You are on page 1of 30

MEDIEVAL JEWISH CRITICISM

OF THE CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN
by
JOEL E. REMBAUM
Withthe passage of timethe notionof originalsin became a matterof
The foundaincreasingconcernformedievalJewishcriticsof Christianity.'
NOTE:The authorgratefully
acknowledgesthe researchsupportforthispaper providedby a
grantfromthe Penrose Fund of the AmericanPhilosophicalSociety.The authoralso thanks
thestaffsoftheInstituteof MicrofilmedHebrewManuscripts,JewishNational and University
of Judaism,Los Angelesfortheirkind
Library,Jerusalemand the Libraryof the University
assistance.

1. The sourcesstudiedin thisessay are, in chronologicalorder: 1) JosephKimbi,Seferhaberit(ca. 1170),in FrankTalmage,ed., Seferha-beritu-vikkubei


(JeruRaDaQ 'imha-noverim
Berit.2) Jacob ben Reuben,Milbamotha-shem(ca. 1170),
salem, 1974),pp. 21-56; hereafter
ed. JudahRosenthal(Jerusalem,1963); hereafter
Milbamot.On thedatingof thesetwo works
see Rosenthal,Milhamot,introduction,pp. 8,21. 3) Ha- Vikkuabha-meyuhasla-RaDaQ (ca.
1200),in Talmage,Seferha-berit,pp. 83-96; hereafter
RaDaQ. On thedatingof thisworksee
Harvard
Frank Talmage, "An Hebrew PolemicalTreatise,Anti-Catharand Anti-Orthodox,"
(ca.
TheologicalReview60 (1967): 326. 4) Josephben NathanOfficial,SeferYosefha-meqanne
1250)ed. JudahRosenthal(Jerusalem,1970);hereafter
Meqanne.On thedatingofthisworksee
Rosenthal,introduction,
p. 17. 5) MS Or. 53, BibliotecaNazionale Centrale,Rome (hereafter,
Al (after1250),in JudahRosenthal,"Biqqoret yehuditshel ha-berit
MS Rome 53), fragment
Hisha-badashahminha-me'ahha-13," in Charles Berlin,ed., StudiesinJewishBibliography,
tory,and Literaturein HonorofI. EdwardKiev(New York, 1971),Hebrewsection,pp. 123-39;
B (after1250),in JudahRosenthal,"Pirqei vikhereafter
MS 53A1. 6) MS Rome 53, fragment
BaronJubileeVolume,3 vols.(Jerusalem,1974),
kuah" in Saul Lieberman,ed., Salo Wittmayer

353

354

JOEL E. REMBAUM

tion of thiscriticismwas laid by the earlierpolemicalwriters,specifically


those of the period fromthe second half of the twelfththroughthe early
3: 353-95; hereafter
MS 53B. On MS Rome 53 see also E. E. Urbach,"Etudes surla littbrature
to the fragpolemique au moyen-ige,"Revuedes etudesjuives 100 (1935): 49-77; references
mentsof the MS followUrbach'sdesignation.On thedatingofthefragments
see Urbachand
Rosenthal'sintroductions
to his editionsof thefragments.
7) Vikkuahha-RaMbaN, (ca. 1263),
in C.B. Chavel,ed., KitveiRabbenuMoshehbenNahman,2 vols. (Jerusalem,1973), 1: 302-20;
hereafter
RaMbaN. On thedatingofthe Vikkuahsee Chavel, 1: 300. 8) MS Rome 53, fragment
A2 (after1269),in JudahRosenthal,"Vikkuah dati bein hakhambe-shemMenahem u-vein
ha-mumarve-ha-nazirha-dominiqaniPablo Kristi'ani,"Hagut 'ivritba-'ameriqah3 (1974):
61-74; hereafterMS 53A2. On this fragmentand its date see also J. E. Rembaum,"A Reevaluationof a Medieval Polemical Manuscript,"AJSreview5 (1980): 81-99. 9) Additionsto
Beritadd. On these
Seferha-berit(ca. 1270) in Talmage,Seferha-berit,pp. 56-68; hereafter
additionsand theirdatingsee FrankTalmage,trans.,TheBook oftheCovenantofJosephKimhi
(Toronto, 1972),pp. 18, 25-26. 10) Meir ben Simeon,MilhemetmiSvah(ca. 1270), MS 2749,
BibliotecaPalatina,Parma; hereafter
MiSvah.On thedatingof thissourcesee J.E. Rembaum,
"The Influenceof SeferNestor Hakomer on Medieval JewishPolemics,"Proceedingsof the
AmericanAcademyfor JewishResearch45 (1978): 167-68, n. 54. 11) Solomon ben Moses de
Rossi, 'Edut ha-shemne'emanah(second half thirteenth
century),in Judah Rosenthal,ed.,
2 vols. (Jerusalem,1967), 1: 373-421; hereafter'Edut. See Rosenthal's
Mebqarimu-meqorot,
introduction,
pp. 373, 376, for dating. 12) NiSSahonvetus(ca. 1300), in David Berger,The
Jewish-ChristianDebate in the High Middle Ages, a Critical Edition of the
Ni;;ahon Vetus(Philadelphia, 1979), Hebrew section;hereafterVetus.On the datingof the
NiSahon see Berger,pp. 33-34. 13) ProfiatDuran, Kelimmatha-goyim(1396), in Frank TalKelimmat.On
mage,ed., Kitveipulmosle-ProfiatDuran(Jerusalem,1981),pp. 3-69; hereafter
the dating see Talmage, introduction,p. 14. 14) Hasdai Crescas, Bitlul 'iqqarei ha-noerim
(1397), ed. EphraimDeinard (Kearny,N.J., 1904);hereafter
Bittul.On thedatingof thiswork
see Talmage,Kitvei,introduction,
p. 14. 15) Yom Tov LipmannMuihlhausen,
Seferha-nissahon
(ca. 1405),MS 2402, JewishTheologicalSeminaryofAmerica,New York; hereafter
Ni,,ahon.
York
On thedatingsee S. W. Baron,A Social and ReligiousHistoryoftheJews,17 vols. (New
and Philadelphia,1966-80), 9:295. 16) Daniel ben Solomon,additionsand commentson 'Edut
ha-shemne'emanah(fifteenth
century),in Rosenthal,Mehqarim,1: 423-30; hereafter'Edut
add. On thedatingof Daniel ben Solomon see Rosenthal,Mehqarim,1: 377, n. 1. 17) Simeon
ben $emah Duran, Qeshetu-magen(1423) (Livorno, 1762-63); hereafter,
Qeshet.For dating
see Baron, History9: 295-96. 18) Elijah Hayyimben Benjaminof Genazzano, Vikkuah(ca.
1480),in JudahRosenthal,"Vikkulhoshel R. EliyahuHayyimmi-genagano'im nazirfranSisqani," Rosenthal,Mehqarim,1:431-56 (reprintfromSura 1 [1953-54]: 156-77); hereafter
Genazzano. On the datingsee Rosenthal,Mebqarim1: 431, 433. 19) Abrahamben Mordecai
Farissol,Magen 'Avraham(ca. 1500),MS 2433,JewishTheologicalSeminaryofAmerica.New
York; hereafter
Magen. On thedatingofthisworksee D. B. Ruderman,The Worldofa Renaissance Jew: The Life and Thoughtof Abrahamben Mordecai Farissol(Cincinnati,1981), pp.
62-64. 20) Yair ben Shabbetai da Correggio,IHerevpifiyyot
(ca. 1565),ed. JudahRosenthal
p. 7. 21) Isaac
(Jerusalem,1958); hereafter
HIerev.On thedatingsee Rosenthal'sintroduction,
ben Abrahamof Troki,Hizzuq 'emunah(1593), ed. David Deutsch (Sohrau, 1873); hereafter
to Moses Mocatta,trans.,Faith
introduction
Troki.On thedatingsee TrudeWeiss-Rosmarin,
Strengthened
(reprinted., New York, 1970),p. 9. 22) Anonymouscritiqueof the Acts of the
Apostlesand Paul's Epistleto the Romans, MS 2252, BibliotecaPalatina, Parma,fols.4r-5r;
hereafter
MS 2252. I am tentatively
datingthisca. 1600.This suggestionis based on thestyleof
on fol. Ir to Azariah de Rossi's Me'or 'einayim,
the Italian cursivescriptand the reference

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

355

centuries.The laterauthors,2fromthe late fourteenth


fourteenth
through
themid-seventeenth
centuries,incorporatedpracticallyall ofthearguments
theirgreater
raised by theirpredecessorsand added newcriticismreflecting
familiaritywith Christianbeliefsand literature.The earlierpolemicists,
whileapproachingtheirtask froma rational,"commonsense" perspective,
reliedheavilyon Hebrew biblical and, to a lesserdegree,New Testament
passages. The laterwritersreflecteda greaterintellectualindependenceof
as runscripturalsources.Because theearlierworksare generallystructured
of
texts
relevant
to
their
commentaries
treatscriptural
Christianity,
ning
mentof originalsin,and otherChristiandoctrinesforthatmatter,tendsto
be unfocused.3The issuesthatare raisedemergepiecemealas thesalientbiblical passages are interpreted.
The laterworkstendto be builton discussions
of concepts.Consequently,a numberof argumentsare coalesced into coare the resultsof different
herentanalyses.Such structuraldifferences
patternsof inquiry.The earliertextuallyorientedcritiquesare, on the whole,
productsof the Franco-Germanpolemicalwriters.The laterconceptually
orientedworksstemfromSpain and Italyand wereproducedbyJewswho
were more exposed to secular culturalinfluences,includingphilosophical
traditions.The latterwould, therefore,
tend to be more probingin their
ideologicalinquiryand would relyon and generateideas and assumptions
not part of the formers'frameof reference.
amongtheassumptionsfoundin thelaterwritersand lacking
Significant
in theirpredecessorsis the explicitrecognitionof the centrality
of original
sin in Christianbelief.This awarenessis expressedin a varietyof ways.
Three of the authors,Hasdai Crescas, Elijah of Genazzano, and Leone
Modena, begintheirtreatiseswithan analysisofthisdoctrine.For example,
Modena's firstwords are: "A knowledgeof the basic principleof the religion of the Christians,whichtheysee as the foundationof theirfaithand
whichwas publishedin November,1573;on thisdate see S. W. Baron,HistoryandJewishHistorians(Philadelphia,1964),p. 168. This becomesthe terminus
a quo forMS 2252. 23) Leone
(Judah Aryeh da) Modena, Magen va-herev(1648), ed. Shlomo Simonsohn (Jerusalem,
1960); hereafterModena. On thedatingsee Simonsohn,p. 5. Regardingno. 22 see Appendix,
For some preliminary
commentson theJewishtreatment
oforiginalsin see Berger,Debate,pp.
in theMid247-48, 323, 324; 335 and D. J. Lasker,PhilosophicalPolemicsagainstChristianity
dle Ages (New York, 1977), pp. 5, 18, 19, 107-8, 226.
2. See n. 1, numbers1-12 fortheearlierwritersand numbers13-23 forthe laterwriters.
3. Two exceptionsto thisgeneralstatement
are theSeferha-nisabhon
of Yom Tov Lipmann
Mihlhausen and the Hizzuq 'emunah of Isaac Troki, both of which are structured
accordingto a sequence of biblical passages but still have ratherdeveloped discussionsof
fols. 7v-10vand Troki,pp. 86-96.
originalsin and otherChristiandoctrines;see
Nisah.on,

