Hostname: page-component-cd4964975-96cn4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-29T21:03:35.114Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Medieval Jewish Criticism of the Doctrine of Original Sin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

Joel E. Rembaum
University of Judaism, 15600 Mulholland Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90077
Get access


With the passage of time the notion of original sin became a matter of increasing concern for medieval Jewish critics of Christianity. The foundation of this criticism was laid by the earlier polemical writers, specifically those of the period from the second half of the twelfth through the early fourteenth centuries. The later authors, from the late fourteenth through the mid-seventeenth centuries, incorporated practically all of the arguments raised by their predecessors and added new criticism reflecting their greater familiarity with Christian beliefs and literature. The earlier polemicists, while approaching their task from a rational, “common sense” perspective, relied heavily on Hebrew biblical and, to a lesser degree, New Testament passages. The later writers reflected a greater intellectual independence of scriptural sources. Because the earlier works are generally structured as running commentaries of scriptural texts relevant to Christianity, their treatment of original sin, and other Christian doctrines for that matter, tends to be unfocused.3 The issues that are raised emerge piecemeal as the salient biblical passages are interpreted. The later works tend to be built on discussions of concepts. Consequently, a number of arguments are coalesced into coherent analyses. Such structural differences are the results of different patterns of inquiry. The earlier textually oriented critiques are, on the whole, products of the Franco-German polemical writers.

