creator will be pierced by the sword. This is in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 94b): “Anyone who does not engage in the study of Torah will be pierced by the sword.” 35 For I have come to separate a man from his father and a daughter from her mother and a bride from her mother-in-law. I have come to separate—my goal is to teach you that every man must give up his life for the sake of the unity of the Creator. And this faith will cause separation between a son and his father, if the father does not believe in the unity of the Creator, for he will think his son a foreigner and an enemy. 36 A man’s enemies will be the people of his house. 37 Whoever loves his father or his mother more than me does not deserve me, and whoever loves his son or his daughter more than me does not deserve me. Whoever loves his father—this is also in the Talmud (BT Yevamot 5b): “Does honoring one’s father and mother supersede the Sabbath? The Talmud states (Leviticus 19:3): You shall each revere his mother and his father, and keep my Sabbaths: I am YHWH your God. It is your duty to honor me!”136 38 Whoever does not take his cross and follow me does not deserve me. 136 BT Kiddushin 30b. It is not quite clear how the Talmudic teaching relates to the verse. Jesus is stating that one love him more than one’s parents, while the Talmud teaches that one must choose the mitzvot over one’s parents, even though one must honor them, in a case where one’s parents protest.

158  Gospel According to Matthew

Does not take his cross—meaning: Whoever wants to follow me and believe in the one God, he is not worthy to be my disciple until he gives up his life for the faith in the unity of the Creator. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake will find it. Whoever finds his life—this is in the Talmud (BT Tamid 32a), when Alexander of Macedon asked the elders of the Negev ten things, and this was one of them: “What shall a man do to live?” They answered him: “Kill himself.” “What should a man do to kill himself?” They answered: “Keep himself alive.”

This means, in order to receive eternal life, a man must die to earthly indulgences and despise wealth and earthly pleasures. And if he indulges in earthly pleasures, he will die a spiritual death and will not be counted with the elected in their happiness.137 40 One who receives you is receiving me, and the one who receives me is receiving the one who sent me. Receiving the one who sent me—this touches on verse 4 above. However, to him who receives, it is as if he is receiving the Shekhinah. And this is in the Talmud (BT Shabbat 127a): “Receiving guests is greater than welcoming the Shekhinah.” 41 One who receives a prophet for the name of a prophet will get the reward of a prophet. One who receives a righteous person for the name of a righteous person will get the reward of a righteous person. One who receives a prophet—as we find in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 10b): “Anyone who receives a wise disciple into his house and lets him enjoy his possessions, scripture accounts it to him as if he had offered the daily burnt offering.” 42 One who provides one of these little ones just a cup of cold water to drink for the name of a disciple, amen, I say to you, he will not lose his reward. 137 Soloveitchik could have also referred to the Talmudic teaching, “the Torah is only fulfilled in one who subjugates his spirit for it,” i.e., who sacrifices worldly pleasure for the wisdom of Torah. See Derekh Ereṣ Zuta, parashat Shemini.

CHAPTER 11

1 When Yeshua had finished commanding his twelve disciples, he left there to teach and proclaim in their towns. 2 Yoḥanan heard in prison about the deeds of the mashiaḥ and sent two of his disciples. In prison—for he was imprisoned as per Herod’s order because he rebuked him for taking his brother’s wife while his brother was still living, as is explained further on in chapter ⒕ 3 They said to him, “Are you the one who comes, or should we wait for another?” Are you the one who comes—Yoḥanan knew Yeshua om the time that Yeshua was immersed by him (Mattai 3:13). However, because he was in prison, he did not know, and he asked him: Are you the man who has already come, or no?138 4 Yeshua answered and said to them, “Go, tell Yoḥanan what you have heard and what you have seen. 5 The blind are seeing, the lame are walking, meṣoraim are becoming pure, the deaf are hearing, the dead are rising, and the poor are receiving good news. 6 And O, the gladness of the man who does not stumble because of me!”

138 Soloveitchik deflects any messianic pretense om John’s comment by suggesting that John was simply asking if Jesus is the one whom he baptized earlier. This does not cohere with Jesus’ response, which seems to imply a messianic unfolding.

160  Gospel According to Matthew

Who does not stumble because of me—he greatly feared that when they saw all his wonders, they would stumble because of him and make him into a deity, God forbid. Thus, aer he had recounted all his wonders, he said, “O, the gladness of the man who does not stumble because of me!” We also find this in Daniel, that he feared that Nebuchadnezzar would make him into a god when he interpreted his dream for him (Daniel 2:46). We also find in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 93a) that when Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah [Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego] were thrown into the furnace, Daniel said: “I shall go om here so that the words You shall consign the images of their gods to fire (Deuteronomy 7:25) may not be fulfilled through me.” And in Ṣemaḥ David (sec. 2, p. 23), it is written that in the year 338 (according to the Christian calendar), a council was held in Jerusalem, the holy city, and there the Nazarene sect accepted that Yeshua did not possess any deity or lordship; rather, he was only a prophet. The foundation for this is found in the New Testament, as I will explain later.139 7 They left, and Yeshua began to speak with the crowd of people about Yoḥanan. He said, “What did you go out into the wilderness to see—a reed swaying in the wind? 8 Or what did you go out to see—a man wearing fine clothes? But those wearing fine clothes are in the houses of kings. 9 And now, what did you go out to see? Was it not to see a prophet? Surely, I say to you, he was even greater than a prophet.” Greater than a prophet—as we find in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 21a): “A scholar is superior to a prophet, as it is said, ‘And a prophet has a heart of wisdom’ (Psalm 90:12). Who is dependent upon whom? It is said: the small is dependent upon the great.”140

139 David Gans (1541–1613) was best known as the author of Ṣemaḥ David, first published in Prague in 159⒉ It is a book of history, divided between world history and Jewish history. He was an early form of an enlightened traditional Jew, having studied with the MaHaRal of Prague. He also had contact with Johann Kepler and other scientists and mathematicians. There appears to be an error here. As far as I know, there was no Christian council in Jerusalem in 338 ce; the council to which Soloveitchik was likely referring may be the Council of Nicaea, in 325 ce. This council did contain a number of divergences, including the question of Jesus’ divinity. See Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), esp. 52–61, 105–130; R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 (London: T&T Clark, 2005); and Jeremy Brown, New Heavens and a New Earth: The Jewish Reception of Copernican Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 42–7⒏ Alternatively, he could be referring to patristic reports of the heresy of the Nazoreans, which he may have heard om Christian colleagues. 140 Of course, it is unlikely that the reference to “greater than a prophet” refers to Jesus as a sage. Rather, given what follows, e.g., the use of Malachi 3:1, it refers to Jesus as a messianic figure. In Malachi 3:2, we read: But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can hold out when he appears?

Gospel According to Matthew  161

10 This is he of whom it was written, “See, I am sending my messenger before you, who will prepare your way before you.” See, I am sending my messenger—the verse is om Malachi 3:⒈ There are those who question how he could say that the verse was written about him, for in Malachi it is written, “See, I am sending my messenger to clear the way before me.” However, in all honesty, there is nothing difficult about this, for this is the style of the sages of the Talmud. When they wanted to strengthen their words, they supported them with some verse, even if the intent of the verse did not align with theirs. Thus, even here, when Yeshua wanted to exaggerate the virtue of Yoḥanan, he said that it is possible to attribute the verse “See, I am sending my messenger” to him. This is because Yoḥanan turned many om transgression and taught them the path of repentance, just as we hope that Elijah will come and teach us the path of repentance. Therefore, he changed the language of the verse and said, “and will prepare your way before you,” that is, that he will teach them the path of repentance. 11 Amen, I say to you, none among those born of a woman has arisen greater than Yoḥanan the Immerser; yet the smallest in the kingdom of Heaven will be greater than he. The smallest—this means: he who was small in faith, Yoḥanan implanted within him the faith in the unity of the Creator and prepared him to return to YHWH with all his heart, in fear of the one God, until he was made great in faith and fear of YHWH.141 12 From the days of Yoḥanan the Immerser until now, the kingdom of Heaven is seized by a strong hand, and those who exert strength will catch it. From the days of Yoḥanan—which is to say, om the time before Yoḥanan until now, it is as if the kingdom of Heaven has been seized by a strong hand (or robbed), since they did not believe in the unity of the Creator.

141 There were also significant differences between John and Jesus. David Flusser notes that John held an apocalyptic worldview that was committed to his generation being the last. Jesus, Flusser suggests, was closer to the rabbinic sages (Pharisees) and believed that the kingdom of Heaven was approaching but was not yet here. See Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, 4⒏

162  Gospel According to Matthew

13 For all the Prophets and the Torah prophesied up to Yoḥanan. For all the Prophets and the Torah—this means: since the Torah promised that all would repent, as it is written, And it will be in the end of days that you will return to YHWH your God (Deuteronomy 4:30).142 Prophesied up to Yoḥanan—for there was never a time that Israel fully repented as in his days. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is Eliyahu who is to come. Who is to come—just as Elijah, who will come in the future, will teach the path of repentance, Yoḥanan did the same when he taught the people how to return to YHWH with all their hearts and all their souls.143 15 Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear! 16 To whom will I compare this generation? It is like children who are sitting in the market and calling to their friends, saying, 17 “We played the flutes for you, but you did not dance! We moaned an elegy for you, but you did not mourn!” We played—in order to understand this whole passage, I must first cite what the Talmud said (BT Sanhedrin 103a): What is it that was written (Proverbs 29:9), When a wise man enters into litigation with a fool, there is ranting and ridicule but no satisfaction. The Holy One, blessed be he, said: “I was angry with Ahaz and delivered him into the hands of the kings of Damascus, and he sacrificed burnt incense to their gods, as it is said: ‘For he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, which had defeated him, for he said: The gods of the kings of Aram help them; therefore I shall sacrifice to them and they will help me’; but they were his ruin and that of all Israel (2 Chronicles 28:23). I smiled upon Amaziah and delivered the kings of Edom into his hand—so he brought their gods and bowed down before them, as it is written: After Amaziah returned from defeating the Edomites, he had the gods of the men of Seir brought, and installed them as his gods; he bowed down to them, and to them he made sacrifice (2 Chronicles 25:14).” Rabbi Papa said: “This is what men say: ‘I wept for him who did not

142

Cf. Ezekiel 18:30, 33:⒓

143

See Malachi 4:4–5; BT Sukkot 5a; and BT Sanhedrin 98a.

Gospel According to Matthew  163 know his fortune, I laughed for him who did not know his fortune. Woe to him who does not know the difference between good and bad.’ ”

This is the meaning: whether he smiles upon them or is angry with them, they do not repent or return to good. And now you will understand the whole passage. Yoḥanan said: he who wants to draw near to the Holy One, blessed be he, will afflict himself and fast. This is the meaning of “We moaned an elegy,” and they did not repent. Yeshua came and said that they should not fast but rather that each man should cleave to the good attributes and then draw near to the Holy One, blessed be he. This is the meaning of “We played the flutes,” and they did not want to draw near to the Holy One, blessed be he. 18 For Yoḥanan came, and he was not eating or drinking, and they said, “There is a demon in him!” 19 But the son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, “Look: a man who is a glutton and a drunkard, and a lover of tax collectors and sinners!” But wisdom is justified by her sons. The son of man—he was speaking about himself here. Is justified by her sons—when you see that the children coming aer you will believe in the one God, then they will know that righteousness is with us and that we intend only to return the whole world to goodness. 20 Then he began to rebuke the towns where most of his acts of power had been done, but they did not repent. 21 “How terrible for you, Korazin! How terrible for you, BeitṢaidah! For if the acts of power that were done within you had been done in Ṣor and Ṣidon, they would already have repented with sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you that on the Day of Judgment, it will be easier for Ṣor and Ṣidon than for you. 23 And you, Kefar Naḥum, exalted to heaven! You will be brought down to she’ol. For if the acts of power that had been done in your midst were done in Sedom, it would remain standing upon its hill even to this day.” In Sedom—this is in Ezekiel 16:52: Truly, you must bear the disgrace of serving as your sister’s advocate.

164  Gospel According to Matthew

24 “But I say to you that on the Day of Judgment, it will be easier for the ground of Sedom than for you.” 25 At that time, Yeshua responded and said, “I thank you, my Father, master of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from those who are wise and understanding and have revealed them to infants.” To infants—this is also in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 12b): “From the day that the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken om the prophets and given to the foolish and the infants.”144 26 Yes, my Father, for that was the will before you. 27 Everything has been handed over to me by my Father, and no one recognizes the Son except the Father, and no one recognizes the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son desires to reveal him. No one recognizes—I have already written in chapter 3 that everyone who does not follow aer the desires of the flesh but rather conducts himself in accordance with his rational soul—this man is called a son of God, for his rational soul is a part of God above.145 For we do not have to achieve the soul’s essence, just as we do not have to achieve the essence of God, blessed be his name, for the soul is developed om God, and only the Holy One, blessed be he, knows its being and its essence. And when the soul is no longer connected to the human body, it achieves the divine essence. This is the meaning of “the Son knows the Father, and the Father knows the Son.” To whom the Son desires to reveal him—this is the reasoning for what he said above in verse 25, that the Holy One, blessed be he, concealed prophecy om the wise and om the prophets. This is what it means: everyone who always conducts himself in accordance with his rational spirit, he will also be capable of achieving prophecy. Concerning this, he said, “those to whom the Son desires,” that is, if the rational soul desires to reveal prophecy to him—if he is worthy of it—then he will achieve prophecy, as the Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 7:5): “Those who seek prophecy are called sons of

144

Cf. Psalm 8:3 and Proverbs 1:⒋

145 See Deuteronomy 33:9 and Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed I:⒈ Maimonides argues that it is the rational dimension of the human being that is intended in the verse in Genesis 1:26, “Let us make the human in our image, aer our likeness.”

Gospel According to Matthew  165

prophecy; and even though they focus their thoughts, it is possible that the Shekhinah will inspire them, and it is possible that it will not.”146 28 Turn to me, all who labor and are burdened, and I will cause you to rest. Who labor and are burdened—“All who uphold the Torah in poverty will ultimately uphold it in wealth” (Avot 4:9). Turn to me—“Rabbi would say: ‘Make for yourself a lamp so you can walk by its light.’ And which light is this? It is the light of the Torah, as it is said (Proverbs 6:23): For the commandment is a lamp and the Torah is a light (midrash Mishlei 6).” 29 Accept upon yourself my yoke and learn from me, for I am humble and lowly in spirit, and you will find a resting place for your souls. Accept upon yourself my yoke—“Anyone who accepts upon himself the yoke of the Torah is exempt om the yoke of the government and ordinary matters” (Avot 3:5). This means: others will support him and provide for him. I am humble—this is found in the Talmud (BT Soṭah 21b): “The words of Torah can only be fulfilled by he who makes himself as nothing.” And lowly in spirit—this is in the Talmud (BT Ta’anit 7a): “Why are the words of Torah likened to water? Because it is written, Ho, all who are thirsty, come for water (Isaiah 55:1). This is to tell you: just as water descends om a higher place to a lower place, thus the words of the Torah are only fulfilled with him who is meek.” And you will find a resting place for your souls—as we find in the Talmud (Avot 6:9): Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said: “Once, I was walking on the way, and I encountered a man; he greeted me with shalom, and I returned his greeting. He said to me: ‘Rabbi, where are you om? Would you like to stay with us in our place, and I will give you a million dinars of gold?’ I said to him: ‘My son, if you gave me all the silver and gold . . . when a man leaves this world neither silver nor gold . . . 146 For a more detailed view of Maimonides on prophecy, see Guide II:32–4⒏ Cf. David Bakan, Maimonides on Prophecy: A Commentary on Selected Chapters of the Guide of the Perplexed (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1977). For a more contextual and synthetic view, see Howard T. Kreisel, Prophecy: The History of an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001).

166  Gospel According to Matthew accompany him, only Torah and good deeds, as is said (Proverbs 6:22): When you go it will direct you, when you lie down it will watch over you, and when you awaken it shall be your speech. “When you go it will direct you” in this world, and “when you lie down it will watch over you” in the grave, and “when you awaken it shall be your speech” in the world to come.’ ”

30 For my yoke is pleasant and my burden is light. My yoke is pleasant—this is found in midrash Qohelet (11:7): “ ‘The light is sweet and pleasing to the eyes.’ The light of the Torah is sweet.” What is so sweet about the words of the Torah that we liken it to light? As it is written: For the commandment is a lamp, and the Torah is a light (Proverbs 6:23).

CHAPTER 12

1 At that time, Yeshua passed through the standing grain on the day of Shabbat. His disciples were hungry, so they started to pluck heads of grain and they ate. 2 The Perushim saw this and said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not to be done on Shabbat!” What is not to be done on Shabbat—concerning this matter, there is much quarreling between our Jewish and Christian brothers. Our Jewish brothers argue: 1) Do not his actions contradict his words, since he said in 5:17 that he did not come to violate the Torah or the Prophets, but to uphold—or, in other words—to strengthen? And now he permits desecrating the Sabbath! 2) Also, in his explanation he said that the son of man is master of the Sabbath (further down in verse 8). It would seem that he meant that man may do whatever he needs or desires on the Sabbath. And our Christian brothers reply: We believe in Yeshua and that he taught truth, and we put our hope in his teaching; and our fathers warned us against letting any foreign thought come into our hearts, for our thoughts are narrow and his are more expansive than ours. Thus, all we can do is bow our heads and drink in his words as they are written. And I, the commentator, just as I have continued on my way up until now and have shown that the New Testament goes hand in hand with the Talmud, will continue to do so and not relent. I wanted to bring every “give-and-take” of the Talmud that corresponded with the subjects we have been discussing. But if I had done that, this would have become a much larger book. So I will cite the words of the Rambam. It is written: And you shall be careful to observe my laws and rules that man shall do and shall live by them; I am YHWH (Leviticus 18:5). That he may live

168  Gospel According to Matthew

by them and that he may not die by them. If a man dies and does not transgress the Torah [in order to save his life], then he is responsible for his own death. In other words, there is nothing that stands between you and the saving of a life. Therefore, if a man comes and compels an Israelite to transgress one of the commandments of the Torah, saying that if he does not transgress it he will kill him, the Israelite must transgress it; he is not permitted to give up his life.147 And if he does not transgress and gives up his life, he will have to render account for his soul that he lost, for the Torah said that man “shall live by them” and not that he should die by them.148 However, there are a few prohibitions that one must give up his life rather than do, such as the desecration of God’s name. Scripture says: You shall not desecrate my holy name; rather, I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel (Leviticus 22:32). This means that everyone must give up his life for the sake of the sanctification of God’s name. Rambam comments that this concerns three crimes: idolatry, sexual immorality, and the shedding of blood (murder). But for the remainder of the commandments, a man is not permitted to give up his life for them (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yesodei Torah 5:1, 2). And in halakhah 6, the Rambam wrote: “Just as they said regarding being forced [to transgress a commandment], they also said concerning sickness. How so? When someone falls ill and is about to die and the physicians say that his cure involves transgressing a certain Torah command, they shall do so and transgress any Torah command in order to cure him; any command except idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder.” And the Rambam also said (ibid., 5:8): When does the principle that one may transgress the commands of Torah in the case of great danger apply? In a time when they will bring satisfaction to the sick, such as: feeding the sick insects or creeping things, or ḥametz (leavened products) during Passover, or feeding him on Yom Kippur. And even when it does not bring satisfaction to the sick, such as: making a compress or bandage out of ḥametz [during Passover] or the orlah,149 or if they give him bitter things mixed with forbidden foods, for since they are not pleasing to the palate, it is permitted to do so, even when there is no immediate danger present.

147 Soloveitchik is referring to the law of pikuaḥ nefesh, or the obligation to abandon Torah law to save a life, or, if one’s own life is threatened, to save oneself. A plethora of sources deal with this in the code literature. For basic parameters, see BT Ketubot 19a: “Nothing stands before an endangered life [pikuaḥ nefesh] except idolatry, illicit/ incestuous sexual union, and murder.” Cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Shabbat,” 2:16; and Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayim 22⒐ 148

See Leviticus 18:⒌

149

Fruit om a tree that is not to be eaten om until three years aer it has been planted. See M Orlah, chap. ⒈

Gospel According to Matthew  169

So in which manner were the disciples in danger? For if they were not in danger, why did he bring proof using David as an example, who was in danger? This is what we find in the Talmud (BT Menaḥot 95b): For there was nothing there except the bread of the presence, which had been removed from the presence of YHWH (1 Samuel 21:7) . . . and David said to them: “There is no doubt at all concerning this bread; since it is no longer subject to sacrilege, it has now become common. And even though it has been sanctified today in the vessel, give it to me to eat.” For his life was in danger.

Therefore, we can see that Yeshua did not permit—God forbid—the desecration of the Sabbath, or even the rabbinic prohibitions. And when he said that the son of man is master of the Sabbath, he meant that man may do with the Sabbath what he wishes, just as the Gemara itself also said, regarding the saving of a life (BT Yoma 85a–b): “Where do we learn that the saving of a life supersedes the Sabbath? Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Yosef says: [And you shall observe the Sabbath] for it is holy to you (Exodus 31:14). It is committed into your hands, but you are not committed into its hand.” This is said concerning the saving of a life, for there is nothing that stands between you and the saving of a life.150 Therefore, my Jewish brothers, please forgive me, but you are mistaken in your understanding of this matter, for Yeshua did not permit the desecration of the Sabbath—God forbid—except for in the case of danger. You are also mistaken in your understanding when he said that the son of man is master of the Sabbath; he said this only in regard to the saving of a life. However, my Christian brothers, you are not permitted to complain about our Jewish brothers, for you are the ones who are persecuting your messiah, for just as they (the Jews) are mistaken, you are also mistaken in your understanding of Yeshua’s words, that the son of man is the master of the Sabbath, for you thought that man can do whatever he wishes with the Sabbath, even change it to another day! Tell me this: Did Yeshua permit the Sabbath to be changed om Saturday to Sunday? Perhaps you will say that it is not explicitly stated in the Torah which day is the Sabbath, and therefore you switch the day for yourselves to whichever you desire.151 150 There is something odd in Soloveitchik’s rendering. First, Matthew adds the word “hungry” to this story. It does not appear in the other renderings of the story. Second, there is no indication that the lives of Jesus’ disciples were in danger. His use of David (1 Samuel 21:1–6) appears to be an instance, common in the synoptic Gospels, where Jesus uses biblical precedent to justi his actions. Nor is it obvious that the David story was a case of pikuaḥ nefesh. On Soloveitchik’s logic, if it was pikuaḥ nefesh, why didn’t Jesus just say so? Soloveitchik uses pikuaḥ nefesh as a way to justi Jesus’ permitting transgression of the Sabbath. 151 On Saturday/Sunday, see Andrew McGowan, Ancient Christian Worship (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 218–22⒊

170  Gospel According to Matthew

See that the word “Sabbath [Shabbat]” is a Hebrew word, and in all the languages of the peoples—both ancient and modern—Saturday is called by this Hebrew word. In Russian and Polish, it is sobota; in English, it is “Saturday,” aer the star Saturn (Shavtai in Hebrew), named as such because it appears to be stationary. And in German, Wednesday is called “Mittwoch” (lit., “midweek”) because it is the day in the middle of the week, and Saturday is called “Samstag” (lit., “rest day”), and it is the last day of the week.152 Thus, we can see that om then until now, this has been the day of rest. Even the first Nazarenes153 rested on the Sabbath, as it is written: “On the Shabbat, they rested according to the mitzvah” (Luke 23:56). And it is known that the council of bishops in Nicaea in 328 ce determined that Sunday would be celebrated as the Sabbath. Now only a few Christians rest on the Sabbath like the first Christians (Nazarenes).154 However, as it is said, they are few; and in righteousness, our sages said: “The truth is extremely heavy; therefore, few are willing to carry it.”155 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his men were hungry— 4 that he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the presence, which neither he nor his men are permitted to eat, but only the priests? 5 Have you not read in the Torah that, on the Shabbatot, the priests desecrate the Shabbat in the Temple, yet do not have iniquity? 6 I tell you that there is something greater than the Temple here.” Greater than the Temple—Does not the Torah permit the desecration of the Sabbath in bringing offerings on the Sabbath, which is performing a great kindness with those offerings, as he explains in the following verse? We find in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer:

152 Also, the Hebrew word shabbat, which is rendered as “Sabbath” in English, is rendered as savvato in Greek, assabt in Arabic, sabato in Italian, etc. 153 The word or euphemism for Christians in Hebrew is notzrim, which translates as “Nazarenes,” even though the Hebrew for “Christians” and “Nazarenes” is the same word. The term is not exclusive to rabbinic texts. It is also used for Jesus many times in the Gospels, e.g., Matthew 2:23, 26:17; and Acts 24:⒌ It is not used in Paul’s letters. 154 Christian groups known as Sabbatarians in Russia (Subbotniks) held that the Christian holy day was Saturday. They were oen persecuted by Russian authorities. Various similar groups existed in colonial America. See H. Clarke, A History of Sabbatarian or Seventh-Day Baptists in America (Book on Demand, 2014). For a study closer to Soloveitchik’s time and place, see Nicholas Breyfogle, “The Religious World of Russian Sabbatarians (Subbotniks),” in Holy Dissent: Jewish and Christian Mystics in Eastern Europe, ed. Glenn Dynner (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2011). 155

See midrash Shmuel on Pirkei Avot 4:⒓

Gospel According to Matthew  171 The Holy One, blessed be he, said: “Acts of loving-kindness are preferable to sacrifices and burnt offerings that Israel will bring before the altar, as it is said: For I have desired kindness and not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6).”

7 “If only you knew what is said, ‘I have desired kindness and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the son of man is even master of the Shabbat.” 9 He passed on from there to their synagogue. 10 A man was there whose hand was withered. In order to find wrongful words to hold against him, they asked him, “Is it permitted to heal on Shabbat?” 11 He said to them, “Is there a person among you with a sheep, that if it were to fall into a cistern on Shabbat, you would not take hold of it and lift it out?” With a sheep—there is no prohibition [in the Torah] om healing, only in rabbinic sources, and when there is a perilous situation, the sages do not differentiate. This is why he gave them the example of the sheep. 12 “How much more precious is a man than a sheep! Therefore, it is permitted to do good on Shabbat.” 13 He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and it was healed and returned to being like his other hand. 14 Then the Perushim left and deliberated about how to destroy him. 15 Yeshua knew this and departed from there, and a great crowd of people followed him, and he healed them all. 16 He warned them and commanded them not to reveal him, 17 fulfilling what Yeshayah the Prophet spoke, saying, 18 “This is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved one that my soul favors. I have placed my spirit upon him, and he will bring forth justice to the nations. 19 He will not cry out, and he will not raise his voice, nor will it be heard in the street.” Nor will it be heard in the street—all of these verses (up until verse 22) were written by Isaiah, with a few variations. The plain meaning of the text is about the community of Israel, as it is written (Isaiah 45:4), For the sake of my servant Jacob, Israel my chosen one. The main point in citing Isaiah 42:2 was to support what he warned them about in verse 16 above, that they not reveal him. Such [Talmudic] interpretation methods are discussed above in 2:2⒊

172  Gospel According to Matthew

20 “He will not break a crushed reed or extinguish a smoking wick until he brings forth everlasting justice. 21 The nations will hope in his name.” 22 Then a man was brought to him who was blind and mute, whom a demon had gripped, and he healed him, and the mute could both speak and see. Speak and see—similar to this, we find in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 9b): Rabbi Achadboi bar Ammi asked Rabbi Sheshet about a certain halakhah, and he laughed mockingly at Rabbi Sheshet’s response. Rabbi Sheshet was deeply hurt om his mocking, and Rabbi Achadboi lost his speech and was made mute. His mother came and wept before him. Then Rabbi Sheshet requested mercy for him, and he was healed.

23 The entire crowd of people was amazed and said, “Could this be the son of David?” 24 The Perushim heard this and said, “He does not drive away demons except through Baal Zevul, the prince of demons.” 25 But Yeshua knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be destroyed, and every city and house divided against itself will not stand firm. 26 If the Satan drives out the Satan, he is divided against himself. How, then, would his kingdom remain firm? 27 If I drive out demons by Baal Zevul, by whom do your sons drive them out? Therefore, they will be your judges!”156 By whom do your sons drive them out—this means “your disciples,” for disciples are called sons, as it is written (2 Kings 2:3): And the disciples of the prophets came out. The disciples of the Pharisees also drove out demons. Thus he said: if I drive out demons with impure names, then your disciples also drive them out with impure names. 28 “But if by the spirit of God, I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you!” By the spirit of God—and if I drive out demons by the spirit of God, then your disciples also drive out demons with holy names. 156

See Josephus, Antiquities 8:46–4⒐

Gospel According to Matthew  173

29 “Or how can a man enter the house of a mighty man to steal his goods if he does not first bind the mighty man? Afterward, he can come up against his house.” The house of a mighty man—more proof that I drive out demons through holy names and not through the prince of demons: if I drove out demons but not the prince of demons, you could say that I drive out demons through the prince of demons. However, when I drive out the prince himself, I can do so only through holy names. And this is what he means by “the house of a mighty man.” We can also find this in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe’ah 8:8): Rabbi Ḥanina bar Papa would perform good deeds at night (he would distribute charity to the poor at night so as not to embarrass the poor). Once, the prince of demons met him. The prince of demons said to Bar Papa: “Do we not read, O rabbi, You shall not move your neighbor’s boundary line (Deuteronomy 19:14)?” (He protested that the rabbi was doing acts of charity during the night, which was his domain.) Bar Papa said to him: “And is it not written, A gift in secret subdues anger (Proverbs 21:14)?” And the prince of demons was seized with ight and fled om before him.

30 “Everyone who is not for me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” Against me—he said this in general terms. When they allege that I drive out demons through an impure spirit, this is impossible, as I have argued. Therefore, they are speaking against the Holy Spirit, and therefore I have faith only in those who are with me. 31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin or offensive word will be forgiven a person, but revilement of the spirit will not be forgiven a person. 32 Whoever speaks an insult against the son of man will be forgiven, but whoever insults the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven—not in this age and not in the age to come.” The Holy Spirit—for they are calling the Holy Spirit a spirit of impurity, and it will not be forgiven them. 33 “Call the tree good and its fruit good, or call the tree rotten and its fruit rotten; for the tree is recognized by its fruit.

174  Gospel According to Matthew

34 Sons of vipers! How would you be able to speak good if you are evil? For from the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.” From the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks—for there are men who speak only of peace while they nurse malice within. This is what he reproached them about. For the mouth speaks of what is in the heart, and your hearts are full of evil and deceit. 35 “A good man, from the storehouse of his heart, brings forth the good. An evil man, from the storehouse of evil, brings forth evil. 36 Yet I say to you, every worthless word that sons of men speak, they will give an account for it on the Day of Judgment.” Worthless word—it is not enough that you should be punished for deceit, for their lips will speak one thing while their hearts think another, but even for every worthless word you say, you will need to give an account on the Day of Judgment, as we can find in the Talmud (BT Ḥagigah 5b): Rabbi Ila heard a child who was reading, Behold, he who formed the mountains and created the wind and has told man what his conversation is (Amos 4:13). What is the meaning of “his conversation”? Even the superfluous conversation between a man and his wife will be recounted to a man in the hour of his death.

37 “By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will become liable.” By your words you will be justified—this is also in the Talmud (BT ‘Arakhin 15b): Death and life are in the control of the tongue (Proverbs 18:21). . . . Rabba said: “He who desires life—it is in the control of his tongue. He who desires death—it is in the control of his tongue.” In other words, if he engages in the study of Torah, he will live. If he engages in worthless words, he will die.

38 Some men from the scholars and Perushim answered him and said, “Rabbi, we desire to see a sign by your hand.” 39 But Yeshua answered them, “An evil, adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but a sign will not be given to it except that of Yonah the Prophet.157 157

See Yonah 2:⒈

Gospel According to Matthew  175

40 For just as Yonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and nights, so, too, will the son of man be in the heart of the ground for three days and nights.” So, too, will the son of man—there are those who say that his intent was to respond to them asking for a sign. Concerning this, he answered them: a sign will be of no avail to you, except that of when the son of man will be in the heart of the ground for three days and nights. He was speaking of himself, in that he would die and be in the ground three days and three nights, and aer that he would arise, as it is said in Mattai 28:16–⒘ Thus they would believe in his teaching and his leadership. Below are some clarifications about this.158 Why did they request a sign om him? Did he not perform many signs for them? 1) How many demons did he drive out, and how many sick people did he heal by the words of his mouth! This means that they considered all the miracles that he performed until then as nothing. 2) What is the meaning of his response? When he would die, be in the ground for three days and nights, and aerward arise, they would then see that the spirit of YHWH was speaking through him. However, it is known by everyone that he died on erev Shabbat and that on Sunday morning, he was not to be found in his grave (Mattai 28; Markos 16). We can see that he was in the ground for only two days and two nights altogether. And even if he were in the ground three days and three nights, please notice, honored reader, in Mattai 28:16–17, it is said: “The eleven disciples went to the Galil, to the mountain that Yeshua had mentioned to them. They saw him and bowed down to him, but there were some of them whose hearts were divided.” Did Yeshua say to the Pharisees that this would be their sign, that is, that he would resurrect? Would they believe his disciples? Did they believe the signs that they saw with their own eyes, or did they believe what the disciples told them? Particularly because not all of his disciples saw them, and some of them had hearts that were divided. Therefore, this is the interpretation: the Pharisees requested a sign om him that was out of the ordinary, that is, a sign om heaven, for they did not consider all the signs that he had done up until that time as signs om heaven, for even the Pharisees drove out demons, as Yeshua himself said: “By whom do your sons drive them out?” They also healed many sick, as I have shown. Therefore, they requested a more grandiose sign, a sign om heaven, as it is written below (Mattai 16:1–4): “and they asked him to show them a sign om heaven. 158 This is an interesting case where Soloveitchik recognizes that when Jesus uses “son of man,” he is referring to himself and that this designation carries special status.

176  Gospel According to Matthew

He answered and said to them, ‘A sign will not be given to you . . . except the sign of Yonah.’ ” In other words, return to YHWH om the evil of your hearts.159 Pay attention to what happened to YonahYonah when he stubbornly refused to go where YHWH had sent him, and what the Holy One, blessed be he, did. He appointed a large fish to swallow him, and he was there three days and three nights. Aerward, he went and called out to the people to repent. You must also remove evil om your hearts and return to YHWH, for what happened to Yonah is likely to happen to you. 41 The people of Nineveh will stand in judgment of this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the call of Yonah. But look! One greater than Yonah is here. They repented at the call of Yonah—even though Yonah did not give them any sign. One greater than Yonah is here—I showed you many more signs than Yonah showed to the people of Nineveh. 42 The queen of Teiman will stand in judgment of this generation and condemn it because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Shlomoh. But look! One greater than Shlomoh is here. Greater than Shlomoh—meaning: She came of her own accord om the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and I come of my own accord to you in order to cause you to return in repentance, and you do not return. This is why he says that the queen of Teiman will condemn them in judgment. 43 The impure spirit, after leaving a person, wanders through dry places seeking a place to rest but does not find one. The impure spirit, after leaving—this is interpreted in a passage om our sages of blessed memory (BT Sukkot 52a): The evil inclination has seven names. . . . David called it “unclean,” as it is said: Create for me a pure heart, O God (Psalm 51:12), which implies that there is something unclean. . . . Joel calls it “northerner,” as it is said: I will drive the hidden one far from you (Joel 2:20). This is the evil inclination, which is hidden 159 This was the main thrust of Yonah’s message to the people of Nineveh. Whereas it appears in the verses that the sign of Yonah was his three days in the whale, Soloveitchik reads it as Yonah’s message of repentance to the people of Nineveh.

Gospel According to Matthew  177 and resides in the heart of man. “I will thrust it into a parched and desolate land” (ibid.), to a place where there are no men for him to provoke.

Now you will understand Yeshua’s intent: even if you repent, and the spirit of impurity (the evil inclination) comes out om you and comes to the parched land—it is incumbent upon you to persist down the path of repentance, lest the spirit of impurity returns to you. 44 Then it says, “I will return to my home from where I left.” It comes and finds it cleared, swept, and decorated. And decorated—and if the spirit of impurity returns to you, it will not be able to remain, for your heart will be pure, and you will be remaining in your repentance. 45 Afterward, it goes out and takes with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they come and live there, and the end of that man is worse than his beginning. So it will also be for this evil generation. It goes out and takes with it—then the evil inclination overpowers you with a great, sevenfold strength, for as great as you may be, your evil inclination is greater. Here is proof that the evil inclination can always overpower man if there is no one to help him om heaven, as was known by Yeshua and his listeners. We find this in the Talmud (BT Sukkot 52a): Abaye heard a certain man saying to a certain woman: “Let us begin and walk along the way.” He said: “I will go as well, and distance them om what is prohibited.” He walked behind them for three leagues across the meadows. When they separated om one another, he heard them say, “Our journey was long and our company was pleasant.” Abaye said: “If he were the one who hates me (i.e., if I were he), he would not have been able to reain himself (i.e., I would not have been able to reain myself ).” He went and leaned against a doorpost and grieved. An old man came and taught him: “Every man who is greater than others has an evil inclination that is greater still.”

The end—the end of this generation will be worse than its beginning. Therefore, a sign will be of no avail to you, nor will a sign be given to you. The Holy One, blessed be he, is able to bring you to repentance by himself, just as he did with Yonah the prophet.

178  Gospel According to Matthew

46 While Yeshua was still speaking to the crowd of people, his mother and brothers were standing outside, asking to speak to him. 47 It was told to him, “Look! Your mother and brothers are standing outside, asking to speak to you!” 48 But he answered and said to the man who told him this, “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” 49 He stretched out his hand over his disciples, saying, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For anyone who does the will of my Father who is in heaven is a brother, a sister, and a mother to me.”160 Who does the will—the main thing is performing the commandments, just as Yeshua himself said: “But if you desire to enter life, keep the mitzvot” (Mattai 19:17). And also, in 7:21: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘My master! My master!’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but rather the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

160

See Proverbs 4:1–⒋

CHAPTER 13

1 On that day, Yeshua left the house and sat beside the sea. 2 A great crowd of people was assembled to him, so he went down into the boat and sat in it, and all the people stood on the seashore. 3 He spoke to them at length with parables, saying, “The sower went out to sow seed.161 4 As he sowed, some of the seed fell by the road, and the birds came and ate it. 5 There was some that fell on rocky places where there was not much soil, and it sprouted quickly, because it had no deep soil. 6 When the sun shone, it was scorched and dried up, because it had no root. 7 There was some that fell among thorns, and the thorns came up and crowded it out. 8 There was some that fell on the good soil and bore fruit, one a hundred times, another sixty, and another thirty. 9 Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear.” 10 His disciples approached him and said, “Why is it that you speak to them in parables?” 11 He answered and said, “Because to you it is given to know the secrets of the kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given.162 161 Of all New Testament texts, Matthew is the most replete with parables. Of all three synoptic Gospels, Matthew is closest to rabbinic midrash (Paul’s letters exhibit an even sharper use of midrash). This chapter is a prime example of parable as the form of Jesus’ teaching, something that is in accord with later rabbinic teaching and also likely a literary form that Jews and new Christians adopted om Near Eastern culture and religion. See David Stern, “Midrash and Parables in the New Testament,” in The Jewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation, ed. Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 565–569; and, more generally, idem, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991). 162 Secrets are oen a sign of the messianic in the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic/kabbalistic teaching. See Daniel 2:18, 19, 2⒎

180  Gospel According to Matthew

12 For to one who has, it will surely be given, and he will have extra, but for one who does not have, even what he does have will be taken away from him.” It will surely be given, and he will have extra—as we find in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 55a): “The Holy One, blessed be he, does not give wisdom to anyone except to him who has wisdom, as it is said: He gives wisdom to the wise (Daniel 2:21).” Will be taken away from him—this would cause astonishment; therefore, he gave them a parable in order that they would understand little. 13 “That is why I speak to them in parables. For in their seeing they will not see, and in their hearing they will not hear, nor do they even understand. 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Yeshayah that says, ‘Listen well, but you will not understand. Look closely, but you will not know.’ ” Prophecy—this prophecy comes om Isaiah 6:⒐163 15 “Fatten the heart of this nation, and make its ears heavy and seal its eyes, so that it will not see with its eyes or hear with its ears or understand with its heart or repent and be healed. 16 But as for you, O, the gladness of your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear! 17 For amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear. 18 So as for you, please hear the parable of the sower. 19 Anyone who hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one will come and snatch what is sown in his heart. He is the one sown beside the path. 20 The one sown on the rocky place is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it joyfully. 21 But he does not have a root beneath him, so he arises for only an hour. But when there is trouble and persecution on account of the word, he will stumble in a moment. 163 Even though Isaiah was speaking to those in his generation, Matthew, and subsequently most Christians, believe that Isaiah’s prophecy is being fulfilled now in the life of Jesus.

Gospel According to Matthew  181

22 The one sown among thorns is the one who hears the word, but the worries of this age and the guile of wealth crowd out the word, so that he will have no fruit. 23 But the one sown on good soil is the one who hears the word and understands it, even producing fruit; one bears a hundred times, another sixty, and another thirty.” The one who hears the word—we find in the Talmud (Avot 5:12): There are four types of disciples: 1) One who is quick to hear and quick to forget—his loss outweighs his gain. 2) One who is slow to hear and slow to forget—his gain outweighs his loss. 3) One who is quick to hear and slow to forget—he is wise. 4) One who is slow to hear and quick to forget—his is an evil portion.

Yeshua saw that many were gathered to him, all of them with differing opinions, as he said to them: I know that everyone will interpret my words according to his own opinion. Therefore, if they err or are mistaken, God forbid, in interpreting my words, no guilt will be upon me, for the disadvantage will go to the one receiving. And there are four types or receivers, and they are listed in the Talmudic passage above. And he who distorts the words of Yeshua, his mistake is not the fault of Yeshua. 24 He presented them with another parable and said, “The kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.” 25 While his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed darnel among the wheat, and then went away. Among the wheat—we find this in the Talmud (JT Kilayim 1:1): “Wheat and darnel (tares) are not of the same species.” In the Torah, it is said: You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed (Leviticus 19:19). And even if they are not two kinds of seed and there is no prohibition, there still must be caution in differentiating between them.164

164 On Leviticus 19:19, Naḥmanides notes on this prohibition: “The reason [for this prohibition] is that sowing them together will certainly change their nature and form, since they will each be nourished om the other. This will result in every seed being the produce of two species. On this, see Ellen F. Davis, Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 80–100; and David Mevorach Seidenberg, Kabbalah and Ecology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 34⒐

182  Gospel According to Matthew

Darnel (tares)—the Rambam said that it was a type of wheat that changed form and structure. Therefore it is called zunin, for it has deviated om the correct path, just as their hearts strayed [zoneh] (Ezekiel 6:9).165 And his intent with this parable was to warn against men who show themselves to be righteous and inside they are filled with deceit and they are taught the wrong path, just as the darnel looks like wheat at first glance, and in reality it is not. 26 When the plants grew and produced fruit, the darnel was also seen. And produced fruit—at first, you will not know if he is teaching you good or bad, and it will seem to you like the correct path, but aerward, when you see the uit that his teaching produces, you will then discern that its end is the paths of death, as it is said above (12:33). 27 The servants of the owner of the house approached and said to him, “Our master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where did the darnel come from?” 28 He said to them, “One of my enemies did this.” His servants said to him, “Would you like us to go and pull it up?” 29 He said, “No, because when you pull up the darnel, you might also uproot the wheat.” 30 Let them be, and both will grow together until the harvest. When harvest time comes, I will say to the reapers, “First pull up the darnel and bind it into bundles to burn them. Then gather the wheat into my storehouse.” 31 He presented with another parable and said, “The kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.166 32 It is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it sprouts, it is larger than the other vegetation and becomes a tree, to the point where birds of heaven come and nest in its branches.” 33 He took up his parable again and said to them, “The kingdom of Heaven can be compared to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three se’im of flour until all of it became leavened.”

165

See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Mixing [Kilayim],” 3:⒊

166 The mustard seed is oen used as the smallest measurement in rabbinic teaching. See, e.g., M Shevi’it 9:1 and M Niddah 5:⒉

Gospel According to Matthew  183

To leaven—to clari the two parables, I must first cite a passage om our sages of blessed memory (BT Shabbat 88b): The words of Torah have within them the power to cause death and to cause life. Thus Rabba said: “For those who stand to the right of it (Torah), it is medicine of life; for those who stand to the le, it is medicine of death.”167

In other words, if they engage with all their strength in learning the secret of the Torah and fulfill what it commands, they are like a man who uses his right hand—the strong hand—for it gives life to those who obey it. But those who are to the le—those who study the Torah and do not uphold it—for them it is the medicine of death. Thus, Rabba said (BT Yoma 72b): “I beg of you, do not inherit a second Gehenna.” This passage concerns someone who meticulously studies the Torah in this life and does not uphold it. In his lifetime, he will not find enjoyment, and he will inherent Gehenna upon his death. Now you will understand the words of Yeshua. He warned them to correctly understand his words and not to mistake what he said, and that they should learn Torah om a wise rabbi, lest they be led astray. And so he warned them: if you study the Torah in order to uphold it, then you can be compared to a mustard seed, which is extremely small om the start, but aerward becomes extremely large. For this man, his beginning is sad and his ending is very great. And if, God forbid, you study the Torah and do not uphold it, then you can be compared to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three se’im of flour until all of it became leavened and spoiled the flour. And it is the same with you; not only could it be that the Torah will not return you to good, but you will be spoiled even more and you will inherit a second Gehenna. 34 Yeshua spoke all these things in parables to the crowd of people, and other than parables, he did not speak to them at all, 35 fulfilling what the prophet168 spoke, saying, “I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter riddles from ancient times.” What the prophet spoke—om Psalm 78:⒉ See what I wrote above in chapter 2, verse 2⒊ 36 Then Yeshua sent away the crowd of people and came to the house. His disciples approached him and said, “Please explain to us the parable of the darnel in the field.” 167

See BT Yoma 72b and the midrash to Psalm 7⒏

168

Some manuscripts read: “Isaiah the Prophet.” But it should read: “Asaph.”

184  Gospel According to Matthew

37 He answered and said, “The one who sows the good seed is the son of man.” The son of man—I only teach you the good and pure attributes. 38 The field is the world. The good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The darnel is the sons of the evil one. Sons of the kingdom—he who follows aer my teaching and has all the good attributes, then he will be called a son of God, as I wrote above in 4:⒊ The darnel—this means those who have studied om a disreputable rabbi who instills in their hearts qualities that seem good, at first glance—just like the darnel that looks like wheat, at first glance—but are really evil. 39 The enemy who sows them is the Satan. The harvest is the end of the age. The reapers are the angels. The Satan—he who teaches you things that I never intended and instills within your hearts false truths. 40 Just as the darnel is gathered and burned in fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The son of man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom every obstacle and all workers of evil, Every obstacle—but there will come a time when everyone will know that the Holy One, blessed be he, is one, and then all the workers of evil will depart. 42 and they will cast them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear. 44 Again, the kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a treasure that a man found stashed in a field. He stashed it again, then joyfully went and sold everything he had and bought that field. A treasure . . . stashed in a field—we find in Pirkei Avot 2:12: “All your works should be for the sake of heaven.” Here is the meaning: all the matters of this world have a side that is evil and a side that is good; for example, eating and drinking. A man cannot learn anything about the Creator when he is hungry

Gospel According to Matthew  185

or sick. Therefore, he must eat and drink. And if he eats only things that cause cure and strengthen the body in order that he will be healthy and strong enough to engage in the study of Torah, and reains om things that weaken the body, even if they are sweet to the palate, this is good. However, if he eats only things that are sweet to the palate, even if they are bad for the body, then he is like an animal. It is the same with a profession. If a man’s intent is to gain wealth only in order to fulfill his desires and do what he wants, this is not the good path. But when he works at his profession in order to provide for his wife and children and in order to guide them on the right path and to do good in his labor, this is the right path, and he is glorious among men and acceptable before YHWH. Because of this, he can worship YHWH even while he is sleeping. If he sleeps in order to relax his mind and rests his body so that he will be able to worship YHWH, his sleep will be found to be worship of the Holy One, blessed be he. And this is the meaning of, “All your works should be for the sake of Heaven.”169 Now you will understand Yeshua’s intent. He who wants to draw near to the Holy One, blessed be he, the highest path he should take can be compared to a treasure stashed in a field. The field is the world, for in this world there is a stashed treasure by which man may enter into the world to come. The hidden treasure is the commandments, good deeds, righteousness, and acts of lovingkindness. Similarly, we find in this passage (Pirkei Avot 4:16): “This world can be compared to an antechamber before entering the world to come. Prepare yourself in the antechamber in order that you may enter into the salon.” For even in the matters of this world, a man can purchase the world to come, if all his deeds are done for the sake of heaven. And this is why he said, “and he bought that field,” which means, he even buys the field, which is the earth, and with the good deeds that he does in this world, the world to come will be accredited to him. 45 Again, the kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a trader seeking good pearls. 46 When he found a very precious pearl, he went and sold everything he had and bought it. And bought it—in other words, he did not want to enjoy anything om this world; rather, he sought only to perform the commandments and good deeds. And this is the path that Yoḥanan the Immerser taught to his disciples—that 169

Cf. Pirkei Avot 2:2, 4:⒒

186  Gospel According to Matthew

they should fast and afflict themselves. The meaning of the man buying the pearl is that he treasured the commandments and did not take joy in this world at all. 47 Again, the kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a net that was cast into the sea, and a variety of species were gathered into it. A net—just as a net will capture within it every species that comes into it, so, too, every man who does not strive only to do good and who follows only aer the sight of his eyes, whether good or bad, in the world to come he will receive his reward for the good and his punishment for the bad. 48 When it was full, they brought it up to the seashore; then they sat down and collected the good species into vessels but threw the bad ones away. 49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go forth and separate the wicked from among the righteous. 50 They will cast them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. 51 Then Yeshua said to them, “Have you understood all these things?” They said, “Yes, our master.” 52 He said to them, “Therefore every scholar who is educated in the kingdom of Heaven can be compared to the owner of a house who brings out of his storehouse new things as well as old.” Every scholar who is educated—meaning: You must write down my words on a scroll or on the tablet of your hearts so that you will not forget them. Then you will be compared to an owner of a house who brings even the old things out of his storehouse. 53 When Yeshua had finished speaking these parables, he passed on from there. 54 He came back to his own land and taught them in their synagogue. They were astonished and said, “From where did he get such wisdom and acts of power? 55 Is he not the son of the craftsman? Is not his mother’s name Miriam, and his brothers Ya’akov and Yosei and Shimon and Yehudah? 56 And his sisters—are they not all here with us? From where, then, did he get all these?”

Gospel According to Matthew  187

57 It was an obstacle to them, and Yeshua said to them, “The prophet is not despised unless he is in his own land and in his own house.” The prophet—those who decided in 338 ce that Yeshua was only a prophet— perhaps they used this verse as a prooext. 58 He did not do many acts of power there because of their lack of faith.

CHAPTER 14

1 At that time, Hordos, the tetrarch of the province, heard the report about Yeshua. Hordos, the tetrarch—this is the son of Herod the Great, and he was called a tetrarch, for tetrarch in Greek means “a fourth.” The Romans split the land of Israel into four parts; the sons of Herod reigned over the remaining three sections, and they appointed Pontius Pilate as prefect. 2 He said to his young men, “This is Yoḥanan the Immerser who has been awakened from the dead. That is why such forces are working in him.” 3 For Hordos had captured Yoḥanan, bound him, and placed him in prison on account of Horodyah, the wife of his brother Pilippos. The wife of his brother Pilippos—Josephus wrote in his book Antiquities of the Jews (bk. 18, secs. 109–119) that Herod took his brother’s wife as his own while his brother was still living. Josephus also wrote that Herod imprisoned Yoḥanan and had him killed because he feared that his preaching would incite a revolt.170 4 For Yoḥanan had said to him, “She is forbidden for you.”171 5 Hordos sought to kill him but was afraid of the crowd, since they considered him to be a prophet.

170 Soloveitchik seems to be quoting om various editions of Josephus, sometimes om one edition with its own numbering, sometimes another. We kept his citations of Josephus as they were written. 171 Marrying a brother’s wife constitutes incest in biblical law. See Leviticus 18:16; Deuteronomy 25:5–10; Antiquities 18:13⒍

Gospel According to Matthew  189

6 On Hordos’s birthday, the daughter of Horodyah danced for them, and it was pleasing in the eyes of Hordos. 7 So he swore to her and said, “What does your soul request? I will give it to you!”172 8 Now her mother had put the words in her mouth, so she requested, saying, “Give me the head of Yoḥanan the Immerser here on a platter.” 9 The king was troubled, but on account of his oath and those reclining with him, he ordered it to be given to her. 10 He sent orders and removed Yoḥanan’s head in prison. 11 They brought his head on a platter, handed it to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. 12 His disciples came forward and took his body and buried it. Then they went and told Yeshua. 13 When Yeshua heard this, he departed from there in a boat to a desolate place, and no one was with him. When the crowd of people heard, they followed him on foot from the towns. 14 Yeshua went out and saw the great crowd of people, and he felt moved for them and healed those among them who were weak. Who were weak—weak in spirit. He instilled within their hearts the belief in the unity of the Creator.173 15 At the time of evening, his disciples approached him and said, “This place is desolate and the day has stretched on. Send away the crowd of people so they may go to the villages to buy food for themselves.” 16 He said to them, “They do not need to go. You give them something to eat.” 17 They said to him, “We do not have anything here except five loaves of bread and two fish!” 18 He said, “Bring them here to me.” 19 He commanded the people to sit on the grass, and he took the five loaves of bread and the two fish. He lifted his eyes toward heaven and made a berakhah. Then he broke and gave the bread to the disciples, and the disciples gave it to the people.

172

Reminiscent of Esther 5:⒊

173 The NRSV Matthew has “he had compassion for them and cured their sick.” This would not cohere with Soloveitchik’s reading of this being a case of Jesus strengthening their faith.

190  Gospel According to Matthew

And made a berakhah—the Motzi blessing.174 This is also what the scholar Dr. Biesenthal wrote in his commentary on Luke 9:⒗175 Then he broke—as it says in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 39b): “The blessing is said, and then the bread is broken.” 20 All of them ate and were satisfied, and from the leftover pieces they picked up twelve full baskets. 21 Those who ate were about five thousand men, not counting the women and children. 22 Then Yeshua urged his disciples to go down into the boat to cross ahead of him to the other side of the sea, until he had sent away the people. 23 He sent the people away and went up the mountain alone to pray. It was evening, and he was there alone. 24 Now the boat had come halfway across the sea, and the waves were tearing it apart, for there was a wind against it. 25 During the fourth watch, Yeshua came to them, walking on the surface of the water. The fourth watch—“The night has four watches, these are the words of Rabbi” (BT Berakhot 3b). The worship of the angels also has four “watches,” for their song is broken up into four sections. 26 His disciples saw him walking on the surface of the sea and were terrified. They said, “It is the appearance of a spirit!” and they cried out in fright. 27 Yeshua quickly called to them, “Be strong, for it is I. Do not fear!” 28 Petros answered and said to him, “If it is you, Master, please command and I will come to you on the water.” 29 He said, “Come!” and Petros went down from the boat and walked on the surface of the water to come to Yeshua. 30 When he saw that the wind was strong, he became afraid and began to sink, and he cried out and said, “Master, save me!” 174 The blessing for bread: “Blessed are you, HaShem, our God, king of the universe, who brings forth bread om the earth.” See M Berakhot 6:1 and 9:⒌ 175 Raphael Hirsch (aka Joachim Heinrich) Biesenthal (1800–1886), a scholar who was an Orthodox Jew. Some sources say that, even though Biesenthal came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, he refused formal Christian conversion and instead chose to continue to practice Orthodox Judaism. The 1906 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia, however, stipulates that he converted, becoming part of the Evangelical Church, and served in the Jewish Mission in Berlin. He wrote commentaries on Luke, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews, as well as works on the medieval exegete David Kimḥi, the book of Psalms, and the Hebrew prophet Isaiah. His commentaries rely heavily on mystical Jewish literature, and he cites the Zohar heavily in his commentaries on New Testament passages.

Gospel According to Matthew  191

31 Yeshua quickly reached out his hand, took hold of him, and said to him, “Small one in faith, why is your heart divided?” 32 They went up into the boat, and the wind subsided. The wind subsided—We find other examples of this in the Talmud, as I have written elsewhere. 33 Then the men in the boat approached and bowed down to him and said, “Surely you are the son of God!” You are the son of God—see my commentary on 4:⒊176 34 They crossed the sea and came to the land of Ginneisar. 35 The people of that place recognized him, so they sent word out to the whole surrounding area and brought all the sick to him. 36 They requested of him just to let them touch the corner of his garment, and all those who touched it were saved. All those who touched it were saved—see commentary on 9:2⒈

176 In Matthew 4:3, Soloveitchik comments on Satan challenging Jesus to turn stones to bread. Here, however, it is the people, who, aer witnessing Jesus walk on water, proclaim, “Surely you are the son of God,” which appears to be a clear messianic reference.

