Introduction

          In this paper I will examine the great disputations that took place between the Church and the Synagogue during the thirteenth century.  In the first part of the paper I will look at the Paris disputation of A.D. 1240, in which the Talmud was in a sense put on trial by Church authorities, based on the charges presented by Nicholas Donin, a convert from Judaism.  In the second part of the paper I will examine the disputation at Barcelona in A.D. 1263.  In this disputation the great Jewish scholar Nahmanides debated the former Jew, turned Christian, Fray Paul (Pablo Christiani).  The purpose of this disputation was to determine if the Talmud supported the idea that the Messiah had already come, as Fray Paul claimed it did.  In looking at these debates it becomes possible to see how the condition of the Jewish community changed through time, and how the attitude of Church authorities was altered after coming into contact with the Talmudic and Midrashic literature.  This new outlook on the part of the Church was in many ways the recovery of the more ancient Patristical view of Judaism.

Part One: The Paris Disputation

          Nicholas Donin, a convert from Judaism, made a list of 35 accusations against the Talmud which he then presented to Pope Gregory IX, he did this in order to push for the confiscation and destruction of the Talmud.  Donin had rejected the Talmud while he was still a Jew, because he was in favor of a Judaism based on the Hebrew Bible alone.  This led to his eventual excommunication by the Rabbis, and this was no doubt the main reason for his eventually leveling these accusations against the Talmud.  Donin’s accusations can be divided into five charges: (1) the Talmud supplements and in some ways replaces the Torah, (2) there are anti-Christian polemics in the Talmud, (3) the Talmud contains attacks against Jesus, Mary and the Saints, (4) God is given human emotions and weaknesses and is thus anthropomorphized in the Talmudic texts, and (5) the Talmud contains irrational fables and legends that are unworthy of God.

          On the basis of these charges the Pope appointed a tribunal in order to investigate the Donin’s accusations and see if they were true.  Several Jewish leaders where called before the tribunal in order to defend the Talmud, and they were to be questioned by Donin himself.  The Vikuah of Rabbi Yehiel of Paris seems to give a fairly accurate account of the proceedings, and when compared with the Christian account of the disputation, a fairly accurate picture of the proceedings can be ascertained.  Yehiel’s defense against the five charges can be divided into three points, the first point is not so much a defense as a statement of belief concerning the Talmud, the other two points are aimed at rebutting Donin’s charges.  As Hyam Maccoby points out in his book Judaism on Trial, the authorities of the Church were willing to accept a static form of Judaism based solely on scripture, but the idea that Judaism was a living faith, developing through time was not seen as a possibility. 

          This medieval view was not in line with the teaching of the majority of the Ancient Catholic Fathers, who knew about the Talmud and other Jewish writings.  It is a sign of the ignorance into which the Church had fallen concerning Judaism in the years since the close of the Patristical age.  Thus for the Church of the High Middle Ages the only legitimate form of Judaism had to be based solely on what the Church called the Old Testament.  To this Christian idea “Rabbi Yehiel’s impassioned reply that the Talmud was Judaism must have come as something of a surprise” [Maccoby, 24].   This was the first of Yehiel’s points, and in making it he did not deny Donin’s charge about the importance of the Talmud; instead, he emphasized the fact that the Talmud was necessary in order for one to gain a proper understanding of the Torah itself.  Initially the judges had seen the Talmud as extraneous to the practice of Judaism, but Yehiel’s statement showed that it was vital to the proper practice of the Jewish faith.  The inquisitors, technically speaking, where not supposed to interfere with the practice of Judaism and so they really did not know what to do in relation to this charge.  Eventually the Church would come to terms with this situation, and would accept that the Jews needed to use the Talmud in order to practice their faith, and in fact the later disputations were in part based on the idea that there could be a Christian reading of certain parts of the Haggadah.

