Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia 9781315165394

Citation preview

Routledge Revivals

Medieval Jewish Civilization

First published in 2003, this is the first encyclopedic work to focus exclusively on medieval Jewish civilization, from the fall of the Roman Empire to about 1492. Based on the research of an international, multidisciplinary team of specialist contributors, the more than 150 alphabetically organized entries, written by scholars from around the world, include biographies, countries, events, social history, and religious concepts. The coverage is international, presenting people, culture, and events from various countries in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

Q

~

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http:/ /taylorandfranci s.com

Medieval Jewish Civilization An Encyclopedia

Edited by Norman Roth

First published in 2003 by Routledge This edition first published in 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2003 Taylor & Francis Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent. Disclaimer The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from those they have been unable to contact. A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 2002023704

ISBN 13: 978-1-138-05633-6 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-1-315-16539-4 (ebk)

Medieval Jewish Civilization An Encyclopedia

Norman Roth, Editor

Editorial Staff Jeanne Shu

Senior Production Editor Dennis Teston

Production Director KateAker

Development Director Kevin Ohe, Marie-Claire Antoine

Sponsoring Editors Sylvia K. Miller

Publishing Director, Reference Published in 2003 by Routledge 711 ThirdAvenue New York, NY 10017 Published in Great Britain in 2003 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Copyright© 2003 by Taylor & Francis Books, Inc.

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an iriforma business All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Medieval Jewish civilization : an encyclopedia/Norman Roth, editor. p.cm. ISBN 0-415-93712-4 (alk. paper) 1. Jews-History-70-1789-Encylopedias. 2. Jews-Civilization-Encyclopedias. 3. Judaism-History-Medieval and early modern period, 425-1789-Encyclopedias. I. Roth, Norman, 1938DS124 .M386 2002 909'.04924-dc21

2002023704

Contents Alphabetical List of Entries

Vll

Thematic List of Entries

lX

Contributors

Xl

Introduction

xvu

Abbreviations

XXl

A to Z Entries

1

Glossary

671

Index

673

I

Alphabetical List of Entries Abelard Aboab, Isaac Abraham bar Hayya Abravanel Family Abufalia Family Agriculture Albigensians and Jews Alexandria Alfonso X Almohads Almoravids Ambassadors, Jews as Andalucia Aquinas, Thomas Aragon-Catalonia Arms, Jews and Art, Jewish Art, Jews in Asher b. Yehiel Austria Avignon Badge, Jewish Banking Banking, Italy Barcelona Benedict XIII Benjamin ofTudela Bernard of Clairvaux Bible, Manuscripts, Printed Editions Bible Commentaries, Jewish Bible Translations, Jewish Black Death Blood Libel Burgundy Byzantium Canon (Church) Law, Jews in Capital Punishment Cartography, Geography Castile Champagne Charity

Charles IV Christian-Jewish Relations Chronicles, Jewish Church and Jews Clothing Cologne Commerce Conversion by Jews Conversion to Judaism Crispin, Gilbert Crusades Dina De-Malkuta Dina Disputations, Jewish-Christian Dominicans and Franciscans Education, Jewish Egypt Eldad ha-Daniy Emicho and the Massacre of Jews England Excommunication by Christian Authority Expulsion, France Expulsion, Spain Expulsions, Other Lands Fernando and Isabel Folklore Food Used by Jews, laws relating to Frankfurt Frederick II Hohenstaaten French Law, Jews in Fustat Genizah Geonim Germany, Jews in German Law Gershom b. Judah Gerundi, Jonah Hasidim— Germany Hebrew Grammar

Alphabetical List of Entries

Hebrew Language Herem ha-yishuv Heretic, Jew as Host Desecration Ibn Adret, Solomon b. Abraham Ibn cAknin, Joseph b. Judah Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham Ibn cEzra(h), Moses Ibn Gabirol, Solomon Ibn Naghrillah, Samuel Isaac b. Sheshet Ishbili Yom Tov Islam and the Jews Jaime I Josephus, (Medieval version) Judah ha-Levy Kings and Queens, Jewish Languages, Jewish Languedoc Law, Jewish Leon Literature, Hebrew Europe, and Mediterranean Literature, Hebrew Spain; the Novella in Other Lands Literature, Jewish, (non Hebrew) Louis IX Louis X Lull, Ramon or Llull Maimonides Marriage Martyrdom Mashalallah Masarjawayh Medicine Meir b. Barukh of Rothenberg Messianism Minters of Coins, Jews as Moneylending Mordecai b. Hillel Music

Nahmanides Narbonne North Africa Oath, Jewish Palestine Petrus Alfonsi Philip II Philip IV, the Fair of France Philip V (le Grand, le Long) of France Philosophy, Jewish Poetry, Hebrew Poetry in Other Languages Poland and Lithuania Polemics, Anti-Christian Provence, French Provence, Spanish Qabbalah Qaraites Rabbinate Radhanites “Rashi” (Solomon b. Isaac) Ritual Murder Rome Saadyah Gaon Science and Mathematics Seals Sermons, Jewish “Shepherds’ Uprisings” Sicily Spanish Law, Jews in Synagogues Talmud, Condemnation of Translation by Jews Troyes Valencia Visigoths and Jews Women Worms

Thematic Entries Christian-Jewish Relations Abelard, Peter Albigensians and Jews Ambassadors, Jews as Aquinas, Thomas Badge Benedict XIII Black Death Blood Libel Canon Law, Jews in Christian-Jewish Relations Church and Jews Clothing Conversion by Jews Conversion to Judaism Crispin, Gilbert Dina de-malkuta dina Disputations Dominicans and Franciscans Excommunication by Christian authority French Law, Jews in German Law, Jews in Heretic, Jew as Host Desecration Martyrdom Oath, Jewish Polemics, anti-Christian Ritual Murder Spanish Law, Jews in Visigoths and Jews

Minters of Coins, Jews as Moneylending Radhanites (merchants)

Countries and Regions Andalucia Aragon-Catalonia Austria Avignon Burgundy Byzantium Castile Champagne Egypt England Germany Languedoc Leon Narbonne North Africa Palestine Poland and Lithuania Provence, French Provence, Spanish Sicily Valencia

Culture Cities Alexandria Barcelona Cologne Frankfurt

Fustat

Rome Troyes Worms

Commerce and Economy Agriculture Banking, Italy Banking, Muslim and Europe Commerce

Art, Jewish Art, Jews in Bible, Commentaries Bible, Manuscripts, Printed Editions Bible Translations, Jewish Cartography and Geography Chronicles, Jewish Education Folklore Hebrew Grammar Hebrew Language Josephus (Medieval Version) Languages, Jewish Law, Jewish Literature, Hebrew, Europe, and Mediterranean Literature, Hebrew, Spain; the Novella in Other Lands Literature, Jewish (Non-Hebrew) Medicine Music

Thematic Entries Philosophy Poetry, Hebrew Poetry in Other Languages Qabbalah Rabbis Science and Mathematics Seals Sermons, Jewish Synagogues

Daily Life

Charity Clothing Folklore Food Use by Jews, laws relating to Marriage Women

Historical Events

Black Death Crusades Emicho and the Massacre of Jews Expulsion, France Expulsion, Spain Expulsion, Other lands “Shepherds’ Uprisings”

Miscellaneous

Arms, Jews and Capital Punishment Genizah Geonim ILasidism—Germany Herem ha-yishuv Messianism Rabbis Women

Muslim-Jewish Relations

Almohads Almoravids Ambassadors, Jews as Art, Jewish Conversion by Jews Conversion to Judaism Education, Jewish Islam and the Jews Literature, Hebrew, Europe, and Mediterranean Philosophy Poetry, Hebrew

Poetry in Other Languages Science and Mathematics

People Jewish Figures: Aboab Abraham bar Hayya Abravanel family Abulafia family Asher b. Yehiel Benjamin of Tudela Eldad ha-Daniy Geonim Gershom b. Judah Ibn Adret, Solomon b. Abraham Ibn Aknin, Joseph b. Judah Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra(h), Moses Ibn Gabirol, Solomon Ibn Naghrillah, Samuel Isaac b. Sheshet Ishbili, Yom Tov Gerundi, Jonah Judah ha-Levy Kings, Jewish Maimonides Mashaallah Masarjawayh Meir b. Baruch Mordecai b. Hillel Nahmanides “Rashi” Saadyah Gaon Women Christian Figures: Abelard, Peter Alfonso X Aquinas, Thomas Benedict XIII Bernard of Clairvaux Charles IV Crispin, Gilbert Emicho and the Massacre of Jews Fernando and Isabel Frederick II Hohenstaufen Jaime I Louis IX Louis X Lull, Ramon or Llull Petrus Alfonsi Philip II Philip IV, the Fair, of France Philip V (le Grand, Le Long) of France

Contributors Albert, Bat-Sheva

Coulet, Noel

Shepherds' Uprisings

Provence, French

Alexander, Tamar

Cygielman, Shmuel A.

Folklore

Poland and Lithuania

Bareket, Elinoar

Dan, Joseph

Alexandria Fustdt Radhanites

lfasidism, Germany Literature, Hebrew-Europe and Mediterranean Erder, Yoram

Baskin, Judith R.

Qaraites

Marriage Grabois, Aryeh Berger, David

Bernard ofClairvaux Bowman, Steven

Byzantium

Abelard Kings, jewish Narbonne Hinojosa Montalvo, Jose

Valencia Brody, Robert

Geonim Brown, Elizabeth A. R.

Charles IV Louis X Philip IV Philip V Catane, Moshe (deceased)

Troyes Chazan, Robert

Crusades Emicho Martyrdom

Cohen, Mark R.

Egypt Genizah

lancu-Agou, Daniele

Avignon Languedoc Jordan, William Chester

Excommunication by Christian Authority French Law, jews in Louis IX Philip II Kanarfogel, Ephraim

Capital Punishment Charity Klein, Elka

Barcelona Kohn, Roger S.

Burgundy

xi

Contributors Limor,Ora

Heretic, jew as Lotter, Friedrich

Black Death Cologne Frankfort German law Germany, jews in Worms

Magdalena Nom de Deu, Jose R. Benjamin ofTudela

Nahon, Gerard

Roth, Norman

Abraham bar l:fayya Aboab, Isaac Abravanel Family Abulafia Family Agriculture Albigensians and jews Alfonso X Almohads Almoravids Ambassadors, jews as Andalucia Aquinas Aragon-Catalonia Arms, jews and Art, jewish Art, jews in Badge Banking, Muslim and Europe Benedict XIII Bible, Manuscripts, Printed Editions Bible Commentaries, jewish Bible Translations, jewish Blood Libel Canon Law, jews in Cartography, Geography Castile Christian-jewish Relations Chronicles Church and jews Clothing Commerce Conversion by jews Conversion to judaism

Disputations Dominicans and Franciscans Education Eldad ha-Daniy England Expulsion, Spain Expulsions, Other Lands Fernando and Isabel Food Frederick II Gerundi, Jonah Hebrew Grammar Hebrew Language Host Desecration IbnAdret Ibn :Aknin Ibn 'Ezra, Abraham Ibn 'Ezra, Moses Ibn Gabirol Ibn Naghrillah Isaac b. Sheshet Ishbili, Yom Tov jaime! Judah ha-Levy Languages, jewish Leon Literature, Hebrew, Spain Literature, jewish, Non Hebrew Lull Maimonides Mashal'allah Masarjawayh Medicine Meir b. Barukh Messianism Minters ofCoins, jews as Moneylending Nabmanides North Africa Palestine Philosophy Poetry, Hebrew Poetry in Other Languages Polemics, Anti-christian Provence, Spanish Qabbalah Rabbinate Rashi Ritual Murder Sa'adyah Gaon Science and Mathematics

Seals Sicily Spanish Law, jews in Synagogues Talmud, Condemnation of

Contributors Translations by jews Visigoths andjews Saperstein, Marc

Sermons, jewish Sapir Abulafla, Anna Crispin, Gilbert Sch~chs,Simon

Spitzer, Shlomo

Ta-Shma, Israel Asher b. Yehiel Taitz, Emily Champagne

Gershom b. Judah /;lerem ha-yishuv Mordecai b. Hillel

Toaff, Ariel

Sela, Shulamit josephus, Medieval

Tolan, John Petrus Alfonsi

Shilo, Shmuel Dina de malkhuta Dina Law, jewish

Ziegler, Joseph

Banking, Italy Rome

Oath, jewish

C\ Taylor & Francis ~Taylor & Francis Group

http://tayl ora ndfra ncis.co m

Pu

b l i s h e r ’s

No

t e

The Routledge Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages

Formerly the Garland Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages, this comprehensive series began in 1993 with the publication of M edieval Scandinavia. A major enterprise in me­ dieval scholarship, the series brings the expertise of scholars specializing in myriad as­ pects of the medieval world together in a reference source accessible to students and the general public as well as to historians and scholars in related fields. Each volume focuses on a geographical area or theme important to medieval studies and is edited by a special­ ist in that field, who has called upon a board of consulting editors to establish the article list and review the articles. Each article is contributed by a scholar and followed by a bib­ liography and cross-references to guide further research. Routledge is proud to carry on the tradition established by the first volumes in this im­ portant series. As the series continues to grow, we hope that it will provide the most comprehensive and detailed view of the medieval world in all its aspects ever presented in encyclopedia form. Vol. 1 M edieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia. Edited by Phillip Pulsiano. Vol. 2 M edieval France: An Encyclopedia. Edited by William W. Kibler and Grover A. Zinn. Vol. 3 M edieval England: An Encyclopedia. Edited by Paul E. Szarmach, M. Teresa Tavormin, and Joel T. Rosenthal. Vol. 4 M edieval Archaeology: An Encyclopedia. Edited by Pamela Crabtree. Vol. 5 Trade, Travel, and Exploration in the Middle Ages. Edited by John Block Fried­ man and Kristen Mossier Figg. Vol. 6 M edieval Germany: An Encyclopedia. Edited by John M. Jeep. The present volume, M edieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia., edited by Norman Roth, is Volume 7 in the series.

C\ Taylor & Francis ~Taylor & Francis Group

http://tayl ora ndfra ncis.co m

Introduction The Jews uniquely survived the conquest and destruction of their homeland, the Land of Israel, not once but twice—by the Babylonian empire and again by the Roman Empire—and continued to exist as an autonomous people without a native land for nearly two millennia in the Diaspora, the Exile. What survived was not a “religion,” for although there are certainly elements of what popularly could be termed religion in Jew­ ish culture, it is, in fact, a civilization, embracing a common history, language, literature, laws, and communal structure. It was this which enabled the medieval Jews to survive, and more than survive, to flourish in lands as remote from their homeland as England, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and the rest of Europe—Italy and Sicily, France, Germany, Aus­ tria, Spain, as well as the Persian empire, Byzantium, Egypt and Syria, and North Africa. Jews in the Middle Ages were in one sense heirs and continuers of an ancient heritage dating to biblical times, which included the Bible, Hellenistic influences, and the Tal­ mud. In another sense, they were creators and synthesizers of new cultural traditions and influences. As they came into contact with the Muslim and Christian worlds, they ab­ sorbed elements of each, acculturating without assimilating. New scientific, philosophi­ cal and literary contributions were absorbed into the medieval Jewish civilization. Jews not only adapted themselves to new languages, Arabic and then the vernacular of the var­ ious Christian countries in which they lived, they also brought about another unique and remarkable accomplishment, the renaissance of their national language, Hebrew, which had declined to an archaic level similar to Latin, used for liturgical purposes and compre­ hensible only to a limited number of scholars. The discovery of the grammatical struc­ ture of the Hebrew language saved it from oblivion and enabled it to live again as a vi­ brant tool of communication for poetry, literature and scholarly writing, including the sciences and philosophy, topics that are dealt with in detail in this encyclopedia. Jewish contributions to medicine, astronomy, mathematics as well as to the arts, liter­ ature and music, characterize medieval Jewish civilization and distinguish it as one of the highest peaks in the history of the Jewish people. There were negative aspects of Jewish life in the medieval period, as well. Although for the most part Jews coexisted harmo­ niously with both Muslims and Christians, there were periods of persecution. Jews also experienced discrimination and were the object of polemics and superstitious attitudes, which from time to time erupted into open hostility. Neither attempts at forced conver­ sion nor physical assaults and killing prevented the Jews from maintaining their identity and their culture, however. There is a need for an encyclopedia such as this, which details the major outlines of these developments in medieval Jewish civilization. This work represents the “state of the art” in current research and thinking, with contributions by some of the foremost schol­ ars of medieval Jewish culture in the world today. Unlike most other Jewish encyclope­ dias, contributions have been drawn from Jewish and non-Jewish scholars from many different countries. Articles have been submitted in different languages and translated for publication. Every effort has been made to include bibliographies that reflect the most important research on each article, in any language. Why Another Encyclopedia?

There have been several Jewish encyclopedias over the years. The most famous is also the first, The Jewish Encyclopedia>edited by Israel Singer (N.Y., London, 1901-06; twelve

Introduction

volumes). This is a masterpiece of scholarship of the time, and remains a classic today. It is, however, outdated; much new research has been done and new materials have come to light since that time. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Berlin, 1928-32; ten volumes, incom­ plete), edited by Jacob Klatzkin and Ismar Elbogen, endeavored to accomplish in Ger­ man what its predecessor had in English, but circumstances prevented the completion of the work. The overall level of scholarship was extremely high, but the work is now also outdated and difficult to find. The smaller Jiidisches Lexikon (Berlin, 1927-30) has been reprinted (Frankfurt, 1987; five volumes) and is still of value. The Enciclopedia Judaica Castellana (Mexico, 1947-51; ten volumes), attempted to be a universal Jewish encyclo­ pedia in the Spanish language, but was less successful than the other ones. Popular, but still useful, are such English works as The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by Isaac Landman (N.Y., 1939-43; ten volumes), The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by Cecil Roth (Garden City, N.Y., 1959, in one volume), or its successor, The New Stan­ dard Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by Geoffrey Wigoder (Garden City, N.Y., 1977). Israel is represented by the extremely important Ensiqlopediah (or, to use American li­ brary catalogue transliteration, Entsiklopedyah) ha-‘ivrit (Jerusalem, 1949-81, thirty-two volumes). Unlike the other encyclopedias mentioned, this is a world encyclopedia, cover­ ing all topics and all history, not just Jewish. It is especially strong on certain aspects of Jewish history and culture, particularly literature and Zionist history. There are some more specialized Hebrew encyclopedias as well, the most important being the Talmudic Encyclopedia (Jerusalem, 1947-1995), which is also being translated into English. The most popular encyclopedia, of course, is the new Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, N.Y., 1972; sixteen volumes with yearly supplements). Written in English, it attempts to cover all aspects of Jewish history and culture, including, of course, modern Israel (on which it is particularly good). Unfortunately, a decision was made to include contributions only, or chiefly, by Israeli scholars, thus giving it a narrow—not to say provincial—perspec­ tive. Thus, there is a real need for an updated and accurate presentation of material relating to the history and culture of the medieval Jewish civilization, which the present encyclo­ pedia aims to provide. No work of this kind can be exhaustive, of course, but every effort was made from the time this work was first envisioned to obtain contributions from the foremost experts, ensuring its high-quality scholarship. Guide fo r the Reader: Im portant Information

Within the text of each article, a word in SMALL CAPS indicates that there is also a sepa­ rate article on that subject. There is an index and a glossary of terms at the end of the book. Transliteration. An attempt has been made to indicate the correct pronunciation of Hebrew words, without overly pedantic “scientific” transliteration. Thus, a long -i sound is indicated by -iy (which also means that it represents the vowel letter -y). The vowels -a and -o are always long, whether or not represented by a vowel letter. This is not the case with -e, and therefore when long it is transliterated as -[e]. Although there is really no purpose for doubling of letters in transliteration (e.g., kenneset instead of keneset), the tra­ ditional doubling has been kept. Exceptions to the general transliteration principles are words which are commonly recognized: tefillin, siddur, seder, etc. The same applies to commonly-known proper names: Moses instead of Mosheh. Hebrew titles of journals are usually transliterated in accordance with Library of Congress practice, for ease in lo­ cating them. Similarly, the names of tractates of the Mishnah or Talmud remain as tradi­ tionally spelled. While some liberties may thus be taken with Hebrew words, it is particxviii

Introduction

ularly important to adhere to the proper spelling of individual names. This is essential for scholars who may come across Jewish names in vernacular sources, whether Arabic, Latin or Spanish. Every effort has therefore been made to ensure that the correct form of names has been used in all articles in the encyclopedia. Arabic words and names are transliterated in accord with standard accepted scholarly style. The titles of Hebrew or Arabic works are also translated into English, and this is the case with titles of works in other languages. The editor would like to take this opportunity to express his gratitude to each of the contributors to this volume, to the editorial board for assistance in assigning articles, and especially to the editorial staff of Routledge for their courteous help and support for this project. No

r man

Ro

t h

C\ Taylor & Francis ~Taylor & Francis Group

http://tayl ora ndfra ncis.co m

Abbreviations Ar. ed. Heb. H. U C.A. J. J.Q.R. n.s. o.s. J. S. S. M. G. WJ. Ms. M. T. RA.A.J. R. RE.J. rpt. tr. Z.D.M. G.