Research Article
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


page 353 note 1. The sources studied in this essay are, in chronological order: 1 Kimhi, Joseph, Sefer haberit(ca. 1170), in Talmage, Frank, ed., Sefer ha-berit u-vikkuḥiei RaDaQ 'im ha-noserim, (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 2156;Google Scholarhereafter Beril, 2 Jacob ben Reuben, Milḥamot ha-shem, (ca. 1170), ed. Rosenthal, Judah (Jerusalem, 1963);Google Scholar hereafter Milḥamot., On the dating of these two works see Rosenthal, Milḥamot, introduction, pp. 8,21. 3 Ha-Vikkuaḥ ha-meyuḥas la-RaDaQ, (ca. 1200), in Talmage, Sefer ha-berii, pp. 83–96; hereafter RaDaQ., On the dating of this work see Talmage, Frank, “An Hebrew Polemical Treatise, Anti-Cathar and Anti-Orthodox”, Harvard Theological Review, 60 (1967): 326. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar Joseph ben Nathan Official, Sefer Yosef ha-meqanne, (ca. 1250) ed. Rosenthal, Judah (Jerusalem, 1970); hereafter Meqanne., On the dating of this work see Rosenthal, introduction, p. 17. 5 MS Or. 53, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Rome (hereafter, MS Rome 53), fragment Al (after 1250), inGoogle ScholarRosenthal, Judah, “Biqqoret yehudit shel ha-berit ha-ḥadashah min ha-me'ah ha-13,” in Berlin, Charles, ed., Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History, and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev (New York, 1971), Hebrew section, pp. 123139; hereafter MS 53A1. 6 MS Rome 53, fragment B (after 1250), inGoogle ScholarRosenthal, Judah, “Pirqei vikkuaḥ” in Lieberman, Saul, ed., Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1974), 3: 353395; hereafter MS 53B. On MS Rome 53 see alsoGoogle ScholarUrbach, E. E., “Études sur la littérature polémique au moyen-âge”, Revue des études juives, 100 (1935): 4977; references to the fragments of the MS follow Urbach's designation. On the dating of the fragments see Urbach and Rosenthal's introductions to his editions of the fragments. 7 Vikkuaḥ ha-RaMbaN, (ca. 1263), inGoogle ScholarChavel, C.B., ed., Kitvei Rabbenu Mosheh ben Naḥman, 2, vols. (Jerusalem, 1973), 1; 302320; hereafter RaMbaN., On the dating of the Vikkuaḥ, see Chavel, 1: 300. 8 MS Rome 53, fragment A2 (after 1269), inGoogle ScholarRosenthal, Judah, “Vikkuaḥ dati bein hakham be-shem Menaljem u-vein ha-mumar ve-ha-nazir ha-dominiqani Pablo Krisṭi'ani”, Hagut 'ivril ba-'ameriqah, 3 (1974): 6174; hereafter MS 53A2. On this fragment and its date see alsoGoogle ScholarRembaum, J. E., “A Reevaluation of a Medieval Polemical Manuscript”, AJSreview, 5 (1980): 8199. 9 Additions to Sefer ha-beril, (ca. 1270) in Talmage, Sefer ha-berit, pp. 56–68; hereafter Berit, add. On these additions and their dating seeGoogle ScholarTalmage, Frank, trans., The Book of the Covenant of Joseph Kimḥi(Toronto, 1972), pp. 18, 25–26. 10 Meir ben Simeon, Milḥemet miṣvah, (ca. 1270), MS 2749, Biblioteca Palatina, Parma; hereafter Miṣvah., On the dating of this source seeGoogle ScholarRembaum, J. E., “The Influence of Sefer Nestor Hakomer on Medieval Jewish Polemics”, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 45 (1978): 167168, n. 54. 11 Solomon ben Moses de Rossi, 'Edut ha-shem ne'emanah, (second half thirteenth century), inCrossRefGoogle ScholarRosenthal, Judah, ed., Meḥqarim u-meqorot, 2, vols. (Jerusalem, 1967), 1: 373421; hereafter Edut., See Rosenthal's introduction, pp. 373, 376, for dating. 12 Niṣṣahon vetus, (ca. 1300), in David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages, a Critical Edition of the Niṣṣaḥon Vetus, (Philadelphia, 1979), Hebrew section; hereafter Vetus., On the dating of the Niṣṣaḥon, see Berger, pp. 33–34. 13Google ScholarDuran, Profiat, Kelimmat ha-goyim, (1396), in Talmage, Frank, ed., Kitvei pulmos le-Profiat Duran, (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 369; hereafter Kelimmat., On the dating see Talmage, introduction, p. 14. 14Google ScholarCrescas, Ḥasdai, Biṭṭul iqqarei ha-noserim(1397), ed. Deinard, Ephraim (Kearny, N.J., 1904); hereafter Bitul., On the dating of this work see Talmage, Kitvei, introduction, p. 14. 15 Yom Tov Lipmann Mühlhausen, Seferha-Niṣṣaḥon(ca. 1405), MS 2402, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York; hereafter Niṣṣaḥon.On the dating seeGoogle ScholarBaron, S. W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 17 vols. (New York and Philadelphia, 1966), 9:295. 16 Daniel ben Solomon, additions and comments on Edut ha-shem ne'emanah, (fifteenth century), in Rosenthal, Meḥqarim, 1: 423–30; hereafter Edutadd. On the dating of Daniel ben Solomon see Rosenthal, Meḥqarim, 1: 377, n. 1. 17 Simeon ben Semah Duran, Qeshet u-magen, (1423) (Livorno, 1762–63); hereafter, Qeshel., For dating see Baron, History, 9: 295–96. 18 Elijah Hayyim ben Benjamin of Genazzano, Vikkuaḥ, (ca. 1480), in Judah Rosenthal, “Vikkuḥo shel R. Eliyahu Ḥayyim mi-genasano im nazir franṣisqani,” Rosenthal, Meḥqarim, 1:431–56 (reprint from Sura, 1 [1953–54]: 156–77); hereafter Genazzano. On the dating see Rosenthal, Meḥqarim, 1: 431, 433. 19 Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol, Magen Avraham, (ca. 1500), MS 2433, Jewish Theological Seminary of America. New York; hereafter Magen., On the dating of this work seeGoogle ScholarRuderman, D. B., The World of a Renaissance Jew: The Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol, (Cincinnati, 1981), pp. 6264. 20 Yair ben Shabbetai da CorreggioGoogle ScholarḤerev pifiyyot, (ca. 1565), ed. Rosenthal, Judah (Jerusalem, 1958); hereafter Ḥerev., On the dating see Rosenthal's introduction, p. 7. 21 Isaac ben Abraham of Troki, Ḥizzuq 'emunah, (1593), ed. David Deutsch (Sohrau, 1873); hereafter Troki. On the dating see Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, introduction to Moses Mocatta, trans., Faith Strengthened, (reprint ed., New York, 1970), p. 9. 22 Anonymous critique of the Acts of the Apostles and Paul's Epistle to the Romans, MS 2252, Biblioteca Palatina, Parma, fols. 4r-5r; hereafter MS 2252. I am tentatively dating this ca. 1600. This suggestion is based on the style of the Italian cursive script and the reference on fol. lr, to Azariah de Rossi's Me'or 'einayim, which was published in November, 1573; on this date see S. W. Baron, History and Jewish Historians(Philadelphia, 1964), p. 168. This becomes the terminus a quo, for MS 2252. 23 Leone (Judah Aryeh da) Modena,Google ScholarMagen va-ḥerev, (1648), ed. Simonsohn, Shlomo (Jerusalem, 1960); hereafter Modena. On the dating see Simonsohn, p. 5. Regarding no. 22 see Appendix, For some preliminary comments on the Jewish treatment of original sin see Berger, Debate, pp. 247–48, 323, 324; 335 andGoogle ScholarLasker, D. J., Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Middle Ages, (New York, 1977), pp. 5, 18, 19, 107–8, 226.Google Scholar

