The Mixed Multitude. Pawel Maciejko

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ nomine . . . non aliter interpretor, nisi Contratalmudistas profitentes Trinitatem, Incarnationem, et alia dogmata fidei].”³⁵

      The Kamieniec Disputation³⁶

      The first hearing at the Kamieniec consistory in materia perfidiae Iudaica took place on 4 September 1756.³⁷ This time, it was the Frankists who acted as plaintiffs against the “synagogues of the Kamieniec diocese.” They argued that the charges of immoral conduct in Lanckoronie constituted slander, and the subsequent excommunications were motivated by the desire to brand legitimate opponents of rabbinic Judaism as heretics: according to the Sabbatians, the real reason for the Council of Four Lands’ campaign against them was their rejection of the Talmud and the proximity of their position to some of the tenets of Christianity. They also demanded a written response to their manifesto. On 17 October, Bishop Dembowski sent a pastoral letter to the Jewish leaders of his diocese, commanding that the rabbis come to Kamieniec in person and provide answers regarding the earlier bans of excommunication and the motions presented in the manifesto.

      The rabbis failed to appear. Instead they sent a shtadlan, Simon Herszkowicz, who referred to the privileges of religious and judicial autonomy granted to the Jews by Polish kings, challenged the consistory court’s authority to rule on a case involving Jews and Judaism, and demanded the postponement of the proceedings until the issue of jurisdiction was resolved.³⁸ He also argued that the rabbis needed time to prepare answers to a manifesto in Latin. Dem-bowski rejected Herszkowicz’s arguments challenging his jurisdiction (stating that the Jews themselves had first approached his court) but agreed to give the rabbis time to translate documents and prepare answers. The cross-examination of both sides was postponed for four months, until 25 February 1757. Meanwhile, the consistory carried on with its interrogations of the Contra-Talmudists, who “continued to support their points and provided other interesting information.”³⁹

      On 28 February, Herszkowicz presented the consistory with a written answer to the Frankist manifesto. This document is no longer extant; according to Ber of Bolechów, it “revealed to both Jews and Christians the abominations of the Sabbatians and exposed their misdeeds against the Torah and its commandments as well as against the natural law.”⁴⁰ The rabbis tried to convince the Kamieniec clergy that the points of the Frankist manifesto were deliberately couched in terms designed to mislead the priests and make them believe that these resembled Christian doctrine; as it turned out, they argued, Sabbatianism was much closer to Islam than to Christianity.

      However, the rabbinic response to the charges of the Contra-Talmudists was deemed unsatisfactory by the consistory. The court questioned Herszkowicz’s right to represent the Jewish side and again demanded that the “elders of the synagogue” attend the hearing in person. It threatened to hold them in contempt should they fail to do so. Herszkowicz responded with pleas for clemency, to which the court responded by granting another postponement, until 23 March. When no representative of rabbinic Judaism showed up for the next hearing either, Dembowski issued an edict charging the rabbis with contumacy and obstruction of justice and imposed financial penalties on the Jewish communities in his diocese. He set the final deadline for the confrontation between the Contra-Talmudists and their adversaries for 20 June 1757.⁴¹

      In early months of that year, the Contra-Talmudists composed an expanded version of their theses. As before, the original text was written in Hebrew and then translated into Polish and Latin by Moliwda.⁴² This expanded version of the manifesto contained the following statements:

      1. We believe in everything that was taught and commanded by God in the Old Testament.

      2. The books of Moses and the other books of the Old Testament can be compared to a richly dressed Maiden, whose face is covered and whose beauty cannot be seen. These books are full of the hidden wisdom of God, they speak of things mysterious and of the future, and therefore, they cannot be comprehended by human reason without the assistance of Efficacious Divine Grace.

      3. The rabbis of old times sought to expound the Old Testament. These explanations are known as the Talmud and contain many fables, lies, and much nonsense and hostility to God and His teachings.

      4. On the basis of the Holy Bible of the Old Testament, we believe that there is One God, without beginning or end, maker of Heaven and Earth and all things known and unknown.

      5. On the basis of the same Scripture, we believe that there is one infinite God in three Persons, equal, indivisible, and [acting] in agreement.

      6. We believe that God may take upon Himself mortal human flesh, be born, grow up, eat, drink, sense, sleep, and be subjected to all human passions save for sin.

      7. In accord with Daniel’s prophecy, we believe that the city of Jerusalem will not be rebuilt until the end of time.

      8. We believe that the Jews have waited in vain for the messiah to come, bring them happiness, and grant them power over other nations.

      9. We believe that God Himself cursed all of humankind for the sin of the First Parents. The same God would descend to earth and save the world from the curse. He is the true messiah, not for Jews alone, but for all peoples. All those who believe in Him and do good will be given Eternal Grace, and those who do not will be cast down to hell.⁴³

      As the consistory rejected the written rabbinic response to the first manifesto of the Contra-Talmudists, Bishop Dembowski demanded that the parties choose four representatives each and argue their respective positions in a public disputation. The representatives of the Contra-Talmudists were Leyb Krysa, Hayyim Moszkowicz, Leyb Rabinowicz, and Solomon Shorr; their opponents were represented by the rabbis Mendel of Satanów, Leyb of Międzybóż, Ber of Jazłowiec, and Joseph of Mohylew. The debate took place in the Kamieniec cathedral from 20 to 28 June 1757.⁴⁴ First, the Contra-Talmudists presented each motion orally and endorsed it with their signatures in the official protocol. Then the rabbis had a chance to put forward their response in a similar fashion. The live disputation was conducted in Hebrew with simultaneous Polish translation for the audience; the translation was provided by Moliwda.⁴⁵

      The rabbis unconditionally accepted points one, two, and four. They accepted the first part of point three, rejecting at the same time its second part. As for points five to nine, they refused to enter into the disputation, referring only to their written answer to the earlier manifesto submitted via Herszkowicz. The debate in Kamieniec provoked great interest in both the Jewish and Christian public: the crowd was so large that the bishop had guards posted to manage access to the cathedral.⁴⁶ Kuryer Polski, the most important Polish newspaper of the time, provided systematic coverage of the disputation. Some of the reports were also reprinted by foreign press.⁴⁷

      The paradigm of a public disputation between Christians and Jews was established in the thirteenth century with the great debates in Paris (1240) and Barcelona (1263). The Paris disputation centered on the status and the authority of the Talmud. Explicitly drawing upon the arguments of the Karaites, the apostate Nicolas Donin argued that the Talmud challenges the unique position of Scripture as the embodiment of the revelation given to Moses on Mount Sinai. He also maintained that it contains blasphemies against Jesus and Mary, as well as hostile remarks against Christians. The chief Christian protagonist of the Barcelona debate was also a convert from Judaism, Pablo Christiani. Christiani did not reject the Talmud outright; to the contrary, he claimed that the truth of Christianity can be proved on the basis of Jewish writings, including the Talmud. On the agenda of the debate were the thesis that the messiah had already come, the issue of his divinity, and the abolition of the “ceremonial law.” However, the disputation also touched upon other issues, in particular on the doctrine of Original Sin. A Christian account of the Barcelona debate (but not Jewish accounts) also mentions the introduction of the subject of the Trinity.

      The period of great public СКАЧАТЬ