Answer

A. If I understood your question, you are drawing the distinction between a logical contradiction and a physical contradiction. I discussed this in my book Two Carts (Gate 13, I think). I definitely agree. And I believe Rashba wrote similarly in responsa, vol. 4, no. 334.

B. I don’t have an article on Christianity, and in my opinion the whole involvement with this topic is unnecessary and foolish. First, because there is no mass movement of Jews becoming Christians. Second, because any treatment of it will be biased and rather foolish, since it is treatment from the outside (roughly like treatments of Judaism from the outside). It reminds me of an article in Tzohar (issue 1 or 2) that brought passages from a book by Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook about Christianity. He brings passages from the New Testament and comments on them. I practically died laughing when I read it. Real nonsense. He raises difficulties on the New Testament from Ketzot and points out contradictions. There are contradictions a thousand times more blatant in our own writings, when you look at them from the outside without the sympathy of a believer that leads you to pilpulistic reconciliations. Exactly the same way, Christians can reconcile the contradictions in their writings and not be impressed at all by outside criticism.

In general, quite a few Christian ideas exist אצלנו in a very similar form. Except that with us you are used to them and sympathetic, and you know and recite the accepted hair-splitting reconciliations. That is the whole difference. “The Holy One, blessed be He, Israel, and the Torah are one”—do you know that? Does that remind you of anything? And I seem to recall hearing once in the name of the Arizal that this is meant quite literally. And what about “the commandments will be nullified in the future to come”—know that one? So for Christians, the “future to come” has already arrived with the coming of their messiah, and therefore the commandments were nullified. And what about transferring the service from the firstborn to the priests—know that? So in the same way, one could say that He transferred His choice from Israel to the Christians. The whole difference is the question of what you feel sympathy toward and what you do not. They do not have contradictions or stupidities any greater than ours.

Therefore I suggest leaving the Christians to their faith and us to ours, and stopping these foolish arguments. All the contradictions in their writings can be reconciled just fine, I promise you. There are quite a few Christians who are very learned and highly talented, no less than Maimonides or Rabbi Akiva Eiger. So it is not likely that you are going to catch them on nonsense. These arguments are intended inwardly (to show the masses of the Jewish people, who lack confidence and education, how smart we are and how stupid the others are). Someone who lacks confidence needs to build his identity on negating the other, but that means his condition is rather bleak.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Hello Rabbi!
A. True, there is no mass movement, but there are videos on YouTube by Jewish missionaries who draw Jews toward Christianity on that same principle you spoke about (negating the other), and my secular friends have even started bringing quotations about why Christianity is more credible.
B. If I understood your answer, then question A that I asked also has no real standing at all.
C. If Christian issues don’t bother you: 1. Then why are you a believing Jew—is it only because you were born that way?
2. So are you a pluralist?
D. I would have preferred that a rabbi in Israel not speak in such a dismissive way about the great Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook of blessed memory, even if your opinion contradicts his position.
Thanks, and forgive me.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
A. And therefore? If someone raises an argument, it can be dealt with. But arguments for and against Christianity and Judaism, especially pointing out contradictions, are completely foolish. When your secular friends let you know that they are convinced and are going to convert to Christianity—you can send them to me.
B. I didn’t understand that remark. I’d be happy if you would explain what you mean (not just point to question A or B, because I don’t keep all the many exchanges here straight in my head).
C. I am a believing Jew because that is what seems reasonable and logical to me. On the other hand, it may be that if I had been born Christian, that too would have seemed logical to me. I am not at all sure there is absolute truth here, since it may be that from the perspective of the Holy One, blessed be He, each person is supposed to do what seems reasonable to him. Exclusive discourse (that A is true and B is not, heresy and not heresy, and so on) is mainly for internal needs.
2. I tend toward pluralism in religious contexts. Objectivity exists on the moral and factual plane. There there is only one truth.
D. My opinion does not contradict his position, since I did not see a position there. I believe roughly what he believed, except that his arguments against the Christians, and the very discussion and method, seem foolish and ridiculous to me.
With pleasure,
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
A. If you say it is not relevant to point out contradictions in Christianity, then saying that the Trinity is a logical contradiction also has no basis.
B. If you say one should not point out contradictions at all between Christianity and Judaism, then it is not relevant at all to say there are contradictions within Judaism itself either, and that too is foolish.
C. On what basis does the Rabbi make these distinctions—when I am a pluralist and when not? It sounds absurd.
D. Does the Rabbi know the book The Dimensions of Prophecy by Rabbi Shem Tov Gafni, and what is his opinion of the book regarding mathematics and physics?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
A. No belief as such is a logical contradiction, because these things depend on interpretation. To say 3=1 is a logical contradiction, but that is not the Trinity. And that is exactly what I said.
B. I did not say one should not point out contradictions, but that there is no point in pointing out contradictions, because every contradiction is interpretation-dependent. What I wrote was that if you call the Trinity a contradiction, then by your approach the Zoharic statement “The Holy One, blessed be He, the Torah, and Israel are one” is also a contradiction. In my view, neither this nor that is a contradiction, and I added that it is foolish to think so. Contrary to what Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda tried to show, these are not fools. They are no less intelligent than he was, and certainly did not fall into such silly contradictions. Intelligent people do not just speak nonsense, even if they are Christians. That is definitely not where you are going to catch them. Some of the greatest scholars and philosophers of all generations were devout Christians, so it is arrogant foolishness to think you can catch them on that.
C. To each his own taste. I claim there is a difference between morality and facts, where there is one truth, and claims about the manner of religious worship, which can depend on the person and his environment. There is no contradiction and no problem with such a statement, but whoever sees that as absurd need not accept it.
D. I know the book, and of course it is outdated, but very interesting and original. I remember that its language in the second essay was not clear to me (I did not understand what the “ha” was that he keeps discussing all the time).
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Hello Rabbi!

Regarding the discussion we had about Christianity and contradictions, despite that I saw a YouTube video by Messianic Jews pointing out problems with the Oral Torah.
A. It is never mentioned in the Torah, and only by way of hint did they expound the verse “according to” as referring to the Oral Torah; and also “according to all that they instruct you” refers only to the officers themselves and to the religious court for ruling, but there is no obligation to listen to the rabbis themselves—that is their own invention.
B. According to the Talmud, Bava Metzia 59b, in the story of the oven of Akhnai, during the discussion between the sages and Rabbi Eliezer, supernatural miracles are invoked and the sages say “It is not in heaven,” meaning: we have overpowered the Master of the Universe, and the Torah follows the sages and not the Holy One, blessed be He.
C. And does the Holy One, blessed be He, need all these commands that the sukkah be of such-and-such dimensions?
D. What is the Oral Torah for the Rabbi, broadly speaking, and is it not an invention founded about two thousand years ago?
E. Regarding evolution, there are new studies showing that, for example, the appendix is not an evolutionary remnant, but has a significant role in pregnant women.

Thank you very much, Rabbi!
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:

All of these seem to me like very weak arguments. This is really not something one should be troubled by. Is their messianism itself mentioned in the Torah? It seems to me you would do better to focus on more intelligent writings and methods of heresy. It is a shame to waste time on such nonsense.
A. Why should the Oral Torah be mentioned in the Written Torah? It accompanies it and was given with it. The Kuzari already pointed out that it is not reasonable that verses were given without explanations. The authority of the sages is also simple common sense. Is there any legal system without authorized institutions to interpret and decide it?!
B. That is indeed what is written there. So?
C. And does the Holy One, blessed be He, need what is written in the Torah at all?
D. Its foundations were transmitted at Sinai, and it developed throughout history.
E. And therefore?