356

JOEL E. REMBAUM

doctrine,is what we have investigatedhere."4Similarly,Elijah and Abraham Farissolemphasizethatthedoctrineoforiginalsinis essentialto Chriswritersuggeststhat its
tianity,and an anonymouslate sixteenth-century
of Chriswould resultin thecrumblingof thecompletestructure
refutation
to the subtletiesof Christianity,
tian belief.5Reflectinga like sensitivity
withinChristiantradition
ProfiatDuran definesoriginalsin as functioning
as thefinalcause oftheincarnation.6
A closer examinationof the different
methodologicalapproaches will
remarks.The Jewishwriterswere aware of the
clarifythese introductory
various biblical passages used by Christiansto prove that all souls, even
thoseof the righteous,weretaintedby originalsin and descendedintohell
mostcommonlycited by the Jewsare:
afterdeath. Among the prooftexts
Gen. 2:17, 15:15,and 37:35, and Ps. 51:7.7Gen. 2:17, withthe apparently
redundantmottamut("die you shalldie") was understoodbycertainChristiansas alludingto physicaldeath in thislifeand the soul's suffering
after
death.8In Gen. 15:15Abrahamis informedthathe willjoin his "fathers"
('avotekha) in peace. Christians understood "fathers" as referringto
Abraham'sevil pagan ancestorswho surelywerenot in heaven.Abraham
was tojoin them,although"in peace," thatis,he wouldnotsuffer
greatpain
as theydid.9In Gen. 37:35Jacobassertsthathe wouldgo intoshe'olmournby Christiansas a
ing forhis son, Joseph.The termshe'ol was interpreted
to hell,implyingthatJacob recognizedthatas his futureresting
reference
place.'0 Withthedevelopmentofthenotionoflimbuspatrum,theChristians
held that the souls of the patriarchswere peacefullyawaitingJesus' first
advent,at whichtimetheywould be freedand ascend to heaven." Finally,
Ps. 51:7, "In iniquityI was broughtto birth,and mymotherconceivedme
in sin,"I2 was viewedbyChristiansas beinga clearproofofthelatentsinful4. Bittul,p. 6; Genazzano, p. 345; Modena, p. 7.
5. Genazzano, p. 436; Magen, fols. 17v,18v; MS 2252, fol. 4v.
6. Kelimmat,p. 17.
7. On Gen. 2:17 see Meqanne,p. 36; Beritadd., p. 60; NiSSabon,fol. 7v; Ilerev,pp. 97, 98;
Troki,p. 87; Modena, p. 7. On Gen. 15:15see Milbamot,p. 49; Qeshet,p. 8a; Modena, p. 13.
On Gen. 37:35 see Milhamot,p. 49; Meqanne,p. 42; MS 53B,p. 386; MS 53A2,p. 68; NiSSabon,
fol. 19v; Qeshet,p. 8b; Herev,p. 87. On Ps. 51:7 see Milbamot,pp. 58-59; MS 53A1, p. 132;
Kelimmat,p. 17; Qeshet,p. 7b; Modena, p. 11; see also Vetus,p. 154.
8. See Talmage, Covenant,p. 72, n. 97.
9. See Milhamot,p. 49; Genazzano, p. 435, n. 3.
10. See Berger,Debate, pp. 247-48.
11. See n. 9 above.
12. This and all subsequentscripturaltranslationsare fromthe New EnglishBible (New
York, 1976).

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

357

These and otherChristianproofness found even in newbornchildren."3

textsl4evoked responseson the partof theJewishwritersthatrangedover

the entirebiblical corpus.


In refuting
theChristianassertionthatGen. 2:17 alludesto morsduplex,
the Jews marshal an array of arguments.Among the more common
responsesis thesuggestionthatsuch redundancydoes notpointto a multiplicityofmeaningsbutis simplya typicalaspectofbiblicalstyle.Othersuch
the Bible,and to ascribeto all ofthem
can be foundthroughout
repetitions
double meaningswould lead to absurdities.'5If thereis any special signifinatureof
cance to mottamut,it is as an emphaticexpressionofthedefinitive
God's ultimatepunishmentof Adam withphysicaldeath,even thoughon
theveryday he ate the fruithe did not die.'6 ProfiatDuran goes as faras to
suggestthatJesusand his disciplessimilarlyunderstoodthepassage accordto physicaldeath and in no way
ing to its plain meaning as referring
associated it withspiritualpunishment.'7Some of the Jewishpolemicists
rhetorically
accept the notionof a dual meaning.Thus, Yair ben Shabbetai
of Correggioargues:"Perhaps thepurposeof therepetition[oftheverb]is
to teach about his death and the death of all his physicaldescendants."'8
And, accordingto Isaac Troki, mot tamutalludes to the double physical
punishmentmetedout to Adam: 1) his death and 2) the curseshe was to
here
endurebeforehe died. Trokiis quick to notethatthereis no reference
to spiritualsuffering.'9
Like Yair ben Shabbetai and the other Jewish
TrokiviewsGen. 2:17 onlywithina contextofphysicalpunishment.
writers,
If one could suggesta physical-spiritual
dualityin the verse,a numberof
the writersrhetorically
argue,thenthe most one could say was thatonly
To suggestthatthespiritual
Adam was subjectedto two suchpunishments.
punishmentwas transmittedto Adam's children(therebynecessitating
God's incarnationand death as atonement)amountsto a contradictionof
Ezekiel's maxim:"It is thesoul thatsins,and no other,thatshall die; a son
shall not share a father'sguilt,nor a fatherhis son's" (18:20).20
13. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa contragentiles,4:50,7. See also n. 37 below.
14. See, forexample,theChristianuse of 1 Samuel28 to provethatSamuelwas in hellafter
his death as notedin MS 53B, p. 386. On the Jews'responsesto thissee nn. 32-33 below.
15. See Meqanne,p. 36; Beritadd., p. 62; Herev,p. 97; Troki,pp. 94-95; MS 2252,fol. 5r;
Modena, p. 9.
16. Troki, p. 87; Modena, p. 9.
17. Kelimmat,p. 20.
18. Herev,p. 97; see also n. 17 above.
19. Troki,pp. 87-88.
20. NiSSabon,fol. 10v; lerev, p. 97. See also Modena, pp. 9-10, withno reference
to Ezek.
18:20.

358

JOELE. REMBAUM

A brief
is appropriate
atthispoint.Ezek.18:20and,alternadigression

tively,Deut. 24:16 ("Fathersshallnotbe putto deathfortheirchildren,nor


childrenfortheirfathers;a man shallbe putto deathonlyforhisown sin"),
providetheJewishcriticswithone ofthemostbasic biblicalresponsesto the
doctrineof originalsin. Given these clear-cutstatementsof what was an
essentialcomponentof God's justice, the Christians'beliefsconcerning
mankind'sspiritualculpabilityforAdam's sin appeared to theJewsto be
and evenblasphemous.Especiallydifficult
fortheJewsin this
contradictory
regard was the notion that the righteous,includingthe patriarchsand
prophetswho precededJesus,did notgo to heaven.21It is clearthatsimilar
questionscirculatedin Christiancircles,as may be seen fromAnselmof
and Aquinas's concernin
Canterbury'sdiscussionsin De conceptuvirginali
his Summacontragentileswiththeimplicationsof Ezek. 18:20.22To be sure,
theJewishwritersremainedfacedwitha dilemmaof theirown,giventheir
forAdam's sinweretransacceptanceoftheidea thatphysicalpunishments
mittedto all his descendants.23
In responseto the Christianviewthat,accordingto Gen. 15:15,Abraham was told thathe would residein hell,the Jewsarguedthatthe verse
itselfcontradictssuch a conclusion.Noting that Abraham was promised
thathe wouldjoin his fathers"in peace and be buriedin a good old age,"
theysuggestthatAbraham'sresidingin hell,evenin limbo,could hardlybe
consideredpeacefulor good.24Moreover,theterm"your fathers"need not
be viewedas alludingto Abraham'simmediate,pagan,ancestors.Rather,it
can be understoodas referring
back to his righteousforefathers
(Noah,
Shem,Eber,and so forth)who surelymade theirwayintoheaven.25
in Gen. 37:35 thathe wouldgo to she'olmourningthe
Jacob'sstatement
loss ofJoseph,is typicallyunderstoodbytheJewsas Jacob'sacceptingguilt
It is arguedthathe mistakforhavingbeen thecause ofJoseph'ssuffering.
have
he
would
to
undergopunishmentforhis owntransgresenlythought
the
writers
cite
Jacob's expressionsof reliefupon his
sion.26Many of
21. See n. 20 above, and also Berit,p. 24; MS 53A1, p. 139; MS 53A2, p. 68; MiSvah,fols.
10r,28v, 101r;Biltul,p. 6; Nissahon,fol. 7v; 'Edut add., p. 427; Genazzano, p. 436; Troki,pp.
87-88, 93. See Lasker, Polemics,p. 227, n. 25.
22. Anselmof Canterbury,De conceptuvirginali,
24-26; Aquinas, SCG 4:51, 2; 52, 6.
23. See nn. 72-73, 78-81 below.
24. Milhamot,p. 51; MS 53A1, p. 139; MS 53B, p. 386; Beritadd., p. 62; NiSSabon,fol.7v;
Qeshet,pp. 8a-b; Modena, p. 14.
25. Milbamot,p. 51; Qeshet,p. 8a; Modena, p. 14.
26. Milhamot,pp. 51-52; Meqanne,pp. 42-43; MS 53B, p. 386; NiSabon, fol. 19v;Qeshet,
p. 8b; Modena, pp. 13-14.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

359

learningthatJosephwas alive and well and in thecourseofhistalkingwith


Joseph,when he impliedthathe would die in peace.27Some respondwith
the argumentthatshe'ol does not alwaysreferto hell. It can simplymean
"the grave," as numerousbiblical passages indicate.28The latterpoint is
made by otherpolemicistsin theirresponsesto theChristianargumentthat
to she'ol by biblicalfiguresindicatetheirawarenessoftheirhavreferences
ing to wait in hell untilJesus'coming.29
of the passages used by Christiansto
These Jewishinterpretations
the biblicalrootsof thedoctrineof originalsin sharea methodemonstrate
dologytypicalof bothancientand medievalJewishpolemicalexegesis.The
plain meaningof the Hebrewwordingis sought.Toward thisend,patterns
of standardlanguageusage are noted,carefulattentionis paid to the exact
wordingof biblicalphrases,and a heavyemphasisis placed on understanding words in the light of the contextsin which they appear. Christian
is oftenviewedas being forcedand artificial.30
interpretation
In a similarfashion,biblicalpassages relatingto otherpersonalitiesare
introducedby the polemiciststo demonstratethat the righteousdo not
sufferin hell. Enoch and Elijah are citedas examplesof righteousindividuals who, accordingto the Bible, were taken by God directlyto heaven
well beforeJesuscame upon the scene. Clearly,the Jewsargue,theywere
untaintedby Adam's sin and did not need the atonementprovidedby the
sacrificialdeathofGod incarnateto assumetheirrightful
place in theworld
to come.31
would referto 1 Sam. 28, Saul's callApparently,Christianinterlocutors
27. Milhamot,p. 52, citingGen. 45:28, 48:21, etc.; NiSSabon,fol. 19v,citingGen. 46:30;
Qeshet,p. 8b, citingGen. 48:21; Modena, p. 14, citingGen. 45:28, 46:30.
28. Milbamot,p. 52; Vetus,p. 18; Qeshet,p. 8b; Troki, pp. 95-96; Modena, p. 13.
29. MS 53A2, p. 69; HIerev,
p. 99. Versescommonlycitedto provethispointare Gen. 3:19;
Ps. 89:49; Job 14:13.
30. See Berger,Debate, pp. 9-13; Lasker,Polemics,pp. 3-4. It has been suggestedthatan
importantfactorin themedievalJewishexegetes'emphasisoftheplain meaningofthebiblical
text(peshat)was a feltneed to respondto theChristians'allegorizing;see E. M.
R.
Lipschtitz,
ShelomohYisbaqi(Warsaw, 1912),pp. 163-64. See also E. I. J. Rosenthal,"The Studyof the
Bible in Medieval Judaism,"in G. W. H. Lampe, ed., The CambridgeHistoryof theBible,3
vols. (Cambridge,England, 1969), vol. 2: The WestfromtheFathersto theReformation,
pp.
252-79, esp. 260-74; and BerylSmalley,The Studyof the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre
Dame, 1964),pp. 149-72. For a Christianreactionto Jewishrepudiationof Christianexegesis
see the statementof Bartholomew,bishop of Exeter,cited in Smalley,pp. 170-71. For an
exampleof a thirdcenturyc. L. applicationof thismethodologyin a polemicalargumentsee
Rabbi Simlai's discussionwiththe minim(sectarians),P. T. Berakhot12d-13a, citedin R. T.
in Talmudand Midrash(London, 1903), pp. 255-66, 424-25.
Herford,Christianity
31. MS 53A1, pp. 132, 139; NiSSabon,fol. 10r; Magen, fol. 20r; Troki,p. 90.