page 355 note 2. See n. 1, numbers 1–12 for the earlier writers and numbers 13–23 for the later writers.

page 355 note 3. Two exceptions to this general statement are the Sefer ha-nissabon, of Yom Tov Lipmann Miihlhausen and the Ḥizzuq 'emunah, of Isaac Troki, both of which are structured according to a sequence of biblical passages but still have rather developed discussions of original sin and other Christian doctrines; see Niṣṣaḥon, fols. 7v-lOv and Troki, pp. 86–96.

page 356 note 4. Biflul, p. 6; Genazzano, p. 345; Modena, p. 7.

page 356 note 5. Genazzano, p. 436; Magen, fols. 17v, 18v; MS 2252, fol. 4v.

page 356 note 6. Kelimmat, p. 17.

page 356 note 7. On Gen. 2:17 see Meqanne, p. 36; Berit, add., p. 60; Niṣṣaḥon, fol. 7v; Ḥerev, pp. 97, 98; Troki, p. 87; Modena, p. 7. On Gen. 15:15 see Milḥamot, p. 49; Qeshet, p. 8a; Modena, p. 13. On Gen. 37:35 see Milḥamot, p. 49; Meqanne, p. 42; MS 53B, p. 386; MS 53A2, p. 68; Niṣṣaḥon, fol. 19v; Qeshet, p. 8b; Ijerev, p. 87. On Ps. 51:7 see Milḥamot, pp. 58–59; MS 53A1, p. 132; Kelimmat, p. 17; Qeshet, p. 7b; Modena, p. 11; see also Vetus, p. 154.

page 356 note 8. See Talmage, Covenant, p. 72, n. 97.

page 356 note 9. See Milḥamot, p. 49; Genazzano, p. 435, n. 3.

page 356 note 10. See Berger, Debate, pp. 247^8.

page 356 note 11. See n. 9 above.

page 356 note 12. This and all subsequent scriptural translations are from the New English Bible, (New York, 1976).

page 357 note 13. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, 4:50,7. See also n. 37 below.

page 357 note 14. See, for example, the Christian use of 1 Samuel 28 to prove that Samuel was in hell after his death as noted in MS 53B, p. 386. On the Jews' responses to this see nn. 32–33 below.

page 357 note 15. See Meqanne, p. 36; Berit, add., p. 62; Ḥerev, p. 97; Troki, pp. 94–95; MS 2252, fol. 5r; Modena, p. 9.

page 357 note 16. Troki, p. 87; Modena, p. 9.

page 357 note 17. Kelimmat, p. 20.

page 357 note 18. tierev, p. 97; see also n. 17 above.

page 357 note 19. Troki, pp. 87–88.

page 357 note 20. Niṣṣaḥon, fol. lOv; Ḥerev, p. 97. See also Modena, pp. 9–10, with no reference to Ezek. 18:20.

page 358 note 21. See n. 20 above, and also Berit, p. 24; MS 53A1, p. 139; MS 53A2, p. 68; Miṣvah, fols. 10r, 28v, 101r; Bitful, p. 6; Niṣṣaḥion, fol. 7v; Edut, add., p. 427; Genazzano, p. 436; Troki, pp. 87–88, 93. See Lasker, Polemics, p. 227, n. 25.