Arabic edited by; edition Hebrew Hebrew Union College Annual Jerusalem, or Palestinian, Talmud Jewish Quarterly Review New Series Old Series Journal o f Semitic Studies Monatsschriftfu r Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Manuscript Mishneh Torah Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research Revue des Etudes Juives reprinted translated; translation Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndisches Gesellschaft

C\ Taylor & Francis ~Taylor & Francis Group

http://tayl ora ndfra ncis.co m

A Abelard, Peter A scion of the family of the lords of Le Pallet (Brit­ tany), Peter Abelard (1079-1142) was destined for an ecclesiastical career. He studied in different schools in western France and in the Paris area, and he distinguished himself as an independent spirit who combined a deep knowledge of philosophy and exegesis with literary skills that made him a famous poet. Upon the retirement of his Parisian master, William of Champeaux, to the Abbey of St. Victor, and his subsequent promotion to the bishopric of Chalons (1113), Abelard replaced him as the head master of the cathedral school of Paris. However, his nonconformist teaching and writings were criticized by members of the church hierarchy, which led to the condemnation of his book Sic et non by the Council of Soissons (1116). His love affair with Heloise, the niece of an influential canon of the Paris cathedral, aroused a public scandal; accordingly, the couple fled to Brittany, where their son was born, and the par­ ents converted to monasticism. After a short period of monastic life, Abelard resumed his teaching, this time at the small priory of the Paraclete in Cham­ pagne (1126-1129). His school soon became the in­ tellectual center of western Europe because it gath­ ered together students from different countries. When Heloise and the nuns of Argenteuil, near Paris, were dispersed from their nunnery, Abelard founded in the Paraclete a nunnery, headed by Heloise, and established himself at Paris. His new school on Mont St.-Genevieve became a popular center of learning. However, his nonconformist teaching was again criti­ cized by his opponents, led by BERNARD, abbot of

Clairvaux. Condemned by the Council of Sens (1141), he was prohibited from teaching. Abelard sought refuge at Cluny, where the abbot, Peter the Venerable [notoriously anti-Jewish], gave him asy­ lum. During the last year of his life, he wrote his un­ finished treatise, “A Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian.” Abelard’s works and letters do not deal with Jew­ ish topics, with the exception of this last treatise. The “Dialogue” reflects his views of inter-religious discus­ sions, based on the encounter of Jews and Christians in northern France. The author undertook the posi­ tion of both leading the academic debate and being its arbiter; however, prevented by death from com­ pleting the treatise, he did not pronounce his final conclusions. Thus, the “Dialogue” represents a juxta­ position of several dialogues between the philoso­ pher, the Jew, and the Christian. In this respect, it is important to emphasize the common rejection of Greek philosophy by the Jew and the Christian; while the monotheistic protagonists did not oppose the philosophical argument of reason, they stressed the cardinal importance of divine revelation as the ground of the true faith. Thus, Abelard emphasized that the divine presence and the divine precepts ought to be paramount in the transmission of faith, as well as in the practice of religion, believing that the divine word was based on reason, and that the human intellect should be able to discover it. The religious debate between Jews and Christians is accordingly based on their common belief in reve­ lation. However, in Abelard’s treatise the confronta­ tion of Judaism and Christianity was an indirect one, 1

Abelard, Peter

as reflected in their respective dialogues with the phi­ losopher. In the absence of a possible direct discus­ sion that might have been reserved for the unfinished part of the treatise, Abelard did not deal with the two fundamental points of divergence: the Christological and the Trinitarian dogmas. Thus, lacking the core of the confrontation, the divergences between Chris­ tianity and Judaism were discussed on the field of re­ ligious practices. While he represented the Christian faith mainly as a spiritual one, the Jews were criti­ cized for their formal, juridical conception of reli­ gion, which implied a strict observance of the pre­ cepts, even though they could not provide a rational explanation for them. As an example, Abelard in­ sisted on this difference in a long discussion about the precept of circumcision; attempting to formulate the Jewish arguments on this point, he emphasized first the unconditional obedience of the jews to God’s will, although he added a brief reflection con­ cerning hygienic reasons for this precept. In contrast to the Christian-Jewish medieval dis­ putations, the “Dialogue” lacks polemicism and real confrontation. It merely reflects an academic discus­ sion, which tended to Abelard’s logical conclusion about the advantages of spirituality—that is, of the Christian interpretation of the faith. The characteris­ tic features of this civilized debate, as he witnessed in his contemporary encounters with Jews at Paris—es­ pecially the scholars of the school of St. Victor who searched the elucidations of rabbinical exegesis—but also from his own experience as reflected in the “Dia­ logue,” stress the respect due to scholars. Hence, in­ stead of pejorative names, the protagonists are quali­ fied as “brothers” or “colleagues.” Courtesy toward the “other” thus characterized Abelard’s approach to the Jews, even though he considered them imperfect on the spiritual level, and he used an apologetic style for the presentation of the Jewish religion. ARYEH GRABOIS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abelard, Peter. Petri Abaelardi Dialogus inter philosophumy iudaeum et christianum, ed. R. Thomas (Stuttgart, 1970). Grabois, Aryeh. “Le dialogue religieux au Xlle siecle: Pierre Abelard et Jehudah Halevi.” Religionsgesprache im Mittelalter ( WoIfen butte ler MittelalterStudien) (Wiesbaden, 1992), pp. 149-167. 2

Talmage, Frank. Disputations and Dialogue: Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter (New York, 1974). Thomas, R. Der philosophisch-theologische Erkenntnisweg Peter Abelards im Dialogus inter Philosophum, Iudaeum et Chrstianum (Bonn, 1966).

Aboab, Isaac (“I” and “II”)

There were two scholars in medieval Spain with the name Isaac Aboab, a fact that has resulted in consid­ erable confusion. The question is of some impor­ tance, for it revolves around the authorship of the ethical work Menorat ha-maor (“Lamp of illumina­ tion”). This book, first published in Constantinople in 1514, became one of the most popular ethical treatises, going through numerous editions and translations in various languages (but not yet Eng­ lish). First Azulay and later Zunz raised doubts about the previous attribution of the work to the renowned fifteenth-century scholar Isaac Aboab, and Zunz sug­ gested a date that was too early for the work but cor­ rectly noted its dependence on the much more im­ portant work of the same title by Israel Alnaqawa. We also do not know when that work was written, other than sometime before 1391. It would appear that the second Menorat ha-ma’o r was thus composed sometime in the latter part of the fourteenth century rather than the first part (and not the fifteenth cen­ tury, as some have written). Waxman (1943, 2:282-87) and some others denied the existence of Isaac “I” and continue to attribute the work to the fifteenth-century Aboab. Some library catalogs, no­ tably Harvard’s, appear to have sided with Waxman against the majority view. Isaac “I” may have been the son of Abraham Aboab, referred to in the responsa of Judah b. Asher (Zikharon Yehudah, f. 53a), but see Cassel’s doubts there (f. 60). It is not surprising that this author is not otherwise known, for such was the fate of many scholars in Spain and elsewhere; indeed, Alnaqawa’s work remained in manuscript until 1929. The Menorat ha-maor is divided into seven parts, like the branches of the menorah of the Temple. Each of these “books” deals with different ethical precepts and teachings, such as avoiding passions and evil speech, the inner meaning of common precepts hav­ ing to do with family life, prayers, festivals, the study of the Torah, and the pursuit of peace and humility.

Abraham bar Hayya (Hiyya)

Aboab was influenced by philosophy and made frequent use of philosophical and philosophicalmystical insights, but he was by no means an inde­ pendent philosopher. Isaac “I” also composed at least two other works, Aron ha-edut and Shulfaan ha-paniym. Fragments of the latter work have been published (erroneously at­ tributed to Isaac “II”). The second Isaac Aboab (1433-1493) was born in Toledo and lived also in Guadalajara, and he was an important talmudic scholar and head of a yeshivah. He was not the “last gaon of Castile,” as some have written; rather, that title was given to Isaac Canpan­ ton, another outstanding scholar in fifteenth-century Castile, and in fact the teacher of Aboab. Aboab was one of the exiles from Spain in 1492. According to Abraham Zacut, who was his student, Aboab died in Portugal (from other sources we know it was in the city of Oporto) in 1493 at the age of sixty. Zacut preached a sermon at his funeral (cf. his Sefer yuhasiyn, f. 226a). Some information about his yeshivah in Guadala­ jara is found in a statement of Joseph FasI of Toledo (b. ca. 1462), perhaps the chief student of Aboab, who is cited by Joseph Caro. According to this, there was a problem with a statement found in M a i m o n id e s ’ Mishneh Torah, and some said there was an error in the text, but FasI proposed an explanation that resolved the difficulty. Among the scholars present in the yeshivah during this discussion was Isaac A b r a v a n e l . Abraham Ibn Bulat, a student of Isaac de Leon, an­ other major scholar of the time, referred to the great re­ spect for his teacher that was shown by Aboab, whom Abraham called “the rabbi, ‘Sinai who uproots moun­ tains/” meaning a leading sage whose opinions prevail. Jacob Berav (Beirav) was also a student of Aboab, and, like FasI, he went to the Ottoman Empire after the Expulsion and became an important rabbi and legal authority. We possess some writings of Aboab, including a few responsa. His most important work is Nahar Piyshon (Constantinople, 1538; Zolkiew, 1806), a homiletical commentary on the Torah. Aboab no doubt wrote extensively; certainly he produced other responsa that have not survived, for instance. At the end of Nahar Piyshon, Isaacs son Jacob wrote that most of his father’s writings had been taken by his students and that with difficulty he was able to

gather “gleanings” here and there from what re­ mained in order to bring them to press. The difficult language and at times obscurity of these writings may be explained by his statement that his father dictated them to his students. In addition to this, he wrote a supercommentary on the polemical passages in the commentary of Moses b. Nahman (NATIMANIDES) on the Torah (frequently published), and talmudic commentaries, perhaps on the entire Talmud; his son wrote that he taught all six orders of the Talmud, with the Tosafot (contrary to the suggestion that has been made that he neglected these), and the com­ mentaries of Moses b. Nahman. Finally, he wrote a commentary on the Tur, “Orah hayiym” of Jacob b. Asher. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Israel b. Joseph Alnaqawa (so, correctly, rather than Al Nakawa). Menorat ha-ma’or, ed. H. G. Enelow (New York, 1929-32 [4 vols.]; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1972 [6 vols.]) I, English intro., pp. 17-22. Waxman, Meyer. A History o f Jewish Literature (New York, 1943), II, 282-87.

Abraham bar Hayya (Hiyya)

Abraham bar Hayya (or Hiyya) (ca. 1065-ca. 1136) was one of the first, and certainly the most impor­ tant, of medieval Jewish mathematicians and scien­ tists, and the first anywhere to write on SCIENCE (in­ cluding mathematics) in the Hebrew language. Both his original compositions and his TRANSLATIONS in­ troduced technical mathematical and astronomical terminology that has remained current in Hebrew to the present time. One of his treatises is also of great importance for polemics and, to some extent, philos­ ophy, and another is an ethical-philosophical work. (On the form of his name, “Hayya” is suggested by Werblowsky, see the introduction to that edition of Hegyon ha-nefesh; note also that Sebastian Munster in his edition of $urat ha-are$y p. 1, punctuated the name as Hayya. The ninth-century Jewish astronomer Sahl b. Bishr was known in Arabic as Haya, probably a variant of Hebrew Hayya.) Abraham lived and wrote in Barcelona. He did not write in France, as has been suggested by several scholars: $arfat in his work means “Catalonia” (al3

Abraham bar Hayya (Hiyya)

Faranj in Arabic, and so also in Hebrew in some manuscripts). Note also his statement in Sefer ha;ib bur (p. 33 of the modern edition) that “the Ro­ mans and wicked kingdom [Christians] of these provinces' call the moon luna and menses, which are Spanish words, not French. It has also been claimed, incorrectly, that he entered into a debate in France with Judah b. Barzilay over the astrological calcula­ tion of a time for a wedding. There was no “debate,” it was not in France, and the young man whose wed­ ding was discussed was not a “scholar,” as has also been claimed. Abraham was asked to calculate a pro­ pitious time for the wedding, and when there was some objection to this he wrote a letter to Judah ex­ plaining his position (see details in “Science,” s.v. “Astrology”). As is evident from his own statements in that letter (Iggeret), he was very much interested in astrology and a believer in so-called judicial astrol­ ogy, or the determination of events by astral influ­ ences. His eschatological and polemical treatise Megiyllat ha-megalleh (“Scroll of the revealer”) also makes considerable use of astrology. Abrahams official title, $ahtb al-shurta (corrupted to Sabasorda in Latin) indicates that he held a judicial post, not literally “chief of police” as some have un­ derstood the title. Since the title is Arabic, it also in­ dicates that at one time he lived in a city with a sub­ stantial Muslim population and culture (there is evidence that this was Zaragoza or Huesca in Aragon), where, of course, he learned Arabic. One of his most important scientific works was the first complete and accurate work by a Jewish writer on measurement and calculation (IJibbur hameshihah ve-ha-tishborei). S a ‘a d y a h G a o n had, in­ deed, already dealt casually (in Arabic) with some as­ pects of land surveying in connection with the laws of inheritance, but this can hardly be compared to Abrahams work, which displays a very consider­ able degree of mathematical sophistication, such as his formulation of equations for the calculation of a rectangle and the introduction of other geo­ metrical principles. These were directly taken over by the renowned thirteenth-century mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci of Pisa, called the greatest (Christian) mathematician, whose work introduced “Arabic” geometry, actually chiefly that of Abraham, to Christian Europe. Of significance also in this work is that it offers the first proof in Hebrew of the cir­ 4

cumference of a circle. In addition to important geo­ metrical calculations, some knowledge of Arabic trigonometry was introduced to the West through this work. He was also the first to introduce algebra to the West. This treatise was translated into Latin as Liber embadorum by Plato of Tivoli, with whom Abraham earlier worked closely in scientific transla­ tion. One modern scholar has suggested that the date of Abrahams death be put forward to 1145 on the basis of Platos translation of this work in that year, but there is no evidence that Abraham was still alive when that translation was done (if, indeed, it was even in that year). Also of great importance is his work on intercala­ tion, Sefer ha- ;ibbur; which contains much astronom­ ical information intermixed with various cosmologi­ cal notions, partly derived from Ptolemy and the ancient Babylonians and partly from Jewish legal tra­ ditions. “All scholars agree that the earth is round like a ball,” he notes, and then proceeds to discuss the “balance” of the division of land and seas in equal parts, as well as “day and night,” the heavens and the earth—all based on his understanding of Genesis! The moons revolution around the earth in 365 and a quarter days “less something” is certainly less than scientific precision. On the other hand, his discus­ sion of the equator and of the North and South Poles and the rotation of the earth on its axis from east to west (also in his work $urat ha-are$, “Form of the earth”) is interesting, and again provides terminology that remains current in modern Hebrew. However, he believed incorrectly that the earth is exactly in the center of the universe, equidistant on all sides from its boundaries, although it was known in his time that this was not so. Though he generally follows Ptolemy (indeed, he refers to “some of the books of Ptolemy” that he had seen), at times he showed great originality, for example, his description of the heav­ ens as a system of concentric spheres rotating around an axis, which is exactly the system of al-Biprujl (d. 1204), who wrote after Abraham, of course. The heavens are described as a sphere, rotating around the earth, which remains stationary. While the sphere of the heavens revolves from east to west, the sun and moon revolve in retrograde direction around the earth from west to east. This book was to have a last­ ing influence on later Jewish and Christian scientists. A copy was also in the library of the famous Jewish

Abraham bar Hayya (Hiyya)

physician Jefuda (Judah) Mosconi of Majorca (d. 1377). Very important is his reference to the (lost) correc­ tions to Ptolemy by Hipparchus (fl. ca. 180 B.C.E.), ac­ cording to which Abraham says that the Muslims in Egypt still made their calculations. Nevertheless, he does not resist the opportunity to polemicize, claiming that Hipparchus learned everything he knew from Jew­ ish “rabbis” (he erroneously dated Hipparchus as living at the time of Alexander the Great). What connection, if any, there is between his work and a similar composi­ tion by A b r a h a m Ib n ‘E z r a remains to be investi­ gated. MAIMONIDES apparently refers to this work of Abraham bar liayya in his commentary on Mishnah ‘Arakhin 2.5, and he relied heavily upon it in his work on the new moon in his codification of laws, Mishneh Torah, and perhaps also in the Guide o f the Perplexed. Abraham wrote Hleshbon mahlekot ha-kokaviym based largely on the work of the ninth-century Mus­ lim astronomer al-Battanl, who himself may have been influenced by Jewish ideas on intercalation. The book includes the first astronomical tables written in Hebrew (in one of his own works, Ibn ‘Ezra appar­ ently criticized Abraham for his alleged claim of hav­ ing utilized the astronomical tables of Ptolemy, when in fact he used those of al-Battanl; but they were ac­ tually a correction of Ptolemy). Other works by Abra­ ham include his aforementioned eschatological-polemical work Megiyllat ha-megalleh and what remains of his scientific encyclopedia, Yesodey ha-tevunah ve-migdal ha-emunah (“Foundations of understanding and the tower of faith”). The encyclopedia, unfortunately only partially preserved, presents rudimentary infor­ mation about numbers, geometry, and optics. All of these works, with the exception of Sefer ha-‘ibbur (which still needs a critical edition), have been edited, with Castilian or Catalan translations, by the renowned Spanish scholar Millas Vallicrosa. His scientific work influenced later Christian and Jewish scholars, and there is evidence that it was studied as a matter of course. Thus, the philosopher and biblical commentator Joseph Ibn Kaspi in his “ethical testament” (1332) to his son recommended to him the study of Ibn ‘Ezras Sefer ha-mispar (“Book of the number”); Euclid; the astronomical treatise of al-Farghanl (ninth-century Muslim scientist); and Abraham bar Hayyas Heshbon mahlekot hakokaviym.

His Megiyllat ha-megalleh, a curious combination of science, cosmological notions, philosophical ideas (he had some rather confused Platonic ideas that he tried to adjust to Aristotelian concepts), and polemic, contains some harsh attacks on Islam, ex­ plained in astrological terms. It also includes some harsh words about Christianity, although not nearly as severe as his attack on Islam. In the end, the “evil kingdom” shall be destroyed by a new king who will bring “new customs and different laws”—that is, a new religion. It is a far more significant and original work than his so-called philosophical treatise, Hegyon ha-nefesh, which is actually more a series of homilies bearing some Neoplatonic and Aristotelian influences. Again, the importance of this little book lies primarily in its being the first “philosophical” work written in Hebrew, and the innovation of ter­ minology is again significant (see Efros 1969). The only truly innovative idea is having advanced the concept of Time beyond Aristotle, who considered time a measurement of motion, to the “duration” of existents. The “Place” of time is a quality, or at­ tribute, within the thought of man, not attached to motion as an accident as in Aristotle; yet elsewhere he appears to contradict this and adhere more closely to Aristotle (see Megiyllat ha-megalleh [Poznanski, 1924], p. 6) where he says, “and because of this they said about Time . . . ,” which seems to indicate that the ideas he presents were not his own; see also Guttmann’s introduction, pp. xiv-xv, and see also the philosophical work Ruah hen, probably by Judah Ibn Tibbon [Warsaw, 1826; rpt. Jerusalem, 1970], p. 23ffi, and Aristotle, Metaphysics VIII.9. 8). Time had no existence prior to the Creation, just as the world had no existence, and both also have an end. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY Works by Abraham

Hegyon ha-nefesh. Leipzig, 1860; Critical edition by Geoffrey Wigoder, (Jerusalem 1971). Translated under the title The Meditation o f the Sad Soul by Geoffrey Wigoder, (New York, 1969). Heshbon mahlekot ha-kokavim. Ed. (Heb.) and tr. (Castilian) J. M. Millas Vallicrosa. (Barcelona, 1959). Translated into Latin as Sphaera mundi by Sebastian Munster, in his Kalendarium hebraicum, 1527; there are additions in one of the manu­

5

Abraham bar Hayya (Hiyya)

scripts that Millas did not use (B.M. Add. 27106) that should be edited. Hibur ha-meshilgah ve-ha-tishboret. Critical edition, from ms., by J. M. Guttmann, Berlin, 1913. Translated into Latin as Liber embadorum by Plato of Tivoli, ed. M. Curtze, in Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Mathematik 12-13 (1902): 3-183 (biblical and talmudic references omitted). Trans­ lated (Catalan) as Llibre de geometria byj. M. Mil­ las Vallicrosa, (Barcelona, 1931); this translation includes tables and equations. Lggeret (to Judah b. Barzilay). Ed. A. Z. Schwarz in Minhat bikhorim (Adolf Schwarz jubilee volume), pp. 23-36, (Vienna 1926). Megillat ha-megalleh. Ed. A. Poznanski. (Berlin, 1924; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1968); Llibre Revelador, tr. (Catalan) J. M. Millas Vallicrosa (Barcelona, 1929). Sefer ha-ibbur. London, 1851. Surat ha-are$. Partial edition only, with Latin transla­ tion by O. Schreckenfuchs, Sphaera mundi and notes by Sebastian Munster, Basel, 1546; reprints, (Amsterdam, 1968 and Jerusalem, 1971). Com­ plete ed., Offenbach, 1720. Translated as La obra form a de la tierra (Castilian) by J. M. Millas Valli­ crosa. (Madrid-Barcelona, 1956). Yesodei ha-tevunah ve-migdal ha-emunah. Critical ed. of Heb. text, with translation (Castilian) by J. M. Millas Vallicrosa (Madrid, 1952). Works on Abraham

Efros, Israel. Hafilosofiah ha-yehudit bi-mey habeinayim. (Tel-Aviv, 1969), Vol. 2 (Heb. tr., revised, of articles in Jewish Quarterly Review 17 and 20). Faba, Francisco. “Abraham bar Hiyya y su Libra de Geometria.” Gaceta matemdtica l a ser., 32 (1980): 101-15. Vajda, Georges. “Abraham bar Hiyya et Al-Farabi.” Revue des etudes juives 104 (1936): 113-19. ---------. “Les idees theologiques et philosophiques d’Abraham b. Hiyya.” Archives d ’h istoire et doc­ trine litteraire du moyen dge 15 (1946): 191-223.

Abravanel Family

Considerable myth and romantic fantasy surround the name of Abravanel (indeed the very name is still in some doubt, Abravanel or Abarbanel). 6

Biographers have claimed that a certain “don Yhuda,” almoxarife mayor (chief financial adminis­ trator) of Castile, to whom Jaime II of AragonCatalonia wrote, ca. 1306, requesting a favor, was Judah Abravanel. He was, in fact, the “Yhuda,” son of Fac, from whom the archbishop of Toledo borrowed a substantial sum of money in 1295. From this we are able to identify his father as don Fac of Seville. How­ ever, it is highly unlikely that he is to be identified, as Baer thought, with Yuda (Judah) Abravanel, who was almoxarife (administrative tax official) of Seville in 1310, because it is difficult to imagine that he would have held the exalted position of almoxarife mayor in 1306 (prior to that he had been almoxarife of Queen Marfa de Molina) and only four years later the dis­ tinctly inferior position of one of the tax administra­ tors in Seville. Judah Abravanel of Seville, however, was possibly the great-grandfather of Isaac. Joseph Abrabanell (Abravanel), in the service of Enrique II in 1367 (he had been proclaimed king but was not yet king in fact), was granted a privilege by Pedro IV of Aragon-Catalonia to trade there. (It is possible that this Joseph was Judah’s son.) Samuel Abravanel of Seville, Isaac’s grandfather and presumably son of Judah, was almoxarife of all the taxes in the kingdom by 1373. However, he was soon outbid by other important Jewish officials and lost his position. Menahem b. Zerah, who (contra Baer) did not “dedicate” his $edah la-derekh to Samuel, wrote of the kindness of Samuel in assisting him to go to Toledo. “I saw that those who walk in the court of our lord the king [Enrique II], may his glory be exalted, are a shield and protection to the rest of the people, each person according to his need and position” (introduction). A later chronicle claims that Samuel had been a student of Joshua Ibn Shuavb (one of Menahem’s own teachers) and Judah b. Asher. Nevertheless, in 1391, apparently, Samuel converted to Christianity, taking the name Juan Sanchez de Sevilla. (The assumption of Baer, re­ peated by Netanyahu, that he converted not in 1391, as specifically stated by the usually reliable chronicler Abraham Zacut, but “years earlier” is without proof, and the identification of Juan Sanchez de Sevilla with Juan Sanchez who was chief treasurer of Andalucia in 1388, while possible, is also not conclusive. In any case, Samuel Abravanel’s name appears still in the tax records of 1379.)