360

JOEL E. REMBAUM

ing on thedead Samuel's spirit,as proofthattheprophetwas in hell. How


could the witch'sdemonicpowerspluckSamuel fromheaven?,theywould
ask. In responsethe Jewspointto Samuel's initialwordsto Saul upon his
return from the dead: "Why have you disturbed me. . . ?" (1 Sam. 28:15)

and ask: Weretheprophetin hell,wouldhe complainin thisway?Would he


not be overjoyedto be givena respitefromhis infernalabode?32Yom Tov
LipmannMdihlhausenadds thatduringtheinitialyearafterdeaththesoul
returnsto the body to mournits death.Thus thewitchwas able to call up
Samuel's soul because it was, at thattime,in Samuel's grave.This answer
reflects
a rabbinicinterpretation
in theargumentmust
whoseincorporation
have been strictly
fortheJewishreaderof theha-NiSSahon.
It is difficult
to
imaginethat a Christianwould be impressedby this retort.33
Passages fromthe Psalms also serve the Jews' ends by provingthat
David did not descendintohell.Ps. 16:9-10, 25:11-13 are oftencited,with
the emphasis placed on 16:10 ("for Thou wilt not abandon me to
Sheol ...") and 25:13 ("he shall enjoy everlastingprosperity"-literally,
"his soul shallrestingoodness"). Regardingtheformer,
theJewsare willing
to understandshe'ol as referring
to gehennaand not simplythegrave.And,
theynotetheuse ofthetermhasidkhain 16:10,whichis understoodto be an
allusion to David, who because of his pietyand righteousness
was saved
fromhell,and not because of Jesus'atoningforAdam's sin and freeingthe
souls of the righteousfromSatan's clutches.As with God's promiseto
Abraham(Gen. 15:15),theuse oftov,"goodness,"in 25:13 is understoodas
precludingDavid's residingin hell and indicatinghis receiptof heavenly
rewards.34

Such exegesison passages fromPsalms, demonstrating


David's rightin stark
and
freedom
stands
from
the
effects
of
eousness
original sin,
contrastto one commenton Ps. 51:7, referredto above.35Jacob ben
Reuben, in a sharp rhetoricalremarkin his Milhamotha-shem,tells his
Christiandisputant:"This timeyou have in factbeenensnaredbythewords
32. Meqanne,p. 66; MS 53B, p. 387; NiSSahon,fol. 8r; Modena, p. 14; see n. 14 above.
33. NiSSahon,fol. 8r; see also MS 53B, p. 387. The rabbinicidea is in B. T. Shabbat 152a,
152b-53a; see also Tanhuma,Va-yiqra8. Josephben Nathan respondedto a Christianin a
ratherinnovativefashionby suggestingthatthe witchdid not use demonicpowersto wrest
Samuel's spiritfromheaven,but used ratherthepowerofGod's name to achievethismiraculous feat;see Meqanne,p. 66.
34. Meqanne,pp. 102-3; MS 53A1, p. 132; MS 53B, p. 386; MS 53A2, p. 69; Vetus,p. 18;
NiSSahon,fols.8r, 103v;'Edutadd., p. 427; Modena, p. 8. Anotherpassage fromPsalmsused in
thiscontextis 86:13.
35. See n. 7 above.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

361

of your own mouth.For, indeed,all creaturesborn of woman are immewiththesin of Adam upon enteringtheworld,as Scripture
diatelyinflicted
states:'In iniquityI was broughtto birthand mymotherconceivedme in
sin.' And, since thisgod was born of woman, this versecan, likewise,be
applied to him.Sin and guiltare foundwithinhim......"36 The verypassage
forthe doctrineof original
thatfunctionsforChristiansas a keyprooftext
sin37is directedagainsttheverypersonwho is to be theantidoteforthatsin,
Jesus.
The Jewishcriticsuse two additionalbiblicalstatementsthatare noteAdam,
worthy.One is Gen. 3:14-19, the spellingout of the punishments
fortheirrebellionagainstGod. This is cited
Eve and theserpentare to suffer
in hellis not listedamongthespecibywriterswho pointout thatsuffering
fied penalties.38Generalizingon this issue, Modena contendsthat if the
whole matterof Adam's sin and Jesus'atonementweretrulya significant
theological issue, then Moses and the prophetsshould have explicitly
warnedpeople ofthefactand urgedthemto believein Jesus.Mere hintsand
allusions,he argues,would have been to no avail.39The second biblical
notionreferred
to bya numberofpolemicistsis theoft-repeated
maximthat
God punisheschildrenfor theirfathers'sins down to the fourthgeneration.40They argue thatfromthisidea it is clear thatsin transfers
down to
fourgenerations,at themost,and thatthiscontradictsthe Christianbelief
that Adam's sin passes to all subsequentgenerations.41
as wellas others,typify
These arguments,
theJews'employment
ofbiblical materialin theircriticismofthedoctrineoforiginalsin.As notedabove,
thismethodologyis especiallycharacteristic
of the earlierFranco-German
polemics. It is also employed,however,by the later Spanish and Italian
who buildon thepolemicaltraditionsthatprecededthem.A signifiwriters,
cant numberoftheJewishpolemicistsalso employNew Testamentpassages
to demonstratethe untenabilityof the beliefin originalsin. Given the
to thisidea in the New Testament,relatively
paucityof explicitreferences
36. Milhamot,pp. 58-59.
37. See n. 13 above. See also thediscussionofthesignificance
of Ps. 51:7 (51:5 in theChristian Bible) forthe Christiandoctrinesof originalsin and virginbirthin JaroslavPelikan,The
ChristianTradition,A Historyof the Development
of Doctrine,vol. 1: The Emergenceof the
Catholic Tradition(100-600) (Chicago, 1971), pp. 289-90.
38. MS 53A1, p. 132; MS 53A2, p. 69; NiSSahon,fol. 10v.
39. Modena, p. 19.
40. Ex. 20:5, 34:7; Num. 14:18.
41. MS 53A1, p. 132; MiSvah,fols. 10r,101v;NisSahon,fol. 7v. See also Anselm,De conceptu,24-25.

362

JOEL E. REMBAUM

on thissubfewNew Testamentcitationsare foundin theJewisharguments


this
rule
are
the
critiquesoforiginalsinpresented
ject. The twoexceptionsto
in ProfiatDuran's Kelimmatha-goyim42
and in Simeonben Semab Duran's
If thereis considerablesimilarityin the earlyand late
Qeshetu-magen.43
polemicalexegesisof the HebrewBible,thereare some strikingdifferences
in the respectiveusages of New Testamentmaterial.While both the early
and thelate polemicistsincorporatesynoptictraditionsin theircriticismof
originalsin, only the later writersdelve into the Pauline sourcesand the
withthe
Book of Acts. This is evidenceof theincreasingJewishfamiliarity
New Testamentthatevolvedwiththepassage oftimeand pointsto a general
patternof New Testamentuse thatcan be seen in Jewishcriticismof other
Christiandoctrines.44
to New Testamentpassage,
Undoubtedly,the mostcommonlyreferred
in
late
and
polemical responsesto originalsin, is Luke
appearing early
Lazarus
and thewealthyman. Employingthesame
the
of
16:19-31,
parable
in
with
the biblicaltraditionsregardingAbraused
conjunction
argument
and
Enoch
ham,David, and, especially
Elijah,45theJewishcriticsnotethat
that
Lazarus
and
Abrahamwerein heaven.Since
thestoryclearlyindicates
this situationexistedbeforeJesus' coming,theycontinue,one mustconclude thatAdam's sin does not keep the righteousout of heavenand that
Jesus'death affordsno necessaryatonementfororiginalsin.46To reinforce
hispoint,theauthorofNiSsahonvetusnotesthatAbrahamtellstherichman
thatthewayto stayout ofhellis to listento Moses and theprophets.47
Thus,
thisgospeltraditionis presentedas negatingoriginalsinand itsimplications
withthe
theJewishbeliefthatrighteousacts in conformity
and as affirming
the
to
heaven.
Torah constitute way
CitingJesus'declarationto thePhariseesthat,"It is notthehealthywho
need a doctor, but the sick. . . . I did not come to invite the virtuous people,

but sinners"(Matt. 9:12-13), a numberof polemicistsarguethataccording


42. Kelimmat,pp. 17-23.
43. Qeshet,p. 8a.
withtheNew Testamenton
44. The one exceptionto thispatternof increasingfamiliarity
the partof laterpolemicalwritersis SeferNestorha-komer.This earlymedievaltractcontains
to New Testamentbooks outsidethe Synoptics;see Rembaum,Nestor,
numerousreferences
pp. 155, 158-60.
45. See nn. 24, 25, 31, 34 above.
46. Berit,pp. 24-25; RaDaQ, p. 89; MS 53A1, p. 132; Vetus,pp. 135-36; Kelimmat,pp.
19-20; NiSyahon,fol. 9r-v; Qeshet,p. 8a; Troki,p. 94.
47. Vetus,p. 136.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

363

to Jesushimselftherighteousdo not requiresalvation.48


Again originalsin
and Jesus' soteriologicalfunctionare depictedas being irrelevantto the
righteous.An anonymoussource turnsthispointinto a reductioad absurdum,arguingthatifJesussaved onlythesinners,thenit mustbe concluded
thattherighteouswereleftin gehenna!He goes on to suggest:"But in truth
[Jesus]descendedto gehennabecause therewas to be his punishmentfor
makinghimselfa god so thattheworldmighterrconcerninghim.And when
theythaterredand died saw him,theythoughthe had come to takethemup
out of gehenna.But afterhe descendedhe had no power,because a demon
can cause thingsto entergehennabut cannot take themout. .. ."49
Matt. 15:24 enables the Jewishcriticsto raise a moral issue that challengesthejustice inherentin the notionof originalsin. NotingthatJesus
told the Canaanite woman, "I was sent to the lost sheep of the house of
ofa number
Israel,and to themalone," Modena, in a mannerrepresentative
of writers,asks:
themandsavethem,
If,indeed,hewassenttothemso as to benefit
theybeing
the"masters,"
whiletherestof thenationshe called"dogs,"50
howdid he
decreewithdivinewisdomthathisdeathwouldbe at theirhands?Forhehad
as we
alreadysaidthathe wouldbe handedoverto theJewsforcrucifixion,
said,so thatbythissintheyand all theirseedwouldbe lost,bodyandsoul.
Andsincehehadtodietoredeem
all,andhewantedthisto be at thehandsof
andMoaborsomeotherforeign
men,whydidhenotgo intoEdom,Ammon,
nationso thattheywouldhavetransgressed,
andnothisbrethren,
thepeople
closestto him,hisownflesh,namely,
theJews,theverypeopleto whomhe
was sent?For indeedGod, blessedbe He, makesthecausesand themeans
to theends.5'
appropriate
Modena has woventogetherintoa coherentstatement
threedistinctpoints
thatrecurseparatelyelsewhere,sometimesin conjunctionwiththe Gospel
passage and sometimesnot: 1) Jesuscame for the sins of Israel. Profiat
Duran focuseson thispointto argue thatJesusdid not come to atone for
universalhuman sin.522) It is unjustthatthe verypeople who wereto be
48. Vetus,p. 18; Kelimmat,p. 19; Qeshet,p. 8a.
49. MS 53B, p. 387. The Jewishassociationof Jesuswithdemonsis firstmentionedin the
New Testament;see Matt. 9:34, 12:24,etc.This is also reflected
in rabbinictraditionsconcerning Jesus;see David Rokeah, "Ben Sitra is Ben Pantera" [Hebrew],Tarbiz39 (1970): 18.
50. Matt. 15:26-27.
51. Modena, p. 18.
52. Kelimmat,p. 19. See also Qeshet,p. 8a.