page 358 note 22. Anselm of Canterbury, De conceptu virginali, 24–26; Aquinas, SCG, 4:51, 2; 52, 6.

page 358 note 23. See nn. 72–73, 78–81 below.

page 358 note 24. Milḥamot, p. 51; MS 53A1, p. 139; MS 53B, p. 386; Berit, add., p. 62; Niṣṣaḥon, fol. 7v; Qeshet, pp. 8a–b; Modena, p. 14.

page 358 note 25. Milḥamot, p. 51; Qeshet, p. 8a; Modena, p. 14.

page 358 note 26. Milḥamot, pp. 51–52; Meqanne, pp. 42–43; MS 53B, p. 386; Niṣṣaḥon, fol. 19v; Qeshet, p. 8b; Modena, pp. 13–14.

page 359 note 27. Milḥamot, p. 52, citing Gen. 45:28, 48:21, etc.; Niṣṣaḥon, fol. 19v, citing Gen. 46:30; Qeshel, p. 8b, citing Gen. 48:21; Modena, p. 14, citing Gen. 45:28, 46:30.

page 359 note 28. Milḥamot, p. 52; Vetus, p. 18; Qeshet, p. 8b; Troki, pp. 95–96; Modena, p. 13.

page 359 note 29. MS 53A2, p. 69; Ḥerev, p. 99. Verses commonly cited to prove this point are Gen. 3:19; Ps. 89:49; Job 14:13.

page 359 note 30. See Berger, Debate, pp. 9–13; Lasker, Polemics, pp. 3–4. It has been suggested that an important factor in the medieval Jewish exegetes' emphasis of the plain meaning of the biblical text (peshaṭ), was a felt need to respond to the Christians' allegorizing; see Lipschütz, E. M., R. Shelomoh Yiṣḥaqi, (Warsaw, 1912), pp. 163164Google Scholar. See also Rosenthal, E. I. J., “The Study of the Bible in Medieval Judaism,” in Lampe, G. W. H., ed., The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. (Cambridge, England, 1969)Google Scholar, vol. 2: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation, pp. 252–79, esp. 260–74; and Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, (Notre Dame, 1964), pp. 149172Google Scholar. For a Christian reaction to Jewish repudiation of Christian exegesis see the statement of Bartholomew, bishop of Exeter, cited in Smalley, pp. 170–71. For an example of a third century c.t. application of this methodology in a polemical argument see Rabbi Simlai's discussion with the minim, (sectarians), P. T. Berakhot 12d-13a, cited in Herford, R. T., Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, (London, 1903), pp. 255266, 424–25.Google Scholar

page 359 note 31. MS 53A1, pp. 132, 139; Niṣṣaḥon., fol. 10r; Magen, fol. 20r; Troki, p. 90.

page 360 note 32. Meqanne, p. 66; MS 53B, p. 387; Niffahon, fol. 8r; Modena, p. 14; see n. 14 above.

page 360 note 33. Niṣṣaḥon, fol. 8r; see also MS 53B, p. 387. The rabbinic idea is in B. T. Shabbat 152a, 152b-53a; see also Tanljuma, Va-yiqra 8. Joseph ben Nathan responded to a Christian in a rather innovative fashion by suggesting that the witch did not use demonic powers to wrest Samuel's spirit from heaven, but used rather the power of God's name to achieve this miraculous feat; see Meqanne, p. 66.

page 360 note 34. Meqanne, pp. 102–3; MS 53A1, p. 132; MS 53B, p. 386; MS 53A2, p. 69; Vetus, p. 18; Niṣṣaḥon., fols. 8r, 103v;'Edut, add., p. 427; Modena, p. 8. Another passage from Psalms used in this context is 86; 13.

page 360 note 35. See n. 7 above.

page 361 note 36. Milḥamot, pp. 58–59.

page 361 note 37. See n. 13 above. See also the discussion of the significance of Ps. 51:7 (51:5 in the Christian Bible) for the Christian doctrines of original sin and virgin birth in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600), (Chicago, 1971), pp. 289290.Google Scholar

page 361 note 38. MS 53A1, p. 132; MS 53A2, p. 69; Niṣṣaḥon, fol. lOv.