CHAPTER 15

1 Then the scholars and Perushim from Yerushalayim came to Yeshua. 2 They said, “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not ritually wash their hands before the meal.” The tradition of the elders—we find in the Talmud (BT Ḥullin 106a): The ritual hand washing before a common meal in order for it to be customary, regarding terumah; moreover, it is a command. What command is it? Abaye said: “It is the command to obey the words of the sages.”177

3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the mitzvah of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘He who curses his father and mother shall surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If one says to his father and mother, korban is anything you would receive as my beneficiary, then he is not obligated to honor his father and mother.’ ” 6 You violate the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites, Yeshayah prophesied well about you, saying, 8 “This people approaches me with their mouth, and with their lips they honor me, but their heart is distant from me. 9 Their fear of me is empty; it is taught as a mitzvah of men.”178 177

Cf. M Yadayim 1:1–4; BT Berakhot 53b; BT Sukkot 26b, 27a.

178

Isaiah 29:⒔

Gospel According to Matthew  193

10 And he called out to the people, saying to them, “Listen and understand! 11 It is not what enters the mouth that contaminates the person, but what comes out from the mouth—that is what contaminates the person.” 12 His disciples approached him and said, “Do you know that the Perushim heard this word and stumbled because of it?” Stumbled—when they hear you say, “It is not what enters the mouth that contaminates the person,” they will think that you are permitting, God forbid, the eating of unclean animals and all unclean beasts and fowl that the Torah forbids.179 13 He answered and said, “Every plant that my Father who is in heaven did not plant will surely be uprooted.” Every plant—meaning: Not only do I not permit what is prohibited in the Torah; I do not even permit what is prohibited by the rabbis under any circumstance if what they prohibit is based on the Torah. However, the ritual washing of hands cannot be supported by scripture. Concerning this, he said, “Every plant that my Father who is in heaven did not plant will surely be uprooted.”180 14 “Leave them alone. They are blind guides for the blind. If one who is blind leads another who is blind, both will fall into the pit.” They are blind guides for the blind—this is also in the Talmud (BT Bava Kama 52a): “When the shepherd is angered at the flock, he blinds the leading goat.” And according to Rashi (ibid.): “When the master of the herd has a brazen goat, he directs the goats to walk in ont and the herd follows behind them.” 15 Petros answered and said to him, “Explain to us this parable.” 16 Yeshua said, “Do even you still not have insight? 17 Do you not yet know that everything that enters the mouth goes down to the stomach, and is poured out from there into the latrines? 18 But what comes out from the mouth comes out from the heart, and this is what contaminates the person.”

179 It is interesting that Soloveitchik rejects the common Christian interpretation of allowing all foods but never offers an alternative. It seems like an incomplete comment. 180 This is what is said elsewhere in Matthew regarding the intention to abolish the custom of the ritual washing of hands. . See 23:2⒊

194  Gospel According to Matthew

Comes out from the heart—as we find in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 61a): “The heart discerns, the tongue shapes, and the mouth articulates.” 19 “For out of the heart come thoughts of evil, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimony, and reviling. 20 These are the things that contaminate the person, but eating without ritual hand washing does not contaminate the person.”181 But eating without ritual hand washing—he says a few times (also in v. 11) that this “does not contaminate the person,” so that his listeners do not stumble because of his words and think that he permits, God forbid, eating everything, even what is forbidden in the Torah. Everything he said was only regarding ritual hand washing. This is also in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 19a): “Eliezer (others, Elazar) ben Chanoch raised doubt concerning the ritual washing of hands.” And we will speak more about this in Markos ⒎ 21 Yeshua went out from there and departed to the area of Ṣor and Ṣidon. 22 A Kena’ani woman was coming out from those regions, and she cried out to him, saying, “Be gracious, my master, son of David, because my daughter is terribly afflicted by a demon!” 23 But Yeshua did not answer her with a single word. His disciples approached him and requested of him, saying, “Send her away, because she is crying out after us!” 24 He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep, who are of the house of Yisra’el.” 25 But she came and bowed to him and said, “My master, help me!” 26 He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and to cast it before the little dogs.” The children’s bread—the children are Israel, as it is written: “You are children of YHWH, your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1). And by “bread,” he meant “teaching,” just as Yeshua himself interpreted when he said (Mattai 16:6), “Guard yourselves om the leaven of the Pharisees”—guard yourselves om the teaching of the Pharisees. Here, all the signs that I do are in order to instill in the hearts of

181 But see Mark 7:9–13, where we have a different rendering of this precise point of Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees. See Soloveitchik’s comment there.

Gospel According to Matthew  195

the masses the faith in the unity of the Creator, and I was sent to the lost flock of the house of Israel who are children. 27 She said, “Yes, my master. However, even the little dogs eat from the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Even the little dogs—meaning: Even I want to believe in the one God! 28 Yeshua answered and said to her, “Woman, great is your faith. Let it be for you according to your desire.” And her daughter was healed that hour. Great is your faith—because you want to believe in the one God, this is a great thing! Because of this, let it be for you according to your desire. 29 Yeshua passed on from there and came to the Sea of the Galil, and he went up the mountain and sat there. 30 A great crowd of people came to him, and among them those who were lame, blind, mute, and crippled, and many more like these. They laid them down at the feet of Yeshua, and he healed them. 31 The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled in good health, the lame walking, and the blind seeing, and they praised the God of Yisra’el. 32 Yeshua called to his disciples and said, “I feel compassion for the people. They have been standing by me for three days and do not have anything to eat, and I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may faint on the way.” I do not want to send them away hungry—this is also in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 103b–104a): Great is the nourishment that is fed to guests. . . . An unintentional error is accounted as willful, just as Rabbi Yehudah said, so, too, Rav said: “If only Jonathan had given David two loaves of bread, Nov, the city of priests, would not have been massacred, Doeg the Armenian would not have been destroyed, and Saul and his three sons would not have been killed.”

Therefore, Yeshua did not want to send them away hungry lest they faint on the road.

196  Gospel According to Matthew

33 His disciples said to him, “Where in the wilderness will we get enough bread to satisfy such a great crowd?” 34 Yeshua said to them, “How many loaves of bread do you have?” They said, “Seven, and a few little fish.” 35 He commanded the crowd of people, and they sat on the ground. 36 He took the seven loaves of bread and the fish and made a berakhah. Then he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. Made a berakhah. Then he broke—see what I wrote above in 14:⒚ 37 All of them ate and were satisfied, and from the leftover pieces they picked up seven full pots. 38 Those who ate were four thousand men, not counting the women and children. 39 He sent away the people, went down into the boat, and came to the region of Magdan.

CHAPTER 16

1 The Perushim and the Ṣaddukim approached to test him, and they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. A sign from heaven—show us a sign that is out of the ordinary.182 2 He answered and said to them, “In the evening you say, ‘It will be clear tomorrow, because heaven has turned red.’ 3 In the morning you say, ‘Today is a storm, for heaven has turned red and become dark.’ Hypocrites, you recognize the appearance of heaven, but you do not recognize the signs of the times. 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, but a sign will not be given to it except the sign of Yonah the Prophet.” Then he left them and walked away. The sign of Yonah the Prophet—there is no sign that will be of any use to you, for if I do a sign in the evening and change the night to day, you will say that sky became serene. And if I show you a sign in the morning and change the day to night, you will say the sky has become cloudy. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be he, will himself give you a sign just as he gave to Yonah. See 12:40.183 5 The disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to take bread with them. 182 This is a good illustration of Soloveitchik’s resistance to any notion of miracle in the Gospel. In fact, the notion of a “sign” oen relates to messianic validation through the performance of miracle. 183 In early Christian teaching, Yonah was oen a sign of resurrection, given that he was in the belly of the whale for three days and emerged unscathed. On Yonah in this context, see Acts 2:27, 31; and 1 Peter 3:19, 4:⒍ For a Jewish text on this idea, see JT Sanhedrin 11:⒌

198  Gospel According to Matthew

6 Yeshua said to them, “See that you guard yourselves from the leaven of the Perushim and the Ṣaddukim.” 7 The disciples were thinking this and that among themselves, and said, “This concerns the fact that we did not take bread with us.” 8 Yeshua knew and said to them, “Small ones in faith, why would you think in your hearts that you did not take bread with you? 9 Have you still not gained insight, and do you not remember the five loaves of bread and the five thousand men, and how many basketfuls you picked up? 10 And the seven loaves of bread and the four thousand men, and how many pots you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that it was not about bread that I said to you, ‘Guard yourselves from the leavening of the Perushim and the Ṣaddukim’?” 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to guard from the leavening of bread but rather the teaching of the Perushim and the Ṣaddukim. The teaching of the Perushim and the Ṣaddukim—the Pharisees study Torah, but they do not instill the good attributes into the hearts of the people. And the Sadducees do not believe in the immortality of the soul.184 13 When Yeshua came to the area of Kisrin Shel-Pilippos, he asked his disciples, saying, “What do sons of men say about me? Who is the son of man?” 14 They said, “Some say he is Yoḥanan the Immerser, and some say Eliyahu; others say Yirmeyah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But as for you, what do you say about me? Who am I?” 16 Shimon Petros answered and said, “You are the mashiaḥ, the son of the living God!” You are the mashiaḥ—according to BT Sanhedrin 94a, the Holy One, blessed be he, desired to make Hezekiah the messiah, but his attribute of justice cononted him and he did not make him the messiah. It is seemingly astounding how the Talmud would know this; however, the intent of the Talmud was to 184 The Ṣaddukim (Sadducees) were rivals of the Perushim (Pharisees). See Josephus, The Jewish War 2:164–166, and Antiquities 13:171–17⒊

Gospel According to Matthew  199

emphasize the great righteousness of Hezekiah. According to the Talmud, he was incredibly righteous, so much so that he was deemed worthy to be the messiah. So, too, Peter meant that Yeshua was worthy to be messiah because of his great righteousness, and he was even worthy to be called son of God, just as I wrote in my commentary above in chapter ⒋185 17 He answered and said to him, “O, your gladness, Shimon bar Yonah! For flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Petros, and upon this rock I will build my community, and the gates of she’ol will not overpower it.” Petros—i.e., rock. This is Greek for the Hebrew word sela (and the Aramaic keifa). In other words, I will place my words in your mouth, and I will set you as the foundation in that you will teach my community and you will instill in their hearts the faith in the unity of the Creator, and then the gates of she’ol will not overpower it, which means that they will not enter Gehenna. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and all that you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and all that you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.” Keys of the kingdom of Heaven—which is to say, I will teach you which path to take to eternal life, and when you believe in the one God with a complete heart, then you will be sure and correct in that whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and all that you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.186 20 Then he commanded his disciples that they must not tell anyone that he is the mashiaḥ. 21 From that time on, Yeshua began telling his disciples that he needed go to Yerushalayim and endure great suffering from the hands of the elders, the leading priests, and scholars, and that he would be killed but would surely arise on the third day. 185 This does not cohere with Peter’s comment in v. ⒗ It is an interesting reading for Soloveitchik to use the reference of Hezekiah in the Talmud as messiah to denote an aspirational intent and not an actual claim. For Soloveitchik, Peter is just noting Jesus’ righteousness that would merit being the Messiah without claiming that he is the Messiah. 186

See Isaiah 22:22; Sie Deuteronomy 32:25; and BT Shabbat 31a–b.

200  Gospel According to Matthew

Arise on the third day—on the third day aer my death. Then you will understand that the faith in the immortality of the soul that I instilled in your hearts is the truth.187 22 Then Petros took him and began to reprimand him, saying, “God forbid this for you, my master! May it not be like this for you!” 23 He turned around and said to Petros, “Get away from me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me, because your heart is set on things of sons of men and not the things of God.” 24 Yeshua said to his disciples, “A man who desires to follow me will disown himself, pick up his cross, and follow me.” To follow me—he who wants to follow my teaching. The main principle of my teaching is that man should be prepared to give up his life for the sake of the faith in the unity of the Creator.188 25 “For the one who desires to save his life, his life will be lost from him, but the one who loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what does it benefit the man if he should acquire the whole world but destroy his life? Or what could the person give as the ransom for his life? 27 For the son of man will ultimately come with the glory of his Father, with his angels; then he will repay everyone according to his deeds.” The son of man will ultimately come—what will be the reward of the man who gives up his life for the unity of the Creator? He will surely come with the glory of his Father. Every righteous man will achieve divine-like status, for this is the main principle of the world to come. With his angels—with the Torah commands and the good deeds that he did, for they are his guardian angels in the world to come, and because of them he will come to achieve the glory of his Father, which is divinity.

187 Here is an illustration where Soloveitchik elides resurrection with immortality, something akin to Maimonides. Cf. Maimonides, “Epistle on Resurrection.” Earlier, Gotthold Lessing, in his The Education of the Human Race (1780), remarks that Jesus was “the first reliable practical teacher of the immortality of the soul.” Cited in Hess, Germans, Jews, and the Claims of Modernity, 1⒖ 188 Here, as elsewhere, Soloveitchik resists what appears to be the New Testament’s attempt to focus on Jesus the person and not his teachings. Throughout his commentary, Soloveitchik deflects all reference to the person of Jesus as a way to make the text cohere with classical rabbinic teaching. For a discussion about the transition om person to text in Deuteronomy and the move back to person in early Christianity, see Shaul Magid, Hasidism Incarnate: Hasidism, Christianity, and the Construction of Modern Judaism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2015), 1–⒕

Gospel According to Matthew  201

Then he will repay everyone according to his deeds—everyone will achieve according to his value. 28 “Amen, I say to you that there are some among those standing here who will certainly not taste death before they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.” Before they see the son of man—even in this world, every man will achieve the knowledge of the immortality of the soul, and the soul will delight aer being separated om the body, and this is the meaning of “coming in his kingdom.”

CHAPTER 17

1 At the end of six days, Yeshua took Petros, Ya’akov, and his brother Yoḥanan, and they climbed a high mountain alone. 2 He was changed before their eyes. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.189 3 Suddenly, Moshe and Eliyahu appeared to them, and they were speaking with him. Eliyahu—as we find in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 3a): Rabbi Yosei said: “Once I was traveling on the road and entered one of the ruins of Jerusalem in order to pray. Elijah, of blessed memory, came to me and waited for me to finish my prayer at the entrance. Aer I finished my prayer, he said to me: ‘Peace unto you, rabbi.’ And I said to him: ‘Peace unto you, my rabbi and teacher’ ”

4 Petros responded and said to Yeshua, “Master, it is good for us to be here. If it is good in your eyes, let us make three sukkot: one for you, one for Moshe, and one for Eliyahu.” 5 While he was still speaking, a cloud of light overshadowed them, and a voice from the midst of the cloud said, “This is my dear son, in whom I am pleased. Listen to him!” This is my dear son—see what I have written in chapter ⒋190 189

Allusion to Moses, Exodus 34:3⒌ Cf. Daniel 10:6 and BT Bava Batra 75a.

190 See Soloveitchik’s long comment to Matthew 4:4 and my notes there. “I have now clearly shown you that every man who follows his spirit and not the desires of his flesh—he is called a son of God.” He argues that the term “son of God” is a euphemism for one who has conquered his desires and has fully submitted to the unity of God.

Gospel According to Matthew  203

6 When the disciples heard, they fell on their faces, very afraid. 7 Yeshua approached and touched them and said, “Arise. Do not fear.” 8 Then they lifted their eyes, but did not see anyone except Yeshua alone. 9 As they came down the mountain, Yeshua commanded them, saying, “Do not tell anyone about the vision until after the son of man has risen from the dead.” 10 His disciples asked him, saying, “How is it that the scholars say, Eliyahu will surely come first”? 11 Yeshua answered and said to them, “Indeed, Eliyahu will come first and restore everything.” And restore everything—what will Elijah do? He will return the whole world in repentance. Yoḥanan came in the spirit of Elijah.191 12 “But I say to you, Eliyahu has already come, and they did not recognize him, and they dealt with him as they pleased. So, too, the son of man will suffer by their hand.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about Yoḥanan the Immerser.192 14 As they came to the crowd of people, a man approached him and got down on his knees across from him. 15 He said, “My master, please have compassion on my son, because he is struck by the moon, and his illness is severe. Often he falls into the fire, and often into the midst of the water. 16 I brought him to your disciples, but they were not able to heal him.” 17 Yeshua answered and said, “Alas, O crooked generation that lacks faith! How long will I be with you? How long will I bear you? Bring him here to me.” 18 Yeshua reprimanded the demon, and it left him, and the young man was healed from that hour. 19 The disciples approached Yeshua when he was alone, and said, “Why were we not able to drive it out?”

191 Soloveitchik reads this reference to Elijah as referring to John the Baptist (17:13), who was imprisoned and killed for his behavior. See Matthew 3:⒊ 192 On the messianic role of Elijah in rabbinic literature, see BT Sanhedrin 98a; BT Bava Metzi‘a 85b; and BT ‘Eruvin 43b.

204  Gospel According to Matthew

20 Yeshua said to them, “It is because of the lack in your faith. For amen, I say to you, if you have faith like a mustard seed and you tell this mountain, ‘Be moved from here to there,’ it will be moved from its place. There is nothing that will be impossible for you. 21 But this type comes out only with prayer and fasting.” 22 As they passed through the land of the Galil, Yeshua said to them, “The son of man will ultimately be handed over to men. 23 They will kill him, but on the third day he will surely rise.” And they became very upset. 24 As they came to Kefar Naḥum, the collectors of the half-shekel approached Petros and said, “Does your rav not give the half-shekel?” 25 He said, “He will give it.” But when he came to the house, Yeshua came first to ask, saying, “What is your opinion, Shimon? The kings of the earth—from whom do they take taxes and customs? From their own children or from foreigners?” 26 Petros said to him, “From foreigners.” Yeshua said to him, “If so, then the children are exempt.” The children are exempt—this is also in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 8a): Rabbi Naḥman bar Rabbi Ḥisda levied a tax on the sages. Rabbi Naḥman bar Yiṣḥak said to him: “This is a transgression against the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, for it is written (Ezra 7:24): It is not permissible to impose tribute, poll tax, or land tax on them.”193

And when he said, “the children are exempt,” he meant the disciples of the sages.194 27 “But nonetheless, in order that we will not be an obstacle to them, go to the sea, throw a fishhook into it, and take the first fish that comes up. When you open its mouth, you will find an istira. Take it and pay on my behalf and yours.”

193 The verse in Ezra does not refer directly to the sages but includes priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, Temple servants, or any other servant of this House of God. Soloveitchik seems to be adding sages to this list. 194 Does this mean that only the disciples of Jesus are exempt? It is unlikely that it means that Jesus’ disciples are “children of the sages.”

CHAPTER 18

1 At that hour, the disciples approached Yeshua and said, “Who, then, is great in the kingdom of Heaven?” 2 Yeshua called a little boy to him and stood him up in their midst. 3 He said, Amen, I say to you, if you do not return to being like children, you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever makes himself lowly like this child is the great one in the kingdom of Heaven. Whoever makes himself lowly—the highest attribute is the attribute of humility, as we find in Moses. Of all the good attributes that he possessed, the scriptures only praise him for the attribute of humility, as it is written: And Moses was a very humble man (Numbers 12:3). But how does one attain this high attribute? One cannot ascend to the seventh step if one does not begin with the first step, and aerward the second, until eventually arriving at the seventh step. Thus, Yeshua taught them that they should return to being like children.195 It would be advisable to cite here what our teacher, Rabbi Yonah the Ḥasid, said in his interpretation of Ezekiel 18:3⒈ And this is what he says: Ezekiel the prophet said (18:31): Cast away all the transgressions by which you have offended, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, that you may not die. A man who transgressed and sinned and goes down the paths of repentance, I will advise and show him the path to take. On that day, he will cast away all the transgressions he has done, and he will make himself as he was on the day he was born, with neither vices nor virtues. And this will cause him to return in full repentance, and he will cast away om himself the weight of the sins that he 195

On the importance of humility, see Maimonides, “Commentary to Pirkei Avot,” 4:⒋

206  Gospel According to Matthew committed, and the evil inclination will not be able to entice him to say, “How could I presume to request forgiveness om the Holy One, blessed be he? Did I not greatly sin and transgress so as not to merit divine grace?” He should not think this. He must think only that the hand of the Holy One, blessed be he, is always open to accept the repentant and he is forgiving. Therefore, it is good for him to cast away his transgressions and to make himself a new heart as on the day of his birth.

And this is what Yeshua said, “Repent and be as children,” that is, that man should gradually straighten his way until he reaches the step of humility, and he will be the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven. 5 Whoever receives one child like this in my name receives me. Whoever receives—as we find in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 19b): “Whoever teaches Torah to his iend’s son, it is as if he is his own son.”196 6 The one who causes one of these little ones who have faith in me to stumble would be better off to have a millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea. The one who causes . . . to stumble—this means: he who teaches the small ones in faith false doctrine and prevents them om believing in the unity of the Holy One, blessed be he, it would be better for him to hang a millstone around his neck. This is also in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 91b): “Anyone who withholds halakhah om the mouth of a disciple, even the embryos in the womb of their mothers curse him.”197 7 How terrible for the world because of obstacles! For obstacles will surely come, but how terrible for that man through whom the obstacle comes! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you! It is better for you to enter life lame or crippled than for you to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into the eternal fire.

196 See Rashi to Numbers 3:⒈ Jesus is not talking about teaching them Torah but about the devotion of his disciples to believe in him. 197 As above, Soloveitchik replaces Jesus as teacher of Torah and Jesus as messianic figure. For Jesus as Torah teacher in rabbinic literature, see Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 41–5⒈

Gospel According to Matthew  207

Your hand or your foot . . . throw it away—your hand, which you tighten to withhold charity om the poor, or your foot, which takes you down the wrong path. 9 If your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away from you! It is better for you to enter life with one eye than for you to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of Geihinnom. Your eye . . . throw it away—also in the Talmud (BT Soṭah 9b): “Samson rebelled with his eyes, as it is said (Judges 14:3): ‘And Samson said to his father, “Get her for me, for she is pleasing in my eyes.”’ For this reason, the Philistines gouged his eyes out, as it is said: The Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes (Judges 16:21).” 10 See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, their angels constantly see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 11 For the son of man came to save the lost. Son of man—this means: every man comes to the world in order to save his iend, to teach him the correct path and to instill in his heart the faith in the unity of the Creator. Therefore, Yeshua cautioned more concerning the small ones, for the faith in the unity of the Creator must be planted in their hearts while they are still young, so that when they are old they will not deviate om that faith. This is also in the Talmud (BT Bava Metzi‘a 85a): Anyone who teaches Torah to the son of his iend merits to sit in the yeshiva of heaven . . . and anyone who teaches Torah to the son of an ordinary man, even if the Holy One, blessed be he, makes a decree, he annuls it, as it is said: If you produce what is noble out of the worthless you shall be my spokesman (Jeremiah 15:19).

12 What is your opinion? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them is lost, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go seek the lost one? 13 It will be that when he finds it, amen, I say to you that he will rejoice over it more than over the ninety-nine that were not lost. 14 For it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost. 15 If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him, between yourself and him, and if he listens to you, you have acquired your brother for yourself.

208  Gospel According to Matthew

Between yourself and him—and in the Talmud (BT ‘Arakhin 16b), it is written: You shall surely rebuke your kinsman (Leviticus 19:17). Even though his face might change, the text states: “Incur no guilt because of him” (ibid.). In other words, rebuke him with many others so as to cause his face to turn white.198 You have acquired your brother—for it is written: Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you (Proverbs 9:8). 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, for “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word will be confirmed.”199 17 But if he does not listen to them, tell it to the congregation, and if he does not listen to the congregation, let him be to you like a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Amen, I say to you, all that you forbid on the earth will be forbidden in heaven and all that you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven. 19 Moreover, I say to you, if two of you are of one heart on the earth about anything that you ask, it will surely come to them from my Father who is in heaven. 20 For wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in their midst. Wherever—this is the meaning of the previous verse, “If you ask of the Holy One, blessed be he, you will receive,” for the Holy One, blessed be he, said himself in the Torah through Moses his servant that anywhere that his name is mentioned, he would be there with them, as it is written (Exodus 20:21): Everyplace where I cause my name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you. This is also in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 6a): From where do we learn that if two sit and learn Torah, the Shekhinah sits with them? As it is said: In this way have those who fear YHWH been speaking to one another (Malachi 3:16). And om where do we learn that if even one man sits and learns Torah that the Shekhinah is with him? As it is said: Everyplace where I cause my name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you (Exodus 20:21).200

198

Cf. BT Sanhedrin 107a.

199

On the requirement of witnesses, see Deuteronomy 17:6–7; and Tosea Sanhedrin 8:⒊

200

See Pirkei Avot 3:⒍

Gospel According to Matthew  209

21 Petros approached him and said to him, “Master, if my brother sins against me, how many times should I pardon him—up to seven times?” 22 Yeshua said to him, “I will not say to you up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven. 23 Therefore, the kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king of flesh and blood who was going down to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle, a man was brought before him who was indebted to him for ten thousand kikkarim of silver. 25 He did not have any way to repay it, so his master commanded to sell him, his wife, his children, and all that was his, that he could repay it. 26 The servant fell on his face and bowed down to him, saying, ‘Master, be slow to anger with me, and I will repay everything to you!’201 27 The master of that servant was moved with compassion, so he released him and pardoned him of his debt.202 28 That servant went out from before him and found one of his associates who was indebted to him one hundred dinars. He grabbed him and choked him, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe me!’ 29 His associate fell at his feet and requested of him, saying, ‘Be slow to anger with me, that I may repay everything to you!’ 30 But he refused, and he went and left him in prison until he would repay him his debt. 31 The servants who were his associates saw what was done and were very upset, so they came and told their master all that had been done. 32 The master called to him and said to him, ‘You worthless servant! I pardoned your whole debt in response to your request from me. 33 Was it not incumbent upon you to show compassion to your associate when I have had compassion on you?’ 34 His master became angry and gave him over to the torturers until he paid his whole debt. 35 My Father who is in heaven will do the same to you if you do not pardon others wholeheartedly [for their sins].”

201 Being “slow to anger” (Hebrew, ‫ )ארך אפיים‬is a common description of divine patience. See Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Joel 2:13; Psalm 86:16 and 145:⒏ 202 The term “debt” in Hebrew (ḥov) can mean monetary debt and also sin, or liability as a result of sin. The parable is thus likely about forgiving sin rather than monetary debt. See Pirkei Avot 3:17 and Genesis Rabbah 85:⒉

210  Gospel According to Matthew

If you do not pardon others wholeheartedly—this is also in the Talmud (BT Rosh Hashanah 17a): As it is said (Proverbs 7:18): Forgiving iniquity and remitting transgression. Forgiving whose iniquity? Remitting whose transgression? Rabbi Ḥuna ben Rabbi Yehoshua fell ill. Rabbi Papa came to inquire about him. Seeing that he was very ill, he said to those present: “Prepare him for his journey (i.e., his death).” Eventually, he recovered (Rabbi Ḥuna). Rabbi Papa was ashamed when he saw him. Rabbi Papa asked him: “What did you see [while you were ill]?” He said to him: “It was just as you thought, but the Holy One, blessed be he, said to the angels: ‘Since he does not insist upon his rights, do not be particular with him.’ ”

CHAPTER 19

1 When Yeshua finished speaking these words, he traveled out of the Galil and came to the border of Yehudah, across the Yarden. 2 A large crowd of people followed him, and he healed them there. 3 The Perushim approached him to test him, and they said, “Is a man able to send away his wife for any matter?” 4 He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that from the beginning, the Maker ‘created them male and female,’ 5 and it says, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 If so, they are not two any longer, but one flesh. Thus, what God has joined, man must not divide.” 7 They said to him, “Then why is it that Moshe commanded to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts, Moshe permitted you to send away your wives, but from the beginning, the matter was not to be so. 9 Yet I say to you, one who sends away his wife other than for a matter of promiscuity and marries another is an adulterer, [and he who marries the divorced woman is an adulterer].” Other than for a matter of promiscuity—see commentary on 5:32, and there I showed that the New Testament goes hand in hand with the Talmud—that it is not permissible to send a wife away except on the matter of promiscuity.203

203 As Soloveitchik notes earlier, this is a rabbinic debate. See M Giṭṭin 9:10; M Ketubot 7:6; and M Nedarim 11:⒓ It appears that Jesus is voicing the option of the House of Shammai, which is stricter in terms of legitimate reasons for divorce than the House of Hillel or Rabbi Akiva.

212  Gospel According to Matthew

10 His disciples said to him, “If that is the judgment for a man toward his wife, it is not good to take a wife!” If that is the judgment—meaning: Since a man is not permitted to send his wife away except on the matter of promiscuity, it is better not to take a wife at all, for it is possible that his lot will fall to an evil woman who is like leprosy to her husband and causes disgust to his life. 11 He said to them, “Not everyone is able to accept this word, but only those to whom it is given.” Not everyone is able to accept this—I am not able to permit you to live without a wife, for this is a great transgression. And so it says in the Talmud (BT Yevamot 62b): “Any man who does not have a wife lives without joy, blessing, and goodness.” 12 “There are eunuchs who are born that way from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Whoever is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Whoever is able to accept this—meaning: Not every man is able to boast that he can live without a wife, as we find in the Talmud (BT Yevamot 63b): “They said to Ben Azzai: ‘There are those who speak well and act well . . . and you speak well but do not act well.’ Ben Azzai said to them: ‘What should I do, for my soul is in love with the Torah?’ ” This passage openly rebukes those men who do not want to take wives for themselves. 13 Then the people brought him children so he could place his hands upon them and pray, but his disciples reprimanded them. 14 Yeshua said, “Permit the children and do not withhold them from coming to me, because theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” Theirs is the kingdom of Heaven—as we find in the Talmud (BT Shabbat 119b): The world only exists because of the breath of schoolchildren (that is, the breath of their nostrils is the word of Torah, which goes out om their mouths). Rabbi Papa said to Abaye: “What about mine and yours?” He said to him: “Breath

Gospel According to Matthew  213 in which there is sin (that of adults) does not look like breath in which there is no sin.”204

15 He placed his hands upon them, and he passed on from there. 16 A man approached him and said, “ [Good] Rabbi, what is the good thing that I must do to acquire eternal life?” 17 He said to him, “Why is it that you ask me about what is good? There is nothing good but one, and that is God. But if you desire to enter life, keep the mitzvot.” There is nothing good but one, and that is God—all evil comes to a man as a cause of his sin, and he himself causes himself to receive evil in order to cleanse his transgressions. And now you will understand what David said (Psalm 75:9): For there is a cup in the hand of YHWH with foaming wine fully mixed; from this he pours; the wicked of the earth will only find and drink the dregs. And this is the meaning: the nature of wine when the dregs settle in the casks is that it becomes more excellent. The wise man who wants to drink pure wine without the dregs will put a hollow stick [for drinking] inside the cask toward the top. However, the foolish man will drop the stick into the bottom, where the dregs are, and he will suck om the stick and drink om the dregs. His foolishness caused him to do so. Now you will understand the meaning of the passage, “For there is a cup in the hand of YHWH with foaming wine fully mixed.” In the hand of YHWH, the dregs have settled in the wine; and om this, he pours the pure wine, for only goodness descends om the Holy One, blessed be he, but the wicked drink only the dregs, and because of their foolishness they do evil. 18 The man said to him, “What are they?” Yeshua said, “They are these: You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not give false testimony; 19 honor your father and mother; and love your fellow as yourself.” And love your fellow as yourself—this is also in the Talmud (BT Shabbat 31a): It once happened that a foreigner came before Shammai, and said to him: “Make me a convert [to Judaism] on the condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I stand on one leg.” He [Shammai] drove him away with the builder’s 204

See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Torah Study,” 2:⒉

214  Gospel According to Matthew cubit in his hand. He came before Hillel, and he converted him. He told him: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow—this is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and learn.”

The meaning of “and love your fellow as yourself ” comprises all of the Torah. Why is it that Hillel took the verse out of its plain meaning and did not say, “and love your fellow as yourself ”—rather, he said the commentary, “what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow”? This is the reason: I have already explained that the main disagreement between the Pharisees and the Essenes— and Yeshua belonged to the Essenes—is that the Pharisees said that in every single attribute, man should exercise moderation, except for concerning humility and anger. And the Essenes said that man should be extreme in every single attribute.205 Therefore, when a poor man comes to his fellow who believes in the Torah and says to him, “It is written in the Torah, ‘love your fellow as yourself.’ Behold, you have a thousand pieces of gold. Give them to me, and you will have duly fulfilled the commandment”—what should he do? According to the opinion of the Essenes, it is incumbent upon him to give it all, for in doing so, he will fulfill the command to love your fellow as yourself and he will enter into eternal life. However, according to our sages of blessed memory, since the meaning of “love your neighbor as yourself ” is “what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow,” the man should respond to the poor man and say: “Yes, I will give them to you; however, should we not both be careful to fulfill the command? So I will then ask you to give me the thousand pieces of gold in return.” Yet in this manner, the commandment of charity is nullified. If you want to give your fellow everything that you have—no! For you are not permitted to request that he give you everything that he has. This is the opinion of the Pharisees, and here Yeshua takes the opinion of the Essenes.206

205 See Maimonides, “Eight Chapters” to Pirkei Avot, chap. ⒋ Maimonides argues for the golden mean, i.e., moderation, in all attributes except humility, using Moses as his biblical exemplar. Thomas Aquinas adds to the list of attributes for which one is exempt om moderation: poverty and chastity. Soloveitchik seems to import later medieval Jewish and Christian readings of the Aristotelian “golden mean” to ancient Judaism, which includes the Essenes. While the Essenes were likely an ascetic sect and the Pharisees more lenient in such matters, Soloveitchik’s claim still appears somewhat anachronistic. 206 In most cases in his commentary, Soloveitchik argues that Jesus is more or less in line with the Pharisees. Here is one example where he admits that Jesus is espousing an Essene doctrine, although later scholarship is much more skeptical because of what we now know of the Essenes. In Soloveitchik’s time, scholars oen took Josephus’s rendering to be historically accurate regarding the Essenes (at that time, there were few other sources about them, in any case). In this chapter, regarding charity and divorce, Jesus appears to take, in one case, an extreme Pharisaic position (that of the House of Shammai); and, in the second case, the position of the Essenes. The relationship between Jesus and Hillel has become a topic of scholarly interest. See, e.g., David Flusser, “Hillel’s Self-Awareness and Jesus,” in idem, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 509–514; and, more recently, James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns, eds., Jesus and Hillel: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997).

Gospel According to Matthew  215

20 The young man said, “I have kept all of these from my youth. What am I still lacking?” 21 Yeshua said to him, “If you desire to be complete, go sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come back here and follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this statement, he became upset and went away, because he owned much property. 23 Yeshua said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it is difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of Heaven. 24 Moreover, I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When his disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who is able to be saved?” 26 Yeshua looked at them and said to them, “To sons of men, this matter is perplexing, but to God, nothing is perplexing.” To sons of men—to men who go aer what their eyes see, this matter is perplexing, but to God, nothing is perplexing. 27 Petros answered and said to him, “See, we have left everything behind to follow you. What will be our portion?” 28 Yeshua said to them, “Amen, I say to you, you who follow me— in the renewal of creation, when the son of man sits upon his throne of glory, you, too, will sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Yisra’el.207 29 And any man who has left behind houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for the sake of my name will receive back a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.” For the sake of my name—just as I taught you to believe in YHWH who is one, for then you will inherit eternal life. 30 “However, many among the first will be last, and among the last will be first.”

207

Soloveitchik seems intentionally to pass over this overt messianic reference.

CHAPTER 20

1 “For the kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a man, the owner of a house, who got up early in the morning and went out to hire workers for his vineyard.” Can be compared to—this is an explanation for what he had said in the previous verse, that “many among the first will be last.” 2 He settled with the workers on one dinar per day, and he sent them into his vineyard. 3 He went out at the third hour and saw others standing idly in the marketplace. 4 He said to them, “You, too, go to my vineyard, and I will give to you as decided,” and they went. 5 He also went out at the sixth hour, as well as the ninth hour, and did the same thing. 6 He went out at the eleventh hour and found others standing. He said to them, “Why are you standing here idly all day?” 7 They said to him, “Because nobody has hired us.” He said to them, “You, too, go to the vineyard, and your payment will be given to you.” 8 In the evening, the owner of the vineyard said to his overseer, “Call the workers and give them their payment. Begin with the last, and end with the first.” 9 Those hired in the eleventh hour came, and each man got one dinar. In the eleventh hour—and we find this in the Talmud (BT Avodah Zarah 18a): “There are some who acquire eternal life in one hour, and there are those who acquire it aer many years.”

Gospel According to Matthew  217

10 When the first ones came, they imagined to themselves that they would get more, but each one of them also got one dinar. 11 When they got it, they complained to the owner of the house, saying, 12 “These last ones worked for only one hour, but you have made them equal to us, who have been bearing the day’s burden and its heat!”208 13 But he answered and said to one of them, “My fellow, I have not cheated you. Did you not settle with me on one dinar? 14 Take what is yours and go. But what I want is to give this last one the same as you. 15 Am I not able to do as I want with what is mine? Is your eye evil about the fact that I am good?” 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last. [For many are called, but few are chosen] Few are chosen—we find in the Talmud (BT Sukkot 45b): Rabbi Yirmeyahu said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: “I saw the sons of heaven, and they are few. If there be a thousand of them, then my son and I are among them. If there be a hundred of them, then my son and I are among them. If there be two of them, then they are my son and myself.”209

17 When Yeshua went up to Yerushalayim, he took the twelve to himself alone and said to them on the road, 18 “Look, we are going up to Yerushalayim, and the son of man will be handed over to the leading priests and the scholars, and they will condemn him to die. 19 They will hand him over to the Gentiles, to mock him, to strike him with whips, and to crucify him, but on the third day he will rise.”210 208

See a similar story about wages in JT Berakhot 2:⒏

209

The Hebrew term for “sons of heaven” here is bnei aliyah, oen translated as the “elite.”

210 In Jesus’ time, crucifixion was a Roman, not a Jewish, punishment. See M Sanhedrin 7:1–⒋ On the death penalty in rabbinic literature more generally, see Beth A. Berkowitz, Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Cultures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). Interestingly, the Babylonian Talmud, reflecting on this centuries later and not living under Christian rule, is quite open about Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ execution—not for false messianic claims but for being a blasphemer and idolater. Peter Schäfer states: “What we have here in the Bavli is a powerful confirmation of the New Testament Passion narrative, a creative rereading, however, that not only knows of its distinct details but proudly proclaims Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ execution. . . . We [Jews] are not the murderers of the Son of God, nor of the king of the Jews as Pilate wanted to have it. Rather, we are the rightful executioners of a blasphemer and idolater, who was sentenced according to the full weight, but also fair procedure, of the law” (Jesus in the Talmud, 74). Schäfer is not making a historical claim but rather offering a textual interpretation of the Bavli, written centuries aer the Jesus event at a time, and in a place, where taking

218  Gospel According to Matthew

20 Then the mother of the sons of Zavdai approached him with her sons, and bowed down to him to request something from him. 21 He said to her, “What is your request?” She said to him, “Please say that these two sons of mine will sit one to your right and one to your left, in your kingdom.” One to your right—the meaning of this is that they would be on the same level as Yeshua in the world to come. We find something similar to this in the Talmud (BT Bava Metzi‘a 85b): Rabbi Zeira said: “Last night in a dream, Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina appeared to me. I asked him: ‘Who are you seated next to [in the heavenly yeshiva]?’ He said to me: ‘Next to Rabbi Yoḥanan.’ ‘And Rabbi Yoḥanan is seated next to whom?’ ‘Next to Rabbi Yannai.’ ‘And Rabbi Yannai is seated next to whom?’ ‘Next to Rabbi Ḥanina.’ ‘And Rabbi Ḥanina is seated next to whom?’ ‘Next to Rabbi Ḥiya.’ I said to him: ‘And Rabbi Yoḥanan is seated next to Rabbi Ḥiya, no?’ He said to me: ‘In the place of fiery sparks and flaming torches, who will let the smith’s son enter there?’ ”

22 Yeshua answered and said, “You do not know what you have asked for. Are you really able to drink the cup that I will ultimately drink and to be immersed with the immersion with which I am immersed?” They said to him, “We are able.” Are you really able to drink—meaning: Are you really able to receive the troubles in love, just as I receive them?211 23 He said to them, “Yes, you will drink my cup [and you will be immersed with the immersion that I will be immersed], but sitting to my right or to my left is not in my hand to give, except to those for whom it is prepared by my Father.” 24 When the ten heard this, they were upset at the two brothers. 25 Then Yeshua called to them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles oppress them and the great ones dominate them.

responsibility for Jesus’ death was not precarious in the way it became among Jews living in Christendom in the Middle Ages. 211 More likely, Jesus is talking about his death. For examples of the image of the cup, see Jeremiah 25:15; Isaiah 51:17; Psalm 75:⒏

Gospel According to Matthew  219

26 But as for you, let it not be so among you, for the one who desires to be great among you is to be as a servant to you, 27 and the one who desires to be the head among you is to be your slave,” Is to be your slave—this can be found in the Talmud (BT Horayot 10a): Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were traveling on a ship. Rabbi Yehoshua had with him bread and flour. Rabbi Gamliel’s bread was finished, and he relied on Rabbi Yehoshua’s flour. Rabbi Gamliel said to him: “Did you know that we would have this delay that you brought flour?” Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: “A certain star arises every seventy years to lead the sailors astray, and I wondered if it would arise and misguide us.” Rabbi Gamliel said to him: “You have so much knowledge, and yet you board a ship in order to work and support yourself?” He said to him: “As much as you marvel at me, marvel at the two disciples whom you have back on land, Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgada, who know how to calculate how many drops are in the ocean, and they have no bread to eat or clothing to wear.” Rabbi Gamliel decided to appoint them as overseers. When he got to land, he sent for them, but they did not come. He sent for them again, and they came. He said to them: “Do you imagine that I am giving you dominion? I am giving you servitude.”

The meaning is that dominion is servitude, for the yoke of many is placed on those ruling. 28 “just as the son of man did not come so that others would serve him, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom in place of many.” Just as the son of man—man only comes to the world for the good of all in a manner that will benefit others. And to give his life—it is incumbent upon him not only to benefit himself, but he must give his life for the sake of the many, as we can find in the Talmud (BT Pesaḥim 50a): Rav Yosef, the son of Rav Yehoshua, fell ill and was about to die. When he became well, his father asked him: “What did you see?” He said to him: “I saw a world turned upside-down—high-society men were made low, and the lowly men were made great.” He said to him: “My son, you saw the world clearly [as it

220  Gospel According to Matthew really is]. And I have heard it said: ‘Those who were killed by a kingdom, no man can stand in their barriers.’ And who are they? Those killed by Lod.”

To this effect, he said that if a man gives up his life for the many, he will inherit the world to come and greatness in heaven. 29 When they went out from Jericho, a large crowd of people followed him. 30 Just then, two blind men were sitting beside the road, and they heard that Yeshua was passing by. They cried out, saying, “Please be gracious to us, our master, son of David!” 31 The people reprimanded them in order to hush them up, but they cried out more, saying, “Our master, be gracious to us, son of David!” 32 Yeshua stood still and called to them and said, “What do you want me to do for you?” 33 They said to him, “Our master, that our eyes would be opened!” 34 Yeshua was moved with compassion. He touched their eyes, and suddenly their eyes were opened, and they followed him.

CHAPTER 21

1 When they drew near to Yerushalayim and came through BeitPagei to Har HaZeitim, Yeshua sent two of his disciples, 2 and he said to them, “Go to the village that is across from you. There you will find a female donkey tied up along with her colt.212 Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, you should say, ‘The master needs them,’ and he will immediately send them.” 4 All this was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet, saying, 5 “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Look: your king will come to you, humble and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the young of a female donkey.’ ” Humble and riding on a donkey—this verse is om Zechariah 9:9, with a slight variation.213 6 The disciples went and did just as Yeshua had commanded them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their garments on them, and sat him on them. 8 Most of the crowd spread their garments on the road, while others cut tree branches and laid them out on the road. 9 The crowd of people who were walking ahead of him and behind him called out, saying, “Hoshana to the son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of YHWH! Hoshana in the heights!” 212 The Mount of Olives (Har HaZeitim) and the donkey are tied to messianic prophecy. See Ezekiel 11:23 and Zechariah 14:⒋ 213

Cf. BT Sanhedrin 98a.

222  Gospel According to Matthew

Blessed is the one who comes—this is the praise that comes to the one who comes in the name of the one God.214 10 As he entered Yerushalayim, the whole city was stirred up, and they said, “Who is this?” 11 The crowd of people said, “This is the prophet Yeshua from Netzeret, which is in the Galil.” 12 Yeshua entered the Temple of God and drove out from there all the merchants and customers in the Temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the booths of those selling doves. 13 He said to them, “See, it is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer.’ But you have made it into a cave of robbers.” My house shall be called a house of prayer—Isaiah 56:⒎ 14 The blind and lame approached him in the Temple, and he healed them. 15 When the leading priests and scholars saw the wonders he performed and the children crying out in the Temple and saying, “Hoshana to the son of David!” they became angry. 16 They said to him, “Do you hear what they are saying?” Yeshua said to them, “I hear it. Have you ever read, ‘From the mouths of children and nursing infants you have founded strength’?” Have you ever read—Psalm 8:⒊ This is found in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 12b): “Ever since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken om the prophets and was given to the fools and the children.” 17 He left them, went outside the city to Beit-Hini, and spent the night there. 18 In the morning, he returned to the city, and he was hungry. 19 He saw a fig tree beside the road, and he drew near to it, but found nothing on it except the leaves. He said to it, “From now on, there shall not be fruit from you ever again!” Suddenly, the fig tree withered.

214 Another rendering of “Hoshana” om Psalm 118:26 would be “save now,” a prayer connected with the Davidic kingdom, which Matthew attributes to Jesus. Cf. Matthew ⒈ On the word in relation to King David, see 2 Samuel 14:⒋

Gospel According to Matthew  223

The fig tree withered—similarly, we find in the Talmud (BT Ta’anit 24a): Rabbi Yosei had workers who were laboring in the field . . . and no bread was brought to them. They said to his son: “We are hungry.” They were resting under a fig tree. He said: “Fig tree, fig tree, produce your uit so that my father’s workers may eat.” It produced uit and they ate.215

20 The disciples saw this and were amazed. They said, “How did the fig tree wither so suddenly?” 21 Yeshua answered and said to them, “Amen, I say to you, if you have faith and your heart is not divided, you will do things like the deed of the fig tree. You will even say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and moved into the middle of the sea,’ and it will be so. 22 All that you ask in the prayer, if you believe, will come to you.” 23 He came to the Temple and was teaching there, and the leading priests and elders of the people approached him and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” 24 Yeshua answered and said to them, “I will also ask you something, which if you tell me, I will also tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 The immersion of Yoḥanan—where was it from? From heaven or from sons of men?” They thought in their hearts, saying, 26 “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From sons of men,’ we are afraid of the crowd of people, because all of them consider Yoḥanan to be a prophet.” 27 They answered Yeshua and said, “We do not know.” He said to them, “I, too, will not say to you what my authority is to do these things. 28 But what is your opinion? There was a man who had two sons. He approached the elder one and said, ‘My son, go work in my vineyard today.’ 29 But he answered and said, ‘I do not want to,’ but afterward he relented and went.”

215 The verse in Matthew actually says the opposite. Jesus did not say, “Fig tree, fig tree, produce your uit so that my father’s workers may eat” but cursed the tree so that it would never bear uit. The fig tree seems to symbolize a critique of the Pharisees for lack of faith. See Isaiah 34:4; Jeremiah 8:13; Hosea 2:⒓ It may also be a more general critique of the Temple and foreshadowing its destruction.

224  Gospel According to Matthew

I do not want to—this is found in the Talmud (BT Avodah Zarah 2b): “The Holy One, blessed be he, offered the Torah to every nation and tongue and they did not receive it, until he offered it to Israel and they received it.” Yeshua rebuked them concerning this: all the nations refused to accept the Torah and yet they are repenting. And you accepted the Torah and you are not fulfilling it nor are you repenting.216 30 “Then he approached the second and said this to him as well. He answered and said, ‘Here I am, my master,’ but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said to him, “The first.” Yeshua said to them, “Amen, I say to you, the tax collectors and prostitutes will precede you to enter the kingdom of God. 32 For Yoḥanan came to you in the way of ṣedakah, but you did not believe him. The tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him. But as for you, you saw, but did not relent afterward and believe him.” The tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him—and they repented. Therefore, they will precede you in entering the world to come. This is also in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 34b): “Rabbi Abbahu said: ‘In the place where the repentant stand, even the completely righteous cannot stand.’ ” 33 “Listen to another parable: There was a man, the owner of a house, who planted a vineyard. He made a fence around it, hewed out a winepress, and built a tower within it. Then he gave it to vinedressers and went on the road far away. 34 When the time of the grape harvest arrived, he sent his servants to the vinedressers to take his produce. 35 But the vinedressers seized his servants. They attacked one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Once more, he sent many more servants than the first ones, but they did the same to them. 37 At last, he sent them his son, for he said, ‘They will be intimidated by my son.’ 38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said one to another, ‘This is the heir! Come, let us kill him and take his inheritance!’

216 The topic of this chapter is “faith,” not repentance. Most New Testament commentators view this notion of “faith” as faith in Jesus as Messiah. Soloveitchik prefers to see it more generally as faith in God illustrated through repentance. In many cases in his commentary, he substitutes “repentance” for belief in the messianic claims of Jesus. More generally, he considers the focus on messianism to be a misreading of the Gospel.

Gospel According to Matthew  225

39 So they seized him and shoved him outside the vineyard and killed him. 40 Now, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” 41 They said to him, “He will do evil to those who are evil and destroy them, and give the vineyard to other vinedressers who will return its produce in its time.” 42 Yeshua said to them, “Have you not read in the scriptures, ‘A stone the builders rejected has become the capstone. This was from YHWH; it is wonderful in our eyes’?” Have you not read in the scriptures—Psalm 118:2⒉ 43 Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation that will produce its fruit. And given to a nation—as we find in the Talmud (BT Avodah Zarah 3a): Rabbi Meir said: “Where do we learn that if even an idolater engages in the study of Torah, he is like a high priest? It is taught (Leviticus 18:5): ‘man shall perform [the commandments] and live by them.’ It does not say priests, Levites, or Israelites, but it says ‘man.’ From this, you can learn that even an idolater who engages in the study of Torah is like a high priest.”

44 [The one who falls on this stone will be broken, and the one on whom it falls will be pulverized.] 45 When the leading priests and Perushim heard this parable, they understood that he spoke about them. 46 They sought to catch him but were afraid of the many people who considered him to be a prophet.

CHAPTER 22

1 Yeshua continued speaking to them in parables. He remarked, 2 “The kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king of flesh and blood who made a wedding celebration for his son.” 3 He sent his servants to summon those invited to the wedding celebration, but they did not want to come. 4 He continued sending other servants, saying, “Say to those who are invited, ‘Look: I have prepared my feast. My oxen and fattened animals have been slaughtered. Everything is ready. Come to the wedding celebration.’ ” 5 But they did not pay attention to this and went their way—one to his field, another to his business— 6 and the rest seized the servants, mistreated them, and killed them. 7 The king became enraged, sent his legions, and destroyed those murderers and burned their town in fire. 8 Then he said to his servants, “See, the wedding celebration is prepared, but the ones invited were not fitting for it. 9 Now, please go to the road crossings and invite everyone you find to the wedding celebration.” 10 Those servants went out to the roads and took in everyone they found, both bad and good, and the wedding house was filled with dinner guests. 11 When the king came to see the dinner guests, he saw a man among them who was not dressed in wedding clothes. 12 He said to him, “My friend, why did you come here without wedding clothes?” but he was speechless.

Gospel According to Matthew  227

Without wedding clothes—similarly, we find in the Talmud (BT Shabbat 153a): Even Solomon in all his wisdom said (Ecclesiastes 9:8): Always let your clothes be white. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: “There is a parable of a king who invited his servants to a banquet. . . . He said: ‘Those who adorned themselves for the banquet may sit and eat and drink. Those who did not adorn themselves for the banquet may stand and watch.’ ”

13 Then the king said to his attendants, “Tie his hands and feet, carry him out, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” 14 For many are invited, but few are chosen.217 15 Then the Perushim left and deliberated how they might make him stumble in the word of his mouth. 16 They sent their disciples along with Hordos’s men, saying, “Rabbi, we know that you are a man of truth and truly teach the way of God. You are not afraid of anyone, for you do not show favoritism. 17 So tell us your opinion: Is it permitted to pay taxes to Keisar or not?” 18 But Yeshua knew their wickedness and said, “Hypocrites! Why are you testing me? 19 Show me the tax coin.” So they brought him a dinar. 20 He said to them, “This image and the inscription on it—whose are they?” 21 They said to him, “Keisar’s.” He said to them, “So then, give to Keisar what belongs to Keisar, and give to God what belongs to God.” Give to Keisar—three times it is said in Song of Songs, I adjure you (2:7, 3:5, and 5:8), and in one of them, says the Talmud (BT Ketubot 111a), “the Holy One, blessed be he, adjures Israel not to rebel against the nations [in which they live].”218

217 This seems to be a direct assault on the Pharisees, who understood the parable to mean that they were “invited” or “called” but not “chosen”—that they were the ones who showed up without “wedding clothes,” i.e., without believing in Jesus. Thus, v. 15 continues that the Pharisees sought to ensnare Jesus in his own rhetoric. As noted, Matthew is the most critical of the Pharisees of the three synoptic Gospels. 218 It is curious that Soloveitchik brings this Talmudic passage, as it is one used to contest Zionism, viewing it as an active messianism that the Talmud forbids. See Yoel Teitelbaum, Vayole Moshe (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Books, 1961), 21–17⒍ Cf. Aviezer Ravitsky, “Forcing the End: Radical Anti-Zionism,” in his Messianism, Zionism, and Religious Radicalism, trans. Jonathan Chipman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 40–78; Allan Nadler, “Politics and Piety: The Satmar Rebbe,” Judaism 31, no. 2 (1982): 135–15⒉ Perhaps Soloveitchik wants to put an antimessianic message into Jesus’ mouth. While the Zionist movement had not begun in earnest in Soloveitchik’s time, it was certainly in the early process of development. Soloveitchik is simply using it to suggest a separation of religion and politics that is part of Jesus’ message and one that the sages understood, as well.

228  Gospel According to Matthew

22 When they heard this, they were amazed, so they left him alone and went away. 23 On that day, Ṣaddukim, who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, approached him. They asked him, saying, There is no resurrection of the dead—I have already written that the foundation of the belief in the resurrection of the dead comprises two principles: the first is that the dead will rise in the time that the Creator, blessed be his name, wills it; the second is the belief in the immortality of the soul, that is, that the spirit of man does not die when it is separated om the body but that it will remain immortal and forever enjoy the pleasantness of YHWH in accordance with the good deeds that it performed in this world. Both our Jewish and Christian brothers firmly believe in these two principles, for they are united in the foundations of the religion on which the Torah of Moses rests. Only the Sadducees turned away om the path of the Torah and the commandments and refused to believe in these two principles. Therefore, they asked Yeshua, “How will it be for the dead that rise if one woman had seven husbands?”219 24 “Rabbi, see how Moshe said, ‘If a man dies without children, his brother shall marry his widow and raise up offspring for him.’ 25 But we knew of seven brothers: The first married a woman and then died, but had no offspring, leaving his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second, to the third, and to all seven. 27 After all of them, the woman also died. 28 Now, in the resurrection of the dead, whose wife of the seven will she be, since she had been the wife of them all?” 29 Yeshua answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.” You are mistaken—Yeshua responded to them saying this, for aer the resurrection they will be like angels of God and they will not need the things om which the body receives pleasure. This is also in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 92b):

219 The physical resurrection of the dead is a highly contested idea in Maimonides, who was accused of substituting the immortality of the soul for physical resurrection. Even though resurrection of the dead was one of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles of Faith remains a matter of controversy as to whether Maimonides really believed in it; see Marc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides Thirteen Principles Reappraised (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2011). Soloveitchik mentions both as two independent pieces of the rabbinic doctrine. See Maimonides, “Letter of the Resurrection of the Dead,” in Epistles of Maimonides, trans. Halkin.

Gospel According to Matthew  229 And in those years in which the Holy One, blessed be he, will renew his world . . . what will the righteous do? The Holy One, blessed be he, will make wings for them like eagles and they will soar over the face of the waters.