Abravanel Family

Very instructive in this regard are the further words of Menahem that these Jewish leaders are lax in observance of the commandments, prayers, and so on, and also drink wine touched by Gentiles (forbid­ den according to Jewish law). It is possible that this laxness, and not any “duress,” explains Samuel’s con­ version. In 1391, the first year of the reign of the young Enrique III, the duke of Benavente demanded of the royal council that the converso (Jew converted to Christianity) Juan Sanchez de Sevilla be ap­ pointed contador mayor (chief tax judge) because of his great experience; however, the archbishop of San­ tiago argued that he would be more useful as a farmer of taxes, giving large sums of money to the king, than as a mere judge of tax assessments. The ar­ gument developed into open armed conflict involv­ ing the considerable forces of the duke and the arch­ bishop. Nevertheless, Samuel appears to have regretted his conversion, for a few years later he fled to Portugal, where he returned to the Jewish fold. We may suspect that the reason for his flight was not altogether re­ morse over his conversion, and may have had much to do with this controversy, for in Portugal he already had substantial sums of money, as we learn from loans he made to one of the king’s sons. Isaac was born approximately 1437 in Lisbon. His father was Judah, who was a wealthy merchant, a fact referred to by Isaac’s later boast that he was raised in wealthy circumstances. From 1446 to 1449 Judah was involved in loans and financial transactions with the king. He farmed certain taxes for the island of Guinea and also was engaged in commerce with Flanders (the all-important Sudanese gold route had been diverted to Guinea, and this was to be a lucra­ tive source of funds for the crown, and the Abravanels, throughout the century). Judah appears to have had two brothers, Joseph and Ya (Jacob), ac­ cording to documents in Portuguese archives (the family genealogy in the Encyclopedia Judaica is con­ fused and needs to be corrected). Isaac had a cousin (not, as usually claimed, his brother) Samuel, son of Joseph, who married Benvinda and had two sons, Jacob and Joseph (who became a son-in-law of Isaac). His other cousins were Samuel o mogo (the younger) and Ya o mogo (so called, of course, to distinguish them from their grandfather and father). He also had a female cousin, Luna, who later married Isaac’s son

Judah. All of these cousins were the children of Isaac’s uncle Ya (Jacob). Judah, Isaac’s firstborn son, later achieved fame in Italy as Leone Ebreo, author of Dialoghi d ’a more (“Dialogues on love”), which although written in Italian has become an integral part of “Spanish” liter­ ature. In addition to Judah, Isaac had two other sons, Joseph and Samuel (they did not, however, achieve any particular “brilliance” or “lasting fame,” as Ne­ tanyahu [1972, 25] claimed). The noble status of the family is indicated by the fact that they were among distinguished Jews allowed to carry weapons, ride horses, and dress in aristo­ cratic style and were exempted from the BADGE, or distinctive sign, required of Jews in Portugal. Mem­ bers of the family granted these privileges were the elder Samuel, Ya, Samuel “the younger,” and Judah, Isaac’s father (curiously missing from the list, perhaps merely owing to lack of documentation, is Isaac him­ self). One member of the family, whose Jewish name is unknown, converted. He was Henrique Fernandes Abravanel, grandson of Ya and “nephew” (grandnephew) of Judah. In 1512 King Manuel paid him a substantial sum of money in connection with the taxes of Guinea, control of which had continued in the family. In spite of, again, romantic and exaggerated claims, nothing is certain about the early education that Isaac received. There is absolutely no evidence, for example, that he learned Latin or read such au­ thors as Cicero and Seneca, to say nothing of the church fathers and medieval scholastics. What knowledge he had of these things, in his much later writings, was derived no doubt secondhand from reading Spanish theological authors, such as Alfonso Tostado. It is true that an early essay, §urat hayesodot, indicates an awareness of elementary Aris­ totelian ideas, but these were common to the educa­ tion of most Jewish boys, particularly those from aristocratic families, in Spain and Portugal at the time. Similarly, there is no evidence whatever that he studied the Talmud under the Lisbon rabbi Joseph Hayyun (see Schmueli, 1963, 23). He began to write his commentary on the Torah, but soon abandoned it and devoted himself to the fi­ nancial interests of the family. He was also involved in Jewish communal activities, such as the ransom of captive Jews from the Portuguese conquests in North 7

Abravanel Family

Africa in 1471, and in secret negotiations to influ­ ence the pope on behalf of the Portuguese Jews who were suffering renewed restrictions. It was about this that he wrote the first of his famous letters to Yehiel of Pisa, a prominent Jewish financier and leader in Italy. While gaining increasing prominence in service to the Portuguese king, Alfonso V, Isaac also estab­ lished relations with other important Jews at court, such as Gedalyah Ibn Yahya and his brother Joseph. Gedalyah was physician to the king until 1480, when he went to Italy. Gedalyah also accompanied the king on his expedition against Sicily, and from there he wrote letters to Abravanel (one of which mentions his longtime friend Abraham Aboab, then in Italy, who possibly was a son of the renowned scholar ISAAC A b o a b ; see Toledano 1960, 37-40). Most im­ portant, Isaac Abravanel connected himself with the powerful house of the duke of Braganza. The death of Alfonso in 1481 brought his son to the throne as Joao II, and his rule saw a drastic change in policy toward the Jews. More ominously, the duke of Braganza, Isaac Abravanel’s patron, was implicated in a plot against the king. It is possible that Isaac was also involved in this plot; in any case, he was suspected, and in 1483 the duke was suddenly arrested, and Isaac himself was summoned to appear before the king. Warned of the arrest of the duke, he saw no option but to flee to Spain. His nephew and also son-in-law Joseph (Yuce, etc. in Spanish sources) joined him in 1484. The following year the Por­ tuguese king issued death sentences against Isaac and Joseph. In Castile, Isaac began preaching and writing his commentaries on the prophets and other works. There is no reason to doubt (see Cantera Burgus 1974, 238-40) Netanyahus claim that Isaac was called to the court of Fernando and Isabel in 1484. Although Netanyahu gave no source for this, it is from Isaacs own statement at the beginning of his in­ troduction to the commentary on Kings, where he says that he served the Catholic Monarchs “eight years” (i.e., until 1492), though, as we shall see, this is not literally true. In 1485 Isaac was placed in charge of tax farming of the lands and territories of Cardinal Pedro Gonzalez de Mendoza, archbishop of Toledo, prelate of Spain, and the chief chancellor. Isaac received a substantial annual payment for this activity (according to Cantera, Isaac lived in Alcala 8

de Henares at this time). He continued in this posi­ tion at least until 1487. (Incidentally, he must be dis­ tinguished from Isaque Abravalla, a member of a prominent Toledo family, and also from Ysaque Abenbaruel, of another important Jewish family of Toledo.) In 1489 the monarchs made a payment of 250,000 maravedis to Isaac, for an unspecified rea­ son, possibly repayment of a loan. When his position with the cardinal ended, he entered the service of a relative of the cardinal, don Inigo Lopez de Men­ doza, the duke of Infantado, whom he served as chief treasurer while living in Guadalajara. It was during this period, sometime after i486, that according to Joseph Caro (commentary on Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Berakhot”?>. 8) Isaac was involved in a discus­ sion in the yeshivah of Isaac Aboab in Guadalajara (Caro did not write that Abravanel was learning in the yeshivah, as he has been misconstrued; rather, that refers to Joseph FasI, the student of Aboab who solved the problem discussed; see A b o a b ) . In 1491 Fernando and Isabel borrowed the enor­ mous sum of 1.5 million maravedis from Isaac and his nephew Joseph for the expenses of the war against Muslim Granada. It is impossible, of course, that Abra­ vanel could have loaned such a sum himself; no doubt he in turn borrowed money from other Jews or Jewish communities. That loan was repaid by Luis de Santangel, the converso financial officer of the monarchs. Meanwhile, Jacob, Josephs brother, had joined him in Castile, and by 1491 at least they were both living in Plasencia. In 1488, as a reward for services that Joseph performed “every day” for Fernando and Isabel, he was made chief tax receiver for the taxes on the passage of cattle, which office was to be his for life and to one of his heirs whom he would name. He was also made general treasurer of Plasencia. Isaac Abravanel was neither the “unofficial leader” nor the “chief spokesman” of the Spanish Jews. The romantic legend invented by later chroniclers has Isaac standing “like a prophet” before the rulers to argue against the edict of expulsion. Supposedly he was joined in this noble effort by Abraham Seneor, the despised “court rabbi” whom the great scholar Isaac de Leon had long before dubbed Soneh (hater of light) and who converted to Christianity rather than face exile. But these legends fall apart in the face of Abravanels own statement later to Saul ha-Kohen that he had completely neglected his study and writ­

Abulafia Family

ing while in Portugal and Spain, spending his time in service of the kings and the pursuit of “vanity,” con­ cerned only with acquiring wealth and honor, words he repeated almost verbatim in his introduction to the commentary on Kings. Official documents also confirm how little Abravanel was interested in the plight of the Jews in the months before the EXPUL­ SION, and how much more concerned he was in col­ lecting outstanding debts due him. On May 31, 1492, the king and queen granted permission to Abravanel, his wife, and children to take 1,000 gold ducats out of the kingdom with them, along with other “jewels of silver and gold” and other property. They also paid 1 million maravedis to his nephew Joseph (repayment of a loan, probably), and in June the monarchs intervened with the justices of Plasencia to release certain goods of his brother Jacob and his wife. Long after the Expulsion, the monarchs ordered that debts owed to Isaac by Jews who still remained in the kingdom be paid to him, which would indi­ cate that Isaac also did not leave with the rest of the Jews. There was apparently a plot to seize Isaacs grandson, the infant son of Judah, and baptize him in hope of converting also Judah and Isaac, but the plot was foiled. Since most, if not all, of Isaac’s writings were done after the Expulsion, when he went to Italy, it would take us too far afield to discuss them in detail. His bi­ ographies and more specialized studies have dealt with these more or less adequately. However, the gen­ eral impression given by these writers of his antira­ tionalism, particularly his hostility to Jewish philo­ sophical trends, cannot be passed in silence. This impression may be borne out in one of his earliest works, but he severely criticized Hasdai Crescas’s hos­ tile attitude to MAIMONIDES, and also his “principles of faith,” by which Crescas sought to combat philo­ sophical “heresy.” Though he approved of Mai­ monides’ “principles” of faith, he strongly disagreed with Joseph Albo in his attempt to reformulate those principles. Abravanel’s greatest originality certainly lay in his biblical commentaries. If he was by no means the first or the only Spanish Jewish author to cite nonJewish, even Christian, theological sources, he was apparently the first to provide systematic introduc­ tions to each book of the Bible on which he com­

mented, analyzing the content of each. Although his most profound work was certainly his extensive com­ mentary on the Guide o f the Perplexed of Mai­ monides, one of the most important commentaries written on that work, he did not refrain from criticiz­ ing the master when he thought he found errors or confusion. Thus, he insisted on creation ex nihilo, against the Aristotelian (and Maimonidean, to those who understood him) view of the eternality of the universe. This was a theme he dealt with also in at least two separate books, Shamayiym hadashiym (“The new heavens”) and M if‘ alot Elohiym (“Works of God”). Contrary to the views of Maimonides, and later Gersonides, he believed that miracles really hap­ pened, even those that are contrary to nature. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY Works on Abravanel

Abravanel, Isaac. Don Isaac Abrabanely su comentario al libro de Amos, ed. (of probable holograph ms.) by Gregorio Ruiz (Madrid, 1984). Baer, Yitzhak. A History o f the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1966), 2 vols. (index). Cantera Burgos, Francisco. “Don Ishaq Braunel, algunas precisiones biograficos sobre su estancia en Castilla,” in Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1974) I, 238-40. Netanyahu, B[enzion]. Don Isaac Abravanel (Phila., 1972; revised). Pimenta Ferro Tavares, Maria Jose. Osjudeus em Por­ tugal no seculo XV(Lisbon, 1982), 2 vols. (impor­ tant sources). Roth, Norman. Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expul­ sion o f the Jews from Spain (Madison, Wise., 1995); see index. Schmueli, Ephaim. Don Yi§haq Abravanel ve-geirush Sefarad (Jerusalem, 1963); virtually a Hebrew adaptation of Netanyahu. Toledano, Jacob M., ed. 0$ar genazim (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 37-40 (letter of Gedalyah to Abravanel).

Abulafia Family

The Abulaflas were an important dynasty in Castile, Aragon, and Navarre. The family name derives not from the Hebrew “ha-Levy,” but rather the Arabic Abu’l-Afiya, although, in fact, members of the family 9

Abulafia Family

were Levites. The founder of the dynasty, apparently, was Meir ha-nasi of Burgos (twelfth century). His sons were Judah, Joseph, Zerahya, and Todros haLevy ha-nasi. Judah lived in PROVENCE, where he married a daughter of a Kalonymos, who possibly was the renowned Kalonymos ha-nasi b. Todros of NARBONNE. Joseph lived in Toledo, and Zerahya was murdered in 1215. Todros ha-Levy ha-nasi appears to have inherited his fathers position, possibly as head of the Jewish community of Burgos. He mar­ ried a sister of the physician Joseph b. Abraham Ibn Sahl and died in 1213. Todros had three sons— Samuel, Meir, and Joseph—and a daughter whose name is unknown. This article traces these three sons and their descendants. S am uel Samuel appears to have gone to Tudela, in Navarre (then part of France), as we learn from a responsum of Nahmanides in which he addressed Samuel as “ha-Sefardi, ”a title used only of someone who had left Spain. Samuel seems to have been a scholar and perhaps a rabbi of the community. He had three sons, the most famous of whom, Abraham (born, in fact, in Tudela, not Zaragoza), became an important qabbalist and au­ thor of numerous works (1240-1291). Intellectually, however, he was a follower of MAIMONIDES, yet he ad­ vocated nonrationalist ideas and “prophetic” mysti­ cism, and he apparently considered himself a sort of messianic figure—all ideas that aroused the hostility of the leading rabbi of the time, SOLOMON Ibn A d r e t . Samuel’s other sons, Elyasef and Meir, are scarcely known. Possibly Samuel, and certainly his son Meir, left Tudela for Castile, and Meir’s son Samuel was the famous tesorero (treasurer) of Pedro I of Castile, in­ volved in much controversy and finally imprisoned by the king; he died in 1360, survived by two sons, Meir and Joseph. The sons were active in government service on a lesser scale, as was another Todros Abu­ lafia, son of Judah (possibly a brother of Samuel b. Meir), and his own two sons, (Jag (Isaac) and Samuel. There was also a Joseph who was a rabbi in Seville; he returned to his birthplace of Toledo and died there in 1342. Josep h The youngest son of Todros ha-Levy Abulafia of Bur­ gos, Joseph, was apparently the father of Todros, a 10

qabbalist and important scholar. Joseph died in 1287, possibly in Burgos. Nothing more is known of him. Todros b. Joseph was a minor official (responsible for certain taxes, probably) in the service of ALFONSO X. (Moses Abulafia, a minor philosopher, may have been his brother.) His sons were (Jag (Isaac), also a government official (d. 1342); Joseph; and Levy. Isaac’s son Todros (fl. 1339-136?) also continued the tradition of government service, as did his sons (Jag and Samuel. Todros b. Joseph was also a rabbi, au­ thor of 0$ar ha-kavod, a commentary on talmudic aggadah, and Shaar ha-razim, a qabbalistic work. M eir Meir (ca. 1170-1244), the third son of Todros haLevy of Burgos, left his native city in his youth and moved to Toledo, where he became an important rabbi. He acquired a reputation as a bitter opponent of Maimonides, attacking his denial of the doctrine of resurrection. This led to an exchange of letters be­ tween Meir and scholars of Provence (who supported Maimonides) and France (who did not), as well as with N a h m a n id e s , and unleashed the bitter “Maimonidean controversy” in Spain and Provence that was to last for many decades. Later, following the death of Maimonides, and perhaps being influenced by the (forged) “Treatise on Resurrection” ascribed to Maimonides in an effort to clear him of charges of “heresy,” Meir Abulafia retreated somewhat from his earlier harsh attacks. With some exceptions, as a rab­ binical authority he nevertheless expressed his respect for the legal opinions of Maimonides. A fourteenth-century scholar, Joseph Ibn Irlabib, claimed that Nahmanides was the “rabbi” (teacher) of Meir Abulafia, but this was hardly the case; on the contrary, Nahmanides addressed questions to Meir, speaking of him with great respect. From Abraham b. Natan ha-Yarhis important Sefer ha-manhig, we learn that Meir was a member of the Toledo bet din (court), together with Abraham and the renowned Joseph Ibn Megash. Some commentators have exaggerated Meir’s im­ portance and the extent of both his writing and his influence on later legal authorities. Still, he did influ­ ence a number of disciples and students, including Isaac Israeli of Toledo and Joseph Ibn Nahmias of Toledo. He is known to have had only two actual stu­ dents, however; Judah b. Solomon ha-Kohen Ibn

Agriculture

Mosca, an important scientist related to a collabora­ tor in the astronomical treatises composed at the court of Alfonso X, and a certain “Jonathan” (per­ haps the Jonathan b. Jacob referred to in his re­ sponsa, No. 248). Meir had two sons; Judah, who died in 1226 before the age of twenty-three; and Moses (d. 1255), who was a physician in Toledo. He also had a daughter (possibly Dona), who married Isaac b. Joseph Ibn Susan, son of a leader in Toledo and member of a prominent family. Meir composed commentaries on portions of the Talmud (those on Baba Batra and Sanhedrin have been published, whereas his Peraftn on Avoth&s not, and on Horayot only some excerpts are found; ISAAC B. SHESHET cites his apparently lost Peratin on Gittiri). He also composed a very important work on the scrip­ tural masorah (published Florence, 1750) and other small commentaries. Numerous responsa survive in published form, but they begin with No. 240, indicat­ ing that the previous responsa have been lost. How­ ever, his most interesting work, for which he is known, is the collection of letters attacking Maimonides. Some poems and other letters have also been published. Unfortunately, it is not possible to ascertain with certainty the relationship of the poet Todros b. Judah Abulafia (1247- after 1298?) to Meir or other mem­ bers of the family. He may have been, indeed, the son of Meir s son Judah (that Judah appears also to have had a son Solomon, who died in 1241 in Seville, and since the poet also named one of his sons Solomon this may have been in memory of an older brother). Todros also held minor posts in the service of Al­ fonso X and his son Sancho IV, and also the infante Enrique (brother of Alfonso), mostly in tax collect­ ing. Among his poems is one he wrote at the age of seventeen in honor of Alfonso, and he once gave the king a goblet inscribed with a Hebrew poem. Many years later, when Sancho became ill and upon his death, Todros composed poems on this. In 1275 Todros accompanied Alfonso on his trip to Beaucaire (France) to meet with the pope concern­ ing Alfonso s claim to the title of Holy Roman Em­ peror. Remaining with the queen in Perpignan, To­ dros met the important Provencal Hebrew poet Abraham Bedersi, who wrote of the great honor that the queen accorded Todros. A considerable collection of Todros’s poetry (pub­ lished) has survived, which is significant as represent­

ing nearly the end of the tradition of secular Hebrew verse in Castile, although it was to survive longer in A r a g 6 n - C a t a l o n i a . This poetry reflects the contin­ uing influence of the classical style and themes, and is important as source material for the period, partic­ ularly in the exchanges with various important schol­ ars and Jewish communal leaders. Other members of the family are found in Castile throughout the fourteenth and early fifteenth cen­ turies; for the present they are mere names, however. Other branches of the family continued in Aragon and Navarre. When the city of Molina was lost to Castile in 1369, passing to Aragon, Samuel Abulafia there petitioned the king, Pedro IV, to confirm his appointment as head of the Jewish community with powers similar to those of a “court rabbi” in Castile, and this request was granted. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abulafia, Todros b. Joseph. 1989. Shaar ha-razim. Ed. Michal Kushnir-Oron, Jerusalem, 1989 (qab­ balistic). Abulafia, Todros b. Judah. Gan ha-meshallim ve-hahiddot, 3 vols. Ed. David Yellin (Jerusalem 193236) (poetry). Baer, Yishaq. “Todros ben Yehudah ha-Levy vezemano.” $iyyon (Ziori) 2 (1936): 19-55. Doron, Aviva. Meshorer be-ha§er ha-melekh: Todros ha-Levy Abulafiah (Tel-Aviv, 1989). Idel, Moshe. The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia (Albany, 1987). Roth, Norman. “Two Jewish Courtiers of Alfonso X Called Zag (Isaac).” SefaradA3 (1983): 74-85. Septimus, Bernard. Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transi­ tion (Cambridge, Mass., 1982) (on Meir Abulafia, chiefly the Maimonidean controversy).