page 361 note 39. Modena, p. 19.

page 361 note 40. Ex. 20:5, 34:7; Num. 14:18.

page 361 note 41. MS 53A1, p. 132; Miṣvah, fols. lOr, lOlv; Niṣṣaḥon, fol. 7v. See also Anselm, De conceptu, 24–25.

page 362 note 42. Kelimmat, pp. 17–23.

page 362 note 43. Qeshet, p. 8a.

page 362 note 44. The one exception to this pattern of increasing familiarity with the New Testament on the part of later polemical writers is Sefer Nestor ha-komer., This early medieval tract contains numerous references to New Testament books outside the Synoptics; see Rembaum, Nestor, pp. 155, 158–60.

page 362 note 45. See nn. 24, 25, 31, 34 above.

page 362 note 46. Berit., pp. 24–25; RaDaQ, p. 89; MS 53A1, p. 132; Vetus, pp. 135–36; Kelimmat, pp. 19–20; Niṣṣaḥon, fol. 9r-v; Qeshet, p. 8a; Troki, p. 94.

page 362 note 47. Vetus, p. 136.

page 363 note 48. Vetus, p. 18; Kelimmat, p. 19; Qeshet, p. 8a.

page 363 note 49. MS 53B, p. 387. The Jewish association of Jesus with demons is first mentioned in the New Testament; see Matt. 9:34, 12:24, etc. This is also reflected in rabbinic traditions concerning Jesus; see Rokeah, David, “Ben Sitra is Ben Pantera” [Hebrew], Tarbiz, 39 (1970): 18.Google Scholar

page 363 note 50. Matt. 15:26–27.

page 363 note 51. Modena, p. 18.

page 363 note 52. Kelimmat, p. 19. See also Qeshet, p. 8a.

page 364 note 53. MS 53A1, p. 128; Vetus, p. 122.

page 364 note 54. Bii/ul, pp. 20–21. Crescas's notion that an antidote should be an opposite of the disease to be cured has its parallel in medieval medicine. Maimonides, for example, following Galen, divided poisons into two kinds, those that produce fever and an excited soul and others that generate cold and depression. The cures for the former were to be mild and quieting, while the remedies for the latter were to be stimulants. See Friedenwald, Harry, The Jews and Medicine, 2 vols. (New York, 1967), 1: 209.Google Scholar

page 364 note 55. See nn. 82–97 below.

page 364 note 56. Kelimmat, pp. 17–23; see Talmage's index of New Testament passages, Kelimmat, pp. 97–99.

page 364 note 57. Kelimmat, pp. 17–18. The specific Christian theory of original sin reflected in Duran's presentation will be discussed in n. 135 below.

page 364 note 58. For Duran's description of ṭo'im, and maṭ'im, see Kelimmat, p. 4; see also Talmage's discussion in Kelimmat, introduction, pp. 19–25.

page 365 note 59. Kelimmat, pp. 18–19.

page 365 note 60. See, for example, Matt. 17:22–23, 20:18, 26:2, 24.

page 365 note 61. Kelimmat, p. 18.

page 365 note 62. Kelimmat, p. 19.

page 365 note 63. Kelimmat, p. 19 where Matt. 15:24 is also used. See also n. 48 above.

page 365 note 64. Kelimmat, pp. 19–20. See also n. 46 above for other Jewish references to the Lazarus story.

page 366 note 65. Kelimmat, p. 20.

page 366 note 66. 'Aṣamim nivdalim., For discussions of these terms see Wolfson, H. A., Crescas' Critique of Aristotle, (Cambridge, Mass, 1929), pp. 292295, 328, 574–75, 666.Google Scholar

page 366 note 67. Among the medieval philosophers who are aware of and criticize definitions of the soul as a material substance are Saadya (see Altmann, Alexander, trans., Saadya Gaon: Book of Doctrines and Beliefs, in Three Jewish Philosophers, [Cleveland, New York, and Philadelphia, 1960], pp. 143144Google Scholar, and see especially Altmann's notes), William of Auvergne in his De anima(see Moody, E. A., Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Science, and Logic, [Berkeley, 1975], pp. 2328), and Aquinas, in SCG, 2:49–50. To be sure, none of these relate the issue of the soul's material nature to Jesus and his followers.Google Scholar

page 366 note 68. Kelimmat, p. 20, n. 23.