364

JOEL E. REMBAUM

theirrolein theactthatbrought
savedwererendered
about
guilty
through
In
thesalvation.The NiS4ahon
raisethisquestion.53
vetustraditions
3) the
withtheends.Simidivineschemeofjustice,themeansmustbe consistent
thattheperpetrating
of one
larly,Crescas,arguingrhetorically,
suggests
and a majorone at that-theJews'responsibility
forJesus'
transgression,
indeeda
death-is notjustifiedby theatonement
afforded
foranother,
from
the
tree.
The
cure,
minor,
transgression-Adam's
eating
saysCrescas,
the
forsinis in
comesin theformofa reversal
ofbehavior.
Thus, remedy
in
divine
commands
or
andthose
Modena'sarguments
worship.54
fulfilling
a
ofothercritics
notedaboverepresent
of
aspects largerquestionyetto be
sinbe tenablewhenitgenerates
discussed:
Howcanthedoctrine
oforiginal
so muchinjustice?"
sourcesfound
We nowturnto themostextensive
useofNewTestament
in anyofthecritiques
inthisstudy.Profiat
oforiginalsinsurveyed
Duran,
in thethirdchapterof his uniquepolemic,Kelimmat
cites
ha-goyim, over
An analysisof how
from
eleven
New
Testament
books.56
fortypassages
Due to the
Duranemployseachofthesepassageswillnotbe undertaken.
detailed
sumand
a
of
Duran's
however,
uniqueness
approach arguments,
maryof hiscritiqueis warranted.
conwitha summary
ofChristian
Duranbeginshisdiscussion
teachings
as theopinionsof themat'im,
cerning
originalsin." Theseare presented
afterJesusandhis
authorities
ofthegenerations
"thedeceivers,"
Christian
thetradiimmediate
Thelatter,
whoseteachings
circleofdisciples.
comprise
Durancallstheto'im,"theerring
tionsoftheNewTestament,
ones,"who
at a
arrived
on adhering
to God's lawbutwhooutofignorance
wereintent
but
The
not
erred
also
of
it.
mistaken
knowingly
understanding
mat'im only
intoa
theteachings
oftheto'im,thereby
misleading
Christianity
perverted
ofwhatChristian
doctrine
distorted
oughtto havebeen.58
perception
53. MS 53A1, p. 128; Vetus,p. 122.
54. Bittul,pp. 20-2 1. Crescas's notionthatan antidoteshouldbe an oppositeofthedisease
to be curedhas its parallelin medievalmedicine.Maimonides,forexample,followingGalen,
dividedpoisons into two kinds,thosethatproducefeverand an excitedsoul and othersthat
generatecold and depression.The curesforthe formerwereto be mildand quieting,whilethe
See HarryFriedenwald,TheJewsand Medicine,2
remediesforthelatterwereto be stimulants.
vols. (New York, 1967), 1: 209.
55. See nn. 82-97 below.
56. Kelimmat,pp. 17-23; see Talmage's indexof New Testamentpassages,Kelimmat,pp.
97-99.
in Duran's
57. Kelimmat,pp. 17-18. The specificChristiantheoryof originalsin reflected
presentationwill be discussedin n. 135 below.
58. For Duran's descriptionofto'imand mal'imsee Kelimmat,p. 4; see also Talmage'sdiscussion in Kelimmat,introduction,
pp. 19-25.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

365

Duran thenproceedsto surveytheNew Testamentsourcesused by the


mal'imto supporttheiropinionsregardingoriginalsin. He quotes Romans
the
5:8-21, 6:5,8-9, 7:24-25 and 1 Corinthians15:21-22 as constituting
59 The citationofthesepassagesis prefacedbythe
foundationfortheirbelief.
followingremarkswhichindicatethe directionDuran's critiqueis to take:
at all, even though
"However,Jesusdid not mentionthisin his statements
he oftensaid thatit was necessaryforthe son of man to die.60They concludedfromthisthatthisnecessitymeansthatitwas forthesalvationofthe
humanrace and thatitwouldbe an atonementforthatsin.This is, however,
theirown opinion and a notion with no proof."61 Duran concludes this
presentationby notingthe New Testamentversesfromwhichthe mat'im
derivedtheirviewthatsalvationfromoriginalsinwas affordedonlyto those
who believedin Jesus(Romans 3:22; John3:36; Romans9:33). Accordingto
thisnotionthe souls of thesebelieverswould enjoyeternalblissafterJesus,
and resurrection,
throughhiscrucifixion
openedthegatesofheaven.62
In respondingto whathe considersto be an erroneousinterpretation
on
the partof the mat'imof theteachingsof theNew Testament,Duran offers
whatamountsto his own theoryof systematic
Christiantheologybased on
his own understanding
of the meaningof ChristianScripture.Like other
Jewishwritershe learnsfromMatt. 9:12-13 thatJesuscame onlyforthe
sake of people who personallysinned.The righteous,therefore,
have no
need of hissavingpower.63Salvationoffered
byJesusis achieved,according
to Duran, by followingGod's law. Deeds, not faith,determine
whetherone
is judged to be righteousor sinful.In developingthisargumentDuran notes
thatJesusinstructedhis disciplesto become like littlechildrenso thatthey
could inheritthe kingdomof heaven(Matt. 18:2-4). Jesusalso pointedto
certainof thetencommandments
as thekeyto achievingeternallife(Matt.
and
he
his
followers
to pay heed to the teachingsof the
19:16-19),
urged
scribesand Pharisees(Matt. 23:2-3). The evil actionsof the Phariseesand
thewealthyare citedby Jesusas impediments
to heaven(Matt. 23:13; Luke
18:25; Matt. 19:24). The storyof Lazarus (Luke 16:19-25) proves that
the righteousAbrahamdid not residein gehenna.Throughouthis discussion Duran emphasizesthatthesedicta of Jesusrenderuntenablethe theoriesoforiginalsinpropoundedbythemal'im.64
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
story.

Kelimmat,pp. 18-19.
See, for example,Matt. 17:22-23, 20:18, 26:2, 24.
Kelimmat,p. 18.
Kelimmat,p. 19.
Kelimmat,p. 19 whereMatt. 15:24 is also used. See also n. 48 above.
to the Lazarus
Kelimmat,pp. 19-20. See also n. 46 above forotherJewishreferences

366

JOEL E. REMBAUM

Movingtowardan explicationofwhattheNew Testamentdoes, in fact,


of New
say about Adam's sin, Duran firstsuggestshis own understanding
Testamentpsychology,a theory grounded in philosophical notions.65
Unliketheadherentsto thetruelaw,Jesusand theto'imheldto a mistaken
notionregardingthe natureof the humansoul. The formerrecognizethat
the soul is includedin the categoryof incorporealsubstances,66
whilethe
a
a
latterbelieved the soul to be materialthing,composed of veryfine
materialsubstance.67
This is evidentfromJesus'statements
regardinghimselfand regardingLazarus (Luke 16:23) and fromtheChristianbeliefthat
Jesuswas seatedat God's righthand (Matt. 26:64,Luke 22:69,etc.). Duran
contendsthatit would be hereticalforChristiansto suggestthattheseallusions to the soul's materialitybe understoodfiguratively.
He also argues
that this concept is associated with the Christiannotion of caelum empyreum.68
As regardsAdam's sin, Duran offersthe followingconceptualization
based on hisexegesisoftheNew Testament.The to'imunderstoodGen. 2:17
to referto physicaldeath, ratherthan a spiritualpunishmentthat was
decreedagainstAdam and his descendants.It was forthisthatJesus'death
affordedatonement.Those who believein Jesuswillreturn
and crucifixion
to life,body and soul, whilethenonbelieverswillgo to gehenna,body and
soul. The punishmentin gehennais, therefore,
physicalin nature,as Jesus
notedin Matt. 13:41-42. Jesusand Paul saw therewardforJesus'believers
takingplace on resurrection
day, whentheywould attaineternallife,also
called the kingdomof heaven, and when theywould assume an angelic
status.Jesusand Paul emphasizedthatJesus'atonementallowed forthis
resurrectionand constitutedthe nullificationof bodily death that was
Adam's punishment.Paul, morevoer,expected the resurrectionto take
Duran weaves thisinterpretation
around the following
place imminently.
65. Kelimmat,p. 20.
66. 'Agamimnivdalim.For discussionsof thesetermssee H. A. Wolfson,Crescas' Critique
of Aristotle(Cambridge,Mass., 1929), pp. 292-95, 328, 574-75, 666.
ofthesoul
67. Amongthemedievalphilosopherswho are aware ofand criticizedefinitions
as a materialsubstanceare Saadya (see AlexanderAltmann,trans.,Saadya Gaon: Book of
Doctrinesand Beliefs,in ThreeJewishPhilosophers[Cleveland,New York, and Philadelphia,
1960],pp. 143-44, and see especiallyAltmann'snotes),Williamof Auvergnein his De anima
(see E. A. Moody, Studies in MedievalPhilosophy,Science,and Logic [Berkeley,1975],pp.
23-28), and Aquinas, in SCG, 2:49-50. To be sure,none of theserelatetheissueofthesoul's
materialnatureto Jesusand his followers.
68. Kelimmat,p. 20, n. 23.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

367

passages: Matt. 13:41-42, 22:23-32, 24:1-31,34; Acts23:6-8, 24:15,26:23;