Agriculture Jews were engaged in agriculture, of course, from early biblical times, not only in their own land but also in the Diaspora. The combined effects of the de­ struction of the land and the eventual decree barring Jews from owning land in Palestine, following the re­ bellion against Rome in 69-70 C.E., as well as the propaganda campaign of rabbis even in Babylon to persuade people to abandon agriculture for the far 11

Agriculture

more profitable prospects of commerce led to a de­ cline in agricultural pursuits. Nevertheless, agricul­ ture continued to be an important part of Jewish life. Following the Muslim conquests of the sixth and sev­ enth centuries, we learn little of the role of Jews in agriculture in those lands (the former Persian Em­ pire, Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine, North Africa and Egypt). It is not to be believed that Jews, even the majority of them, abandoned agriculture for the more cosmopolitan life of the cities. On the contrary, there were relatively few large cities in the early pe­ riod, and Jews were often restricted to particular quarters of those cities. As for the records of the Cairo GENIZAH from a somewhat later period, Goitein (1967, ll6ff) was able to assemble only a few vague generalities, with little specific to Jewish involvement in agriculture. It is significant that M A I­ MONIDES precisely reversed the teachings of the tal­ mudic sages about owning land, ruling that one should not sell a field to purchase a house or engage in business but rather sell movable property and buy a field (M.T.y M ada: “D e’o t” 5.12). This reflects the growing confidence in the profitability of agriculture in the medieval period. Only in Muslim Spain, which included not only the southern al-Andalus ( A n d a lu c I A ) but also most of northern Spain, do we have more solid evidence of Jews as farmers and growers of grapes. The claim that Jews were more involved in commerce than agricul­ ture is without substantiation; we simply do not have sufficient sources. Similarly, the assertion that Jews did not receive land after the Muslim conquest (711) is without evidence. Muslims in Spain were experts at agriculture, growing cotton and every conceivable type of fruit and vegetable. Many of these, such as olives, figs, guavas, peaches, apricots, cauliflower, and cucumbers, were totally unknown in Christian Eu­ rope. Jews certainly could not compete with the Muslims but must have learned a great deal from them. Even if the claim that Jews introduced olives into Spain is dubious, they are known to have culti­ vated olives as well as grapes already in the Visigothic period (see VISIGOTHS AND J e w s ) . Throughout the Muslim period there is considerable documentation about the Jewish production and sale of wine. As in Europe, some Jews also grew wheat, necessary for the baking of bread and especially for ma$ah on Passover. Here, too, Jews benefited from the expert knowledge 12

of Muslim agriculturists, who, for example, intro­ duced the system of three-crop rotation. Responsa from at least the tenth century indicate significant Jewish ownership of fields. For early medieval Europe we have only scant source material. In France and Germany, especially, many Jews were engaged in growing crops and/or owned vineyards. TROYES in France was noted for its grape and wool production, and “R a sh i” (Solomon b. Isaac, 1040-1105) supported himself there by growing grapes. France, particularly, was famous for its wine, and many Jews were involved in viticulture, if only for the production of wine for their own use. Jewish law did not permit drinking wine that had been touched by, much less made by, Gentiles, and therefore of necessity some Jews had to grow grapes and provide the wine necessary for ritual purposes for the Jewish community. Similar restrictions applied, in theory at least, to such things as milk, butter, and cheese. Many were strict even with regard to bread baked by non-Jews. Rabbis even permitted the har­ vesting of grapes in the intermediate days of the holi­ day of Sukkot, because the local overlords of the vil­ lages set that coinciding time for the harvest. It was also frequently the custom for Jews and Christians to help each other with the harvest. One of the responsa of M e i r B. B a r u k h of Rothenburg deals with the case of a man who arranged to buy French wine from a friend but was given Hungarian wine instead; wine from grapes brought in from Hungary was inferior to that made from French grapes (ed. Prague, No. 787). In his famous responsum on the “ban of settlement” (HEREM h a - y i y s h u v ) , the same rabbi discusses the case of one who moved to a certain community and “planted there vineyards and orchards.” The privilege granted by Henry III to the Jews of Spires and Worms (1090) also assured them of their hereditary rights in “gardens, vineyards and fields.” Earlier scholars held to the theory that following the First Crusade (see CRUSADES), which saw attacks on the Jews in many German communities, Jews abandoned their agricultural pursuits and moved to the cities. The theory itself is patently absurd, since it was precisely in the cities that the Jews were attacked. True, A b e l a r d (1079-1142), in his anti-Jewish “Di­ alogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Chris­ tian,” has the Jew say that they cannot possess fields, vineyards, or land because of the danger of Christian

Agriculture

attack, but this was merely a prologue to explaining that all Jews were moneylenders. As we have seen, however, the responsa literature shows the continued prevalence of Jews in agriculture even after the Cru­ sades. Also in France, prior to the EXPULSION of 1182, we hear much about Jews engaged in agricul­ ture and viticulture (cf. Mordecai on B.B., No. 481; Meir b. Barukh of Rothenburg, ed Prague, No. 795; *Rabbenu Tam, ” Sefer ha-yashar, p. 26, No. 15). Women might also come into possession of vine­ yards, whether by marriage contract or by inheri­ tance (see, e.g., Teshuvot faokhmei $arfat ve-Lotir; ed. Joel Mueller [Vienna, 1881], Nos. 91 and 95). In medieval Poland, the very fact that Jews were farmers proved that they were free and enjoyed a priv­ ileged status, as did their right to own slaves (as long as the slaves were not Christian). In fact, this could apply equally to Jews of France and Germany, whose owner­ ship of agricultural land and vineyards meant that they were holders of landed estates, enjoying a privi­ leged status available to few Christians. The cultivation of vegetables, too, was not merely a matter of commerce, but to a certain extent must have been influenced also by religious practice. For example, the Passover seder requires the use of cer­ tain specific vegetables, and although no particular laws of kashrut apply to vegetables, in order to ensure their availability they must have been cultivated (even so, a serious problem seems to be the require­ ment to dip in salt water some sort of leafy vegetable, which in cold northern climates would not have been available at all in the Middle Ages; yet we hear noth­ ing of such a problem in the literature). Rashi re­ quired the saying of a special blessing not only on fruit but on vegetables when eaten separately without bread (Pardes, No. 83). In Spain, following the first successful campaigns of the Christian Reconquest in the eleventh century, Jews played an important role in reconstruction through their agriculture, cultivation of grapes, and production of wine. Following the conquest of Toledo in 1139, Jews cultivated vineyards there, and they also owned extensive land in Leon. However, in spite of the fact that Jews joined with the Christians in attacking Burgos and enabling Alfonso VII to take the city from the Muslims, in 1137 the king gave some Jews’ land there to the church of San Salvador de Ona. Alfonso VIII, a more tolerant and wiser

ruler, nullified (1162) the “bad custom” that grapes in Burgos could be harvested only before the feast of St. Michael (September), and allowed both Chris­ tians and Jews to harvest their grapes whenever they chose. The same king in 1240 granted a royal vine­ yard in Najera jointly to eight Christians and two Jews. In Calahorra, Jews were reminded to pay the tithes to the church on all vineyards and lands they had acquired from Christian owners. Also in AragonCatalonia in this period, despite extensive grants of land to the French lords and soldiers who aided in the Reconquest there, Jews were granted land or acquired lands from Christian owners. In Tudela (Navarre) in 1129, residents were ordered to pay on fields and farms owned by Muslims who had fled, or owned by Christians but worked by Muslim or Jew­ ish workers. This is one of the rare sources that refers to Jewish agricultural laborers, or perhaps tenant farmers, but we find similar references in the fuero (local law) of Calatayud (1131). In Tortosa, the earli­ est grant of resettlement (1149) gave a specific sec­ tion of the city to the Jews, and also several fields and farms that had belonged to Muslims who had fled. In Castile, following the conquest of Seville (1248) and Jerez (1249) by Fernando III, Jews in both cities were granted houses and several fields. Throughout the medieval period in Spain, liter­ ally to the very eve of the Expulsion, Jews continued to own fields and vineyards, although perhaps not as extensively as in the earlier periods. An interesting example was Yu^af de Ecija, an important Jewish of­ ficial of Alfonso XI, who in 1332 donated some houses, a farm, and two “palaces” (large houses) to the Jewish community of Ecija for the purpose of es­ tablishing and maintaining a yeshivah. Somewhat earlier, a Jew who is described as “one of the richest men in the kingdom,” Joseph Arniah, died and left his wife lands and many vineyards, which she al­ lowed her sons to administer. Just as there was the distinction between French and Hungarian wine, noted earlier, so in Spain Jewish sources refer to dif­ ferences in quality. In general, white wine was pre­ ferred to red (even in illuminations of Passover Haggadot white wine is often depicted as being used), and the wine of Valencia was generally considered to be the best (today that of the Rioja region in Castile or the Penedes in Catalonia is the best; Valencia is not even considered). 13

Agriculture

In Sicily, Frederick II in the early thirteenth cen­ tury granted to some Jews from North Africa the privilege of cultivating the royal palm trees in Palermo, and the right to plant and engage in com­ merce in henna and indigo elsewhere in the kingdom (Strauss, 1910, 66). Information on Jewish involve­ ment in agriculture and the production of wine in Italy itself is scarce; nevertheless, at least in the fif­ teenth century and probably earlier, some Jews were involved in the growing of grapes. One can only sur­ mise that here, too, the same concerns for produc­ tion of wine and vegetables necessary for ritual pur­ poses meant that individual Jews, at least, engaged in the cultivation of these things. NORMAN ROTH BIBLIOGRAPHY

Goitein, Shlomo D. A Mediterranean Society (Berke­ ley, Los Angeles, 1967), I, 116 ff. Roth, Norman. Jews, Visigoths & Muslims in Me­ dieval Spain (Leiden, 1994), pp. 152-53 Vetulani, Adam. “The Jews in Medieval Poland,” Jewish Journal o f Sociology A(1962): 274-94

Albigensians and Jews

Medieval Christian society was plagued continually by heretical movements and beliefs. They gained cur­ rency increasingly in the latter part of the twelfth century and throughout the thirteenth century by way of the Cathar, Waldensian, and Albigensian heresies, which are almost indistinguishable and often interchangeable in the sources. Although their ideological origins came from afar, the hotbed of these heresies was certainly in Languedoc, in south­ ern France. The rulers of A r a g On -C at al on ia , al­ ready casting a covetous eye on these territories, which eventually they would acquire, intervened, along with the Inquisition established specifically for the purpose, in an attempt to root out the heresy and destroy the heretics. Although Jews were concentrated in the very cities that were the centers of the heresy (Carcassonne, Albi, Toulouse, Beaucaire, Beziers, NARBONNE, and others), there is no documented evidence that Jews were persecuted during the crusade against the heretics. In 1209, during the campaign against Beziers, some Jews fled to the area near Gerona in 14

Catalonia, as witnessed by the inscription on a stone that they left there. However, most of the Jews of Beziers were removed from the city by the count and taken to Carcassonne for protection (much as Christ­ ian overlords, including bishops, had protected Jews in Germany during the First Crusade). Jews not only were significant numerically in the population of Languedoc, they also held administra­ tive offices and served as advisors to various Christian lords. In 1207, Innocent III condemned Raymond VI of Toulouse for his use of Jewish officials contrary to canon law. All of this may have aroused some popular sentiment among the zealous crusaders against the jews, yet there is no known instance of attacks on Jews. A late-fifteenth-century Hebrew chronicle, Solomon Ibn Vergas Shevetyehudah, often unreliable and distorted, refers to a gathering in 1215 of bish­ ops and “princes of the land” in Montpellier, at which Jewish officials and delegates also participated. What the purpose of the meeting was (if, in fact, it took place) is not stated. In the same month, accord­ ing to the chronicler, Louis VIII (who was not yet king of France) came to Beziers and besieged it, “and the Jewish community was in great danger,” but Simon de Montfort and his brother swore to protect the Jews. He adds that delegates from all the Jewish communities “from Narbonne to Marseille” gathered at St. Gilles and discussed the possibility of sending a representative to Rome to appeal to the pope. This much may be fact, for he names a well-known Jewish leader (the nasi Rabbi Levi of Narbonne) as head of this meeting. In 1217, he adds, the wife of Simon de Montfort ordered that all the Jews of Toulouse be baptized, but the degree was annulled by order of the cardinal (compulsory baptism also being contrary to canon law). Following in the footsteps of some late-nineteenth-century historians, many Jewish writers have posited a Jewish influence on the Albigensian-Cathar heresy. None of these authors has been able to muster a scrap of evidence for such a theory, but more re­ cently some have sought this supposed influence in the Jewish mystical QABBALAH literature. Such theo­ ries are based on ill-conceived notions of the sup­ posed origins (Languedoc) of such works as the Sefer Bahir, as well as faulty knowledge or misinterpreta­ tions of Cathar-Albigensian doctrines, which con­ demned the “Old Testament” as the product of a

Albigensians and Jews

Berruguete, Pedro (1450-1504). Saint Dominic and the pyre o f heretical books (occurred during his missions among the Albigensians). Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain. Copyright Scala/Art Resource, NY

“malign God” who had sent his son Melchizedek or Lucifer to rule over the people of Israel and give them this false testament. Cathar and Albigensian sources testify also to their antagonism toward Judaism and Jews, and a complete rejection of Jewish doctrine. Nor did the ideas found in Ibn G a b ir o l ’s Fons vitae have anything to do with an Italian Cathar treatise of the thirteenth century, as sometimes claimed; in any event, Christians had no idea that the author of the Fons vitae (known then only in Latin translation) had been a Jew. Nor is it correct, as suggested by more than one writer and in connection with virtually every “heresy” in Christian history (including even

Lutheranism), that Jews shared the hostility of the heretics toward the Roman Catholic Church. Al­ though Jews did not concur with official Christian doctrine on biblical interpretation, they knew very well that the Roman Catholic Church provided them with the best guarantees of security available in a troubled age. (We recall the testimony of the Hebrew chronicler both on the appeal to Rome and the cardi­ nal’s annulment of the decree on baptism; there were numerous such instances throughout the medieval period.) However, it is true that one anti-Jewish author in Leon (Spain), Lucas, who later became bishop of Tuy, attempted to connect the Jews with the heretics. 15

Albigensians and Jews

Albigensians and Cathars infiltrated Leon early in the thirteenth century, and Bishop Rodrigo Alvarez expelled many, but when he died in 1232, a period of two years passed until his successor, Arnald “el Mae­ stro,” was elected. In the interim, the heretics were again active in Leon, as they were again when Arnald died in 1235, leaving the see vacant until 1239. It was during this time that Lucas was writing his fa­ mous chronicle, and he apparently interrupted that work to compose his polemic against Jews and heretics. According to him, some of the heretics became circumcised in order to pass themselves off as Jews, thus being freer to spread their heretical teachings and also to pervert the Jews with their doctrines, teaching them to “propose their blasphemies” against orthodox Christians. Lucas continues in his work to attempt to identify the heretics with Jews. This, in turn, may very well have influenced the similar views of the later famous Inquisitor Bernard Gui, who similarly accused the “perfidious Jews” of corrupting Christians. Finally, Joseph Shatzmiller (1989, 333-52) has suggested the possibility of allusions to Albigensians in works such as Joseph Qimhi’s anti-Christian polemic Sefer ha-berit and Meir b. Simon’s MWpemet mi$vah. NORMAN ROTH BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jordan, William C. The French Monarchy and the Jews. (Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 116-24; particu­ larly for Beziers. Roth, Norman. “Jews and Albigensians in the Mid­ dle Ages: Lucas of Tuy on Heretics in Leon.” Sefarad 41 (1981): 71-93 (with complete biblio­ graphical references). Shatzmiller, Joseph. “ha-Kefirah ha-Albigensit be’eiyney ha-yehudim beney ha-zeman,” Tarbut vehevrah be-toldot Yisrael bimey ha-beinayim (H. H. Ben-Sasson memorial volume, Jerusalem, 1989), pp. 333-52 (Heb.).

Alexandria

According to Arabic sources, there were at the time of the Muslim conquest of Alexandria in 642 some

16

forty thousand Jews who paid taxes and tribute. Some seventy thousand Jews fled the city during the Muslim siege. These figures appear exaggerated; however, without doubt there was a large and signifi­ cant Jewish population in Alexandria, which was the capital of Egypt in the Byzantine period. After the Muslims established their capital at FUSTAT, Alexan­ dria declined substantially in importance, although it remained the chief port of Egypt. Many of the Jews who lived there migrated to Fustat, but the Jewish community of Alexandria remained the secondgreatest in Egypt. Our knowledge of Alexandria de­ rives chiefly from the documents of the Cairo GeNIZAH, and therefore we possess information on the Jewish community only from the tenth century on­ ward, the period of the Fatimid sultanate. Because it was the chief port of Egypt and of the entire Mediterranean, numerous Jewish merchants were attracted to Alexandria—or, more correctly, the agents of important merchants, who themselves pre­ ferred to live in Fustat- From Alexandria they super­ vised the commercial connections that branched out to all the Mediterranean ports, such as al-Mahdiyya in Tunisia, Palermo and Syracuse in Sicily, and the ports of Palestine and Syria: Ashkelon, Jaffa, Acre, Tyre, and Tripoli, as well as European and Byzantine lands. By way of the Nile and its channels, trade was also directed to the southern half of the Arabian peninsula, India, and China. From Alexandria, camel caravans went to the Maghrib (North Africa) and into the desert regions. The majority of Egyptian import and export was conducted in Alexandria. Jewish merchants, particu­ larly those of North African origin who arrived in Egypt in the footsteps of the Fatimids, had a large share in this commerce. Linen was the principal ex­ port of Egypt, and also dyestuff for cloth, spices, sugar, and pix (collyrium; an ungent used as an eye medication). Imports were chiefly silk—imported both for internal use in Egypt and also as an export to countries that had different kinds of silk—and various oils, soap, wax, honey, metals, hides, and coins. In Alexandria, as in every important commercial center, there was a “representative of the merchants” (Ar. wakil al-tujjar) who was appointed by or repre­ sented an important merchant or several merchants.

Alexandria

His function was to look out for the interests of his patron, to present him with an accounting of the movement of merchandise and ships, and to mediate between him and the local government tax agents. Every important merchant maintained at least one agent in Alexandria, and those who were substantial merchants maintained several and also appointed a representative. For example, Nahray b. Nissim of Fu­ stat (1060-1098) had an agent in Alexandria, Joseph b. Farah al-QabisI (from Gabes in Tunisia), whose duty was to take care of Nahray s merchandise when it arrived at the port, to inform him of the arrival of ships, and to carry out all his instructions. Other merchants of this family lived in various Egyptian cities, so that there existed a network of agents of Nahray. From the letters of this family and of other agents we are able to learn about the methods of commerce, the nature of the activities of the agents, the transfer of agents and merchandise from place to place, methods of payment, and connections be­ tween the senders and receivers of merchandise. We also obtain information on transport, ships, and car­ avans engaged in the transportation of merchandise by sea and land, and about the power struggle among shipmasters in determining the price of transport and the extent of their influence in determining the nature of the merchandise carried. Alexandria was a center of many commercial part­ nerships among Jewish merchants, usually relatives who lived in the various commercial centers, and among them they conducted the majority of com­ mercial activities that characterized the Fatimid king­ dom. There were also partnerships between Jews and Muslims; however, generally the Jewish merchants were united in a partnership of cooperative activity that operated in all the lands of the Mediterranean basin, which apparently was the secret of the Jewish merchants success. One of the commercial activities that was com­ mon in the medieval world was robbery, particularly piracy. In the decade 1030-1040 a gigantic struggle occurred in the Mediterranean among three fleets, each vying for sole control of the sea—the Byzantine, the Fatimid, and the Spanish (Muslim). Piracy was one result of this struggle. In the Genizah are found many letters from Alexandria written between 1025 and 1035 dealing with the subject of Jewish captives

and their ransom. Ships of the Fatimid fleet attacked ships of the Byzantine trade and plundered all their contents, including the passengers. Many Jewish merchants and nonmerchant passengers thus fell into the hands of men of the Fatimid fleet, who brought them to the port of Alexandria. There men of the Jewish community endeavored to redeem them from the hands of their captors, and concerned themselves also with their maintenance and eventual return to their homes. The expenses for this were substantial. Since the redemption of captives was a major com­ mercial activity, there were set tariffs: thirty-three and one-third dinars per person. The Jewish commu­ nity of Alexandria could not bear this burden by itself, so letters were dispatched to other Jewish communities in Egypt, especially Fustat and to the haver who was its head, Ephraim b. Shemariah (1010-1055). From these letters it appears that sev­ eral wealthy men in the community, such as Natanel, donated money for the ransom of captives. The rest of the money was gathered from the community, and then aid was sought from the community of Fustat. An accounting was made of the money received, how many captives were ransomed, and how much was spent on their maintenance. The majority of these letters were written by Joseph ha-Kohen b. Solomon, who was the dayyan (judge) of the community, and his son Yeshua ha-Kohen, the haver; both had been appointed by the authority of the Palestinian yeshivah. Among the captives were women and chil­ dren, and also “Rabbanite” (loyal to talmudic tradi­ tion) Jews and QARAITES. The Qaraite community in Fustat also joined in the ransom, and this activity was apparently a joint venture with the Rabbanite Jews. In Alexandria as well as Fustat there were two “Rabbanite” congregations, one of Babylonian and one of Jerusalem origin, and a Qaraite congregation. The basic Jewish settlement in Alexandria was of Palestinian origin and saw itself as subject to the au­ thority of the yeshivah of Palestine. From the tenth century there also flourished in Alexandria a Baby­ lonian community, following the large migration from Iraq, and there also arrived many merchants from the Maghrib. The “Jerusalem” congregation was the dominant one in Alexandria, and the gaon of Palestine was the unquestioned authority on all ap­ pointments and dismissals within the community.

17

Alexandria

The gaon compelled the dayyan, appointed by au­ thority of the Palestinian yeshivah, to head the bet din (Jewish court) and the community. The appoint­ ments of the judges (who, if worthy, were also ap­ pointed as h^ver) were many and similar in nature to the ordination of the gaon himself. The two congre­ gations generally worked together as one community, but there were struggles between the leaders as to who should head the entire community and receive the appointment from the gaon. Testimony to these struggles is found in letters from Alexandria to Fustat preserved in the Genizah. Among them, for instance, is the letter of appointment by the Palestinian gaon Solomon b. Judah (1025-1051) of the aforemen­ tioned judge Joseph ha-Kohen b. Solomon of Alexandria, which was sent for confirmation to the Fatimid government in Cairo. Sahlan b. Abraham, who was for a time (1030-1048) head of the Baby­ lonian congregation in Fustat and who stayed for several years in Alexandria, attempted to remove the “Jerusalem” dayyan of Alexandria and to compel the gaon to appoint in his place a member of the Baby­ lonian congregation. However, generally the com­ munity worked together as one, as has been men­ tioned in matters of welfare or distress, such as the ransom of captives. In the Fatimid era, because of the decline of Alexandria to a secondary level of importance after the transfer of centrality to Fustat and Cairo, and also because of the dependence of the Jewish com­ munity on the yeshivah of Palestine, no spiritualcultural creativity developed in Alexandria and no important scholars arose there. Nor did this change in the twelfth century. The leader of the community in Alexandria in the middle of that century was Aaron b. Zion b. Joshua Ibn al-’Ammanl, a physician and poet, and a friend of the renowned poet Judah ha-Levy. In approximately 1170 Benjamin of Tudela visited Alexandria and reported that there were some three hundred Jews there. At the beginning of the Ayyubl reign and in the time of MAIMONIDES the heads of the community were Pinhas b. Meshullam of Byzantium and Anatoli b. Joseph of Marseille. In the days of Maimonides, son Abraham (1212-1237) the head of the Alexandria community was Joseph b. Gershom, who came from France. Also in the Ayyubl era the Jews of Alexandria engaged principally in in­

18

ternational commerce and traveled for commercial purposes to Spain, France, and other lands of the Mediterranean basin, as well as to southern Arabia and India. In the period of the Bahrl Mamluks (1250-1381) there was a large Jewish community in Alexandria. Many of them engaged in trade between Egypt and the lands of the western Mediterranean. Cultural ac­ tivity also developed considerably. Information from the Genizah attests to the establishment of two syna­ gogues, one large and one small. The large synagogue was called “Abizardiel,” a family name (Abzaradiel) found among the Jews of Spain (Toledo). An inscrip­ tion found in this synagogue states that in 1379 the synagogue was restored and repaired by Judah b. Saul, possibly of this family and of Spanish origin. The synagogue was also repaired in 1880 and is still extant. In the period of the “Circassian” Mamluks (1381-1517) Egyptian trade declined in importance with the ascendancy of that of the Christian Euro­ pean lands. Alexandria also declined in importance, and the Jewish community became impoverished. In 1481 the Jewish traveler Meshullam da Volterra vis­ ited Alexandria and found only sixty Jewish families there, but the elders of the community remembered the days when the Jewish population numbered four thousand people. In 1488 Obadiah of Bertinoro ar­ rived and found twenty-five families. After the EX­ PULSION from Spain in 1492, Jewish merchants, scholars, and rabbis settled in Alexandria, and the de­ pleted community was reestablished. Joseph Sambari, the Egyptian Jewish chronicler of the seven­ teenth century, tells of scholars who headed the Jewish community of Alexandria, such as Moses Ibn Susan, Joseph Sagis, and Barukh Ibn Habib. ELINOAR BAREKET [TRANSLATED NORMAN ROTH]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashtor, Eliyahu. Toldot ha-yehudim be-Mi$rayim live-Suriah tabat shilfon ha-Mamlukim (Jerusalem, 1944). ---------. “Qavim le-demutah shel ha-qehillah hayehudit be-Misrayim bi-mei ha-beinayim.” $iyyon 30 (1965): 61-78, 128-57.