page 367 note 69. Kelimmat, pp. 20–21. Duran's concluding arguments, Kelimmat, pp. 22–23, focus on the problems created by the delay in Jesus' second advent and the attempts by the maṭ'im, to resolve them.

page 367 note 70. Kelimmat, p. 23.

page 367 note 71. See nn. 66–67 above.

page 368 note 72. RaMbaN, p. 310.

page 368 note 73. RaMbaN, p. 310; Mifvah, fols. 28v–29r, 102r; Bilful, pp. 6, 14, 18; Niṣṣaḥon., fol. Ir, Genazzano, pp. 436–37; Magen, fol. 20r; Ḥerev, p. 97; Troki, p. 88; MS 2252, fol. 4v; Modena, pp. 10, 11. On the Christian belief in the creation of each soul see Aquinas, SCG, 2:83–89; and on questions regarding the soul transferring the effects of original sin see SCG, 4:51,4; 52, 8.

page 368 note 74. Meir explicitly refers to heretics and their beliefs in his Milhemet Miṣvah;, see Miṣvah, fol. 215r-v, where he defines their beliefs in the following terms: “They believe in two deities, one good and one evil; they say that everything beheld by the eye's sense of sight is not the creation of the one good God, may He be blessed; they are willing to destroy their bodies and to renounce ownership of their money.” See also Mifvah, fol. 42v.

page 368 note 75. Miṣvah, fols. 53, lO2r.

page 368 note 76. Regarding the Pelagian criticism of original sin see Aquinas, SCG, 4:50, 2 and 52, 19; and on the Pelagian critique of child baptism see the decree on original sin of the Council of Trent in Leith, J. H., ed., Creeds of the Churches, (Atlanta, 1973), pp. 406407.Google Scholar

page 369 note 77. Miṣvah, fols. 52v-53r, 102r-v., See also BiltuI, pp. 15–16. Some Cathars held that it is bad for souls that are pure spirit to be placed in bodies where they become defiled by contact with the material body. To suggest that God intentionally brings about this process only to punish the soul would, in the light of this Cathar idea regarding which orthodox Christians were sensitive, tend to reinforce the heretics in their blasphemies regarding the evils of the creator God. On these Cathar beliefs see Runciman, Steven, The Medieval Manichee, (Cambridge, England, 1947), pp. 148151Google Scholar; Borst, Arno, Die Katharer, (Stuttgart, 1953), pp. 143151Google Scholar; Loos, Milan, Dualist Heresy in the Middle Ages, (Prague, 1974), pp. 115, 136–41, 264, 284–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 369 note 78. Magen, fol. 18r-v. For further discussion of this aspect of Farissol's thinking see n. 105 below. A similar emphasis on the corrupting effects of the sin on the composition of the eleorigiments of the human body can be found in Niṣṣaḥon, fol. 7v. See also MS 2252, fol. 4v. The ideas that passions emanate from the material aspect of man and that human beings can be tempted by physical desires away from the higher intellectual pursuits are discussed by Maimonides in his Guide of the Perplexed, 2:8, 33.

page 370 note 79. Magen, fol. 18v. See also, Phinehas Halevi of Barcelona, Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, ed. Wengrov, Charles (Jerusalem and New York, 1978), pp. 6264 on the Torah as the vehicle for directing human intelligence away from the physical. Regarding the authorship of Sefer ha-hinnukhGoogle Scholar see Ta-Shma, Israel, 'Mehabbero ha-'amitti shel Sefer ha-hinnukh Kiryat sefer, 55 (1980): 787790. On Torah as the antidote for the evil inclination, see Jewish Encyclopedia, (New York, 1901–06), s.v. “Yezer ha-Ra.”Google Scholar

page 370 note 80. Modena, pp. 7–8.