30 “For in the resurrection of the dead, they will not marry women, and women will not be married, because they will be like the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by the mouth of God: But as for the resurrection of the dead—which is to say, concerning the faith in the immortality of the soul, which you do not believe in, since it is not explicitly stated in the Torah; however, it is written, “I am the God of Abraham.” This is also in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 90a): There is no share in the world to come for those who say, “there is no resurrection of the dead.”. . . And why so severe? It was taught: he denied that there was resurrection of the dead. Therefore, he will have no share in that resurrection, for the Holy One, blessed be he, always repays measure for measure.

32 ‘I am the God of Avraham, the God of Yiṣḥak, and the God of Ya’akov.’ He is not the God of the dead but the God of the living!” 33 The crowd of people heard this, and they were astonished at his teaching. 34 When the Perushim heard that he had shut the mouth of the Ṣaddukim, they conferred together. 35 A certain sage among them asked him a question to test him, saying, 36 “Rabbi, which is the greatest mitzvah in the Torah?” 37 Yeshua said to him, “Love YHWH your God with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all your knowledge.” With all your knowledge—the passage states: Love YHWH your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might (Deuteronomy 6:4). Why did Yeshua change that word and say “your knowledge” instead of “your might”? This can be found in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 61b): It was taught that Rabbi Eliezer said: “If it is said, ‘with all your soul,’ then why is it also said ‘with all your might’? And if it is said, ‘with all your might,’ then

230  Gospel According to Matthew why is it also said, ‘with all your soul’? For if there is a man whose body is more important to him than his money, for him it is written, ‘with all your soul.’ And if there is a man whose money is more important to him than his body, for him it is written, ‘with all your might.’ ”

Therefore, a man must fully understand that if his life is more important to him than his money, he must give up his life for the love of YHWH. And if his money is more important to him than his life, he must give away his money for the same love of YHWH. This is why Yeshua says “with all your knowledge (i.e., understanding).” 38 This is the greatest and first mitzvah. 39 But the second is similar to it: “Love your fellow as yourself.” 40 The entire Torah and the Prophets hang on these two mitzvot. On these two mitzvot—for the entire Torah comprises two main concepts: the first is the relationship between man and the Omnipresent, such as not engaging in idol worship, observing the Sabbath, and all the remaining commandments that concern only the relationship between man and the Omnipresent; the second is between man and his fellow. When you love the Holy One, blessed be he, with a complete love, you would not do anything against his will and you will do all that he commanded of you. And when you love your fellow, you would also not do anything against his will, and you would strive to do his will inasmuch as you are able. In doing so, you will fulfill the entire Torah.220 41 When the Perushim were assembled, Yeshua asked them, saying, 42 “What do you say about the mashiaḥ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “Then how could David, by the spirit, call him ‘master,’ when he said, 44 ‘YHWH said to my master, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool”’? 45 Now if David calls him ‘master,’ how then is he his son?” If David calls him “master”—according to our sages of blessed memory, this passage speaks of Abraham. Concerning what was said by Melchizedek (in Psalm 110) to Abraham, we find in the Talmud (BT Nedarim 32b): 220 On mitzvot between the human and God and one human to another, see BT Rosh Hashanah 17b; BT Yoma 85b, 86b; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Repentance,” 2:5, 2:⒐

Gospel According to Matthew  231 Blessed be Abram of God, the Most High, who possesses the heavens and the earth, and blessed be God, the Most High (Genesis 14:19–20). Abraham said to him: “Is the blessing over a servant to precede the blessing over his master?” Immediately, the priesthood was given to Abraham, as it is written: YHWH said to my master, “Sit at my right hand” (Psalm 110:1).

We can also see this in BT Sanhedrin 108b. It is possible that this psalm was not written by David but by another man who dedicated it to David, just as Psalm 72 is dedicated to Solomon, thereby meaning that “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” is dedicated to David, for David is called the anointed (messiah) of the God of Jacob (2 Samuel 23:1). And you might find difficulty with this interpretation and say: “But it is written ‘You are a priest forever,’ and David was not a priest [kohen]!” I would say that “priest” is another word for power and authority, as it is said, And the sons of David were priests (2 Samuel 8:18). 46 No one could answer him at all, and from that day on, no one dared to question him further.

CHAPTER 23

1 Then Yeshua spoke to the crowd of people and to his disciples, saying,221 Then Yeshua spoke—om here until verse 13, he taught them how to conduct themselves aer his death, whether they be leaders of the community or members of the community. 2 The scholars and the Perushim sit in the seat of Moshe, In the seat of Moshe—meaning: Just as you obeyed Moses, so, too, obey every judge who is among you. It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 17:8–9): If a case is too baffling for you to decide . . . appear before the Levitical priests and the judge that is among you. This is what the Talmud says about this (BT Rosh Hashanah 25b): “Can you imagine a man going to a judge who is not presiding during his lifetime⁈ It is impossible to go to a judge who is not presiding during his lifetime.” That is to say, you may only request to be seen by a judge who

221 Matthew 23 is a very important chapter for Soloveitchik, in that it serves as the locus classicus for New Testament discussion of the Pharisees. We will see that Soloveitchik does not weigh in on the Pharisees as “good” or “bad” but rather that they can be examples of leaders for Jews or Christians. Not dependent on how this chapter has been received and interpreted in Christian scholarship, Soloveitchik offers a kind of rabbinic reading of the Pharisees in this chapter as Torah scholars who should demand respect if they tell you to do what the Torah teaches. But one should beware when they do not heed their own words. This is not an anti-Pharisee statement as much as one applicable to all religious authority. Throughout this chapter, we will see how Soloveitchik blunts the critique of the Pharisees by suggesting that Jesus is criticizing any leadership that misuses its authority. The centrality of Matthew 23 for an assessment of the attitude toward the Pharisees, and later rabbis, in the Gospels is discussed at length in Annette Yoshiko Reed, “When Did the Rabbis Become Pharisees,” in idem, Jewish Christianity and the History of Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 321–35⒐ Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, “The Charge of Hypocrisy in Matthew 23 and in Jewish Sources,” Immanuel 24–25 (1990): 52–5⒏

Gospel According to Matthew  233

presides (i.e., living) during your lifetime. Jephthah was as important in his generation as Samuel was in his.222 3 so whatever they tell you, observe and do it. Only be careful not to do as their deeds, for they say things but they do not do them. Not to do as their deeds—meaning: Everything that they tell you to do according to the Torah, do.223 However, do not teach in accordance with their deeds, for they themselves do not do what they tell others to do.224 4 They bind heavy loads and burdens on the shoulders of people, while they themselves are unwilling even to lift a finger. They bind heavy loads . . . on the shoulders of people—this is in the Talmud (BT Soṭah 10a): And Samson called to YHWH and said: “YHWH, my God, please remember me and strengthen me even now.”. . . Rav said: “Samson said before the Holy One, blessed be he: ‘Master of the universe, remember the twenty years that I judged Israel and I never told one of them to bring my staff om one place to another place.’ ”225

5 They do all their deeds for them to be seen by sons of men. For they widen their tefillin and lengthen their tziziyot. 222 Geiger views the locution “in the seat of Moses” to suggest that Jesus accepts Pharisaic authority. See Abraham Geiger, Judaism and Its History, trans. Maurice Mayer (London: Trubner, 1866), 2⒗ Soloveitchik sees it as an example where Jesus remarks about the importance of authority, rabbinic or otherwise. Shaye Cohen argues that these Perushim are not referring to the Pharisees. “Either way, these perushim have no connection with the Pharisees. In contrast to the tannaim who display little interest in establishing themselves as Pharisees, the amoraim, especially the amoraim of Babylonia, begin to see themselves more clearly as descendants of the Pharisees. . . . In sum: at no point in antiquity did the Rabbis clearly see themselves as the descendants of the Pharisees.” Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 56, 57, and discussed in Reed, “When Did the Rabbis Become Pharisees,” 335, 33⒍ 223

See Pesikta de-Rav Kahane 1:⒎

224 Using these passages as models of good teachers more generally, as opposed to a critique of Pharisees, is suggested by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Augustine. See Reed, “When Did the Rabbis Become Pharisees,” 34⒋ 225 This seems incongruous with the flow of Jesus’ speech at this point. Jesus is arguing that the Pharisees create heavy burdens for the people, likely through the details of the Law, but they do not live up to their own teachings. BT Soṭah 10a suggests that Samson, as a judge, never burdened the people to do something for him, which seems the opposite of what Jesus is suggesting. Following the Christian interpretation of this verse as anti-Pharisaic, many read this verse as Jesus arguing against the Pharisees that they place undue burdens on the people. But deploying the rabbinic comment that uses the same locution as Matthew about Samson, Soloveitchik suggests that it needn’t be a critique of the Pharisees as much as a critique of any leadership that puts undue burden on the people. If the Pharisees are guilty here, so be it; but Jesus is not indicting the Pharisees per se.

234  Gospel According to Matthew

6 They love to be seated first at meals and to sit first in synagogues, 7 for others to ask of their well-being (shalom) in the markets, and for sons of men to call them “rabbi, rabbi.” Rabbi, rabbi—according to BT Berakhot 55a, three things shorten a man’s days and years, and one of them is conducting himself as if he were an authority. 8 But as for you, do not be called “rabbi,” for you have one teacher, the mashiaḥ, and you are all brothers. As for you—not all of you should desire to be as a rabbi or a teacher. Rather, appoint one who will be as the rabbi and teacher, and he will be like the messiah for you, for this is a term of dominion and greatness.226 9 And do not call anyone of you on earth “Father,” for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Who is in heaven—meaning: Even him who you appoint shall not be called by the name “Father,” for there is only one father, and he is God who is in heaven. And he shall not be called “teacher.” 10 Also, do not be called “teacher,” because your one teacher is the mashiaḥ. Your one teacher—and this is in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 8a): “There is only one leader for a generation; there are not two leaders for a generation.” 11 The greatest among you shall be to you as a servant. As a servant—he cautioned the greatest among them to not boast in public, just as I wrote above. 12 Everyone who lifts himself up will be brought low, but everyone who lowers himself will be lifted up. Who lifts himself up will be brought low—BT ‘Eruvin 13b: “Learn that everyone who lowers himself will be lied up by the Holy One, blessed be he. And everyone who lis himself up will be brought low by the Holy One, blessed be he.” 226

Another example of humanizing the Messiah by suggesting that a rabbi who is worthy is like a messiah.

Gospel According to Matthew  235

13 But how terrible for you, hypocritical scholars and Perushim! For you shut up the kingdom of Heaven from before men. See, you yourselves will not enter it, and you do not allow others who are coming to do so. 14 [And how terrible for you, hypocritical scholars and Perushim! For you swallow up widows’ houses while prolonging in prayer for the appearance of the eyes. On account of this, you will be judged with a much stricter judgment]227 15 How terrible for you, hypocritical scholars and Perushim! For you wander over sea and dry land in order to convert one man. But when he is converted, you make him into twice the son of Geihinnom as yourselves. Son of Geihinnom—BT Soṭah 41b: “Rabbi Elazar said: Every man in whom there is flattery falls into Geihinnom.” And they do nothing but cause the proselyte to learn evil deeds om him, and he will do even worse deeds still, and he will be twice a son of Geihinnom as them. 16 How terrible for you, blind leaders, who say, “If one swears by the Sanctuary, it means nothing, but if he swears by the gold in the Sanctuary, he is liable.” 17 Blind fools! For which is greater: the gold or the Sanctuary that sanctifies the gold? 18 And you say, “If one swears by the altar, it means nothing, but if he swears by the sacrifice on the altar, he is liable.” 19 Blind fools! For which is greater: the sacrifice or the altar that sanctifies the sacrifice? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears both by it and by all that is upon it, 21 and whoever swears by the Sanctuary swears both by it and by the one who dwells in it, Whoever swears by the Sanctuary—according to the Talmud, swearing by the Temple and the altar is equally valid (BT Nedarim 13a). 227 It should be noted that the Talmud, redacted by those who considered themselves the spiritual progeny of the Pharisees, was oen critical of the Pharisees as well. See, e.g., JT Berakhot ⒐5: “There are seven kinds of Pharisees. . . . The shoulder Pharisee carries his good deeds on his shoulders; the gleaning Pharisee says, ‘Wait for me, I must fulfill the mitzvot [I have no time for you]; the balancing Pharisee pays off each debt [sin] by performing a mitzvah; the ugal Pharisee says, ‘From the little I have, what can I set aside for doing mitzvot; the debtor Pharisee says, ‘Tell me what sin I have committed, and I will perform a mitzvah to offset it; the fearing Pharisee is like Job; the loving Pharisee is like Abraham.” See also BT Soṭah 22b of the Pharisees and hypocrisy.

236  Gospel According to Matthew

22 and whoever swears by heaven swears both by the throne of God and by the one who sits on it. 23 How terrible for you, hypocritical scholars and Perushim! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin but neglect the weighty things in the Torah: justice, kindness, and faith. You ought to do one without neglecting the other. Mint—according to the Torah, it is obligatory to tithe only grain and wine and olive oil. However, the sages decreed that herbs should also be tithed. Concerning this, he said that they make the necessary nonessential and the nonessential necessary. Without neglecting the other—meaning: I am not telling you not to tithe the mint. I am saying only that first you must fulfill the weightier matters, those that are written in the Torah, for those are the most important. See, now, honored reader, that Yeshua cautions them to fulfill even the laws prescribed by the rabbis! 24 Blind guides, who strain out the mosquito but swallow the camel! Blind guides—he called them blind guides, as it is said in the Talmud (BT Bava Kama 52a): “When the shepherd becomes angry with his flock, he makes the leader blind.” This means that he gouges out the eyes of the leader and the flock follows behind, and the leader falls and the flock falls in the pit aer it. 25 How terrible for you, hypocritical scholars and Perushim! For you purify the cup and the bowl on the outside, while their insides are full of robbery and gluttony. 26 Blind Parush! First purify the inside of the cup, so that the outside may also be purified! 27 How terrible for you, hypocritical scholars and Perushim! You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but their insides are full of the bones of the dead and all impurity. 28 In this way, you appear righteous in the eyes of sons of men, but your insides are full of hypocrisy and evil. 29 How terrible for you, hypocritical scholars and Perushim, for you build the tombs of the prophets and beautify the gravestones of the righteous. 30 You say, “If we had been in the days of our fathers, our hand would not have been with them to pour out the blood of the prophets.”

Gospel According to Matthew  237

31 Listen—you are testifying against yourselves that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets! 32 If so, fill up the se’ah of your fathers! 33 Snakes, sons of vipers! How will you be rescued from a sentence of Geihinnom? 34 Therefore, look: I am sending you prophets, sages, and scholars. Some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will strike with whips in your synagogues and pursue from town to town,228 Prophets—men worthy of receiving prophecy, for prophecy subsided aer Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as it is said in BT Bava Batra 14b: “And Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the last of the prophets.”229 35 so that all the innocent blood that is poured out on earth will come upon you, from the blood of Hevel the righteous to the blood of Zechariah ben Berahyah, whom you killed between the Sanctuary and the altar. Zechariah ben Berahyah—this is a scribal error. This should say Zechariah ben Yehoyada, for Zechariah son of Berahyah lived during the second year of Darius during the Second Temple period (Zechariah 1:1). And Zechariah’s son Jehoiada the priest lived during the First Temple and was killed, as it was written in 2 Chronicles 24:2⒈ Now you will see that I correctly judged that Mattai wrote this in the Hebrew tongue and that it was originally written “Zechariah,” without the name of his father included; but in the translation into Greek, they erred and wrote “Zechariah ben Berahyah.” 36 Amen, I say to you, all these things will surely come upon this generation. 37 Yerushalayim, Yerushalayim, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How many times I have desired to gather your sons like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling! 228 On the killing of the prophets, see Ephraim Urbach, The Sages, 2 vols. [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979), 1:548–563; for English, see Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrams (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987). 229 This is true according to rabbinic tradition, but historians have argued that the question of prophecy was very much alive in the first century, when Jesus was preaching. The belief that Jesus was the prophet who arises to inaugurate the messianic age is implied in Luke 9:13, based on Deuteronomy 18:18: “I will raise up for them a prophet, etc.” See, e.g., the brief discussion in Flusser (with Nolty), The Sage in Galilee, 107–10⒐

238  Gospel According to Matthew

Yerushalayim, Yerushalayim—om here to the end of the chapter, Yeshua says this in the name of YHWH, as if he had said: “Thus said YHWH: Yerushalayim, Yerushalayim. . . .” 38 Listen: your house will be abandoned for you, desolate. 39 For I say to you, from now on, you will not see me until you say, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of YHWH!” From now on, you will not see me—this is found in the Talmud (BT Rosh Hashanah 31a): The Shekhinah departed om Israel. . . . It went om the ark cover to the cherub . . . om the mountain to the wilderness, and om the wilderness it ascended and was seated in its place, as it is said (Hosea 5:15): “And I will not return to my abode until they realize their guilt and seek my face.”

In other words: until they realize their guilt and return to YHWH. And this is what Yeshua said in the name of YHWH: “How many times have I desired to gather your sons,” and this means, “I did not remove my Shekhinah all at once, but slowly, because I thought that you would return in repentance.” Blessed is the one who comes in the name of YHWH—blessed is the man who comes and believes in the name of YHWH, who is one.230

230 Soloveitchik’s comments in this chapter perhaps show that he does not see his role to be apologetic commentator or to defend observant Jews against New Testament criticism of their ancient predecessors. Rather, his job is to show that nothing Jesus says stands in blatant contradiction to later rabbinic teaching. He thus focuses more on doctrinal issues (son of man, etc.) than Jesus’ critique of the Israelite religion/Judaism of his day.

CHAPTER 24

1 Yeshua went out from the Temple to go on his way, and his disciples approached him to show him the buildings of the Temple. 2 Yeshua answered and said to them, “Do you see all these? Amen, I say to you, there will not remain here one stone upon another that will not be torn down.”231 3 He sat down on Har HaZeitim, and his disciples approached him alone, and they said, “Tell us please: When will this be, and what is the sign of your coming and the sign of the end of the age?” The sign of your coming—we can see that your purpose of coming to the world was only to instill in the hearts of all those who come into the world the belief in the unity of the Creator, blessed be his name. However, tell us when the Messiah will come, and all will believe in the unity of the Creator. 4 Yeshua answered and said to them, “Beware, so that no one may mislead you. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the mashiaḥ,’ and they will mislead many.” Many will come in my name—there are those who say that Yeshua cautioned them not to be mistaken if a man comes in his name and says that he is the Messiah, that he may not mislead them. However, the meaning of this verse is difficult, for how is it possible that a man would come in the name of Yeshua and make himself out to be the Messiah? Who would believe that Yeshua sent 231 This repeats earlier prognostications of the Temple’s destruction (in most cases, the First Jerusalem Temple). See Jeremiah 26:4–6 and Micah 3:⒓

240  Gospel According to Matthew

him? And what does he mean by saying, “many will come in my name”? This is the meaning: Yeshua told them that many would come in his name claiming that he was the Messiah, and by this they will mislead many. Therefore, what he is really saying is, “I am giving you distinct signs of when the Messiah comes.”232 6 But you will ultimately hear wars and rumors of war. Beware that you do not become alarmed, for surely all this will happen, but it is still not the end. 7 For one nation will rise against another nation, and one kingdom against another kingdom, and there will be famine, disease, and earthquakes here and there. 8 But all these are only the beginning of birth pangs. The beginning of birth pangs—this is also in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 97a): “On the seven-year cycle that the son of David comes, during the first year. . . . During the third, there will be a great famine, during which men, women, and children will die . . . in the sixth [heavenly] voices, and in the seventh wars.”233 9 Then they will hand you over to distress, and they will kill you, and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name. 10 Then many will stumble, and a man will betray his neighbor, and a man will hate his brother. Man will betray his neighbor—“In the footsteps of the Messiah . . . a son will revile his father, a daughter will rise against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (BT Soṭah 49b).234 11 Many false prophets will arise and mislead many. 12 Because of the increase of transgression, the love of many will dissipate. 13 But one who waits until the time of the end will be saved.

232 Soloveitchik continues his approach, which denies that Matthew is making any messianic claims about Jesus. Rather, he suggests that Jesus is simply reiterating the biblical warning of the false prophet, especially, but not exclusively, with regard to messianic claims. See Deuteronomy 13:1–5; Jeremiah 5:6, 31; 6:13–14; Ezekiel 22:27–28; Zechariah 13:2; Micah 3:5–⒏ 233 See also Isaiah 26:17 and Daniel 2:2⒏ The “footsteps of the Messiah” and “the birth pangs of the Messiah” became ubiquitous terms in post-rabbinic literature. 234 In short, the period right before the Messiah will witness the entire breakdown of social norms and cohesiveness. Jesus’ eschatological language in this chapter stays close to prophetic and rabbinic teaching.

Gospel According to Matthew  241

14 This good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed in all the earth as testimony to all the nations, and afterward, the end will come. Good news of the kingdom—a distinct sign of when the Messiah will come, when all the nations will know the good news of the kingdom, which is the unity of the Creator. Both Jews and Christians together believe only in one God and that the Messiah will surely come, just as Yeshua promised; and when the good news of the kingdom—being the unity of God—is proclaimed to all the nations, then the end will come.235 15 Therefore, when you see the desolating abomination of which Daniel the Prophet spoke, standing in a holy place—let the reader understand—236 16 then the people of Yehudah must surely flee to the hills. Let the reader understand—as it is written in (Daniel 12:11): From the time the regular offering is abolished, and an appalling abomination is set up.237 This means: beginning now, troubles will increase. According to the Talmud (BT Ta’anit 26a–b, 28b), five things occurred to our fathers on the seventeenth of Tammuz. . . . Two of them were that the continual offering was stopped, and an image was erected in the Temple. 17 Whoever is on the roof must not go down to get anything from his house, 18 and whoever is in the field must not return home to get his garment. 19 How terrible for those who are pregnant and for nursing mothers in those days! 20 But pray that your fleeing will not be in the winter or on Shabbat. On Shabbat—that they will not need to desecrate the Sabbath—God forbid—when fleeing om the enemy to an outer region. Now see, honored reader, that Yeshua cautions not to desecrate the Sabbath even according to the rabbinic laws of prescribed distances that one may travel on the Sabbath.238 235 Here you see Soloveitchik make Jesus a channel of the biblical prophets without any messianic pretensions of his own. 236

Daniel 9:27 and 11:3⒈

237

See 1 Maccabees 1:5⒋

238 On Jesus and Sabbath laws, see BT Shabbat 104b. The text that may refer to Jesus appears in uncensored manuscripts discussed in Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 15–⒙ More generally, see E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism

242  Gospel According to Matthew

21 For then there will be great distress, unlike any that has ever been from the beginning of the age until now, and nothing like it will ever come again. 22 If those days had not been cut short, no flesh would be spared. Yet for the sake of the chosen ones, those days will be cut short. 23 And if someone says to you at that time, “Look! Here is the mashiaḥ!” or “There he is!” do not believe it. 24 For false meshiḥim and false prophets will arise, giving great signs and wonders, so that they may mislead even the chosen ones, if they can. The chosen ones—this is in the midrash (Lamentations Rabbah 2:4): When Rabbi Akiva saw Bar Koziba, he said: “This is King Messiah.” Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Torta said to him: “Akiva, grass will grow up on your cheeks [i.e., your grave], and still the Messiah will not have come.” 25 Look, I have told you this from the beginning. 26 Therefore, if they tell you, “There he is, in the wilderness,” do not go out, or, “He is in the inner rooms,” do not believe it. 27 For like lightning, which goes forth from the east and lights up to the west, so will the coming of the son of man also be. From the east and lights up to the west—first, Yeshua gave signs of the time of the coming of the Messiah, that is, the time that all the nations would come to believe in the one God. Now he gives them a sign concerning a man [coming to deceive]. If a man comes and says that he is the Messiah, this will be a sign to you—if word of him goes forth like lightning om the east and lights up to the west. In other words, if the whole world agrees and accepts him as the Messiah, then he is truly the Messiah. However, if a man comes om some part and makes himself to be the Messiah, even if he shows you signs and wonders, do not believe him. Even if many accept him as the Messiah, this is not the true Messiah, and this is what is written in the next verse. 28 Where there is a corpse, there the eagles will gather. Where there is a corpse—he is calling the false messiah a corpse.

(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1985); 245–269; idem, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 17–170; and Flusser, The Sage of Galilee, 34–5⒋

Gospel According to Matthew  243

There the eagles will gather—meaning: If he comes om some part and shows them signs and wonders, many people will gather to him and will accept him as the Messiah, but do not believe him; for the whole world will believe in the true Messiah, and no one will raise a hand or a foot against him, and everyone will acknowledge that he is the true Messiah. 29 And immediately after the distress of those days, the sun will turn dark, and the moon will not shine its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the armies of heaven will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the son of man will appear in heaven, and all families of the earth will mourn, and they will see the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven in power and great glory. And they will see—then the remembrance of the Messiah will come before YHWH, and he will reveal him on earth. With the clouds of heaven—this is found in BT Sanhedrin 98a: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi opposed and said: “It is written (Daniel 7:13): One like a human being came with the clouds of heaven. And it is written (Zechariah 9:9): lowly and riding on a donkey. If they are worthy—he will come with the clouds of heaven [quickly]. If they are not worthy—he will come lowly and riding on a donkey [slowly].”

And this is what Yeshua said to his disciples above when he told them to go to a village and find the donkey and colt and have them brought to him; he hinted to them that if they were not worthy, the Messiah will come slowly, as a poor man riding on a donkey. 31 He will send forth his angels with the sound of a great shofar; they will gather his chosen ones from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. He will send forth—the Holy One, blessed be he, will send forth his angels. With the sound of a great shofar—as it is written (Isaiah 27:13): And in that day, a great shofar will be sounded; and the strayed who are in the land of Assyria and the expelled who are in the land of Egypt shall come and worship YHWH on the holy mount in Jerusalem.239

239

Cf. Zechariah 9:⒕

244  Gospel According to Matthew

32 And from the fig tree, learn this parable: When its branch is lush and its leaves sprout, you know that summer is near. 33 So you, too, when you see all these things, know that he240 is close, at the entrance. 34 Amen, I say to you that this generation will not pass until all these things will be. This generation will not pass—many contend: so many generations have gone and passed away, and still the Messiah has not come. Even the signs did not come. However, this is what we find in the BT Sanhedrin 98a: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi met Elijah. He asked him: “When will the Messiah come?” He answered him: “Go and ask him.”—“Where is he sitting?”—“At the entrance of the city of Rome.”—“What will be the sign that it is him?”—“He is sitting among the poor, the sick, and the lepers, all of them loosening and rebinding their bandages together all at once, whereas he loosens and rebinds each separately, saying: ‘Should I be needed, I must not be delayed.’ ” Rabbi Yehoshua went to the Messiah and said to him: “Peace upon you my rabbi and teacher.” He said to him: “Peace upon you son of Levi.” He said: “When will my master come?” He said: “Today.” Rabbi Yehoshua went to Elijah. Elijah said to him: “What did he say to you?”. . . He answered: “He lied to me, for he said that he was coming today; and he has not come.” Elijah said to him: “This is what he said to you, ‘Today, if you hear his voice.’ ”

In every generation, there is a man who is worthy of being the Messiah, except his transgressions make it so that he cannot come. And this is what Yeshua said, “this generation will not pass”—only if they return to YHWH, and so, too, if they do so in this generation, the Messiah could come.241 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 36 But that day and that hour, there is no one who knows, nor do the angels of heaven, nor does the son, but only my Father alone. But that day—we find in BT Sanhedrin 98a concerning Isaiah 60:22: I will hasten it in its time—if they are worthy, I will hasten it. If they are not worthy, it will

240

I.e., “the son of man”; or “it,” i.e., “the end.”

241 Another version has it that in every generation, a messiah is born and does not come because of the sins of the generation.

Gospel According to Matthew  245

happen in its time. And this is what Yeshua said: I say to you that in every single generation, the Messiah could come, for if you repent you will be worthy, and then I will hasten. And concerning the day that is prescribed, this has not been revealed even to the angels, only to the Holy One, blessed be he. He knows this time. And this is in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 99a): For it is written (Isaiah 63:4): For I have planned (in my heart) the day of vengeance, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: “I have revealed it to my own heart, but I have not revealed it to the serving angels.”

37 And as in the days of Noah, so will the coming of the son of man also be. 38 For just as before the days of the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying women and giving women to men, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not know until the coming of the flood, and it wiped them all out; likewise will the coming of the son of man be. 40 Then there will be two men in the field, and one will be gathered, and one will be left. 41 Two women will be grinding at mills, and one will be gathered, and one will be left. And one will be left—we find in BT Bava Batra 75b: Rabbah quoted Rabbi Yoḥanan and said: “The Jerusalem of the world to come is not like the Jerusalem of this world. In the Jerusalem of this world, anyone who wants to ascend to it may ascend; in the Jerusalem of the world to come, no one ascends to it except those who are invited.”242

42 Therefore, be alert, for you do not know which hour your master will come. 43 Know this: that if the owner of the house knew at which watch the thief would come, at that time he would have been alert and not allowed him to break into his house. 44 Therefore, you be ready as well, for in an hour that you would not expect, the son of man will come.

242 The meaning suggests that repentance will no longer be operative in the messianic time. Whoever has not repented before that time will no longer have the opportunity to secure his salvation.

246  Gospel According to Matthew

The son of man will come—it is important to know why in every place Yeshua mentions the Messiah’s name, he calls him the “son of man.” The reason is that Yeshua is aaid of two things: one, that lying prophets will come and mislead them; and two, when the true Messiah comes, they will make him divine— God forbid. Therefore, in the beginning, he gave them signs to recognize any false messiah. And when he gave them the sign to recognize the true Messiah, he called him the “son of man,” saying: Do not imagine that the Messiah is divine—God forbid. He is only a son of man (i.e., human) who eats, drinks, and takes a wife just like sons of men. But YHWH chose him to teach the entire world about the unity of the Creator. For in an hour that you would not expect—according to the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 97a): “Three of them come when all are unaware, and one of them is the Messiah.” 45 Who, then, is the faithful and understanding servant whom his master has appointed over the servants to give them their food in its time? 46 O, the gladness of the servant whom the master comes and finds doing this! 47 Amen, I say to you that he will appoint him over all that is his. 48 But if the evil servant says in his heart, “My master delays in coming,” 49 and beats his fellows and eats and drinks with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will surely come on a day that he does not anticipate and in an hour he does not know. 51 He will cut him apart and place his portion with the hypocrites, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.

CHAPTER 25

1 “Then the kingdom of Heaven can be compared to ten ‘alamot243 who took their lamps and went forth to meet the groom. 2 Five of them were wise and five were foolish. 3 The foolish ones took the lamps, but they did not take oil with them. 4 But the wise ones took oil in their vessels along with their lamps. The wise ones took oil—this is the intent of the parable: it is written (Ecclesiastes 9:8): “Let your clothes always be white, and your head never lacking oil.” And we find in midrash Kohelet: “Always let your clothes be white, clean om transgression, and your head never lacking oil om the keeping of the commandments and performing good deeds.” And we also find in Pirkei Avot 4:16: “Rabbi Yakov said: ‘This world can be compared to an antechamber before the world to come. Prepare yourself in the antechamber so that you will be able to enter the banquet hall.’ ”244 5 When the groom delayed in coming, they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6 At midnight, a blasting voice was heard: “Here is the groom! Go forth to meet him!” 7 Then all of the ‘alamot woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish told the wise, “Give us some of your oil, because our lamps are going out!”

243

The Greek is parthenoi, which can mean “virgin,” “young girl,” or, in this case, “bridesmaid.”

244

Cf. BT Shabbat 152a–b.

248  Gospel According to Matthew

9 But the wise ones answered, saying, “No, or else there will not be enough for us. Therefore go to the merchants instead and buy for yourselves.” 10 As they were going to buy, the groom came, and the ones who were ready entered with him to the wedding celebration, and the door was closed. 11 Afterward, the rest of the ‘alamot came and said, “Our master, our master, open for us!” 12 But he answered and said, “Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.” 13 Therefore, stay alert, for you do not know the day or the hour [when the son of man will come]. 14 For the matter can be compared to a man traveling far away, who called his servants and entrusted them with his possessions. For the matter—he spoke the second parable to those who do not prepare themselves with the keeping of the commandments and performing good deeds. Not only will they not inherit eternal life, but the little that they do have will be taken om them and given to those who do have. 15 To one he gave five kikkarim, to another two, and to another one—to each man according to his ability; then he hurried and traveled on from there. 16 The man who received five kikkarim went and traded with them and made five additional kikkarim. 17 Likewise, the one who received two also gained two more. 18 But the one who received one went and dug in the ground and buried his master’s silver. 19 After many days, the master of those servants came and made an accounting with them. 20 The one who had received five kikkarim approached, and he brought five additional kikkarim. He said, “My master, you entrusted to my hand five kikkarim. Look! I have gained five more with them!” 21 His master said to him, “You have done well, good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful with a little, I will entrust you with much. Enter your master’s joy!” 22 The one who received two kikkarim also approached and said, “Master, you entrusted to my hand two kikkarim. Look! I have earned two kikkarim with them!”

Gospel According to Matthew  249

23 His master said to him, “You have done well, good and faithful servant. With a tiny amount you were faithful, and I will entrust you with much. Enter your master’s joy!” 24 The one who received one kikkar also approached, and he said, “My master, I know you; that you are a difficult man, reaping what you did not sow, and gathering from what you did not scatter. 25 I was afraid, so I went and buried your kikkar in the ground. Now, here is what is yours.” 26 His master answered and said to him, “Evil and lazy servant! You do know that I reap what I did not sow and gather from what I did not scatter. 27 Therefore, you ought to have given my silver to the money changers. When I came, I would have received what is mine with its interest. 28 Therefore, take the kikkar from him, and give it to the man who has the ten kikkarim. 29 For whoever has, to him it will be given, and he will have extra. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.” Even what he has—as we find in the Talmud (BT Ḥagigah 15a): “The worthy, righteous man takes his portion and the portion of his fellow to the Garden of Eden. The guilty, wicked man takes his portion and the portion of his fellow to Gehenna.” 30 “Cast the worthless servant to the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” 31 It will be that when the son of man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, he will sit on the throne of his glory. When the son of man comes—commandments and good deeds that a man performs in this world are called angels, as we find in Pirkei Avot 4:11: “He who performs one commandment acquires for himself an [angelic] advocate” who recommends goodness on his behalf. He will sit on the throne of his glory—as we find in BT Shabbat 152a: For man goes toward his eternal abode (Ecclesiastes 12:5). Rabbi Yiṣḥak said: “This teaches that every single righteous man is given lodging according to his honor. This can be compared to a king of flesh and blood who entered a city with his servants. They all entered into the same gate. When they spent the night, every single one was given lodging according to his honor.”

250  Gospel According to Matthew

32 All nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them like a shepherd separates the sheep and the goats.245 Will be gathered before him—before the Holy One, blessed be he, all the nations will be gathered, as we find in the Talmud (BT Avodah Zarah 2a): In the future the Holy One, blessed be he, will bring the Torah scroll in his embrace and say: “He who engages in the study of it will come and take his reward.” Immediately, all the nations will gather together in confusion, as it is said (Isaiah 43:9): All the nations are gathered together. The Holy One, blessed be he, will say to them: “Do not come before me in confusion, but let every nation come with its scribes.”

This is what Yeshua meant when he said, “He will separate them.” He will separate them—in other words, the Holy One, blessed be he, will separate between the righteous and the wicked, just as the shepherd separates between the sheep and the goats. 33 He will stand the sheep to his right and the goats to his left. 34 Then the king will say to those standing on his right, “Come, those who are blessed of my Father, and possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was traveling, and you took me in; 36 naked, and you covered me; sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.” 37 The righteous will answer and say, “Our master, when did we see you hungry and sustain you, or thirsty and give you a drink? 38 When did we see you traveling and take you in, or naked and cover you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and come to you?” 40 Then the king will answer and say to them, “Amen, I say to you, what you have done for one of these young brothers of mine, you have done for me.” You have done for me—as we find in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 10a):

245

See Micah 4:⒊

Gospel According to Matthew  251 Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “What is the meaning of the verse (Proverbs 19:17) He who is generous to the poor makes a loan to YHWH? Were it not written in the scripture, it would be impossible to say it, that the one who borrows is a servant to the lender.”

41 Then he will also say to those standing to his left, “Go away from me, those who are cursed, to the eternal fire prepared for the Satan and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, but you did not feed me. I was thirsty, but you did not give me a drink. 43 I was traveling, but you did not take me in; naked, but you did not cover me; sick and in prison, but you did not visit me.” 44 These, too, will answer, “Our master, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or traveling or naked or sick or in prison and did not attend to you?” 45 Then he will answer them, saying, “Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these young ones, you also did not do for me.” 46 These will go to an eternal place of torment, but the righteous to eternal life.

CHAPTER 26

1 When Yeshua finished speaking all these things, he said to his disciples, 2 “You know that there are another two days and the Pesaḥ is coming, and the son of man will be handed over to be crucified.” 3 Then the leading priests, the scholars, and the elders of the people assembled in the courtyard of the high priest, whose name was Kayafa.246 4 They deliberated together to capture Yeshua cunningly and put him to death. 5 They said, “But not on the festival, or else there will be panic among the people.” 6 When Yeshua was in Beit-Hini (Bethany), at the home of Shimon the Meṣora (leper), Shimon the Meṣora—who was a meṣora (leper) and was healed of it. See above, in chapter ⒏ 7 a woman drew near to him, and in her hand was a vial of very expensive perfume. She poured it on his head as he reclined to eat.247 8 The disciples saw this and were upset and said, “Why such a waste? 9 For it would be appropriate for this perfume to be sold for a high price and given to the poor.”248

246

Caiaphas was the high priest, 18–36 ce. See Josephus, Antiquities 18:3⒌

247 This seems to be some act of coronation of Jesus as King Messiah. Traditionally, Israelite kings were anointed with oil. See 1 Samuel 10:1 and 2 Kings 9:⒍ 248 This is especially the case on Passover, when money was delegated to the poor in order to buy matzah for the holiday. See M Pesaḥim 9:10 and 11:⒈

Gospel According to Matthew  253

10 But Yeshua knew and said to them, “Why are you wearying this woman? Did she not do a good deed for me? 11 For the poor are with you at all times, but I am not with you at all times. 12 For when she poured this perfume on my body, she did this to prepare me for burial. She did this to prepare me for burial—for their custom was to anoint the head of the dead person with oil, which comes om the verse: “Your head shall not lack oil” (Ecclesiastes 9:8). And Yeshua was one of the victims of the Roman Empire, and they did not allow him to be anointed with oil. Therefore, he said: “She did this for my burial. She has done a good deed for me.” 13 Amen, I say to you, in everyplace that this good news is proclaimed in all the world, what she has done will also be told as a memorial to her.” 14 Then one of the twelve, whose name was Yehudah Ish-Kriyot, went to the leading priests. 15 He said, “What will you give me to hand him over to you?” They counted out thirty pieces of silver for him, 16 and from that moment on, he sought an opportunity to betray him. 17 On the first of the Festival of Matzot, the disciples approached Yeshua, saying, “Where shall we make preparations for you to eat the Pesaḥ?” On the first of the Festival of Matzot—many contest: Was not the Passover offering slaughtered on the first night of Passover, and did they not have to prepare it on the night of Passover? So why do Yeshua’s disciples ask him, “Where do you want us to prepare the Passover?” However, this is not so difficult. According to the Torah (Exodus 12:15): You shall eat unleavened bread for seven days, but on the first day you shall remove the leaven from your houses. We cannot say that it means that leaven should be removed om the house on the first day of Passover. For it says: You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with anything leavened (Exodus 34:25). This is to say, do not slaughter the Passover offering while there is still ḥametz. The meaning of “on the first day” is “on the day preceding Passover,” just like, Are you the first man that was born? (Job 15:7) (see BT Pesaḥim 5a).249 This means: 249 I.e., the fourteenth of Nisan is the eve of Passover but is considered part of the festival itself. There is an entire chapter in tractate Pesaḥim dealing with the laws of the eve of Passover (the fourteenth of Nisan). See BT Pesaḥim 99b–121a.

254  Gospel According to Matthew

Did you precede the first man? Thus, this is the meaning of the verse: for seven days, you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the first day—the day before the seven days, the evening of Passover—you shall remove the leaven om your houses. Therefore, the meaning is also this: on the first, that is, the day before Passover, which is erev Pesaḥ. Now, see, honored reader, how I have correctly judged that Mattai was written in the Hebrew language and that the Greek is incorrect. Also, see that Mattai’s writing style was in the language of the Talmud.250 18 He said, “Go to the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘Our rav says, “My time is near, and in your home I will perform the Pesaḥ with my disciples.”’ ” 19 The disciples did as Yeshua commanded and prepared the Pesaḥ. 20 In the evening, he reclined with the twelve. 21 As they were eating, he said, “Amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” 22 They were greatly grieved, and each man began to say to him, “Is it I, my master?” 23 He answered and said, “The man who dipped his hand in the bowl with me is the one who will betray me. 24 Yes, the son of man will surely go, as it was written of him, but how terrible for the man by whom the son of man will be betrayed. It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” How terrible for the man—as it says in the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 119b): “Guilt is brought about by the guilty.” 25 Yehudah, his betrayer, answered and said, “Rabbi, is it I?” He said to him, “You have said it.” 26 When they ate, Yeshua took the bread, made a berakhah, broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take and eat it; this is my body.” This is my body—meaning: This is the last time that we will eat together, for I will not eat again.

250 While scholars today do not think that Matthew was written in Hebrew, this was an inner-Christian debate in earlier centuries. Church historian Eusebius (fourth century) claims that it was written in Hebrew: “Matthew collected and wrote the logia in a Hebrew dialect, and everyone interpreted them as he was able.” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History ⒊3⒏⒗ By Soloveitchik’s time, very few Christian scholars thought that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, including Franz Delitzsch, who translated the Greek back into rabbinic Hebrew (and whose New Testament text we use in this volume). See my discussion of Delitzsch in the Introduction to this volume.

Gospel According to Matthew  255

27 He took the cup, made a berakhah, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from this, all of you, 28 for this is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, which is poured out on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” My blood—he says the same over the cup. This is the last time that we will drink together, for my death is near. For the forgiveness of sins—and so it says in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 62b): When David sinned and took a census of Israel without providing the ransom, YHWH sent a plague upon Israel. And when he lied the plague (2 Samuel 24:15–16), He said to the angel destroying the people: “Enough (rav).” Rabbi Elazar said: “The Holy One, blessed be he, said to the angel: ‘Take for me a great man [rav] om among them, whose death will cover many transgressions for them.’ In that same hour, Avishai ben Zeruiah died, whose worth was as great as the Sanhedrin.”

29 “I say to you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now until that day when I drink it with you and it is new in the kingdom of my Father.” When I drink it with you—and so it says in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 34b): Rabbi Ḥiya said: “Rabbi Yoḥanan said: ‘All the prophets did not prophesy about anything except the days of Messiah. However, in the world to come, No eye has seen, O God, but you (Isaiah 64:3). This means: you have not been seen nor revealed to any prophet. What does it mean that no eye has seen you?’ Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: ‘This is the wine that has been preserved in its grapes om the six days of creation.’ ”

This means: this is an example of the goodness that is reserved for the righteous om the six days of creation, and this is what Yeshua meant when he said, “which I will drink with you in the kingdom of my Father.” 30 After their recital of the Hallel, they went out to Har HaZeitim.251 251 The Hallel prayer is recited every morning during the seven days of Passover (eight days in the Diaspora). In some Jewish communities today, Hallel is also recited aer the evening prayer of the first night of Passover, the night of the seder. While it is not clear that this custom was practiced in Jesus’ time, if indeed the hymn referred to here is Hallel, it would be a very old custom. Hallel may also refer to a section of the recitation of the Haggadah recited at the seder. See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Ḥametz and Matzo,” 8:⒑

256  Gospel According to Matthew

31 Then Yeshua said to them, “You will all stumble because of me tonight, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the flock will be scattered.’252 32 But after I rise, I will go ahead of you to the Galil.” After I rise—his whole aim was to instill in the hearts of his disciples the faith in the immortality of the soul; that is, the belief that the conscious soul does not die with the body, but rather remains forever to enjoy the pleasant tenderness of YHWH according to the merit of the good deeds that it accomplished in this world. This is what he is saying: Do you not know that the soul will not die, just as I taught you while I am still living today? And while he said this, he added, “I will go before you to the Galil” in order to appear before them and strengthen their hearts in the faith of the immortality of the soul. He was not speaking about the body; rather, he was speaking about the soul, which will not die when the body dies.253 33 Petros answered and said to him, “Even if everyone stumbles because of you, I will never stumble.” 34 But Yeshua said to him, “Amen, I say to you that on this night, before the rooster calls, you will disown me three times.” 35 Petros said to him, “Even if I have to die with you, I will not disown you!”—and all the other disciples said likewise. 36 Afterward, Yeshua came with them to a courtyard that was called Gat Shamnei. He said to the disciples, “You remain here until I have gone over there and prayed.” 37 He took Petros and the two sons of Zavdai with him, and he began to become distressed and disheartened. 38 He said to them, “My soul is bitterly troubled to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” 39 Then he went a little bit away from them, fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible to be so, let this cup pass from me; yet not according to my will, but according to your will.” 40 He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and he said to Petros, “Is it not in your capacity to stay alert with me for one hour?

252

Zechariah 13:⒎

253 Soloveitchik here, as elsewhere, substitutes the Maimonidean notion of the immortality of the soul for bodily resurrection, especially regarding Jesus’ message. Soloveitchik does not deny bodily resurrection as an event in the messianic future. Rather, he diffuses Jesus’ messianic claims by interpreting inferences of bodily resurrection to immortality of the soul. On Maimonides’ notion of immortality of the soul, see his “Letter of Resurrection,” in Epistles of Maimonides, trans. Halkin, 211–24⒌

Gospel According to Matthew  257

41 Watch and pray, so that you do not come into the power of testing. See, the spirit desires, but the flesh is weak.” 42 Once more, he went a second time and prayed, saying, “My Father, if this cup cannot pass from me unless I drink it, let it be according to your will.” 43 He came back and found them sleeping once more, for their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went again and prayed a third time, while saying this statement once more. 45 He came to the disciples and told them, “Keep sleeping and rest! Look: the hour is near, and the son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Arise, and let us go! Look! The one betraying me is coming and draws near.” 47 While he was still speaking, Yehudah, one of the twelve, came. A large crowd with swords and sticks was with him, who came from the leading priests and elders of the people. 48 The one betraying him had given them a sign, saying, “The man whom I kiss, capture him.” 49 He immediately approached Yeshua and said, “Shalom to you, Rabbi!” and he kissed him. 50 Yeshua said to him, “My friend, for what have you come?” They approached, reached out their hands to Yeshua, and captured him. 51 Just then, one of the men who was with Yeshua stretched out his hand, drew out his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 Yeshua said to him, “Return your sword to its sheath, for those who grasp a sword will perish by a sword. 53 Do you say in your heart that I am not able to ask now of my Father, and he would command for me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But then, how would the scriptures be fulfilled that say that this is how it will surely be?”254 55 At that time, Yeshua said to the crowd of people, “You have come out like one comes out for a robber, with swords and sticks to capture me. But I had been sitting and teaching in the Temple every day, and you did not seize me. 254 This is an interesting case in Matthew, where Jesus refers to scripture but does not cite any verses. In fact, there are no verses in the Hebrew Bible that predict that the Messiah will be arrested and crucified. Perhaps he could be referring to Isaiah 51–53, about the suffering servant as a messianic figure; but he does not cite those verses.

258  Gospel According to Matthew

56 But all this was to fulfill the writings of the prophets.” Then all the disciples abandoned him and fled. 57 The men who captured Yeshua led him to Kayafa, the high priest, in whose home the scholars and elders had assembled. 58 Petros followed him from a distance, up to the courtyard of the high priest and came inside and sat with the attendants to see what would be the end of the matter. 59 The leading priests, the scholars, and the whole Sanhedrin sought false testimony against Yeshua to put him to death, but they could not find any. 60 Even though many false witnesses came forward, they did not find any. They did not find any—their testimonies did not match. 61 But finally, two false witnesses approached and said, “This one said, ‘It is in my power to tear down the Sanctuary of God and to build it in three days.’ ” 62 The high priest arose and said to him, “Will you not answer at all? What are these men testifying against you?” 63 Yeshua kept silent, and the high priest said to him, “I am making you swear by the living God to tell us if you are the mashiaḥ, the son of God!” 64 Yeshua said to him, “You have said it. And I say to you, from now on, you will see the son of man sitting to the right of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” You have said it—there are those who interpret “you have said it” to mean, “I am who you say I am.” However, what do they do with chapter 27, when Pilate asks Yeshua, “Are you not the king of the Jews?” and Yeshua says, “You have said it.” We cannot interpret this to mean, “I am who you say I am.”255 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He is a blasphemer! Why should we continue seeking witnesses? Have you now not heard his blasphemy?

255 But see Mark 14:61–62, where Jesus does accept this title: “Once more, the high priest asked him and said to him, ‘Are you the mashiaḥ, the son of the blessed one?’ Yeshua said, ‘I am he, and you will see the son of man sitting to the right of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ ”

Gospel According to Matthew  259

He is a blasphemer—at first glance, it is very strange that they would call him a blasphemer. Does not the Mishnah explain (BT Sanhedrin 55b): “The blasphemer is punished only if he utters the [divine] name (i.e., the Tetragrammaton)”? However, this is the meaning: anyone who interprets “And they saw YHWH, the God of Israel” in its plain meaning, then he is a blasphemer (see BT Kiddushin 49a). And when the high priest heard Yeshua say, “You will see the son of man seated at the right hand of the Power,” he thought him a blasphemer, for he interpreted it in its plain meaning that the Holy One, blessed be he, really has a right hand and attributes corporeality—God forbid—to YHWH. 66 What is your opinion?” And they said, “He is a man of death!” 67 They spat in his face and struck him with a fist, and others struck him on the cheek. 68 They said, “Prophesy to us, mashiaḥ! Who struck you?” 69 Petros was sitting outside the house in the courtyard, and a servant girl approached him, saying, “You were with Yeshua the Glili, too!” 70 But he denied it in front of everyone, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about.” 71 He crossed over to the opening of the gate, but another saw him, and she said to the men who were there, “This one was also with Yeshua the Noṣri.” 72 Once more, he denied it and swore, saying, “I do not know the man.” 73 A little while later, those who were standing there approached and said to Petros, “But you are one of them, too, because your tongue reveals you.” 74 He began to vow by his own life and swear, saying, “I do not know the man!” And immediately, the rooster called. 75 Then Petros remembered the statement of Yeshua that he spoke to him, saying, “Before the rooster calls, you will disown me three times.” He went outside and wept bitterly.

CHAPTER 27

1 As it turned toward morning, all the leading priests and elders of the people deliberated about Yeshua to put him to death. 2 And they bound him and led him from there and handed him over to Pontiyos Pilatos, the governor. The governor—in that time, the Jews were under the rule of the Romans, and they did not have the right to judge and enforce the death penalty, as we find in the Talmud (BT Avodah Zarah 8b): “When Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei fell ill, his disciples asked him: ‘Rabbi, tell us two or three things that you have already told us in the name of your father.’ He said to them: ‘One hundred and eighty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Roman Empire ruled over Israel.’ ” This is why they handed him over to Pilate the Tetrarch.256 3 Yehudah, his betrayer, saw that they had condemned him, and he felt regret, so he returned the thirty pieces of silver to the leading priests and elders, saying, 4 “I have sinned, for I have given over innocent blood!” But they said, “What is it to us? See to it yourself.” 5 So he threw the silver toward the Sanctuary and then turned and went and strangled himself. 6 The leading priests took the money and said, “It is not proper for us to put it into the korban box, since it is the wage of blood.” 256 On Jesus’ execution, see Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 63–74; and Flusser, The Sage of Galilee, 138–16⒈ On execution and rabbinic tradition more generally, see Berkowitz, Execution and Invention.

Gospel According to Matthew  261

7 So they deliberated and purchased with it the field of the potter for the burial of foreigners.257 8 This is why the field is called Sedeh HaDam to this day. 9 Then what was said through Yirmeyah258 the Prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the noble price that he was worth to the sons of Yisra’el, Yirmeyah the Prophet—this verse is not in the book of Jeremiah but in Zechariah.259 There are those who contend that the verse does not even speak about this, and even the language of the verse does not deal with the present circumstance. However, according to our methods of interpretation, there is no difficulty, for the writings of the New Testament are like those of the sages of the Talmud, and their custom is to support their sayings with verses om the Torah, even if the intent of what is written does not agree with what they say. Despite that, they put forth the verse as support or as a way to remember their sayings. Even here, they present this verse as a way to remember what they say so that it will not be forgotten.260 10 and apportioned them to the field of the potter, as YHWH commanded me.” 11 Yeshua was made to stand in front of the governor, and the governor questioned him, saying, “Are you the king of the Yehudim?” Yeshua said, “You have said it.” You have said it—and not I. 12 The leading priests and the elders spoke their accusations against him, but he did not answer at all.261 13 Then Pilatos said to him, “Do you not hear how many things they are testifying against you?”

257

Or, “converts,” “proselytes,” “resident aliens.”

258

Delitzsch: This should read, “Zechariah.”

259

Zechariah 11:12–⒔ Cf. Jeremiah 18:1–19, 32:6–⒖

260 This is to suggest that we read the Gospel as we would read midrash, i.e., that verses are taken out of context as a matter of course. Soloveitchik has alluded to this numerous times in his comments, arguing that the Gospel is a Jewish text. 261 The silence of Jesus is, of course, a crucial matter in understanding his self-fashioning. There is a rabbinic phrase “silence is acquiescence” (‫ )שתיקה כהודאה דמי‬that claims that silence regarding an accusation is the admission of agreement. See, e.g., in Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, Sefer Or Same’aḥ, on the laws of acquisitions and gis 10:⒐

262  Gospel According to Matthew

14 But he did not answer him a single word, and the governor was greatly amazed. 15 Now on every festival, the governor would release for the people a prisoner of their choice. 16 And at that time, they had a well-known prisoner named Bar-Abba. 17 When they were assembled, Pilatos said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you: Bar-Abba, or Yeshua who is called by the name mashiaḥ?” 18 For he knew that it was out of their jealousy of him that they had handed him over. 19 As he sat on his judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, saying, “Let not your hand be on this righteous person. For on account of him, I was afflicted greatly today in a dream.” 20 But the leading priests and the elders incited the crowd of people to request for them Bar-Abba and to destroy Yeshua. 21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of these two men do you want me to release to you?” And they said, “Bar-Abba!” 22 Then Pilatos said to them, “Then what shall I do to Yeshua who is called by the name mashiaḥ?” And they all answered, “Let him be crucified!” 23 The governor said, “And what evil has he done?” But they still shouted and said, “Let him be crucified!” 24 When Pilatos saw that it was of no benefit and that the disturbance had only increased, he took water and washed his hands in view of the people and said, “I am innocent of the blood of this righteous person—you saw it.” 25 The people answered and said, “His blood is upon us and upon our children.” 26 Then he released Bar-Abba to them, but he struck Yeshua with whips and handed him over to be crucified. 27 The soldiers of the governor took Yeshua and brought him into the hall of justice, and the entire regiment gathered around him. 28 They stripped off his clothing and wrapped him in a scarlet robe. 29 They wove thorns into a crown and placed it on his head and a cane in his right hand, and they knelt before him and ridiculed him, saying, “Shalom to you, king of the Yehudim!” 30 They spat on him, and then they took the cane and struck him on the head.

Gospel According to Matthew  263

31 After they ridiculed him, they stripped the robe from him, put his clothes back on him, and then led him to be crucified. 32 As they went out, they found a Kurani man named Shimon, and they forced him to carry the cross for him. 33 They brought him to the place that is called Golgotha—that is, the place of a skull. 34 They gave him vinegar mixed with merorot to drink. He tasted it, but was unwilling to drink it. 35 When they crucified him, they divided up his clothes between them and cast lots [to fulfill what was said by the prophet, “They divided my garments up among them and cast lots for my clothes”]. They divided up his clothes—this verse is in Psalms (22:19). See what I wrote above for verse ⒐ 36 They sat there and watched him, 37 and they placed the pronouncement of his guilt above his head, and they wrote, “This is Yeshua, king of the Yehudim.” They placed the pronouncement—even now when our Christian brothers make images of him as a remembrance, they write over his head “I.N.R.I.” (the first letters of each word of the sign in Latin).262 This is to say, he was crucified because he was called “king.” Now, see, honored reader, that it was not the hand of the Jews that arose to put him to death; rather, it was the hands of the Romans that wounded him, thinking that he was inciting a revolt against the Roman Empire.263 38 They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right, and one on his left. 39 Those passing by insulted him and wagged their heads, 40 and they said, “You who would demolish the Sanctuary and build it in three days, save your life! And if you are the son of God, come down from the cross!” 41 Likewise, the leading priests, along with the scholars and elders, also mocked him, saying, 262

Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum.