Alfonso X

Bareket, Elinoar. “Manhigei ha-yehudim be-Fustat bemahsit ha-rishonah shel ha-meah ha-ahat-’esreh.” (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, 1987). Goitein, Shlomo Dov. A Mediterranean Society (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1967-88), 5 vols. Mann, Jacob. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs. (New York, 1970).

Alfonso X

Alfonso X of Castile-Leon (1252-1284) is one of the more important and interesting rulers of medieval Spain. Alfonso “elSabio”(“the Wise”), as he is known in Spain, has been credited with authorship of nu­ merous scientific, literary, legal, and other works in which he personally played little if any role; yet it is true that he sponsored or ordered the composition of these works, and therefore his relatively brief reign is marked by the most significant production of such material of any Spanish reign. With his father, Fernando III, Alfonso brought about the culmination of the long attempt to recon­ quer the territory in southern Castile and Andalucia held by the Muslims. Thus, Cordoba, Seville, Jerez, and other cities were added to the kingdom. Alfonso pursued an evenhanded policy of toleration of Jews and Muslims in the newly conquered territory. He also made substantial grants of houses and land to Jews in these cities, as well as to numerous Jewish sol­ diers and archers and others who served in his army (see A n d a l u c i a ). As previous rulers of Castile and Leon had done, Alfonso retained numerous Jewish officials in his ser­ vice, perhaps even more than his predecessors. The most important of these was don (Juleman Pintadura (Solomon Ibn Sadoq), his almoxarife, or chief finan­ cial official and general administrator. Solomon was immensely wealthy, owning farmland in various places, orchards in Seville (in addition to other grants there from the king), vineyards in Seville and Car­ mona, various mills, warehouses, and various other holdings. The esteem in which he was held by the king is obvious from a letter to his son, the infante Fernando, in which Alfonso counsels him to always rely on “don Zuleman, who has great wealth” and who can perform great service for Fernando. How­

ever, there were numerous other Jewish officials throughout the kingdom, including members of the famed Ibn Susan dynasty of Toledo (which also owned property in Seville). Even the Jewish poet To­ dros b. Judah A b u l a f i a was in the service of the king, and at the age of seventeen had composed a poem (1264) in honor of Alfonso, and later gave him a goblet inscribed in Hebrew. Nevertheless, when Solomon Ibn §adoq died in 1274, the king lost no time in (illegally) giving much of his property to the cathedral of Seville. Yet the king did not cease to utilize the service of Solomons son Isaac, and then Meir Ibn Susan, who replaced Solomon as almoxarife mayor of the kingdom, and his son Isaac (Zag de la Maleha). When Alfonsos son Sancho and some of the nobles of the realm rebelled against the king, Zag was given the responsibility for carrying money to pay the kings army. However, he was captured (1278 or 1279) by Sancho and was forced to give the money to him. As a result, the king imprisoned Zag in Seville in 1280 and ordered that he be dragged through the streets until he died. Embittered by the rebellion of his son and heir, and in need of money to conduct the campaign against the rebels, Alfonso in 1281 ordered the im­ prisonment of all Jews throughout the kingdom. Not all Jews were seized, of course, but many were ar­ rested in the synagogues on a Sabbath. They were held for a ransom of twelve thousand maravedis per day until paid—a significant sum, which no doubt was quickly paid. These tactics were familiar in France or England, and later also in Germany, but were never before or after employed by a ruler in Spain. In sum, the actual record of Alfonsos dealings with Jews, in spite of the large number of Jewish offi­ cials who served him, places him among the least fa­ vorably disposed of all Spanish rulers. His harsh and often unjust actions, including rescinding the longobserved privileges by which Jews had their own spe­ cial judges in all cases between Jews and Christians, certainly contrast with the actions of his father-inlaw, Jaime I of A r a g On - C a t a l o n l a , as well as with those of other Castilian rulers. On the other hand, it is completely incorrect to condemn Alfonso (anachronistically) as “antiSemitic” on the basis of the Cantigas de Santa Maria., a collection of miracle tales and poems in praise of

19

Alfonso X

the Virgin. The Cantigas were not composed, of course, by Alfonso (some claim he wrote part of the poems praising the Virgin, but even this is far from certain), but rather by anonymous writers at his court, most of whom were not Castilian. In fact, all of the miracle tales that relate to Jews and the Virgin come from well-known tales circulat­ ing in such collections in Christian literature from the Byzantine Empire to France and England. In every case, the tales in their original sources are far more “anti-Jewish” than the abridged version in the Cantigas. Jews played the major role in the development of another important part of what has come to be called the “Alfonsine corpus,” the scientific and astronomi­ cal treatises collectively known as the Libro del saber de astrologia, composed during the period 1256— 1280. Some of these were works translated from Ara­ bic by Jewish translators, while many of them were original treatises composed by Jewish scientists in Castilian. Even earlier, while Alfonso was still in­ fante, treatises such as the Lapidario were translated from Arabic for him by jewish physicians and other scholars. The famous Tablas alfonsies, an important astronomical work that held sway for centuries, was originally composed for the king by Yehudah Mosca and Isaac ((^ag) Ibn Sid. The importance of these and other treatises not only in the history of science but in the nascent development of the Castilian language is immense. Finally, numerous legal scholars were at work at the court of Alfonso as various attempts were made to collect and codify the numerous laws of the king­ dom over centuries, dating back to Visigothic rule. All of these legal codes are of importance also with respect to legislation therein concerning the Jews. The Fuero real\ written between 1252 and 1255, intended for use by the cities of Castile (as opposed to the Fuero juzgoy based more or less on the Visi­ gothic code, which was used in Leon) is actually more important for practical purposes in determin­ ing actual legislative attitudes toward the Jews than the more famous and more studied Siete partidas. That massive code, divided into “seven parts” (many of which deal in passing with Jews), was the work of canonists, primarily Ramon de Penafort, a DOMINI­ CAN who had compiled the Decretales of Pope Gre­ gory IX (1234). Ramon was extremely anti-Jewish, 20

and he already had a hand in fashioning a legal code that had damaged the formerly stable relations be­ tween Jews and Christians in his native AragonCatalonia. This he accomplished through his influ­ ence on Vidal de Canellas, whom he had succeeded in having appointed bishop of Huesca and Jaca in 1238. Vidal was the author of the strongly anti-Jew­ ish Fueros de Aragon., which unlike the Partidas was actually promulgated as law in that kingdom. The strong hand of Ramon is evident in every one of the anti-Jewish laws of the Partidas. Some passages are, indeed, direct translations from his own Latin canon law treatise. Fortunately, the Partidas were per­ haps never intended, and certainly were not ac­ cepted, as promulgated law for the kingdom of Castile and Leon, and none of the harsh laws was ever actually observed in the kingdom. No less evident is the influence of Ramon on the Fuero real., which was accepted by several Castilian cities (some of which, including Burgos and Soria, had substantial Jewish populations). However, the majority of the anti-Jewish laws of this code were never observed in practice. This was usually the case in medieval Spain in general, where substantial dif­ ferences existed between the “official” and the “prac­ tical” aspects of life. Alfonsos reign began on an auspicious note, with his patronage of Jewish scientific authors and trans­ lators and the promise of equality of treatment for Jews throughout his kingdom. Unfortunately, that promise was not fulfilled, and it was left to his heir, Sancho IV, to restore the balance that had long char­ acterized the status of Jews in the kingdom. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ballesteros-Beretta, Antonio. Alfonso X el sabio. (Barcelona, 1963). Carpenter, Dwayne E. Alfonso X and the Jews: An Edition and Commentary on Siete Partidas 7.24 “De los judios” (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1986). Gonzalez, Julio. Repartimiento de Sevilla (Madrid, 1951), vol. 2. Roth, Norman. “Jewish Collaborators in Alfonsos Scientific Work,” in Robert I. Burns, ed., Emperor o f Culture. Alfonso X the Learned o f Castile and

Almohads

His Thirteenth-Century Renaissance (Philadelphia, 1990), pp. 59-71. ------- “Two Jewish Courtiers of Alfonso X Called Zag (Isaac),” Sefarad43 (1983): 75-85.

Almohads The generally harmonious relations that prevailed between Muslims and Jews throughout the Muslim world in the early medieval period were brutally in­ terrupted with the emergence of a fanatical sect in the twelfth century in NORTH AFRICA: the “Almo­ hads” (Ar. al-Muwahhidun, “unifiers,” i.e., strict be­ lievers in the unity of God). Ibn Tumart, the founder of the sect, objected to the moral laxity of the Berbers of North Africa and declared war against the Almoravid dynasty then in control in the Maghrib (North Africa and Muslim Spain). During these bat­ tles he became ill and died (1130). He was succeeded by cAbd al-Mu’min ibn ‘All, who by 1147 had man­ aged to capture Fez and Marrakesh, the capital of the Almoravids. In that year he also sent an expedition to al-Andalus (Spain), but the Almohads did not firmly establish themselves there until 1163. The Almohads5 condemnation of the popular Malikite theological-legal school led to rebellion against them throughout southern Morocco and along the coast. This rebellion was crushed and thousands of people, even followers of cAbd alMu’min, were executed. When Marrakesh was captured, according to one source, the Christian church there was destroyed, and a great number of Jews and Christian militia were killed. When cAbd al-Mumin conquered Ifriqiya (Tunisia) in 1151, he gave the Jews and Christians there the option of conversion to Islam or death. Abu Yaqub Yusuf was the first Almohad ruler of al-Andalus (1163-1184), establishing a dynasty that lasted there until 1227. As may be seen from the let­ ter of Maimun (father of MAIMONIDES), a religious judge {dayyari) of the Jewish community of Cordoba, persecution of the Jews had begun by 1160. For the most part, however, this consisted of pressuring the Jews to formally convert to Islam, which necessitated merely the recital of the Muslim creed. In his letter, Maimun urges Jews to perform what they can of the commandments of the Torah. Meanwhile, however,

many Jews were fleeing the cities held by the Almo­ hads; among them were the sons of the famous scholar Ibn Megash in Lucena, who went to Christ­ ian Toledo. A certain zealous rabbi had written a letter (appar­ ently in Christian Spain) stating that even the ap­ pearance of accepting Islam was complete heresy and that one is required to die for the “sanctification of the Name” (of God) rather than submit. This aroused the anger of the young Maimonides, who wrote a lengthy letter (actually a treatise) in response, cogently arguing against all the views set forth by the rabbi. Nevertheless, he concludes, the advice that he and his family have decided upon is to flee “these places” and go to a place where the Torah may still be observed without fear. He and his father, brother, and sister (we hear nothing of his mother) thus fled al-Andalus in about 1160 (not 1165, as usually stated) and went to Fez in Morocco. There we know that he studied Talmud with Judah ha-Kohen Ibn Susan, and that sage was killed in 1165. More than one writer has commented on the pe­ culiarity of “going from the frying pan into the fire,” in the family’s decision to go to Fez, a major center of the Almohads. However, we now know that persecu­ tion of the Jews in Fez at that time was much less se­ vere than in other communities, and by the time the situation worsened, Maimonides and his family had gone to Palestine and later to Egypt. It needs to be pointed out, especially in light of recent claims by uninformed writers, that Maimonides himself never converted to Islam—a fact long ago established by competent scholars. Nor is there any evidence that Joseph Ibn Aknin—who as informed scholars know was not the student of Maimonides, but rather a con­ temporary—also went to Fez. However, Joseph Ibn Shim’on, who was the student of Maimonides (for whom he wrote the Guide), also met with persecu­ tion from the Almohads in Ceuta and had to conceal his religion until he was able to flee to Cairo. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the theory of Jewish soldiers anywhere who supposedly fought against the Almohad troops, nor that the Al­ mohads conquered certain cities on a Saturday be­ cause this was the Jewish Sabbath and they would not fight on that day. Ibn Aknin, who clearly never met Maimonides, although he had generally a very high regard for his 21

Almohads

works, fled to BARCELONA in Christian Spain. There, he composed a work, still in manuscript, in which he strongly disagreed with Maimonides’ views about the persecution. Ibn Aknin viewed the Almohads as waging a true “religious persecution” in which Jews were required to sacrifice themselves in order to sanc­ tify God’s name, and he praised the “saints” of Fez, Sijilmasa, and Draa (all in North Africa) for having done just this. By implication, the Jews of Tlemcen, Marrakesh, Ceuta, and Meknes had been killed by the Almohads in the invasions or afterward, and had not chosen death as martyrs. The renowned poet and biblical commentator A b r a h a m I b n cE z r a from al-Andalus, although then wandering through Europe and thus not an eyewit­ ness, composed a lengthy eulogy on the calamities that befell the Jews in all of these cities. I f this poem reflects reality, it would appear that some of these towns (Draa has altogether vanished in modern times) were indeed very important centers of Jewish learning and population. In al-Andalus there is some evidence that the early period of persecution, when Jews were severely re­ stricted in certain areas (particularly business), lessened. There was widespread recognition among the Muslims that the Jews were far from being sincere converts. Nevertheless, they soon were again living in luxury and dressing in the finest CLOTHING. The ruler Abu Yusuf Yaqub (1184-1199) took steps against this and introduced the requirement that Jews must dress in the Muslim fashion of mourning (dark blue or black), with long cloaklike garments. The subsequent ruler, Abu Abd-Allah, ordered that Jews wear yellow cloaks and turbans, which continued until 1224. (The con­ jecture that this had anything to do with the so-called Yellow Badge imposed upon Jews in some lands by the Fourth Lateran Church Council of 1215 is wholly groundless; there was no requirement that the badge be yellow at all. However, the original wording of the council decree, which called for “distinctive clothing” to be worn by Jews, may have been indirectly influ­ enced by this Muslim requirement.) Neither in North Africa nor, even more so, in alAndalus did Jewish communities or Jewish life entirely come to an end, as exaggerated claims would have it. Nevertheless, this long period of persecution certainly depleted both the Jewish population and culture. NORMAN ROTH

22

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Corcos (Abulafia), David. “Le-ofey yabasam shel shelitey ha-Almuhadim le-Yehudiym,” Zion ($iyyon) 32 (1967): 137-60. Hirschberg, H. Z. “A1 gezeirot ha-meyahadim vesehar Hodu,” in Salo W. Baron et al., eds., Sefer Yovel le-Yi$haq Baer (Jerusalem, I960), 134-53 (English summary, xii-iii). Roth, Norman. Jews, Visigoths & Muslims in Me­ dieval Spain (Leiden, 1994), index, “Almohads.”

Almoravids

The Almoravid (al-Murdbitun) dynasty was founded in North Africa in the early eleventh century. Unlike the later more fanatical ALMOHADS, they did not par­ ticularly single out Christians and Jews for persecution. However, the Almoravid ruler Yusuf Ibn Tashufln was invited by the Muslims of al-Andalus (southern Spain) to help defend against the invasion of the Castilian king Alfonso VI in 1086. This was a major land and sea battle, which turned the tide temporarily against the Christians in their efforts to reconquer al-Andalus. Using the opportunity presented them, the Almoravids (incorrectly: Almoravides; cf. Roth, 1994, 261 n. 101) remained in al-Andalus and took it over from the weaker local rulers, many of whom were forced to flee. Although the Almoravids were fierce warriors, they were hardly “barbarians,” as they sometimes have been described. They were often intolerant of philosophical ideas. All b. Yusuf, who succeeded his father as ruler in 1106, ordered that the works of the mystic philosopher al-Ghazall be burned on religious grounds because he disagreed with his views. On the other hand, the Al­ moravids were not able to eradicate the strong hold of secular studies and literature among the Muslims of alAndalus, and poetry especially continued to flourish. It appears from the few substantial sources avail­ able to us that there was no persecution of Jews either in North Africa or in al-Andalus, at least in the early years of the dynasty. According to al-ldrisl (d. 1162) , the Jewish Barghawata tribe in the region of Mar­ rakesh had a sort of “capital of the South,” the Jewish center of Agmat (Aghmat). The Almoravids fought the “Judaized” Berbers there in 1059, and their deci­ sive victory marked the decline of the Jewish Berber tribes. The responsa of Isaac al-FasI report a couple of

Ambassadors, Jews as

incidents of Muslim officials stealing property from Jews. Hebrew p o etry also flourished at this time. This was also the period of some of the greatest Jew­ ish scholars: al-FasI, Joseph Ibn §addiq, Judah Ibn Ghivath (the correct spelling of his name) and his son Isaac, and of such outstanding poets as Ibn ‘Ezra(h) and Ju d ah ha-Levy. It is even possible that one of the poets wrote a poem commemorating the victory of the Almoravid armies against the Christian attacks in Lucena. In 1136 an order was is­ sued that Jews were not allowed to remain overnight in the Almoravid capital of Marrakesh (Morocco). One Muslim source indicates that when Tunis was captured by the Almoravids in 1156, the Jews were ordered to convert or leave the city; this is neverthe­ less somewhat suspect as it was not the practice to re­ quire such conversion. A letter to his father from a young Jewish merchant from Fez visiting Spain states that compared with the hatred of Jews in Fez, “Almeria is a place of salvation.”

The oft-discussed “market regulations” (a manual of laws written by a Muslim judge responsible for the market) of Seville are thus somewhat misleading as a true indicator of relations between Jews and the Al­ moravid rulers, or certainly the Muslim population, at the time. According to those largely theoretical laws Muslims must not massage Christians or Jews in the public baths, nor should a Muslim take care of an animal of a Jew or Christian. Jews were not allowed to slaughter meat for Muslims, although in fact we know they did. Clothing of lepers, libertines (sexu­ ally promiscuous people), Jews, or Christians must not be sold without indicating their origin. Chris­ tians and Jews were not to dress in the clothing of people of position nor to be greeted with the custom­ ary formula “peace be upon you,” for “the devil has gained mastery over them and has made them forget the remembrance of God. They are the devils party, and indeed the devils party are the losers.” Both Jews and Christians must wear a distinguishing sign (see Ba d g e ).

In fact, Jews and Muslims, including the rulers, were increasingly on good terms with each other, at least in al-Andalus. It is thus hard to reconcile the statement of the great scholar, biblical commentator, and poet A b r a h a m Ibn ‘Ez r a that he was forced to flee Spain because of the “oppressors,” when we have no evidence of any oppression. It is, indeed, possible

that this statement refers to the Almohad invasion of 1145, although they were not firmly established in al-Andalus until at least 1163. We hear of some isolated instances of Jews who converted to Islam during the Almoravid period, but aside from the alleged requirement of conversion in Tunis, these were voluntary conversions. There are few, virtually no, studies of the Al­ moravid period in general, and none whatever on Jews under the Almoravid dynasty. NORMAN ROTH BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bosch Vila, Jacinto. Los Almordvides (Tetuan, 1956); the only major study, but disappointing; chiefly a military history. Huici Miranda, A. “Contribucion al estudio de la dinastia almoravide,” Etudes dorientalisme dediees a la memoire de Levi-Provengal (Paris, 1962), II, 605-621. Roth, Norman. Jews, Visigoths & Muslims in Medieval Spain (Leiden, 1994), especially pp. 65-66, 11 3-1 6,1 4 9-5 0.

