Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Q. I know that Christians and Jews share many religious beliefs and are very close to each other in spiritual brotherhood. But Christians basically believe that they are created sinful and unclean and, therefore, need a Redeemer, Jesus, to take the sins of believers on Himself so that they may come to God’s Kingdom when they pass over. Since Jews do not have this Redeemer, how do they become pure enough to enter God’s Kingdom? I realize there is the Law, but human beings, being who and what they are, cannot keep these laws sufficiently to reach purity and freedom from sin. Christians also believe that they are able to receive the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit directs their lives and brings them to true belief in God through Christ. How does Judaism look at the Holy Spirit and is the Holy Spirit considered to be active in bringing Jews to true belief? I can answer this question myself, from a Christian point of view, but that would be a one sided answer. I would very much appreciate learning what Judaism teaches in this matter. Thank you very much.

Answer:

You are correct in assuming that most Christians believe in Original Sin, to a greater or lesser degree. As to whether Jesus himself really believed in Original Sin or not, I have serious doubts. In one of the Gospels, we read about how Jesus’ disciples once asked Jesus, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’” (John 1:1). However, Jesus gives one of the most profound rabbinical answers imaginable, “Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him” (John 9:2-3).

As a Jew reading the Gospel narrative, it seems to me that Jesus explicitly disapproved of any idea that man suffers from an inherited sin. By extension, every human fault we are born with, serves a spiritual purpose so that we may glorify the Creator despite our natural shortcomings. Yet, nowhere does Jesus ever speak of anything resembling the idea of a prenatal sin.

Now the idea of pre-natal sin is discussed in a number of places in rabbinical literature. In one case, Esau is described as possessing a sinful nature even though he was not yet born. “When Rebecca passed by the pagan shrines, Esau would run and struggle to come out (Rashi cites this midrash in his commentary on Genesis 25:2).

The Talmud in Sanhedrin 91b also discusses the question. “Antoninus also enquired of Rabbi, ‘From what time does the Evil Tempter hold sway over man; from the formation [of the embryo], or from [its] issuing forth [into the light of the world]?! — ‘From the formation,’ he replied. ‘If so,’ he objected, ‘it would rebel in its mother’s womb and go forth. But it is from when it issues.’ Rabbi said: This thing Antoninus taught me, and Scripture supports him, for it is said, At the door [i.e., where the babe emerges] sin lieth in wait” (Gen 4:7). Continue Reading

According to rabbinic legend, God granted to lessen the punishment by allowing Cain to rest from his wanderings, and protecting him by a “mark,” a letter or a name on his forehead or arm.[1]

But wouldn’t such a mark make Cain an easy target for descendants wishing to exact vengeance upon him? Some scholars think that it is possible that the “mark of Cain” was really intended to protect Cain from the wrath of Abel’s ghost. Therefore, after having been “marked” by God, Cain’s spirit felt at ease, believing that the ghost of his murdered brother would no longer recognize and trouble him

The anthropologist Sir James Frazer cites an interesting parallel to Cain’s expulsion from the writings of Plato. ^[2] Plato relates that according to an ancient Greek belief, the ghost of a man who had just been killed was angry with his slayer. The spirit felt enraged at the sight of his murderer walking freely about with impunity at all his old familiar haunts and wanted justice. To avoid retribution, the murderer left his country for a year, until the ghost’s wrath had cooled down, but he could not return before performing the appropriate ablutions and necessary sacrifices. If the victim happened to be a foreigner, the slayer had to avoid the slain victim’s native land as well as his own. After he went into banishment, the slayer cautiously traveled along familiar and safer roads and kept a safe distance from an angry spirit who might be at his heels.[3] Indeed, there are many such parallels throughout the ancient and primal world.

Is there any contextual support for Frazer’s Macbeth-like or dybbuk-esque theory? One might argue that nowhere does the peshat suggest he feared his brother’s spirit, but the ambiguity of the text allows for a variety of different possible readings—especially when we Continue Reading