page 370 note 81. Modena, pp. 11–12, Modena notes a similarity between Jewish and Christian thinkers who define the consequences of Adam's sin as the unleashing of the evil inclination; see Modena, p. 10. Galatinus relied heavily on Raymundus Martini's Pugiofidei, for his knowledge of rabbinic sources, and given the latter's association of the Jewish evil inclination with an Aquinian view of original sin, it is not surprising to find Modena responding to Galatinus's use of Jewish sources in the way he does. Modena (Ibid) is also sensitive to Aquinas's views on original sin and to how they parallel, to some degree, Jewish notions. On Galatinus see Modena, p. 3–5. On Martini's linking of Aquinas's notions of original sin with rabbinic traditions concerning the evil inclination see Cohen, Jeremy, “Original Sin as the Evil Inclination-A Polemicist's Appreciation of Human Nature”, Harvard Theological Review, 74 (1981): 495520. On the idea that the messiah will purify humans from original sin see Sefer ha-hinnukh, p. 66.Google Scholar

page 371 note 82. Lasker, p. 107.

page 371 note 83. See nn. 20–21 above.

page 371 note 84. See nn. 51–55 above.

page 371 note 85. See n. 77 above.

page 371 note 86. Berit, add., p. 61; Magen, fol. 19r; MS 2252, fols. 4v, 5r, Modena, pp. 16, 17.

page 371 note 87. See, for example, nn. 98–102 below.

page 371 note 88. fferev, p. 98. A similar point is made by Crescas, Biṭṭul, pp. 19–20.

page 371 note 89. Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus homo, 2:1–7.

page 372 note 90. MS 2252, fol. 5r; Modena, pp. 16–17. See n. 112 below.

page 372 note 91. Modena, p. 16, quoting Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3:q. 46, a. 1–3.

page 372 note 92. Anselm, Cur Deus homo, 1:11–15, 16–21, 25 and see n. 89 above. On Aquinas's treatment of Anselm's notions see Colleran, J. M., trans., Why God Became Man, by Anselm of Canterbury(Albany, 1969), pp. 4748.Google Scholar

page 372 note 93. See nn. 7, 9–11, 24–34 above.

page 372 note 94. See Aquinas, ST., 3:q. 52.

page 372 note 95. Berit, p. 24; MS 53A2, p. 68; Bifful, pp. 14–15; Modena, p. 13. This argument is also found in one of the oldest of the Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Sefer Nestor ha-komer, see Berliner, Abraham, ed., Sefer Nestor ha-komer, (Altona, 1875), p. 10.Google Scholar

page 372 note 96. 'Edut, add., p. 427; Genazzano, p. 437; Magen, fols. 18v, 19v, 20r; Modena, p. 13.

page 373 note 97. Biṭṭul, pp. 14–15.

page 373 note 98. See n. 92 above. Crescas alludes to this in some detail; see Biflul, p. 12.

page 373 note 99. Magen, fol. 19r; tferev, pp. 97–98; Modena, p. 17. Yair ben Shabbetai cites Joseph Albo as the source of his thinking on this matter; see Ḥerev, p. 98, referring to Sefer ha-'iqqarim, 4:38, and see fierev, p. 98, n. 19.

page 373 note 100. MS 2252, fols. 4v-5r-.

page 374 note 101. Magen, fol. 20r; Ḥerev, p. 98; Modena, p. 17.

page 374 note 102. Magen, fol. 19

page 374 note 103. Vetus, pp. 153–54; Magen, fol. 19; MS 2252, fol. 5r; Modena, pp. 7–8.

page 374 note 104. Vetus, pp. 153–54; Modena, p. 8.

page 374 note 105. See Bilful., p. 12. On this notion in Aquinas see Keating, C. J., The Effects of Original Sin in the Scholastic Tradition from St. Thomas Aquinas to William Ockham, (Washington, D.C., 1959), pp. 827Google Scholar, and the Aquinian sources noted there. Farissol, like Aquinas, defines Adam's sin as an act of disobedience in which Adam forsook his rationality for the sake of physical desires, the result being a loss of providential protection and death; see Magen, fol. 18A. Farissol, also like Aquinas, sees the rebellion and its consequences as emerging out of a human nature that is not essentially evil. In Aquinas this results in a qualified definition of original sin when compared, for example, to Augustine's definition; see Keating, Ibid, and Cohen in n. 81 above. This concept of Adam's sin allows Farissol to argue that since that sin was an outgrowth of human nature as created by God, it was not as heinous as the sins of the generation of the flood and other similar sins. Consequently, argues Farissol, it does not warrant the significance ascribed to it by Christianity. For another perspective on this passage of the Magen Avraham, see n. 78 above.