          The next two points do deal with refuting Nicholas Donin’s charges.  The first real point of defense put forward by Rabbi Yehiel was to deny that the various Jesus’ mentioned in the Talmud were the Christian Jesus. In the Vikuah of Rabbi Yehiel of Paris, Donin states that, “The Talmud contains blasphemies against Jesus.  For example, the Talmud says that Jesus is in hell, and his punishment is to be immersed in boiling excrement (b Gitt., 556)” [Maccoby, 156].  To this accusation Yehiel responded by saying, that  “This Jesus, mentioned here by the Talmud, is another Jesus, not the one whom Christians worship.  This was a certain Jesus who mocked the words of the Sages, and believed only in the written Scripture, like you.  You can tell this, because he is not called ‘Jesus of Nazareth’, but simply ‘Jesus’” [Maccoby, 156].  Maccoby does state earlier in his section on the Paris disputation that the Jesus mentioned here is the Christian Jesus and that it is an “. . . anti-Christian polemic dating from the post-70 CE period” [Maccoby, 27].  But it is possible that Rabbi Yehiel did not know that, and what I find interesting in his statement is his attack on Donin.  Rabbi Yehiel pointed out that that person was being punished for the very same error that Donin made while he was a Jew.  It should be noted that in the majority of cases where the name Jesus is mentioned, Rabbi Yehiel is no doubt correct in saying that they did not originally refer to Jesus of Nazareth; though later interpretations within the Jewish community often looked on them as references to the Christian Jesus (cf. Maccoby, 28).  As Maccoby points out, “. . . the popular anti-Christian account of the life of Jesus known as the Toledot Yeshu built many of its incidents on these very Talmudic passages” [Maccoby, 28].  But Rabbi Yehiel’s statement was backed up by Rabbi Judah ben David of Melun when he was questioned, and neither of the rabbis were permitted to consult with each other prior to their testimony.  So, even though the Christian account of the disputation accuses Rabbi Yehiel of lying (cf. Maccoby, 165), this need not be the case.

          Rabbi Yehiel’s last point dealt with the charge that the Talmud was blasphemous against God because of the fables and legends recounted in it, and because of  the statements about God which were of an anthropomorphic nature.  His point in this regard was that the Haggadah must not be viewed as literal, but as metaphorical.  The truth in these stories was the underlying moral point, not the events recorded in them.  These texts were teaching tools, not historical narratives.  Donin used a story in which Rabbah bar Hanah heard the voice of God, in the story the Lord asked Rabbah to release him from a vow.  Donin ridicules this saying, “. . . can a human being release [God] from a vow?” [Maccoby, 158].  Rabbi Yehiel responded by citing a verse of scripture which says, “‘The Lord repented of the evil He had intended to do to His people’ (Exodus, 32:14)” [Maccoby, 158].  Yehiel also emphasized that the text Donin referred to should not be interpreted in a literal sense.  Though Rabbi Yehiel acquitted himself well in the disputation, because of the unfairness of the situation his cause was lost from the beginning, and the Talmud was destined to be burned.

Part Two: The Barcelona Disputation

          In the Barcelona disputation Nahmanides did a better job in his debate with Fray Paul (Pablo Christiani) than Rabbi Yehiel had done over twenty years before in his debate with Nicholas Donin, but it should be noted that the Paris disputation was not really a debate; instead, it was an inquisitorial trial.  Before going over some of the points at issue in the Barcelona disputation itself, it is important to mention the new Christian attitude toward the Talmud and other Jewish religious literature which had developed since the Paris debate.  Within a period of just over twenty years the Church had moved from simply recognizing the fact that the Jews needed the Talmud in addition to the Torah in order to properly practice their religion, to viewing the Talmud as containing some “. . . early material uncontaminated by later Jewish opposition to Christianity” [Maccoby, 42].  Of course from a Christian perspective this earlier substratum of information needed to be drawn out of the existing interpolated text.  But though scholars admit that there are layers of material from different historical eras in the Talmud, it does not follow that they naturally support Christian claims about the Messiah.  In the disputation  Nahmanides follows the wise path of simply sticking to the texts as they are written, and in this way he is able to refute the arguments put forward by Fray Paul.  When Nahmanides did accept certain interpretations given to the texts by Fray Paul, he was always careful to point out the fact that when there are different interpretations, even contradictory ones, existing within the Midrash, one is free to choose the interpretation which seems best to him. 