Romans 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:20,32.69
Lest thereaderassume thatthereis meritin theseNew Testamentideas
on sin and Jesus'savingpowers,Duran concludeshis remarkson original
sin withthesewords:"Indeed it has alreadybeen seen how theywentmad,
and thatmorethanall ofthemJesuswentmad in thismatterand, similarly,
in his givingthose who believedin him special signsthroughwhichthey
would be recognizedand set apart fromothers.[A quotationfromMark
16:17-18 follows.]There is no doubt that all of this is an absolute falseoftheNew Testament'sviewofAdam's sin
hood."70Withhisinterpretation
and punishment,the soul, and Jesus' salvationin strictlyphysicalterms,
Duran seeks to underminethe orthodoxChristianspiritualconceptionof
originalsin and Jesus'soteriologicalrole. In thisemphasison thephysical
aspectsof Adam's sin and on the spiritualbenefitsof Torah, Duran is well
withinthe mainstreamof the Jewishpolemicaltradition,as will be shown
presently.
The second major categoryof Jewishcriticismof originalsin is comprisedof argumentsbased on reasonor commonsense.Here too, detailsof
philosophical theories occasionally appear, especially in discussions of
humanphysicaland psychologicalqualitiesas theyrelateto sin.71The matterof thephysicalversusthespiritualaspectsof humansin willbe the first
topic addressedbelow. Othertopicsto be analyzedincludethe injusticeof
originalsin,theinadequacyofJesus'sacrificeas atonementforsin,empirical proofsof the persistenceof the effectsof Adam's sin afterJesus,the
of certainnotionsrelevantto the doctrineof originalsin, and
untenability
theJewishantidotesto humansin. Additionally,
theevolutionofthesecritithe
under
will
discussion
be
noted.The arguments
that
ques through period
the
and
sin
between
of
Adam's
distinguish
physical
spiritualimplications
beginto appear in theworksofSpanishand SouthernFrenchJewishcritics
ofthesecondhalfofthethirteenth
of Christianity
century.Such argumentation is not foundin polemicalliteratureof NorthernFrance and Germany
untilafter1400,and it is mostprominentin thewritings
ofthelaterSpanish
and Italianpolemicists.This themeis linkedto philosophicaland rationalis69. Kelimmat,pp. 20-21. Duran's concludingarguments,
Kelimmat,pp. 22-23, focuson
the problemscreatedby the delay in Jesus'second adventand the attemptsby themat'imto
resolvethem.
70. Kelimmat,p. 23.
71. See nn. 66-67 above.

368

JOEL E. REMBAUM

tic issues and to subtletiesof Christiandoctrineof whichthe laterSpanish


and Italian Jewswould be more aware.
is thefirstofthepolemicalwritersto suggestthattheconseNal.manides
sin cannot be transmitted
of
Adam's
throughAdam's soul to the
quences
his
souls of
descendants.His own soul, Nabmanides argues,is as closely
linkedto thesoul of his fatheras it is to thatof Pharaoh,and, he continues
it can hardlybe said thathe willgo to hellforthesinoftheruler
mockingly,
of Egypt.72Later writersconsistently
use thispoint as a basic elementin
theircritiquesof thespiritualculpabilityof humanityforAdam's sin. Like
ofphysicalpunishments,
Nabmanides,theyadmitto thetransmission
given
the perceivedcontinuityof God's decreesagainstAdam and Eve in Gen.
3:16-19. Souls, however,even accordingto Christians,are individually
createdbyGod ex nihiloforeach newhumanand carrynoneofthequalities
and if
oftheirparents'souls. Therefore,
onlyphysicalfactorsare hereditary,
of sinfultendenciesfromAdam it cannotbe at the
thereis a transmission
theJewishwritersviewthispointas a
psychiclevel. Explicitlyor implicitly
profoundchallenge to orthodox Christologybecause it invalidatesthe
necessityfortheincarnationand crucifixion.73
contemporaryin SouthernFrance, Meir ben Simeon of
Nah.manides'
who
was
familiarwiththe Christianheresiesof the thirteenth
Narbonne,
of both originalsin
century,74
incorporatesthisargumentinto a refutation
and infantbaptismin a mannerreminiscentof the Pelagian hereticsof
Augustine'sera. He asks: Whyis it thata child,born of Christianparents,
mustbe baptized?The child's soul, newlycreated,is pure. The childis incapable of sinning,and the parents,having been baptized, are free of
This
originalsin. Should not the childinheritparadisewithoutbaptism?"7
in
in
Christian
circles
the
later
Middle
Ages.76
questionreemerged
72. RaMbaN, p. 310.
73. RaMbaN, p. 310; Misvah,fols. 28v-29r, 102r;Bitjul,pp. 6, 14, 18; NiSSahon,fol. 7v;
Genazzano, pp. 436-37; Magen,fol.20r;flerev,p. 97; Troki,p. 88; MS 2252,fol.4v; Modena,
pp. 10, 11. On theChristianbeliefin thecreationofeach soul see Aquinas,SCG, 2:83-89; and
the effects
of originalsin see SCG, 4:51,4; 52, 8.
on questionsregardingthe soul transferring
74. Meirexplicitly
refers
to hereticsand theirbeliefsin hisMilbemetmisvah;see MiSvah,fol.
215r-v,wherehe definestheirbeliefsin the followingterms:"They believein two deities,one
beheldbytheeye'ssenseofsightis notthecreation
good and one evil;theysay thateverything
of the one good God, may He be blessed; theyare willingto destroytheirbodies and to
renounceownershipof theirmoney."See also Misvah,fol. 42v.
75. Miyvah,fols.53r-v,102r.
76. Regardingthe Pelagian criticismof originalsin see Aquinas, SCG, 4:50, 2 and 52, 19;
and on the Pelagiancritiqueof child baptismsee the decreeon originalsin of theCouncil of
Trentin J. H. Leith,ed., Creedsof the Churches(Atlanta, 1973), pp. 406-7.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

369

Meir ben Simeon and, later,Abraham Farissol use the notion of the
soul's creationex nihiloto criticizethedoctrineoforiginalsininyetanother
way that echoes the ideas of Christianheretics.Thus, Meir argues that
Christiansbelievethatthe humansoul is createdex nihilo.This beingso, he
sin?The Christians,
asks,how can thesoul be at all affected
bya preexisting
he continues,will respondthatwhenit comes into contactwiththe body
thatcarriesthetaintofAdam's sin,transmitted
throughtheparents'bodies,
it itselfbecomestainted.However,Meir responds,thisleads to a conclusion
thatblasphemesGod. The soul, a pure spiritualessence,yearnsfora spiritual existence.It residesin the body againstits own will and in conformity
withthewill of God. Whyshould God requirethe soul to be blemishedby
contactwitha taintedbody and thenpunishthe soul because of thatcontact?God is made to appear unjust.The echoes of Cathar thinkingcan be
heard in this critique.77
In developingtheircontentionsthat Adam's sin, and human sin in
general,is strictly
physical,certainof the writersemphasizethatsin or the
potentialto sin wereinherentin humannatureas createdby God. Farissol
arguesthatGod commandedAdam to use theknowledgeof good and evil
and the freewill withwhichhe was createdto avoid eatingthe fruitof the
tree.By nottastingthesweetnessofphysicalpleasure,he would remainin a
state of pure rationalityand in touch withthe divine,and he would live
eternally.Adam, however,revoltedand ate the fruit,therebycausing a
changein his nature.His rationalitywas compromisedby the sensationof
physicalpassions,and the admixtureof physicalelementswithhis rational
essenceinitiateda processof decay. As a consequence,Adam suffered
two
deaths: 1) his soul no longerbenefited
fromGod's providential
care,attainable throughhis formerly
unadulteratedrationalfaculty;2) physicaldeath
awaitedhimdue to thedecaythatsetin whenhe followedhissensesand not
his reason and ate fromthetree.This decay-inducing
admixturewas physitransmitted
to
his
to
this
circumdefinition,
cally
According
descendants."78
77. Mipvah,fols. 52v-53r, 102r-v.See also Bittul,pp. 15-16. Some Cathars held thatit
is bad forsouls thatare purespiritto be placed in bodieswheretheybecomedefiledbycontact
withthe materialbody. To suggestthatGod intentionally
bringsabout thisprocessonly to
punishthe soul would, in the lightof thisCathar idea regardingwhichorthodoxChristians
were sensitive,tend to reinforcethe hereticsin theirblasphemiesregardingthe evils of the
creatorGod. On these Cathar beliefssee Steven Runciman,The MedievalManichee(Cambridge,England, 1947), pp. 148-51; Arno Borst,Die Katharer(Stuttgart,1953),pp. 143-51;
Milan Loos, Dualist Heresyin theMiddleAges (Prague, 1974),pp. 115, 136-41, 264, 284-85.
78. Magen,fol. 18r-v.For further
discussionof thisaspectof Farissol'sthinkingsee n. 105
below. A similaremphasison the corruptingeffectsof the sin on thecompositionof the ele-

370

JOELE. REMBAUM

cisionand Torah,whichcurband redirect


physicaldesires,arethemeans
fordealingwiththeconsequences
of Adam'ssin.79
Like Farissol,ModenaseesAdam'ssinas primarily
beinga failureto
hisintelligence
inthefaceofphysical
exercise
He suggests
that
temptation."0
in man'sphysical
inan
theimbalance
naturecausedbyAdam'ssinresulted

inclination
toward
evilthatdoesaffect
theindividual's
soulonceitcomesin
with
thebody.Thesoulisinfluenced
evilbythisinclination,
contact
toward

In thiswayitcanbe saidthatAdam'ssin
sins,andisconsequently
punished.
On thispointModenawouldagreewith
defilesthesoulsof hisprogeny.
suchas PetrusGalatinusand withthebiblicaland rabthinkers
Christian
mustbe seenas
Thisapparent
binicpassagestowhichherefers.
compromise
an attemptto insurethattheseChristian
by the
opinionsare perceived
Chrisas differing
fromtheorthodox
readeroftheMagenva-berev
Jewish
an incarnation
sininthattheydo notnecessitate
oforiginal
tiandoctrine
by
to theprophets,
thesonofGod. To thisendModenanotesthat,according
theretheevilincarnation,
thetruemessiahwillcleansehumanbodiesfrom
himself
before
which
he
found
the
state
in
manto
purified
by returning
Adamsinned.8
oforigiinJewish
Thecentrality
polemicsoftheclaimthatthedoctrine
mentsofthehumanbodycan be foundin NisSahon,fol.7v.See also MS 2252,fol.4v.The ideas
thatpassionsemanatefromthematerialaspectof man and thathumanbeingscan be tempted
by physicaldesiresaway fromthe higherintellectualpursuitsare discussedby Maimonidesin
his Guideof the Perplexed,2:8, 33.
ed. Charles
79. Magen, fol. 18v.See also, PhinehasHalevi of Barcelona,Seferha-hinnukh,
Wengrov(Jerusalemand New York, 1978),pp. 62-64 on theTorah as thevehiclefordirecting
see
humanintelligenceaway fromthe physical.Regardingtheauthorshipof Seferha-hinnukh
IsraelTa-Shma,"Mehabberoha-'amittishel Seferha-binnukh,"
Kiryatsefer55 (1980): 787-90.
On Torah as the antidote for the evil inclination,see JewishEncyclopedia(New York,
1901-06), s.v. "Yezer ha-Ra."
80. Modena, pp. 7-8.
betweenJewishand Christianthinkers
81. Modena, pp. 11-12, Modena notesa similarity
who definethe consequences of Adam's sin as the unleashingof the evil inclination;see
Modena, p. 10. Galatinusreliedheavilyon RaymundusMartini'sPugiofideiforhisknowledge
of rabbinicsources,and given the latter'sassociationof the Jewishevil inclinationwithan
to findModena respondingto Galatinus'suse
Aquinianviewoforiginalsin,it is notsurprising
of Jewishsourcesin the way he does. Modena (ibid.) is also sensitiveto Aquinas's viewson
originalsin and to how theyparallel, to some degree,Jewishnotions. On Galatinus see
Modena, p. 3-5. On Martini'slinkingof Aquinas's notionsof originalsin withrabbinictraditionsconcerningtheevil inclinationsee Jeremy
Cohen, "OriginalSin as theEvil InclinationA Polemicist'sAppreciationof Human Nature," Harvard TheologicalReview 74 (1981):
495-520. On the idea that the messiah will purify humans from original sin
see Seferha-hinnukh,
p. 66.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