263 Soloveitchik’s claim may be historically accurate regarding his execution, but this does not mean that he was not viewed by the Pharisees and Sadducees of his time as a false messianic figure, as the term “king” was also used to refer to the Davidic king: the Messiah.

264  Gospel According to Matthew

42 “He saved others, but he cannot save himself! If he is the king of Yisra’el, let him come down now from the cross. Then we will believe him! 43 He trusted in God. Now let him rescue him, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the son of God.’ ” 44 Even the robbers who were crucified with him insulted him in a similar way. 45 There was darkness over all the land from the sixth hour to the ninth hour. Darkness over all the land—this is also in the Talmud (BT Mo’ed Qaṭan 25b): “When Rabbi Yakov died, the stars shown during the day.” 46 At about the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, eli, lemah shevaktani?”—that is, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”264 47 Some of the men standing there heard it and said, “He is calling to Eliyahu.”265 48 One of them ran quickly, took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar. He placed it on a cane and gave it to him to drink. 49 But the other men said, “Leave him alone, and we will see if Eliyahu will come save him.” [And another man took a spear and thrust it through his side, and out came blood and water.] 50 But Yeshua cried out again with a loud voice, and his spirit departed. 51 Then the curtain in the Sanctuary was torn from top to bottom into two pieces. The earth quaked, and the rocks were split. And the rocks were split—this is in the Talmud as well (ibid.): “When Rabbi Ḥiya died, stones of fire fell om the firmament.” 52 The tombs were opened, and many of the holy ones sleeping in the dusty ground were awakened. 53 They came forth from the tombs after his resurrection and entered the Holy City, and they were seen by many.

264

Psalm 22:⒈

265 Beckoning Elijah at a time of distress was common in rabbinic times. See BT Avodah Zarah 17b and BT Ta’anit 21a.

Gospel According to Matthew  265

And they were seen by many—see below in 28:⒘ 54 And when the centurion and the men with him who were guarding Yeshua saw the earthquake and what had happened, they were very terrified, and they said, “Surely, this was the son of God.” Son of God—i.e., a righteous man, worthy of being called a son of God.266 55 Now many women were there who had followed Yeshua from the Galil to serve him, and they were watching from a distance. 56 Among them were Miriam HaMagdalit, Miriam the mother of Ya’akov and Yosei, and the mother of the sons of Zavdai. 57 In the evening, there came a rich man from the Ramatayim named Yosef, and he was also one of the disciples of Yeshua. 58 He approached Pilatos to request the body of Yeshua, and Pilatos ordered for it to be given to him. 59 Yosef took the body and wrapped it in a pure linen garment. 60 He placed it in the new tomb that was hewn for him in the rock, rolled a large stone over the entrance of the tomb, and then left. 61 Miriam HaMagdalit and the other Miriam were sitting there facing the tomb. 62 On the day after erev Shabbat, the leading priests and Perushim assembled to Pilatos. 63 They said, “Our master, we remember that when that instigator was still alive, he said, ‘At the end of three days, I will surely rise.’ 64 Therefore, please give the order, and have the mouth of the tomb closed until the third day, or else his disciples may come in the night and steal him, then say to the people, ‘Look! He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.” 65 Pilatos said to them, “Here are some sentry men for you. Go and close it up as you know how.” 66 They went and closed the mouth of the tomb, sealed the stone, and stationed sentries at it.

266 Another reading has it “a son of God.” It’s not clear why Soloveitchik had to add this caveat, since this was coming om the mouth of a Roman centurion who could easily have believed in the more literal meaning of “son of God.”

CHAPTER 28

1 After Moṣa’ei Shabbat, as it brightened to the first day of the week, Miriam HaMagdalit came with the other Miriam to see the tomb. After Moṣa’ei Shabbat—at first glance, it is strange that he adds “the first day of the week.” We know that sunrise is aer Moṣa’ei Shabbat (the end of the Sabbath), which is the first day (i.e., Sunday). However, the writer of this book of the New Testament reiterates that he rose om the dead on the first day, which is odd. The reason is that he greatly feared that for this reason, the Sabbath would be rejected in favor of Sunday. Therefore, he stressed that this was aer the end of the Sabbath. 2 There was a great quake because the angel of YHWH came down from heaven, approached, and rolled the stone from the entrance, and sat upon it. 3 His appearance was like the appearance of lightning, and his apparel was as white as snow.267 4 The guards were terrified from fear of him and became like the dead. 5 The angel spoke up and said to the women, “You, do not fear. See, I know that you are seeking Yeshua who was crucified. 6 He is not here because he has risen, as he said. Come and see the place where the Master was lying.

267

See Daniel 7:⒐

Gospel According to Matthew  267

7 Go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and he is going ahead of you to the Galil, and there you will see him. Look, I have told you.”268 8 The women quickly went out from the tomb in fear and great joy, and they ran to report to his disciples. 9 As they were going to report to his disciples, Yeshua happened upon them, and he said, “Shalom to you.” They approached, grasped his feet, and bowed down to him. 10 Yeshua said to them, “Do not fear. Go and tell my brothers to go on to the Galil, and there they will see me.” 11 As they were going, men from the guard came into the city and told the leading priests all that had happened. 12 They assembled with the elders and counseled, and then gave a large amount of money to the soldiers, saying, 13 “Please say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him while we were sleeping.’ 14 And if this matter is heard in the home of the governor, we will appease him. But as for you, do not fear.” 15 They took the money and did as it was placed in their mouth, and this rumor has gone out among the Yehudim to this day. This rumor has gone out among the Yehudim [Jews]—I, the commentator, a Jew, can attest and swear that I have never heard this before, and that I have not found any hint of this in any book at all.269 16 The eleven disciples went to the Galil, to the mountain that Yeshua had mentioned to them.270 17 They saw him and bowed down to him, but there were some of them whose hearts were divided.

268 There is a rabbinic tradition that the Messiah will come om the Galilee, largely based on a reading of Isaiah 11:1: A shoot shall come from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of its roots. The “shoot” or “twig” is called neṣer in Hebrew, and is thus associated with Nazareth. Cf. Matthew 2:2⒊ 269 This is a strange comment, as the meaning of “to this day” seems to refer to the day the Gospel was written and disseminated. The fact that it has not remained operative until the nineteenth century is irrelevant. Peter Schäfer offers another interpretation: “The last remark by the evangelist (‘this story is told among the Jews to this day’) makes two things clear. First, that the Jews, already according to Matthew, were regarded as originators of the defamatory version of the events aer the crucifixion, and second, that this counter-narrative to the New Testament had a long career because it was aggressively spread by the Jews.” See Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 10⒋ 270 The revelation of Jesus on the mountain seems to point to Mosaic leadership. See Deuteronomy 32:4⒏ Other correlates between Jesus and Moses can be found in Mark 1:12–13, regarding Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness and Moses’ forty days on the mountain.

268  Gospel According to Matthew

Some of them whose hearts were divided—at first, it is strange that it would be possible for them to doubt while they are standing before living proof. If they saw, they would know that they saw. And if they did not see, they would know that they did not see. And so, when Yeshua said that on the third day that he would arise, even the Pharisees and some of his disciples did not understand what he meant. Yeshua’s goal was to uphold the Torah of Moses and to instill in the hearts of the people the belief in the unity of the Creator and his divine provision, as is explained in Mattai 5:⒙ Yeshua knew that the matter of the immortality of the soul and future recompense in the world to come was not clearly understood om the Torah by everyone. Therefore he taught that the chief foundation of the Torah was the faith in the immortality of the soul and the future recompense in the world to come. And fearing greatly that their hearts would turn away om this faith, he said to them: This is in addition to what I have taught you while I am still with you alive today; even aer my death, I will show you that the soul does not die with the body but that it is eternal, and this shall be a sign for you—you will see me aer my death. And concerning this, we find in the Talmud (BT Mo’ed Qaṭan 28a): Rabba sat before Rabbi Naḥman. He saw him going to sleep (dying). . . . Rabba said to him: “Appear to me, master, in a dream.” He appeared to him. Rabba asked him: “Did you, master, suffer pains?” Rabbi Naḥman said to him: “[As little] as taking hair out of a glass of milk (i.e., the separation of the soul om the body is as easy and sweet as that).”

18 Yeshua approached and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and in the earth has been given to me.” All authority in heaven and in the earth has been given to me—to truly understand his words, we must preface them with a passage om our sages of blessed memory (BT Niddah 30b): Rabbi Simlai would expound: “To what does an embryo resemble in the stomach of its mother? To a folded writing tablet, with both of its hands laid upon its temples . . . and its head laid between its knees . . . a light glows above its head and it looks and sees om one end of the world to the other. . . . It is taught the entire Torah . . . and as soon as it enters this world, an angel comes and slaps it on its mouth and causes it to forget the entire Torah. . . . It does not emerge om there until it is made to take an oath . . . to be righteous and not be wicked. And even if the whole world tells you that you are righteous, consider yourself wicked.

Gospel According to Matthew  269 Keep in mind that the Holy One, blessed be he, is pure and his ministers are pure, and the soul that he put within you is pure. If you preserve it in purity, well and good, and if not, then I shall take it away om you.”

Honored reader, I have already explained to you that man is composed of body and spirit. Sometimes the spirit (nefesh) is called wind (ruaḥ), and sometimes it is called soul (neshamah). This spirit is a part of God who is above, and it knows the Creator of all and it exists forever and ever eternally. Now you will understand this passage of our sages. When the baby is still in the stomach of its mother, it has a vital soul, but it does not yet have the form of the soul that is a part of God above. The Talmud classifies this form of the soul as “light,” in accordance with the verse, The light of YHWH is the soul of man (Proverbs 20:27). Thus, until the child emerges into this world, its soul is not bound to its body and the soul is not inhibited by it. Therefore, its soul sees om one end of the world to the other. And when it emerges into the world, an angel comes and slaps its mouth and causes it to forget all of Torah. Because its soul is bound to its body, the body prevents the soul om acquiring everything. And this is what the Talmud says (ibid.): “Do not be astonished by this, for a man may be sleeping here and see a dream in Spain,” for in the moment that he falls asleep, he slightly eliminates the power of the body and can see even a distant place. However, aer man’s departure om this earth, the soul ceases to be bound to the body; thus the soul remains eternally as it was prior to descending to the body, and it sees and looks om one end of the world to the other like before. And this is what Yeshua meant when he said, “All rule over heaven and earth has been given to me. Just as my soul had the authority to see om one end of the earth to the other prior to descending into my body, even now it has this authority, for it will exist forever to delight in the pleasantness of YHWH in accordance with the deeds it performed in this world.271 19 And you, go to all the nations. Make disciples; immerse them for the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, 271 Thus, on Soloveitchik’s reading, Jesus is not making any messianic or salvific claim, i.e., one that is unique to him, but simply teaching his listeners a lesson in the immortality of the soul. Central to Soloveitchik’s approach is to downplay, and even erase, the messianic and supernatural claims about Jesus and situate him solidly within the Pharisaic tradition, even as Jesus is oen critical of the Pharisaic leadership (e.g., Matthew 23). Upon closer examination, we can see that Soloveitchik’s project is more than an alignment of Jesus with the Pharisaism of Jesus’ time; it is an attempt to deploy the classical Maimonidean rabbinism of Soloveitchik’s time to make his case. Soloveitchik differs om contemporaries such as Abraham Geiger and Kaufmann Kohler (who, om this commentary, he did not seem aware of ), both Reform rabbis who portrayed Jesus as in open rebellion against the Pharisees, a community they viewed as aligned with contemporary Orthodoxy. Soloveitchik’s attempt to salvage Jesus for Jews was really about viewing him as a legitimate precursor to the contemporary Orthodoxy of Soloveitchik’s time.

270  Gospel According to Matthew

Immerse them—in order to “convert” them.272 He taught them these three things: 1) In the name of the Father—meaning that they should believe in the Creator, blessed be his name; 2) and the son—meaning a righteous man, as I have already explained, for whoever is righteous is called a son of God. Therefore the angels make him take an oath to be righteous, just as they do to the child who is born. This is how it is with the man who comes to be converted, as we find in the Talmud (BT Yevamot 48b): “A man who becomes a proselyte becomes like a child who is born”; and 3) And the Holy Spirit—meaning that they should believe in the prophecy, for the belief in prophecy is one of the foundations upon which the pillars of the Torah rest. And when he said, “And the Holy Spirit,” he said because in those days, prophecy had already passed and they relied upon the Holy Spirit. The soul of every human being is a part of God above, and when he connects his spirit to its source, then God inspires him with an abundance of prophecy. This is to say, he will obtain knowledge of hidden things and future events. And when he ingrains this faith within his heart, then he will know that the soul of every human being is eternal and does not die with the body. And this is the foundation of the entire Torah.273 20 and teach them to keep all that I have commanded you. And see, I am with you all of the days until the end of the age. Amen.”

272 Soloveitchik is not referring to full, formal conversion to Judaism but rather a “conversion” to monotheism in general and away om paganism and polytheism, as Paul later supports in his epistles to the Gentiles. 273 For Soloveitchik, the entire event of the resurrection is simply a lesson in the immortality of the soul. He seems to think that the vision of Jesus is a collective dream whereby Jesus returns to teach them about the soul’s liberation om the body aer death. His use of the Talmudic teaching om BT Mo’ed Qaṭan 28a seems to illustrate that.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK, WITH COMMENTARY

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1

1 The beginning of the good news of Yeshua the mashiaḥ, the son of God.1 The good news—according to the apparent meaning of this introduction, it seems that the author begins to recount the Gospel declared by Yeshua: the “good news” of which he has become the messenger. But the subsequent verses immediately contradict this explanation, since they concern Yoḥanan the Immerser (aka John the Baptist) and not Yeshua. Should we then say that the matter is not of the “good news” brought by Yeshua but of the good news that concerns him, which is to say, of the testimony that Yoḥanan rendered him: this Yoḥanan, so great because of his righteousness, and yet who came to proclaim Yeshua as even greater still?2 The rest of the chapter is very fitting, but the first verse still remains unsuitable, since it announces the proclamation of Yeshua as mashiaḥ, or messiah, while Yoḥanan is content to proclaim him as his superior. To resolve this problem, let us first cite a passage om the Talmud relating to this same question of the Messiah. There we read (BT Sanhedrin 94a):

1 The Gospel of Mark is thought by many scholars to be the earliest Gospel, probably written between 62 and 72 ce, around the time of the Jewish War and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. Mark likely draws om numerous sources that had circulated orally or in writing (that have not survived). We do not know where exactly Mark was written. Some scholars say Rome while others posit the Galilee and still others Antioch in Syria. While the authors of Mark likely spent much time in Jerusalem, scholars do not think that the Gospel we have was written there. Mark is very aware of Hebrew scripture and uses it extensively in making his case for Jesus. Although all three of the synoptic Gospels are Jewish, Mark and Matthew are considered the most “Jewish.” For a classic study, see Werner Kelber, Mark’s Story of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1979). 2 The “good news” is likely taken om Isaiah 52:7, mevasser (lit., “the one who brings good tidings”)—“heralding good fortune telling Zion, ‘Your God is King!’ ” See T. M. Law, When God Spoke Greek (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 95, 9⒍

274  Gospel According to Mark Isaiah said (9:6), I promise him abundant authority and peace without limit. . . . Bar-Qappara asks: “Why, then, is the word le-marbeh (‫—למרבה‬abundant) written with a closed mem (or final mem) instead of an open mem, as is the rule? Here is the reason: God wanted to make Hezekiah the Messiah, and Sennacherib the prince of Magog (the anti-messiah). His Attribute of Justice objected: ‘What⁈ Did you not grant this honor to David, king of Israel, who celebrated you with many psalms and hymns? And yet you would grant it to Hezekiah, who has not sung for you a single song for all the glorious miracles you wrought on his behalf?’ Immediately, the mem of the promise was closed (that is to say, God renounced his intention).”

There is room here to ask ourselves: How could Bar-Qappara allow himself to be so specific, since this was only speculation, about the period and person of the Messiah, the thing most unknown and mysterious of all? Does the Talmud itself not say (ibid.): “A voice om heaven was heard, saying, I have kept my secret! (Isaiah 24:16)?” Have we not learned elsewhere (ibid., 9a, according to Isaiah 63:4) that God revealed this secret to his own heart, but he has not revealed it to the angels themselves? In other words, no one in the world, except God himself, knows the appointed time for the coming of Messiah. One finds the very same declaration in the Gospel (Mattai 24:36; Markos 13:32): “But that day and that hour, there is no one who knows, nor do the angels of heaven . . .3 but only my Father alone.” How, then, could our sage have known that God had designated Hezekiah to be the Messiah? Did he enter into God’s counsel? Were God’s intimate thoughts revealed to him? This, dear readers, is connected to a Talmudic system that I am going to explain to you. When the Talmudists want to praise a man of great merit, a man in whom they observe a perfect obedience to God’s law, a constant zeal for practicing all religious and social virtues, they are pleased to increase the praise, adding to the known qualities those that are not, and to the well-known merits those that are hidden; they will even go so far as to praise his thoughts and intentions. By this, are they claiming to be well acquainted with the private life of this man, or to have read the most secret pages of his heart? Everyone knows that each person is not truly known by mortals, for as the Tanakh says so well: Concealed matters belong to YHWH (Deuteronomy 29:28); you alone know the hearts of all men (1 Kings 8:39). No, the Talmud does not make this claim. However, this is its thought: since this man’s entire outward behavior is praiseworthy, since we see him doing his best in everything and everywhere, pleasing God and men, we are able to conclude that his private life is identical, 3

Mark adds “or even the son.”

Gospel According to Mark  275

and even better; that even his thoughts are good and pleasing to God because they are revealed in his actions.4 And this is, in a sense, similar to what is said (BT Yoma 39a): “If you sancti yourself but a little, you will become much sanctified, for God helps those who want to be holy.” On the contrary, when the Talmudists have judged a man to be a notorious villain, in a way they exaggerate the reproach and say: his personal life is even worse than his public life; what’s more, even his thoughts are evil. How do they know? By what authority do they judge—and they judge for the worse—not only his personal life, of which they are ignorant, but his intimate thoughts, of which they know even less? Simply because they gather what is unknown om the known and intentions om actions. Let us again cite two Talmudic passages that will each demonstrate, one positively, the other negatively, the application of this same system. The first passage concerns the reign of Esther. The Talmud asks, “Why did she invite Haman to dine with her and Ahasuerus [Xerxes]?” “To set a trap for him,” a rabbi responds, “as it is written in the Psalms (69:23): May their table be a trap for them! ” “No,” says another rabbi, “it was to put to practice the counsel she learned as a child (Proverbs 25:21): If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat. . . . You will be heaping live coals on his head! ” According to a third rabbi, it was to prevent Haman om inciting a revolt; according to a fourth, so that they would not realize that she was a Jewess; a fih explains that it was for fear that the Jews, knowing that they have a sister in the palace, would neglect imploring the Almighty for mercy. Still more conjectures follow, aer which we read that Rabbah bar Avuha had asked Elijah the Prophet:5 “Which of these explanations is correct?” to which Elijah responded: “All of them!”6 Most assuredly, this is a strange narrative. Every one of these sages affirms that Esther, in the act of inviting Haman, had such and such a motive. Were they able to read her mind? More surprising still is Elijah’s response: Could Esther have had all these intentions at once, being guided by so many different motives? We must therefore return to the theory that I put forth. No Talmudist claims to contend that Esther’s purpose was this, as opposed to that. One thing is certain: Esther’s absolute devotion to her people and her complete selflessness. She wanted to save Israel at all cost and wanted to confound Haman and foil his plans; to reach this goal, she had to use her most valuable assets, which 4 A counter-Talmudic opinion to this can be found in BT Berakhot 28a, where Rabban Gamliel proclaims that only someone who is tokho ke-boro (his inside is identical to his outside) can enter the study house. The sugya continues that, as a result, hundreds of stools had to be added outside the study house, as very few students were permitted to enter. 5

Undoubtedly an ecstatic vision—perhaps it is better to view this as a legend.

6

See BT Megillah 15b. Soloveitchik does not quote the passage verbatim but paraphrases the discussion.

276  Gospel According to Mark

involved inviting Haman to dine. All the suppositions that can give a reason for this are therefore legitimate, all are admissible, and what is more, as the prophet said, they can all be true—at the very least, relatively true—since they all accomplish the same objective. The second passage concerns Balaam. The Talmudists attribute the most heinous crimes to him; they even go so far as to accuse him of committing bestiality (BT Sanhedrin 105a–b).7 They use certain texts to support this as true but by diverting om their original meaning.8 Now, who authorized them to voice such suppositions? Why ascribe to this man actions of which the Tanakh does not say a word? For the reason that I have already stated. No, the Tanakh does not expressly accuse him of this; however, it shows us that he is perverted enough to go, compelled by lust for money, to curse a people that he did not know and that had never done him any harm. Thus we can judge this man capable of anything. As for the texts put forth by our sages, who are certainly not misguided in their reasoning, they serve only to give credence to their words and to the authority they appear to hold. This is the system of artificial exegesis by the Talmud, as with the Gospel, which I have had occasion to speak of more than once (see, especially, my commentary on Mattai 2:23). This is also how the word of the Talmudist Mar bar Rabina to his son can be explained (ibid., 106b): “Concerning any person of wrongdoing, do not expound on the holy texts to his disadvantage. Balaam is the only exception; concerning him, the worst interpretations are the best.”9 Admittedly, at first glance, this is strange counsel. To formulate malicious assumptions even though there is no basis for them, forcing them into the divine word, when the plain meaning of the text refutes it? This is precisely what Mar had no fear of recommending to his son! This is not acceptable, except in the system that I have indicated: overrating the praise of the righteous and the censorship of the unrighteous; purposefully increasing the virtues of some and exaggerating with pleasure the depravity of others. And to what end? To better inspire a people, in the same way that artwork does, to love virtue and

7 On Balaam in the Hebrew Bible, see Alexander Rofe, “The Book of Balaam” (Numbers 22:2–24:25): A Study in Methods of Criticism and the History of Biblical Literature and Religion (University Park, PA; Eisenbrauns, 1979); and Ephraim Urbach, “Homilies of the Sages on Gentile Prophecy and on the Episode of Balaam” [in Hebrew], in Me-Olamot shel Hakhamim (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 537–55⒋ 8 See also Lamentations Rabbah 28:142; and Targum Yerushalmi to Numbers 22:2⒉ Yet there is also a tradition that when Balaam saw Israel’s tents, he really did desire to bless them; BT Bava Batra 60a; and Numbers Rabbah 2:⒋ For a lengthy discussion of Balaam’s demonic qualities, see Tanna Devei Eliyahu, Seder Eliyahu Rabbah, chap. 28, 142–14⒊ 9

“Come at it right or wrong, the judge opined. No other than a villain could be fined”—La Fontaine.

Gospel According to Mark  277

to loathe vice. This was always the noble goal of our sages, and this goal justifies their behavior, though it may seem somewhat strange at first.10 Let us return to our discussion. Bar-Qappara recounts that “God wanted to make Hezekiah the Messiah.” How does this sage know? Indeed, he does not know. However, what he does know, and what we also know om the Tanakh and om tradition, is that Hezekiah was one of our most righteous kings, distinguished by his piety and his virtue, zealous for the glory of God and for the well-being of his subjects. Here are a few of his traits: “Hezekiah planted a double-edged sword at the entrance of the beit midrash and proclaimed that whosoever neglected the study of Torah would perish by this sword” (ibid., 94b). “Hezekiah buried the Book of Cures,” composed by King Solomon, for this book was exclusively consulted for all maladies instead of pleading for the divine mercy of the Almighty (BT Berakhot 10b). “He smashed the bronze serpent into pieces” that Moses had erected and that the Israelites had made into an idol by the name of Neḥushtan (ibid.; cf. 2 Kings 18:4). He even went so far as to refuse the accustomed adornment on his father’s (Ahaz’s) grave, because he was an idol worshiper (ibid.; cf. 2 Chronicles 28:27). Because of these merits—as Bar-Qappara reasons—we are able to suppose that it occurred to God to make Hezekiah the Messiah; and even if it had not occurred to God, it was a worthy thing to consider. That is surely what this sage meant; he recognized, along with the whole synagogue, that the identity of the Messiah has remained a secret to be known in the future, which is to say, known by God alone. I take the name of mashiaḥ (messiah) applied to Yeshua in this first verse of Markos in the same way. Here is, in my opinion, the essence of this entire introduction. The Gospel, or the good news of Yeshua, means the news relating to Yeshua. This news, this declaration by the author, is that Yeshua was a messiah—a messiah like Hezekiah, meaning that he deserved to be Messiah, just as this righteous king did.11 Now, the beginning of the good news, meaning the first of the motifs that determined Markos to quali Yeshua as the Messiah, was that he was a son of God. The son of God—which is to say, a tzaddik. I have already stated and proved (Mattai 4:3) that the meaning of this expression is everywhere in the New 10 It seems that Soloveitchik’s whole digression is to point out that the sages’ descriptions of heroic figures needn’t be taken at face value. It is the Talmudic way, on his reading, that exaggerations are used as heuristic tools to inspire readers about righteous men and women. So, too, he contends, regarding the praise given to Jesus in Mark: it is not meant to be taken literally but rather as a way of inspiring awe in its readers. 11 For similar views, see Sherwin, “Who Do You Say That I Am,” 31–44; and the discussion in Shaul Magid, American Post-Judaism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013), 133–15⒍

278  Gospel According to Mark

Testament, whether applied to Yeshua or to someone else. I will not come back to the reason that I have given, and I will restrict myself to recalling only the following passages: Mattai 5:9; Luke 6:35; Yoḥanan 1:12, 10:36; Acts 17:29; Romans 8:14, 16, 21, 9:8; Galatians 3:26, 4:6, 7; Ephesians 1:5, 10:1; Philippians 2:15; Hebrews 12:7; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10, 10:2; Revelation 21:⒎ To this end, I must bring to the attention of my learned translator that, in its various locations, whether by a voluntary misinterpretation or not, the French version says children of God and not son in all the passages that are not referring to Yeshua—a distinction that does not exist in the Greek or Latin texts. 2 As it is written in the Prophets, “See, I am sending my messenger before you, and he will clear your way.” I am sending my messenger—this means that the second motif that the author uses as a qualification of messiah is the words of the prophet. This prophet is Malachi (3:1). 3 “A voice is calling in the wilderness, ‘Clear the way of YHWH; make his highways straight!’ ” A voice is calling—third motif: the famous pronouncement of Isaiah 40:3, a pronouncement already applied by Mattai (3:3) to Yoḥanan the Immerser. Later, in another Gospel (Yoḥanan 1:23), he applies it to himself because of the zeal he spread for calling the people to repentance. 4 Yoḥanan was immersing in the wilderness and announcing the immersion of teshuvah for the forgiveness of sins. The immersion of teshuvah—meaning: Announcing to the masses immersion and teshuvah, which were required in order to puri them om their physical and moral blemishes. Yoḥanan fulfilled the prophecy that we just read.12 5 All the land of Yehudah and the sons of Yerushalayim went out to him, and they were all immersed by him in the Yarden River, confessing their sins. 12 The use of water as a means of purification appears in numerous places in Tanakh, e.g., Leviticus 13:6, 15:5–⒑ See also Judith 12:7–⒐ The practice of immersion for spiritual purification became common among pietists in the early decades of the Common Era and continues today. It seems that Soloveitchik is rejecting, or at least challenging, the Gospel’s claim of immersion (baptism) as teshuvah (repentance) and offering the more normative Jewish understanding of immersion with teshuvah.

Gospel According to Mark  279

6 Now Yoḥanan was wearing camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and honey of the honeycomb. Yoḥanan—Yoḥanan was a devout man, an ascetic who disregarded the pleasures of the flesh; he was content with having few possessions and lived one of the strictest of existences. 7 He proclaimed, saying, “One will surely come after me who is mightier than I am, whose sandal strap I am unworthy to kneel down and loosen.” Mightier than I—which means even more righteous, more in control of his passions; hence, as the sages of the Talmud say (Avot 4:1): “Who is truly strong? He who knows how to overcome his passions.” 8 “I have immersed you in water, but he will immerse you with the Holy Spirit.” I have immersed you—the immersion that you have practiced until now, immersion in pure waters, only leads you to repentance; this is only the prelude to a holier immersion, a conveyance to the work of Yeshua, who must plunge you into the waters of religious knowledge in order to raise you to the degree of the Holy Spirit—or to prophetic inspiration. In this way, Yoḥanan proclaims the superiority of Yeshua, and this testimony is one of the reasons that justi the qualification of messiah stated in verse ⒈13 One might notice that the citations in verses 2 and 3 are not absolutely precise. Malachi did not say before you or your way. He simply said: “See, I am sending my angel (or messenger), who will clear the way for ME.” Similarly, Isaiah did not say: “Make his highways straight,” but rather: Make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. These errors, in my opinion, are completely intentional and do not elicit any disapproval om me. This is still the system of artificial exegesis of which I have repeatedly spoken and that I repeated again at the beginning of this chapter.14 Let us return to it again briefly. All the 13 We read in BT Yoma 9b: “When the later prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi died, Ruaḥ HaKodesh [the Holy Spirit] departed om Israel. But Israel still had access to the bat qol [heavenly voice].” Cf. BT Sanhedrin 11a. Soloveitchik’s overt reference to Jesus as the arbiter of a return of Ruaḥ HaKodesh (the Hebrew correlate of the Holy Spirit) implies Jesus’ messianic vocation as the traditional Jewish belief that the Messiah will return prophecy to Israel. See Abraham Joshua Heschel and Morris Faierstein, Prophetic Inspiration After the Prophets: Maimonides and Other Medieval Authorities (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1996). 14 The notion of gently manipulating verses in scripture is very much a part of the midrashic enterprise, and thus Soloveitchik is not bothered by the inexactness of the verses cited, deeming them intentional manipulations to serve a

280  Gospel According to Mark

authors of the NewTestament were Talmudists.15 This is even what Paul says (Acts 22:3): “I am a Jew . . . trained at the feet of Gamliel,” an illustrious Pharisee, a leader in the Sanhedrin. He continues a little more (ibid., 23:6), and exclaims before the council: “I am a Pharisee, a child of Pharisees.” Only, unlike the sages of the Talmud, the authors in question belonged to the sect of the Essenes, who were healers because, moved by a great devotion to mankind, they would devote themselves, above all, to healing diseases, whether with medicinal plants or with amulets and mysterious formulas.16 This is a fact of which we find numerous traces in the New Testament and in the Talmud. Yeshua himself, in his teachings, absolutely practices the same method of the Pharisees [cited later] in the Talmud, as I have indicated many times—most notably, in my commentary on Mattai 2:4 (the anecdote of Yakov of Kefar Seḥanya).17 As I have also had occasion to say, especially concerning Mattai 2:23, Talmudists and the writers of the Gospels are not worried about rigorous precision in their citations, and certainly not about the manner in which they are applied. These citations are not always intended to prove a point but to make that point, in a sense, authoritative or, at best, to instill it in the listeners. In the present case, Markos means to say: Seeing the great virtue of Yoḥanan the Immerser, seeing his weariless passion to call the people to righteousness, it is permitted to slightly embellish his commendation and also to indirectly apply some distinguished texts to him. With this application, being fictitious and hyperbolic, one could introduce some variations in the texts in question without any consequence, much in the same way that the Talmud relates the messianic prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah, which has absolutely nothing to do with this righteous king.18

hermeneutic purpose. However, Soloveitchik seems too easily to allow for Mark’s textual alternations and consider them in line with midrashic reading. In fact, while midrash does sometimes amend the text with the use of ‫אל תקרי‬ (do not read this, but that), there is a difference between a modified quotation and the explicit call to read the verse otherwise. I want to thank Ishay Rosen-Zvi for this clarification. 15 It seems that Soloveitchik means this anachronistically. The Talmud was not redacted until centuries aer the New Testament was complete, albeit the sages of the Mishnah worked in the centuries when the New Testament was taking form. Soloveitchik probably means that the authors of the New Testament were familiar with early rabbinic midrashic reading, which is surely the case, especially with Paul. Soloveitchik considers Paul to be a Pharisee through and through; see Gager, Who Made Early Christianity?, 117–13⒏ 16 The notion that the first Christians were part of the Essene sect who abandoned Jerusalem and lived in the Qumran desert was common in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Essenes are mentioned by Philo, Pliny, and Josephus, and modern scholars continue to debate whether this group is related to the sectarians of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 17 BT Avodah Zarah 27b. The story of Yakov of Kefar Seḥanya is about the nephew of Rabbi Yishmael, who was bitten by a snake, and Yakov of Kefar Seḥanya, who offered to heal him. 18

See BT Berakhot 10a–b and Deuteronomy Rabbah 8:⒈

Gospel According to Mark  281

9 In those days, Yeshua came down from Netzeret, which is in the Galil, and was immersed by Yoḥanan in the Yarden River. According to the account of Luke (3:23), Yeshua, at this time, was about thirty years old, and Yoḥanan was six months older than he was (ibid., 1:36). Yoḥanan was therefore thirty and one-half years old. 10 Just as he [Yeshua] came up from the water, he [Yoḥanan] saw that heaven was opened, and the spirit, like a dove, was descending upon him. He saw (suddenly)—the verb “to see” is used here figuratively: Yoḥanan saw this with the eyes of the spirit. This figure is entirely biblical; for example, see Ecclesiastes 1:16: “My heart has seen much wisdom and knowledge.” This indicates—just to mention it—that the Gospel of Markos was perhaps originally written in Hebrew, as I have already said about the one written by Mattai. And the spirit—I explained in the first volume (Mattai 1:20), that one must listen to the Holy Spirit, and I cited the beautiful words of Tanna Devei Eliyahu, establishing that this divine inspiration can fall on any man, even a pagan, even a slave.19 In this way, the spirit of Yeshua (i.e., his personal intellect), aer raising itself up to God and in their communication having drawn out the secret of the highest truths, in essence descended back down to earth and revealed those truths to Yeshua, as it does to whoever is worthy of it. Like a dove—an allusion to Israel who, as the Talmud says (BT Shabbat 130a), is compared to a dove by the psalmist (Psalm 68:14): As the dove is protected by its wings (because—says Rashi—she does not defend herself with her beak, but with her wings), so the nation of Israel is protected by its Torah. 11 There was a voice from heaven: “You are my beloved son, in whom I am pleased.”20 You are my beloved son—in effect, we have already pointed out (Mattai 4:4) that he who, like Yeshua, obeys only the urgings of the spirit and repels those

19

See midrash Eliyahu Rabbah 9 (beginning).

20 Jesus is called “son of God” only by God, not by his disciples or by the Pharisees. On the concept of sonship in Judaism in general, see Moshe Idel, Ben: Sonship in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2008). Cf. Magid, Hasidism Incarnate, esp. 15–30.

282  Gospel According to Mark

of the flesh and the world, it is he who is called the son of God, his beloved, the object of his favoritism. 12 Quickly, the spirit brought him out to the wilderness. 13 He was there in the wilderness forty days, and the Satan tested him, and he was with the chayot, and the angels attended to him.21 Forty days—all this is in an ecstatic vision. It seemed vivid to him aer forty days in the desert among the savage beasts; it seemed to him that he was being tempted by Satan and served by the angels of YHWH, as it appears in Luke (4:1): “The spirit carried him to the wilderness.” I will have occasion to explain elsewhere what one should understand om this detail that it seemed that he was being attended to by the angels. 14 After Yoḥanan was arrested, Yeshua came to the Galil and proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God.22 The good news of the kingdom of God—which is to say, the principle of his unity. 15 He said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near. Repent and believe the good news.” The time is fulfilled—in order to understand this verse, it is advisable to first recall a passage of the Talmud (BT Makkot 23b): “Rabbi Simlai developed this theme: The Torah of Moses is composed of 613 precepts: 365 negative precepts and 248 positive precepts. The first number corresponds to the number of days on the solar calendar, the second to the number of organs in our bodies. . . . King David came and reduced them to eleven, listed in Psalm 15 (meaning, if an individual were incapable of observing the precepts transmitted by Moses in their entirety, but if he at least observed these exact eleven, he would still be assured of paradise). . . . Then Isaiah came and reduced them to six (Isaiah 33:15), then Micah to three (Micah 6:8), then Isaiah came again and reduced them to two (Isaiah 56:1); finally, Habakkuk brought them down to just one 21 The notion of Satan is not prominent in the Hebrew Bible but becomes more significant in its later postexilic books, e.g., Job 1:6; Zechariah 3:1–⒉ By the time we reach the Zohar, in the Middle Ages, the notion of the demonic force (called by Satan as well as many other names) becomes a dominant theme in mystical literature. Its use in the New Testament may point to its familiarity of early literature of that period, e.g., some Dead Sea Scrolls material, the Book of Jubilees, and the Testament of Job. 22 A rabbinic tradition holds that the Messiah will come om the Galilee. This is largely based on a reading of Isaiah 11:1: A shoot shall come from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of its roots. The “shoot” or “twig” is called neṣer in Hebrew and is thus associated with Nazareth. Cf. Matthew 2:2⒊

Gospel According to Mark  283

precept: The righteous will live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).” Therefore, he who will fulfill one commandment, to believe in the unity of God, for that he will merit the name righteous, and om then on, he would share in the world to come. This is the spirit of Yeshua’s teaching. He came to announce the kingdom of God, that is, to instill in a polytheistic society the belief in his unity, and it is in this manner that he said: “The time has come to believe and to understand that God is unique and one; this belief is necessary, but sufficient, for entering paradise. And if you think it strange that one single belief is sufficient for you to enter paradise, I tell you that the kingdom of God has drawn near (which is to say, within your reach, in the same way as the word of Moses was [Deuteronomy 30:14]: For the word is very near to you). Repent, turn away om your sins, and take it upon yourselves om this day on to believe the good news, the good and awesome news that God is one. Then will you be righteous and merit eternal life,” according to the aforementioned word of Habakkuk. 16 While he was walking beside the Sea of the Galil, he saw Shimon and Andrai, the brother of Shimon, spreading out a net into the sea because they were fishermen. 17 Yeshua said to them, “Follow me, and I will appoint you as fishers of people.” Fishers of people—you spend your life fishing for fish, which you sell to men to satis their bodily needs. I want to teach you how to procure for them food for their souls; this will be a more noble and worthy task. 18 So they quickly left their nets behind and followed him. 19 When he moved on a little from there, he saw Ya’akov ben Zavdai and his brother Yoḥanan, and they were also in a boat, mending their nets. 20 He quickly called to them, and they left their father, Zavdai, in the boat with the hired men and followed him. 21 They came to Kefar Naḥum, and he immediately went on Shabbat into the synagogue and taught.23 On Shabbat—indeed, not only Yeshua, but all his disciples and followers religiously observed the Sabbath like all their fellow Israelites; and it was not until 23 Capernaum, or Kapharnaum (its Greek name), was a fishing village on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee (known in Hebrew as the Kinneret).

284  Gospel According to Mark

a long time aerward, the year 328 on the Christian calendar, that the Church separated itself om the Synagogue, substituting Sunday as the Sabbath, as I explain at length in the first volume (Mattai 12:2).24 22 They were astonished by his teaching, because he was teaching them as a man of authority, and not like the scholars. Like the scholars—who only give the normal, dull teachings. See my commentary on Mattai 7:2⒐ 23 Now there was a man in their synagogue in whom there was a spirit of impurity, and he cried out, 24 saying, “Alas, what do we have to do with you, Yeshua the Noṣri? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are: the holy one of God!”25 25 But Yeshua reprimanded it, saying, “Be silent and come out from him!” 26 The spirit of impurity dragged him and cried out with a loud voice, and it went out from him. 27 Everyone was alarmed, and each man asked his neighbor, saying, “What is this? What is this new teaching, that he even commands the spirits of impurity with power, and they listen to him?” Spirits of impurity—the belief in unclean and harmful spirits and demons was at that time general, and the Gospel here is again perfectly in agreement with the Talmud, which speaks of it at length. Let us look at just one passage that describes it (BT Ḥagigah 16a): Six things were attributed to demons, three of which they shared with the angels and three of which they shared with humans: as the angels, they have wings, they fly om one end of the world to the other, and they know the future; like humans, they eat and drink, they procreate, and they die.

28 And the news of him quickly went out into all the areas surrounding the land of the Galil. 24 It is unclear what Soloveitchik means regarding the year 328 ce. The Edict of Milan establishing rights of worship for Christians in Rome occurred in 313 ce. The Edict of Constantine was in 321 ce, and the first church council of Nicaea was in 32⒌ It was likely that Sunday worship had taken the place of Shabbat worship for Christians sometime in the second century ce. 25

See 2 Kings 4:9: Once she said to her husband, “I am sure it is a holy man of God who comes this way regularly.”

Gospel According to Mark  285

29 After they went out from the synagogue, they came to the house of Shimon and Andrai with Ya’akov and Yoḥanan. 30 The mother-in-law of Shimon was lying down, gripped by a fever, and they quickly spoke to him about her. The mother-in-law of Shimon—therefore Shimon was married, and this Shimon is the same that Yeshua called Keifa, or Petros, when telling him that he was the stone on which he would build all his teaching. We have here an overwhelming argument against the Catholic priests and monks who abstain om marriage and who have made celibacy into a virtue. We will spend much more time on this topic later.26 31 He approached and grasped her hand, and raised her up. The fever suddenly subsided, and she served them. The fever suddenly subsided—in my commentary on Mattai (8:15), I cited, in connection with this occurrence, an event completely similar that the Talmud reports. See this passage, as well as the thoughts that follow. 32 In the evening, about sunset, they brought to him all those who were sick and gripped by demons. 33 The whole town was gathered together at the entrance of the house. 34 He healed many who were sick with various illnesses, and he drove out many demons, but he did not permit the demons to speak, for they knew him. 35 He arose early in the morning while it was still twilight, and he went out and walked to a desolate place, and he prayed there. 36 But Shimon and the men with him pursued him. Pursued him—this shows us yet another example of agreement between the Gospel and the teachings of the Talmud, which Yeshua himself conforms to, except in a few particular cases. So our sages say (BT Berakhot 3a–b) that it is not permitted to enter, even in order to pray, a solitary and abandoned place. There are many reasons for this, some of which are so as not to expose oneself to certain suspicions. However, this prohibition applies only to an isolated 26 Soloveitchik spends considerable time criticizing this. Marriage of apostles in the New Testament is clear. See 1 Corinthians 9:5 for laws of abstinence in the church. Paul, while celibate, as far as we know, does not forbid marriage. The Council of Elvira (305) and the Council of Carthage (390 ce) both rule against marriage for priests. These may be the earliest sources for clerical celibacy.

286  Gospel According to Mark

individual, not to two or more people. One therefore sees Shimon and his companions following Yeshua into solitude. This shows faithfulness to the teachings of the Talmud. 37 They found him and said to him, “Look, everyone is seeking you.” 38 He said to them, “Come, we will go to the rural towns nearby, and I will proclaim there, too, for on account of this I have gone forth.” I will proclaim there, too—the true teaching, which is the worship of the one and only God. I have gone forth—an allusion to the solitude where he has long been confined, and om which he had gone forth finally around the age of thirty (cf. Luke 3:23) to teach the faith that God is one. 39 He was proclaiming in their synagogues throughout the Galil, and he drove out the demons. 40 A man who was a meṣora came to him, and he pleaded with him and fell down on his knees and said to him, “If you are willing, you are able to purify me!”27 If you are willing—we read in the Talmud (BT Mo’ed Qaṭan 16b): “What does this verse mean (2 Samuel 23:3): The God of Israel has spoken, the Rock of Israel said to me: “I reign over men, the righteous reigns in the fear of God”? This verse means that God reigns over men in general; and the righteous, in turn, because of his piety, can reign over God,” which is to say that in consideration of the prayers of the righteous, God sometimes revokes his sentence. Thus, this is the meaning of the words of the leper: Undoubtedly, God has stricken me with ṣara‘at; nevertheless, you are righteous, and if you are willing, you could pray to God on my behalf and your prayer will obtain healing for me. It is in this manner that Yeshua, in the following verse, responds: “I am willing.” 41 Yeshua had compassion on him; he reached out his hand and touched him and said, “I am willing. Be pure!” 42 While he was still speaking, the ṣara‘at departed from him, and he became pure. 43 He [sternly] warned him and quickly took him outside. 27 Standard translations use the term “leper.” Most likely, the original term was meṣora, a skin disease mentioned in Leviticus 13–⒕ The story of Jesus puriing this man has a correlate with a similar story regarding Elisha in 2 Kings 5:9–⒒ A central theme in Mark is the relationship between Jesus’ followers and the purity laws in Judaism, which were especially applicable in Jerusalem, where the Temple stood. See the Jewish Annotated New Testament, 6⒊

Gospel According to Mark  287

[Sternly]—meaning that he reprimanded him because he carried the disease, for ṣara‘at was considered the punishment for evil behavior, particularly gossip. We read elsewhere, in BT ‘Arakhin 15b: “Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra taught: He who gossips about his neighbor will be plagued with leprosy.” 44 He said to him, “See to it that you do not tell anything to anyone, but go show yourself to the priest, and make the sacrifice for your purification that Moshe commanded as testimony to them. As testimony—that I have not come to abolish the Torah of Moses but, on the contrary, to forti it. 45 But he went out and began to proclaim profusely and make the matter heard, until he could no longer come to the city in the sight of the people. So he sat outside the city in desolate places, and they came to him from all the surrounding regions. In desolate places—in this way, he fled om glory, and this is why glory came to him. This word om the Talmud is suiting (BT ‘Eruvin 13b): “Search for greatness, and it will flee om you; flee om greatness, and it will search for you.”

CHAPTER 2

1 After some days, he came a second time to Kefar Naḥum, and they heard that he was in the house. 2 Many were quickly gathered, until there was no room to stand, even in front of the entrance, and he spoke the word [of God] to them. He spoke the word [of God]—he taught them that they must serve one God and how they must serve him. 3 Some men came to him carrying a paralyzed man; four men carried him. 4 But they were not able to approach him on account of the people, so they removed the roof in the place where he was and made an opening and lowered the bed on which the paralytic was lying. 5 When Yeshua saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven!” When Yeshua saw their faith—upon seeing their faith in the unity of God and consistently seeing that his teaching, mentioned in verse 2, had produced uit, he could announce to the paralytic that his sins had been forgiven. As it were, the Talmud teaches that “there is no suffering that cannot be attributed to sin” (BT Shabbat 55a). Therefore this man had sinned, which shows that in repenting and reforming one’s behavior, one can hope to return to full health. Therefore Yeshua was correct to say, “Your sins are forgiven.” In other words: Since you believe that God is one, this belief makes you deserving of being forgiven (according to the word: The righteous will live by his faith [Habakkuk 2:4], which we have read previously); and om now on, your disease, which was a consequence of your sins, no longer has reason to exist.

Gospel According to Mark  289

6 But some of the scholars were sitting there, and they said in their hearts, 7 “What is it to this one, that he speaks such blasphemies? Who can forgive sins except God alone?” Who can forgive sins—in the opinion of the scholars, Yeshua was saying that it was he who remitted sins, and in this erroneous assumption they rightfully objected that such a power could belong to anyone but God.28 8 But Yeshua knew in his spirit that they were thinking this in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? 9 What is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, carry your bed, and walk’?” Meaning: Do you not know that the cause of suffering is sin? Since the cause is being removed by repentance, it is necessary that its effect be removed as well. (It is not the serpent that kills, but sin, as the Talmud so excellently puts it, and as I have already elaborated on in Mattai 9:⒉) Thus, noticing his faith in one God, I am able to say to him: Your sins are forgiven; and as a result, you will no longer suffer.29 10 “But in order that you may know that the son of man has the authority to forgive sins on the earth”—he said to the paralytic, 11 “To you I say arise, pick up your bed, and walk home.” In order that you may know that the son of man—which is to say, any man has the power, due to ee will, to alter his behavior, thereby obtaining forgiveness for his sins. Therefore, I am going to tell this man to arise and he will arise, as proof that his repentance has healed him and that the symptoms have disappeared because of it.30

28 According to Soloveitchik’s reading above, Jesus wasn’t claiming to have forgiven sins but proclaiming that, as a result of repentance and affirming the oneness of God, the ailing man’s sins were forgiven. 29 There is something very Hasidic, or musar-like, in Soloveitchik’s approach. That is, that suffering is partly a psychological state and once one has overcome that psychological malaise through repentance, the state of purity achieved will itself relieve the anxiety and weight of suffering. 30 This has been brought up numerous times in Soloveitchik’s commentary. The term “son of man” originally referred simply to a human being, e.g., Ezekiel 2:1, and then went under considerable transformation in Daniel 7:⒔ By the time we reach the first century, the term has clear messianic and perhaps even human/divine connotations. For a Jewish reading of “son of man,” see Boyarin, “From Son of God to Son of Man,” in his The Jewish Gospels.

290  Gospel According to Mark

12 Suddenly, he arose and picked up his bed and went out in the sight of everyone, at which point they all were amazed and praising God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!” 13 He returned and went out to the seaside, and all the people came to him and he taught them. 14 As he was passing, he saw Levi ben Chalfai sitting in the tax office, and he said to him, “Follow me,” and he arose and followed him. Levi ben Chalfai—in place of this name, or Levi, for short, which we read in the Gospel of Luke (5:27), we see the name Mattai (Mattityahu) appear in the first Gospel (9:9). To address this contradiction, I concluded in the first volume that they later substituted the name Levi with Mattai, a practice of which we find many examples in the Tanakh as well as in the New Testament. However, this theory is quite unlikely because this substitution is not recorded in history, whereas it was expressly recorded that the name Shimon was substituted for Keifa (or Petros) and others. Therefore, I believe it best to accept that these two examples, despite their similarity, are distinct; that the individual who wrote the first Gospel never ceased to call himself Mattai; and that the individual in the other Gospels never called himself anything but Levi. But if this is a different individual, why was he not added to the number of apostles, so that there would be thirteen? Probably because this Levi ben Chalfai is none other than Yakov ben Chalfai, who actually appears among the twelve apostles in Mattai 10:3, Markos 3:18, Lukas 11:15, and Acts 1:⒔ Though he was called Levi here and Yakov there, there is nothing that prevents accepting that he was called by both names together: Yakov Levi. This duality of names is very common, even among the children of Israel today. 15 As he was reclining in his house, many tax collectors and sinners reclined with Yeshua and his disciples, for many were following him. 16 The scholars and Perushim saw him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, and they said to his disciples, “What is it to your rav? For he eats and drinks with the tax collectors and sinners!” 17 Yeshua heard and said, “The strong do not need a healer, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but the sinners [to teshuvah].” A similar feature can be read in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 37a): There were certain lawless men who lived in the neighborhood of Rabbi Zera, and he became close with them in order to lead them to repentance. The

Gospel According to Mark  291 rabbis disapproved of this excessive leniency. When Rabbi Zera died, they (these wretched men) said: “Until now, we had the prayers of this little, burnt man to obtain mercy for our transgressions. Who will pray for us now?” Thereupon they sincerely felt remorse within their hearts and repented.31

18 The disciples of Yoḥanan and the disciples of the Perushim would often fast, and they came and said to him, “Why do the disciples of Yoḥanan and the disciples of the Perushim fast, but your disciples do not fast?”32 Your disciples do not fast—the meaning of the objection is this: We well know that you and Yoḥanan are, on many issues, in disagreement with the Pharisees, for you belong to the sect of Essenes. Your intentions are praiseworthy because you want to teach the people the ways of repentance. However, the disciples of Yoḥanan, themselves belonging to the Essene sect, on the matter of fasting agree with the Pharisees; they realize that fasting, which mortifies the flesh, is one of the most efficient means of bringing a man to repentance. Therefore, why do yours not fast?33 19 Yeshua said to them, “How can the sons of the wedding canopy fast while the groom is still with them? For all the days that the groom is with them, they cannot fast.34 20 Listen—the days are coming when the groom will be taken from them, and then they will fast in those days. 21 No one sews a patch of new cloth on a worn-out garment, for if he did so, the new piece would become detached from the worn cloth and the tear would be made worse. 22 A person does not put new wine into used wineskins, for if he did so, the new wine would split open the wineskins, the wine would 31 Rabbi Zera was called thus because of his small stature and an accident that le him burned. See BT Bava Metzia 85a. 32 On the Pharisees and other groups in the Israelite orbit during the time the New Testament was taking form, see “Jewish Movements of the New Testament Period,” in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 526–530; and Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. 33 Fasting was not common in ancient Israelite society. Except for biblically prescribed fasts like Yom Kippur (see Zechariah 7:30), ordinary Jews generally did not fast much at that time (although many Pietists certainly did). There were other communal fast days as part of supplications, e.g., Joel 1:14, Esther 8:21, and Ezra 8:21, and fast days established as a result of drought, e.g., M Ta’anit, chap. ⒊ It could be that one thing that the Pharisees and the followers of Jesus and John the Baptist shared was their inclination to fast. For a study of Jews and fasting in antiquity, see Diamond, Holy Men and Hungry Artists, 93–13⒊ 34 The simple/literal meaning is that while the groom is present, they are in the presence of the joyous union of bride and groom and thus would not fast. In fact, in Jewish law, the wedding meal is considered a mitzvah, and one can partake of it even if one would otherwise be fasting, e.g., on a minor fast day such as the fast of the firstborn on the day before Passover. The metaphor of the groom is, of course, a reference to the Messiah.

292  Gospel According to Mark

be spilled out, and the wineskins would be ruined. Rather, new wine is put into new wineskins.” Yeshua said to them—the three parables expressed here by Yeshua aim to teach his listeners that the best and true way to obtain eternal happiness is not contained in austere acts but in virtue and good works. We have elaborated on this topic at length in the first volume, and we could see in our commentary on Mattai 9:14–17 that the teachings of Yeshua and Yoḥanan are in strict agreement with the Talmud’s teaching. A new citation will demonstrate this harmony better still. We read in the Talmud (BT Ta’anit 22b) that Rabbi Yosei teaches that an individual need not (by his own choosing) afflict himself by fasting, which is to say that if public fasts, which are instituted for the purpose of recalling or averting wrongdoings, are obligatory because no one need separate himself om the community, then personal fasts are not. Why? Because [by weakening himself through fasting and not working to earn his living] he exposes himself to resorting to the charity of his brothers, and they may not be inclined to assist him. Rav Yehudah asks: “On which text does our sage base this?” On this one: And man became a living being (Genesis 2:7). [The Almighty is saying,] “I gave you the being, you must make it living.” The friends of the groom—this name of “groom” that Yeshua gives himself would not be bizarre to us at all if we recalled a word om the Jerusalem Talmud (Ta’anit 2:1). Concerning a fast to be instituted, the prophet Joel (2:16) says: “Let the bridegroom come out of his wedding chamber”; and the Talmud explains: What is the bridegroom? It is the nasi (prince of the Sanhedrin), which is to say, when a public fast is decreed, the prince had to “come out of his chamber,” go with the people to the town square, and pray on behalf of the entire community to petition mercy om the divine wrath. This portion equally involves fasting, and Yeshua was the prince, or leader, of the Essene sect. In qualiing himself as groom in this situation, he remains not only loyal to the spirit and principles of the Talmud, but he even reproduces its language and metaphoric expressions.35 23 On Shabbat, as he passed among the fields, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain as they walked. 24 The Perushim said to him, “Look what they are doing on Shabbat—that which is not to be done!” 35

We can see that Soloveitchik takes every opportunity to deflect the messianic reading of Jesus’ teaching.

Gospel According to Mark  293

25 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was lacking and hungry, he and his men, He and his men—to tell the truth, David was alone in this instance and had no one with him. Except Ahimelech had asked him: Why are you alone? To which David replied that he had directed his servants to meet him at a certain location (1 Samuel 21:1–6). 26 that he entered the house of God in the days of Evyatar the high priest and ate the bread of the presence—which is not given for food except for the priests—and he also gave it to the men who were with him?” In the days of Evyatar—it is unique that here Yeshua names Abiathar [Evyatar], while the Tanakh testifies that this occurred in the days of Ahimelech his father, and David only interacts with Ahimelech. However, we know that immediately aer this event, Ahimelech was massacred, along with his whole family, and that his son Abiathar was the only one who escaped (1 Samuel 22:20). This may explain why this last name was substituted for the real name. 27 And he said to them, “Shabbat was given for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of Shabbat.36 28 Therefore, the son of man is master even of the Shabbat.” Master of the Shabbat—see Mattai 7, where I have sufficiently established that absolutely no one has the right to accuse Yeshua of treating the Sabbath lightly, for he never authorized its violation, except in the event a pressing need arises or danger occurs, as it does here. Only in this case does he consider man as “master of the Sabbath,” and on all these issues he is fully in accord with the Tanakh and the Talmud or, in other words, with the written law and the oral law. Since the opportunity presents itself yet again, I want to bring up another Talmudic passage—one of the more interesting ones—that will demonstrate once more the congruity of doctrines. In BT Shabbat (30a–b), it says:

36 On the relationship between Shabbat and its practitioner, see BT Yoma 85b. “Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Yosef says: It [the Shabbat] is to be holy to you (Exodus 31:14). It is given to you, and you are not given to it. R. Shimon ben Menasia says: Israel should keep the Shabbat (Exodus 31:16). It is law (Torah) that one can desecrate one Shabbat in order to keep many.” The latter statement is understood to refer to desecrating the Shabbat to save a life, known as pikuaḥ nefesh.