          The Barcelona disputation was supposed to center on three points of disagreement, the first of the points to be discussed was to center on whether the Messiah had already come as Christians believe, or whether the Messiah had not yet come as the Jews believe.  After this issue was debated the argument was supposed to move on the second point, which concerned the nature of the Messiah, that is whether he was truly divine or whether he was merely human.  The final point that was to be debated concerned whether “. . . the Jews still possess the true law, or whether the Christians practise it” [Maccoby, 103].  By the end of the disputation only the first and second points had been discussed in detail, while the third point was not discussed at all.  In reading Nahmanides own account of the disputation it becomes clear to any impartial observer why the final point was not discussed.  Fray Paul was not up to the task and was quite simply out maneuvered by Nahmanides.

          Nahmanides indicates in his account of the disputation that Fray Paul’s intention was to show from the “. . . Talmud that the Messiah about whom the prophets testified had already come” [Maccoby, 103].  In his first proof Fray Paul reverts to the use of scripture by quoting the Book of Genesis, which says, “‘The sceptre shall not depart from Judah . . . until Shiloh come.’ [And] Shiloh is the Messiah” [Maccoby, 105].  Nahmanides answered this by simply stating that the sceptre can be lost for a period of time, and restored at a later date, and he uses the Babylonian Captivity as an example of this.  Interestingly enough Fray Peire de Genova, spoke up and said, “‘This is true, for Scripture only says that the ‘sceptre’ will not cease altogether, but it leaves open the possibility of an interregnum’” [Maccoby, 108].  In Nahmanides account Fray Peire does modify his statement in the next paragraph, by indicating that the Babylonian Captivity was for only 70 years, which is a very short time, as opposed to the present situation of the Jews which has lasted for more than a thousand years.  But Nahmanides then pointed out that the prophet makes no distinction between long and short periods of time.  So, Fray Paul’s first attempt at a proof falls flat, and he has yet to really use the Talmud as a source.

          In his second attempt at a proof Fray Paul refers to a text in the Lamentations Rabbah, this text as it appears in Nahmanides Vikuah states, “A certain man was ploughing and his cow lowed.  An Arab passed by and said to him, ‘Jew, Jew, untie your cow, untie your plough, untie your coulter, for the Temple has been destroyed.’  He untied his cow, he untied his plough, he untied his coulter.  The cow lowed a second time.  The Arab said to him, ‘Tie up your cow, tie up your plough, tie up your coulter, for your Messiah has been born.’” [Maccoby, 110].  To this proof given by Fray Paul, Nahmanides replied rather bluntly, “‘I do not believe in this Aggadah’” [Maccoby, 110].  This one statement shows quite clearly that Fray Paul did not really understand the nature of the Midrashic literature and its authority in Judaism.  He may have been a convert from Judaism to Christianity, but in his use of texts he seems to be using what could be termed a Christian view of how sacred texts operate.  Certainly if a Christian used a proof text from a sacred source, another Christian would not respond in the way Nahmanides does, but that is because of the dogmatic nature of Christian faith.  But as Hyam Maccoby states in the first part of  his book, the truth found in the Haggadah is of a poetic nature, it is meant to “. . . create a mood, rather than to state a fact” [Maccoby, 44-45].  So, Fray Paul and most of the Christian Haggadic interpreters after him proceed from a perspective which is foreign to Judaism.

          Nahmanides, for the sake of the argument, then goes on to explain the errors in Fray Paul’s interpretation of this Midrash.  As he points out, the most that it can (if taken literally) prove, is that the Messiah was born when the Temple was destroyed.  But Jesus was born prior to the destruction of the Temple, and so Nahmanides concludes that he cannot be the Messiah, at least if one bases the claim on this Midrash.  He then went on to say that, “‘The Sages did not say that the Messiah had come, but that he had been born’” [Maccoby, 111], and the two terms are not synonymous.  This is where Nahmanides’ position gets complex, for he held that the Messiah could have been born when the Temple was destroyed, and then because the Messiah was “‘. . . free from the punishment of Adam’” [Maccoby, 116], he could have entered the Garden of Eden until the time for him to come was manifest.