Ambassadors, Jews as (see also Medicine)

Medieval Jews, in spite of laws (both Muslim and Christian) prohibiting them from holding office, were frequently government officials. In addition, Jews were sometimes appointed, either temporarily or permanently, as ambassadors to deal with foreign governments. That Jews were named to such posts is not surprising, given their general knowledge of lan­ guages and experience in travel, and their universal loyalty to the ruling authority (a loyalty demanded by Jewish law, as well as arising from feelings of grati­ tude for the protected and privileged status that Jews generally enjoyed). Generally it was a Christian king who appointed a Jew as ambassador to a Muslim court. Rarely do we hear of the opposite, although this may be only be­ cause Jews received scarce mention altogether in me­ dieval Muslim sources. The first known example is that of Isaac the Jew, sent by Charlemagne to the Baghdad caliph Harun al-Rashld in 797. As was usual also with later em­ bassies, Isaac was accompanied by two Christians, but both died on the journey. Isaac returned alone to 23

Ambassadors, Jews as

Charlemagne’s court in 802, bearing gifts (including an elephant!) from the caliph. Of particular importance is Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, a tax official in al-Andalus (Muslim Spain) during the reign of cAbd al-Rahman III (912-961). He eventually became a minister, and in effect the “foreign minister” of that important Muslim kingdom. As such, he re­ ceived embassies from lands as distant as BYZANTIUM and Italy. In his famous letter to the king of the Khazars, he refers to the ambassadors of the “king of Con­ stantinople” (Constantine VII, who in 949 sent an em­ bassy to Cordoba), as well as the “king of the Gebalim” (Slavs, probably; the meaning is not entirely certain). Included in this latter embassy were also two Jews, Mar (a title of respect) Saul and Mar Joseph. In all these in­ stances, the Jewish ambassadors, as part of a delegation always headed by Christians, were present as inter­ preters. Hasdai, who may have had a rudimentary knowledge of Greek (he translated the famous pharma­ ceutical encyclopedia of Dioscorides, but did so with the help of a Christian monk from Constantinople) but certainly not of Latin, would have communicated with these Jewish ambassadors in Hebrew, of course. Hasdai was eager to make contact with the con­ verted Jewish king of the Khazars and had attempted to send his own ambassador, a certain Mar Isaac b. Natan, to the land of the Khazars, but Isaac had been prevented from continuing his journey upon reach­ ing Constantinople. The two Jewish ambassadors of the “Gebalim,” M arSaul and Mar Joseph, agreed to take Hasdai’s letter to the Khazar king. Most interesting, however, is the further reference to the ambassadors of the “king of Germany,” Otto I, who in 953 sent an embassy to Cordoba. This em­ bassy was headed by Johannes of Gorze, from whom we have a Latin account. According to this, the caliph was aware of his danger in having previously insulted Christianity in a letter to Otto, and so ap­ pointed liasdai, “the wisest man any of us ever saw or heard,” according to Johannes, to conduct the ne­ gotiations. We hear of no Jewish ambassador repre­ senting Otto on this occasion, but there was a Chris­ tian bishop named Juan (thus, a Mozarabic, or Spanish Christian who lived among Muslims and therefore spoke Arabic) in the party. Obviously, Has­ dai communicated with him in Arabic. Earlier, in 940, Hasdai had negotiated an impor­ tant peace treaty with BARCELONA, preventing a Mus­ 24

lim attack on the city. Concerning this, we hear of Riquilda, the widow of Odo of Narbonne, sending her Jewish emissary “Bernat” to Hasdai. (Since that name is unlikely for a Jew, perhaps “Bonet” should be read.) In Christian Spain during the “Reconquest,” Al­ fonso VI demanded annual tribute from the Muslim ruler of Cordoba and Seville, al-Mu‘tamid. In 1082 Alfonso sent a Jewish emissary, Ibn Shallb (or Shalblb) to collect this tribute, and the Jew insulted the Muslim ruler, who ordered that he be killed. This launched the Christian campaign that resulted in the famous defeat of the Almoravids at the battle of Zallaqa (1086). In 1108 Solomon Ibn Ferrusiel, nephew of Alfonso’s physician Joseph, was sent by the king on a diplomatic mission to Aragon, but he was mur­ dered on his return to Toledo. Yusuf Ibn al-Fakhkhar, a member of a renowned Jewish dynasty, was ambas­ sador of Alfonso VIII in 1191 when he reportedly ar­ rived with Muslim officials of al-Andalus at Seville to confirm treaties made with the king. Yet another Yusuf Ibn al-Fakhkhar concluded negotiations for Alfonso with the Almohad wazir Ibn Jamf in 1217. Meir Ibn Susan, an official of ALFONSO X, may have gone on a diplomatic mission to Morocco in 1276. (He was a close friend of NAHMANIDES, who spoke of him in highly respectful terms.) From a responsum of Solomon IBNADRET we know that a king (either Sancho IV of Castile or Jaime II of AragonCatalonia) appointed a Jew as ambassador from Mur­ cia to the Muslim ruler ofTlemcen (North Africa). During the Trastamara civil war in Castile (1364) the Jewish physician Ibrahim Ibn Zarzar, who had been physician of Muhammad V of Granada and then left to assume the same duty for Pedro of Castile, was sent by Pedro to the Muslim king to in­ tervene in a complicated dispute. The renowned Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun, who had himself come to Granada from Fez and was sent on a diplo­ matic mission by the ruler, there met the Jewish physician, whom he had already known earlier in Fez (the various Muslim sources are quite confused, but the reality of Ibn Zarzar is certain). In A r a g On - C a t a l o n i a , also, Jews served in diplo­ matic capacities. Alfonso III in 1286 sent Abraham Avengallel and his brother Samuel on a mission to the Muslim king of Morocco and granted them, in recog­ nition of their long services to the kings, a lifetime ex­ emption from all taxes. Already in 1283 Abraham

Andalucia

had gone on a similar mission to Granada for JAIME I. Again in 1291 Abraham went to Morocco, with a special grant of safeconduct for him and his family. In 1288 Alfonso appointed another Jewish official, Jahuda Abenfa^en, to represent him on a mission to Muslim Granada, and later the king wrote to the Muslim ruler that he was granting full plenipoten­ tiary authority to Jahuda to make treaties and grant securities. Jaime II (1291) appointed Abraham Ibn Nahmias as official Arabic translator and secretary and also sent him on a mission to Granada. He died during this mission, however. In 1294 the king sent Samuel Abenmenasse on a similar mission to the king of Mo­ rocco. Jaime entreated the Muslim ruler to listen carefully to all of Samuel’s requests, to which the Muslim king responded in a letter that he sent with his Jewish ambassador, Isaac. The alliance of Granada with Juan Manuel, the Castilian overlord of Murcia, in 1313 caused alarm in Aragon. Jaime again sent Samuel to find out what was going on, and he reported (in a Catalan letter to the king) that the Muslim ruler hoped for peace with Jaime. In fact, a peace treaty was concluded in 1321, confirmed by yet another Jewish ambassador, Shimun (Simon) b. Tubiya (Tobiah). Deteriorating relations between Christian Spain and the Muslim kingdoms of Granada and North Africa, rather than any decrease in the use of Jewish officials during the fifteenth century, was the proba­ ble cause for the disappearance of Jewish ambas­ sadors in the service of the kings. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alarcon y Santon, Maximiliano, and Ramon Garcfa de Linares, eds. and tr. Los documentos drahes diplomdticos del Archivo de la Corona de Aragon (Madrid, 1940), passim, on Jaime II. Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History o f the Jews (N.Y., Philadelphia, 1953-83), IV, 45 (on Charlemagne, cf. also M. Wiener’s German trans­ lation of Joseph ha-Cohen, Emek habachja [Leipzig, 1858], pp. 149-50, n. 20). Roth, Norman. “Again Alfonso VI, ‘Imbaratur dhu’l-Millatayn,’ and Some New Data,” Bulletin o f Hispanic Studies 61 (1984): 165-69.

---------. Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in M edieval Spain (Leiden, 1994), on Ibn Shaprut and others.

Andalucia Andalucia, a province of southern Spain, derives its name from Arabic al-Andalus (which, in turn, was the subject of much discussion among Muslim geog­ raphers, the most commonly accepted etymology being that it derives from “Vandals”). Al-Andalus was the region of the initial Muslim conquest of Spain (711), at which time it was already well populated by Jews who had lived there for centuries. With increas­ ing Jewish immigration in the ninth and tenth cen­ turies, chiefly from Iraq and other Muslim lands, this region became the cultural and social center of Jew­ ish life in Muslim Spain (although until the end of the tenth century BARCELONA vied in importance with the Muslim region). At the time of the first waves of the Christian Re­ conquest in the latter half of the twelfth century, large and well-established Jewish communities were to be found in major cities such as Lucena, Granada, Almeria, Malaga, Jerez, Seville, Carmona, Ecija, Cor­ doba, and Baeza. Much of the territory conquered by the Christians in the twelfth century was again retaken by the Mus­ lims, and it was not until the mid-thirteenth century that Christian forces were able to finally conquer and hold these cities. Baeza was reconquered by Fernando III in 1226, and then Cordoba (1236), Jaen (1246), Seville (1248), and Jerez (1249; actually by treaty rather than conquest). Fernando and his son AL­ FONSO X respected the Jews and their rights, and they did not persecute the Muslims or drive them out of the conquered territories. In Jerez there were at least ninety Jewish adult males, representing approxi­ mately 4 percent of the total population. The Jews had their own quarter and at least two synagogues. Many crafts and occupations are represented, and grants of houses and land were made to Jewish sol­ diers who served in the Christian conquering forces. Substantial grants were also given by the king to vari­ ous Jewish officials in his service and even to rabbis. In Cordoba the Jews and Muslims were required to contribute to the repair of the aqueduct and to the fund for the building of the cathedral (the chief mosque was taken over and remodeled). Pope Inno­ 25

Andalucia

cent IV in 1250 complained of the rebuilding, or en­ larging, of a synagogue in the city, but his order for its destruction was probably not carried out (it ap­ pears not even to have reached the city before the bishop died). Cordoba had already long declined in importance under the Muslims, and although a Jew­ ish community flourished there under the Christians, it did not reach any degree of real importance appar­ ently until the fifteenth century. Little information exists concerning the situation of the Jews in most of Andalucia during the late thir­ teenth and fourteenth centuries, but a privilege of Sancho IV, son of Alfonso X, exempted the Jews of Jerez from various taxes, especially commercial, throughout the kingdom. At the request of Christian merchants of the city (who certainly benefited from Jewish commercial activity), these exemptions were confirmed by Alfonso XI in 1332. The Jewish community of Seville, including sur­ rounding towns, was by far the most important. In the fourteenth century several significant Jewish gov­ ernment officials lived in the city, including not only treasury and tax officers of the kings but also of the province and the archbishop. Two important artifacts of the Jewish community survive, one a key pre­ sented to Fernando III when he entered the city, in­ scribed in Hebrew and Spanish letters lauding the conqueror. Also in the cathedral is the tomb of Fer­ nando, inscribed with a lengthy Hebrew eulogy praising him as “upright, righteous, fearer of God.” Indeed, Fernando and his son Alfonso had made gen­ erous donations of land and houses to Jews of the city, as they had done in Jerez. The Jews had many synagogues in the city (several of which probably were merely houses used for worship) and their own cemetery. Various Jewish government officials, such as Samuel ha-Levy Abulafia, who was treasurer of Pedro I, even though they did not live in the city, were granted stores and houses for income purposes, and some of these were in turn granted to later Jew­ ish government officials. Attacks on Jews in the summer of 1391 began with the preaching of a fanatical archdeacon of Seville, Ferrant Martinez, who in 1389 had been warned by the archbishop to stop his anti-Jewish ser­ mons and charges. The young king, Enrique III, also had acted swiftly to try to prevent his activity, but all to no avail. Jewish communities not only in Andalu­ 26

cia but throughout Spain were attacked and robbed, and many Jews converted to Christianity. The Jews of Seville particularly suffered, and many were killed. It appears that perhaps the majority con­ verted. The sale of the Jewish cemetery in Jerez would also seem to indicate that the Jewish commu­ nity there declined or converted. Similarly, syna­ gogues in Ecija and Carmona were abandoned. We have little information on what happened in Cor­ doba, but the king ordered a report made in 1402, and there is mention of robbery of the Jewish quar­ ter. The Jewish sources, reports by Hasdai Crescas and the son of Nissim of Gerona, are greatly exagger­ ated and not to be trusted with respect to communi­ ties where they were not eyewitnesses. In fact, the communities of Castile, Leon, and the entire king­ dom of Aragon-Catalonia seem to have suffered more than those of Andalucia. The devastation of the Jewish communities of An­ dalucia did not last long, however, for by 1459 the Jew­ ish community of Jerez, for example, was again flour­ ishing. In that year the Jews demanded from the city council, backed by an order of the king, the removal of some houses built by Christians on the land of the Jew­ ish cemetery, which was once again being used by Jews. They also demanded an end to threats by certain “pow­ erful men” to seize synagogues of the Jews, which the king (Enrique IV) again took measures to prevent. Although tax documents are obviously an unreli­ able source for population figures, some indication of the relative size of the Jewish population of Andalu­ cia in 1474 is indicated by the fact that the total tax contribution of the Jews there (59,800) was less than that of the diocese of Toledo alone (64,400). The only separate cities listed are Seville, Cordoba, and Bejar—and yet, as noted above, we know there was a significant Jewish community also in Jerez. In the fifteenth century, Jewish tax officials were appointed to supervise the collection of various taxes for Seville, Cordoba, Cadiz, Almeria, Malaga (Mus­ lim tributes), Baza, and other towns in Andalucia, but this does not mean there were Jews living in most of these towns. The Jewish community of Seville also soon re­ covered from the events of 1391, and by the mid­ fifteenth century was again flourishing. A consider­ able percentage of the Jews there were artisans and craftsmen, and at least eight physicians are known.

Aquinas, Thomas

The high degree of confidence and cooperation between Christians and Jews in Seville in the 1470s is indicated by the remarkable documents of appren­ ticeship that have survived, according to which members of both communities apprenticed their minor sons and daughters to each other to live and learn a trade for periods of five to ten years. Never­ theless, attempts were made by Juan II (1437) to en­ force separate quarters for Jews and Christians, and although this appears not to have lasted longer than a few years it was a sign of things to come. At the beginning of their reign, FERNANDO AND IS­ ABEL were received joyously by the Jews of Seville when they visited the city, as they were in other cities. Nevertheless, increasing pressure from the Cortes (par­ liament) and certain anti-Jewish elements in the king­ dom led to the imposition of separate quarters for Jews and Muslims (1480) throughout the kingdom. In­ deed, this had already been ordered in 1477 in Seville. Possibly in preparation for the planned campaign against Muslim Granada, and certainly under pres­ sure from the growing anti-converso and anti-Jewish elements, an order was apparently put into effect in 1483 to expel the Jews from all or most of the cities of Andalucia. The Inquisition, established to root out supposed “heresy” among the conversosy was directly responsible for this order and for supervising its exe­ cution. Primarily, the Jews of Seville and surrounding towns were forced to leave and to abandon their property. When the monarchs were informed of this fact, they ordered restitution to the Jews for property lost and also permitted the collection of unpaid debts. By 1484 most of the Jews had left the diocese of Seville (but Jews were still to be found living there), and they left Jerez soon after. In April of 1485 Jewish communities still existed in Cordoba and Maguer, but these left the following year. Still, we again find Jews living in Cordoba from 1488 to 1492, and if anything it appears the community had increased in population. From sources concerning the campaign against Granada we learn that Jews of Malaga suffered star­ vation during the siege in 1487 and were also at­ tacked by Muslims of the city. When the Christians conquered the city the Jews were held captive and ransomed; one source estimates that one hundred families were ransomed. While most of the Jews went to other cities in Spain, some (including important

scholars, such as Saadya Ibn Danan, and others) went to North Africa. It has been estimated that the total Jewish population of the conquered kingdom of Granada was between twelve hundred and thirteen hundred individuals. After the conquest, those of Granada proper remained, for the most part, until the general expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fita, Fidel. “La juderia de Jerez de la Frontera.” Boletin de la real academia de la historia 12—13: (1888): 61-86. ---------. “La sinagoga de Cordoba.” Boletin de la real academia de la historia 5 (1884): 361-99. Ladero Quesada, Miguel Angel. Granada despues de la conquista. (Granada, 1988). ---------. ElsigloXVen Castilla (Barcelona, 1982). Montes Romero-Camacho, Isabel. “Notas para el estudio de la juderia sevillana en la baja edad media (1248-1391).” La ciudadhispdnica durante los siglos XIII al XVI (= En la Espana medieval 10, 1987), pp. 343-65. Wagner, Klaus. Regesto de documentos del Archivo de Protocolos de Sevilla referents a judtos y moros (Seville, 1978).

Aquinas, Thomas Thomas Aquinas (1225 or 1227-1274) was born in Italy, the son of the count of Aquino. Early in life he was persuaded to enter the DOMINICAN Order, and studied at Cologne and Paris, especially with Albertus Magnus. He was canonized in 1323. As the fore­ most theologian not only of the Dominicans but of the medieval Church, after Augustine, his teachings had a profound and long-lasting influence. Aquinas was a prolific author. The most important of his works, which became the foundation not only of Catholic but of Protestant theology, is the Summa theologica, a massive encyclopedic compendium. To the extent that Jewish scholars have paid any atten­ tion at all to Aquinas, it is almost exclusively to this work, and at that only for very superficial compar­ isons with MAIMONIDES. The influence of Mai­ monides is, of course, not to be denied, but a thor­ ough analysis of this and other writings of Aquinas from a Jewish perspective remains to be done. 27

Aquinas, Thomas

From Maimonides’ Guide o f the Perplexed\ which undoubtedly was available in a Latin translation in the mid-thirteenth century or earlier (perhaps from the court of Frederick II, who was very interested in philosophy), Aquinas drew his inspiration for under­ standing “Mosaic law” as restricted to a specific time and place, although he applied to this the familiar Christian notion of evolution, so that the divine leg­ islation was merely to be a preparation for ultimate salvation, which could come only with belief in Christ. He nevertheless agreed with Maimonides, against earlier Scholastic criticism that the Torah consists of ceremonial law focusing on acts of wor­ ship, that in the centralization of the cult the law “re­ duced the sphere in which divine service was carried on by physical actions” (LiebeschUtz, 1962, 59; S.T 2, 1, q. 102, art. 3 and 4; Guide III, 32, 45). Simi­ larly, Aquinas classified the divine precepts into two groups: one dealing with social life and the other with ceremonial law, as did Maimonides. But again, as a Christian theologian, he propounded the idea that the “Mosaic ceremonies” were symbolic of things to come, a precursor to Christian faith. This went together with the already well-established con­ cept of the Jews as “witnesses” (albeit unwittingly) to the “truth” of Christianity, in that they preserved these ceremonial laws. Thus, they are distinct from the infidels (pagans and Muslims) or the heretics who refuse allegiance to the church, in that the Jews are linked to the Church by the very rituals they ob­ serve, although they do not understand their true meaning and purpose. Thus, Aquinas added a theo­ logical underpinning to the already established canonical legal ruling that Jews may not be forcibly baptized or coerced into becoming Christians (S.T. 2, 2, q. 10, art. 8). More remarkable than that, he gave a way out, had the Jews but known it, from being converted if it were against one’s reason; if one in good faith thought that becoming a Christian is wrong, he would do wrong in doing so, even though ultimate salvation is possible only through Chris­ tianity (S.T 2, 2, q. 19, art. 5; overlooked by Liebeschiitz). Further indebtedness to Maimonides appears in Aquinas’s notions about the nature of God. His third proof for the existence of God is that some things in nature come into existence and pass away; that is, they are merely possible beings, in that they can ei­ 28

ther be or not be. But if possible beings exist, they must have a cause, and it is impossible to arrive at in­ finity through these causes; rather, the existence of a Necessary Being must be assumed, which does not owe its existence to anything else but is necessary of itself (the argument of infinite regress). These argu­ ments are in S. T. 1, 1, q. 2, art. 3 and in Summa con­ tra gentiles, I, 15, 5). A major distinction between Christians and Jews in the understanding of morality, or ethics, is the be­ lief not only of Aquinas but of the Scholastics in gen­ eral that man acts entirely for his own good, and that the ultimate good, or end, aimed at is the individuals good. The well-being of others is a motive of con­ duct, but only a secondary one; the realization of in­ dividual happiness is the only reason for living in a society (see Wulf, 1959, 100-101). In fact, the at­ tainment of human virtue is not possible without the state and its laws (S.T 2a-2e, q. 93, art. 6); Aquinas appears to agree with Isidore of Seville (.Etymologies V. 20) that the purpose of law is to induce fear, which leads to virtue (S.T. ibid., q. 95, art. 1). Against this may be contrasted the whole history of Jewish ethical teaching and its concern not only for fellow Jews but even for strangers and enemies. The position of Mai­ monides on these questions could not be further re­ moved from that of Aquinas. Not everything in the writings of Aquinas is so be­ nign and favorable to Jews, however. In a letter to the duchess of Brabant (France), De regimine Judaeorum, he replied to her question as to whether it is permissi­ ble to tax Jews by saying that by reason of their “sins,” Jews are destined to “perpetual slavery,” and sovereigns may treat the goods of the Jews as their own property. Furthermore, since the Jews in her territory lived almost exclusively by “usury” (see MONEYLENDING), the duchess had asked whether it was right to tax such money, to which Aquinas replied that the Jews indeed should be compelled to restore the interest they had taken, but if that could not be done then she should make every effort to do so, or else use the money for “pious purposes” (Latin excerpt in Grayzel 1933, 234 n. 3; English tr. in Chazan 1980, 200-201). He also argued the permis­ sibility of the Church to liberate Christian slaves held by Jews without compensation, and he cites the prin­ ciple that Jews themselves are the “property” of the Church (Liebeschiitz, 1962, 65—66); he elsewhere

Aquinas, Thomas

stated that Jews are in a condition of “civil enslave­ ment” but are not excluded from divine and natural rights (S. T., q. 68, art. 10). There he was dealing with the common arguments for forcible baptism of Jew­ ish infants. Proponents contended that baptism was necessary to save the infants from eternal damnation, and that force was justified on both human and di­ vine grounds: because Jews are slaves of the ruler, their property—including their children—belongs to the ruler; and because God gave the soul, his claim on an infant is greater than that of the parents who “gave” the body. Aquinas did not agree with any of these views. However, it is another work, the Summa contra gentiles, written at the request of the notoriously antiJewish Dominican Ramon de Penafort (see DOMINI­ CANS and J e w s i n S p a n i s h l a w ), that is of most importance in terms of the Jews. This polemicaltheological work has been the subject of much debate as to who the “Gentiles” of the title are: Muslims, Jews, heretics, even other Christian monks have been suggested. In fact, it may be that the work was in­ tended for all of these. Aquinas notes that against Jews arguments from the “Old Testament” may be used, against heretics the “New Testament,” whereas against Muslims neither suffices (the important in­ troduction of Jose Maria de Garganta to Robles Sierras little-known edition and Spanish translation contains much information; less so, but also of im­ portance, is the introduction of Anton Pegis to his translation of Book One of S.C.G.). Again, Aquinas depended upon Maimonides. This is evident in his discussion of the things that prevent human reason from understanding the truth (Book One, tr. Pegis, p. 68), and in his argument that God and his intellect and essence are one (ch. 47, p. 176ff.). There are some polemical statements about Jews, such as the offhand remark about the “fantasies of simple Jews” and of Church Fathers such as Tertulian who believed that God has a bodily form (ibid. 115). In fact, a great many medieval Jews, not all of them so “simple,” held anthropomorphic views of God. Aquinas also disagreed with Maimonides, claiming that he said that the “number of angels which Scripture affirms is not the number of separate substances, but of forces in this lower world” (Book Two, “Creation,” ch. 92, p. 320); but Maimonides did not discuss the “number” of angels, saying only

that the natural forces operative in the world are metaphorically called “angels” (Guide II. 6). It has already been remarked above how in the Summa theologica Aquinas viewed Jewish “ceremonial law” as a precursor of salvation brought by Christian­ ity. So, too, in the Summa contra gentiles he states that the “sacraments” that preceded Christ signify the coming salvation. “Of course,” he writes, “in this way one avoids the opinion of the Jews, who believe that the sacraments of the Law must be observed forever precisely because they were established by God, since God has no regrets and is not changed” (Book Four, “Salvation,” ch. 57, p. 248). Just such an argument, in fact, was used in Jewish polemic. Aquinas offers the rather weak explanation that without change and re­ gret “one who disposes things may dispose things dif­ ferently in harmony with a different set of times” (pre­ cisely what the Jewish position sought, in fact, to avoid). Therefore, God “harmoniously” gave one set of sacraments and commandments before the Incar­ nation and another afterward. Although there is noth­ ing new in the idea that the laws, or commandments, of the Bible were a symbolic precursor for Christian­ ity, Aquinas may have added further support to the right of Jews, already recognized by papal decree and canon law, to observe their own laws and rituals. Aquinas in the Eyes o f M edieval Jews