371

nal sin resultsin greatinjusticeshas been noted.82The expressionof this


argumenttakes manyformsas it evolveswiththepassage oftime.We have
alreadyseen how universalwas theJewishresponsethatit is a principleof
divinejusticethatsons are notpunishedfortheirfathers'sinsand thatbelief
The Christianclaim that
in originalsin would contradictthis principle.83
Jewsare culpableforJesus'deathmovedJewishpolemiciststo respondthat
this,too, representeda perversionof justice on God's part, as discussed
above.84ImplicitinthepreviouslynoteddiscussionofGod's forcingsouls to
inhabitdefilingbodies and to suffer
because of thetaintof sin is the matter
in God's justice."8In general,questionsrelatingto divine
of an imperfection
justiceare developedin theearlierworkswithinthecontextofdiscussionsof
those biblicalpassages thatdirectlyaddresstheissue. The laterworksconbut because of theirthematic
tinue this line of scripturalargumentation,
additional
based
on a rationalisticprobingof
structure
theypose
questions
Christianideas.
The most basic questionposed by theJewishwritersrelatesto thevery
heartof the Church'schristologicaldoctrine:If Adam sinned,whyshould
the son of God, who committedno sin,die? The guiltyshould die, not the
To be sure,thisnarrowpointskirtsthe issue of the necessityof
innocent.86
Jesus' death as just compensationto God for Adam's sin. This matteris
dealt withby manyof the polemicists.87
Often,thequestion
independently
of divinejusticeis similarlyhanded as a separatematter.These two points
are linked,however,by Yair ben Shabbetaiof Correggio.IfJesusweretruly
guiltlessand pure,he argues,thenhe would not have perverted
justice by
evil throughhis death.88The authordirectlyaddressesthe Chrisjustifying
withitsemphasison thenecessaryfunctiontologyofAnselmofCanterbury
ing of the Deus-Homo,whose humanelementwas freeof sin,as a sacrifice
restoring
humanityto a stateofjustitiabeforeGod.89CitingDeut. 25:1, Yair
suggeststhat authenticdivinejustice seeks to justifythe righteous.
Rhetoricallyacceptingthe Christiannotionthat the process of atonementfororiginalsin mustbe initiatedby God, some writerspointto ways
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.

Lasker, p. 107.
See nn. 20-21 above.
See nn. 51-55 above.
See n. 77 above.
Beritadd., p. 61; Magen, fol. 19r; MS 2252, fols. 4v, 5r; Modena, pp. 16, 17.
See, for example,nn. 98-102 below.
Herev,p. 98. A similarpoint is made by Crescas, Bittul,pp. 19-20.
Anselmof Canterbury,Cur Deus homo,2:1-7.

372

JOEL E. REMBAUM

God could have forgivenmankindwithoutperverting


justice.The omnipotentGod can simplywillforgiveness;
He can say "I forgive"and His wordis
actualized.90 Modena argues thatAquinas recognizedthat thereare ways
otherthanthroughJesus'deaththatman could have beenforgiven.
He cites
as
stated
that
unlike
a
human
who
is
bound by law,
Aquinas having
king
God need nothavepunishedhumanity
becauseofAdam's sin.No one other
than God would have been uncompensatedwere man not punished,and
God does not need such compensation.9'In selectingthisAquinian statement,Modena is employinga Christiansource to respond to what had
becomean importantaspectofChristianthinking
regardingthenecessityof
the incarnationand crucifixion.Since the days of AnselmChristiansheld
that divinejustice requiredthat satisfactiobe made to God because His
honor had been impugnedby man's not subjectinghimselfto God's will.
Because oftheimpediment
oforiginalsinonlytheDeus-Homo,Jesus,could
appropriately
compensateGod.92Modena, relyingon Aquinas,attemptsto
show thatGod did not requiresuch restitution,
especiallysince it contradictedtheessenceof God's systemofjusticein whichthe individualis held
responsiblefor his own acts.
It was previouslyshownhow theJewishauthors,relyingon Hebrewbiblical and New Testamentsources,stronglydeniedthe Christiancontention
thatthebiblicalpatriarchsand heroeswaitedin hellforJesus'advent.93
This
responseis partof theJewishdenial of the notionthatthe righteous,who
also bearthetaintoforiginalsin,do notimmediately
ascendto heavenupon
theirdemise.94To theJewsthisbeliefascribedso greatan injusticeto God
as to be tantamountto blasphemy.95
A numberof polemicistsask how it
could be that the prophetsand the otherrighteousones who partook of
God's gloryin thecourseof theirphysicalexistencewould,afterdyingand
beingfreedof theirmaterialbodies,be deniedthisglory.This appearedto
themto be unjustand unreasonable.96
90. MS 2252, fol. 5r; Modena, pp. 16-17. See n. 112 below.
91. Modena, p. 16, quotingAquinas, Summa Theologiae,3:q. 46, a. 1-3.
92. Anselm,Cur Deus homo,1:11-15, 16-21, 25 and see n. 89 above. On Aquinas's treatmentof Anselm'snotionssee J.M. Colleran,trans.,WhyGodBecame Man, byAnselmofCanterbury
(Albany, 1969), pp. 47-48.
93. See nn. 7, 9-11, 24-34 above.
94. See Aquinas, ST, 3:q. 52.
95. Berit,p. 24; MS 53A2, p. 68; Bittul,pp. 14-15; Modena, p. 13. This argumentis also
foundin one of the oldest of the Jewishanti-Christian
polemics,SeferNestorha-komer;see
Abraham Berliner,ed., SeferNestorha-komer(Altona, 1875), p. 10.
96. 'Edut add., p. 427; Genazzano, p. 437; Magen, fols. 18v,19v,20r; Modena, p. 13.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

373

Hasdai Crescas, takinga slightlydifferent


tack, argues that if Adam,
beforehis sin, would have inheritedeternalbliss, thenAbraham and the
otherrighteouspeople wereeven more worthyof God's graciousrewards.
Adam was createdfreeof sin and its effects.
Abraham,however,was born
him.Yet he overintoa statein whichdefilingsin could have overwhelmed
life.It would have been a greatinjustice
came sin and led a virtuoussin-free
on God's partif Adam, thoughsmallin virtue,would have meriteda place
in theworldto come and Abraham,abundantin virtue,overcomingsin,and
Implicitin all
loyallyservingGod, would have been deniedsucha reward.97
different
Jewishand Christianunderthesediscussionsis the fundamentally
ofhumandeeds in thereconciliation
of a sinner
standingoftheeffectiveness
withGod.
An essentialelementin theChristianconceptualizationof thenecessity
of Jesus'atonementfororiginalsin is the notionthata sin againstinfinite
God requiresan atonementthat is, similarly,infinitein its proportion.
Thus, only the Deus-Homo,incorporatingthe naturesof both God and
to God forhumansin.98In response
man, could make adequate restitution
theJewsarguethata mercifuland graciousGod does notrequirean infinite
or atonement.99
The anonymousauthorofMS Parma2252 propunishment
vides us with one of the most comprehensiveJewishchallengesto this
notion. He suggeststhat all sins againstGod, past and present,should be
consideredinfinitein scope, and, therefore,
Jesusshould regularlycome to
be crucifiedforman's continuingsinfulnesstowardGod. Whichof Jesus'
naturesreceivedthe punishment,he asks. If it was the human,material
naturethenit would be to no avail sincethisnatureis finite.If it was the
divinenaturethatwas punished,thenan absurditywould result,inasmuch
as eventhe Christianswould agreethatGod is unmovedand unaffected
by
accidents.God, he continues,foresawthatmanwouldsinand stillHe created himwithfreewill.In anticipationofman's sinningGod createdtheantidotes to sin: repentanceand finitepunishment.Both repentanceand the
finitepunishmentAdam suffered
werefromGod, theinfinite
being.Therefore,fromGod's perspectivethey,too, are infiniteand adequatelyprovide
atonementforthetransgressions
againstHim.'00Certainofthesepointscan
97. Bittul,pp. 14-15.
98. See n. 92 above. Crescas alludes to this in some detail; see Bittul,p. 12.
99. Magen, fol. 19r; Hlerev,pp. 97-98; Modena, p. 17. Yair ben Shabbetai cites Joseph
Albo as the source of his thinkingon this matter;see Herev,p. 98, referring
to Seferha'iqqarim,4:38, and see Herev,p. 98, n. 19.
100. MS 2252, fols. 4v-5r.

374

JOEL E. REMBAUM

also be found in otherlate works,all of themoriginatingin Italy in the


period 1500-1650.10' Farissolmakes theadditionalpointthatman is, after
be made to fitthecrime,
all, finite,and sinceitis properthatthepunishment
the finitesin of man requiredonly a finitepunishment.'02
Anotherapproach taken in refuting
the notionof the infiniteproportionsof Adam's sin is simplyto denythegravityof thesin. This argument
cenappears in the NiSSahonvetusand recursin sixteenthand seventeenth
turyItalian worksas well.103There is some similarityin the argumentas
posed by the authorof theNiSSabonand Modena. Both suggestthatAdam
did not exercisecommonsensein acceptingthe fruitfromEve. Theyargue
in thesensethatAdam did not intendto rebel.
thatthesin was inadvertent
such as Cain's murderof Abel or the
Other more grave transgressions,
an
the
latter
goldencalf,
representing overtdenialof God, did not resultin
infinitepunishmentor the condemnationof souls to hell.'04
Crescas is aware of the Aquinian notionthatAdam was createdwith
divinegiftsthatplaced him,priorto hissin,in a statussuperiorto thatofthe
merenatural.The sin,accordingto thisconcept,resultedin theloss ofthese
divinegrace.Thus, theeffects
of originalsin
supernaturalgifts,particularly
were all the greaterbecause of the loftyconditionin whichman had previouslyexisted.This sin was carrieddown in humannatureand requireda
supernaturalatonementto restoreto man thegiftof grace
proportionately
Crescas
thisto mean thatsinceAdam was so perthathe lost.'05
interprets
fected,the magnitudeof the sin he committedwas increased.'06Reflecting
101. Magen, fol. 20r; Hierev,p. 98; Modena, p. 17.
102. Magen, fol. 19r.
103. Vetus,pp. 153-54; Magen, fol. 19r; MS 2252, fol. 5r; Modena, pp. 7-8.
104. Vetus,pp. 153-54; Modena, p. 8.
105. See Billul,p. 12. On thisnotionin Aquinas see C. J. Keating,TheEffectsof Original
Sin intheScholasticTradition
fromSt. ThomasAquinasto WilliamOckham(Washington,D.C.,
1959), pp. 8-27, and the Aquinian sources noted there. Farissol, like Aquinas, defines
Adam's sin as an act of disobediencein whichAdam forsookhis rationalityforthe sake of
physicaldesires,the resultbeinga loss of providentialprotectionand death; see Magen, fol.
18r.Farissol,also like Aquinas, sees the rebellionand its consequencesas emergingout of a
oforihumannaturethatis notessentiallyevil.In Aquinas thisresultsin a qualifieddefinition
see Keating,ibid.,and Cohen
ginalsinwhencompared,forexample,to Augustine'sdefinition;
in n. 81 above. This conceptof Adam's sin allows Farissolto arguethatsincethatsin was an
outgrowthof humannatureas createdby God, it was not as heinousas thesinsof thegenerationof thefloodand othersimilarsins.Consequently,arguesFarissol,it does not warrantthe
on thispassageoftheMagen
For anotherperspective
ascribedto itbyChristianity.
significance
'Avrahamsee n. 78 above.
106. See Aquinas, ST, 2 pt. l:q. 73, a. 10.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