294  Gospel According to Mark The following question was put forth to Rabbi Tanḥum of Noi (or Neway): “Is it permitted to extinguish a lamp on the Sabbath, when its light is bothering a sick man?” The sage responded: “Man’s life is also called a lamp (The life breath of man is the lamp of YHWH revealing his innermost parts; Proverbs 20:27). Now, it is better to extinguish the earthly lamp than to damage the divine lamp.”

Thus the Talmud itself formally permits violating the holiness of the Sabbath when in the presence of a superior holiness: interest in human life. Yeshua said nothing more than that, and whosoever—Jew or Christian—claims that he disregarded the Sabbath in cases where human life was of no interest, he spews out genuine slander against Yeshua.

CHAPTER 3

1 He returned and came to the synagogue, and a man was there whose hand was withered. 2 They waited in ambush for him if he would heal on Shabbat, so that they could find an accusation against him. If he would heal on Shabbat—previously (2:23), the topic involved something that the Law of Moses forbids doing on the Sabbath, and Yeshua correctly responded that this prohibition ceases when there is a vital necessity (pikuaḥ nefesh).37 Now, seeing a man coming to him with a withered hand, which is not a terminal condition, the Pharisees believe to have found an occasion to prove that he authorizes, just as he did before, violating the Sabbath. Thus they set a trap for him. 3 He said to the man whose hand had withered, “Arise, stand in the middle.” 4 He said to them, “Is it permitted on Shabbat to do good or to do evil, to rescue life or to put to death?” And they were silent. 5 Then he turned and looked intently at them in anger, and was grieved at the hardness of their hearts. He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand!” and he stretched out his hand; it was healed and returned to being like the other one. The hardness—this is precisely the same expression used in the Talmud, saying (BT Shabbat 12b): “It was with great difficulty38 that the sages permitted 37

See M Yoma 8:⒍

38 Hebrew, be-qoshi (‫)בקושי‬. This is the term used in the Hebrew translation of the Gospel, which matches the Greek text exactly. The Latin mistakenly says caecitate (blindness).

296  Gospel According to Mark

visiting the sick on the Sabbath.” Therefore they consider it hard work, thinks Yeshua, to permit such an act of charity on the Sabbath. Stretch out your hand—Yeshua foresaw that the Pharisees intended to find fault in him if he were to heal an infirmity that was not life-threatening on the Sabbath. This is why he says: “Stretch out your hand.” This is not an action but a simple command, and a simple command is not forbidden on Sabbath, according to rabbinic law (see BT Shabbat 150a, concerning Isaiah 58:13). Moreover, when it concerns an illness that is not fatal, as in this case, a common command is permitted even in rabbinic law, as I have already established in the first volume (Mattai 7:2). 6 The Perushim quickly went out and deliberated against him with the men of Hordos to destroy him.39 7 Yeshua departed from there with his disciples to the seaside, and a multitude of people followed him from the Galil. From Yehudah, Yeshua departed—when he saw that the Pharisees only sought his destruction, he moved away om them and went to the seaside, as we also saw in Mattai 7:⒖ 8 from Yerushalayim, from Edom, from across the Yarden, and from the areas surrounding Ṣor and Ṣidon, a great crowd came to him, for they heard what he had done. From Ṣor and Ṣidon—indeed, he never performed any “great miracle” of this nature for Tyre [Ṣor] and Sidon [Ṣidon], as it would have resulted in—according to Mattai 11:21—the eagerness of the inhabitants of that region to repent. 9 He told his disciples to prepare a small boat for him on account of the people, so that they would not push against him. 10 For he healed so many that all those who were diseased would fall against him to touch him. 11 When the impure spirits saw him, they fell before him and cried out, saying, “You are the son of God!” You are the son of God—which is to say: by the miracles that you perform, we see that you are a righteous man, beloved of God, and consequently you merit being called “son of God” (as I explained it, Mattai 4).40 39

These Herodians were members of the court of Herod Antipas.

40 Again, the term “son of God” could have been used as an honorific title, e.g., Ps 2:7, 89:26–27, where God is called “father” and Israel is called “son.” This seems to be what Soloveitchik is implying. The term “son of God,” as

Gospel According to Mark  297

12 But he strictly admonished them so that they would not reveal him. 13 He ascended the mountain and called those he desired, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve men to be with him and to send them to proclaim. To send them—which is to say that he proposed to keep some with him, and to send others to proclaim to the multitudes the doctrine of the oneness of God. 15 They would have the authority to heal diseases and to drive out demons. 16 [He appointed the twelve—] and he called Shimon by the name Petros— Petros—or Keifa, in Aramaic, Petros in Greek, meaning “stone,” because Yeshua told him, as we know: “You are the stone on which I will build my community.” 17 Ya’akov ben Zavdai and Yoḥanan, the brother of Ya’akov—and he called them by the name Benei Regosh, that is, “sons of thunder”— 18 and Andrai, Pilippos, Bar-Talmai, Mattai, Toma, Ya’akov ben Chalfai, Taddai, Shimon HaKannai, 19 and Yehudah Ish-Kriyot, who gave him over. 20 They came to the house, and once more a crowd of people gathered, to the point where they were not even able to eat bread. 21 His relatives heard about this and went to take hold of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind!” 22 And the scholars who had come down from Yerushalayim said, “Baal Zevul is in him, and he drives out demons through the prince of demons.” Who had come down—the Land of Israel is more elevated than all the surrounding countries, and Jerusalem is its highest point; that is why, in this portion, the verb to come down is used.41 23 He called them to him and spoke to them in parables, saying, How is the Satan able [to] drive out the Satan?

referring to incarnation, does not appear until later. For a reading of this, see Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, 25–70. 41 Soloveitchik is mistaken. The elevation of Jerusalem is 2,474 . above sea level. There are numerous higher elevations in the Galilee, the highest being Mount Hermon in the upper Galilee, at 3,963 . above sea level.

298  Gospel According to Mark

24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand, 25 and if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. That house cannot stand—the same thought is in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 7b): “Resentment in a family is a scourge worse than the war of Gog and Magog” (meaning the most horrific foreign war). 26 And if the Satan rebels against himself and is divided, he will not be able to stand, for his end has come. 27 A man is not able to come into the house of a mighty man to steal his goods unless he first binds the mighty man. Afterward, he can rob his house. Unless he first binds the mighty man—meaning: He who attacks a mighty man and aspires to bind him feels the need to be stronger than he. Therefore, I, who aspire to expel demons, cannot accomplish this without stronger weapons than theirs, that is, leaning on the name of the one true God. 28 Amen,42 I say to you that all sins will be forgiven for sons of men and all the revilements that they speak, 29 but one who reviles the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, for he will permanently bear his iniquity. One who reviles the Holy Spirit—meaning: Since your insults injure only my person, I can forgive you of them. In this same manner, a Talmudist, Mar Zutra, never retired to his bed without saying: “Pardon, O my God, anyone who has sinned against me!” (BT Megillah 28a). But when you offend the Holy Spirit—the power that God has granted me in order to perform miracles—that is an absolute blasphemy that is impossible to forgive.43 30 For they had said, “A spirit of impurity is in him.” 31 His mother and brothers came and stood outside and sent for him to call him. His . . . brothers—a consensus has not been reached on how to interpret this expression: his brothers. According to some, it must be taken literally, since we read in Mattai (1:25) that Yosef did not know (i.e., have marital relations with) 42

Jesus likely uses the term amen similar to the way it is used in Jeremiah 28:⒍

43

See, e.g., Pirkei Avot 3:⒓

Gospel According to Mark  299

Miriam until she had given birth to her firstborn (Yeshua), which logically follows that he “knew” her aerward, and it tells us nothing of her becoming barren aer the birth of Yeshua. Moreover, here and in other places, it is a question of Yeshua’s brothers, where the plain meaning requires us to understand this literally. However, others believe that this should be taken figuratively, really meaning relatives or friends, which occurs equently in the Tanakh; and that if Yosef, aer the birth of Yeshua, had been with Miriam, it does not necessarily mean that this union produced offspring. 32 The crowd of people were sitting around him, and they said to him, “Look! Your mother and brothers are outside asking for you!” 33 He answered and said, “Who are my mother and brothers?” 34 He turned and looked at those sitting around him and said, “Here are my mother and brothers! 35 For anyone who would do the will of God is my brother, my sister, and my mother.” Anyone who would do the will of God—in fact, what the Almighty requests of us first and foremost are good works, works carried out in accordance with his Torah and with a sincere faith in his existence. This is what Yeshua expressly says elsewhere (Mattai 7:21): “Not everyone who says to me, ‘My master! My master!’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but rather the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” In other words, what I desire above all is that you would obtain the kingdom of Heaven, not that you would believe in me, but that you would listen and practice the teaching that I give you.

CHAPTER 4

1 He returned and began to teach by the seashore, and a great crowd of people was assembled to him. He went down and sat in a boat in the sea, and all the people stood on the seashore on dry land. 2 He taught them many things with parables, and he said to them as he taught them, “Listen closely: The sower went out to sow seed. 4 As he sowed, some of the seed fell by the road, and the birds of heaven came and ate it. 5 There was some that fell on a rocky place where there was not much soil, and it sprouted quickly because it did not have deep soil. 6 When the sun shone, it was scorched and dried up because it had no root. 7 There was some that fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and crowded it out, and it did not bear fruit. 8 There was some that fell on the good soil, and it bore fruit, coming up and growing. One made thirty times, another sixty, and another a hundred.” 9 And he said to them, “Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear.” 10 When he was alone, the men who were with him approached with the twelve, and they asked him about the parable. 11 And he said to them, “To you, it is given to know the secret of the kingdom of God, but to those outside, everything is in parables, 12 so that they may look closely, but they will not know. They will listen well, but they will not understand, or else they may repent and be forgiven for their sins.” 13 And he said to them, “Do you not know this parable? How will you understand any of the parables? 14 The sower sows the word.

Gospel According to Mark  301

15 Beside the road, these are those in whom the word is sown, but when they hear it, the Satan immediately comes and picks up the word that is planted in their heart. 16 Likewise, the ones sown on the rocky places are those who hear the word and they quickly receive it joyfully. 17 But they have no root in them, and they only stand for an hour. After that, when trouble and persecution come on account of the word, they quickly stumble. 18 And these are those sown among the thorns: They are those who hear the word, 19 but the worries of this age and the guile of wealth and other cravings come and crowd out the word, and it does not have fruit. 20 But these are those sown on the good soil: They are those who hear the word and receive it, and they produce fruit. One produced thirty times, another sixty, and another a hundred.” The sower—to understand this monologue, it is essential to cite two thoughts om the Talmud, both om Pirkei Avot. Here is the first (Avot 3:9; also 11): “Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa teaches: ‘He whose piety takes precedent over wisdom, he will preserve his wisdom; he whose wisdom takes precedent over piety, he will lose his wisdom.’ ” Piety, or, as the Talmud literally says, fear of sin, must be our main objective in the study of Torah.44 If we first search for the knowledge of our duties, what we must or must not do, we will acquire a solid and uitful wisdom; but if we search for wisdom only for wisdom’s sake, if religious knowledge is nothing to us but an accessory, our wisdom will be hollow and infertile. The second thought is the following (ibid., 4:6): “Rabbi Yishmael says: ‘He who studies [the divine Torah] in order to teach it, he will be enabled to know it and to teach it; but he who studies it in order to practice it, to him will be given the ability to learn it, to know it, to teach it, and to observe it.’ ” From both these assertions, we can conclude: 1) he who wants to keep his religious wisdom must first produce a religious fervor; and 2) he who wants to make it useful and uitful must, above all, worry about how he practices it, which is to say, to study the Torah in order to observe it.45 44 On “fear of sin,” see the o-cited teaching of R. Pinḥas ben Yair, BT Avodah Zarah 20b. It begins with “Torah brings one to cautiousness” and, only later, “Fear of sin brings one to holiness.” It seems that Soloveitchik’s claim that fear of sin is the main objective of study is rooted in various rabbinic interpretation of Psalm 111:10, The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. 45 Much of this seems quite close to R. Eliyahu da Vida’s Reishit Ḥokhmah, which Soloveitchik was certainly aware of. Reishit Ḥokhmah, written in sixteenth-century Safed, and its abbreviated version, Kiṣur Reishit Ḥokhmah, were very popular pietistic texts at the time Soloveitchik was writing. Soloveitchik appears to be trying to portray Jesus very much in that light; a similar approach was taken by the Reform thinker Kaufmann Kohler at about the same time in America. See Kaufmann Kohler, The Origin of the Synagogue and the Church (New York: Macmillan,

302  Gospel According to Mark

Here is what Yeshua means when he speaks to the multitude running up to listen to him: “I know that among you are four different classes of men: 1) Those who are simply curious; they have heard that many come to hear me, and they also come, but not to be instructed. 2) Those who want instruction but are not wise enough to understand. 3) Those who desire and are able but who lack religious fervor and are able only to broaden their earthly knowledge. 4) The truly intelligent and pious men, who value the fear of God more than knowledge and who will therefore obtain both an everlasting and uitful knowledge.” It is now easy to understand the parable and its application. The sower is Yeshua himself: “I have come to sow among you, and to plant within your hearts the worship of one God; but alas, many among you have come to hear my words, yet you do not wish to obey me. For those, the divine word is like the seed that fell beside the road (vv. 4 and 15), and which, by not being taken in, is scattered in vain.46 Others, I know, attentively listen to me in goodwill, but their knowledge is insufficient and my words are lost on them as well because they have no root in them (vv. 6 and 17). Still others have the necessary intelligence and the desire to know; however, the most essential foundation—religious fervor—is what they lack. The ground is good, but it is invaded by thorns that crowd out the good seed, which is to say by the passions and concerns of this world that render the divine word not fruitful (vv. 7 and 19). Those ones take in the seed, but they do so to no avail. Finally, there are those who, fortunately, with knowledge and goodwill, combine religious fervor, which gives piety precedence over wisdom and which wants only to know sound doctrine in order to put it into practice. Only for those will my words be truly effective; their hearts are the good soil where the seed will germinate and produce fruit, more or less abundant, according to the degree of their intelligence and piety” (vv. 8 and 20). 21 He said to them, “Do people bring out a lamp in order to put it under the bushel measure or under the bed, rather than to set it on the menorah? Do people bring out a lamp—this addresses that last category that we just spoke of. Those who received the good word and have become uitful must not keep it only for themselves, but relay it and spread it around them. Filled with the faith in one God, they must propagate it and proclaim it themselves. The

1929); and Ariel, “Christianity Through Reform Eyes,” 181–19⒈ It is highly unlikely that Kohler and Soloveitchik knew of each other’s work, although Kohler did study with Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, who knew of Soloveitchik’s Qol Qore. 46

Similarly, Isaiah 6:9, 10: Hear, indeed, but do not understand; see, indeed, but do not grasp.

Gospel According to Mark  303

lamp must become a blazing torch, for it is not made to shine in solitude but to illuminate the world.47 22 For nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, and nothing is hidden except in order to be brought out to the light. Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed—meaning: The doctrine of truth is called to go all around the world, and one day all humanity will profess it. Those of you who have become sharers in it, make it public everywhere, and do not, through sinful disregard, proceed to hoard it for yourself.48 23 Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear!” Whoever has ears—meaning: But perhaps you say, “Though some will refuse to accept this teaching, others will not comprehend its importance, all of them acting as if prepared to welcome it; why waste our time and words proclaiming to the rebellious and enlightening the foolish?” Do not reason thus, my brothers. You have a task to accomplish—accomplish it, come what may! “He who listens will listen, and he who does not will not” (Ezekiel 3:27). You, at the very least, will have performed your duty.49 For if you do not do it, your neighbor will be miserable, and you will responsible for his misery. 24 He said to them, “Notice what you are hearing! With the measure that you use to measure, it will be measured to you, and more will be added to you [who hear].” Notice [or look at] what you are hearing—This expression appears only once. In the languages that we know, every sensory organ has its own expression. For example, no one would say: Look at how pleasant this music is, or Listen to how beautiful this house is! This remark again supports my theory that the Gospel of Markos was, just like that of Mattai, originally written in Hebrew. This usage is indeed completely biblical, and I have already cited the verse in Ecclesiastes (1:16): My heart has seen much wisdom and knowledge. . . . But

47 See Proverbs 5:16, Your springs will gush forth, in stream and in public squares. This verse has been used by Hasidism regarding the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and, particularly, Chabad Hasidism, in its missionary campaign to justi the outward proliferation of Torah. Soloveitchik is surely aware of the Hasidic usage and may be inferring a parallel to early Christianity. 48 Soloveitchik seems to be reading this verse according to the messianic vision in the prophets Zechariah and Deutero-Isaiah. 49

See Pirkei Avot 2:16: “R. Tarfon would say, ‘It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work.’ ”

304  Gospel According to Mark

still, why and in what sense does Yeshua use the verb to look, while the natural meaning calls for the verb to listen?50 To understand this, let us first summon a word om our sages. They say, “What is the meaning of this expression (Exodus 20:15): And all the people saw the sounds [during the giving of the Ten Commandments]? It means that the people saw what one usually hears, and heard what one usually sees” (v. Mekhilta). This commentary, at first glance, seems even stranger than the text. How can one hear what is naturally seen, meaning material objects, and see what cannot be perceived but by hearing, like things that have no form? Are they idealists or intellectuals? Here is how. Every person knows that man is composed of body and soul, or, in other terms, of reason and passion. These are two forces in constant struggle, because the first, which is the soul, demands man to raise himself toward the soul’s region of origin, toward heavenly matters, whereas the second, being merely flesh and earthly matter, pulls him down to the body’s homeland, toward worldly and material desires. Sometimes the soul is dominant, reason is in control of passion, and then the faculties of the body weaken, its desires fade, the earthly pleasures and yearnings become things of no concern, and all the things that humans treasure dissolve before the ineffable happiness of the divine sensations. Thus the soul sees things that appear to be only audibly perceptible. On the other hand, sometimes the body takes over, with its material needs, with its base and vulgar inclinations, and then the soul loses its competence, the meanings of heavenly matters escape him, and man is no longer sensitive to anything other than the vain interests and tiny enjoyments of the world. When matters of heaven are spoken to him, he will not hear them; and even if he does hear, he will not understand, for he does not see except what is visible. It is in the first of the situations listed that our fathers found themselves when they witnessed the wondrous scene of the giving of the Ten Commandments. They also had to prepare themselves through three days of contemplation, sanctification, and physical purity and morality (Exodus 19:10), a preparation that intended to separate them om the concerns of this world and render them worthy of receiving the divine correspondence. As it were, the Talmud says (BT Makkot 24a) that the first two commands of the Ten Commandments were received directly by the Israelites, and not through the intermediary of Moses. These two first commands are nothing other than the revelation of a Creator 50 Interestingly, in the Talmud, teachings are oen prefaced by “come and hear’ (ta shema); in the mystical Zohar, they are oen prefaced by “come and see” (ta hazi). The “come and hear” may speak to the oral culture of the rabbinic period. “Come and see” may gesture to a text, e.g., “come and see this text.” In the Zohar, however, it may also gesture toward a vision rather than a text.

Gospel According to Mark  305

God, of his absolute unity, of his spirituality and his universal provision. Thus, on the one hand, the Israelites saw, in a sense, these absolute truths that they had not known, except through hearsay, whereas the tangible and material things, such as eating and drinking, earthly needs and pleasures, seemed to them as nothing more than those distant things that were not known to them, except through hearsay. This is precisely the meaning of the aforementioned word om the Talmud: “The people saw what one usually hears, and heard what one usually sees.” This is also the thought of Yeshua: “Make sure that you see what you are hearing! Allow these absolute truths that I teach you to penetrate, so as to perceive them as the Israelites did at the foot of Sinai, which is to say, to know them om experience, and not as a simple narrative. Then your faith will be full, indestructible, and uitful.”51 With the measure that you use to measure, it will be measured to you—this is one of the favored maxims of the Talmud.52 Among the many passages that elaborate upon it, I will recall only the following (BT Sanhedrin 90a–b): Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: “The Holy One, blessed be he, loves to pay measure for measure, and evidence for this, among others, is the act of Elisha. Elisha said: ‘Hear the word of YHWH! This time tomorrow, a measure of wheat shall sell for a shekel, and two measures of barley will sell for the same sum at the gate of Shomron.’53 And the officer of the king spoke up and said, ‘Even if YHWH were to open the floodgates of heaven, could this come to pass?’ ‘Certainly!’ retorted the prophet, ‘You shall see it with your own eyes, but you shall not eat of it!’ That is exactly what happened to him: the people trampled him to death in the gate.”

Therefore he received, explains Rashi, “measure for measure,” and perished by the manner in which he had sinned: he denied the return of abundance and was trampled by the crowd of buyers that this abundance had attracted to the marketplace.

51 One wonders if, according to Soloveitchik’s rendering, Jesus was likening his teaching to an act of revelation. This idea becomes more prominent in Hasidism, particularly in R. Naḥman of Breslov. See his Likkutei MoHaRan 1:19, which was delivered on Shavuot, the festival of revelation, and my discussion of that lesson in Hasidism Incarnate, 31–50. 52 See, e.g., in BT Shabbat 105b; Sanhedrin 90a; Exodus Rabbah 1:18, 10:6; Numbers Rabbah 10:2; and many other places. There are also earlier Tannaitic sources that may speak to this, such as M Soṭah 1:7–9 and Tosea Soṭah 3, ⒋ On the notion of “measure for measure” in rabbinic literature, see Ishay Rosen-Zvi, The Mishna Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender, and Midrash (Leiden: Brill, 2012), chap. ⒌ 53

To the inhabitants of Shomron, afflicted by a horrible famine: 2 Kings 7:1, 2, and ⒛

306  Gospel According to Mark

25 “For to one who has, it will surely be given, and from one who does not have, even what is his will be taken.” Compare with this passage of the Talmud (BT Berakhot 40a): Rabbi Zera (others say Rabbi Ḥanina bar Papa) said: “The Almighty does not behave like men. Down here, when a container is empty, it can be refilled; when it is filled, nothing else can be put in. In the case of the Almighty, it is the opposite: he does not put anything in the empty containers (meaning, in the hearts devoid of holiness), and he never ceases to add to the full containers. This is why the Tanakh does not simply say: ‘If you obey YHWH your God,’ but rather: If in obeying you obey, etc. (Exodus 15:26).”

Meaning: In obeying the first time, you will be led to obey a second. Or still: If you continue to obey the ancient instructions, you will also obey the new; but if you allow your hearts to become empty, you will no longer be able to obey. 26 He said, “The kingdom of God is like a person casting seed on the ground. 27 He went to bed and got up, night and day, and the seed sprouted and grew, but he did not know it. 28 For the earth brings forth fruit by itself—first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. 29 And when the fruit is mature, he immediately sends out a sickle, for the harvest is ripe.” The harvest is ripe—it is said in Ecclesiastes (8:14): Here is a vanity that is done in the world: what befalls the righteous is the punishment that should befall the wicked. The author means: one of the apparent vanities of this world, one of the things that disconcerts the wisdom of the commoner, are the sufferings imposed down here upon a good man. He says: “And what is this the reward for virtue? What good is it, then, to be virtuous?” The parable of Yeshua answers this objection. Virtue and piety are like the seed being cast on the ground, which cannot sprout until aer the preliminary stage of decomposition; if it remains intact, it will produce nothing. This rotting of the seed—these are the sufferings of the righteous, sufferings whose only goal is to develop worthy attributes in the righteous man while refining him. Moreover, they are more or less warranted, for “there is not one righteous man on earth who does what is good and does not sin” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). The righteous must therefore pay the price down here on earth for the sins he

Gospel According to Mark  307

may have committed, so that his reward will remain complete for him in the eternal life.54 This is also the position of the Talmud, where one reads, among other passages (BT Kiddushin 40b): Rabbi Elazar ben Ṣadok teaches: “To what, in this world, can we compare the righteous? To a tree planted in pure ground, but its bough hangs over unclean soil. When the bough is cut off, the tree finds itself standing entirely in pure ground. This is how the Holy One, blessed be he, deals with the righteous: he sends him punishments in this world (in order to ee him om the sins that may be charged against him), so that he can fully enjoy the happiness of the world to come. This meaning is also expressed here in this passage (Job 8:7): Though your beginnings be small, in the end you will grow very great!”

30 He said, “To what shall we compare the kingdom of God, and which parable shall we use for it? 31 It is like a mustard seed that is sown in the soil, which is the smallest of all the seeds that are on the earth. 32 After it is sown, it comes up and grows larger than all the other vegetation and produces branches so large that birds of heaven nest in its shade.” Grows larger—similarly, we read in the Talmud (BT Yoma 39a): Sancti yourselves and you will be sanctified, as the Torah says (Leviticus 11:44 and 20:7). What is there to say? This means: Sancti yourselves but a little, and God will sancti you abundantly; sancti yourselves down here, and you will be sanctified up there; sancti yourselves in this world, and you will be sanctified in the world to come.

33 With many parables like these, he spoke to them the word according to what they were able to hear. 34 Other than with a parable, he did not speak to them. But when his disciples were with him and no one else was with them, he would explain everything to them.

54 Soloveitchik seems to be expressing the rabbinic notion of “suffering of love” (yisurin shel ahavah) expressed in texts such as BT Berakhot 5a; Siei Deuteronomy 32; and Genesis Rabbah 92:⒈ This becomes a prominent theme in post-rabbinic pietism.

308  Gospel According to Mark

35 On that day at the turning of evening, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side of the sea.” 36 They left the crowd of people and took him in the boat that he was in, but other boats followed him. 37 A great, stormy wind arose, and the waves were flooding inside the boat to the point where it was almost full. 38 He was asleep on the cushion in the stern of the boat, so they woke him up and said to him, “Rabbi, are you not worried about us? We are perishing!” 39 He woke up and reprimanded the wind, and he said to the sea, “Hush and be silent!” The wind calmed down, and there was a great silence. 40 He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Why are you lacking faith?” 41 They feared with a great fear and said to one another, “Who is he, then, that both the wind and the sea listen to him?” Both the wind and the sea listen to him—more than one of our sages exercised this power. The Talmud recounts (BT Ḥullin 7a): Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair (son-in-law of the illustrious Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, BT Shabbat 33b) was on his way to redeem captives. The river Ginnai, which he encountered on his journey, blocked his passage. Rabbi Pinḥas cried: “Oh, river, divide your waters and let me pass!” The river responded: “I will do nothing of the sort. You are performing the will of your Creator, and I am also performing his will; the result of your obedience is doubtful, but the result of mine is certain” (since the river will surely reach the sea, according to the will of God, but it is not certain that Pinḥas will succeed in purchasing the captives). The sage said: “All right, then, if you will not split and make way for me, I will cause you to dry up forever!” And the river split.

CHAPTER 5

1 They came to the other side of the sea, to the land of the Gadriyim. 2 He went out from the boat, and a man in whom was a spirit of impurity came to meet him from among the tombs. 3 His dwelling place was in the tombs, and even with chains no one was able to bind him. 4 For they had bound him many times with shackles and chains, but he snapped the chains and smashed the shackles, and no one had the strength to subdue him. 5 But he was always, day and night, in the hills and in the tombs, screaming and injuring himself on the stones. 6 When he saw Yeshua from a distance, he ran and bowed down to him. 7 He cried out with a loud voice and said, “What do I have to do with you, Yeshua, son of the highest God? I want you to swear to God that you will not afflict me!” 8 For he had said to him, “Go out, spirit of impurity, from this man!” 9 He asked it, “What is your name?” and it answered, “Legion is my name, for we are many.” What is your name?—to exorcise a demon, it was actually necessary to know its name, because it revealed to which of the many categories it belonged. For example, this is what can be read in the Talmud (BT Pesaḥim 111b): The demons that reside close to the caper bush are called RUAḤ (Spirit); by a sorb tree, SHED (Demon); under roofs, RESHEF (Spark or Flash). And of what use is it to know the distinctions? It is useful for writing amulets (meant

310  Gospel According to Mark for averting the demons, and whose formula varies depending on the demon with which one is dealing).

For we are many—actually, according to the Talmud (ibid.), “A sorb tree that is near a city never contains fewer than sixty demons.” This is also the case here; for we saw, in verse 2, that the man gripped by demons came out om among the tombs, and the tombs were close to the cities and towns, as we read in BT Bava Batra 25a: “The cemetery must be kept fi cubits om the town.” 10 And it strongly begged him not to send them outside the land. 11 Now a herd of many pigs was there, grazing on the slopes of the hills. 12 All the demons begged him, saying, “Send us to the pigs and let us enter them.” 13 He allowed them, and the spirits of impurity went out and entered the pigs, and the herd rushed down the slope into the sea. They were about two thousand in number, and they drowned in the sea. 14 The pig herders fled and told of the matter in the town and in the fields, and they went out to see what had happened. 15 They came to Yeshua and saw the man gripped by demons, who had the legion in him. But he was sitting wearing clothes and in his right mind, and they were afraid. 16 Those who saw told them what had happened to the man gripped by demons and the matter of the pigs. 17 They begged him to depart from their region. They begged him to depart—this verse, inaccurately translated, is without a doubt the continuation of the previous verse: “Those who saw told them what had happened, etc., and that the demons begged him to leave their domain.” Compare Mattai 8:31, and read my commentary there. 18 When he went down into the boat, the man who had been gripped by demons begged him to let him stay with him. 19 He did not permit him, and he said, “Return home to your family, and tell them the great things that YHWH has done for you and that he has been gracious to you.” 20 So he went and proclaimed in the Ten Cities the great things that Yeshua had done for him, and everyone was amazed. 21 Yeshua crossed again in the boat to the other side of the sea. A crowd assembled to him, and he was at the seashore.

Gospel According to Mark  311

22 One of the leaders of the synagogue, whose name was Ya’ir, came and he saw him and fell at his feet. 23 He strongly begged him, saying, “My little daughter is sick to the point of dying; please come and place your hands on her so that she may be saved and live!” 24 He went with him and a large crowd followed him, and they were pressing against him. 25 There was a woman with a flow of blood for twelve years. 26 She suffered very much under the hands of many healers, and she spent all that she had, but to no avail. Rather, her ailment had become very severe.55 27 When she heard the news of Yeshua, she came to the middle of the crowd of people from behind him and touched his garment. 28 For she said, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be saved.” If I just touch his clothes—this woman, probably a pagan, knew that Yeshua had come to call the whole world to the Torah of Moses, but she did not become a proselyte nor did she accept it in its entirety. She thought: It will be enough for me to touch his garment—in this way, indicating my adherence to the teaching of one God proclaimed by Yeshua, and then I shall be healed. 29 The source of her blood suddenly became dry, and she discerned in her flesh that her affliction was healed. 30 And in a moment, Yeshua knew in his soul that power had gone out from him, and he turned in the middle of the people and said, “Who touched my clothes?” 31 His disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing you, and you say, ‘Who touched me?’ ” 32 But he looked around intently to see the one who had done this. 33 The woman was afraid and trembled because she knew what had happened to her, but she came and fell before him and told him the whole truth. Afraid and trembled—she feared that Yeshua would not want to receive her because she did not accept Jewish law in its entirety.56

55

See Leviticus 15 that deals with all manner of bodily discharges that create impurity.

56 It is not totally clear what Soloveitchik means. It could be that he means that she knew that she became purified by touching Jesus’ clothes and not by the formal means of purification through ritual immersion.

312  Gospel According to Mark

34 He said to her, “My daughter, your faith has saved you; go in shalom and be revived from your affliction.” Your faith has saved you—you believe in one God; that is sufficient. Even though this faith alone does not constitute all of Judaism, it is sufficiently effective to make you worthy of healing (according to the passage previously mentioned: “The righteous will live by his faith”). See Mattai 9:21, where I deal with this subject at length. 35 While he was still speaking, men came from the house of the synagogue leader and said, “Your daughter has died; why bother the teacher any further?” 36 But when Yeshua heard the word that they said, he said to the synagogue leader, “Do not fear, just have faith.” Just have faith—in the one God, and you can be certain that your daughter is saved. If this narrative, beginning in verse 22, had been interrupted by the episode of the sick woman (vv. 25–34), it was only in order to better show all, and to explode before the eyes of history, the power of the monotheistic faith, which, at this moment, had healed a woman deemed incurable for twelve years, and now prepares to snatch a young girl om the grip of death because her father has clung to the same belief.57 37 He did not allow anyone to go with him except Petros, Ya’akov, and Yoḥanan the brother of Ya’akov. 38 He came to the house of the synagogue leader and saw the commotion of those loudly weeping and wailing. 39 He came and said to them, “Why are you moaning and weeping? The young woman (or girl) is not dead; she is only sleeping.” 40 They mocked him, but he sent them all out, and he took the father of the young woman and her mother and the men who were with him, and he came to the room where the young woman was lying. 41 He grasped the hand of the young woman and said to her, “Talyeta qumi,” which is interpreted, “Girl, I say to you, please rise!”58 57 Monotheistic faith appears to be the main thrust of Jesus’ message, according to Soloveitchik. This belief has the power to alter states of uncleanliness and heal wounds and illness. It may be that Soloveitchik is actually criticizing Christianity here, especially those elements of Christianity that many Jews believe have compromised the pure monotheism that Jesus is espousing. 58 The English translation of the New Testament retains the Aramaic phrase here. This may have been the vestiges of an oral tradition before the text was translated into Greek. See The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 71 n. to

Gospel According to Mark  313

Girl, I say to you, please rise—in a Talmudic passage that I cited in the first volume (Mattai 8:15 and 9:25), we see a Talmudist, Rabbi Ḥanina, display the same power as the protagonist of the Gospel. But this sage is not the only one, and the Talmud, in the same passage (BT Berakhot 5b), attributes the same act to Rabbi Yoḥanan in two circumstances. We will only recall the second: Rabbi Eliezer was sick, and Rabbi Yoḥanan went to see him; the room was dark, but Yoḥanan bared his arm and the room immediately was lit.59 Then he saw Eliezer shedding tears. “Why do you cry?” he asked him. “Is it because you have not studied the Torah as much as you wanted? But has it not been said: ‘It is not the quantity that is important, it is the intention’? Is this because of your poverty? Not everyone is able to sit at two banquets (meaning to accumulate earthly wealth as well as the happiness in the world to come). Is it because you have no children? I have lost ten children, and here is a relic of the tenth” (a tooth, they say, that he had saved). Eliezer responded: “I cry for you when I consider that such beauty will one day be devoured by the tomb!” And they wept together. In the meantime, Yoḥanan asked his colleague: “Are you happy about your sufferings?” “No, I am happy neither about my sufferings, nor the happiness that is their reward.” “Then give me your hand.” He gave it to him, and, in that moment, he raised him.

42 Immediately, the girl got up and walked around. She was twelve years old, and they were greatly astonished. 43 But he warned them strictly, saying, “Do not make the matter known to anyone!” and he commanded them to give her something to eat.

v. 4⒈ 59 Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Talmud says elsewhere, was stunningly handsome. This hyperbolic feature comes om the Tanakh, which recalls the radiance of the face of Moses (Exodus 34:29).

CHAPTER 6

1 He went out from there and came to his land, and his disciples followed him. 2 On the day of Shabbat, he began to teach in the synagogue. Many people heard him and were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get such things, and what is the wisdom given to him, so that such acts of power as these are done through him? 3 Is he not the craftsman, the son of Miriam and the brother of Ya’akov, Yosei, Yehudah, and Shimon? Are not his sisters here with us?” And he became an obstacle to them. 4 Yeshua said to them, “The prophet is not despised except in his own land and among his relatives and in his house.” 5 And he was not able to do any act of power there; he only placed his hands on a few weak people and healed them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith. He passed on into the surrounding villages and taught. 7 He called to the twelve and began to send them two by two, and he gave them authority over spirits of impurity. Gave them authority—which is to say that he taught them, on the one hand, the names of the harmful spirits according to their various categories (see previous chapter, v. 9) and, on the other hand, the appropriate names and the appropriate holy and mysterious formulas with which to exorcise them. That is the meaning of their “authority.” 8 He commanded them not to take anything for the road except a walking stick alone: no sack, no bread, no coins in a belt;

Gospel According to Mark  315

A walking stick alone—in Mattai (10:10), he forbids them even taking the walking stick. No bread—he wants to accustom them to rely on the divine provision, and not to worry about the following day; this is fairly close to what the Talmud says (BT Soṭah 48b): Rabbi Eliezer the Great would say: “He who, having bread in his basket, asks himself: ‘What will I have to eat today?’ is a man of little faith.”60

9 to be wearing sandals, but not to wear two tunics. 10 He said to them, “When you come into someone’s house in one of the places, remain in it until you go forth from there.” Remain in it—in accordance with the saying of the Talmud (BT ‘Arakhin 16b): “He who equently changes lodging does wrong to his host and to himself, because it will be said of the both of them: ‘They have poor character (Rashi).’ ” 11 “But whoever will not take you in and will not listen to you, go forth from there and shake the dust off the soles of your feet as testimony to them. [Amen, I say to you, it will be easier on the Day of Judgment for Sedom and Amorah than for that town.]”61 Whoever will not take you in—this recalls another statement (ibid.): “One must not change lodgings unless forced to do so by the brutality of his host.” 12 So they went out calling people to return in teshuvah. To return in teshuvah—which is to say, calling people to adopt the monotheistic doctrine. 13 They drove out many demons and applied oil to many weak people and healed them. Applied oil—I have already said that they belonged to the Essene sect, which distinctively studied the art of healing (cf. Mattai 3:4), and to this end, they employed the use of medicinal plants and various types of oils. 60 This may also refer to the manna in the desert, where the Jews had to have faith that God would provide food for them every day. See Exodus 16:4; Numbers 21:⒌ 61 According to many Jewish exegetes, the real sin of Sodom was not sexual but rather the lack of hospitality. While the sexual sins of Sodom do appear in some Jewish commentaries, it was made popular by medieval Christian exegetes. See John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).

316  Gospel According to Mark

14 King Hordos heard the report of him, for his name was well known, and he said, “Yoḥanan the Immerser has been awakened from the dead; that is why the forces are working in him!”62 King Hordos—this involves Herod the Tetrarch (cf. Mattai 14:1 and on), son of Herod the Great, who had Yoḥanan the Immerser executed, as it goes on to say. 15 Some were saying that he was Eliyahu, while others said that he was a prophet like one of the prophets. 16 Hordos heard and said, “Yoḥanan, whose head I removed, has risen from the dead!” Whose head I removed—here is what motivated this execution in Josippon, book 5, chapter 45: “This ruler (Hordos) married the wife of Philip his brother, even while he was still living, and om whom she had borne children. He therefore married her, etc. And he also executed Yoḥanan, the great kohen (priest), the very same Yoḥanan the Immerser, because he reprimanded him, saying, “It is not permitted for you to marry the wife of your brother Philip, etc.”63 17 For Hordos was the one who had sent orders and captured Yoḥanan and bound him in jail for the sake of Horodyah, the wife of his brother Pilippos, whom he had taken as a wife. 18 For Yoḥanan had said to Hordos, “The wife of your brother is not permitted for you,” 19 and Horodyah held a grudge against him and sought a way to put him to death, but she had not found one. 20 For Hordos feared Yoḥanan, since he knew that he was a righteous and holy man, so he protected him, and he did many things, but it pleased him to listen to him. 62 The biblical source for resurrection of the righteous is oen viewed as coming om Ezekiel 3⒎ It was debated in ancient Israel (it was included in the formal liturgy) and became Jewish doctrine in Moses Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles of Faith, which first appeared in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, chap. ⒑ In fact, Ezekiel 37 is more likely a parable about Israel and not about resurrection. Resurrection of the righteous is found in Daniel ⒓ 63 Or Pseudo-Josephus. Compare Flavius Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 18, chap. 5, § ⒉ It is interesting that Soloveitchik uses both Sefer Josippon and Josephus’s Antiquities. Sefer Josippon (also spelled Yosipphon) was a Hebrew chronicle of Jewish history likely compiled in the tenth century in Byzantium. It was first printed in Mantua in 147⒍ The book attests to be a Hebrew version of Josephus and was believed to be so in the Middle Ages. Its false claims were unmasked by the Jewish historian Leopold Zunz in the nineteenth century. I do not know if Soloveitchik knew that it was a forgery. It is odd that he cites it here, especially since he also read Josephus’s work, likely in translation.

Gospel According to Mark  317

21 Then the right day happened when Hordos made a banquet on his birthday for his nobles, officers of thousands, and leaders of the Galil. The right day happened—it is qualified as such because he seemed to have chosen this day, which was the day of his birth, to carry out his attacks. Indeed, this very same day, he had a number of Jewish teachers assassinated, and this day also seemed to him a good opportunity to assassinate Yoḥanan. In this way, it appeared that he had, as the Talmud says (BT ‘Arakhin 11b), “days predestined for acts of evil as well as for acts of goodness.”64 22 The daughter of Horodyah came and danced, and it was pleasing in the eyes of Hordos and in the eyes of those who were reclining with him. The king said to the young woman, “Ask me for whatever you desire, and I will give it to you.” 23 And he swore to her, saying, “All that you ask of me, I will give to you, up to half of my kingdom!”65 24 She went out and said to her mother, “What should I ask for?” She said, “The head of Yoḥanan the Immerser.” 25 She hurried quickly to come to the king and asked, saying, “What I want is for you to give me the head of Yoḥanan the Immerser on the platter now.” 26 The king was very grieved, but on account of his oath and on account of those reclining with him, he did not want to turn her face away. 27 Immediately, the king sent one of the executioners and commanded him to bring his head. 28 He went and cut off his head in the jail and brought it in the dish and gave it to the young woman, and the young woman gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard, they came and carried away his body and placed it in a tomb. 30 The shliḥim assembled to Yeshua and told him all that they had done and all that they had taught.

64 The notion of days predestined for evil and also for good appears in M Ta’anit, chap. 4, when discussing the fast days connected to historical calamitous events in Israel. 65 This may be a play on King Ahasuerus’s comment to Esther: And what is your request? Even to half the kingdom, it shall be granted you (Esther 5:3).

318  Gospel According to Mark

They told him everything66—meaning the murder of Yoḥanan. 31 He said to them, “Come, you alone, to a desolate place and rest a little,” because there were so many coming and going that there was no time for them to eat. 32 They went from there in a boat to one of the desolate areas alone. 33 But the crowd saw them leaving, and many recognized him. They ran there on foot from all the towns. They passed them and gathered around him. 34 Yeshua went out and saw the great crowd of people, and he felt moved for them because they were like a flock without a shepherd, and he began to teach them many things. 35 As the day faded to darkness, his disciples approached and said, “Look, this place is desolate and the day has greatly declined. 36 Send them away and let them go to the settlements and villages around here to buy bread for themselves, for they do not have anything to eat.” 37 He answered and said to them, “You give them something to eat.” They said to him, “Shall we go to buy bread with two hundred dinars to give them something to eat?” 38 He said to them, “How many loaves of bread do you have? Go look and find out.” They said, “Five and two fish.” 39 He commanded all of them to sit, group by group, separately, on the green grass. 40 They sat in rows of hundreds and fifties. 41 He took the five loaves of bread and the two fish; he lifted his eyes toward heaven and made a berakhah. Then he broke the bread and gave it to his disciples to place it before them, and he divided the two fish for them all. He made a berakhah. Then he broke the bread—cf. Mattai 14:⒚ In our commentary on this passage, we add here the sentence om the Talmud (BT Berakhot 35a): “It is not permitted to taste of an earthly pleasure without making a blessing to God.” 42 All of them ate and were satisfied.

66

Greek text: “They told him everything, and all that they had done,” etc.

Gospel According to Mark  319

Ate and were satisfied—many have argued thus: Why did Yeshua, having said the blessings before the meal, not say the Birkat HaMazon that must follow the meal? This is the command of Moses (Deuteronomy 8:10): When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless YHWH your God. Has this not been a constant regulation in Israel, and did not Yeshua himself say (Mattai 5:18): “For, amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one yod or one thorn will pass away om the Torah until all has been established”? However, this argument has no basis, and the silence of the text proves nothing. How could it? Yeshua proclaimed and demonstrated everywhere his devotion to the Torah of Moses; even here, we have just seen him recite the blessings before the meal, which was only a rabbinic institution—and we are to believe that he breached an explicit law in the Torah? This is not possible! It truly is not. And whosoever claims that Yeshua violated, or permitted the violation of, a single command of Moses utters vicious slander against him. In order that everyone might know, I wish to record here this prayer that Yeshua must have said, one that was used during his time, one that is summarized in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 48b) and expanded upon by Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, pt. 1, bk. 2, section concerning Blessings, up until chap. 3). This prayer is composed of three main paragraphs, the first of which, according to tradition, was created by Moses aer the appearance of manna, the second by Joshua aer the conquest of the Promised Land, the third by David, and completed by Solomon aer the construction of the Temple. Here is the prayer, according to Maimonides: “Blessed are you, YHWH, our God, king of the universe, who nourishes the entire world with goodness, grace, devotion and compassion. He gives bread to all flesh, as it is written: ‘You open your hand and you satis every creature in your mercy; and he prepares food for all of his creatures which he has created.’ Blessed are you, YHWH, who nourishes all. “We thank you, YHWH, our God, and we bless you, our King, for the inheritance you gave to our fathers: a pleasant, good, and spacious land, and because you took us out om Egypt and ransomed us om a house of slavery; and for your covenant that you sealed in our flesh; and for your Torah that you taught to us; and for your statutes that you made known to us. For all these things, YHWH, we bless you and give you thanks, as it is written: ‘When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless YHWH your God for the good land that he has given you.’ Blessed are you, YHWH, for the land and for the nourishment. “Please have compassion, YHWH, our God, upon Israel your people, upon Jerusalem your city, upon Zion, the dwelling place of your Glory, and upon the

320  Gospel According to Mark

great and holy House that is called by your Name. Establish again the kingdom of David, your anointed, and rebuild Jerusalem, soon and in our days, according to your promise. Blessed are you, YHWH, who builds Jerusalem in his compassion.” The Talmud relates a fourth paragraph (which we recite even today, as well as many other additions); however, that paragraph had been written more than eighty years aer the death of Yeshua, and I wanted only to show the most basic and authentic form of that prayer, which would have been used equently in Yeshua’s time, which he would have recited since his infancy, and which he most certainly must have said that day. And now, Christians, my brothers, if the love for your messiah is still vibrant in your hearts, if you are still resolved to follow in his footsteps and in the examples handed down to you, then I implore you to remember this severe word that he himself addressed to you (Luke 6:46): “Why do you call me ‘my master, my master,’ but do not do what I say?” Therefore take and give to your children the righteous habit of giving thanks to God aer your meal, as did the messiah whom you revere, and then the words of the sage may be applied to you (Ecclesiastes 9:7): Go, eat your bread in gladness, and drink your wine in joy; for your action was long ago approved by God.67 43 They picked up twelve baskets full of the pieces of bread, as well as of the fish. 44 Those eating the bread were about five thousand men. 45 Afterward, he urged his disciples to go down into the boat and to cross ahead of him to the other side of the sea, to Beit-Tzaidah, while he sent away the people. 46 After he had sent them away, he went up the mountain to pray. 47 It was evening, and the boat had come to the middle of the sea, but he was alone on the land. 48 He saw them wearing themselves out by rowing, because the wind was against them. Around the fourth watch, he came to them, walking on the surface of the water, and intended to pass by them. Around the fourth watch—this division of the night into four watches—or three, according to others—is equally sanctioned by the Talmud (BT Berakhot 3b).

67 What the author is requesting has existed for a long time in Catholicism, which instituted blessing before the meal and grace aerward. But both practices have fallen out of use.

Gospel According to Mark  321

49 They saw him walking on the surface of the water and said, “It is the appearance of a spirit!” and they cried out 50 because they all saw him and were terrified. Then he spoke with them and said to them, “Be strong, for it is I. Do not fear!” 51 He went down to them in the boat, and the wind died down. Their hearts were astonished even more, and they were amazed. And the wind died down—a similar act is recounted by the Talmud (BT Yoma 38a): Many miracles are said to have occurred to Nicanor’s doors (and this is the first): Nicanor had gone to Alexandria in search of doors (of bronze, remarkably beautiful, and intended for the Temple in Jerusalem). While returning, a tempest arose; (in order to lighten the boat) those with him took one of the doors and cast it into the sea. But the tempest did not subside, so they prepared to cast out the other as well. Nicanor clung to it, crying, “Throw me in with it!” Immediately, the storm subsided.

52 For they still did not comprehend the matter of the loaves of bread, because of their hardness of heart. 53 They crossed the sea and came to the land of Ginneisar, and they drew near the dry land. 54 When they went out from the boat, they recognized him. 55 They ran throughout that surrounding plain, and began to carry the sick on beds to everyplace where they heard he would be. 56 And wherever he came, to the villages and towns and fields, they placed the sick in the streets and begged him to let them touch just the corner of his garment. And all who touched it were saved.

CHAPTER 7

1 Now the Perushim and men from the scholars who had come from Yerushalayim assembled to him. 2 When they saw some of his disciples eating bread with hands that were impure—that is to say, without ritual washing—they rebuked them. 3 For the Perushim and all the Yehudim do not eat until they have done ritual hand washing up to the wrist, in holding to what the elders handed down. Ritual hand washing—this is the place to recount an incident to which the Jerusalem Talmud makes an allusion (Berakhot 8:2): “Rabbi Yakov bar Idi said: ‘By (having neglected) the netilat yadayim [ritual hand washing] before the meal, a Jew has eaten the flesh of swine.’ ” This is what was said, and was elaborated upon in the midrash Rabbah:68 “A certain innkeeper was careful to serve only permitted (kosher) meats to Israelites, reserving pork for non-Jewish customers. He noticed that the non-Jews did not wash their hands before eating. Now, one day a Jew came to the inn and sat down to eat without washing his hands, and our man took him for a pagan and served him pork.” 4 And they do not eat what comes from the market without immersing, and there are other things that they have received to observe, such as immersing cups, pitchers, kettles, [and beds].69 68

See Rashi’s commentary on BT Ḥullin 106a; cf. BT Yoma 83b.

69 The Pharisees were scrupulous about rituals related to purity laws, which were largely ineffectual aer the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. There are laws requiring the immersion of new vessels into a ritual bath (mikveh) before they can be used for cooking and eating. From the Middle Ages up to today, this custom relates to their manufacturing or ownership by Gentiles, even if they were never used. In the ancient world, there was likely a fear that they

Gospel According to Mark  323

5 The Perushim and scholars asked him, “Why are your disciples not behaving according to the tradition of the elders? For they are eating bread without ritual hand washing!”70 6 He answered and said to them, “Yeshayah prophesied well about you hypocrites. As it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is distant from me. 7 Their fear of me is empty; they teach mitzvot of men.’ 8 For you have abandoned the mitzvot of God in order to hold to the tradition of sons of men, [immersions of pitchers and cups and many such things that you do].” Tradition of sons of men—in other words: you treat the essential as secondary and the secondary as essential. 9 He said to them, “How nice that you have nullified the mitzvah of God in order to observe your tradition. 10 For Moshe said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘He who curses his father or mother shall surely die.’ 11 But you say if a man says to his father or mother, korban—which is interpreted, ‘a gift to God’—‘is anything you would receive as my beneficiary,’ 12 you do not allow him to do anything further for his father or mother. 13 So you violate the word of God through the tradition that you received, and you do many other things like this.” 14 Then he called to all the people and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand! 15 There is nothing outside of a person that can contaminate him by going into him. Rather, the things coming out from him contaminate the person. 16 Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear!” 17 As he returned home from the crowd, his disciples asked him about the matter of the parable.

were made impure. See Yair Furstenberg, “Defilement Penetrating the Body: A New Understanding of Contamination in Mark ⒎5,” New Testament Studies 54, no. 2 (2008): 176–200. 70 As E. P. Sanders and others note, the Jews of the Galilee were generally much more lenient regarding hand washing than the Jews of Judaea. Food laws are complex in ancient Israel. Whether Jesus was rejecting them outright or reflecting the abolition of such laws in the future, e.g., Zechariah 14:20, 21, is not clear. The thesis of the uneducated Galilean Jew is no longer current in much scholarly discourse.

324  Gospel According to Mark

His disciples asked him—it is not said what they asked him. But in the parallel passage (Mattai 15:12), the question, or rather the objection, of the disciples is specified: “Do you know that the Pharisees heard this word and stumbled because of it?”—that is to say, they took your words literally and concluded, contrary to the truth, that you permit the eating of what the Law of Moses has forbidden. 18 He said to them, “Are even you lacking discernment? Do you not comprehend that whatever comes within a person from outside of him does not contaminate him? Do you not comprehend—that I could not have possibly been referring to the consumption of this or that meat, but the preliminary ritual hand washing that the Pharisees practice with the goal of bodily purity? Now, true purity is that of the heart. 19 For it does not come into his heart, but rather into his stomach, and it goes out to the toilet, which cleanses all that is eaten. 20 He said, “What comes out from the person is what contaminates the person, 21 because from within the person, from his heart, come out the evil thoughts, adultery, sexual immorality, murder, From his heart—it is om the heart that the various sins that Yeshua lists come om, in the sense that merely the thought of committing them has already defiled the person, even though this thought had not even been acted upon.71 Adultery—compare the Talmudic passage (BT Niddah 13b): “Rabbi Ammi teaches: ‘He who excites himself with lustful thoughts will be excluded om the presence of the Almighty.’ ” Murder—it is not necessary to have killed one’s fellow man to be deemed a murderer. Having humiliated and embarrassed him publicly is, according to the Talmud, an equivalent crime, and it is easily proved. “A wise sage taught in the presence of Rabbi Naḥman bar Yiṣḥak: ‘He who humiliates (lit., “who makes pallid”) his neighbor publicly, it is as if he had shed his blood.’ The rabbi said: ‘You have spoken well,’ said the rabbi, ‘since, in effect, the blood has le the cheeks in order to make room for the pallor.’ ”

71

“The thought of sinning is worse than the sin itself ” (BT Yoma 29a).

Gospel According to Mark  325

22 stealing, love of profit, wickedness, fraud, gluttony, evil eye, blasphemy, insolence, and folly.” Stealing—deceit is included in stealing, which in itself consists of showing feelings of affection and devotion for others that one is not feeling in reality. “It is forbidden,” says the Talmud (BT Ḥullin 94a), “to deceive anyone, EVEN A PAGAN,” which is to say, to abuse him by false demonstrations of iendship. A large number of details follow, which show just how seriously our sages considered the gravity of this subject. Love of profit—meaning the covetousness of man who wants to become rich at any price, who is never content with what God has allocated to him and wants to continuously add to it, even if doing so by illegitimate means. This is what the midrash of Proverbs says (on 15:15: “The poor man is always miserable, but the heart of the upright is an everlasting celebration”). He who is poor in faith, who always fears losing his possessions and, for this reason, does not dare spend his money, even for his most urgent needs: this is the most miserable of men. The upright, on the contrary, always being content with his lot and full of trust in the Almighty’s divine provision, lives peacefully and happily, and all his days are, so to speak, days of celebration. Wickedness—the wicked is he who takes pleasure in evil and who is only happy in the misery of others. This is the one who is called a wicked heart, and the Talmud identifies such a man with this name. We read in Pirkei Avot (2:9): Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai one day asked his disciples, “What is the most evil trait that man must make the greatest effort to flee om?” Eliezer ben Hyrkanos responded: “The evil eye (envy)”; Yehoshua ben Ḥananiah: “The evil companion”; Yosei Ha-Kohen: “The evil neighbor”; Shimon ben Netanel: “The evil debtor”; Elazar ben Arach: “The evil heart.” The rabbi said: “I prefer this last response to all your responses, for it summarizes them all.”