Already in the thirteenth century Aquinass writings were known to Jewish scholars. Hillel b. Samuel of Verona (ca. 1220/25-1291/95), whose important work Tagmuley ha-nefesh (written after 1287; see Bib­ liography) discusses immortality of the soul and re­ wards after death. While supporting the views of Maimonides on most issues, Hillel was also well aware of the controversy in 1270 and 1277 at the University of Paris, where Aquinas taught, over the interpretation and study of Aristotle and the Muslim philosophers, especially Averroes (Ibn Rushd), on these very issues. Hillel sided with the Thomistic in­ terpretation of Aristotle and Averroes, against the ex­ tremists, both Jewish and Christian. He cites state­ ments from Aquinas as an anonymous source (“some say,” p. 12, and see the important note on p. 29). Most important, he made a complete translation (pp. 100-45) of Aquinas’s De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas (Latin ed. L. W. Keeler [Rome, 1957]), 29

Aquinas, Thomas

which Aquinas wrote in 1270 against the defenders of Ibn Rushd, particularly Siger de Brabant. It is in­ teresting that this work came so quickly to the atten­ tion of the Jewish philosopher of Italy. However, Hillel did not name Aquinas as the author and in fact conveys the impression that it is his own interpreta­ tion. This is probably the first instance of Jewish pla­ giarism of a Christian writer. Judah b. Moses Romano (b. 1292, Rome) cited approvingly the works of Augustine, Albertus Mag­ nus, Aquinas, and others. This is particularly surpris­ ing in that he was present at the burning of the Tal­ mud in Paris in 1240. Hasdai Crescas (ca. 1326-ca. 1412), an important Spanish philosopher and writer of an anti-Christian polemic, also wrote a “sermon” (actually a small trea­ tise) for Passover that borrowed its definition of faith directly from Aquinas, with some modification (Derashat ha-Pesah> ed. Aviezer Ravitzky [Jerusalem, 1988], see p. 49 ffi). He, too, fails to name Aquinas as his source. In the fifteenth century, Jewish TRANSLATION ac­ tivity began to focus on Latin works by Christian au­ thors, mostly theological works or philosophical commentaries. The most important of these transla­ tors was All b. Joseph Habillo, also known as don Manuel of Monzon (he did not convert to Christian­ ity), in the 1470s. Among the numerous Christian works he translated were two by Aquinas, Quaestiones disputate, quaestio de anima (VI, VII), and De animae facultatibus (the first edited by Jellinek, Thomas von Aquino, and the second by Jellinek, Philosophie und Kabbala, pp. 26-31). In his intro­ duction to the first translation (Jellinek 1854), Ha­ billo wrote that he had learned Latin in order to study such philosophical works and finally found this book “of the excellent sage Tomis who established himself in this knowledge more than all the philoso­ phers before him” (pp. ii— vi). Isaac ABRAVANEL, who according to a later writer (Moses Almosnino) also translated a part of the writings of Aquinas, refers to him in one of his works as “one of the Christian sages and one of their great scholars” (M if‘a lot Elohim, f. 42c). Abraham Ibn Nahmias was probably the last of the important Jewish translators of Spain. He trans­ lated Aquinass commentary on Metaphysics (of Aris­ totle and Averroes) probably in 1490 in Ocana (near

30

Toledo). In the introduction, Ibn Nahmias attacks those who have been corrupted by “Greek wisdom,” but acknowledges that a true understanding of phi­ losophy can aid in understanding the wisdom of the Torah. He praises the Christian scholars: “If your soul desires to drink from the well of philosophy,” he advises, “go after the Christian sages and place your hand on their head, for they have built the Torah on marble pillars and complete [foundation] stones.” After discussing a difficult Jewish commentary he had read and could not fully understand, he says that he discovered the commentary of “the great philoso­ pher, chief of the rhetoricians, Tomas de Aquino.” He liked Aquinas’s commentary so much that he de­ cided to translate it into Hebrew. Thus, the “angelic doctor,” certainly no friend of the Jews, might well have been surprised to find out that he was championed by important Jewish schol­ ars of his own time and in subsequent generations. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa contra gentiles. Edited and translated by Adolfo Robles Sierra (Madrid, 1967-68), two vols. ---------. Summa contra gentiles. Translated by various authors (Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1975), 5 vols. (originally published as On the Truth o f the Catholic Faith, 1957). Chazan, Robert. Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages (N.Y., 1980). Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the Xlllth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). Hillel b. Samuel of Verona. Sefer tagmuley ha-nefesh. Edited, with English introduction, by Joseph Sermoneta (Jerusalem, 1981). Jellinek, Adolph. Philosophie und Kabbala (Leipzig, 1854); text of translation by All b. Joseph Habillo of Quaestiones disputate, quaestio de animay pp. 26-31. ---------. Thomas von Aquino in der jiidischen Literatur. (Leipzig, 1853); text of translation by All b. Joseph Habillo of De animae facultatibus. Liebeschiitz, Hans. “Judaism and Jewry in the Social Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas.” Jewish Social Stud­ ie s 13 (1962): 57-81.

Aragon-Catalonia

Wulf, Maurice de. The System o f Thomas Aquinas (New York, 1959).

Aragon-Catalonia The medieval history of Catalonia may be said to have begun with the conquests of Charlemagne and his son Louis “the Pious” in the latter part of the eighth century. BARCELONA was taken from the Mus­ lims in 801 C.E., although it was again attacked by the Muslims. Under Louis and his son Charles “the Bald,” a series of counts governed Barcelona and other important cities for the French rulers. It was not until the eleventh century, however, that a suc­ cession of counts of Barcelona—all named Ramon Berenguer—established a truly independent and powerful government. The son of the last of these, Ramon Berenguer IV, was given the name Alfonso and became king of Aragon and, in 1166, count of Provence. The union of Catalonia with the kingdom of Aragon under Alfonso created a solid if at times uneasy and fractious alliance that lasted throughout the medieval period. It is clear that Jews were settled in Catalonia from a very early period; early-ninth-century references to Jews or Barcelona are extant. ‘Amram Gaon of Baby­ lonia (Iraq) also corresponded with Jews of Barcelona at that time, and a certain “Judas,” a Jew (undoubt­ edly Judah), was sent by the city as its representative to negotiate with Charles “the Bald” in 877. In spite of the fact that Jews aided the Muslims in their brief reconquest of Barcelona (852), and were rumored to have done the same in Tortosa (850), they appear to have prospered under Christian con­ trol and generally enjoyed good relations (see Ba r c e l o n a for further details). Unlike Barcelona, where the Jewish community was already well established, Jews apparently settled Gerona only when the city came under the jurisdic­ tion of Count Dela (888-890). From that period, the Jewish community flourished there and in nearby towns such as Besalu. Other Jewish communities of importance in the early period included Tortosa; correspondence with the scholar Moses b. Hanokh of Cordoba in the tenth century indicates the importance of the Jewish com­

munity there. Also living there at this time was Menahem b. Menahem, who made his way to the court of the Muslim caliph at Cordoba, where he be­ came secretary to Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, an important Jewish official. Saruq is known for writing the first Hebrew dictionary in Spain (see HEBREW GRAMMAR). Jews and Muslims alike were protected under Christian law in Aragon and Catalonia, as well as in the rest of Christian Spain. Indeed, one of the impor­ tant features of Spanish law, differing even from the special privileged status of Jews in France or the Holy Roman Empire, was the absolute equality of Jews and Christians. Important local laws (fueros) and charters of settlement, as well as major codes of law such as the Usatges de Barcelona, attest to this, and also provide important information on Jewish settle­ ment and life. One example is the carta depoblacion, or privilege of settlement, granted to Tortosa by Ramon Berenguer IV (1149) and confirmed by his son, the future king. A specific quarter of the city, together with its wall and seventeen towers, was granted to the Jews in perpetuity, with the right to settle sixty houses there (which would have accommodated at least three hundred inhabitants). In addition, an is­ land in the Ebro River and several fields were also given to the Jews. Barbastro, Calatayud, Daroca, El Frago, Huesca, Jaca, Lerida, Tarragona, Teruel, and Zaragoza were some of the other important cities where Jewish com­ munities were established in the eleventh or early twelfth centuries in the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia. In many of these cities, including Barcelona, as elsewhere in Christian Spain, Jews were granted cas­ tles to inhabit and aid in the guarding of the city. These castles were not, as sometimes maintained, for the defense of the Jews, but were rather a recognition of their civic status and responsibility in the impor­ tant defense of cities or major crossroads against pos­ sible enemy attack. (Abu’l-Walld [Jonah] Ibn Janah, the important eleventh-century Hebrew grammarian who lived in Zaragoza, gives interesting testimony as to his awareness of measures employed for defense against Muslim invasions.) Pedro II of Aragon-Catalonia (1196-1213) con­ tinued the policy of his predecessors, extending spe­ cial privileges to various Jewish communities. How­

31

Aragon-Catalonia

ever, the most important ruler, whose long reign con­ solidated the kingdom and expanded it (with the con­ quest of Valencia, for instance), was certainly JAIME I (1213—1276). Jews prospered and flourished every­ where in his kingdom, except for brief and ultimately unsuccessful efforts by the Dominican Order to inter­ fere with internal Jewish affairs (censorship of books, compulsory sermons, disputations), which the king did not long tolerate once convinced of the harm that unfair charges brought to the Jewish community. Under his son and successor Pedro III (12761285), the growth and expansion of the Jewish com­ munities hardly came to an end (as Baer incorrectly claimed). On the contrary, many new Jewish commu­ nities came into existence during his reign. Again, contra Baer, the extant privileges granted by Pedro to nu­ merous Jewish communities, including exemption of taxes, indicate his favorable treatment of the Jews. Jewish officials played an increasingly important role in the affairs of the kings, and from the time of Jaime I many Jews held important governmental posts. Rabbis also played a significant role as advisors to the kings, far more so in Aragon-Catalonia than in the kingdoms of Leon and Castile, where their role was usually minor. For one thing, the law required that when adjudicating matters involving Jews, or as a court of appeal, the king had to know and utilize Jew­ ish law or have advisors to counsel him on such law. In addition to this, however, many leading rabbis estab­ lished close relations with the kings and were taken into their confidence and called upon to decide cases involving individual Jews or Jewish communities. The renowned Solomon Ibn A d r et , as well as JONAH GERUNDI and others, often served in such capacities. The number of Jewish officials, including bailes (administrators of towns or territories), in the reign of Pedro reached the hundreds, including entire dy­ nasties. The rebellion of the Catalan nobles against the king (1280) involved to some extent complaints against some of these officials, and the “Union of Aragon” (1283) unsuccessfully demanded the re­ moval of all Jewish officials. During the Mediterranean campaign against Sicily (1282-1283), when Pedros sixteen-year-old son, Alfonso, was left ostensibly in charge of the kingdom, Jewish administrators (particularly Mu$a de Portella) in fact ran the country. On the other 32

side, Jewish taxes financed a substantial portion of the campaign. As noted, Jews had the right of direct appeal to the king in all matters, and they did not hesitate to trou­ ble the king even with the pettiest matters (such as disputes over places in the synagogue). Some cases, however, involved serious crimes, including murder. Jews of the important city of Zaragoza, apparently al­ ways a quarrelsome community, were frequently in­ volved in such charges. The French invasion of 1285 caused most of the Jews of Gerona and Besalu to flee, and safe-conducts were granted by the king. When they returned to these cities the following year, the new king, Alfonso III, temporarily granted remission of taxes. New problems resulted with the expulsion of Jews from France in 1306, when many of the exiles settled in Provence (part of the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia) or in cities such as Gerona. Alfonso appears to have attempted to continue the policy of protection and special privileges to the Jews, but events such as the civil war of 1288, again with demands against the use of Jewish officials, hin­ dered his intentions. Jaime II (1291-1327), a pious and gracious ruler, restored the policy toward the Jews. (Although Baer claims that numerous Jews converted to Christianity during Jaime Us reign, this is without foundation in the sources.) A treaty of 1296, however, made Juan Manuel of Castile, nephew of Alfonso X, overlord of Murcia and freed Jaime to begin his campaign against Muslim Granada (a campaign again financed in large measure by the Jews, however reluctantly in some cases). Jaime II had, in fact, an outstanding record of fair treatment of Jews throughout his kingdom, and nu­ merous Jewish officials held posts of varying degrees of importance. It is also true, however, that he inter­ vened personally in Jewish communal affairs more than previous rulers, fixing the number of commu­ nity officials to be appointed, approving elections, and so on. One such election that required his ap­ proval was in Barcelona, with the appointment of several famous Jewish scholars as community officials (adelantados) in 1326: Isach Perfet (grandfather of the famous rabbi Isaac b. Sheshet), Azday Cresques (grandfather of the philosopher and rabbi Hasdai Cresques [Crescas]), and others.

Aragon-Catalonia

Alfonso IV (1327-1336) expanded upon this pol­ icy, and in general developed a governmental bureau­ cracy to oversee Jewish affairs. He brought the office of baile to Aragon, and he appointed a whole series of officials to deal with Jews as scribes, collectors of Jew­ ish taxes, judges, and even (Jewish) ritual slaughter­ ers. There was, however, no “court rabbi” as there had been at times in fifteenth-century Castile. Pedro IV (1336-1387) continued the policy of his father, but he also continued the tradition of previ­ ous kings of developing close personal relationships with the foremost Jewish scholars of the age, which at that time included Nissim b. Reuben Gerundi, Has­ dai Crescas, and Isaac b. Sheshet. The renowned Jew­ ish philosopher and rabbi I^asdai Crescas, who was in the service of Pedro and Juan and his daughter Violante (named after the queen), was granted special privileges by the king in respect of his “great author­ ity and knowledge.” Nevertheless, in 1370 or 1371 several of these rabbis were arrested as a result of ap­ parently false charges against them (unspecified: there is no foundation for Baers statement that they were accused of host desecration) by certain Jews. Eventually, they were released. There were, however, some instances of “host ac­ cusations” against Jews (of stealing and desecrating hosts, or wafers used for Mass in the church). One such case, in 1383 in Lerida, dragged on for years, until the king finally wrote to the Jews concerning the “horrible crimes and excess” of which they had un­ justly been accused, and of the defense that had been provided them during all these years by Biona des Maestre of Majorca (the grandson of NAHMANIDES). Numerous important Jewish scientists served at the court of Pedro and that of his son Juan I (1387-1395), including those responsible in part for the famous Astronomical Tables of Pedro (see S c ie n c e ).

Whereas the court of Pedro was renowned for its scientific achievements, that of Juan, through the in­ fluence of his wife, was famous for its literary and artistic interests. The greatest authoritative code of Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah of MAIMONIDES, which Pedro had al­ ready ordered to be translated into Catalan, came under attack at the instigation of the archbishop of Tarragona, and the kings brother, Martin, intended an investigation of all of Maimonides’ writings. In May of

1391 Queen Violante ordered a halt to such proceed­ ings, which threatened “great scandal” to the Jews. The so-called pogroms (an anachronistic term) of 1391, unleashed first by the preaching of a fanatic and unbalanced archdeacon in Seville (see A n d a l u CIA), spread also to Aragon-Catalonia, including Va­ lencia and the kingdom of Majorca. Jewish commu­ nities suffered attacks throughout the summer; some Jews were killed, more were robbed and terrorized. Vast numbers of Jews voluntarily, under no compul­ sion, converted to Christianity. The authorities on the local level, as well as the king and nobles, did everything possible to prevent these attacks, and to catch and punish those responsible. Nevertheless, significant damage was done, and though it is hardly true that the Jewish community of Barcelona, for example, came to an end, there was a decline. More serious than the population decline of the Jewish communities, from which they soon enough recovered, was the increasingly hostile atmosphere of the fifteenth century. Martin I “the Humanist” (1395-1410) was much less favorably inclined to the Jews than any of his predecessors. The growing influ­ ence of the “antipope” Bene di c t XIII, a Spaniard and accepted as legitimate in Aragon-Catalonia, in his hostile measures against Jews, combined with the anti-Jewish campaign of conversos (Jews who had converted to Christianity), made the Jewish situation increasingly difficult. When Martin died without heirs, the notoriously anti-Jewish Fernando de la Antaquera of Castile was chosen as king in 1412. Fortunately, perhaps, he was too old to last long, and he died in 1416 before he had enough time to implement anti-Jewish measures in the kingdom. Vicente Ferrer, the most famous preacher of the age, had by then influenced Fernando and the queen of Castile to enact anti-Jewish mea­ sures in Valladolid. Now he continued his mission­ ary campaign throughout the kingdom of AragonCatalonia, often stirring up the masses against the Jews. More conversions followed, sometimes of en­ tire Jewish communities. The loss of significant Jewish leadership was a se­ rious problem. Those rabbis who had not converted by 1391 fled to N O RTH A f r i c a , leaving the kingdom virtually devoid of Jewish rabbinical leadership. Many of the leading lay families also had converted. 33

Aragon-Catalonia

The final blow came with the Tortosa Disputation (see DISPUTATIONS) in 1413. Many of the Jewish rep­ resentatives converted after finding themselves un­ able to withstand the damaging attacks of converso spokesman Jeronimo de Santa Fe, who had been chiefly responsible for instigating Benedict XIII to arrange the disputation. Indeed, the best thing to happen during the reign of Fernando I, from the Jewish viewpoint, was the final abandonment of Spanish obedience to this pope, when the Council of Constance finally brought about an end to the schism. The next ruler, Alfonso V (1416-1458), possibly acting at least in part under the influence of his wife, Maria de Castilla, was much more favorably inclined to the Jews. Maria, daughter of Enrique III of Castile, intervened on behalf of the Jews several times. Nevertheless, she renewed a nullified decree of Juan I that Jews must wear a scarlet gown and BADGE to distinguish them from Christians, and in 1436 is­ sued the first order for Jews (of Lerida) to live apart from Christians. Alfonso, however, demanded from the new papal nuncio the nullification of all the antiJewish measures imposed by Benedict XIII. Growing Catalan resentment of the “Castilian” dynasty of Fernando I, continued by his son Alfonso, burst into full flame when Fernando’s second son Juan became king in 1458 (Juan II, 1458-1462). By marrying Blanca, daughter of Carlos III of Navarre, he became ruler also of that kingdom. When Blanca died in 1441, Juan refused to allow their son, Carlos de Viana, to claim his rightful title as king of Navarre. This, combined with Juan’s second marriage (1447) to Juana Enriquez, daughter of the admiral of Castile (and of converso origin), led to rebellion in Navarre. Carlos meanwhile sought refuge in Catalo­ nia. Juan further aggravated the situation by refusing to recognize Carlos’s primogeniture status, reserving that for the son of his second marriage, the future Fernando I of Castile (Fernando II of Aragon-Catalonia), to whom he also promised in marriage Isabel of Castile, who supposedly was betrothed to Carlos. In response to the protest of the Catalans, the king arrested Carlos in 1460. However, Carlos was soon released and proclaimed by the Catalans as per­ petual lieutenant governor (a title he did not live to enjoy, for he died in 1461—poisoned, it was ru­ mored, by the conversa queen Juana Enriquez). The 34

minor Fernando was proclaimed lieutenant gover­ nor. Though his mother was allowed into Catalonia, the king was not, so Juan entered the land by force, aided by the French. The Catalans actually offered the crown to the degenerate Enrique IV of Castile (so much for their anti-Castilian sentiment). Only the intervention of LOUIS IX of France prevented this disaster. Undaunted, the Catalans chose the con­ stable of Portugal, who accepted and “reigned” as Pere IV until his death in 1466. Meanwhile, Lerida, Cervera, Amposta, and Tortosa came under Juan’s control. All of these except Amposta were important Jewish communities. The Jews of Cervera suffered from attacks by the king’s army, in spite of efforts of the local government to protect them. We do not know whether the Jews of Lerida and Tortosa also suffered. Because of his generally liberal policy toward the Jews, however, Juan’s death in 1479 was a blow to them. Elaborate funeral processions were held by the Jewish communities of Agramunt, Bellpuig, Tarrega, Santa Coloma de Queralt, and even Cervera, and rabbis preached laudatory sermons about the king. Fernando was engaged in war against Portugal when news reached him of the death of his father in January. In June he arrived in Zaragoza and was proclaimed king, in addition to his position as king of Castile by virtue of his secret marriage to Isabel. The two king­ doms were now united. To a large extent, therefore, the situation of the Jews in Aragon-Catalonia in this period belongs generally to the policy of FERNANDO AND Is­ a b e l . However, Fernando exercised his own right of rule in his kingdom, and harsh measures were enacted against Jews in some cities there, which certainly had his approval if not his authorization. In 1484 Fernando, informed by the “devoted In­ quisitors” that Jews in the village of Celia, near Teruel, did not live apart from Christians as they were required, ordered the Jews to leave the village. The converso problem in Aragon-Catalonia now was less of a threat to the Jewish community than a question of the tremendous political power that they held. Most of the top government officials of the kingdom were conversos. The Inquisition was deter­ mined to destroy this power, and to destroy the con­ versosy on the pretext of their being “bad Christians” (which they certainly were not). In a desperate act in 1485 in Zaragoza some conversos assassinated the In­

Arms, Jews and

quisitor Pedro Arbues. Rightly or not, some of the leading conversos of the kingdom were accused and executed. A furor of anti-conversos hostility and autos de-fe resulted. In 1484 the Jews of Zaragoza, the largest commu­ nity, had complained repeatedly to Fernando about violations of their privileges, and he had ordered his converso vice-chancellor, Alfonso de la Cavalleria, and his converso treasurer, Garcia Sanchez, to investi­ gate. However, in i486, probably at least in part in reaction to the Arbues affair (in which it was claimed that Jews had “influenced” the conversos), the king ordered the sudden expulsion of Jews from the entire archbishopric of Zaragoza and the bish­ opric of Albarracm. This was a foreshadowing of the “final solution” to the Jewish problem that was to come with the EX­ PULSION of all Jews from Spain, at the instigation of the Inquisition, in 1492. (It is significant to note that the Jewish community of Zaragoza had by then re­ covered almost exactly its previous strength, for in 1492 it contracted for twenty-four hundred individ­ uals to leave by ship; however, this must have in­ cluded people from other nearby communities.) Jewish culture flourished throughout the king­ dom from the tenth to the fourteenth centuries. The tenth and eleventh centuries witnessed the excellent scholarship of Judah b. Barzilay, ABRAHAM B. H a y a , and all the great scholars of Provence in the period when it was part of the kingdom. In the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, rabbinical culture thrived through the contributions of Nahmanides and Ibn A d r e t and their students, ISAAC B. SHESHET, and many others. As noted previously, Aragon-Catalonias intellectual achievements cer­ tainly rivaled that of Castile in science, and surpassed it in M e d i c i n e . However, in LITERATURE and PO ­ ETRY it fell far behind, and in PHILOSOPHY produced nothing worthy of note, with the exception of the te­ dious and difficult work of Hasdai Crescas. Major Jewish communities existed in Barcelona, Gerona, Tarragona, Tortosa, Lerida, Huesca, Zara­ goza, Calatayud, Tarazona—and, of course, various cities in Valencia, Majorca, and Provence, as well as in Sicily. Remains of Jewish synagogues and houses, and other traces of Jewish existence, may be found in most of these and in many smaller towns. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baer, Yitzhak (Fritz). A History o f the Jews in Christian Spain. Translated by Louis Schoffman (Philadelphia, 1966), 2 vols. (abridged and often inadequate). ---------. Historia de los judios en la Espana cristiana, 2 vols. Translated by Jose Luis Lacave (Madrid, 1981), 2 vols. (complete, accurate tr.). ---------, ed. Die Juden im christlichen Spanien (Berlin, 1929-36), vol. 1: Aragon-Catalonia, Navarre. Mods Dolader, Miguel Angel. Guia del Aragon judio (Zaragoza, 1991). Regne, Jean. History o f the Jews in Aragon [-Catalo­ nia]. Regesta and Documents 1213—1327. Edited by Yom Tov Assis (Jerusalem, 1978). Romano, David. Judios al servicio de Pedro el Grande de Aragon (1276—1285). Barcelona, 1983. Roth, Norman. “The Arrest of the Catalan Rabbis: An Unexplained Incident in Jewish History.” Sefa ra d 47 (1987): 203-36. ---------. Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion o f the Jews from Spain (Madison, Wise., 1995).