page 374 note 106. See Aquinas, ST. 2, pt. l:q. 73, a. 10.

page 375 note 107. Modena, p. 8.

page 375 note 108. RaMbaN, p. 310.

page 375 note 109. Berit, p. 24; Meqanne, pp. 36–37; MS 53A1, p. 132; MS 53A2, pp. 63, 69; Berit, add., p. 61; Miṣvah, fols. 53v, 102v-103; Edut, pp. 420–21; Nifsation, fol. lOv; Qeshet, p. 8a; Genazzano, pp. 435, 437; Magen, fols. 20v, 21; MS 2252, fol. 4r, Modena, pp. 14–15.

page 375 note 110. Biṭṭul., p. 20. Incarnation is discussed more fully by Crescas in the fourth chapter of his work; see Biṭṭul, pp. 40–54.

page 375 note 111. Magen, fols. 19r, 2r., See also Modena, pp. 15–16. For a more detailed study of the Jewish critique of the incarnation see Lasker, pp. 105–34.

page 376 note 112. Nifsafion, fol. 8v; Modena, p. 16. See also nn. 90–91 above.

page 376 note 113. Kelimmat, p. 17; Qeshet, p. 7b; Modena, p. 20.

page 376 note 114. Modena, pp. 13, 14.

page 376 note 115. Regarding following the law see n. 79 above. See also Bifful, pp. 16, 21–22 and pp. 64–83 for Crescas's extended discussion on the significance of the Torah; Genazzano, pp. 438–39; Troki, pp. 91–93; Modena, p. 14. On repentance see Magen, fols. 19v, 20v; f/erev, p. 97; MS 2252, fols. 4v, 5r;, Modena, pp. 8–9. In these arguments physical punishment is an assumed component of the penitential process.

page 376 note 116. See nn. 47, 64 above.

page 376 note 117. See n. 79 above; Troki, pp. 91–93. On the Torah and the removal of the filth of the snake see B. T. Yevamot 103b.

page 376 note 118. Troki, pp. 91–93, 339.

page 377 note 119. A comparison of the works of Crescas, Farissol, the author of MS Parma 2252, and Modena, for example, gives a clear indication of the transmission of arguments from ca. 1400 through ca. 1650.

page 378 note 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.

page 378 note 121. Aquinas, SCG, 4:51, 2, 4, 5, 14; 4:53, 3, 10, 17, 23–26. Translations are from Oneil, C. J., trans., Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book Four: Salvation, (Notre Dame, 1975), pp. 215, 217, 224–27.Google Scholar

page 378 note 122. See nn. 20–22 above.

page 378 note 123. See nn. 72–73 above.

page 378 note 124. See n. 36 above.

page 378 note 125. Miṣvah, fol. 10; MS 2252, fol. 4v.

page 379 note 126. See nn. 90, 112 above.

page 379 note 127. RaDaQ., p. 94; MS 53A1, p. 131; MS 53A2, p. 65; Berit, add., p. 62; Nimbon, fol. lOr, Magen, fol. 20v.

page 379 note 128. Bitful, pp. 19–20; Magen, fol. 19r; MS 2252, fol. 5r;, Modena, pp. 16, 17.

page 379 note 129. See nn. 51, 54 above.

page 379 note 130. Magen, fol. 20r;, MS 2252, fol. 4v.

page 379 note 131. See n. 100 above.

page 379 note 132. See nn. 108–9 above.

page 380 note 133. See n. 105 above.

page 380 note 134. Modena, p. 10, n. 12 and p. 11, n. 10 referring to ST, 2 pt. l:q. 81, 82; see also n. 91 above.

page 380 note 135. Kelimmat, p. 17; and see Anselm, De conceptu, 22–23.

page 381 note 1.

page 381 note 2.

page 381 note 3.

page 381 note 4.

page 382 note 5.

page 382 note 6.

page 382 note 7.

page 382 note 8.

page 382 note 9.

page 382 note 10.

page 382 note 11.

page 382 note 12.