Fraud—which occasionally assumes the guise of kindness in order to more assuredly damage one’s neighbor. This is reminiscent of a curious narrative of the Talmud. The Mishnah (Pe’ah 8:8) teaches that “he who possesses 200 zuzim must not accept the triennial tithe to the poor (prescribed in Deuteronomy 14:28, 29).” As the Jerusalem Talmud recounts on this matter, one of the disciples of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi had 200 zuzim minus one dinar, and Rabbi Yehudah had the custom of giving him the tithe to the poor every three years. Some of his fellow students maliciously completed his purse (by giving him the charity of the one dinar), and when Rabbi Yehudah wanted to give him

326  Gospel According to Mark

the tithe, the student said: “Rabbi, I do not have the right; I have the required sum.” Rabbi Yehudah said to himself: “Fine! I see the hand of the Pharisees in this affair.” And by his counsel, some of his disciples brought his protégé to an inn where he lost some money, such that Rabbi Yehudah could continue the usual charity. Gluttony72—which is to say the rampant pursuit of bodily satisfactions— drunkenness, in particular. The Talmud, in accordance with the Tanakh, has always branded this vice as despicable. We will cite only this passage om BT Sanhedrin (70a): “The name of new wine, in Hebrew, is pronounced tirosh and is written as tirash. A double lesson! He who drinks in moderation can become rosh (a distinguished man); he who abuses the drink will become rash (poor).” The evil eye (or the envious eye)—this vice is declared the worst of all by one of the disciples of Yoḥanan ben Zakkai in the passage in Pirkei Avot that I cited above. Blasphemy—Attributing a body or anything that may be corporeal to the Almighty is also a form of blasphemy, for it is to misjudge and degrade him. This is as we read in the Talmud (BT Kiddushin 49a): “To translate certain verses literally is to lie; to add to certain verses is to blaspheme”—which is what a commentator applied to the text in Exodus (24:10): They saw the God of Israel. Insolence—on this topic, as we have previously said, the Pharisees are completely in agreement with the Essenes, and therefore with the disciples of Yeshua, who belong to this sect—indeed, in every aspect. The Essene sect cherished extreme piety and taught an exaggeration of virtue, whereas the Pharisaic sect held a wise and balanced view on the matter. However, pride is such a detestable vice and so unsuitable to the mortal man that the Pharisees, in order to better guard us om it, recommend humility to its extreme limits. Folly—which amounts to saying: all the vices and sins, whatever they may be, all come om an aberration in the spirit, according to this word om the Talmud (BT Soṭah 3a): “Every sin presupposes insanity.” 23 “All these evil things are from within the person; they come out and contaminate him.” They come out and contaminate him—I have already explained and demonstrated in the first volume (Mattai 15:20) the actual thought of Yeshua, and I cited the example of Elazar ben Chanoch, who himself also treated lightly the preliminary ritual washing. It is only fitting, however, to complete the citation, 72

Or overindulgence, licentiousness (according to the Greek text, aselgeia).

Gospel According to Mark  327

and to add that this same Elazar, by the Talmud’s own account, was labeled anathema by the sages for having contradicted the religious authority that instituted this practice. Here is, in effect, one of the points on which Pharisees and Essenes were in disagreement. 24 He rose up from there and went to the regions of Ṣor and Ṣidon, and when he came to the house, he did not want it to be known to anyone. But he was not able to be hidden, 25 because a woman whose little daughter a spirit of impurity had entered had heard the news of him, and she came and fell at his feet. 26 Now the woman was Greek, and her native land was Penikya of Surya. She requested of him to drive out the demon from her daughter. 27 Yeshua said to her, “Let the children be satisfied first, since it is not good to take the bread of children and throw it to the little dogs.” The children—Yeshua refers to the Israelites by this name, which is the same as the Tanakh gives them: Israel is my son, my firstborn (Exodus 4:22); you are the children of YHWH your God (Deuteronomy 14:1), etc. To the little dogs—why is this contemptuous classification imposed upon Greeks and other pagans? Here is the reason. The woman in question desired that Yeshua should save her daughter; however, she did not intend to embrace the Jewish faith, but rather preferred to retain her own, as absurd as it was. But Yeshua himself had the specific goal of converting pagans to monotheism. Hence the harsh response, whose true meaning is: “I did not come only to heal the diseases of the body but, above all, those of the soul.” 28 She answered and said to him, “Yes, master, but even the little dogs eat under the table from the crumbs of the children’s bread.” Even the little dogs—meaning: Yes, master, I know, you want to bring us into the lap of Judaism; but I myself desire to remain faithful to the religion to which I was born. If, for this, we deserve to be called dogs, so be it; every day, “the dogs eat under the table,” etc. This is what we read in the Talmud (BT Giṭṭin 61a): “We must feed the needy, pagans and Jews, indiscriminately; those who are sick, visiting nonJews just as much as Jews; those who have died, burying non-Jews just as much as Jews.” 29 He said to her, “On account of this statement of yours, go! The demon has left your daughter.”

328  Gospel According to Mark

On account of this statement—he did not say to her: on account of your faith, as he had said beforehand to another woman (in Markos 5:34). Here, he grants the request of the supplicant, simply because he is satisfied with her response. It is true that, in the corresponding passage in Mattai (15:28), Yeshua says: “Woman, great is your faith,” which would seem that this woman had submitted to the Jewish faith. However, it is more probable that it involved another person and another event, all the more that, in Mattai, she is called a Canaanite, and here a Greek, a Syrophoenician. In this way, there would not be any contradiction between the two documents. 30 She returned home and found the girl lying on the bed, and the demon had come out from her. 31 Again, he went out from the region of Ṣor and Ṣidon and came to the Sea of the Galil within the region of the Ten Cities [Decapolis]. 32 They brought him a man who was deaf and mute, and they begged him to place his hand on him. 33 He took him alone from the midst of the crowd. Then he placed his fingers in his ears, spat, and touched his tongue. 34 He looked intently toward heaven and sighed. He said to him, “Ippattach,” which is interpreted, “Be opened.” 35 In a moment, his ears were opened and the binding of his tongue was loosened, and he spoke with clear language. 36 He commanded them not to tell anyone, but the more he warned them, the more they made it heard. 37 They were extremely astonished and said, “He does everything well; he even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak!”73 He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak—a number of similar acts are attributed to our sages by the Talmudic narratives; we have related a few of them in the commentary on Mattai (9:30–33, 12:22, etc.).

73 The notion of healing the deaf, blind, mute, and lame is part of Isaiah’s messianic vision, which seems to be reflected in this Jesus narrative. See Isaiah 35:5–⒎

CHAPTER 8

1 In those days, when a large group of people were gathered but had nothing to eat, Yeshua called to his disciples and said to them, 2 “I feel compassion for the people, because for these three days they have stood with me, and they have nothing to eat. 3 If I send them home hungry, they will faint on the way, because some of them have come from a faraway place.” They will faint on the way—Yeshua is moved here by the same sentiment that compels the Talmudists when they say (BT Sanhedrin 103b): See the power of charity! By being denied a mouthful of bread, those who were close have been made distant; by being granted a mouthful of bread, those who were distant have been drawn near. Amon and Moab, our neighbors, refused us nourishment, and were rejected om entering the community of God (Deuteronomy 23:4, 5); Jethro, estranged om us by birth, was hospitable to Moses (Exodus 2:20), and his descendants had the honor of sitting in the Sanhedrins (1 Chronicles 2:55).

For the rest, see my commentary on Mattai 15:3⒉ 4 His disciples answered and said to him, “From where could anyone satisfy all these with bread here in the wilderness?” 5 He asked them and said, “How many loaves of bread do you have?” They said, “Seven.”74

74

The number seven could be referring to the messianic vision in Daniel and in Psalm 119:16⒋

330  Gospel According to Mark

6 He commanded the people to sit on the ground, and he took the seven loaves of bread and made a berakhah. Then he broke them and gave them to his disciples to place before them, and they placed them before the people. 7 They had a few small fish; he made a berakhah and said to place these before them as well. He made a berakhah—see above, 6:41–42, for the blessings that Yeshua would have recited before and aer the meal. 8 They ate and were satisfied, and they picked up seven pots from the leftover pieces. 9 Those who ate were about four thousand. Then he sent them away. 10 He went down into the boat with his disciples and came to the area of Dalmanuta. 11 The Perushim came out and began to argue with him; they asked him for a sign from heaven in order to test him. They asked him for a sign—indeed, all the miracles that he performed up to this point were little in their eyes: expelling demons and curing diseases with the power of a single utterance, which they themselves did as well, as we have oen pointed out. This is why they request a miracle from heaven. 12 He sighed in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation request a sign? Amen, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation!” Why . . . request a sign?—we will better understand the thought of Yeshua aer having read the following passage om the Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhot 1:7): What is the difference between the prophets and the Sanhedrin? The same as two representatives that a king sends to one of his provinces, each with a different assignment. Of the one, he says to his subjects: “If he does not show you my royal seal, don’t believe him.” Of the other: “Believe him, even when he does not show you my seal.” The first of these representatives is the prophet, of which it is said (Deuteronomy 8:2): If you give a sign (supernatural) or perform a miracle; the second is the Sanhedrin, of which it is said (ibid., 17:11): You will act according to the teaching they will give you.

Gospel According to Mark  331

Here is what Yeshua means: “Why do they request a sign? If I came to teach a new doctrine, adding or removing anything om the Law of Moses, well and good! Some signs would be essential to justi this claim. But my intention is to spread the Law of Moses, to instill in everyone the belief in one God and the need for repentance. To do this, there is no need for a sign.”75 13 He went up from them and returned and went down into the boat and crossed to the other side of the sea. 14 But they forgot to bring bread in their hand, and had nothing in the boat but one loaf of bread. 15 He warned them, saying, “See that you guard yourselves from the leaven of the Perushim and the leaven of Hordos!” The leaven of Hordos—according to Mattai 16:6: “om the leaven of the Perushim and the Ṣaddukim.” However, the meaning is the same, for Herod favored the sect of the Ṣaddukim (Sadducees). 16 They were thinking this and that, and they said to one another, “It is because there is no bread with us.” 17 Yeshua knew and said to them, “Why are you thinking about not having bread? Do you still not comprehend, and do you not understand, and are your hearts still hard? 18 You have eyes, but you do not see; you have ears, but you do not hear, and you do not remember.76 19 When I broke the five loaves of bread for the five thousand men, how many baskets full of pieces did you pick up?” And they said to him, “Twelve.” 20 “And with seven for the four thousand men, how many pots full of pieces did you pick up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” 21 He said to them, “How do you not understand?” How do you not understand—that in speaking of the leaven of the Pharisees, I was making an allusion to their behavior and to their character, since it is among those who are purely hypocrites? It is in the same sense that, in the words of the Talmud (BT Soṭah 22b): 75 In some way, Soloveitchik is suggesting that if Jesus came to add or subtract anything om the Law, he would be a false prophet, by definition (see Deuteronomy 13:2, 18:18). Since Jesus claims that he is only coming to fulfill the Law, he does not need a sign of divine sanction. 76

Isaiah 6:9–10; Jeremiah 5:2⒈

332  Gospel According to Mark King Yannai said to his wife: “Do not fear the Pharisees, nor those who are not Pharisees, but the hypocrites [lit., ‘tainted’ men] who conduct themselves as good Pharisees externally, and would like to receive the reward of Phineas, though their sins are those of Zimri!” (See Numbers 25:6–⒕)77

22 They arrived at Beit-Tzaidah, and they brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. 23 He grasped the hand of the blind man and led him outside the village; he spit in his eyes, placed his hands on him, and asked him and said to him, “Do you see?” 24 He looked intently and said, “I see the sons of men—that they are walking. I see them like trees.” 25 He placed his hands on his eyes a second time; his eyes were opened and he was healed, and he saw everything well, even at a distance. 26 He sent him to his home and said to him, “Do not come inside the village [and do not speak to anyone in the village].” 27 Yeshua and his disciples left and went on to the villages of Kisrin Shel-Pilippos. On the road, he asked his disciples and said to them, “What do sons of men say about me? Who am I?” 28 They answered and said, “Yoḥanan the Immerser; but some say Eliyahu, and others say one of the prophets.” Yoḥanan the Immerser—it was known that he no longer existed, having been executed by the order of Herod. However, this must be taken figuratively: “That you are another Yoḥanan the Immerser, as distinguished a figure as he was in virtue and piety.” As well as for the following qualifications: “ ‘An Elijah,’ meaning a new Elijah, for you are reminiscent of him by your character and by your works, as well as the other ‘prophets’ that history speaks of.” 29 He asked them, saying, “And you, what do you say about me— who am I?” Petros answered and said to him, “You are the mashiaḥ!”

77 The reward of Pinḥas refers to the “covenant of peace” (brit shalom) that he received om God; see Numbers 25:⒓ Zimri ben Salu was a chieain in the tribe of Shimon who publicly had sex with Kozbi bat Zur, daughter of a tribal head of Midian. Biblical law prohibits Israelites om cohabiting with Midianites. Pinḥas took it upon himself to impale both Zimri and Kozbi, and, as a consequence, the divine plague inflicted on Israel subsided. See Numbers 25:6–⒕

Gospel According to Mark  333

You are the mashiaḥ—that is to say, a tzaddik in the truest sense, a man who merits the classification of messiah. See what I explained at length on this topic at the beginning of the first chapter. 30 He charged them not to speak about it to anyone. 31 And he began to teach that the son of man needs to suffer greatly, and the elders, the leading priests, and the scholars would reject him, and he would be killed, but at the end of three days he would surely rise. 32 He spoke this word in the ears of all of them, and Petros took him and began to reprimand him.78 Petros took him and began to reprimand him—this behavior of Peter could seem, at first glance, rather strange. What I am about to say concerning the next verse will make it understood. 33 He turned back around, looked intently at his disciples, and reprimanded Petros. He said, “Get away from my face, Satan! For your heart is not on the things of God but on the things of men.”79 And reprimanded Petros—in the commentary on Mattai 28:17 relating to the sentence “There were some of them whose hearts were divided,” I established that the disciples in question did not exactly doubt whether they saw him. There was absolutely nothing impossible about them seeing Yeshua aer his death, and I cited, in the same place, that according to the Talmud, a sage distinctly revived his deceased colleague and conversed with him. Only his disciples were mistaken as to what Yeshua truly meant. He did not mean that he would actually resurrect physically, but that he would reappear in order to convince them, by this act, of the principle of the immortality of the soul. Read carefully my commentary in this spot, and you will then understand this passage. Petros, as well, in my opinion, was one of those who “doubted.” He believed that Yeshua spoke of a literal flesh and bone resurrection, and knowing the thing to be impossible in the temporal order, he accused him of announcing unbelievable things to them. For this very reason, Yeshua reprimands him and 78 The term “this word” in the verse is not precise. Some texts render it as “embracing” or “taking hold of.” According to the Latin and Greek texts, it is best rendered: pulled him away or took him aside, as it is here and in Matthew 16:2⒉ 79 See Zechariah 3:⒉ On the suffering of love (yesurim shel ahavah) that becomes a prominent theme in rabbinic literature, see BT Sanhedrin 101a–b.

334  Gospel According to Mark

tells him, “You only understand the things of men,” which means: When you hear me announce that I will reappear three days aer my death, you understand it, as would common men, crudely, in that I would resurrect bodily. However, you do not understand the things of God, meaning those things relating to my soul, which belongs to God and is immortal, as is every human soul. In other words, you will see me again aer my death so that you may be convinced of the reality of this great principle. You would not know how to see me without my body, and this is why I had to use the term resurrect.” For more details, see my commentary in the place cited. 34 He called to the people and to his disciples and said to them, “One who desires to follow me must disown himself, pick up his cross, and follow me.” And follow me—in the faith of the one, unique God that I proclaim; he must be ready, as I am, to sacrifice his life for this belief. So says the illustrious Rabbi Akiva in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 61b): “You shall love YHWH your God . . . with all your soul (Deuteronomy 6:5), which means that you must demonstrate your attachment to one God, even at the expense of your soul, which is to say, your life.” 35 “Because whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but anyone who loses his life for my sake and the sake of the good news will save it.” Will lose it—see my commentary on the similar passage in Mattai 10:3⒐ For my sake—meaning, for the sake of the doctrine that I teach you. Of the good news—the news relating to the oneness of God. Will save—his soul for the eternal life; this recalls the death of the same Rabbi Akiva that I just spoke of (BT Berakhot 61b): He was being led to his execution during the hour of the reciting of the Shema (the proclamation of the unity of God, Deuteronomy 6:4 and on). While they were shredding his flesh with iron-toothed combs, he recited this profession of faith without faltering. “What! Master, in such a moment?” cried his disciples. He responded: “My iends, all my life I wondered when it would be given to me to understand this great word: with all your soul, even at the expense of your soul, and now that I have the opportunity to sacrifice my offering, shall I withdraw?” So he slowly recited the holy phrase (Hear, O Israel! YHWH is our God; YHWH is one), and he prolonged the pronunciation of the last word. And a voice om

Gospel According to Mark  335 heaven was heard that said: “Happy are you, Akiva, who exhaled your very soul while confessing the unity of your God!” And the angels said, while wailing: “Almighty God! Is this the reward of the children of the Torah?” And the Holy One, blessed be he, responded: “Their reward is eternal happiness.” Again, the voice om heaven was heard: “Happy are you, Akiva, for you are assured of the eternal happiness!”80

36 “What does a person gain if he acquires the whole world but his life is destroyed? 37 Or what will a man give as the ransom for his life? 38 For the man to whom I and my words are a disgrace in this adulterous and sinful generation, he, too, will be a disgrace to the son of man when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”81

80 Soloveitchik understands this seminal section of Mark that describes Jesus’ call to his disciples as an expression of Jewish martyrdom exemplified by R. Akiva. Following the path of the righteous (tzaddik) requires a willingness to sacrifice one’s life for the unity of God. This is Soloveitchik’s message, as expressed here in Mark. 81

Adultery is oen used as an expression of the sinfulness of the Israelites. See Jeremiah 3:1–⒌

CHAPTER 9

1 He said to them, “Amen, I say to you that there are some among those standing here who will certainly not taste death before they see the kingdom of God coming in power.” Coming in power—this recalls the severe word in Ezekiel 20:33: “As I live— declares YHWH Elohim—I will reign over you with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with overflowing fury!” On this point, a Talmudist writes (BT Sanhedrin 105a): “May it please the Merciful One to manifest such fury, for then should we be delivered by him (though it be in spite of us, adds Rashi)!” This is the same thought that Yeshua expresses here. What he means is: Do you imagine that you can continue to profess erroneous beliefs, so as not to enjoy bliss? All right, then! This shall never come to pass (Ezekiel 20:32), and in spite of you, God will bring you happiness while imposing faith in him upon you. And those here who listen to me will not die before they see the kingdom of God, which is to say, his unity, coming in power, with an indestructible authority. 2 After six days, Yeshua took Petros, Ya’akov, and Yoḥanan, and brought them up alone with him on a high mountain, and he was changed before their eyes. He was changed—he seemed to have taken on a superhuman appearance, a transformation that is not without example om our sages. And so, the Jerusalem Talmud recounts (Berakhot 5:1): Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, having traveled one day to the Roman governor of Caesarea, and he [the governor], being seized with respect,

Gospel According to Mark  337 rose upon seeing them. His subjects said to him “What! You rise before miserable Jews?” He responded: “Yes, for they looked to me like angels.”82

3 His clothes shone and became very white like snow; a launderer on earth would not be able to make something so white. 4 Then Eliyahu and Moshe appeared to them, and they were speaking with Yeshua. Eliyahu and Moshe appeared to them—it seemed to them that they saw these righteous individuals having a conversation with Yeshua; but we are not told that this appearance was real, if they perceived it in a waking state, or as a prophetic vision or dream. The Talmud is filled with accounts of this nature, and I would need an entire volume to list all the numerous passages where Elijah appeared to our sages and conversed with them. I would entreat you, dear reader, only to refer to Mattai 17:3, where I related the touching conversation between Elijah and Rabbi Yosei, a conversation that seemed to have taken place in a waking state and in reality. If the Almighty gives me leisure, I could cite many more similar occurrences. 5 Petros responded and said to Yeshua, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us make three sukkot—one for you, one for Moshe, and one for Eliyahu.”83 6 For he did not know what to say, since they were terrified. 7 A cloud was covering them, and from the cloud a voice came forth, saying, “This is my dear son. Listen to him!” From the cloud—the Talmud recounts (BT Ḥagigah 14b): When Rabbi Yehoshua began to converse (about the mysteries of the Divine Court), the sky was suddenly covered with clouds, even though it was the summer solstice; and a rainbow emerged where the angels were seen assembling to listen, just as people assemble at a wedding celebration. Rabbi Yosei HaKohen began to recount this occurrence to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who exclaimed: “Happy are you! Happy is the woman who bore you! Happy are your eyes to have seen such a thing! I myself dreamed that I was seated with you on Mount Sinai, when 82 This passage seems to resonate with Moses’ departure on Mount Nevo; see Deuteronomy 34:⒍ For Elijah’s departure, see 2 Kings 2:⒒ 83 This could refer to the appearance of God on Sukkot. We find that God’s presence during these festivals is common in prophetic literature. See, e.g., Zechariah 14:⒗

338  Gospel According to Mark a voice om heaven said: ‘Ascend! Ascend! Splendid banquet tables and luxurious couches await you, your disciples, and the disciples of your disciples, for you are all designated for bliss.’ ”

8 Suddenly, they looked around here and there but did not see anyone except Yeshua alone with them. 9 They came down from the mountain, and he warned them not to tell anyone what they had seen until the son of man had risen from the dead. 10 They kept the word in their hearts, but inquired to know what the rising from the dead was. The rising from the dead—see above, 8:33; and Mattai 28:⒘ 11 They asked him, saying, “How is it that the scholars say that Eliyahu will surely come first?” Eliyahu will surely come first—according to this prophecy om Malachi (3:23): “Behold, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before the coming of the awesome, fearful day of YHWH.” 12 He answered and said to them, “Yes, Eliyahu comes first and will restore everything, and what is written about the son of man? Is it not that he will be greatly afflicted and rejected?” And will restore everything—meaning: What is Elijah’s mission as proclaimed by the prophet? To bring the reconciliation of hearts through repentance, according to the final statement of Malachi. This is precisely what Yoḥanan the Immerser did. And what is written—where is this written? Some see this as an allusion to the obscure prediction of Daniel (10:26), and others to Isaiah 53, both of which, according to them, apply to Yeshua. But let us examine the next verse. 13 “But I say to you, not only has Eliyahu come, but they did with him as they pleased, as it is written of him.” As it is written of him—you see here the same expression: it is written, and yet we do not see a line in the Tanakh announcing that he would be inflicted with any form of torture or maltreatment, whether Elijah or Yoḥanan the Immerser! The words “it is written,” in this verse and in the previous verse, probably mean,

Gospel According to Mark  339

in my opinion, that the thing was also written in heaven, decreed by God’s divine wisdom, and thereby not referring to any biblical text. As for the passages of Daniel and Isaiah, we can read om our commentators. They explain them in a different manner that they have nothing to do with Yeshua. 14 When he came to the disciples, he saw a large group of people around them and scholars arguing with them. 15 All the people, when they saw him, were indeed amazed, and they ran to him and asked of his shalom. 16 He asked the scholars, “Why are you arguing with them?” 17 One of the people answered and said, “Rabbi, I brought my son to you, who has a mute spirit within him, 18 and wherever it grips him, it crushes him—his saliva runs down, he grinds his teeth, and his body dries up. I told your disciples to drive it out, but they could not.” Below, in verse 29, you will understand by my commentary why the disciples were not able to drive out the demon. 19 He answered and said to them, “Alas, O generation lacking faith! How long will I be with you? How long will I bear you?84 Bring him before me.” 20 They brought him before him, and when he saw him, the spirit suddenly crushed him and he fell on the ground. He rolled around and his saliva ran down. 21 He asked his father, “How many days has he had this?” He said to him, “Since the days of his youth. 22 It has often thrown him into both the fire and the water to destroy him. But if you really can, have compassion on us and help us!” 23 Yeshua said to him, “You said, ‘If you can.’ One who has faith will be capable of anything.” One who has faith in the existence of a unique and all-powerful God will understand that the healing of your son is possible, though he has been in this condition since birth; for nothing is impossible for the one God.85 84 This is a common motif in the Hebrew Bible. See Deuteronomy 1:34–40; Isaiah 44:22; Ezekiel 11:43, 44; and Genesis Rabbah 30:⒈ 85 Soloveitchik uses this story to reiterate what he thinks is Jesus’ central message: the unity and oneness of God and the power of faith in that unity to affect things in this world. Here he places Jesus squarely in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, culminating with Habakkuk’s elevation of faith (a righteous person lives by his faith) as the highest value of human devotion.

340  Gospel According to Mark

24 The father of the boy lifted his voice in weeping and said, “I believe, my master; please help my lack of faith!” 25 Yeshua saw the people gathering to him, and he reprimanded the impure spirit and said, “Mute and deaf spirit, I command you, go out from him and never come into him again!” 26 It screamed and greatly crushed him, and it came out. And he became like the dead, and many said, “He has passed away.” 27 Yeshua grasped his hand and roused him, and he arose. 28 When he came into the house, his disciples asked him when they were with him alone, saying, “Why were we not able to drive it out?” 29 He said to them, “This type comes out only with prayer and fasting.” This type—he does not say this demon, but this type of demon, which is a faithful interpretation of the Talmudic concepts. We read in BT Pesaḥim (111b): The governor of a certain city, having stopped to rest under a sorb tree that was situated close to the city, was assailed by the demons of that tree who placed him in danger of dying. He went and found a young sage who, not knowing that the sorb tree conceals sixty demons, wrote an amulet intended for only one demon. Suddenly, he heard the demons dancing inside the body of their victim and making him hoot with their ironic singing. Another more experienced sage arrived, who provided the correct amulet for the patient, and immediately voices were heard, saying, “Let us leave this place.”

This is the exact same story that we have here. The disciples have dealt only with a single demon (evidence of this in v. 28, where they say “this demon”); they write their amulet accordingly, and, of course, they fail. Yeshua says to them: “It is not an isolated demon, but a type—a family of demons; a special formula is needed here that must be accompanied with prayer and fasting.” 30 They went out from there and passed into the Galil, but he did not want it to be known to anyone 31 because he was teaching his disciples, saying to them that “the son of man will ultimately be handed over to sons of men. They will kill him, but after his death he will rise on the third day.” 32 They did not understand this word, and they were afraid to ask him.

Gospel According to Mark  341

They did not understand the true thought of the Master, as I explained in Mattai 28:⒘ 33 He came to Kefar Naḥum. He was in the house and asked them, “What were you arguing with one another about on the road?” 34 But they remained silent, since they had been quarreling on the road about who was the great one among them. 35 He sat down and called to the twelve and said to them, “One who desires to be the first will be the last of all and a servant to everyone.” Will be the last—the Talmud recounts (BT Berakhot 28a): Rabban Gamliel (leader of the Sanhedrin, who had just humiliated Rabbi Yehoshua) ended by saying: “I want to go to my colleague’s house to make amends.” Having arrived at his house, he remarked that the walls of his house were black. He said: “You are a coal miner. This is evident by the color of your walls.” Rabbi Yehoshua responded: “[You did not know this already?] How unfortunate is the generation that you govern, you who do not know the distresses of your colleagues nor the means by which they reduce themselves in order to make a living!” Rabban Gamliel said: “I realize that I was unfair and harsh toward you; forgive me!” Rabbi Yehoshua did not breathe a word. “Do it for the love you bear my father!” And Rabbi Yehoshua forgave him. In this way, according to the principles of the Talmud, he who is the first must make himself a servant to everyone; he must inquire of the needs of his subjects, take interest in their sufferings, concern himself with their means of existence, and make himself, in a word, everything to everyone, particularly to those with religious knowledge. 36 And he took a child and stood him up in their midst; he embraced him and said to them: 37 “One who receives one child like this in my name, receives me, and one who receives me does not receive me but the one who sent me.” In my name—which is to say, in the spirit of my instructions, which recommend introducing and accustoming children to the doctrine of the unity of God. Receives me—Resh Lakish says (BT Sanhedrin 99b): “Whoever teaches the holy Torah to a child, it is considered as if he himself had begot him; for it is said (Genesis 12:5): ‘Abram took his wife Sarai . . . and the persons whom they had acquired—literally, whom they made—to Haran.’ ”

342  Gospel According to Mark

The one who sent me—a similar thought is expressed by a Talmudist (BT Bava Metzi‘a 85a): “He who teaches the holy Torah merits being seated in the middle of the Heavenly Court, for it is said (Jeremiah 15:19): ‘If I see you bringing back (your brethren to the correct path), I will permit you to sit before me.’ ” 38 Yoḥanan answered and said to him, “Rabbi, we saw a man driving out demons in your name, but he does not follow us, so we stopped him, on account of the fact that he did not follow us.” 39 Yeshua said, “Do not stop him, because no one who does an act of power in my name can quickly speak evil of me. 40 For whoever is not for our foes is for us.” For our foes—some object and say that since Mattai (12:30) changes the pronoun to “Everyone who is not for me is against me,” this changes the thought entirely. I do not hold this view. In each case, it involves the manner of expelling demons, as the context clearly indicates. Now Yeshua correctly says in Markos: “For whoever is not for our foes,” which is to say, he who exorcises in my name and according to my views, he is for us; and it says in Mattai, which is no less correct: Everyone who is not for me, who does not exorcise according to my views, he is naturally against me. 41 “For all who let you drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to the mashiaḥ, amen, I say to you, he will not lose his reward.” He will not lose his reward—even when he would not exorcise in my name, even when he would not walk with us, he would not lose the reward of his good work even for that. 42 “And whoever causes one of the little ones who have faith in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung on his neck and to be thrown into the sea.” Whoever causes one of the little ones—which is to say, to deprive him of my teaching. A word no less aggressive is the one om the Talmud, which I recounted in the corresponding passage in Mattai (18:6). 43 “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off! It is better for you to enter life and be an amputee than to have two hands and go to Geihinnom, into the fire that is not extinguished,

Gospel According to Mark  343

44 where ‘their worm does not die and their fire is not extinguished.’ 45 If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off! It is better for you to enter life and be lame than to have two feet and to be thrown into Geihinnom, to the fire that is not extinguished, 46 where ‘their worm does not die and their fire is not extinguished.’ 47 If your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God having one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into Geihinnom, If your hand causes you to stumble—in this monologue (43–47), Yeshua successively speaks of sins attributable to hands, to feet, and to eyes, and apparently these body parts must be taken figuratively. In my opinion, all this makes an allusion to the precept of charity in all its different aspects, all of them stipulated in our written and oral law. I will explain myself.86 First, Yeshua encourages opening the hand to perform charity to everyone without discrimination, not only to our poor, as it is oen said, but to all the poor, without requiring them to inform us of their origin or nationality. “Do not close your hand to your brother in need,” Moses commanded us (Deuteronomy 15:6–7); Open, open your hand to him! And concerning this, the Talmud says (BT Bava Metzi‘a 31b): “Why does it say open twice? This means: open your hand to the poor in your community, and also to those outside of it.” Second, Yeshua does not want that we should do good only to the latter (those outside); he also wants that, when they leave us, we accompany them home to protect them. This is what the mention of the foot makes allusion to, which the Talmud equally proves, and which we will see very soon. Third, he wants that we should give them good grace, as in the familiar term, the good eye; for giving alms is not sufficient, and “the manner in which one gives means more than what is given.” This is the meaning of the word om Proverbs (22:9): He who has a good eye will be blessed, for having given his own bread to the poor; and according to the Talmud, who relates this same verse (BT Soṭah 38b), the chapter of the heifer essentially had the goal of inspiring us to be horrified by the evil eye, with its disdain toward the weak. Here is the fact. One reads in Deuteronomy (21:1 and on): If, in the land that YHWH your God is assigning you to possess, someone slain is found lying in the open, the identity of the slayer not being known, your elders and magistrates shall go, etc. The elders of the town nearest to the corpse shall then take a heifer. . . . They shall bring the heifer down to an ever-flowing wadi . . . and there they shall break the heifer’s neck, etc. 86 For a long discussion of charity in rabbinic tradition, see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Gis to the Poor.” Cf. Rivka Ulmer and Moshe Ulmer, Righteous Giving to the Poor: Tzedakah (“Charity”) in Classical Judaism, Including a Brief Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (Piscataway NJ,: Gorgias Press, 2014).

344  Gospel According to Mark

Then the elders of the town shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken. And they shall make this declaration: ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done (the bloodshed).’ Upon which the Talmud observes: “Do magistrates need to protest a suspicion of murder? Who would dream of accusing them of such a crime, so why would they need to defend themselves? This protest must therefore not be taken to the letter, and it means: ‘We are not guilty of this murder neither by our hands, by refusing him food, nor by our eyes, by watching him leave alone without giving him an escort; in other words, we have not even unwittingly exposed him to death through our negligence.’ ” 48 where ‘their worm does not die and their fire is not extinguished.’ 49 For everyone will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt. 50 Salt is good; but if the salt becomes tasteless, with what can it be fixed? Have salt within you, and let there be shalom among you.” Let there be shalom among you—these last verses concern the dispute that arose among the disciples about the question of knowing which one of them would be the greatest (v. 34). It is above that Yeshua tells them: You are the salt of the earth, charged with proclaiming to the peoples and inspiring them to love all the virtues. But if the salt becomes tasteless—if one of you fails, so that you are divided, who will place him back on the correct path? Therefore, let there be shalom among you; if one of you is in error or at fault, may another one of you take him back in gentleness, and so will you always remain in good standing, and your reward will be great.” For the rest, see Mattai 5:⒈

CHAPTER 10

1 He rose up from there and went to the region of Yehudah, across the Yarden. A crowd of people assembled to him again, and he taught them as he had done time after time. 2 The Perushim approached him to test him; they asked and said, “Is a man able to send away his wife?”87 3 He answered and said to them, “What did Moshe command you?” 4 They said, “Moshe made it permitted to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” 5 Yeshua answered and said to them, “On account of the hardness of your heart, he wrote this mitzvah for you.88 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God created them male and female. 7 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother to cling to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ If so, they are not two any longer but one flesh.89 9 Thus, what God has joined, a person shall not divide.” 10 In the house, his disciples came back to ask him about this. His disciples came back to ask him—they did not even conceive that Yeshua had said in an absolute manner “that man should never separate,” seeing as Moses formally authorizes divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1). 87

On divorce in the Hebrew Bible, see Deuteronomy 24:1–⒋

88 The term “hardness of your heart” refers back to Pharaoh in Exodus 7:⒊ The phrase apparently refers to Israel’s inability to abide by the prohibition of divorce. 89 Genesis 1:27, 2:2⒋ Connecting the issue of divorce back to Genesis 2:24 is common in the New Testament, e.g., Matthew 5:32 and 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, but not part of the rabbinic understanding of divorce. There are, however, a few instances where Genesis 2:24 is used as a motif of marriage. See Rashi’s comment on BT Kiddushin 6a.

346  Gospel According to Mark

11 He said to them, “One who sends away his wife and takes another is an adulterer against her.” Is an adulterer—Yeshua’s thought is not completely expressed here. In the Gospel of Mattai, it is more explicit; for in two locations (5:32 and 19:9), he authorizes divorce in the case of promiscuity (or adultery). Therefore, what he means here is: whoever would renounce his wife, not for reasons of adultery but for another less serious reason—for example, because another woman pleased him more. 12 “A woman who leaves her husband and goes to another man is an adulterer.” Leaves her husband—for reasons of adultery; this would be a new adultery to then marry another. See Mattai 5:32, where I demonstrated that this teaching is exactly the same as that of our sages. 13 They brought children to him so that he could touch them, but the disciples reprimanded those bringing them. 14 Yeshua saw this and was displeased, and he said to them, “Permit the children to come to me, and do not withhold them, because theirs is the kingdom of God.” Permit the children to come to me—the Talmud as well attaches a very high price to the educating of children—most of all, the deprived children; and on this last point, it goes so far as to say (BT Bava Metzi‘a 85a): He who teaches religious knowledge to the son of an unknown man, God annuls in his favor all the decrees he has made concerning him, for it is written (Jeremiah 15:19): If you produce what is noble out of the worthless, you shall become like my own mouth.90

15 “Amen, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.” Like a child—with simplicity and without spiritualizing it away. This is also the position of the Talmud (BT Berakhot 12b): “Do not let yourselves be led 90 Soloveitchik seems to ignore v. 13, where they were being brought to touch Jesus. This does not appear to be about education in the way Soloveitchik suggests.

Gospel According to Mark  347

astray by the longings of your heart,” as the scripture said (Numbers 15:39), for they will lead you to heresy. This is how Maimonides develops this (Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Idolatry,” 2:3): Any thought that could lead a man to denounce one of his beliefs must be carefully discarded om our hearts. Man’s intelligence is limited, and not every man is capable of grasping certain [transcendent] thoughts. In following the slope of his individual expressions, one could end up destroying the most noble teachings. Sometimes one will desire to deepen one’s knowledge of the nature of false gods, sometimes the reality of the divine unity; one will research (as the Talmud says) “what is above us and what is below, what was before and what will be aerward”; if the prophetic inspiration exists or not, if the Torah of Moses is divine or not: dangerous research for superficial or unprepared spirits. It is on this subject that Moses spoke: “Do not let yourselves be led astray by your hearts and your eyes, which can mislead you.” In other words, do not make your oen limited reasoning your guide in the presumptuous belief that it will lead you to truth.

This is the same meaning of the words of Yeshua. We must receive the kingdom of God, meaning the religious truths, like a child, with submission and simplicity, and believe in the unity of God without questioning his inscrutable essence under pain of falling into the abyss of heresy or disbelief—which the Talmud calls minot.91 16 He embraced them, placed his hands upon them, and blessed them. 17 As he went out on the way, a man ran to meet him and knelt in front of him. He asked him, saying, “Good rabbi, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 Yeshua said to him, “Why did you call me good? There is no one good but one, which is God. 19 See, you know the mitzvot. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not murder. Do not steal. You shall not give false testimony. Do not exploit others. Honor your father and your mother.” 20 He answered and said to him, “Rabbi, I have kept all these from my youth.” 91 There is something odd about Soloveitchik using Maimonides as his source for simple faith. Maimonides’ discussion of faith and knowledge is known to be elitist in the Jewish tradition. See his parable of the castle in his Guide of the Perplexed III:5⒊ This is one place where Soloveitchik’s knowledge of Hasidism would have greatly helped make his case.

348  Gospel According to Mark

21 Yeshua looked at him and loved him. He said to him, “One thing you lack. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. And come, pick up the cross and follow me.” You will have treasure in heaven—see Mattai 6:20 and my commentary there. 22 The man was troubled over this word. He grieved and went away, because he had great wealth.92 23 Yeshua looked around intently and said to his disciples, “How difficult it is for property owners to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 The disciples were alarmed by his words, so Yeshua went on to answer and said to them, “My sons, how difficult it is for those who trust in their might to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were alarmed by his words—because he seemed to say in an absolute manner that richness, in general, is an obstacle to spiritual health. Understood thus, the thought is indeed very imprecise. Therefore, he proceeds to clari it: what makes man lost is not his riches but the blind trust, the assumption that they inspire him. Gold becomes his god, and this false god makes him forget the true one. He disdains the true God’s most holy commandments, so how could he enter the kingdom of God? 25 “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” The eye of a needle—this proverbial expression and its application will easily become clearer by this Talmudic passage. We read in BT Berakhot (55b): One does not ordinarily see while dreaming what preoccupies us while awake. This is why Daniel, in the moment of interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, tells him (Daniel 2:29): O king, the thoughts that came to your mind in your bed are about future events; (v. 30) that you may know the thoughts of your heart. Rabbah adds: “The evidence of this is that no one has ever seen a date palm of gold in a dream, or an elephant passing through the eye of a needle.”

Thus, what we never see while awake, what whih has never met our glances or crossed our thoughts, we do not see in dreams either, and we are not dead. How, 92 See Amos 2:6, where the prophet chastises Israel for their materialism and lack of attention to the poor. This is developed at length in Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Gis to the Poor.”

Gospel According to Mark  349

then, can we imagine that this rich man, who has no other concern but his fortune, no other worry but to add to it incessantly, who thinks only of the interests of the present hour, never of his soul and the future life—how can we imagine that he could enter the kingdom of God, which is to say, to see after his death the things he never even dreamed of while he was alive? 26 But again, they were still astonished and said to one another, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Yeshua looked intently at them and said, “To sons of men, this is perplexing, but not to God. For to God, nothing is perplexing.” This is perplexing indeed for sons of men, meaning, to him who is aware only of what is held dear to humanity on earth; but not for God, meaning, to him who concerns himself with God and who walks in his ways. 28 Petros began to say to him, “See, we have left everything behind so that we may follow you!” 29 Yeshua answered and said, “Amen, I say to you that there is no one who has left behind his home or his brothers or his sisters or his father or his mother or his wife or his children or his fields for my sake and for the sake of the good news For my sake—which is to say, my teaching. The sake of the good news, which is to say, of the unity of God: this “good news” of which I have become the messenger.93 30 who will not receive now at this time, with all the persecutions, a hundred times as many houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, and, in the age to come, eternal life.” With all the persecutions—this means that his future happiness will be in proportion to the persecutions that he will have faced here, and will even be multiplied a hundredfold. 31 “However, many of the first will be last, and the last will be first.” 93 Soloveitchik here, as in many places, diverts the focus of the text om the person of Jesus to stress the teachings of Jesus, enabling him to view Mark as in concert with rabbinic teaching as understood in his Lithuanian tradition. Other classical texts, such as the Zohar and later kabbalistic and Hasidic texts, focus on the person of the tzaddik as a central component in devotion. Soloveitchik may view these Jewish texts as giving too much credence to Christianity and thus does not cite them.

350  Gospel According to Mark

The first will be last—a similar thought to that of our sages (BT Pesaḥim 50a): The highest points in this world will be the lowliest in the other. Rav Yosef, son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, had passed out. When he came to, his father asked him: “What did you see?” He answered: “The world turned upside-down, with the great at the bottom and the inferior on top.” His father said: “On the contrary, you saw the world as it truly is!”

32 On the road, as they went up to Yerushalayim, Yeshua was walking ahead of them. They were alarmed, walking behind him anxiously. Once more, he took the twelve to himself and began to tell them what would happen, saying, 33 “Look, we are going up to Yerushalayim, and the son of man will be handed over to the leading priests and the scholars, and they will condemn him to die. They will hand him over to the Gentiles.” To the Gentiles—meaning the Romans, whom the Jews were subjected to in this period. 34 “They will mock him, strike him with whips, spit in his face, and kill him. But on the third day, he will surely rise.” They will mock him, strike him—still speaking of the Romans. 35 Ya’akov and Yoḥanan, sons of Zavdai, drew near him and said, “Rabbi, we desire that you would do what we ask of you.” 36 He said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 They said to him, “Permit us to sit, one on your right and one on your left, in your glory.” Permit us to sit—meaning, that we may be able to one day contemplate the divine perfections to the same degree that you have been able to contemplate them (for it is in this, as we have said, that the eternal happiness properly consists). 38 Yeshua said to them, “You do not know what you have asked. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink and be immersed in the immersion with which I am immersed?” Are you able—to bear the trials with love and resignation, as I will bear them?

Gospel According to Mark  351

39 They said to him, “We are able.” Yeshua said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink, and you will be immersed in the immersion with which I am immersed. 40 But to sit on my right and on my left it is not in my hand to give, except to those for whom it has been prepared.” It is not in my hand to give—this belongs only to God. To those for whom it has been prepared—to him who is well prepared for it by his religious faith and his good deeds. Our sages say, “He who has worked before the Sabbath will have food to eat on the Sabbath” (BT Avodah Zarah 3a). 41 When the ten heard this, they began to be upset with Ya’akov and Yoḥanan. 42 Yeshua called to them and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles are the ones who oppress them, and their great ones dominate them. 43 But it is not to be that way among you. Rather, one who desires to be great among you is to be as a servant to you, One who desires to be great—this sentiment is the same as the Talmud, om which I will cite only this passage om the many others (BT Ḥullin 89a): “The Holy One, blessed be he, said to the Israelites (a midrashic reference to Deuteronomy 7:7): ‘If I have favored you om all the other peoples, it is because even in the midst of the grandeur that I bestow upon you, you remain humble before me. I bestowed grandeur upon Abraham, and he said: I am but dust and ashes (Genesis 18:27); upon Moses and Aaron, and they said: Who are we? (Exodus 16:7); upon David, and he said: I am but a worm (Psalm 22:7). It is not so with pagans. I gave glory to Nimrod, and he said: Come, let us build us a city (Tower of Babel, Genesis 11:4); to Pharaoh, and he had the audacity to say: Who is YHWH? (Exodus 5:2); to Sennacherib, and he said: Which among all the gods of those countries saved their countries from me, that YHWH should save Jerusalem from me? (2 Kings 18:35); to Nebuchadnezzar, and he said: I will mount the back of a cloud, I will match the Most High (Isaiah 14:14); to Hiram, king of Tyre, and he said: I sit enthroned like a god in the heart of the seas (Ezekiel 28:2).’ ”

44 and the one who desires to be the head will be a slave to all.”

352  Gospel According to Mark

Will be a slave to all—it is in the same spirit that the elders who were consulted by Rehoboam responded to him (1 Kings 12:7): If you will be a servant to those people today and serve them, and if you respond to them with kind words, they will be your servants always. And the same idea is expressed by the Talmud, as I indicated in Mattai 20:2⒎ 45 “For even the son of man did not come in order to be served, but rather to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” But rather to serve—I came to serve you, and I am prepared to give my life for you. Do as I do, and others shall do as you do: they will serve mankind, and they will always be prepared to sacrifice themselves for the good of their brothers. This is what was done by the two heroes Lollianus and Papus, of whose devotion I recounted as according to the Talmud in the corresponding verse in Mattai (20:28). 46 They came to Jericho, and as they went out from Jericho—he, his disciples, and a large crowd of people—Bartimai ben Timai, a blind man, was sitting beside the road asking for ṣedakah. 47 He heard that this was Yeshua the Noṣri and began crying out. He said, “Please, son of David! Yeshua, be gracious to me!”94 48 Many reprimanded him to silence him, but he only increased his yelling, “Son of David, be gracious to me!” 49 Yeshua stood still and said, “Call him.” They called the blind man and said to him, “Be strong! Arise! He has called you!” 50 He threw off his cloak and arose and came to Yeshua. 51 Yeshua answered and said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” The blind man said to him, “Rabbuni, that I would see!” 52 Then Yeshua said to him, “Go. Your faith has saved you.” In a moment, his eyes were opened, and he followed Yeshua on the road.

94 “Son of David” is a common form in petitionary prayer, referring oen, but not always, to a messianic figure. See Psalms of Solomon, when “son of David” refers simply to a king. It is thus not clear whether this locution has messianic import.

CHAPTER 11

1 When they drew near to Yerushalayim, to Beit-Pagei and Beit-Hini at Har HaZeitim, he sent two of his disciples. 2 He said to them, “Go to the village that is across from you. When you enter there, you will find a tied donkey colt that no person has ever sat upon. Untie and bring it.”95 Donkey colt—instead of a donkey colt, Mattai says (21:2): “a female donkey tied up along with her colt.” I explained in my commentary (ibid., 24:30) the entirety of Yeshua’s thought. 3 “And if someone says, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you are to say, ‘The Master needs it,’ and he will quickly send it here.” 4 They went and found the donkey colt tied to the gate outside at the crossroads, and they untied it. 5 Some of the men standing there said, “What are you doing, untying that donkey colt?” 6 They spoke to them as Yeshua had commanded, and they permitted them. 7 They brought the donkey colt to Yeshua and placed their garments on it, and he sat on it. 8 Many spread their garments on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 Those walking in front of him and behind him cried out, saying, “Hoshana! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of YHWH!”

95

See Zechariah 9:9, where the messianic prophecy in it includes a donkey colt.

354  Gospel According to Mark

Hoshana (lit., “please save us”)—they asked God to help and to bless whoever sincerely believes in his unity.96 10 “Blessed is the coming kingdom of David our father [in the name of YHWH]! Hoshana in the heights!” The kingdom of David—whose goal is the triumph of the divine unity. 11 Yeshua came to Yerushalayim, to the Holy Temple, and he saw and watched everything. The day was fading to darkness, so he went out to Beit-Hini with the twelve. 12 The next day, as they went out from Beit-Hini, he was hungry. 13 He saw a fig tree from far away. It had leaves, so he came to see if he could find fruit on it. He drew near to it, but he did not find anything on it except leaves because it was not the season for figs. 14 He answered and said to it, “From now on, no one will eat fruit from you ever again!”97 And his disciples heard. 15 They came to Yerushalayim, and Yeshua entered the Holy Temple. He began to drive out the merchants and customers in the Temple. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the booths of those selling doves. 16 He did not permit anyone to carry an implement through the Temple. He did not permit—one finds in the Talmud even more severe instructions concerning the respect owed to the holy location. We read in the Mishnah (Berakhot 9:5; BT Berakhot 54a): One must never take the road up to the Temple Mount with his walking stick in hand, or his shoe, or his money belt around his waist, or with his feet dusty; one must not treat it as merely a road to travel upon, and one must absolutely never spit while on it.

17 He taught and said to them, “Is it not written, ‘For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the peoples’? But you have made it a ‘cave of robbers.’ ” 96 Soloveitchik intentionally diverts his reader’s attention away om the messianic message in these passages that are drawn om the prophets, especially in v. 10, which speaks openly of the Davidic kingdom. Soloveitchik’s reading of the “kingdom of David” as applying only to the triumph of divine unity has no basis that I am aware of in the classical Jewish tradition, which is perhaps why he brings no prooext. 97

This may be referring to the uitless fig tree as an image of divine judgment. See Isaiah 34:4 and Jeremiah 5:⒘

Gospel According to Mark  355

18 The scholars and leading priests heard this and conspired to destroy him because they were afraid of him, since all the people were astonished at his teaching. 19 In the evening, he went to the outside of the city. 20 They were passing through in the morning, and they saw that the fig tree had withered from its roots. 21 Petros remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed is withered!” The fig tree that you cursed—we read in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhot 2:8): Kahana, a young and pious sage, had just arrived in Palestine om Babylon. A dishonest, mischievous man encountered him and asked him mockingly: “So, what is the news in heaven?” He replied: “That your death has just been decreed.” And, indeed, he died not long aer.

22 Yeshua answered and said to them, “Let the faith of God be in you.” The faith of God be in you—he who believes with all his heart in one God and who ardently implores him, his requests are sure to be granted, whether he requests good or bad (for he cannot request anything that is not conformed to the will of God). This power of faith and of prayer is attested to by the Tanakh itself: If you return to Shaddai, if you banish iniquity from your tent . . . you will pray to him and he will listen to you, and you will pay your vows; you will decree and it will be fulfilled! (Job 22:23–28). The Talmud has as many abundant proofs of this truth as the Gospel, if not even more so. Thanks to their distinguished piety, a great number of our sages exerted, in a sense, an absolute rule over nature; the elements were subject to their devoutness, and when one om among them would say these ritual words: “YHWH makes the wind to blow,” “YHWH makes the rain to fall,” the wind would begin to blow and the rain would come down in torrents. Relating all the acts of this nature that have been preserved in our tradition would require an entire volume. I have already cited some other instances elsewhere, and I would like to cite yet another here, one that is attested to by the pagans themselves. It takes place during the period of the first destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem: Resh Lakish recounts (BT Yoma 54b): When the idolaters invaded the Sanctuary, they noticed the cherubim of the Ark, who have the appearance of a couple romantically embracing each other.

356  Gospel According to Mark They brought them out into a public space and exclaimed: “Such a strange people are these Israelites! Everything that they bless is blessed, and everything that they curse is cursed; and they possess such images!”

Thus, in the very same moment as the fall of Jerusalem, in the moment that they caused its ruin and persecuted us with the most violent animosity, even our enemies paid homage to the authority of our words. What must it have been like, that authority in the prosperous times, when all the Israelites adored the Almighty with all their hearts and made him the center of their thoughts!98 23 “For amen, I say to you, anyone who says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and moved into the middle of the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but rather believes that what he says will be done, so it will be for him as he has said. 24 Therefore I say to you, all that you ask in your prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be so for you.” And it will be so—a similar assertion is in the Talmud (JT Berakhot 4:1): “He who prays to God with persistence, his prayer is accepted; such is said concerning Hannah, the mother of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:12): As she kept on praying before YHWH . . . and we see that her requests were granted.” 25 “And when you stand to pray, pardon everyone for what is in your heart against them, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive your transgressions.” Pardon everyone—we have already said that, according to the Talmud, as well as the Gospel, God habitually gives measure for measure, and this is just as true for the good as it is for the bad. This is precisely why here Yeshua says: “If you will pardon those who have offended you, God will in turn pardon you your offenses toward him.” Concerning this matter, let us cite a touching narrative om the Talmud (BT Bava Batra 11a): Binyamin Hatzaddik was the supervisor of the charitable fund for the poor. One day, in a year of scarcity, a woman came before him, saying: “Rabbi, give me something to eat!” He said to her: “I promise you there is nothing le in the fund.” She said: “Rabbi, if you refuse me, you will cause a mother and her seven children

98 On the rabbinic notion of the righteous one’s power over nature, see BT Mo’ed Qaṭan 17b and Tanna Devei Eliyahu ⒉

Gospel According to Mark  357 to die of starvation!” So, om his own resources, he gave her what she needed to survive. Sometime later, Binyamin fell ill and was on the verge of dying, and the angels said to the Almighty: “Master of the universe, did you not say that he who saves just one life in Israel, it is as if he had saved the world? And Binyamin Hatzaddik, who saved the life of an entire family, should die in the prime of his life?” And the Holy One, blessed be he, revoked the death sentence, and he added twenty-two years to his life.99

26 “But as for you, if you do not pardon, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions.” 27 They returned and came to Yerushalayim. As he was walking around in the Temple, the leading priests, the scholars, and the elders came to him. 28 They said to him, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority to do these things?” By what authority—these are two distinct questions that are better explained when we read tractate Sanhedrin (5b): “The disciple of a learned rabbi must not teach the Torah if he has not received authorization om his master.” Therefore, if he himself is capable of teaching, permission om his master is essential. Because of this, and seeing how young Yeshua was, they ask him two things: 1) Do you have the required ability? 2) Even if you are capable, are you authorized to teach and explain the Torah? 29 Yeshua answered and said to them, “I will also ask you something. You answer me, and I will say to you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 The immersion of Yoḥanan—was it from heaven or sons of men? Answer me.” From heaven or sons of men—meaning: What do you think of the immersion that Yoḥanan administered? Did he immerse and call people to repentance only for the sake of his own movement, or was he acting on behalf of a divine inspiration? Did not he himself say (Mattai 3:14): “I need to be immersed by you,” and also (ibid., v. 11): “The one coming aer me is mightier than I am”? All right, then! This testimony about me should be enough for you.

99 On the category of “measure for measure” regarding divine retribution, see BT Nedarim 32a and BT Sanhedrin 90a.

358  Gospel According to Mark

31 They deliberated together, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ 32 Or if we say, ‘From sons of men’—” they feared the people, since all of them considered Yoḥanan to be a true prophet. 33 They answered and said to Yeshua, “We do not know.” Yeshua answered and said to them, “If so, I, too, will not say to you by what authority I do these things.” I will not say to you—in other words: I will not respond to your first question, since you will not respond to mine, which is of the same nature. And as for the second, he does indeed respond, for as we just saw, the question that he himself posed implicitly contains the response they requested.

CHAPTER 12

1 He began to speak to them in parables, saying, “A man planted a vineyard. He made a fence around it, hewed out a winepress, and built a tower. He gave it to vinedressers and went to faraway places.100 2 At the appointed time, he sent a servant to the vinedressers to take some of the produce from the vinedressers. 3 They seized him, struck him, and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Once more, he sent another servant to them, but him [they stoned with stones, and] they wounded his head and sent him away in disgrace. 5 Once more, he sent another, but him they actually killed. They did the same to many others; some they struck, and some they killed. 6 He still had an only son, whom he loved, and even him he finally sent to them, for he said, ‘They will be intimidated by my son.’ 7 But those vinedressers said to one another, ‘This is the heir! Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!’ 8 They seized him and killed him and threw him outside the vineyard. 9 Now what will the owner of the vineyard do? Will he not come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others? 10 Have you not read this scripture: ‘A stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.101 11 This was from YHWH; it is wonderful in our eyes’?”

100 This parable is based on Isaiah 5:1–⒎ In Isaiah, the vineyard that produces “wild grapes” is used as a metaphor for Israel’s sins and the prediction of their destruction. 101

Psalm 118:22, 2⒊ The stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone [rosh pinah].

