Israel and Humanity - The controversy between R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua
V.
The controversy between R. Eliezer and R. Jeoschua.
On what the traditional doctrine of the Synagogue Doctors did not they taught different views and often contradictory, at least in the form? It is therefore not surprising that the Talmud shows R. Eliezer and R. Jeoschua, usually separating the greater number of issues, [1] disagree about the salvation of the Gentiles, the first inclination for the negative and the second in the affirmative Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag would have been a thousand times right, following the opinion of R. Jeoschua, if only out of respect for one of the most consistent rules of Talmudic exegesis, according to which the doctrine of the latter must be followed in preference to that of R. Eliezer. Maimonides and in doing so is not only agree with the rabbinic tradition, but he has yet given by an example that there should not be lost, he showed that the rules are applicable to critical theological questions as well as issues ritualistic or legal, contrary to some claims that would make first something intangible.
But in the discussion in question is it the true Noachide? That is nothing less than proven. Instead, it is more than likely, it is no mention of either the Noachide proselyte of the gate, which is nothing but the Noachide citizen of Palestine, let alone the pious Gentile mentioned Maimonides, because no of these names do not figure in the Talmudic controversy. Moreover, since the unanimous opinion of the doctors, the Gentile is not subject to the Mosaic law, having its particular law which nobody disputes the existence, it is hardly acceptable that have found himself a rabbi in the world, whatever it is, to teach the Gentile living with the law that God has not drawn a fair and does not deserve to be rewarded, as it is claimed that R. Eliezer would have supported.
But what is the subject of discussion between the two doctors? The name itself suggests, they speak goyim , non-Jews and the controversy rolls on this verse from Psalms: "Let the wicked return to Sheol, all the nations ( goyim ) that forget God! [2] "R. Eliezer sees in this verse two different subjects: the wicked are wicked Israelites for him, and nations, are all the Gentiles in general. R. Jeoschua instead saw only a single subject and the second part of the verse seems to him to explain the first. What are the wicked speaks [3] the Psalmist? These are people who forget God But neither the one nor the other it is question of Noachide. R. Eliezer could he say that the Noachide forget God, then he loves and keep his commandments? And if not him talking, he is no reason to believe that the agreement with his opponent is not perfect about it. R. Jeoschua do not want the term "forgetful of God" applies indiscriminately to all the Gentiles, he saw an equivalent of the word wicked above, and according to him, he is well ill Gentiles, infidels to their law, which is equivalent to saying that there are good ones. As it is impossible R. Eliezer has been to them about the conviction of men forgetting God, of course they are not the subject of controversy between the two Doctors and therefore R. Jeoschua also puts them harmless. It will even argue that Gentiles whose conduct is guilty, but have not denied God or those who, though idolatrous, lead a virtuous life can be saved and it is clear that his Opinion eternal damnation is incurred only by those of them who are both unfaithful and dishonest.
This tolerance may seem excessive, it is nonetheless consistent with the doctrine of R. Meir, whereby it is sufficient to be a proselyte of the gate, that is to say a real Noachicle in a lawful religious situation in the Jewish perspective, to abjure idolatry [4]. Doctrine of R. Jeoschua simply adds to that, and the only difference is that salvation extends even to Gentile, without giving up polytheism, practice at least the other commandments. R. Eliézcr seems clearly to have had the same breadth, but we repeat that no school in Judaism has never been the observation of the Mosaic law a condition of salvation for the Gentile and that, consequently, we is no reason to suppose that he thought, in this somewhat obscure, to condemn his colleague over the righteous of other nations.