375

thefullscopeofAquinas'sthinking,
Modena
thispoint,although
ignoring
of Adam's sin by notingthatit
attemptsto demonstratethe insignificance

thatAdamwas heldculpableforthe
was onlybecauseof his perfection
hecommitted.
Had hebeena normalhuman,
hissinwould
minorinfraction
in
from
which
he
suffered.
Theimplithe
dire
nothaveresulted
punishments
of Adam,
cationsof thispointis thatnormalhumans,thedescendants
forAdam'sminorsin.107
shouldnotsuffer
Jewish
sinis most
One ofthemostvenerable
arguments
againstoriginal
to hisinterlocutor's
claim
by
Responding
lucidlyenunciated
Nai.manides.
asserts
that
the
ChristhatAdam'ssinwas nullified
Jesus,
by
Nahmanides
Thepunishments
ofAdamand
tianshavecreateda veryconvenient
theory.
ofwhichthehumansenses
Eve detailedin Genesis(3:16-19),punishments
and werenotatonedforbyJesus.The
are readilyaware,are stillin effect
ofsoulsingehenna,
notreferred
tointhe
Christians
saythatthepunishment
Yetthisclaimis notsubjecttoempirical
veriwasnullified.
Genesisaccount,
fication;no one can disproveit. He suggeststhatthe Christianssend
verification
beforetheyask peopleto believe
someoneto giveeyewitness
is incorporated
intothirteen
thisidea.'08Thispoint,inoneformoranother,
theperiodfrom
thetwelfth
the
othersources,spanning
through seventeenth
centuries.09

froma philosophical
a number
ofpolemicists
foundation,
reject
Arguing
theoriginalsindoctrine
becauseit leadsto untenable
theological
assumpis an impossibility,
the
tions.The incarnation
says Crescas,therefore
redemption
uponwhichit dependsis impossible."How can God materializeandbe affected
asksFarissol.Howcan He whois notsubbyaccidents,
to
death
die
to
atone
for
a
human
choicetoincline
towardthesenses,he
ject
that
Farissol
concludes
continues.
Christianity
requiresa beliefin the
impossible.''
Another
tothetheological
oforiginal
sin,notphichallenge
implications
in
is
the
strict
sense
of
the
raised
Yom
Tov
term,
losophical
by
Lipmann
107. Modena, p. 8.
108. RaMbaN, p. 310.
109. Berit,p. 24; Meqanne,pp. 36-37; MS 53A1,p. 132; MS 53A2,pp. 63, 69; Beritadd., p.
fol. 10v;Qeshet,p. 8a; Genaz61; MiSvah,fols. 53v, 102v-103r;'Edut,pp. 420-21; Nisyabhon,
zano, pp. 435, 437; Magen, fols. 20v, 21r; MS 2252, fol. 4v; Modena, pp. 14-15.
110. Bitful,p. 20. Incarnationis discussedmorefullybyCrescasin thefourthchapterofhis
work; see Bittul,pp. 40-54.
111. Magen, fols. 19r,21r. See also Modena, pp. 15-16. For a moredetailedstudyof the
Jewishcritiqueof the incarnationsee Lasker, pp. 105-34.

376

JOEL E. REMBAUM

Miihlhausenand Modena: The necessityof theincarnationand crucifixion


as the antidotesfor originalsin impliesimpotenceon God's part. If the
ChristianstrulybelievedGod to be omnipotent,theywould not hold such
notions.I 2
Originalsin and itscorollary,limbuspatrum,are also seen as inventions
to cope with inherentflaws in elementsof Christiantradition.Profiat
Duran, and Simeon Duran and Modena afterhim, suggestthat Jesus
inventedtheidea of originalsin to validatehimselfin thefaceof his failure
as a messiah.," In a similarvein Modena contendsthattheidea of limbo
was an inventionby Christiantheologiansto provide an answer to the
potentiallyoverwhelmingquestion of how a just God would cause the
patriarchsand prophetsto sufferin hell."14
RecognizingthatAdam sinnedand thatmancontinuesto be plaguedby
the seductiveevil inclination,manyof theJewishwriters,in theprocessof
the notionof originalsin,suggeststypicallyJewishsolutionsas to
refuting
and repenhow people can overcomesin: adherenceto thecommandments
tance.'I5As notedabove, certainpolemicistsshowthatevenJesusurgedhis
disciplesto followthe law."16A numberof authorsindicatethattheTorah
This idea is groundedin Rabbinic
was theantidoteto Adam's transgression.
notionsthat associate the Torah withthe controlof the yeSerha-ra', the
"evil inclination,"or with the cleansing of people of the zuhamah,
the"filth,"introducedintohumanitybythesnake.'7
on behalfof thepowerof Torah to
One of the mostoriginalstatements
counteractAdam's sin is foundin Isaac Troki's Hizzuq 'emunah." Troki
combinesthetwo approachesnotedabove, namely,a New TestamentcitaofTorah as theremedyforthe
tionin favorof Torah and an understanding
effectsof Adam's sin. He quotes Romans 5:14, wherePaul states:"Death
held sway fromAdam to Moses." From thisTroki learnsthatPaul recog112. NiVSahon,fol. 8v; Modena, p. 16. See also nn. 90-91 above.
113. Kelimmat,p. 17; Qeshet,p. 7b; Modena, p. 20.
114. Modena, pp. 13, 14.
115. Regardingfollowingthe law see n. 79 above. See also Bittul,pp. 16, 21-22 and pp.
64-83 for Crescas's extendeddiscussionon the significanceof the Torah; Genazzano, pp.
438-39; Troki,pp. 91-93; Modena, p. 14. On repentancesee Magen, fols. 19v,20v;Herev,p.
97; MS 2252, fols. 4v, 5r; Modena, pp. 8-9. In theseargumentsphysicalpunishmentis an
assumed componentof the penitentialprocess.
116. See nn. 47, 64 above.
117. See n. 79 above; Troki,pp. 91-93. On the Torah and the removalof the filthof the
snake see B. T. Yevamot 103b.
118. Troki,pp. 91-93, 339.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

377

nizedtheTorah,givenby Moses, as bringingan end to thedeaththatAdam


introduced.Accordingto Troki, Lev. 18:15,admonishingthe Israelitesto
keepGod's law so theycan live,was understoodby Paul as thecorrectiveto
foreatingthefruitof
Gen. 2:17, withitswarningof deathas thepunishment
the tree. It is evident,argues Troki, that law-abidingJewsdo not physically live forever.Hence, he concludes that the "life" mentionedin the
to spirituallife.IfAdam's sin
Leviticuspassage was seenbyPaul as referring
was the cause of spiritualdeath,thenthe Torah of Moses was the key to
ofPaul's words,canspirituallife.Jesus,accordingto Troki'sunderstanding
not be the meansforthe soul's salvation.Trokirevealsa good senseofthe
ironicin thispresentation.Paul, whosestatementin Romans 5:12 servesas
one ofthemostbasic New Testamentsourcesforthedoctrineoforiginalsin
to Christiandoctrineis hisassessmentofthe
and whoseuniquecontribution
law's inadequacy in justifyingman beforeGod, is representedas a proponentof Torah as the antidoteto Adam's sin.
A reviewof our sourcesallows us to arriveat the followingconclusions
regardingJewishcriticismof originalsin in the Middle Ages. As Jewish
withand interestin thissubjectgrewwiththepassage oftime,a
familiarity
traditionof polemicalargumentsagainstoriginalsinevolved,withlatercriticsrelyingon earliersourcesas well as developingnewcritiques."I9
Citing
both the HebrewBible and theNew Testament,Jewsdeniedthattherewas
any biblical evidenceto supportthe Christianbeliefin originalsin. They
contendedthat thisconceptled to a numberof absurd and blasphemous
conclusionsregardingGod and divinejustice.Given theJewishconceptof
the evil inclination,Jewsweregenerallywillingto admitthattheeffects
of
to all of Adam's descendants.They
Adam's sin werephysicallytransmitted
categoricallydenied,however,thatAdam's singenerateda permanentspiritual corruptionthatwas transmitted
to the souls of all humans.Jewsalso
denieda causal relationship
betweensouls. Therefore,
theJewssaw no need
fora divineincarnationto atonefororiginalsin.Torah and repentance,said
theJews,controltheeffects
of man's physicaltaintand preparethesoul for
eternallife,whilerewardand punishment
ofthesoul dependstrictly
on how
people act.
It is clear thatthroughouttheperiodunderinvestigation,
fromthe late
thirteenththroughthe mid-seventeenth
centuries,Jews were aware of
119. A comparisonof the worksof Crescas, Farissol,the authorof MS Parma 2252, and
of argumentsfromca. 1400
Modena, forexample,givesa clear indicationof the transmission
throughca. 1650.

378

JOEL E. REMBAUM

numerousorthodox,philosophical,and hereticalChristiannotionsrelevant
to theoriginalsindoctrine.120In hisSummacontragentilesThomas Aquinas
citesa numberof questionsthatcould be raisedregardingoriginalsin and
itsresolution.Amongthemare thefollowing,'2'all ofwhichcan be foundin
the Jewishpolemical sources:
For thesinofone manis notimputed
as faultto others.So Ezekiel[18:20]
Andthereasonfor
ofthefather."
says:"The son shallnotbeartheiniquity
whicharein
thisis thatweareneither
praisednorblamedexceptforthethings
Butthesearethethings
to whichwearecommitted
ourselves.
bywill.Therefore,thesinof thefirstmanis notimputedto theentirehumanrace.22
him
Butletitbe saidthatwesinnedinAdamas iforiginally
thesincamefrom
nature.Eventhisseemsimpossible,
forsincean accidentdoes
to us through
itcannotbe passedon unlessthesubject
notpassfromonesubjectto another,
is passedon. Butthesubjectofsinis therationalsoul,whichis notpassedon
butiscreated
to us fromourfirst
one,as was
byGod ineachandevery
parent,
itisnotbyoriginthatthesinofAdamflowed
on
showninBookII. Therefore,
to us.123
ifthesinofourfirst
Further,
parentflowsintoothersbecausetheyhavetheir
He, also,it
origininhim,then,sinceChristhadHis origininourfirst
parent,
to thefaith.124
seems,was subjectto originalsin.And thisis foreign
Ifthesinofthefirst
to hisdescenwasbyoriginpropagated
man,moreover,
down
the
same
the
other
to their
measure
sins
of
dants,by
parentspass
with
Andin thiswaythelatterwouldalwaysbe moreburdened
descendants.
ifinfact,thesin
Thismustfollow,
sinsthantheearlier
generations.
especially,
cannotpass
and thesatisfaction
passeson fromtheparentto theoffspring,
on.'25

Oncemore:ifitwassuitableforGod to becomeman,thishadtobe forsome


120. See nn. 8-11, 22, 57, 59, 62, 65-68, 73-74, 76, 77, 81, 88-89, 91, 98-102, 105,113-14,
118.
121. Aquinas, SCG, 4:51, 2, 4, 5, 14; 4:53, 3, 10, 17, 23-26. Translationsare fromC. J.
O'Neil, trans.,Saint ThomasAquinas,Summa ContraGentiles,Book Four: Salvation(Notre
Dame, 1975), pp. 215, 217, 224-27.
122. See nn. 20-22 above.
123. See nn. 72-73 above.
124. See n. 36 above.
125. Misvah,fol. 10r; MS 2252, fol. 4v.