360  Gospel According to Mark

It is wonderful in our eyes—this narrative is found in the Gospel of Mattai, 21:33 and on, and in Luke, 20:9 and on. The accounts of the narrative are almost identical, but with a few variations, which I will bring up later. To better understand the essence of this parable, it would be good for this following passage to meet the eyes of the reader first. We read in the Talmud (BT Pesaḥim 87a): YHWH said to the prophet Hosea, “Your children have sinned against me.” Hosea must have responded, “But they are your children, the children of your beloved, the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; be merciful to them!” Now, no sooner had he said this that he also added, “Master of the universe, combine them with another people, and in this way the whole world will belong to you!” Then God said to himself, “What lesson shall I inflict upon this old man? I will tell him to take a woman of harlotry as a wife, who will give him illegitimate children, aer which I will command him to reject her. If he is able to reject her, then will I also reject Israel.” This is why we read (Hosea 1:2): YHWH said to Hosea, Go, get yourself a wife of whoredom and children of whoredom. When she gave him two sons and a daughter, God said to him, “Should you not follow the example of your master Moses, who, as soon as he received my revelations, renounced all marital relations?102 Therefore, separate yourself om your wife as well.” The prophet responded, “Master, I have children om her, I would not know how to separate myself or how to reject her.” God replied: “And so, you who have a wife of whoredom and children of whoredom, you who do not know if those children belong to you or to another, you are unable to resolve to separate om them; and when it is Israel—who are children who belong to me, the children of my chosen ones, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, one of the four treasures of which I am most proud103—you advise me to combine them with another people!” The prophet, realizing his error, wanted to ask for forgiveness for himself; but God said to him, “Instead of imploring me on your own behalf, implore me on Israel’s behalf, whom I condemned because of you!” Then Hosea interceded, obtained the withdrawal of the divine sentence, and then blessed Israel, saying (Hosea 2:1–25): The number of the people of Israel shall be like that of the sands of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted; and instead of being told, “You are Not-My-People,” they shall be called “Children-of-the-Living-God.”. . . I will sow her in the land as my own; and take Lo-Ruḥamah (Not Accepted) back in favor; and I will say to Lo-Ammi (Not My People), “You are my people,” and he will respond, “You are my God.”

102

An opinion of the Talmud, according to Deuteronomy 5:30–31, compared with Exodus 19:⒖

103

Elsewhere five, listed at the end of Pirkei Avot 6:⒑

Gospel According to Mark  361

Such is the Talmudic legend, a legend no less strange at first glance than the biblical event that it wishes to explain. Where did the Talmud find it written that God spoke to Hosea, or that Hosea responded to God in the manner that it says? What information does it base this on, along with the accusation with which God addresses the prophet, and the despicable counsel that the prophet gives God? It would do well here to remember the wise teaching of Maimonides, who maintains (Guide of the Perplexed II:46) that the account of Hosea, as well as much of Ezekiel and of other prophets, is simply prophetic visions, and in no way actually occurred. In fact, how could one accept that the Holy One, blessed be he, could command his prophet to publicly carry out cynical, abject, or immoral behaviors? What an example to give to the people of God! Evidently, this goes against all reasoning. Moreover, as I developed in the introduction to my commentary on Mattai, the first and most essential condition for preparing oneself for prophetic inspiration is to detach om the worries of this world: material interests, ivolous thoughts, and, above all, the raw appetites of the flesh; in short, to focus and concentrate entirely and exclusively on God. Then one can receive the inspiration, more or less direct, depending on the capability and the preparation of the individual. In the first chapters of Hosea, two peculiarities, understandably, struck the Talmudists: 1) with the first condition for the prophetic preparation being detachment om every earthly thought, and the natural result being the most noble and holy revelation of truths, how could this preparation performed by Hosea lead him to the unbelievable task of marrying a prostitute? To arrive at such a result that is absolutely uncharacteristic of God would not require such rigorous contemplation. But still, God’s purposes are unfathomable, and we admit that his supreme wisdom desires that it should be this way. And in this case: 2) since this symbolic marriage must have represented the idolatries of the Synagogue, the unfaithful wife of the faithful God, the logical conclusion would have been severe and threatening prophecies addressed to the Synagogue. So why do we read om the second chapter: “The number of the people of Israel shall be like that of the sands of the sea. . . . They shall be called ‘Children-ofthe-Living-God,’ ” etc.? It is as a result of these serious difficulties that the Talmud constructed the legend that I related, and it indeed solves them, especially if we combine it with the previously cited theory of Maimonides. Thus, in reality, God never ordered the prophet to marry a shameless woman; the prophet did not marry her, and he did not have children by her: he dreamed all this or, better put, all this occurred in his prophetic vision. And it is in this same vision that Hosea is urged to reject his wife, which he refuses to do; and the excellent argument that God makes to him, which we just read, brings about the benevolent prophecy of chapter ⒉

362  Gospel According to Mark

It is time to return to the subject we were on. In examining closely the words of Yeshua in verse 10, we notice that there must be a gap in this narrative. These words, “Have you not read this scripture” seem to be a reply to the Pharisees, and yet we do not see what they had said to Yeshua. The thought in verse 9 is equally obscure; it is an allegory of which the point is omitted. But all this will become clear if you lend me but a moment of your attention. Here Yeshua reprimands the Pharisees over the errors of their ways, and the point of his thought is this: “Consider reforming your erroneous views, and know that if you do not, God will substitute you for another nation who will encompass you” (allegorical meaning of v. 9). For support of this explanation, see Mattai 21:43, where, aer the parable that we just read, Yeshua concludes: “Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation who will produce its uit.” In other words: All the nations will successively renounce idolatry in order to accept the worship of one God, and then they will become, instead of you, the people of God”—precisely what Hosea first said. What the Pharisees said in response to this is not spoken of here, but we can compensate for that through the Gospel of Luke (20:16), where we read, “When they heard this, they said, ‘May it never be!’ ” This is how I explain it: Undoubtedly, if the other peoples accept the unity of God, he will accept them as well, for God does not push anyone away (2 Samuel 14:14); but pushing Israel away, ceasing to regard them as his people—that, God will never do! And we have his word as a guarantee: Thus declares YHWH: “When nature ceases to obey my laws, only then the nation of Israel will cease to be my people” (Jeremiah 31:36). Yeshua replies to this response of the Pharisees: “Have you not read this scripture: A stone the builders rejected has become the capstone? (Psalm 118:22). The “builders,” as a certain part of the Talmud says (BT Berakhot 64a),“are the Torah scholars, charged with building the house of Israel.” Therefore, if you do not return to the correct path, all these peoples whom you disdain, and who will come to believe in the unity of God, will become, in your stead, the capstone of his house. In speaking thus, Yeshua undoubtedly removes ever so slightly the literal meaning om this verse in Psalms. However, as I have already said, this is a Talmudic method and Yeshua himself was nothing else if not a Talmudist, except for the fact that he belonged to the Essene sect.104 104 What Soloveitchik seems to imply by invoking the Talmudic passage om BT Pesaḥim 87a is a particular rhetorical point about the way in which the rabbinic sages read scripture: first, that there are sometimes gaps in the rabbinic narratives that need to be filled in by the reader; and second, the sages do not take biblical parables literally but view them as lessons that must be teased out through interpretation. Thus the parable of the vineyard as told in Mark is Jesus’ warning to the Pharisees that they have erred in their own tradition and if they do not correct their ways, they will be replaced (albeit not destroyed) by others who will take the Jewish mantle of declaring the unity of God.

Gospel According to Mark  363

12 They sought to capture him, but they were afraid of the people. For they understood that he spoke this parable about them. So they left him and went away. 13 They sent to him some men from the Perushim and some of Hordos’s men to catch him in his word. 14 They came up and said to him, “Rabbi, we know you are a man of truth. You are not intimidated by anyone because you do not show favoritism, and you truly teach the way of God. Is it correct to give tax to Keisar or not? Is it to be given or not to be given?” A question in accordance with the spirit of the Talmud, where we read (BT Bava Batra 8a): “Rabbi Naḥman ben Ḥisda wanted to impose a tax on the sages, and Rabbi Naḥman ben Yiṣḥak said to him, ‘You have violated the Torah, the Prophets, and the Holy Writings.’ ” (This immunity, at least with regard to certain fees, applies exclusively to the sages, as we have just seen. Cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Studying Torah,” 6:⒑) 15 But he knew their hypocrisy and said to them, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a dinar, and I will see it.” 16 They brought it, and he said to them, “This image and the inscription that is over it—whose are they?” They replied, “Keisar’s.” 17 Yeshua answered and said to them, “What is Keisar’s, give to Keisar, and what is God’s, give to God.” And they were amazed at him. What is Keisar’s, give to Keisar—for you are also subject to his authority, and you must respect him. 18 Some of the Ṣaddukim, who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, came to him. They questioned him, saying, That there is no resurrection of the dead—seeing the importance of this question, I believe it necessary to reproduce here what I have already written concerning the parallel passage in Mattai (22:23): Later Christians thus coin Christianity “New Israel.” In other contemporaneous Jewish readings of the New Testament—e.g., in Kaufmann Kohler and other reformers in the late nineteenth century—these admonitions are openly directed at Orthodox Judaism’s stubbornness about reforming the tradition to conform more with the spirit of the times. One wonders if Soloveitchik has a contemporary group that he is similarly chastising. From his commentary, and arguably the project more generally, he is chastising his fellow Jews, both traditional and progressive, who have made a categorical distinction between Judaism and Christianity that he is trying to undermine. Alternatively, he is responding to people, such as Alexander McCaul, who were trying to convert the Jews to Christianity during the decades he was working on his commentary. The notion of driving a wedge between Christianity and Judaism goes back to the early phases of Christianity. Gager, Who Made Early Christianity?, 106–1⒓

364  Gospel According to Mark We have already said that the dogma of resurrection comprises two distinct beliefs. The first is that there is an appointed time, set by the Creator and known only to him, when the dead will be called back to life. What will be the fashion of this resurrection? What will be the conditions of this new existence? Theologians are not in agreement over these questions, and we need not dwell on them. The second belief is that the human soul is immortal, which is to say that it survives the dissolving of the bodily organs, and that it is called to enjoy a happiness that has no end in a better world, a happiness that is proportionate to its merits and good deeds. Christians and Jews, we have both adopted these two beliefs, which are an integral part of our shared law, the Torah of Moses. But the Sadducees, unfaithful to our holy traditions, reject both beliefs, and this is how the deceitful question that they pose to Yeshua can be explained.105

19 “Rabbi, Moshe wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but has no children, his brother is to take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.106 20 But look, there were seven brothers. The first one took a wife and died, but he did not leave offspring after him. 21 The second one took her and died, but he did not leave offspring, and the third did so, too. 22 All seven brothers took her, but they did not leave offspring after them, and, last of all, the woman also died. 23 Now, at the resurrection of the dead, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For she had been the wife of all seven.” 24 Yeshua said to them, “Have you not erred, in that you do not know the scriptures or the power of God? 25 For at the time of their rising from the dead, men will not marry women, and women will not be married, because they will be like the angels of the heavens.” They will be like the angels—corresponding with the Talmudic system. See my commentary on Mattai 22:30. 26 “But on the matter of the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moshe, in the bush, what God spoke to him? He said,

105 For a lengthy rabbinic discussion of resurrection, see BT Sanhedrin 90b–92a. On the history of resurrection in early Jewish sources, see J. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel. 106 Known as levirate marriage. See Deuteronomy 25:5–⒍ Mark creates an erroneous argument in the mouths of the Sadducees to see whether Jesus believes in resurrection.

Gospel According to Mark  365

‘I am the God of Avraham and the God of Yiṣḥak and the God of Ya’akov.’ 27 God is not the God of the dead but the God of the living! Therefore, you are greatly in error.” The God of the living—this is also what we read in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 18b): The dead converse with one another, according to this passage of the Torah (Deuteronomy 34:4): “YHWH said to him (to Moses, just before his death), ‘This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying’ [lit., “to say”—lemor].” In other words: Go tell your forefathers—whom you will be joining soon—the oath that God made you he has fulfilled with your children.

Let us repeat this, for it is an important and indisputable fact: in the dual belief of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead, our Israelite brothers are in perfect accord with our Christian brothers. 28 One of the scholars heard them arguing and drew near to them. He saw that he answered them well, and he asked him, “What is the first of all the mitzvot?” 29 Yeshua answered him, “The first of all the mitzvot is: ‘Hear, O Yisra’el! YHWH is our God; YHWH is one. 30 Love YHWH, your God, with all of your heart, with all of your soul, with all of your knowledge, and with all of your strength.’ This is the first mitzvah.” With all of your knowledge—these words are not in the text of the Torah; however, they are absolutely implied. Yeshua adds them by his own initiative, by way of commentary, and entirely in the same spirit as our sages, just as I have established in Mattai 22:3⒎ 31 “Now the second is similar to it: ‘Love your fellow as yourself.’ There is no mitzvah greater than these.” Love your fellow as yourself—compare with this passage of the Talmud (BT Shabbat 31a): One day, a pagan came to Shammai and said to him, “I will convert to your religion if you can teach it to me in its entirety in the length of time that I can

366  Gospel According to Mark stand on one leg (or with a leg raised).” Shammai became angry and told him to leave. Our man went to Hillel, made him the same proposition, and Hillel convinced him with this response: “That which you would not have others do to you, do not do to them. This is the Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it!”107

32 The scholar replied, “Truly, rabbi, you have spoken well. For God is one, and there is none besides him. 33 And to love him with all of one’s heart and with all of one’s knowledge and with all of one’s soul and with all of one’s strength, and to love a fellow like your own life—this is greater than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 Yeshua saw that he answered with knowledge, and he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God!” And no one else dared of his heart to ask him a question. 35 Yeshua was teaching in the Temple and remarked, “How can the scholars say that the mashiaḥ is the son of David? 36 Did not David say by the Holy Spirit, ‘YHWH said to my master: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool”?’ 37 David himself calls him ‘master,’ so how can he be his son?” And the multitude of people loved to listen to him. David himself calls him “master”—in the corresponding passage of the first Gospel (Mattai 22:41), I explained why Yeshua and the Pharisees differed in opinion concerning the psalm in question. I refer the reader there, and I will briefly recall that, according to the Pharisees, this psalm is about David himself and that the expression “my master” could not have applied to Messiah the descendant of David at that point, but to Abraham. On the contrary, according to Yeshua, the psalm is not “about David,” but addressed “to David” by some Levite who could well employ the qualification of “my master” in order to indicate either David himself, or the Messiah who must be born om him. 38 He said to them as he taught them, “Beware of the scholars who love to walk around wrapped in a tallit, for people to ask of their shalom in the marketplace, 39 to sit first in the synagogues and to recline first at the meals,

107 Jesus’ comments are a combination of Deuteronomy 6:4–5 and Leviticus 19:⒙ Hillel does not mention the Shema declaration as the greatest command, as Jesus does.

Gospel According to Mark  367

To sit first—in Pirkei Avot (1:10): “Shemayah said: ‘Love work and flee om power.’ Ibid. (4:21; in other sources 4:28): Rabbi Elazar HaKappar said: ‘Jealousy, sensuality, and the love of honor are the scourges of mankind.’ ” The Talmud also says (BT Soṭah 13b): “Why did Joseph die before his brothers? Because he loved greatness.” 40 who swallow up the homes of the widows while prolonging the prayer for the appearance of the eyes. They will be judged with a much greater judgment.” 41 Yeshua sat facing the treasury box. He was watching the people placing ma’ot into the treasury box, and many rich people gave much. 42 A poor widow came and gave two prutot, a quarter of an issar. 43 He called to his disciples and said to them, “Amen, I say to you that this poor widow has given more than all those giving to the treasury box. 44 For all of them gave of their surplus, but she, out of her lack, has given all that she had—her entire living!” Under the sacrificial system of the Temple, God accepted the simple oblation of flour om the poor just as much as the burnt sacrifice om the rich; since today the sacrifices have ceased, the offering of the destitute is as dear to him as the opulent offering of the millionaire. Let us heed the Talmud (BT Menaḥot 110a): Of the bull offered as a burnt offering, it is said (Leviticus 1:9): An offering by fire of pleasing odor to YHWH; of the little bird offered as a burnt offering, it is said, “An offering by fire of pleasing odor to YHWH”; of the humble offering of flour, “An offering by fire of pleasing odor to YHWH.” Therefore, it is not the quality that is important to God, or the richness of the offering; it is the devotion of the one offering it.

CHAPTER 13

1 As he went out from the Temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Rabbi, look how beautiful these stones and buildings are!” 2 Yeshua answered him and said, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will remain on another that will not be torn down.” Not one stone will remain on another—the Talmud recounts (BT Yoma 39b): Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western lamp was extinguished and the doors opened themselves; it was an ill omen that did not cease until Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai cried out: “Temple of YHWH, why such vehemence? I know that you will be destroyed, and it is about you that Zechariah prophesied, saying, Throw open your gates, O Lebanon, and let fire consume your cedars! (Zechariah 11:1).”108

3 He sat down on Har HaZeitim facing the Temple, and Petros, Ya’akov, Yoḥanan, and Andrai questioned him, and they were alone with him. 4 “Please tell us when this will be, and tell us what the sign is when the time comes for all this to occur.” What the sign is—as is evident by the response of their master, the disciples pose two distinct questions. First, when must this catastrophe that he announced take place? And second, since the Messiah will one day repair all, by what sign will one be able to recognize the truth and divinity of his mission? 108 This section of Mark is known as the Markan Apocalypse. Soloveitchik notes a Talmudic text based on the prophecy of Zechariah. Another prophetic precedent is Isaiah 13:11 and 51:⒍

Gospel According to Mark  369

5 Yeshua answered and spoke to them: “Guard yourselves so that no one misleads you, Guard yourselves—with the signs that I desire to give you so that you will not be led astray by false messiahs. 6 for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and they will mislead many.” I am he—see my commentary on the corresponding verse Mattai 24:⒌ 7 “When you hear wars and rumors of war, do not be alarmed. For this will surely be, but the end has still not come.” When you hear wars—“War will be the beginning of deliverance” (BT Megillah 17b).109 8 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes here and there. There will be famine and panic.” Nation will rise against nation—one reads in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 9: Pagans are compared to the waters by the Tanakh (Isaiah 17:12). Therefore, just as in the fih day of creation, the waters abounded with living creatures (Genesis 1:20), so one day the pagans will abound in the world, and they will rage a murderous war against one another, as it is written (2 Chronicles 15:6): Nation will be crushed by nation and city by city, for God will throw them into panic with every kind of trouble, aer which will come the salvation of Israel, for we read next: As for you, be strong, do not be disheartened!

9 “These are the beginning of the birth pangs. But as for you, guard your lives, because they will hand you over to courts, and you will be beaten in synagogues. You will be brought before princes and kings for my sake, for testimony to them.”

109 The notion of war that precedes salvation is also explicit in the book of Daniel, especially chaps. 10–12, regarding the wars preceding salvation and many other apocryphal texts.

370  Gospel According to Mark

Guard your lives—know that before the appearance of the calamities that I announced, you yourselves will have to suffer much persecution.110 10 “But the good news needs to be proclaimed first to all the nations.”111 To all the nations—the previous verse seems to interrupt the thought process of Yeshua. He began with explaining to his disciples the precursory signs of the coming of the true Messiah, and then he interrupts himself to tell them of their future trials and tribulations and their mission to proclaim, and he only returns to teach just a little more about these signs! But here is the fact: Yeshua knew that the Messiah would not appear until all humanity accepts the faith of the unity of God but that this conquest would be bought at the price of tribulations and martyrdoms of all sorts for those invested in this precious faith.112 11 “When they lead you away and hand you over, do not worry or think about what you will speak, for the word that will be placed in your mouth at that hour is what you will speak. That way, it will not be you speaking but the Holy Spirit. 12 A brother will betray his brother to death and a father his son. Children will rise up against their fathers and put them to death. 13 You will be hated by everyone on account of my name, but the one who waits until the time of the end will be saved. 14 When you see the desolating abomination of which Daniel the Prophet spoke, standing in the place that does not belong to it—let the reader understand—then the people of Yehudah must surely flee to the mountains.”113 When you see—this is a continuation of the predictions concerning the precursory signs. The passage in Daniel that Yeshua refers to is this (Daniel 12:11–12): From the time the regular offering is abolished, and the abomination of desolation is set up—it will be 1,290 days (or years). Happy is the one who waits 110 The notion of messianic “birth pangs” appears in numerous places in rabbinic literature. See, e.g., in BT Ketubot 111a and midrash Tanḥuma 58:⒊ 111 New Testament scholars are wary of the authenticity of this verse, as Jesus was not focused on proclaiming the “good news” to the nations. His message was much more about Israel. It was Paul and later Christianity where the message to the nations began to play more of a major role. 112

See the discussion in BT Sanhedrin 111b.

113

Daniel 11:31 and 12:⒒

Gospel According to Mark  371

and reaches 1,335 days (or years)! On these two mysterious verses, the sages and rabbis of the Middle Ages put forth a great number of explanations and conjectures; each one made his own calculation in order to determine the messianic era indicated by Daniel, and not one of them succeeded. This is more or less what Yeshua is saying: When you see the events of Daniel’s prophecy occurring . . . then the people of Yehudah must surely flee, etc.; which means, then the calamities will commence, which are the preface to the coming of the Messiah: but to speci the time of his arrival, no one knows it except God (infra, v. 32). 15 “Whoever is on the roof must not go down into the house, and one must not enter it to carry anything from his house. 16 Whoever is in the field should not return to the house to carry his clothes. 17 How terrible for those who are pregnant and for nursing mothers in those days! 18 But pray that your fleeing will not be in the winter. 19 For those days will be a time of distress; there has not been anything like it from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and there will not be anything like it again. 20 If YHWH had not cut those days short, no flesh at all would be saved. But for the sake of the chosen ones, whom he chose, he has cut the days short. 21 Then, if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the mashiaḥ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false meshiḥim and false prophets will arise and offer signs and wonders to mislead even the chosen ones, if they can. 23 But as for you, look! I have told you everything from the beginning. 24 In those days, after that distress, the sun will turn dark and the moon will not shine its light; 25 the stars will fall from heaven, and the armies of heaven will be shaken.” The stars will fall—all these metaphors indicate, as in the Tanakh, where they are drawn om, the excess of tragedy and affliction. 26 “Then they will see the son of man coming on the clouds, with great power and with glory.”

372  Gospel According to Mark

The son of man—the Messiah. He calls him the son of man, meaning a mortal, precisely so that men would not err concerning his nature and not think of making him into a god. See my commentary on Mattai 24:4⒋114 On the clouds—which means “very fast.” See ibid. 27 “Then he will send his angels, and he will gather his chosen ones from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” He will send—he: meaning God. We also read this in the Tanakh (Isaiah 27:12–13): And in that day, YHWH will harvest from the river of Euphrates to the river of Egypt; and you shall be picked up one by one, O children of Israel. And in that day, a great ram’s horn shall be sounded; and the strayed who are in the land of Assyria and the expelled who are in the land of Egypt shall come and worship YHWH on the mount, in Jerusalem.

28 “And from the fig tree, learn the parable of the matter. When its branch is lush and its leaves sprout, you know that the summer is near. 29 Likewise, you, too, when you see that these things have happened, know that he is near, at the entrance. 30 Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass until all these things will be.” This generation will not pass—see Mattai, ibid., v. 3⒋ According to the literal meaning, one could consider this sentence as a response to the question in verse 4 concerning what Yeshua had said: “Not one stone will remain on another.” The disciples ask him when these things will happen, and here he responds that this generation will witness it. 31 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 32 But the time of the coming of that day and that hour, no one knows—not even the angels of heaven or even the son—except the Father.”

114

This seems to be drawn om Daniel 7:⒔

Gospel According to Mark  373

No one knows . . . except the Father—meaning: All the signs that I just gave you will only reveal the imminence of the coming of the Messiah, his triumph being more or less at hand (which equally comes out by the figurative comparison of v. 28); but the precise date is known only by God, and neither an ordinary person, nor the angels, nor even the son, knows this date. One can see that this detail is truly incremental: Yeshua first speaks of some individual, then angels, evidently superior to the average mortal; last, he speaks of a son, meaning a true tzaddik, for this is the complete sense of the word son, son of God, as I explained about Mattai 4:3–⒋115 Like this, even the most righteous, the elect of God, do not know this mystery. This shows that Yeshua places the righteous above the angels, and this is precisely the opinion of the Talmud, and it says it, word for word: “The righteous are greater than the angels” (BT Sanhedrin 93a). 33 “Look! Be alert and pray, for you do not know when the time will be. 34 It will be like a man going far away who left his house and gave his servants authority over his work, and he commanded the gatekeeper to be alert. 35 Thus, be alert—for you do not know when the owner of the house will come, whether in the evening or at midnight, whether at the time the rooster crows or in the morning— 36 so that he does not come suddenly and find you sleeping. 37 What I have said to you, I say to everyone: Be alert!”116

115 For a much more detailed exploration of the term “son,” see Idel, Ben. Soloveitchik remains intent on viewing these references to “son of God” and “son of man” totally within the rabbinic rendering of the biblical text. He is unwilling to entertain the possibility that these terms may have had meanings in the Israelite orbit that were not in accord with rabbinic interpretation. Here he retains a very traditional view of Talmudic literature as the only true lens through which to see the complexity of ancient Israelite society. 116 The notion of keeping alert in waiting for salvation also appears in Ezra 4:22 and may have been a common trope in the preaching of the time.

CHAPTER 14

1 There were two more days until Festival of Pesaḥ and the Festival of Matzot would come, and the leading priests and scholars sought to capture him cunningly to put him to death. The Festival of Pesaḥ and Matzot—we must distinguish between that which is Pesaḥ and the Feast of Matzot. The Pesaḥ, or Passover lamb, is the sacrifice offered on the fourteenth day of the first month; it was the introduction to the Feast of Matzot, beginning on the fieenth and which, for this reason, began the evening before, as do all the festivals. (See further in v. ⒓) 2 They said, “Not on the festival, or else there will be a panic among the people.” 3 While he was in Beit-Hini in the house of Shimon the Meṣora, he was reclining at the table, and a woman came, and in her hand was a vial of perfume of pure nard, very expensive. Shimon the Meṣora—the same one whom he healed, as reported in the first chapter (v. 40 and on), and who had, since then, retained his surname of Meṣora (leper). 4 There were some who started grumbling to one another, saying, “Of what purpose was this waste of the perfume? 5 For it would have been appropriate for this to be sold for more than three hundred dinars, which could be given to the poor!” And they reprimanded her. 6 Yeshua said, “Leave her alone! Why are you wearying her soul? She has done a good deed for me.

Gospel According to Mark  375

7 For the poor are always with you, and whenever you desire, you are able to do good to them; but as for me, I will not always be with you. 8 She has done in advance what was in her hand: to apply oil to my body for its burial.” To apply oil—see my commentary on Mattai 26:⒓ 9 “Amen, I say to you that wherever this good news is proclaimed throughout the world, what she has done will also be told as a memorial to her.” As a memorial to her—meaning: Everywhere that my name is mentioned with honor, for having proclaimed and spread the Gospel—the good news—of the unity of God in the world, the name of this woman will also be cited for praise.117 10 Now Yehudah Ish-Kriyot, one of the twelve, went to the leading priests to betray him to them. 11 When they heard, they rejoiced and said they would give him money, and he sought an opportunity to betray him. 12 On the Festival of Matzot, on the first day, when the Pesaḥ would be slaughtered, his disciples said to him, “Where do you desire to eat the Pesaḥ? We will go and prepare.”118 On the first day, when the Pesaḥ is slaughtered—this passage offers a serious difficulty, which I solved in the first volume (Mattai 26:17), in demonstrating that “the first day” here must mean the day before Passover. I noted that this usage was purely a Hebraism, one that proves yet again that the Gospel of Mattai was originally written in Hebrew. One can now see that it is the same as Markos, and this is also the style of the Talmud; for the disciples of Yeshua were Talmudists, as he was, and they all speak the same language.119 13 He sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go to the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will encounter you; follow him. 117 As in other places, Soloveitchik understands the “good news” or “gospel” not as Jesus as the Messiah, but rather as a call for divine unity, a doctrine in full accord with rabbinic teaching. 118

See Deuteronomy 16:1–8, where scripture mandates that the Paschal Lamb be eaten only in Jerusalem.

119 The fourteenth day of Nisan, the eve of Passover, is considered a quasi-holiday in rabbinic tradition. On this day, om the fourth hour onward, it is forbidden to eat leaven, and the Paschal sacrifice is brought on that day in the aernoon and consumed aer nightfall of the fieenth day of Nisan. Soloveitchik notes that the term “the feast day” is merely a euphemism for the eve of Passover, which is very likely the case, as the author of Mark certainly knew that the Paschal Lamb was not sacrificed on the fieenth day of Nisan.

376  Gospel According to Mark

14 Where he enters, say to the owner of the house, ‘This is what the rav said: “Where is the lodging place where I can eat the Pesaḥ with my disciples?”’ 15 He will show you a large upper room, spread and ready; prepare for us there.” 16 His disciples went out and came to the city, and they found it as he had said to them, and they prepared the Pesaḥ. 17 In the evening, he came with the twelve. 18 They reclined and ate, and Yeshua said, “Amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me, and he is eating with me.” 19 They began to be grieved and said to him, one after another, “Is it I?” 20 He answered and said to them, “It is one of the twelve who dips with me in the bowl. 21 Yes, the son of man will surely go, as it is written of him, but how terrible for that man by whom the son of man will be betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” As it is written of him—not in any of the books of the Tanakh but in the decrees of heaven. Moreover, this is what the Gospel of Luke says specifically (22:22): “Just as it has been determined.”120 How terrible for that man, etc.—His hatred may be concealed by dissimulation, but his evil will be exposed to public view (Proverbs 26:26). 22 When they ate, Yeshua took bread, made a berakhah, broke it, and gave it to them. He said, “Take it; eat it. This is my body.” Yeshua took bread—unleavened bread, naturally. Made a berakhah—saying the two traditional blessings: “Blessed are you, YHWH, our God, king of the universe, who brings forth bread om the earth. Blessed are you, YHWH, our God, king of the universe, who has sanctified us with his commandments and has commanded us to eat unleavened bread.”121 This is my body—which is to say, my life, for this meal is the last that we will share together (see v. 25). 120 It is interesting to note that Soloveitchik uses “heavenly writing” to justi a source for Jesus’ mission that has no precedent in the Hebrew Bible. He then justifies this with Luke 22:22 to suggest that what Luke refers to is a “writing” that is not biblical but in heaven. We do see notions of “heavenly writing” in Second Temple works such as Jubilees and Enoch but rarely, if at all, in rabbinic literature. It is thus curious that Soloveitchik, so wed to rabbinic literature, chooses to refer to it here. 121 Soloveitchik deploys the standard liturgical formula of Jewish blessings. There is no evidence that Jesus—or anyone else, for that matter—used that formula at that time.

Gospel According to Mark  377

23 He took the cup, made a berakhah, and gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, which is poured out on behalf of many.” This is my blood—for this is the last time that I will drink with you.122 25 “Amen, I say to you, I will surely not drink of the fruit of the vine again until that day when I will drink it new in the kingdom of God.” I will surely not drink of the fruit of the vine again—therefore, he himself explains his own words as I just did: In saying this is my blood, I understand that I will not drink with you again, that this is my last meal; and similarly, this is my body means that Yeshua will not eat with them again. 26 After their recital of the Hallel, they went out to Har HaZeitim. The Hallel—this is the recital or, rather, the singing, of a series of psalms called the Hallel (Psalms 113–118), which the Israelites recited ever since ancient times during the night of Passover: “Aer the fourth cup, one completes the chanting of the Hallel,” which began with the second cup (M Pesaḥim 10:7). This is in reference to the four cups that, according to the oral law, every Israelite must completely empty on the first night of Passover. This results in the present passage, as well as that of Mattai 26:30 and Luke 22:19, that not only did Yeshua celebrate Passover, but he celebrated it religiously, according to the ritual prescribed by the oral law, which we still follow to this day.123 27 Yeshua said to them, “You will all stumble because of me on this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the flock will be scattered.’ ”

122 Soloveitchik creates a metaphor of the “blood’ to counter the Christian notion of what became the Eucharist. Could it be that Jesus meant blood literally, referring to Moses, who made the covenant with Israel with blood (dam ha-brit)? See Exodus 24:1–8 and Zechariah 9:11; and see Bruce Chilton, “The Eucharist: Exploring Its Origin,” Bible Review 10 no. 6 (1994): 36–4⒊ 123 Soloveitchik uses the Passover–Last Supper connection to argue for Jesus’ fidelity to rabbinic law and ritual. There is scholarly debate as to whether the Last Supper was indeed a Passover seder, but it seems that the synoptic Gospels depicted it that way. See, e.g., Bruce Chilton, A Feast of Meaning: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus Through Johannine Circles (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 83–10⒏

378  Gospel According to Mark

You will all stumble because of me—you will deny me, and you will disregard everything that I have taught you. For it is written—(Zechariah 13:7): I will strike the shepherd, etc., which means the unfaithful shepherd, who separates the sheep om the correct path. It is for this reason that Yeshua immediately adds: 28 “But after my rising from the dead, I will go ahead of you to the Galil.” After my rising from the dead—Yeshua’s goal here is to instill in his disciples the belief of the immortality of the soul. This is why he says to them: “But aer my rising om the dead, I will go ahead of you to the Galil,” and, upon seeing me again aer my death, you will be convinced that the immortality of the soul is true. If you wish, read carefully my reflections on Mattai 28:⒘124 29 Petros said to him, “Even if everyone stumbles, I will not stumble.” 30 Yeshua said to him, “Amen, I say to you that today, on this night, before the rooster calls twice, you will disown me three times.” 31 But he emphatically spoke up once more, and said, “Even if I have to die with you, I will surely not disown you!” And all of them said likewise. 32 They came to a certain courtyard, and its name was Gat Shamnei. He said to his disciples, “You remain here until I have prayed.” 33 He took Petros and Ya’akov and Yoḥanan with him, and he began to be astonished and disheartened. Astonished and disheartened—because he had the premonition of his tragic end. This is also what we read in Proverbs (14:10): The heart alone knows its bitterness; and in the Talmud (BT Megillah 3a): “When you are ightened (without knowing why), you yourselves have seen nothing, but your star (mazal—or guardian angel) has seen for you.”

124 Reference to “immortality of the soul” is a common medieval idea that becomes a common way to philosophically interpret resurrection. See, e.g., Moses Maimonides, “Letter on Resurrection.” While it also exists in the ancient world in Josephus, who claims that it is a doctrine of the Essenes, as opposed to the Pharisees, Soloveitchik seems to view it in a rabbinic ame. On the idea more generally in the ancient world, see, e.g., The Book of the Watchers (third century bce), and Daniel (second century bce). While we can also find earlier versions of the soul’s immortality in works influenced by Platonism, such as Philo of Alexandria, Soloveitchik seems to gesture to the notion as developed by Maimonides and his interpreters. Again, Soloveitchik wants his readers to view Mark through the lens of codified rabbinic tradition and, in this case, through the lens of medieval Jewish philosophy. He thus reains om invoking rabbinic teaching that refers to bodily resurrection.

Gospel According to Mark  379

34 He said to them, “My soul is bitterly troubled to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch.” 35 He passed a little farther on from there and fell to the ground, and he prayed that if it were possible, the hour would pass away from him. 36 He said, “Abba, my Father, you are capable of everything; please make this cup pass from me. Yet not what I want, but what you want.”125 Not what I want, but what you want—a wish that corresponds with the wise maxims of our sages (Avot 2:4): “Submit your will to the will of God, and he will submit the will of others to your will.” 37 He came and found them sleeping, and he said to Petros, “Shimon, are you sleeping? Are you not able to watch for one hour? 38 Watch and pray, so that you do not come into the hand of testing. See, the spirit desires, but the flesh is weak.” So that you do not come into the hand of testing—or rather, pray to God that you will not be led into testing. This is what we read in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 107a): “One must never voluntarily expose himself to testing.” The flesh is weak—this is a similar idea to that of the Talmud (BT Berakhot 17a): Rabbi Alexander had the custom of ending his prayers with these words: “Master of the universe, you know that we desire to do your will, but one thing prevents us: the leaven that is at the bottom of the dough (the evil inclination, the wicked passions). . . . Therefore, may it please you, YHWH, to save us om its power, in order that we may accomplish your will with a pure heart.”

39 Again he departed and prayed, saying those words once more. 40 He returned and found them a second time sleeping, for their eyes were heavy; and they did not know what to answer him. 41 He came a third time and said to them, “Keep sleeping and rest! It is enough for me, for the hour has come. Look, the son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners!

125 The reference to God as abba, or father, is not common in Hebrew scripture but does appear numerous times, e.g., Isaiah 63:16; Jeremiah 3:4, 19; Psalm 68:5, 103:⒔ The appellation is more common in rabbinic tradition and liturgy, e.g., avinu she-bashamayim (our Father who is in heaven), which also serves as the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer.

380  Gospel According to Mark

42 Arise, and let us go! Look! The one who betrays me has drawn near.” 43 While he was speaking, Yehudah came, who was one of the twelve, and a large crowd with swords and sticks was with him from the leading priests, the scholars, and the elders. 44 The one betraying him had given them a sign, saying, “The man whom I kiss is the one; capture him and lead him away. Do not let him escape!” 45 He came and approached him, saying, “Rabbi, rabbi!” and he kissed him. 46 They reached out their hands to him and captured him. 47 One of those standing by him drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Yeshua spoke up and said to them, “As if going out against a robber, you have gone out against me with swords and sticks to capture me. 49 But as for me, every day I was with you teaching in the Temple, and you did not seize me, but it was so that the words of the scriptures are fulfilled.” The scriptures—more precisely, the things written (in heaven), which is to say, the decrees of the divine wisdom. 50 They all abandoned him and fled. 51 But one young man followed him, wrapped in a sheet to cover his nakedness, and the young men seized him. 52 So he abandoned the sheet in their hands and fled from them naked. 53 They led Yeshua to the high priest, and all the leading priests, elders, and scholars assembled before him. 54 Petros followed him from a distance, up to inside the courtyard of the high priest. He sat there with the servants and warmed himself by the fire. 55 The leading priests and all the Sanhedrin sought testimony against Yeshua to put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 For many gave false testimony, but their words were not consistent. 57 Then men arose and gave false testimony, saying,

Gospel According to Mark  381

58 “We heard him saying, ‘I will demolish this Sanctuary, the work of human hands, and in three days, I will build another Sanctuary that is not the work of human hands.’ ”126 I will demolish this Sanctuary—this absolutely does not appear to be a false testimony, since this word of Yeshua is attested to by the Gospel of Yoḥanan 2:⒚ But Yeshua’s meaning was purely allegorical. The “Sanctuary” is his soul, and what he means is: My soul is immortal, and it will outlive its encasing because it is the masterpiece of God and ray of his divinity. It is true that this writer of the Gospel (v. 21) seems to apply the allegory to the body of Yeshua. I will explain myself further when I arrive at the passage that concerns it. 59 Even in this, their testimony was not consistent. 60 Then the high priest arose in the center and asked Yeshua, saying, “Are you not going to respond at all? What is this that these are speaking against you?” 61 But he remained silent and did not answer at all.127 Once more, the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the mashiaḥ, the son of the blessed one?” Son of the blessed one—or righteous; for all the righteous and elite men, as I have established, share this glorious classification. 62 Yeshua said, “I am he, and you will see the son of man sitting to the right of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why should we continue seeking witnesses? 64 Look, you have heard the blasphemy. What is your opinion?” And they all condemned him as liable to death. You have heard the blasphemy—I explained in the first volume (Mattai 26:65) why and in what sense Yeshua’s response must have been considered as blasphemy.

126

See Exodus 20:16 and Deuteronomy 19:15 on the prohibition of false testimony.

127 On silence as the response of the “suffering servant,” see Isaiah 53:⒎ He was maltreated, yet he was submissive. He did not open his mouth.

382  Gospel According to Mark

65 Then some of them began to spit on him. They covered his face and struck him with a fist, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the servants seized him with strikes on the cheek. 66 While Petros was in the lower part of the courtyard, there came one of the maids of the high priest. 67 She saw that Petros was warming himself, looked intently at him, and said, “You were also with the Noṣri, Yeshua.” 68 He denied it and said, “I do not know, nor do I understand, what you are talking about.” He went outside to the gateway, and the rooster crowed. 69 The maid saw him, and again she said to those standing there, “This is one of them!” but he denied it a second time. 70 And a little later, those standing there also told Petros, “Surely, you are one of them, for you are even a Glili, and your tongue is like their tongue!” 71 He began to vow by his own life and swear, saying, “I do not know this man of whom you are speaking.” 72 The rooster called a second time, and Petros remembered the statement that Yeshua had said to him: “Before the rooster calls twice, you will disown me three times.” He placed it on his heart, and he wept.

CHAPTER 15

1 As it turned toward morning, the leading priests hurried along with the elders, the scholars, and the whole Sanhedrin to deliberate together. They bound Yeshua and led him away from there, and handed him over to Pilatos. Pilatos—Pilate was the Roman magistrate, governor of Judaea, which in this era was under the control of the Romans. See my commentary on Mattai 27:⒉ 2 Pilatos asked him, “Are you the king of the Yehudim?” He answered and said to him, “You have said it.” You have said it, and not me. See ibid. 3 The leading priests accused him of many things. 4 Once more, Pilatos asked him, saying, “Are you not going to answer at all? Look at how many things they are testifying against you!” 5 But Yeshua did not answer further even a word, and Pilatos was amazed.128 6 Now from festival to festival, he would release one prisoner to them, whom they would request. 7 A man who was called Bar-Abba was a prisoner, along with the rebels who had committed murder at the time of the rebellion.129

128

This again seems to reflect the silence of the “suffering servant” in Isaiah 53:⒎

129 Some New Testament scholars think that Barabbas is an invented double for Jesus. See The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 92 n. to vv. 6–⒖ One reason is that we have no evidence that the Romans released prisoners on the Passover holiday.

384  Gospel According to Mark

8 The crowd ascended and began requesting that he do for them as in other times. 9 Pilatos answered them, “Do you want for me to release to you the king of the Yehudim?” 10 For he knew that it was only out of their jealousy that the leading priests had handed him over. 11 But the leading priests incited the crowd not to release to them anyone but Bar-Abba. 12 Once more, Pilatos answered and said to them: “Then what do you want me to do to the one you call king of the Yehudim?” 13 They called out again, “Crucify him!” 14 Pilatos said to them, “Then what evil has he done?” But they kept calling out more, “Crucify him!” 15 Pilatos wished to do what the people wanted, so he released BarAbba to them, but he struck Yeshua with whips and handed him over to be crucified. 16 The soldiers led him into the middle of the courtyard, which is the hall of justice, and called for the entire regiment. 17 They dressed him in purple and wove a crown of thorns and crowned him. 18 They began to bless him, saying, “Shalom to you, king of the Yehudim!” 19 They struck his head with a cane and spat on him. They knelt down and bowed to him. 20 After ridiculing him, they stripped him of the purple and dressed him in his clothes, and they brought him out to crucify him. 21 A certain man passed by who had come from the fields, whose name was Shimon the Kurani, father of Aleksandros and Rufos, and they forced him to carry his cross. 22 They brought him to the place Golgotha—that is, the place of the skull. 23 They gave him wine to drink, mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. Wine . . . mixed with myrrh—in accordance with the merciful traditions of the Sanhedrin. The Talmud says (BT Sanhedrin 43a): When a man is condemned to die and led to his execution, he is given a cup of wine flavored with ankincense, in order to numb him and make him lose all

Gospel According to Mark  385 sense of his situation; as it says in the book of Proverbs (31:6): Give strong drink to the hapless and wine to the embittered.

24 When they crucified him, they divided his clothes for themselves and cast lots for them, to choose what each man would get. 25 It was the third hour when they crucified him. The third hour—according to the accounts of Mattai (27:45), Luke (23:41), and Yoḥanan (19:14), the execution took place during the sixth hour. It is therefore probable that there was a copy error here, and that we should replace third with sixth.130 26 An inscription, the pronouncement of his guilt, was written above: “KING OF THE YEHUDIM.” King of the Yehudim—this verse and this inscription speak well enough about the true author and the true motive of the condemnation of Yeshua. 27 They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left. 28 So the verse was fulfilled that says, He was counted with transgressors. He was counted with transgressors—this passage is found in the last verse of Isaiah 5⒊ This famous chapter that the Gospel, and almost all Christians, apply to Yeshua, is interpreted differently by our commentators. The Talmud (BT Soṭah 14a) applies it to Moses: Rabbi Simlai taught: “Why did Moses our teacher desire so much to enter the Promised Land? Perhaps it was so that he could enjoy its delights and eat of its lovely uits? No, for this was his thought: ‘A large number of commandments given to the Israelites cannot be performed except in the Land of Israel; therefore, I would like to enter this land, so that I may observe the whole Torah.’ God responded to him: ‘What you search for in these commandments is the honor of fulfilling them, is that not true? Well and good! So, as for you, I consider them

130 I.e., in Hebrew, replace shlishit (‫ )שלישית‬with shishit (‫)שישית‬. The confusion is understandable, and this is an illustration of Soloveitchik’s thesis (now viewed as very unlikely) that the Gospel of Mark was originally written in Hebrew. However, this opinion is even more likely for this Gospel than for that of Matthew; and although there is no similarity between the Greek words for third and sixth, TRITE and HEKTE, there is a close similarity between the Hebrew characters (gimel [‫ ]ג‬and vav [‫)]ו‬, which represent the numbers 3 and 6, respectively.

386  Gospel According to Mark all fulfilled, for it is written (Isaiah 53:12): Assuredly, I will give him the many as his portion; he shall receive the multitude as his spoil. For he exposed himself to death and was numbered among the sinners, whereas he bore the guilt of many and made intercession for sinners. I will give him the many as his portion, which means the righteous. Perhaps only the righteous of the future? No, even those om the past: he shall receive the multitude (powerful) as his spoil, with the three patriarchs, so powerful by their faith and their works. For he exposed himself to death, when he said to me (Exodus 32:32): If you will not pardon their sin, erase my name from the book of life! And was numbered among the sinners, among his contemporaries who were condemned to die in the desert. He bore the guilt of many, in making expiation for their worshiping of the golden calf, and made intercession for sinners, in requesting pardon for the guilty ones who would change their ways through repentance.’ ”

This is how the Babylonian Talmud explains it. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1) applies this passage to Rabbi Akiva, the illustrious victim of the Bar Kokhba revolt against Hadrian; others attribute it to the first members of the Great Synagogue; the midrash Tanḥuma and Aggadat Shmuel view it as an allusion to the future Messiah.131 But most of our commentators apply, not without credible reasoning, the whole prophecy of Isaiah to the people of Israel as a whole, and to its entire history before the dispersion.132 I have explained myself many times about the interpreting method of the Talmud, and I want to speak on the style in which it interprets biblical texts and on the conclusions that it draws om them. I have spoken of the reason for this method, which is entirely artificial; that does not, however, exclude good sense or the knowledge and taste of sound exegesis for the Talmudists. The explanation of these reflections will also be given here. It is certain that Isaiah was not thinking of Moses, and even less of Rabbi Akiva, and the Talmud is well aware of this; but this is what it is trying to say: “Knowing how much Moses was devoted to the welfare of the Israelites, how much suffering and bitterness he endured for them and by them; knowing that aer the abomination of the golden calf and many other circumstances he solicited and obtained pardon for them, that despite his own desire to lead them into the Holy Land, and despite his outstanding merits, he was deprived of that honor, condemned to die in the 131 Mashiach ben Yosef, who must come before the actual Messiah (ben Yehudah and ben David), according to certain hypotheses predicted by the Talmud and our theologians. This will be the Messiah of suffering and pain, as the other will be the Messiah of triumph and reparation. See, esp., Saadia’s Emunot, bk. ⒏ The legend of the Son of Joseph has remarkable similarities to Yeshua. 132 For an interesting contemporary view of Jesus as the “Messiah, son of Joseph,” see Sherwin, “Who Do You Say That I Am?,” 31–44; and Hileger Zellentin, “Rabbinizing Jesus, Christianizing the Son of David: The Bavli’s Approach to the Secondary Messiah Traditions,” Discussing Cultural Influences (2007): 97–12⒎

Gospel According to Mark  387

desert like that guilty generation; we can therefore, as the Babylonian Talmud concludes, apply this passage of Isaiah to him, which contains such striking similarities with Moses’ character, behavior, and fate.” The same reasoning is in the Jerusalem Talmud, regarding Rabbi Akiva, this hero of the Jewish faith, this illustrious instructor of many thousands of disciples, this martyr of a great error, who died giving glory to the one God, with the Shema on his lips and rejoicing in his heart. All right, then! The Gospel is no different. Was it trying to say that this prophecy om Isaiah was intentionally meant for Yeshua? Absolutely not; no more than to Akiva or Moses. But when we see him, without regarding his own life, persistently proclaiming to the pagan world the doctrine of one God and how detestable images are; when we see the Romans, as a reward for his pure intentions, bring a slanderous accusation against him, condemn him as a usurper of their authority, and he, accepting this iniquitous sentence with resignation, crowning his astonishing vocation with a death no less astonishing, we can well apply this verse of Isaiah—as is the thought of the Gospels—to him, no matter what the correct explanation may be. This is identical to the Talmudic method, and the writers of the Gospel, as I have oen said, were none other than Talmudists.133 29 Those passing by insulted him and wagged their heads and said, “Ha! You who would demolish the Sanctuary and build it in three days! 30 Save yourself and come down off the cross!” 31 Likewise, the leading priests and scholars ridiculed him to one another, saying, “He saved others, but he is not able to save himself! 32 O Mashiaḥ, king of Yisra’el, come down now from the cross so that we can see and believe!” Even those crucified with him insulted him. 33 When it was the sixth hour, there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. There was darkness over all the land—we read in the Talmud (BT Mo’ed Q.atan 25b): 133 It seems that Soloveitchik wields a veiled critique against the “typological method” of exegesis among many Christians, which is based on the assumption that scriptural passages predict the future life of Jesus as savior. Soloveitchik suggests that the intention of viewing scriptural passages as related to later, and even earlier, figures is in line with Talmudic exegesis, which does so as a heuristic tool to make a larger point about the life of the figure in question. In this light, the New Testament is in line with Talmudic reading. His critique of Christians is that by not understanding Talmudic method, they misunderstand the Gospel; and to Jews, he says that by understanding the Talmudic method but not applying it to the Gospel, they, too, misunderstand the message of the Gospel.

388  Gospel According to Mark When Rabbi Yoḥanan died, Rabbi Yiṣḥak ben Elazar began his funeral oration like this: “This is a disastrous day in Israel, like the day the sun set in the aernoon, like the day of the death of Josiah, of which the prophet said: I will make the sun set at noon, I will darken the earth on a sunny day (Amos 8:9).”

34 And during the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out with a loud voice, “Eli, eli, lemah shevaktani?” which is interpreted, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”134 35 Some of the men standing there heard and said, “Look! He is calling to Eliyahu!” 36 One of them ran and filled a sponge with vinegar. He placed it on a cane, gave it to him to drink, and said, “Leave him alone, and let us see if Eliyahu will come and take him down!” 37 But Yeshua gave a loud cry and breathed out his life. 38 The curtain of the Sanctuary was torn into two pieces from top to bottom. The curtain of the Sanctuary—Talmud (BT Mo’ed Qaṭan 25b): “At the death of Rabbi Assi, all the trees of the field uprooted themselves.” 39 The centurion, who was standing opposite him, saw that his life departed with such a cry, and he said, “Surely this man was the son of God.” Son of God—which is to say, a true tzaddik, since he invoked his name on the cross and retained consciousness up to the last hour. 40 There were also women there, watching from a distance, and among them were Miriam HaMagdalit, Miriam the mother of Ya’akov the younger and of Yosei and Shlomit, 41 who had followed him when he was in the Galil and served him, and many others who had gone up with him to Yerushalayim. 42 The time of evening arrived, and since it was erev Shabbat, which is the day before Shabbat, 43 Yosef HaRamati came, a respected counselor who was also awaiting the kingdom of God; he strengthened himself and came to Pilatos, and he asked for the body of Yeshua.

134

Based on Psalm 22:⒈

Gospel According to Mark  389

44 Pilatos was amazed that he was dead, and he called to the centurion and asked him if he had already died. 45 He was informed by the centurion that it was so, and he gave the body as a gift to Yosef. 46 He purchased a sheet, took him down, wrapped him in the sheet, placed him in a tomb hewn in the rock, and rolled a stone over the entrance of the tomb. 47 Miriam HaMagdalit and Miriam the mother of Yosei saw the place where he was put.

CHAPTER 16

1 When the Shabbat day had passed, Miriam HaMagdalit, Miriam the mother of Ya’akov, and Shlomit brought spices with which to go and apply oil to him.135 2 On the first day of the week, early in the morning, they came to the tomb as the sun rose. The first day of the week—concerning this expression, see my commentary in the first volume on Mattai 28:⒈ 3 They said to one another, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb for us?” 4 But when they looked intently, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, for it was very large. 5 They came inside the tomb and saw a certain young man sitting to the right, clothed in a white robe; and they were astonished. 6 He said to them, “Do not be astonished. You are seeking Yeshua the Noṣri, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. Look—this is the place where they laid him! 7 But as for you, go and tell his disciples and Petros that he is going ahead of you to the Galil, and there you will see him as he said to you.” 8 They immediately went out and fled from the tomb because trembling and bewilderment had seized them, and they did not tell a word to anyone because they were afraid.

135

There are rabbinic restrictions about preparing the dead for burial on Shabbat. See, e.g., M Shabbat 23:⒌

Gospel According to Mark  391

9 But when he rose from the dead on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Miriam HaMagdalit, from whom he had driven seven demons. Driven seven demons—it is unusual that this event, which seems to be cited here merely in passing, would not have the date mentioned in any of the Gospels. 10 She went and told this to the men who had been with him, who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that he was alive and had appeared to her, they did not believe her. 12 Afterward, he appeared in another form to two of them on the road when they were going out to the field. 13 They went and told the others, but they did not believe them, either. 14 Finally, he appeared to the eleven as they were reclining to eat. He reproached their lack of faith and the hardness of their heart, that they did not believe those who saw him and that he had been awakened from the dead. He appeared to the eleven—the Jerusalem Talmud recounts (Kilayim 9:4): Rabbi Yosei fasted for eight days [elsewhere, eighty days] to have the joy of seeing the shadow of Ḥiya the Great. At the end of this self-denial, he appeared to him, [with such splendor that] his hands were trembling and his eyes were glowing. Perhaps you would say that Rabbi Yosei was a weak man? Now listen: One day a certain weaver came in search of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he said to him: “I dreamed that the heavens fell and that one of your disciples supported them.” Rabbi Yoḥanan responded: “Do you know this disciple?” The weaver said: “If I saw him, I would recognize him.” All the disciples were made to pass before him, and he recognized Rabbi Yosei.136

Their lack of faith—if you had a full and complete faith in the principle of the immortality of the soul, you would have believed the testimony of those who claimed to have seen me.

136 Soloveitchik is providing a rabbinic case of someone who saw the dead. There are many such cases in kabbalistic and Hasidic literature, mostly visions and dreams. The case that Soloveitchik brings is not one of resurrection per se, at least not the way it is depicted in Mark.

392  Gospel According to Mark

15 He said to them, “Go into the world and proclaim the good news to all creation. The good news—the good news of the unity of God.137 16 One who believes and is immersed will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be made guilty. One who believes—in the one God, and is immersed (purified) om the defilement of idolatry, with firm resolve not to fall back into it, he will be saved. 17 These are the signs that will accompany those who believe: They will drive out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; Those who believe—with all their heart in the unity of God will have the ability to drive out demons, etc. This is what David, king of Israel, the divine psalmist, said long before Yeshua (Psalm 91:2 and on): You who say of YHWH, my refuge and stronghold, you who put your trust in God alone, he will protect you and strengthen you. . . . You will not fear the plague that stalks in the darkness, or the scourge that ravishes138 at noon. . . . No harm will befall you, no disease touch your tent. . . . You will tread on cubs and vipers, you will trample lions and asps, etc. They will speak in new tongues—at first glance, this expression appears strange; for the new tongues are languages that no one has ever spoken, and the book of the acts of the shliḥim (emissaries) explains this more correctly when it says (Acts 2:4): “They began to speak in foreign languages.” Therefore, this is of a different matter, and this is my opinion on this sentence. In the whole course of my commentary, more so in Mattai than in Markos, one can see that this is almost not a command, and it is not a miracle of Yeshua of which one cannot find similarities more or less numerous in the Talmud. Like him, one can see many a Talmudist expelling demons and healing the sick with a simple word, and working all sorts of wonders.139 They especially practiced the laḥash, or the pronunciation of certain kabbalistic formulas—or phrases—which, when directed at the demon, forced it to abandon its victim; when directed at the 137 Again, Soloveitchik diverts our attention away om the messianic context of these passages and focuses instead on the principle of divine unity that he claims was Jesus’ central message. Here, then, the “good news,” or Gospel, or Christianity more generally, is nothing more than a central tenet of Jewish theology that was later codified by Maimonides in his Thirteen Principles of Faith. 138 In Hebrew, the word yashud (‫ )ישוד‬has the same root as the word shed (‫)שד‬, “demon.” In this passage, as well as in many other words in this same psalm, our commentators see an allusion to invisible and harmful forces, of which the faithful worshiper of God, they say, has nothing to fear. 139

See, e.g., Chajes, Between Worlds, 70–14⒉

Gospel According to Mark  393

serpent, forced it not to bite; when directed at man, having been bitten, and at his ailment, restoring him immediately to full health. The Talmud has conserved a large number of these phrases for us, and it is astounding that not a single one of these belongs to a known language; their wording appears absolutely fantastical.140 Yeshua and his disciples also practiced some of these laḥashim; and, to recall only one example: in chapter 12 of Mattai, when the Pharisees suspect him of driving out demons by the power of their own prince Beelzebub, and Yeshua responds to them (v. 27): “By whom do your sons drive them out?” That is to say, by what phrases do your disciples expel demons? Are they phrases that contain sacred names or impure names? It is therefore clear that Yeshua worked his miracles through mysterious formulas, combinations with the divine name, of which he had knowledge; and it is this same knowledge that he promises here to those who believe, as he ardently does, in the unity of God and his omnipotence.141 This suggests to me a somewhat curious conjecture, for which I request permission to explain. I believe to have sufficiently established that this Gospel was originally written in Hebrew. I suppose that the text here would have said: “They will expel demons in my name, in pronouncing formulas (belaḥash yedaberu [‫)]בלחש ידברו‬. The first word, which is rarely used, would not have been understood by the Greek translator, which must have been treated as an abbreviation for bilshonot ḥadashot (‫)בלשונות חדשות‬, new tongues or new languages. Moreover, one is ee, if one truly understands, to admit that it would be better read as belaḥash, which is essentially the same thing, since the laḥash, as I have said, actually contained something new, foreign to every normal language. This is exactly the term that Maimonides uses in the following definition (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Idolatry,” 11:10): “What is a ḥover [‫( ]חבר‬enchanter, sorcerer: Deuteronomy 18:11)? It is someone who uses words that do not belong to any language, have no significant meaning, and yet are nevertheless significant to him, and it is sufficient for him to merely utter them to a serpent or a scorpion to prevent them om causing harm, or to an individual in order to protect him om their bites.” 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; they will drink poison, and it will not harm them; they will place their hands on those who are sick and they will be well.”