          At the end of this argument Nahmanides attacked the Christian view that the Messianic era had already commenced, by saying, “‘Do you agree with my statement that the sin of Adam will be nullified in the time of the Messiah?’” [Maccoby, 117].  To this both Fray Paul and the King affirmed that it would be so in the Messianic era, and that Jesus had nullified the punishment.  Nahmanides then said, “They say in our land, ‘He who wishes to tell lies should cite evidence that is too far away to be checked’” [Maccoby, 118] His point being that nothing in the world has visibly changed since the time of Jesus, so how can he confirm the truth of Fray Paul’s assertion.  

          Near the end of the disputation, Fray Paul finally asked Nahmanides if the Messiah “‘. . . will be entirely human, and truly Divine?’” [Maccoby, 134].  Nahmanides first stated that this question was not appropriate, since the first point concerning whether or not the Messiah had come had not been resolved, but he was pressured by the King to answer the question.  Nahmanides then said that there is a connection between shiloh and shilyah (which means afterbirth), and that this means that the Messiah will be born like any other man.  He will be born of a human father and mother, and the father is important “‘. . . because daughters, with their progeny, do not inherit, according to the Torah, where there is a male, and there have always been male descendants from David’” [Maccoby, 135].  A bit later in this argument Fray Paul brought up a quote from the Genesis Rabbah, which says, “AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD HOVERED: this alludes to the spirit of Messiah, as you read, ‘And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him (Isaiah 11:2)” [Midrash Rabbah, 1:17].  Fray Paul then asserted that this indicates that the Messiah is God.  To this Nahmanides responded by saying, “Woe to him who knows nothing, and thinks that he is wise and learned.  It is also said there (cf. Midrash Rabbah, 1:55) : ‘And the spirit of God hovered’ – this is the spirit of Adam.’  Does this really mean that Adam would be a Divine Being?” [Maccoby, 140].  In this way Nahmanides showed that Fray Paul was being selective in his quotes, and that he only brought forward information that would give support to his pre-conceived notions.  The rabbis viewed the scriptural and Midrashic texts as multivalent, thus many interpretations can come out of them and no one interpretation is exclusively correct.  Nahmanides knew this, evidently Fray Paul did not.  Nahmanides quite simply knew more about the Midrash than Fray Paul did, and so the disputation ended without consideration of the final point; although, Nahmanides eventually delivered a sermon on the subject.

Conclusion

          This period in the history of Jewish-Christian polemics is very interesting, but in these disputations the outcome was pre-determined based not on the merits of the arguments presented, but on the power of the Church to affect society.  That is why even though Rabbi Yehiel did a good job in defending the Talmud, it was still burned.  The same is true in the case of Nahmanides; power ultimately triumphed over erudite argumentation.  I read the abridged Christian version of the Barcelona disputation and unlike the Christian version of the Paris debate, it was highly polemical and did not ring true, while Nahmanides’ version, though I am sure there are some inaccuracies in it, tended to sound truthful.  He even included a few places where he slipped up; if that is not honesty I do not know what is.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Leonard B. Glick.  Abraham’s Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe.  (Syracuse:  Syracuse University Press, 1999).

Hyam Maccoby.  Judaism on Trail: Jewish-Christians Disputations in the Middle Ages.  (London:  Associated University Presses, 1982).

Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman (Editor).  Midrash Rabbah.  (New York:  The Soncino Press, Ltd., 1983).  10 Volumes.

Yehiel and Nahmanides and the Jewish-Christian Disputations of the Thirteenth Century

by Steven Todd Kaster

San Francisco State University

Jewish Studies 320:  Jewish Historical Experience

Final Paper

Professor Fred Astren

9 December 1999

Copyright © 1999-2024 Steven Todd Kaster