Part I
This disputation took place over four days. It was held at the palace of King James I of Aragon in the presence of the king and many dignitaries. The one who proposed the disputation was Pablo Christiani—a convert from Judaism. Pablo and a few others represented the Christians. (Pablo is equivalent to “Paul/Paulus,” which was a common name for converts.) Pablo and the other Christians were from the Dominican Order—founded in France in 1216—by a Spanish priest named “Dominic.” Pablo’s hope was to win the dispute and convince the Jews of Spain to become Christian.
During the Middle Ages, there were numerous disputes between Christians and Jews. But in this one, the Jewish advocate, Nachmanides (coerced by the king to participate), was given freedom to speak his arguments. Nachmanides wrote a report of the disputation. Here is some material from what he wrote:
“We agreed to speak first about the Messiah—whether he has already come as the Christians believe or if he is yet to come as the Jews believe. Subsequently, we shall discuss whether the Messiah is divine or fully human, born of man and woman. Afterward, we shall discuss whether the Jews observe the true law or whether the Christians do.”
“Friar Paul (Pablo) claimed that in the Talmud it is said that the Messiah has already come. He adduced the story in Midrash Lamentations concerning a man who was plowing … ” (Mitchell First: From the details of the story, it seems that on the same day that the Temple was destroyed the Messiah was born.)
“I responded: ‘Truly I do not believe that the Messiah was born on the day of the destruction of the Temple. Thus, this story is not true or else it has another meaning drawn from the secrets of the sages. However, I shall accept it at its simple meaning, as you claim—for it is a proof for my case. Behold, it says that on the day of destruction, after the Temple was destroyed, the Messiah was born. Thus, Jesus was not the Messiah, as you claim. For he was born and killed prior to the destruction of the Temple. In fact, he was born about 200 years prior to the destruction of the Temple. (See Sanhedrin 107b.) According to your reckoning, he was born 73 years prior to the destruction of the Temple.”
“Master William, the royal judge, then said: ‘The dispute does not now concern Jesus. The question is whether the Messiah has come or not. You say that he has not come, and this book of yours says that he has come.’”
“I said to him: … ‘The sages did not say that the Messiah has come. Rather, they said that he was born.’”
“For on the day that our teacher, Moses, was born, he did not come and redeem us. However, when he came before Pharaoh—at the command of God—and said to him: ‘These are the words of the Lord, “Send forth My people!”’ Then, he may be said to have arrived. Likewise the Messiah—when he shall come before the pope and shall say to him at God’s command: ‘Send forth My people,’ then he may be said to have come … ”
“Friar Paul claimed: ‘Behold the section … (beginning Isaiah 52:13) tells of the death of the Messiah and how he was to fall into the hands of his enemies and how he was placed alongside the wicked—as happened to Jesus. Do you believe that this section speaks of the Messiah?’ “I said to him: ‘In terms of the true meaning of the section, it speaks only of the people of Israel, which the prophets regularly call ‘Israel, My servant’ or ‘Jacob, My servant … ’”
“Friar Paul then said that—in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a)—it is indicated that Rabbi Joshua bar Levi asked Elijah when the Messiah would come. He answered him: ‘Ask the Messiah himself.’ He said, “Where is he?” He said: ‘At the gate of Rome, among the sick.’ He went there and found him. He asked him … Thus, the Messiah has already come, is in Rome and is Jesus who rules in Rome … ”
“I said to him: ‘Isn’t it clear from this that he has not come?’ For he asked Elijah when the Messiah would come. Likewise, he asked the Messiah himself: “When will you come?” Thus, he has not yet come. Rather, according to the simple meaning of these stories, he was born already. But I do not believe this.”
Nachmanides—in a famous passage—explains that Jews do not have to believe in Aggadah (but almost certainly this was far from his real view):
“Friar Paul asked me whether the Messiah of whom the prophets spoke has come. I said that he has not come. He then cited an aggadah which said that, on the very day the Temple was destroyed, the Messiah was born. I then said that I do not believe this … ” “Now, I shall explain to you why I said that I do not believe this. Know that we Jews have three types of books. The first is the Bible, and we all believe it completely. The second is called ‘Talmud,’ and it is a commentary on the mitzvot of the Torah. For in the Torah, there are 613 commandments and there is not one of them that is not explained in the Talmud. We believe in the Talmud, concerning the explanation of the commandments. We have yet a third book called “Midrash,” that is sermons. This is analogous to the bishop standing and giving a sermon, with one of the listeners deciding to write it. In regard to this book, those who believe it well and good, but those who do not believe it do no harm. We have sages who wrote that the Messiah will not be born until close to the time ordained for redeeming us from exile. Therefore, I do not believe in this book, where it says that he was born on the day of the destruction of the Temple … ”
“You further asked, our lord the king, where he is now. It is already indicated in Scriptures. For Adam lived in terrestrial paradise. When he sinned, it is said: ‘So the Lord God drove him out of the Garden of Eden.’ Thus, one who is free from the punishment of Adam’s sin lives there in paradise … The king said: “Did you not say in the same aggadah that he was in Rome?” I said to him I did not say that he lived in Rome, only that he appeared in Rome on a particular day. For Elijah told the sage that he would find him there on that day … ”
(I am omitting much of the subsequent material. I will do part two next week.) “Eventually, the king said: ‘Let the dispute be suspended. For I have never seen a man whose case is wrong argue it as well as you.’”
———
As a result of the debate and the events following it, Nachmanides had to leave Aragon (a section of today’s Spain). Although he could have gone elsewhere nearby, he chose to settle in Eretz Yisrael. He arrived in 1267 and lived there until his death in 1270.
(Living in Eretz Yisrael led him to revise some passages in his commentary on Chumash, having obtained new insights there. See, e.g., his comments on כברת at Genesis 35:16.)
—
Nachmanides’ transcript of the disputation is included in Charles B. Chavel, Kitvei Ramban. For more on this topic, see Hyam Maccoby, “Judaism on Trial,” (1982). Maccoby concludes: “When one considers that he was debating not with the peace of mind necessary for clarity of thought, but in fear of persecution by the dreaded Dominicans and with anxiety of possible mob action against his people, it is extraordinary that he was able to argue with such coolness and humor.”
Mitchell First can be reached at [email protected]. Perhaps he too will revise some of his articles if he moves to Israel and obtains new insights there.