140

Cf. the classic abracadabra.

141 The claim that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy by using divine names to perform miracles is the central claim against him in rabbinic literature. See, e.g., Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 34–6⒉

394  Gospel According to Mark

19 After he had spoken to them, the Master was lifted up to heaven and sat to the right of God. The right of God—evidently, this is a metaphoric expression.142 God, being essentially incorporeal, can have neither a right nor a le. But the right side represents he who is right, he who is just and true, just as he who sits to the le is not. One could say that Yeshua was seated to the right of God, in the sense that he had worked with great fervor to spread the divine truth, particularly the doctrine of monotheism and that of the immortality of the soul. 20 But they went out and proclaimed everywhere, and the hand of the Master was with them, and reinforced the word with signs that came after them. Amen. Proclaimed everywhere—the beliefs that I just spoke of. The Master was with them—which means assisting them in their efforts and making their teachings flourish by his grace; for, as we have already said in accordance with the Talmud (BT Yoma 38b): “God always helps those who seek to do good.” May it please this God of truth, the God of Israel, and of the whole universe, that his kingdom would come soon to all the world, that his unity would be acknowledged by all, and that humanity would be reconciled and would join together in holiness through adoration of him! Amen.

142

See Psalm 110:⒈

Bibliography

Abrahams, Beth-Zion Lask. “Stanilaus Hoga—Apostate and Penitent.” Transactions: Jewish Historical Society of England 15 (1939–1945): 121–14⒐ Ariel, Yaakov. “Christianity Through Reform Eyes: Kaufmann Kohler’s Scholarship on Christianity.” American Jewish History 89, no. 2 (2001): 181–19⒈ Assaf, David. Untold Tales of the Hasidim: Crisis and Discontent in the History of Hasidism. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 20⒑ Atkinson, Kenneth, and Jodi Magness. “Josephus’s Essenes and the Qumran Community.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): 317–34⒉ Ayerst, William. “The Rev. Dr. McCaul and the Jewish Mission.” Jewish Intelligence and Monthly Account of the Proceedings of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, no. 4 (1864): 31–3⒋ Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 200⒋ Bakan, David. Maimonides on Prophecy: A Commentary on Selected Chapters of the Guide of the Perplexed. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 197⒎ Bartal, Israel. “British Missionaries in the Environs of Chabad” [in Hebrew]. Unpublished manuscript. Bauman, Zygmunt. “Allosemitism: Premodern, Modern, Postmodern.” Pp. 143–156 in Modernity, Culture, and the Jew, edited by B. Cheyette and L. Marcus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 199⒏ Baumgarten, Albert I. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. Leiden: Brill, 199⒎ Ben-Chorin, Shalom. Brother Jesus: The Nazarene Through Jewish Eyes. Translated by J. S. Klein and M. Reinhart. Atlanta: University of Georgia Press, 20⒓ Berkowitz, Beth A. Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press, 200⒍

396  Bibliography Berlin, George. Defending the Faith: Nineteenth-Century American Jewish Writings on Christianity and Jesus. Albany: State University of New York Press, 198⒐ Berlin, Naphtali Ẓevi Judah, and Howard S. Joseph. Why Antisemitism?: A Translation of “The Remnant of Israel.” Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 199⒍ Biale, David. “Counter-History and Jewish Polemics Against Christianity: Toledot Yeshu and Sefer Zerubavel.” Jewish Social Studies 6, no. 1 (1999): 130–14⒌ Bilde, Per. “The Essenes in Philo and Josephus.” Pp. 32–68 in Qumran Between the Old and New Testament, edited by F. H. Cryerah and T. L. Thompson. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 199⒏ Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Boyarin, Daniel. The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York: New Press, 20⒓ ———. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 199⒋ Breuer, Mordechai. Ohalei Torah: The Yeshiva, Its Structure, and Its History [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 200⒊ Breyfogle, Nicholas. “The Religious World of Russian Sabbatarians (Subbotniks).” In Holy Dissent: Jewish and Christian Mystics in Eastern Europe, edited by Glenn Dynner. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 20⒒ Brown, Jeremy. New Heavens and a New Earth: The Jewish Reception of Copernican Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 20⒔ Carlebach, Elisheva. Divided Souls: Converts from Judaism in Germany 1500–1750. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 200⒈ Chajes, J. H. Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 20⒒ Chamberlain, Houston Stuart. Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. N.p.: Elibron Classics, 200⒌ Charlesworth, James H., and Loren L. Johns, eds. Jesus and Hillel: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 199⒎ Chilton, Bruce. “The Eucharist: Exploring Its Origin.” Bible Review 10, no. 6 (1994): 36–4⒊ ———. A Feast of Meaning: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus Through Johannine Circles. Leiden: Brill, 199⒋ ———. “John the Purifier.” Pp. 203–220 in Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration, edited by idem and Craig A. Evans. Leiden: Brill, 199⒎Cohen, Israel. Vilna. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 200⒊ Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Significance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20⒑ Collins, Adela Yarbo, and John Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 200⒏

Bibliography  397 Davis, Ellen F. Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200⒐ Diamond, Eliezer. Holy Men and Hungry Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 200⒊ Docherty, Susan. “New Testament Scriptural Interpretation in Its Early Jewish Context.” Novum Testamentum 57 (2015): 1–⒚ Emden, Jacob. ‘Etz Avot. Amsterdam, 175⒈ Endelman, Todd. Leaving the Fold: Conversion and Radical Assimilation in Modern Jewish History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 20⒖ Etkes, Immanuel. Ha-Gra: Yaḥid be-Doro. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 2000. Falk, Harvey. “Rabbi Jacob Emden’s Views on Christianity.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19, no. 1 (1982): 107–1⒒ Feigensohn, Samuel Meir. “The History of the Romm Printing.” Pp. 268–296 in Yahadut Lita, vol. 1, edited by H. Bar Dayyan. Tel Aviv: Association of Lithuanian Jews in Israel, 195⒐ Feiner, Shmuel. The Jewish Enlightenment. Translated by Chaya Naor. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 200⒊ Feldman, David. Englishmen and Jews: Social Relations and Political Culture 1840–1914. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 199⒋ Flusser, David. “Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit.” Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960): 1–⒔ ———. “Hillel’s Self-Awareness and Jesus.” Pp. 509–514 in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 198⒏ ———. Jewish Sources in Early Christianity. New York: Adama Books, 198⒎ ———. Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 198⒏ ———. The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect. New York: MOD Books, 198⒐ ———, and R. Steven Nolty. Jesus. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 199⒎ ———. The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 200⒎ Fonrobert, Charlotte Elisheva. Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002 Frankel, Avinoam. Nefesh HaTzimtzum. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 20⒖ Fredriksen, Paula. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Vintage, 2000. Funkenstein, Amos. Perceptions of Jewish History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 199⒊ Gager, John G. Reinventing Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. Who Made Early Christianity?: The Jewish Lives of the Apostle Paul. New York: Columbia University Press, 20⒖ Geiger, Abraham. Judaism and Its History. Translated by Maurice Mayer. London: Trubner, 186⒍

398  Bibliography Gidney, William Thomas. The History of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews from 1809–1908. London, 190⒏ Goldstein, Morris. Jesus in the Jewish Tradition. New York: Macmillan, 1950. Greenberg, Irving (Yitz). For the Sake of Heaven and Earth. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 200⒋ Hagner, Donald. The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 199⒎ Halivni, David Weiss. Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara: The Jewish Predilection for Justified Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 198⒍ Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381. London: T&T Clark, 200⒌ Heilman, Hayyim. Beit Rebbe. Berditchev, 190⒉ Herford, R. Travers. Jesus in the Talmud and Midrash. New York: Reference Books, 196⒍ Herzl, Theodor. The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl. New York: Herzl Press, 1960. ———. “A Solution to the Jewish Question.” Pp. 16–20 in Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Readings on Society, Politics, and Foreign Relations, Pre-1948 to the Present. 2nd ed., edited by Jehuda Reinharz and Itamar Rabinovich. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 200⒏ Heschel, Abraham Joshua, and Morris M. Faierstein. Prophetic Inspiration After the Prophets: Maimonides and Other Medieval Authorities. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 199⒍ Heschel, Susannah. Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 199⒏ Hess, Jonathan M. Germans, Jews, and the Claims of Modernity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 200⒉ Hoffman, Matthew. Rebel to Rabbi: Reclaiming Jesus and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 200⒎ Hyman, Dov. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik: The Man and His Writings [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Published privately, 199⒌ Idel, Moshe. Ben: Sonship in Jewish Mysticism. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 200⒏ Iznamin, Esther. “The Structure and Content of Nefesh Ha-Hayyim of R. Hayyim of Volozhin.” Pp. 185–196 in Ha-Gra u-Veit Midrasho, edited by Moshe Hallamish, Yosef Rivlin, and Raphael Shuchat. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 200⒊ Jagodzinska, Agnieszka. “English Missionaries Look at Polish Jews.” Polin 27 (2015): 89–1⒗ ———. “Reformers, Missionaries, and Converts: Interactions Between the London Society and Jews in Warsaw in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century.” Pp. 9–26 in Converts of Conviction, edited by D. Ruderman. Berlin: De Gruyter, 20⒘ Kaufmann, David. “Franz Delitzsch.” In idem, Gesammelte Schriften. Frankfurt am Main, 190⒏ In English, “Franz Delitzsch,” Jewish Quarterly Review (o.s.) (1890): 386–39⒐ Kanarfogel, Ephraim. The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 20⒓

Bibliography  399 Karlinsky, Hayyim. First in the Genealogical Chain of Brisk: The Gaon Rabbi Yoseph Ber Soloveitchik, His Life, Times, and Activities [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute, 198⒋ Kelber, Werner H. Mark’s Story of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 197⒐ Klausner, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching. Translated by H. Danby. New York: Macmillan, 192⒌ Klausner, Yisrael. Vilna, the Jerusalem of Lithuania: The First Generations 1495–1881 [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Bet loḥame ha-geta’ot, 198⒏ Klier, John. “State Politics and the Conversion of the Jews in Imperial Russia.” Pp. 92–112 in Of Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia, edited by Rovert Geraci and Michael Khodarkovsky. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 200⒈ Kohler, Kaufmann. “Clementina, or Pseudo-Clementine Literature.” Pp. 114–116 in Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. ⒋ ———. The Origin of the Synagogue and the Church. New York: Macmillan, 192⒐ Kreisel, Howard T. Prophecy: The History of an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 200⒈ Krochmal, Nachman. More Nevukhei Ha-Zeman. Jerusalem: Carmel, 20⒑ Lamm, Norman. Torah Lishma. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 198⒐ Lapide, Pinchas E. Hebrew in the Church: The Foundations of Jewish–Christian Dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 198⒋ ———. Israelis, Jews and Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 197⒐ Law, T. M. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 20⒔ Leiman, Shnayer. “The Baal Teshuva and the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy.” Judaic Studies 1 (1985): 3–2⒍ Levenson, Alan. “Missionary Protestants as Defenders and Detractors of Judaism: Franz Delitzsch and Hermann Strack.” Jewish Quarterly Review 92, nos. 3–4 (January–April 2002): 383–4⒛ Levenson, Jon D. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 200⒍ Levine, Amy-Jill. The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. New York: HarperOne, 200⒎ Lichtenstein, Aharon. “What Hath Brisk Wrought: The Brisker Method Revisited.” Torah U-Maddah Journal 9 (2000): 1–18 Limor, Ora. “Judaism Examines Christianity: The Polemics of Nestor the Priest and Sefer Toledot Yeshu” [in Hebrew]. Pe’amim 75 (1988): 109–12⒏ Lincoln, W. Bruce. Alexander’s Great Reforms: Autocracy, Bureaucracy and the Politics of Change in Imperial Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1990. Litvak, Olga. Haskalah: The Romantic Movement in Judaism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 20⒓

400  Bibliography Maciejko, Pawel. Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement: 1755–1816. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 20⒖ Magid, Shaul. American Post-Judaism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 20⒔ ———. “Deconstructing the Mystical: The Anti-Mystical Kabbalism in Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin’s Nefesh Ha-Hayyim.” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 9, no. 1 (1999): 21–6⒎ ———. Hasidism Incarnate: Hasidism, Christianity, and the Construction of Modern Judaism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 20⒖ Maimonides, Moses. Epistles of Maimonides: Crisis and Leadership. Translated by Abraham S. Halkin and David Hartman. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 200⒐ ———. The Guide of the Perplexed. Translated by Shlomo Pines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196⒊ Mason, Steve. “What Josephus Says About Essenes in His Judean War.” Pp. 434–467 in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honor of Peter Richardson, edited by S. Wilson and M. Desjardine. Waterloo, ON: Wiled Laurier University Press, 2000. McCaul, Alexander. The Old Paths, or the Talmud Tested by Scripture, Being a Comparison of the Principle and Doctrines of Modern Judaism with the Religion of Moses and the Prophets. London: London Society’s House, 1880. McCaul, Alexander. Sketches of Judaism and Jews. London, 183⒏ McGowan, Andrew. Ancient Christian Worship. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 20⒕ Meir, Jonathan. Literary Hasidism: The Life and Work of Michael Levi Rodkinson. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 20⒗ Mendelsohn, Ezra. Class Struggle in the Pale: The Formative Years of the Jewish Workers Movement in Tsarist Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Nadler, Allan. The Faith of the Mithnagdim. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 199⒎ ———. “Politics and Piety: The Satmar Rebbe.” Judaism 31, no. 2 (1982): 135–15⒉ Nigal, Gedalyah. Magic, Mysticism, and Hasidism: The Supernatural in Jewish Thought. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 197⒎ Nolty, R. Steven. The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 200⒎ Novak, David. Judaism and Zionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20⒖ Perl, Gil. The Pillar of Volozhin: Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin and the World of NineteenthCentury Lithuanian Torah Scholarship. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 20⒓ Pick, Bernard. Jesus in the Talmud. Chicago: Open Court Press, 19⒔ Ravitsky, Aviezer. “Forcing the End: Radical Anti-Zionism.” Pp. 40–78 in Messianism, Zionism, and Religious Radicalism, translated by Jonathan Chipman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 199⒍

Bibliography  401 Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Jewish Christianity and the History of Judaism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20⒘ ———. “The Modern Jewish Rediscovery of ‘Jewish Christianity.’ ” Pp. 320–324 in idem, Jewish Christianity and the History of Judaism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. ———. “Secrecy, Suppression, and the Jewishness of the Origins of Christianity.” Pp. 255– 294 in idem, Jewish Christianity and the History of Judaism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20⒘ ———. “When Did the Rabbis Become Pharisees?” Pp. 321–359 in idem, Jewish Christianity and the History of Judaism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20⒘ Rofe, Alexander. “The Book of Balaam” (Numbers 22:2–24:25): A Study in Methods of Criticism and the History of Biblical Literature and Religion. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 197⒐ Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. The Mishna Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender, and Midrash. Leiden: Brill, 20⒓ Ruderman, David. “The Intellectual and Spiritual Journey of Stanislaus Hoga: From Judaism to Christianity to Hebrew Christianity.” Pp. 41–53 in Converts of Conviction: Faith and Skepticism in Nineteenth-Century European Jewish Society, edited by idem. Berlin: De Gruyter, 20⒘ ———. “Towards a Preliminary Portrait of an Evangelical Missionary to the Jews: The Many Faces of Alexander McCaul (1799–1863).” Jewish Historical Studies 47 (2015): 48–68 Sale, George. An Universal History, from the Earliest Account of Time. London, 1747–6⒏ Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 198⒌ ———. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 199⒎ ———. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 198⒊ Sandmel, Samuel. We Jews and Jesus. New York: Oxford University Press, 196⒌ Schachter, Jacob J. “Rabbi Jacob Emden, Sabbateanism, and Frankism: Attitudes Toward Christianity in the Eighteenth Century.” Pp. 360–396 in New Perspectives on JewishChristian Relations: In Honor of David Berger, edited by J. J. Schachter and E. Carlebach. Leiden: Brill, 20⒓ Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 200⒎ ———, Michael Meerson, and Yaakov Deutsch. Toledot Yeshu: “The Life Story of Jesus” Revisited. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20⒒ Schorsch, Ismar. “From Wolfenbüttel to Wissenscha.” Pp. 233–254 in idem, From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism. Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 199⒋ ———. Leopold Zunz: Creativity Is Adversity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 20⒘ Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest for the Historical Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 196⒈

402  Bibliography Seidenberg, David Mevorach. Kabbalah and Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20⒖ Shapiro, Marc B. “Torah Study of Christmas Eve.” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 199⒐ ———. The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 20⒒ Sherwin, Byron. “Who Do You Say That I Am (Mark 8:29): A New Jewish View of Jesus.” Pp. 31–44 in Jesus Through Jewish Eyes, edited by Beatrice Bruteau. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 200⒈ Shmuckler, M. S. Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin [in Hebrew]. 2nd ed. Jerusalem, 196⒏ Stampfer, Shaul. Lithuanian Yeshivas of the Nineteenth Century: Creating a Tradition of Learning. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 20⒓ Stanislawski, Michael. Tsar Nicholas I and the Jews: The Transformation of Jewish Society in Russia, 1825–1855. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 198⒊ ———. “The ‘Vilna Shas’ and East European Jewry.” Pp. 97–102 in Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, edited by Sharon Lieberman Mintz and Gabriel M. Goldstein. New York: Yeshiva University Museum, 200⒌ Stern, David. “Midrash and Parables in the New Testament.” Pp. 565–569 in The Jewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation, edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20⒒ ———. Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 199⒈ Stern, Eliyahu. “Catholic Judaism: The Political Theology of the Nineteenth-Century Russian Jewish Enlightenment.” Harvard Theological Review 109, no. 4 (2016): 483–5⒒ ———. The Genius: Elijah of Vilna and the Making of Modern Judaism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014 ———. Jewish Materialism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 20⒙ Strack, Hermann, and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche, 192⒉ Strack, Hermann. Introduction to Talmud and Midrash. New York: Meridian, 195⒐ Tal, Uriel. Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion, Politics, and Ideology in the Second Reich 1870–1914. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 197⒌ Talmon, Shemaryahu. The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 198⒐ Taubes, Jacob. The Political Theology of Paul. Translated by Dana Hollander. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 200⒊ Taylor, Joan E. The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea. New York: Oxford University Press, 20⒓ ———. The Immerser: John the Baptist Within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 199⒎

Bibliography  403 Teitelbaum, Yoel. Vayole Moshe. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Books, 196⒈ Tolland, John. Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile, and Mahometan Christianity. London, 17⒙ Ulmer, Rivka, and Moshe Ulmer. Righteous Giving to the Poor: Tzedakah (“Charity”) in Classical Rabbinic Judaism, Including a Brief Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 20⒕ Urbach, Ephraim. “Homilies of the Sages on Gentile Prophecy and on the Episode of Balaam” [in Hebrew]. Pp. 537–554 in Me-Olamot shel Hakhamim. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 198⒏ ———. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs [in Hebrew]. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 197⒐ ———. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by Israel Abrams. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 198⒎ Vermes, Geza. Jesus in His Jewish Context. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 200⒊ ———, and Martin Goodman. The Essenes According to the Classical Sources. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 198⒐ Vorster, J. A. “Jewish Views on Jesus: An Assessment of the Jewish Answer to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pretoria, 197⒌ Weiss-Rosmarin, Trude. Judaism and Christianity: The Differences. New York: Jewish Book Club, 194⒊ Wiese, Christian. Wissenschaft des Judentums und protestantische Theologie im wilhelmischen Deutschland. Tübingen: De Gruyter, 199⒐ Wimpfheimer, Barry. The Talmud: A Biography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 20⒘ Wolfson, Elliot R. “Immanuel Frommann’s Commentary on Luke and the Christianizing of Kabbalah: Some Sabbatean and Hasidic Affinities.” Pp. 171–222 in Holy Dissent: Jewish and Christian Mystics in Eastern Europe, edited by Glenn Dynner. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 20⒒

This page intentionally left blank

Index of Names

Abrahams, Lask, 24 Alexander I, 17–18 Alexander II, 17 ‘Al Farabi, 98 Aquinas, Thomas, 214 Azmon, Joseph, 10

Edersheim, Aled, 35 Eisenmenger, Johann, 15, 22 Ekeroth, George, 33 Eliyahu, Aaron ben, 12 Emden, Ya’akov, 32, 34, 40 Endelman, Todd, 19, 38

Baeck, Leo, 19, 38 Bartal, Israel, 17, 18 Bauman, Zygmunt, 13, 37 Baur, Ferdinand Christian, 13, 14 Ben-Chorin, Shalom, 112 Bendavid, Lazarus, 24 Ber, Issacher, 12 Berdyczewski, Yosef Micah, 34 Berlin, Naali Zvi, 31 Bialik, Hayyim Naḥman, 34 Biesenthal, Raphael Hirsch, 72, 190 Billerbeck, Paul, 14, 15, 37 Bonaparte, Jerome, 20 Bonaparte, Napoleon, 18, 20 Bousset, Wilhelm, 15–16 Branicki, Xavier, 9–10, 36

Feivel, Ezekiel, 6 Flusser, David, 98, 161 Fried, Eliezer Yizhak, 7 Friedlander, David, 24 Frommann, Immanuel, 35, 36 Fuenn, Samuel Joseph, 21, 22, 23, 24

Chamberlain, Houston Stuart, 22 Chatzki, Vladimir, 10 Cohen, Shaye, 233 Czartoryski, Adam, 23 Delitzsch, Franz, 11–13, 14, 21, 36–37, 38, 39, 44, 254 Dienstag, Jacob, 4, 8

Geiger, Abraham, 5, 13, 16, 19, 233, 269 Graetz, Henrich, 5, 35, 40 Greenberg, Irving (Yitz), 25 Greenfeld, Moritz, 10 Hameshumad, Ḥaskel. See Hoga, Stanislaus Harnack, Adolf, 15, 37, 38, 95 Heilman, Hayyim, 18 Herzl, Theodor, 30 Hirsch, Shimshon Rafael, 302 Hoga, Stanislaus, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 Hurwitz, Jacob Isaac, 23 Hyman, Dov, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 36, 41 Isaac, Hayyim ben, of Volozhin, 1, 2, 3, 6, 34, 35 Jost, Isaak Markus, 21, 24

406  Index of Names Karlinsky, Hayyim, 35 Kaufmann, David, 12, 37 Kazin, Raphael ben Elijah, 21 Kimḥi, David, 190 Kohler, Kaufmann, 16, 40, 112, 269, 301–2, 363 Kook, Isaac, 34 Lapide, Pinchas, 11, 36 Leib, Aryeh, 23 Leib, Yehezkel ben Aryeh, 23 Lessing, Gotthold, 200 Levenson, Alan, 12, 13, 14, 37 Levenson, Isaac ber, 21, 22, 24 Lilienthal, Max, 3 Maimonides, Moses, 2, 5–6, 7, 10, 14, 16, 25, 26, 28, 34, 36, 39, 58, 64, 66, 71, 86, 88, 91, 94, 98, 99, 105, 106, 107, 115, 126, 130, 136, 143, 146, 152, 156, 164, 165, 168, 182, 200, 205, 213, 214, 228, 230, 255, 256, 316, 319, 343, 347, 348, 361, 363, 378, 392, 393 Margoliouth, Moses, 24, 35, 39 McCaul, Alexander, 9, 11, 20–21, 22–24, 36, 38, 39, 95, 363 Mendelssohn, Moses, 17, 35 Montefiore, Moses, 2, 34 Moore, George Foot, 13–14, 15–16, 37

Reichardt, Johann Christian, 36 Reiff, Adolf, 10 Rilke, Ranier Maria, 2 Ruderman, David, 23–24, 25 Salikinsohn, Isaac, 36 Salvador, Joseph, 36 Sanders, E. P., 37, 112, 323 Sandmel, Samuel, 14 Schachter, Jacob J., 32 Schlesinger, Maurice, 51 Schorsch, Ismar, 11 Sherwin, Byron, 25–26 Solomon, Elijah ben, 3 Solomon, Nehemiah, 11, 18, 35 Soloveitchik, Hayyim, 2, Soloveitchik, Isaac ben Joseph, 2 Soloveitchik, Isaac Zev, 2, 4, 35 Soloveitchik, Joseph, 2, 34 Soloveitchik, Joseph Dov, 2, 4, 34 Stern, Eliyahu, 22 Strack, Hermann, 13, 14, 21, 37, 38 Strauss, David Friedrich, 68–69 Voltaire, 57 Wagner, Richard, 22 Wogue, Lazare Eliezer, 10, 36, 41, 43, 53 Yiṣḥak of Volozhin, 3

Naḥmanides, Moses, 65, 181 Neziv. See Berlin, Naali Zvi Rambam. See Maimonides, Moses Rashi, 17, 37, 56, 63, 65, 103, 116, 193, 206, 281, 305, 315, 322, 336, 345

Zalkinor, Jacob Joseph, of Sklov, 6 Zalman, Shlomo, 6 Zalman, Shneur, of Liady, 18 Zunz, Leopold, 12, 35, 316 Zweifel, Eliezer, 21, 22, 23

Index of Texts

Hebrew Bible Genesis 1:20 1:26 1:27 2:4 2:7 2:24 7:12 11:4 12:5 14:19–20 17:11 18:4 18:12–13 18:12–15 18:27 21:3 22:2 24:43 25:19 25:26 37:2 38:24 38:26

369 164 345 63 292 345 89 351 341 231 69–70 127 101 70 351 70 89 68 63 70 64 65 65

Exodus 1:22 1:24 2:8 2:20 3:13–14 4:14

78 79 68 329 125 125

4:22 5:2 7:3 12:15 15:26 16:4 16:7 16:8 17:6 19:10 19:15 20:7 20:15 20:16 20:21 23:5 24:1–8 24:10 24:18 31:14 31:16 32:10 32:32 33:20 34:6 34:25 34:28 34:29 34:35

80, 327 351 345 253 306 315 351 59 127 304 360 110 304 381 208 113 377 88, 326 89 169, 293 293 86 386 101 209 253 89 135, 313 202

Leviticus 1:9 11:44

367 307

408  Index of Texts 13–14 13:6 14:2–9 15:5–10 18:5 18:16 19:3 19:12 19:17 19:18 19:19 20:7 20:12 22:32 25:55

286 278 135 278 167, 168, 225 188 157 110 208 112, 128, 366 181 307 65 168 91

Numbers 3:1 5:17–23 6:2 6:9–11 11:31 12:3 14:18 15:39 21:5 24:17 25:6–14 25:12 27:16–17

63, 206 57 145 145 127 205 209 108, 347 315 78 332 332 150

Deuteronomy 1:34–40 4:5 4:30 5:5 5:11 5:30–31 6:4 6:4–5 6:5 6:13 6:16 7:1 7:7 7:25 8:2 8:3 8:10

339 152 162 101 110 360 229, 334 366 334 93 93 111 351 160 330 90, 92 318

10:20 11:13 13:1 13:1–5 13:2 14:1 14:28 14:29 15:6–7 15:7 15:10 16:1–8 17:6–7 17:8–9 17:11 18:18 19:14 19:15 19:17 21:1 21:21–23 22:6–7 23:4 23:5 23:19 24:1 24:1–4 24:2 24:3 24:13 25:5–6 25:5–10 27:26 29:28 30:14 32:48 33:9 34:4 34:6

93 116, 136 105 130, 240 331 91, 136, 194, 327 325 325 343 98 112 375 208 232 330 237, 331 173 381 133 343 110 105 65, 329 329 77 109, 345 109, 345 110 110 120 364 188 105 274 95, 283 80, 267 164 365 337

Joshua 6:25

65

Judges 14:3 16:21 6:24

126, 207 126, 207 101

Index of Texts  409 Ruth 4:18

63

1 Samuel 1:12 7:3 10:1 12:23 21:1–6 21:7 22:20 24:14 25

356 93 252 113 169, 293 169 293 130 65

2 Samuel 3:3 7:13 8:18 12:10 12:24 14:4 14:14 22:26 22:27 23:1 23:3 24:15–16

65 92 231 66 66 222 362 154 153 231 286 255

1 Kings 1:1 8:39 11:40 12:7 17:18 19:8

109 274 80 352 141 89

2 Kings 2:3 2:4 2:6 2:11 4:1 4:9 5:9–11 7:1 7:2 7:20 9:6 18:4

63, 172 63 63 337 63 284 286 305 305 305 252 277

18:35 23:10 25:26

351 106 80

1 Chronicles 2:55 3:10–11 3:14 3:19 11–12 22:10 28:6–7

329 66 67 67 66 92 92

2 Chronicles 15:6 24:21 25:14 28:23 28:27

369 237 162 162 277

Ezra 4:22 7:24 8:21

373 204 291

Esther 5:3 8:21

189, 317 291

Job 1:6 8:7 15:7 22:23–28

282 307 253 355

Psalms 2:7 8:3 15 17:3 17:15 22:1 22:7 22:19 25:13 26:2 27:14 34:15 35:13

190 296 164, 222 282 118 100 264, 388 351 263 123 118 128 152 113

410  Index of Texts 37:4 37:11 51:12 68:5 68:14 68:26 69:23 72 75:8 75:9 78:2 85:12 86:16 89:8 89:15 89:26–27 90:12 91:2 91:11–12 103:13 104:2 110 110:1 111:10 112:10 113–18 118:22 118:23 118:26 119:164 145:8 145:9 145:18

128 100 176 379 281 68 275 231 218 213 183 120 209 103 120 296 160 392 92 379 123 230 231, 394 301 136 377 225, 359, 362 359 222 329 209 114 94

Proverbs 1:4 4:1–4 5:16 6:22 6:23 7:18 8:17 9:8 10:2 11:4 11:17 11:30 14:10

164 178 303 123, 165 165 210 128 208 116 116 147 120, 130 378

15:15 18:21 19:17 20:27 21:14 22:9 23:26 24:17 25:21 26:26 27:1 28:13 29:9 29:21 30:19 31:6 50:30

121 174 251 123, 269, 294 173 343 108 113 275 376 63, 124 85, 86 162 78 68, 71 383 123

Ecclesiastes 1:16 3 5:1 7:16–17 7:20 8:14 9:5 9:7 9:8 12:5

101, 281, 303 146 117 98 306 306 139 320 227, 247, 253 249

Song of Songs 1:3 2:7 3:5 5:8 6:8

68 227 227 227 68

Isaiah 1:15 3:10 3:14 5:1–7 6:9 6:9–10 6:10 7:1 7:4 7:10

190, 339 108 120 152 359 180, 302 331 302 70 70 70

Index of Texts  411 7:14 7:16 8:3 8:23–9:1 9:5 9:6 11:1 11:2 13:11 14:14 17:12 22:22 24:16 26:17 27:12–13 27:13 29:13 33:15 34:4 35:5–7 40:3 42:1 42:2 43:9 44:22 45:4 47:13 49:3 49:6 51–53 51:6 51:17 52:7 53 53:4 53:5 53:7 53:12 55:1 55:6 55:8 56:1 56:7 58:8 58:9 58:13 60:20 60:22

68, 70 71 71 95 71 87, 274 267 88 368 351 369 199 274 240 372 243 192 282 223, 354 328 85, 151, 278 88 171 250 339 171 78 104 103 257 368 218 273 338 138 138 381, 383 386 165 128 65 282 222 121 112 296 123 244

61:1–3 62:8 63:4 63:16 63:19 64:3 66:1 66:10

99 110 245, 274 379 88 255 110 99

Jeremiah 3:1–5 3:4 3:19 3:71 5:6 5:17 5:21 5:31 6:13–14 8:13 15:19 17:6 17:8 18:1–19 23:5–6 25:15 26:4–6 28:6 31:6 31:15 31:36 32:6–15 33:15–16 33:25

335 379 379 106 240 354 331 240 130, 240 223 207, 342, 346 132–33 133 261 87 218 239 298 83 81 362 261 87 105

Lamentations 3:25 3:30 3:41 12:14

114 111 86 115

Ezekiel 1:1 2:1 3:27 6:9 11:23 11:43

88 288 303 182 221 339

412  Index of Texts 2:20 3:5

176 94

Amos 2:6 4:13 8:9

348 174 388

Jonah 2:1

174

Micah 1:7 3:5–8 3:12 4:3 5:1 5:2 6:8 7:18

77 240 239 250 79 79 120, 282 119

Habakkuk 2:4

339 283, 288

Zephaniah 3:9

59

360 223 360 238 144, 171 80

Zechariah 1:1 3:1–2 3:2 7:30 8:23 9:9 9:11 9:14 11:1 11:12–13 13:2 13:7 14:4 14:9 14:16 14:20 14:21

237 282 333 291 147 221, 243, 353 377 243 368 261 130, 240 256, 378 221 85, 151 337 323 323

291 209 292

Malachi 2:13–14 2:16 3:1

109 109 161, 278

11:44 16:52 18:30 18:31 20:32 20:33 22:27 22:27–28 22:28 28:2 33:12 36:20 37

339 163 162 205 336 336 130 240 130 351 162 104 316

Daniel 2:18 2:19 2:21 2:22 2:27 2:28 2:29 2:30 2:46 7:9 7:13 7:13–14 9:27 10–12 10:6 10:26 11:31 12 12:3 12:11 12:11–12 12:32

329, 339, 369, 378 179 179 180 123 179 240 348 348 160 266 243, 288, 372 26, 155 241 369 202 338 241, 370 316 103 241, 370 370 371

Hosea 1:2 2:12 2:1–25 5:15 6:6 11:1 Joel 1:14 2:13 2:16

Index of Texts  413 3:2 3:10 3:16 3:23 4:4–5

160 93 208 338 162

New Testament Matthew 1 1:3 1:18 1:20 1:25 2:1 2:4 2:16 2:23 3 3:3 3:4 3:11 3:13 3:14 4 4:3 4:3–4 4:4 4:23 5:1 5:9 5:14 5:15 5:17 5:18 5:19 5:32 5:44 6 6:2 6:5 6:6 6:20 7 7:2 7:15 7:21 7:29 8

222 64 57 88, 281 298 30 280 79 80, 81, 138, 170, 171, 183, 267, 276, 280, 282 164 203, 278 315 357 84, 159 357 101, 199, 202, 296 88, 184, 191, 277 373 281 27 344 90, 91, 278 103 103 167 268, 318 130 211, 345, 346 90 125 119 119 136 348 72, 293 296 296 104, 178, 299 284 252

8:15 8:17 8:17–18 8:31 9:2 9:9 9:14–17 9:15–17 9:21 9:25 9:30–33 10:3 10:7 10:10 10:23 10:28 10:35 10:39 11:21 11:25 12 12:2 12:16 12:22 12:27 12:30 12:33 12:40 13:55 14 14:1 14:14 14:19 15 15:11 15:12 15:20 15:28 15:32 16 16:1–4 16:6 16:12 16:16 16:18 16:21 16:22 16:24 17:3 17:13

285, 313 138 138 310 288 290 292 145 191, 312 313 328 144, 290 26 315 27 157 27 334 296 164 393 284 171 328 393 342 182 197 72 159 316 27 196, 318 63 194 324 326 328 329 79 175–76 194, 331 28 199 95 28 333 27–28 337 203

414  Index of Texts 18:6 19:9 19:17 19:21 20:27 20:28 21:2 21:33 21:43 22:15 22:23 22:30 22:37 22:41 23 23:13 23:23 24:5 24:30 24:34 24:36 24:44 26:12 26:17 26:30 26:65 27:2 27:45 28 28:1 28:16 28:16–17 28:17 28:19

342 346 178 99 352 352 353 360 362 227 28, 363 364 365 366 232, 269 232 193 26, 369 353 372 274 372 375 170, 275 377 381 383 383 175 390 80 175 29, 265, 333, 338, 341, 378 151

4:8 4:15 4:17 4:19 4:20 5:2 5:9 5:22 5:25–34 5:34 6:3 6:17 6:41–42 7 7:9–13 8:33 9:28 9:29 9:34 9:43–47 10:13 11:10 12:9 12:10 12:27 13:4 13:28 13:32 14:9 14:12 14:21 14:25 14:61–62 15:6–15 16

302 302 302 302 302 310 314 312 312 328 72 94 330 194 194 29, 338 340 339 344 343 346 27, 354, 362 362 29 372 373 274 27 374 381 376 258 383 175

Mark 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:12–13 1:13 1:40 2 2:2 2:23 3:18 4:4 4:6 4:7

279 279 279 267 94 374 361 288 295 290 302 302 302

Luke 1:36 1:80 2:7 3:23 3:24 4:1 5:27 6:35 6:46 9:13 9:16 11:15

8, 10, 25, 36, 41, 84, 190 84, 281 84 72 64, 84, 87, 281, 286 67 84, 282 144, 290 278 320 237 190 290

Index of Texts  415 16:19–25 20:9 20:16 22:19 22:22 23:41 23:56

99 360 362 377 376 383 170

John 1:12 1:18 1:23 2:19 10:36 19:14

159 278 101 278 381 278 383

Acts 1:13 2:4 2:27 2:31 17:29 20:29–30 22:3 23:6 24:5

190 290 392 197 197 278 129 82, 280 82, 280 170

Romans 8:14 8:16 8:21 9:4 9:8

11, 190 278 278 278 136 278

1 Corinthians 7:10–11 345 9:5 285 15:12–20 29–30 Galatians 3:26 4:6 4:7 5:17 Ephesians 1:5 10:1

278 278 278 90, 121

Philippians 2:15

278

1 Timothy 5:6

139

Hebrews 12:7

190 278

1 Peter 2:23 3:19 4:6

138 197 197

2 Peter 2:25

138

1 John 3:1 3:2 3:10 10:2

278 278 278 278

Revelation 21:7

90, 91, 278

Deuterocanonical and Pseudepigraphic Works Judith 12:7–9

278

Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 1 Maccabees 1:54

241

1 Enoch 376 1–36 (Book of the Watchers) 71:14 155 Jubilees

378

282, 376

Psalms of Solomon 352 Testament of Levi 18:3

278 278

56

Testament of Job

282

78

416  Index of Texts Other Greek and Latin Sources

Orlah 1

168

Shabbat 23:5

390

Pesaḥim 9:10 10:7 11:1

252 377 252

Yoma 8:9 8:10

84 107

Ta’anit 3 4

291 317

Ketubot 3:7 7:6

106 211

Nedarim 11:12

68, 211

Soṭah 1:7–9

305

Giṭṭin 9:9 9:10

109 211

Kiddushin 1:10

105

Rabbinic Sources

Bava Kama 8:1 10:1

106 144

Mishnah Berakhot 6:1 9:5

Sanhedrin 7:1–4

217

Pirkei Avot 1 1:3 1:6 1:10 1:11

75 130, 152 126 133, 367 130

Aristotle Ethics

98

Eusebius Ecclesiastical History ⒊3⒏16 254 Josephus Life 1:9

85

Antiquities of the Jews 13:171–73 85, 198 13:337 94 18:5, §2 316 18:18–22 85 18:35 252 18:37 94 18:109–19 188 18:116–19 84 18:136 188 Jewish War 2:8 2:119–66 2:164–66

85 85 198

Josippon/Yosipphon 316 5:45 316 Pseudo-Clement Homilies 17, 35, 37, 40 ⒏6–7 40

190 190, 354

Pe’ah 8:8

325

Shevi’it 9:1

182

Index of Texts  417 2:1 2:2 2:4 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:12 2:15 2:16 3:5 3:6 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:12 3:17 4 4:1 4:4 4:6 4:9 4:11 4:16 4:21 4:28 5:5 5:12 5:22 6:9 6:10

105 185 135, 379 76 121, 325 56 184 150 303 165 208 301 107 301 298 132, 209 87 279 99 301 165 185, 249 185, 247 367 367 89 181 40 165 360

Niddah 5:2

182

Yadayim 1:1–4

192

Tosefta Soṭah 3 4

305 305

Sanhedrin 8:3

208

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 3a 88, 202 3a–b 285

3b 4b 5a 5b 6a 6b 7b 9b 10a–b 10b 12a 12b 17a 18a 18b 19a 28a 28b 30a 32b 33a 34b 35a 39b 40a 48b 53b 54a 55a 55b 58a 61a 61b 62b 63a 64a

190, 320 128 307 137, 148, 313 208 146, 152 298 125 280 152, 158, 277 88 113, 346 119, 379 139 139, 365 194 138, 275, 341 117 118 128 142 137, 224, 255 318 190 306 318 192 354 117, 180, 234 348 142 117, 194 76, 229, 334 255 94, 124 362

Shabbat 10b 12b 15a 25b 30a–b 31a 31a–b 31b 32a 32b 33b

101 295–96 75 121 293 213, 365 106, 199 106 93 147 88, 308

418  Index of Texts 54b 55a 70b 88b 97a 104a 104b 105b 118b 119b 127a 127b 128b 130a 146a 150a 151b 152a 152a–b 153a

103 86, 288 105 183 157 129 75, 241 107, 305 102 122, 212 153, 158 126 156 281 95 296 100 249 247 227

‘Eruvin 13b 19a 41b 43b

234, 287 106 99 203

72b 83b 85a–b 85b 86a 86b 87b

183 323 169 107, 230, 293 104 230 86

Sukkot 5a 26b 27a 29b 42b 45b 49b 52a 53b

162 192 192 100 119 217 115, 120 176, 177 57–58

Rosh Hashanah 17a 119, 210 17b 230 25b 232 31a 238

Pesaḥim 5a 49a 50a 54a 87a 99b–121a 111a 111b 112b 114a

253 144 219, 350 106 360, 362 253 97 309, 310, 340 140 88

Ta’anit 2a 7a 7b 9a 11a 11b 16a 21a 22b 24a 26a–b 28b

Yoma 9b 22b–23a 29a 38a 38b 39a 39b 54b

279 147 108, 324 321 128, 394 275, 307 368 355

Megillah 3a 3b 6b 13b 14b 15b 17b 28a

116–17 165 114 93 144, 145 146 85 264 292 223 241 241

378 139 128 153 64 275 369 118, 298

Index of Texts  419 Mo’ed Qaṭan 16b 17b 25b 28a

286 356 264, 387, 388 29, 268, 270

Ḥagigah 3a 3b 5a 5b 14b 15a 16a

149 149 115 174 337 249 284

Yevamot 5b 48b 62b 63a 63b 65b 79a

157 270 212 66 212 101 117

Ketubot 19a 50a 67b 96a 111a

168 98 116 144 227, 370

Nedarim 13a 32a 32b 37a

235 154, 357 230 152

Nazir 3b

110

Soṭah 3a 8b 9b 10a 10b 12b 13b

326 126 126, 207 233 68, 88 78, 79 367

14a 21b 22b 38b 41b 47a 48b 49a 49b

383 165 235, 331 343 235 74 118, 315 117 240

Giṭṭin 56a–b 60b 61a 90a 90b

76 82 327 76, 109 109

Kiddushin 6a 30b 40b 49a 81b 82b

345 157 126, 307 259, 326 118 123

Bava Kama 50a 52a 84a 93a

102 193, 236 111 102

Bava Metzi‘a 31b 32b 49a 58b 59b 85a 85b 86b

112, 343 113 111 101, 106, 107 139 207, 291, 342, 346 203, 218 126

Bava Batra 3b 8a 9b 10a 10a–b 11a

78 204, 363 172 91, 100, 250 116 120, 356

420  Index of Texts 12b 14b 21a 25a 60a 60b 75a 75b 119b 145b

164, 222 237 160 310 276 127 202 245 254 147

Sanhedrin 5b 8a 9a 11a 19a 19b 22a 25b 37a 39a 43a 55b 67a 68a 70a 76b 90a 90a–b 90b–92a 91b 92b 93a 94a 94b 97a 98a 99a 99b 100b 101a–b 103a 103b 103b–104a 104b 105a 105a–b 106b

74 357 234 274 279 133 206 109 144 290 113 149, 383 259 77 76 326 112 105, 130, 229, 305, 357 305 364 206 133, 228 160, 373 198, 273–74 157, 277 240, 246 162, 203, 221, 243, 244 245 341 56, 124 333 162 329 195 71 336 276 276

107a 107b 108b 111b

118, 208, 379 74 231 370

Makkot 23b 24a

65, 282 304

Shavuot 30a 38b–39a

126 110

Avodah Zarah 2a 2b 3a 8b 17a 17b 18a 20b 27b 28a

77 250 224 105, 225, 351 260 77 264 116, 216 301 280 96

Horayot 10a

219

Menaḥot 29b 95b 110a

129 169 367

Ḥullin 7a 7b 89a 94a 106a 133a

308 156 111, 351 325 192, 323 128

‘Arakhin 11b 15b 16b

317 174, 287 127, 208, 315

Tamid 32a

158

Index of Texts  421 Niddah 13b 30b

108, 324 268

Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 1:5 108 1:7 330 2:4 79 2:8 217, 355 4:1 356 5:1 336 8:2 322 9:1 94 ⒐5 235

Midrash Tanḥuma 58:3 370 Genesis Rabbah 30:1 339 60:2 86 85:2 209 85:10 64 92:1 307 93:1 107 Exodus Rabbah 1:18 305 6:1 105 10:6 305 Leviticus Rabbah 9:3 33 19:2 105

Pe’ah 8:8

173, 325

Kilayim 1:1 9:4

181 391

Shekalim 5:1

386

Ta’anit 2:1

292

Sanhedrin 11:5

Ruth Rabbah 1:1 65

197

Lamentations Rabbah 2:4 242 28:142 276

Midrash to Psalms 78 183 Midrash on Mishlei 6 165 15:15 325 Midrash Qohelet 11:7 166 Midrash Eliyahu Rabbah 9 281 Midrash Shmuel on Pirkei Avot 1:11 131 4:12 170

Numbers Rabbah 2:4 276 10:2 305 Deuteronomy Rabbah 7:7 114 8:1 280

Song of Songs Rabbah 2:30 153 Avot de-Rabbi Natan 5 131 Pesikta de-Rav Kahane 1:7 233 Pesikta Rabbati 2 151 Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 9 369

422  Index of Texts Sefer Yeṣirah 1:1 64

III:51–53 III:53

Sifre Deuteronomy 32 307 32:25 199

Mishneh Torah 36, 58 “Book of Knowledge” “Yesodei HaTorah”

Targum Yerushalmi to Numbers 22:22

276

Medieval and Later Sources

5:7

168 168 168 168 164 126

“Laws of Shabbat”

2:16

168

“Laws of Ḥametz and Matza”

158

8:10

255

“Laws of Gifts to the Poor” 98, 343, 348

Gaon, Saadia Emunot ve’De’ot 8 386

10:9

115

“Laws of Idolatry”

1:3 2:3 11:10

Gerondi, Rabbenu Yonah Commentary to Pirkei Avot 2:18 131 Ḥovot HaLevavot

5:1 5:2 5:8 5:6 7:5

34

“Laws of Knowledge”

Bartenura, Ovadia Commentary to Pirkei Avot 4:4 99 Derekh Ereṣ Zuta

91 347

“Laws of Kings”

11–12 11:4

126

3:3

165

“Laws of Repentance”

MaHarSha (Rabbi Shmuel Eidles) to BT Bava Batra 145b 147 Maimonides, Moses Eight Chapters 66, 98, 99

1:1 2:1 2:5 2:9 4:1 14:2

126

86 143 230 107, 230 86 146

“Laws of Torah Study”

Chapter 4 214 to Pirkei Avot 4:4 205

Guide of the Perplexed I:1 164 I:43 71 II:32–48 165 II:42 71, 94 II:46 361

106

39 105

“Laws of Mixing”

Likkutei MoHaRan 1:19 305

Epistle on Resurrection

64 347 393

2:2 3:6 6:10 39, 200, 228, 256, 378 91

213 152 363

“Laws of the Foundations of the Torah”

2:2 5 9:1–5 10:1

91 156 130 130

“Laws of Prayer and Priestly Blessing”

1:1

136

“Laws of the Sanhedrin”

23:10

126

Index of Texts  423 “Laws of Blessings”  319

“Thirteen Principles of Faith” 10 316

28, 392

Mekhilta de-Rebbe Yishmael 304 Paquda, Baḥya Ibn Ḥovot HaLevavot

108

Rashi to Numbers 3:1 to BT Bava Batra 10b to BT Bava Kama 52a to BT Ḥullin 106a to BT Kiddushin 6a

63, 206 116 193 322 345

Simcha, Meir, of Dvinsk Sefer Or Same’aḥ on Mishneh Torah “Laws of Acquisitions and Gis” 10:9

261

Tanna Devei Eliyahu 2 356 9 69 28 276 142–43 276 Teitelbaum, Moshe, of Ohel Yismach Moshe 154 Toledot Yeshu 30–31, 78

Sefer Derekh Ḥayim on Pirkei Avot 1:10

131

Vida, Eliyahu da

Sefer Ḥasidim 126

Reishit Ḥokhmah

Sha’arei Teshuvah 126

Kiṣur Reishit Ḥokhmah

Shapira, Haim Elazar, of Munkacz Bnei Yissachar 154

Yalkut HaMahiri to Psalm 65:27 114

Shulḥan Arukh Oraḥ Ḥayim 229 168 571:2 146

Yayeshev 5

78

Zohar

190, 282, 304, 349

108, 126, 301 301

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

While sitting in my office at home working one sunny aernoon in the spring of 2012, I received an e-mail om my iend Menachem Butler. “Have you ever heard of Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik?” he asked. I hadn’t. He then told me about a privately published Hebrew pamphlet on Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik by Dov Hyman, a physician om New York who had discovered a 1985 reprint of Soloveitchik’s Hebrew commentary to the Gospel of Matthew on a bookshelf in the Heichal Shlomo synagogue in Jerusalem. Only fi copies of Hyman’s pamphlet were published, and Butler had obtained one of those fi copies. He sent me a PDF, which I read almost immediately. Aer discovering Soloveitchik’s commentary, Hyman collected as many sources as he could on this enigmatic figure, including various editions of his commentary to Mark and Matthew in various languages (Soloveitchik’s commentary to Luke has not survived). Hyman cited only excerpts of his commentary, and, wanting to read it in its entirety, I did some research on the web to try to find a copy of the 1985 reprint of the Hebrew commentary on Matthew. I came across a pastor, whose name I have since forgotten, who ran a Christian missionary institute in Arizona. He informed me that he had two copies of Soloveitchik’s text in the institute’s library. I asked if he would be willing to sell me a copy, but he insisted on giving it to me and paying the postage. Whoever you are, I owe you a debt of gratitude. Aer receiving my copy, I began to study it carefully. Then, in conjunction with Hyman’s book, I published an essay, “The Soloveitchik Who Loved Jesus,” in Tablet magazine in December 20⒓ I realized that Soloveitchik’s work had much more potential; but at the time, I was in the early stages of research for my book Hasidism Incarnate: Hasidism, Christianity, and the Making of Modern Judaism and thus put this project aside for the future. But about a month aer the Tablet essay appeared, I received an e-mail om Jordan Levy, whom I did not know. She wrote that she had read the Tablet

426  Acknowledgments

essay and had independently discovered Soloveitchik’s commentary and had begun to translate it, simply for pleasure. Jordan was working for Vine of David Press, translating works om Hebrew, French, and Italian. In a series of phone conversations, she said that she had acquired the French edition of Soloveitchik’s commentary to Mark, which she sent me (the original Hebrew commentary to Mark has not survived). We then decided to work on a book project together: she would translate the French and Hebrew; and I would then work with her on the Hebrew text, adding annotations and notes to Matthew and Mark om classical sources to better explain and contextualize Soloveitchik’s rabbinic commentary to the New Testament. We tried for some time to locate a first edition of the Hebrew Matthew commentary (probably published around 1869 in Paris); in the National Library in Jerusalem, we finally found one copy, which we copied and then compared with the 1985 edition, which was almost identical. This is all to say that without Menachem Butler, this book would never have been written. My thanks to him for many things, including his perseverance, dedication, humor, and iendship. And it was a pleasure and an honor to work with Jordan Levy, who now lives in Jerusalem. She is a sensitive translator whose translations are lucid and careful. While this book was taking shape, many people read sections or chapters, talked through various issues, and were encouraging throughout. They include Daniel Boyarin, Bruce Chilton, Aryeh Cohen, Christine Hayes, Susannah Heschel, Martin Kavka, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, David Ruderman, Eliyahu Stern, and Elliot Wolfson. I want to thank Alex Rames for his wonderful job with the indices. I gave numerous talks on Soloveitchik’s New Testament commentary and received constructive feedback, for which I am thankful. I want to thank Paul Nahme for inviting me to speak at Brown University. I also participated in a panel at the session “Jewish Christianity / Christian Judaism” at the 2017 meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature in 2017, where I was able to present Soloveitchik to a room full of New Testament and Matthew scholars, which was enormously helpful (and ightening). I want to thank Alana Newhouse and David Samuels for publishing the aforementioned essay in Tablet, which I am sure resulted in a few interesting e-mail responses and, as mentioned, put me in touch with Jordan Levy. I found out early on through Menachem Butler that Elijah Zvi was the great-great-great-grandfather of Peter Salovey, president of Yale University. I contacted President Salovey, and we had an extended e-mail exchange that was generous and encouraging about this book on his proximate ancestor, whom he knew about om family lore. I want to thank him for graciously taking the time to write a foreword to this volume.

Acknowledgments  427

I want to thank Jerry Singerman of the University of Pennsylvania Press for his interest in this work, and Steven Weitzman and Francesca Trivellato, editors of the series in which this volume appears. I also want to thank the Herbert D. Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies for helping underwrite the book’s publication. In addition, I want to thank my graduate student Brian Hillman for reading and commenting extensively on the introductory essay and for his help in clariing issues in the translation and commentary. And to Hila Ratzabi, as always, for her excellent editorial skills. My thanks to Winnied Sullivan, who was chair of the Department of Religious Studies of Indiana University when this book was being written; and Mark Roseman, who directs the Borns Jewish Studies Program at Indiana University; and all my colleagues in both religious and Jewish studies for their continued conversation and constructive camaraderie. I also want to thank Yehuda Kurtzer and Elana Hain Stein of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America for their support and for making the Hartman Institute a place of constant intellectual inquiry and applied scholarship. As always, to the members of the Fire Island Synagogue, my summer home, thank you for tolerating your rabbi’s odd interests. Special thanks to the synagogue leaders: Lisa Alter, Joel Confino, Ed Schechter, and Basya Schechter. I have learned much om all of you. To my children, Yehuda and Danielle, Chisda, Miriam, and Kinneret, and my grandson, Galil, thank you once again for putting up with your workaholic Abba and Saba. Your smiles, laughter, and even your complaints and rebukes continue to mean a lot to me. I feel proud as each of you finds your way in this world. When I began this project, I did not know Annette Yoshiko Reed, apart om reading her book coedited with Adam Becker, The Ways That Never Parted, which helped me think through a series of issues about Judaism and Christianity that informed this book. We met in August 2016 on a scorching hot day in Washington Square Park—and with that, my life changed in so many ways. The depth of her knowledge about Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity, her keen intellect and careful eye, and the creativity that jumps om the pages of her writing were even more apparent in the many hours of conversation about this project and so much more. She read the entire manuscript and offered invaluable advice and suggestions. She has been an inspiration, the model of a scholar, an empathetic critic, and a cherished iend and partner. I am quite sure that Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik would have found her a fascinating interlocutor. This book is dedicated to her.