the ways in which Qol Qore may have been a response to the anti-Talmudic missionizing activity in the mid- to late nineteenth century. I say “compass” because Soloveitchik never discusses the missioning phenomenon openly; thus, even though he likely was aware of it, his intentions regarding his commentary as a response to it must remain conjecture. In terms of rising instances of anti-Semitism, however, Soloveitchik does state that be believes that his work will help resolve that age-old problem founded, in his view, on Christianity’s misunderstanding of Judaism and, just as important, its own scripture.
Qol Qore was written at a time of rising anti-Semitism throughout Europe, pogroms, and the increasingly difficult position of Jews in their countries of residence. The deteriorating conditions of the Jews at this time helped create, among other things, Zionism, which, on Theodor Herzl’s reading, would help relieve anti-Semitism by removing a large segment of Jews from Europe.119 Soloveitchik was more convinced that the roots of anti-Semitism were theological and based on a misunderstanding of the New Testament by both Jews and Christians. He seemed to believe that if Jews and Christians understood the New Testament the way he did, the theological foundations of anti-Semitism would begin to wane. In a long comment to Matthew 2:1, Soloveitchik places part of the blame on the Jews, specifically in the fantastical depiction of Jesus in the anonymous medieval work Toledot Yeshu:120 “We find that the mother of Ben Stada was Miriam, and her husband was Pappos ben Yehudah, and her lover was Pandira. Her son was a bastard, and therefore they called his mother Stada because she was a harlot. From this section in the Gemara, those who lack knowledge from among both our Jewish and Christian brothers conclude that this speaks about Yeshua, who is called ‘Messiah.’ Therefore, the Christians think badly of their Jewish brothers and speak against the Gemara without limit.” In this small excerpt of a much longer comment, Soloveitchik seeks to dispel the false Jewish notion of Jesus’ birth insinuated in the Talmud, which he believed made it impossible for Jews to take the New Testament, and thus Christians, seriously; and to serve as fodder for Christian animus toward the Jews. But his most sustained comment about the impetus for his project appears in his prefatory remarks to the 1868 London edition of Qol Qore: The Law, the Talmud, and the Gospel.
But our object is not to comment; but impelled by circumstances of the times, so eventful in themselves, and so important in their bearing as to the cause of the Lord, we desire an institution inquiry into the cause of an existing misunderstanding. For since the fire of dispute has been kindled in the camp of our Hebrew brethren, it has divided the worshipers of God into two sections, the one Jews, and the other Christians. Does it not appear marvelous to contemplate that after the lapse of centuries, when empires have crumbled into the dust, monarchies have ceased to exist, dynasties have fallen into decay … and yet that fire of contention has not ceased, but is still raging with its primitive fury.121
Locating the roots of Christian anti-Semitism has a long history among Jews, and Soloveitchik is certainly not the first to claim that it is rooted in theological animus initiated by Jewish and Christian scriptures. And most of his colleagues from the traditional world of Eastern Europe were not optimistic about solving this problem, although some maskilim in these areas had more optimistic views. For example, Naftali Zvi Berlin (Neziv), a leader of the Volozhin yeshiva who was likely in Volozhin before Soloveitchik moved to England (Berlin headed the yeshiva during 1854–1892), wrote a short tract, Se’ar Yisrael (Remnants of Israel), which argued for the ontological nature of anti-Semitism on the midrashic principle of “Esau hates Jacob.” This popular work, published numerous times, likely embodied the sentiments of Soloveitchik’s world.122 The popular notion that anti-Semitism was somehow embedded in Christianity, or Gentiles more generally, such that it could not be uprooted, was a notion that Soloveitchik openly contested; undermining it was the backbone of his life’s work.
Soloveitchik is one of the few traditional rabbis in general, and certainly in Eastern Europe, who wrote more positively about the possibility of diminishing anti-Semitism, at least in those decades. He claimed that the fault lay with Jews and Christians—Jews because they refuse to take the New Testament seriously and Christians because they refuse to acknowledge the symmetry between the teaching of the Gospel and Judaism. An exception to this rule was Ya’akov Emden (1697–1776), a leading central European rabbinic figure and one of the most celebrated rabbinic authorities of his generation.123 It is thus predictable that Soloveitchik would cite Emden’s thoughts about Christianity, which were, in his time, revolutionary in their own right.124
Comparisons between Emden and Soloveitchik are reasonable, and Soloveitchik himself may have viewed Emden as a precedent.125 Upon closer examination, however, Emden and Soloveitchik have little in common other than their belief in the morality (and non-idolatry) of Christianity and their belief that Jesus did not come to eradicate the law for Jews. Unlike Soloveitchik, Emden, who was familiar with the Gospels (he cites them often) never wrote extensively about them and never quite claimed, as Soloveitchik did, that there is no categorical distinction between Judaism and Jesus’ “Christianity.”126 Emden does mention in at least one place that he thinks that many Christians “would be diligent in the analysis of the Gemara … and still today are found among them many learned ones who love our Talmud and study it.”127 But in general, Emden’s positive assessment of Christianity, certainly provocative in his day, especially given his stature, does not make the more radical claims of symmetry between Judaism and Christianity that Soloveitchik proposes in his commentary. Perhaps part of the difference between them is the underlying context of each one’s work. Emden, as J. J. Schachter notes, used Christianity as a way to falsify and demonize Sabbateanism as a new religion, one that should be condemned by Jews and Christians alike.128 Soloveitchik may have been responding to the increased conversion of Jews to Christianity through the missionary work of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews and other organizations. His commentary may thus be more focused on teaching missionaries why converting the Jews is unnecessary (which is why he published his commentary in German, French, and Polish before he published the original Hebrew) and to teach Jews why they need not convert in order to live an authentic Jewish life that coheres with the teachings of Jesus. Both Emden and Soloveitchik seem to believe that their positive assessments would curb anti-Semitism, a goal that, as we know, was unsuccessful. At any rate, in looking for some precedent for Soloveitchik’s commentary, Emden, whose work on this subject and others was likely familiar to Soloveitchik, would be a good candidate.
Soloveitchik concludes that his commentary resolved three basic misunderstandings between Jews and Christians: “I. That our Jewish brethren regard us [Christians] as those who have no faith, and that the summit of the Christian belief centers in the eradication of the law of Moses. II. That we Christians are their opponents, and merely seek their subversion. III. That the generality of Jews, as well as Christians, being unacquainted with what constitutes the Judaism of the present day (viz. the Rabbinic tradition) look upon the chasm that separates Judaism from Christianity to be of such magnitude as to render all efforts of reconciliation in vain.”129 George Ekeroth, then director of the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies and Research, wrote a short introduction to the 1985 reprint of the Hebrew Qol Qore, in which he succinctly made the case for why this obscure book from over a century ago should be reprinted.
The author’s original motivation is an attempt to bring peace and understanding between Judaism and Christianity. He implied that if this could be achieved, it had the potential of bringing peace to the whole world. We don’t have evidence that his objective was realized to any great degree during his lifetime. In view of the great progress that has been made in recent years in dialogue between Jews and Christians, at least at the academic level, it is possible that the book was written “for such a time as this.”130
Whether such a prediction is true, I do not know; but it speaks to the overt intention of Soloveitchik’s work, even a kind of messianic optimism that this work could “bring about world peace.”
This commentary, constructed by someone deeply knowledgeable of classical Judaism, executed with