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

379

But whateverbe the utilitygranted,since God is


utilitycomingtherefrom.
He
could
producethisutilitymerelyby His will.Therefore,since
omnipotent
it becomes anythingwhatsoeverto be done as quicklyas possible,it was unnecessaryfora utilityofthissortthatGod unitehumannatureto Himself.26
Thereis more.If it was necessaryforhumansalvationthatGod takeon flesh,
sincethereweremenfromthebeginningoftheworld,it appearsthatfromthe
beginningof theworldHe oughtto have assumedhumannature,and not,so
to say,in the last days,forit seemsthatthesalvationofall theprecedingmen
was passed over.127
It seems,furthermore,
impiousand cruelto commandan innocentto be led to
death,especiallyon behalfof the impiouswho are worthyof death. But the
itwouldhave been impiousifat the
man ChristJesuswas innocent.Therefore,
command of God the Father He had undergonedeath.'28
What is more,sin is not expiatedby sin,but increased.Then,ifChristhad to
satisfyby death,His deathshouldhave been suchthatno man sinnedtherein;
that is to say, He should have died not a violent,but a natural,death.'29If
He
Christ,moreover,had to die forthesins of men; sincemensin frequently
should have had to undergodeath frequently.130
Now, let one say thatit was especiallyall because of originalsin thatChrist
had to be born and to suffer,
and thatsin had infectedthewholehumanrace
whenthefirstman sinned.Butthisseemsimpossible.For, ifothermenare not
fororiginalsin, neitherdoes the death of Christseem to
equal to satisfying
have been satisfactory
forthesinsofthehumanrace,sinceHe Himselfdied in
His human,not in His divine,nature.'3'
if Christmade satisfactionenough for the sins of the human
Furthermore,
it
seems
thepenaltieswhichwerebroughtin,
race,
unjustthatmenstillsuffer
sin.132
Scripturesays, by
It stands to reason that the Jewish critics of Christianitywould be eager to
126. See nn. 90, 112 above.
127. RaDaQ, p. 94; MS 53A1, p. 131; MS 53A2, p. 65; Beritadd., p. 62; NiSSabon,fol. 10r;
Magen, fol. 20v.
128. Biltul,pp. 19-20; Magen, fol. 19r; MS 2252, fol. 5r; Modena, pp. 16, 17.
129. See nn. 51, 54 above.
130. Magen, fol. 20r; MS 2252, fol. 4v.
131. See n. 100 above.
132. See nn. 108-9 above.

380

JOEL E. REMBAUM

incorporateinto theirpolemicsany questionsregardingoriginalsin,or any


otherdoctrine,thatwere circulatingin Christiancircles.
withcertainof the more subtleaspectsof Christian
Jewishfamiliarity
sin
is evident,particularlyin the works of the later
on
thinking original
withaspectsofAquinas's thoughton thesubauthors.Crescas's familiarity
ject was notedabove.'33Modena is aware ofAquinas's definingoriginalsin
as an intrinsic
aspectofhumannature,akinto theJewishevilinclination.'34
Duran, in his summaryof the originalsin doctrine,notes thatdistinction
betweenoriginaland actual sin,a notionhighlighted
by Anselmand incorinto
later
Christian
porated
ideology.'35
Withthepassage of time,Jewishcriticismof thedoctrineof originalsin
rootedin thesourcesof Chrisbecame moresophisticatedand morefirmly
tian teaching.Traditionsof polemicsemerged,yeteach new generationof
writersgainednewinsightsintotheworkingsofthisseminalChristianbelief
and preparedmoreincisivecritiquesof it. The Jews'needsto confrontthe
missionaryactivityof the friars,to stemthe tide of apostasy,to help the
century
relapsedconversosreturnto Judaism,and fromthe mid-sixteenth
to
on, to withstandtherepressionof thepapacy movedJewishintellectuals
shoreup theideologicalrampartsofJudaism.Partof theirresponsewas to
moveon theoffensive
bywagingideologicalwarfarethroughthecreationof
thepolemic.Criticismoforiginalsinevolvedintoa
a newgenreofliterature,
of
this
literaryattack on Christianity.
major component
ofJudaism
University
Drive
15600Mulholland
CA 90077
Los Angeles,

133. See n. 105 above.


to ST, 2 pt. 1:q. 81, 82; see also n. 91
134. Modena, p. 10, n. 12 and p. 11, n. 10 referring
above.
135. Kelimmat,p. 17; and see Anselm,De conceptu,22-23.

381

CHRISTIANDOCTRINEOF ORIGINALSIN

Appendix
is thecommenton Romans5:12 fromthe heretofore
The following
MS Parma2252,fols.4r-5r(seeno. 22 inn. 10above).It conunpublished
tainsan enumerated
arguments
againstthedoctrineof
listingof twenty
of thearguments
is in themarginoftheMS
originalsin.The numbering
withan interlinear
markplacedin thetextoverthebeginning
oftheargutheenumeration
has beenplacedin thetextofthis
ment.For convenience
and each numberappearsin boldface.
transcription

?...
ri1v7
aW1
n
munnn
'2=
"'pion
1002l
wnzw
-iW
in
11
DrNx
;10
inKi
D n 1run' p1 Pm inin
op1i ploinpin
11ou 1
11 rriv

:7nlxNW
~v

VD 7jX'"
x,' x? 7jn$pn', 1m'2 ? ?y
I]in'
'fn-11n D1 2X-n-112Y272-M
'N' [4V]
i
V"
irn
p 'in''1 rImr,2 mI
':n
Kn
'i11
Nm
'mr
ll 1 t1a '=
nrinn
"1 31in-1 1

1r

"

lS

"r1'

1in
"r
1a7"T"
"11" "' I

*1 '?

71i
,'i

'

K1'

,1 .1"

T
r
n
iND
Xv
im
rin'ri
Iti
Y-m
mu1
Y1ir
i1?y
nny"
n3
;nImy
1S11'Y
p1in
n3
r
r
i
i
2i
o
in
'3
ou
'xk
n
2u2
1n
19N
DN
n
1
X91
13v
01iDu
Y
pD
; '?Inz
'132
rr28w10n
2nD
7'
:2
711
19
-1w1'
DWxln
Y:u
"3
D*'lli
onvinrl
W""D
SI
imW
20
ix
W
mynw
1r1n
Y1-i
1ix
Wr1in
-VY
xn13
p1i
311
0m1y
1n1
Dunb
P'1
r
0WW
01um
:*
ni
uv
ii
nyn
rimn
1ni
0in
1mv
Y-i
11i
:1r1Yn1n
7'
$3
jzSD11972
i
nrn
10o
0
n
ni
'DW
iorv
x2
W
WCu
D3
l
1
1
n
7,1
7:
JD
an1;1
7
uu
tW
nnD
$3
rrmn
xin
nr1x
unninx
ntn
nul
my1
K:2
DNW
Pt
1
ni-no'
?,,Dn
:nni-ign
noinn,
-ron
xC
YNW
018
vn1y
1inWm11'rNx
Dunivn3n,
in"nn
p'Iwr
Dfn
o313:7)D
py
?nri D'ovi
D*END;

2D W0
DfN
:}i7~ W9 '2
TY,1
,nnr
f
K ni

WC~nik
in rv n
Wi'i

;1
in

10

1: ?Di3
. 11n

19- 16:

'1

.1
.20:n"
?NXjtn
""
.2
.77
:7'017)
.21:n
.3
nsX'W
.19-16:
1n"X't1:
.4

JOELE. REMBAUM

382
912
n, zn ?y:

?Yni ?:nvn
p wn1y-n p1xrn
nr'ri

rrnp}1 10 -ox

01

rinv*i

'

:2,"Tni,,n nnn n,Sn ba lnn


S
rnn,x~ n,"n
,~2
?2
N
1
n
nT
Don
un
inny
rprpwr
v
v?
'*2~
'w11
v$m;Wmi 'f'
1l,
n
:mifl' '35:2 n
n
f?11~ 'fx
1 r
Inv
V nfin K"N
0P myix1o
nn

1:2
:
(:21U
-,IVY)
Dniviw
DUK
Kun"
Xl1
-1iv
TNX
Y1D
Y78
nln
m3;rD
Ivr7Y
r
DoN
xunlw
m902
0n190
win
N
o
W
?
n1Di
21xv
Dx
-21Wnl
Tin nxpD
1V1Ynn

rrv
?Y:2,'ln

xrnUK
ipgri1-p n

nunw,oxi riV

m
,inflX

i'13K n" f17"r

,o
f
-rnrrnipf -iinxn
oxi n Dn
:Yvn ni n7,l
onlSzvvn '
rnn
:Rza
n
n
min
i'w NV Dunfl
l')v
n
nft L X",
D mui Y-fl, n01 57 n 1wri$ 'ri ni
'll

rorr
im
?:
92Kimr
oxi
x
17nwn
nrnnnD
wyn
wvnn
n,?zn
niv
vn13n2
pD
7n13n
:9

, l .9

,Ry

1
1"@
"W
?ivl
x0
-no9
min
Vg
WvW
?z
:Y-11
ni-noonninx
IDm"W10
Tn
onninxs
o-rxv
x?
nin
UK
ninn
o10rn-n
ilmr1"
n:n
0Ur
1:2
Pann
vi3n
int3
15?u
KwW
v
07
*
m*
9Wlin
in't
'-x
nw0
r1i
1r
1
Inw8'
n1'2W
Dmr2
y
1r'
Ilx
]
1KN
i
8
lnnr
1119037
nlin'
n1vx1
101i21
nin
wipnrn
5n
;Nxin
Klt
a*W
x?
?
)n
:-100n
"12%
10on'linni
Yvn
1
t"e
ninD
yinv
DUK
17yyn
pyy
nnbn
inn
'112
M3
12
?y
Wr
01u
?:)1q
Dal-T1 12'N
W')V.I*
DTOV
p "K8
1 1"K
7"K
-9
9
-T
T
-Ty
r
win
-7w1
m"4
n19n5
0
100nn
15
1i
5y
Nn
1x500
5y
1'ly
u3vn-i
o
.9
W
99
.3
X
u
Y"5yo
X
:#-TM5
00Y09
01
05MDI5
51n'
1nY
.IT
1-9
Np
5nDS
9nYs
-9
P:
v-Wx
-nny
101'
-i=
-7w
19
:0-n
Dm
n5-qNx
5r1u
-no
p19
Tin2
I'Nx
YYpru
iW9
n
rnw
n
'9D
no1r
y
-'D
1-9nn)
Do7
p
Tin'
pwx-in
DxD1)
-n03
muT1
1S91
71
mr-n
wrx
m9n
5-gyn
inn,95
n1=C)
n5-9w1
x1in
mn<q>3v11
Dmi9-TY;I
n1V
6.

o'lD- ?1in1

ty
DPi n

n
1n1l.

In

,1

1
r v31'1

nSo

ny. ITu.

nW
"'sW

:1:' 1
,

.12"

e .6

nn9xv
nn
00
.6
?.1:4
Y.7
"3
.17::1
9
nnvxn
W1xvr
ID
.37:l
M
0990
.8
.9
.n9010n
rNunp
.n

:1O?

.07171

3 mN

nI,'jn
;7bin;

.10
.12

You might also like