Arms, Jews and

It would appear that from the earliest times in the Holy Roman Empire (essentially Germany) Jews were permitted to bear arms, and in fact did so, not only under the legal obligation, as with all citizens, to defend the city and to provide “police” services, but also in order to defend themselves. The latter was certainly the case in the First Crusade (1096; see CRUSADES) with the attack on the Jews of Mainz, who defended themselves (we sidestep the problem­ atic late account according to which Jews slew their families and killed themselves). Nor was this by any means the only instance when it is known that Jews not only carried arms but used them. Hebrew sources attest to the use of arms by Jews, and their carrying of weapons even on the Sabbath, as far away as “Boheme” (central Europe). In Worms in the early thirteenth century, Jews even helped de­ fend the city on the Sabbath with weapons (techni­ cally a violation of Jewish law), with the permission of the great Rabbi Eliezer Roqeah himself. The “Peace Law,” which put certain valued groups of society under the protection of the king (often misinterpreted to imply a denigrated status of 35

Arms, Jews and

the Jews so protected), theoretically prohibited members of these groups from bearing arms because they were not supposed to be attacked, but this can­ not be taken too literally. It would be naive to as­ sume that such laws were observed or enforced ex­ cept in the most haphazard manner. Indeed, this supposed prohibition in thirteenth-century German legal codes is clearly contradicted when the same works require Jews to either serve personally or pro­ vide arms or substitutes in city militia. It is further contradicted by the clear statement of a confedera­ tion at Worms in 1254 that barred Jews as well as Christians from supplying arms to enemies of the confederation. (Not mentioned by Kisch [1949, 11 Iff.], who saw no inconsistency between this in­ terdict and his claim that Jews were completely pro­ hibited from carrying arms, is the statement by that same confederation of a solemn oath against the vio­ lation of peace by any person, Christian or Jew, who carries arms.) Although it is known that some Jews sought to protect themselves while traveling on the roads by dressing as clergy or monks, even sewing crosses on their garments, certainly others—especially mer­ chants—carried weapons to defend themselves. In England, although the Assize of Arms of 1181 forbade Jews and others to possess arms, this does not appear to have lasted, given that there are later in­ stances of Jews fighting with weapons and even serv­ ing in the army, particularly as crossbowmen. Information on weapons among Jews in the Mus­ lim world is scanty, nearly nonexistent. Aside from the campaigns of Muhammad himself against Jewish tribes, it is not clear when and where Jews were al­ lowed to or prohibited from using weapons. Accord­ ing to Ibn Khaldun and other sources, there were nu­ merous “Jewish” Berber tribes in North Africa, some of which appear to have converted to Islam only nominally, and others that did not do even that. These tribes, of course, used weapons. The famous “Berber queen” known as the Kdhina was actually a leader of her tribe in battle in an extended campaign against the invading Muslims. We hear of other Jew­ ish tribal chiefs as late as the eleventh century, and the Jewish tribe of Baraghwata had a “capital of the South,” the Jewish center of Aghmat, from which they influenced and perhaps used as soldiers the Jew­ ish Negroes of Sudan. The Almoravids fought the 36

Jewish Berbers at Aghmat in 1059, and their decisive victory marked the apparent decline of most of the Jewish Berber tribes. Undoubtedly the restrictive legislation against Jews and Christians, especially in Egypt, included a prohibition on arms (the so-called “Pact of £Umar,” of course, was a forgery; yet it was called upon in the late medieval period, including an agreement not to carry weapons). Nevertheless, surely the various Jew­ ish government officials and prime ministers were ex­ empt from such laws. Only in one land, Palestine, do we hear of Jews actually joining with Muslims to defend a city (Jerusalem) from the attacking Crusaders. In Muslim Spain (al-Andalus) none of the restrictive laws that often were imposed on Jews in Muslim lands were to be found until the Amoravid era. Jews were therefore free, like Muslims, to carry and use weapons. Indeed, we hear at least once ofJewish soldiers, fighting for Ibn Marwan of Cordoba (ca. 874), a heretic rebel who attempted to establish a new religion. A special case, of course, was Samuel Ibn NAGHRILLAH, an eleventh-century prime minister and com­ mander in chief of the armies of the Muslim kingdom of Granada. For eighteen years he led his troops in battle, and he was succesful in every campaign. Noth­ ing is said, nevertheless, of any Jewish soldiers fight­ ing in these battles. Samuels son and successor, Yusuf, also fought in battle. Another famous Jew, even ear­ lier, Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, minister to the caliph Abd al-Rahman III (912-961), is credited in a poem by Dunash Ibn Labrat with actually fighting and win­ ning a campaign against Sancho I of Leon. In one of the most famous battles of the Christian Reconquest, Zallaqa in 1086, a highly questionable Muslim source reports that Alfonso VI and Ibn Tashufln, the Muslim ruler, agreed not to fight on Friday, the Sabbath of the Muslims, nor on Saturday, that of the Jews—“of whom I [Alfonso] have many among my troops.” A later Muslim writer even claimed that the majority of Alfonsos soldiers were Jews! Nevertheless, it is certain that some Jewish sol­ diers fought on both sides during various battles of the Reconquest. Jews throughout Christian Spain, in cities such as BARCELONA, Soria, and elsewhere, were granted cas­ tles, not so much for their own protection as for them to hold and defend against possible attacks.

Art, Jewish

This obligation often brought with it exemptions from taxes and other privileges. The renown of Jewish soldiers in Spain reached even the ears of the rabbi of Vienna, Isaac b. Moses (d. 1250), who wrote: “as is customary yet in the land of Spain where Israelites go with the king to fight.” Following the reconquest by Fernando III and his son Alfonso X of such important cities as Seville and Jerez, we find lists of Jews to whom donations of property were made by the rulers. In these lists ap­ pear occupations of a military nature, such as archers and soldiers armed with halberds. During the Trastamara civil war in Castile be­ tween Pedro I and his half-brother Enrique, when the troops of Enrique attacked the city of Burgos in 1366, the Jews fired upon them; it was one of the first recorded instances of the use of firearms in me­ dieval warfare. In the fifteenth century, conversos also utilized brand-new types of musketry in their battles against “old Christians.” Jewish use of weapons in Spain sometimes proved unfortunate, however, as in some recorded cases of fighting among themselves—even in the synagogue on a Sabbath—when swords were drawn and used. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kisch, Guido. The Jews in M edieval Germany. (Chicago, 1949). Roth, Cecil. A History o f the Jews in England. (Ox­ ford, 1964). Norman Roth. “The Kahina: Legendary Material in the Accounts of the ‘Jewish Berber Queen,’ ” The Maghreb Review 7: 122-25. ---------. Jews, Visigoths, and Muslims in Medieval Spain. (Leiden, 1994).

Art, Jewish

In discussing Jewish artistic creation in the medieval or any other period, inevitably a question arises about the supposed “prohibition” of the second command­ ment. This results from a misunderstanding of the text, for in fact it reads: “Do not make for yourself a statue \pesel; carved image] and any image [temunah\ which is in the heavens above and [or] in the earth below and in the water below the earth” (Ex. 20.4);

but the following verse is usually ignored: “Do not bow down to them and do not serve [worship] them.” Originally, of course, the Bible had no verses; the divi­ sions were added by Christians. It is obvious that verses 4 and 5 originally were one sentence, the clear meaning of which was not to make images in order to worship them. The Talmud (A.Z’ 43b) discusses this, noting that the prohibition on things in the heavens includes the sun, moon, stars, and astrological (zodia­ cal) signs, and “above” refers to the angels. This led to a discussion also of the prohibition of making images of human beings. The final position is not clear, but the commentary of Moses b. Nahman (NAHMANIDES) clarifies it. In fact, the prohibition against making im­ ages of humans was agreed upon, and there also arose the question of rings with a human likeness, and the distinction was made between embossed (in relief) and engraved images; the former are forbidden in all circumstances, the latter not. Nahmanides contends that this applies only to sealing rings, and that to make an image on less important material is permit­ ted. Some of the authors of the Tosafot, however, ex­ tended the prohibition to include images of the sun, moon, and stars, whether embossed or engraved (see the excellent notes to the commentary of Nahmanides on Avodah zarah, ed. Charles Chavel [Jerusalem, 1970], col. 152). Clearly, this strict opinion was not generally accepted, since we have several examples of rings and of personal and even community SEALS with embossed representations of the sun, moon, or stars. Other statements in the Palestinian Talmud indi­ cate that Jews were painting murals on the walls of their homes already in the third century, and were creating designs with mosaics by the fourth century (J. A.Z. 48d). M a i m o n i d e s , of course, was very strict, and wrote that it is forbidden to make a human image from any material whatever, even if it is not to worship, although he believed that the pro­ hibition against statues was only their worship (Sefer ha-mi$vot “Lo ta‘a seh” 2 and 4). Nevertheless, while medieval Jews were apparently careful not to make statues of human figures, it was clearly understood that these prohibitions did not apply to statues of an­ imals or to drawings or paintings. Cecil Roth (1958, 22-23) suggested that micrography (representing fig­ ures, human or otherwise, by the use of miniature letters outlining the form) was used by Jewish illus­ trators at the beginning and end of Bible manuscripts 37

Art, Jewish

in order to avoid the “prohibition” against pictorial representation of the human form ( The Aberdeen Codex o f the Hebrew Bible [Edinburgh, 1958], pp. 22-23). Not only was there no such prohibition, as we have seen, but in fact micrography was often combined with figure representation in drawings (see Ferber 1997). Interesting as is the suggestion of Gutmann (1970, xv) that we cannot be sure what part of the second commandment is its original formulation and what part a “later Deuteronomic addition,” this is irrelevant for medieval artists who of course made no such distinctions; nor is there any discrepancy be­ tween Ex. 20.4 and Deut. 5.8, where the conjunctive vav has simply been omitted (it cannot bear the in­ terpretation “pesel of any temunah of,” which would make no sense). Similar misconceptions abound with regard to Muslim art. It has frequently been asserted that Islam absolutely prohibits the portrayal at least of human figures, if not indeed of any life form. In fact, not only animal but human forms were frequently por­ trayed, not excluding bas-relief images (see the nu­ merous examples in Du Ry 1970). The question of influence on the Christian West remains to be clari­ fied, but there is no doubt whatever about Muslim artistic influence on Jewish art, at least in Muslim lands and in Spain (see Gold 1988, 54, 55). Jewish art in the medieval period (in fact, also for many centuries beyond) manifested itself in manu­ script illuminations, ritual objects for synagogue or home use, synagogue and other communal building architecture, bookbinding (or more correctly, codexbinding in the early medieval period), seals, rings, and other jewelry, and undoubtedly other forms that have not survived (such as glassware and folk art). Pe­ culiar examples also are amulets, zodiac, or magic symbols, and the like. Bible Illum ination

Scrolls of the Torah, or of books of the prophets used in synagogue readings, could not by law be decorated or illuminated in any way. However, individual B i b l e MANUSCRIPTS had no such restrictions and were often richly illuminated. Other manuscripts that were sim­ ilarly illustrated included Passover Haggadot, prayer books (most usually for Rosh ha-Shanah or Yom Kippur), the text of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, other legal books, medical or scientific books, literary 38

works, and marriage contracts (ketubot). Such illumi­ nated codices were prepared on parchment, which easily bore the pigmentation, more rarely on paper. An apparently unique element in Jewish art was the use of the aforementioned micrography. This consisted usually of the masorah (see B i b l e manu­ s c r i p t s ) written in minuscule letters that formed a geometric or floral (often leaves or other shapes) de­ sign, sometimes also outlining figures of animals (real or imaginary) or human figures (see examples in many of the works listed in the Bibliography, e.g., The Bird’s Head Haggadah, 1: 137). In some medieval German manuscripts, for instance, fish, dogs, and gargoyle-like figures were drawn. It has been sug­ gested that in many cases the scribe of the manu­ script did the micrographic drawings, while the illu­ minator added more elaborate illustrations and decorations. Not all rabbis were in favor of this kind of decoration; Judah b. Samuel he-Hasid (d. 1217) of Germany wrote that a scribe employed to write the masorah in a biblical manuscript must not do so in the form of birds or animals, for this makes it diffi­ cult to read the masorah, nor should he make any drawings in the margins of the pages because the reader might glance at these rather than reading the text (Sefer hasiydiym, ed. J. Wistinezki [Berlin, 1891-93], no. 709). Though it is apparently true that this creation of artistic figures in the form of mi­ nuscule writing is first encountered in Jewish work, forming figures from written text was in fact com­ mon in the Muslim world, at least in al-Andalus (AnDALUCIA), where poetry was often written in the form of flowers or geometric designs. In Europe and in Christian Spain, the main source of influence on Jewish illumination was Christian. Thus, it is not surprising that such things as the illuminated initial letters used in Christian manuscripts were imitated by Jewish illuminators. Since Hebrew has no capital initial letters, however, different devices were used, such as illuminating the entire opening word or even phrases of a prayer or biblical passage. It should be noted, however that the same was done also in medieval Muslim illumina­ tion, in which there can be no question of Christian influence (see Du Ry 1970, 113). Because Jewish il­ luminators often were influenced by contemporary Christian workshops, this sometimes helps in dating Christian manuscripts by comparison with known

Art, Jewish

Book of Psalms. Bible written in He­ brew. Provence, probably Avigon, c. 1422. Copyright © The Pierpont Morgan Library/Art Resource, NY.

dated similar Hebrew work; for example, the famous Copenhagen (so called because that is where the manuscript currently is located) Moreh nevukhim (“Guide”) of Maimonides, illuminated in 1348 in Spain, in relation to other Catalan (Christian) illumi­ nation (see Millard Meiss, “Italian Style in Catalonia and a Fourteenth Century Catalan Workshop,” Jour­ nal o f Walters Art Gallery A [1941]: 45-87). One of the few early articles to even mention the possibility of Christian influence was Wischnitzer, “Illuminated Haggadahs” (1922-23, 214-15); by now, of course, this is universally recognized. There was also some

Jewish influence on Christian art; for instance, the famous Ashburnham Pentateuch (seventh century) was definitely influenced by Jewish art (see J. Sloane, “The Torah Shrine in the Ashburnham Pentateuch,” J.Q.R. 25 (1934): 1-12). The earliest extant illuminated manuscripts are those of Bibles from Palestine and Egypt, several codices from both lands between the ninth and twelfth centuries. Characteristic of these Bibles was the “carpet page,” an entire page either at the begin­ ning of the manuscript or separating each of the books of the Pentateuch, with geometric designs in 39

Art, Jewish

various colors (see B. Narkiss 1969, 19). These were in imitation of similar Muslim illuminations in Quran manuscripts. The earliest such Bible manu­ script, of the “Latter Prophets,” from Palestine (895 C.E.) has an elaborate inner rosette design in a circle surrounded by two outer circles, the last of which contains a design of small circles within it. Various ab­ stract geometrical designs fill the borders of the page also. It is remarkable that this earliest extant manu­ script is already done in the micrography pattern re­ ferred to above. The “First Leningrad Bible” (929) also has a carpet page, but this contains an elaborate rendering of the Tabernacle and its utensils, including the menorah, ark of the covenant, altar, and the blos­ soming rod of Aaron (see Gutmann 1978, figs. 6, 7; B. Narkiss 1969, plate 1A). The more richly deco­ rated Second Leningrad Bible (1008 or 1010; see BIBLE m a n u s c r i p t s ) has a number of carpet pages in geometrical shapes outlined in micrography and col­ ored in gold, blue, and green (B. Narkiss 1969, plate 2). Most, if not all, of these early manuscripts are QARAITE; it is unfortunate that few illuminated man­ uscripts of any kind have survived from Jewish com­ munities in Muslim lands from the early medieval pe­ riod. Later (fifteenth-century) Yemenite Pentateuchs also contain these carpet pages. Two twelfth-century Persian Pentateuchs contain illuminations actually il­ lustrating text, one the gifts to the Tabernacle and the other the tablets of the Ten Commandments. Spanish Hebrew Bible manuscripts, especially, ap­ pear to be influenced by those of Palestine and Egypt, particularly the so-called carpet pages but also in the illustrations of Temple cult implements. Unfortu­ nately, no Jewish examples from Muslim Spain sur­ vive, so that it is difficult to establish what was proba­ bly the direct link. Suggestive, however, is a manuscript of a commentary of “Ra s h i ” on the Bible (possibly thirteenth century) that has a full-page illu­ mination copied from an Arabic title page. The center title panel is in Hebrew characters artificially “Ara­ bized” (made to appear like Arabic). The entire manu­ script is beautifully illustrated (Cantera Burgos 1959). The earliest extant Spanish examples are Penta­ teuchs and Bibles from Toledo and Burgos (see SedRajna 1975). Ten such manuscripts from Toledo date from 1197 to 1307, and four from Burgos from 1207 to perhaps the mid-thirteenth century. Very important is the suggestion of Sed-Rajna, which 40

seems almost a certainty, that the carpet pages of such manuscripts are in fact influenced by wide­ spread decorative architectural designs in buildings throughout the Muslim world (more examples could certainly be deduced, from Spain itself; e.g., the fa­ mous Alhambra palace in Granada, part of which was built in the eleventh century, various extant mosques, and even the carved wooden ceilings so common in medieval Spain). These early Spanish Bible manuscripts contain in some cases numerous “carpet pages,” the most famous example of which is the “Damascus Keter” (Keter; or “crown,” being one of the names used in the medieval period to desig­ nate a biblical codex; see BIBLE MANUSCRIPTS), exe­ cuted in Burgos in 1260 (reproduced frequently; see 122-32). This group of Bibles is characterized also by ink designs, often micrographic, indicating the beginning of a parshah (weekly synagogue reading), the middle of a book, or end of the biblical text (see figs. 2-6 in Sed-Rajna), which bear some resem­ blance to early Christian biblical ornamentation. The Toledo and Burgos Bibles also have pages on which the Temple implements and furnishings are depicted, painted in gold on a colored background or simply outlined in color. The possible influence of the ren­ dering of Tabernacle utensils in the previously men­ tioned manuscripts needs further investigation. In several later Bible manuscripts such illuminations are found, usually at the beginning of the Bible (see ex­ amples of most such pages in Nordstrom 1968; some will be discussed later). Important also are the few “text illustrations” of the Burgos 1260 Bible: illumi­ nations of an olive tree, head wearing a helmet, a for­ tified castle, and stylized wall to represent Jerusalem (Sed-Rajna 1975 20-21 and figs. 22-23). These are the first such examples of illustrations of text in Spanish Hebrew Bible manuscripts. An important Bible manuscript was produced in Perpignan in Provence (not “Aragon,” although Per­ pignan was then part of Catalonia) in 1299. It is also incorrect that this was the first manuscript to depict cult objects and utensils of the Temple, for as noted above these already appear in the Toledo and Burgos Bibles. However, the full-page illuminations of these utensils, including the menorah and its implements, the ark with the Ten Commandments, and the “table of shewbread,” in gold and with blue accents, are re­ markably clear and are unusual in that each object is

Art, Jewish

identified in Hebrew script. A “messianic” expression of hope anticipates seeing the Temple rebuilt in all its glory (see Gutmann 1978, 51-50 and plates 6-7. In that order; i.e., both the pages and the plates were in­ advertently printed in reverse order, throughout the book). Though not every depiction of Temple objects is necessarily “messianic,” no doubt several are (Gut­ mann has found at least twenty that, he thinks, ex­ emplify this theme; see his “The Messianic Temple in Jewish Medieval Hebrew Manuscripts,” Gutmann, ed. The Temple o f Solomon [Missoula, Montana, 1976], pp. 134-38). It should be mentioned that, in fact, many of these illuminations or drawings depict objects both from the Tabernacle and the Temple. Nor are they exclusively in biblical manuscripts; for example, see in Gold 1988 (p. 27) the micrographic drawings that fill two pages of a fourteenth-century Catalan mahzor (holiday prayer book). Unquestionably the most beautiful illumination of any medieval manuscript is in the “Cervera Bible” (1300), now in the Lisbon National Library, perhaps brought to Portugal by Jews in the EXPULSION from Spain in 1492. This is the full-page interpretation of the vision of the menorah (see Zechariah, ch. 4), a rendering of two olive trees in shades of blue-green flanking the outline of a menorah in gold. Atop the menorah are three gold bowls from which oil flows into it (B. Narkiss 1969, 52, plate 6). The illuminator was Joseph ha-$arfatiy (meaning that his parents or ancestors came from France), who, understandably taking pride in his work, signed his name in large bold golden letters that are outlined by zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figures in a playful manner (gargoyles, a dog with a long tongue hanging down, a cat with a bird in its mouth; see Gutmann 1976, 59, and facing color plate). This unusual colophon style was virtually copied by Joseph Ibn JJayyim, the illu­ minator of the “First Kennicott Bible,” done in La Coruna in 1476 (see Roth 1957, plate 21), and that manuscript shows also other influences from the Cervera Bible, although it is far more elaborate, with illuminated borders surrounding every page of text, numerous gargoyle and other figurative elements, and so on (see B. Narkiss 1969, 74 and plate 17). Notable are the figures of a man with an astrolabe (plate 18b), a romanticized drawing of a king, and a very realistic drawing of a ship with two men in it and Jonah being swallowed by a large fish (not a “whale,” which is not

mentioned in the Bible) (Plates 20a and b). The “Sec­ ond Kennicott Bible” (Soria, 1306), illuminated by Joshua Ibn Gaon, one of a prolific family of Spanish artists, is even more important (B. Narkiss 1982, 2:11, Fig. 17). Another Soria Bible (ca. 1300), also illuminated by Joshua Ibn Gaon, contains the first (?) representation in Jewish art of the coats of arms of Castile (two cas­ tles in each corner, top) and of Aragon (bottom, each corner) (B. Narkiss 1982, 15, fig. 51). It is also im­ portant because of the colophon, in which Joshua states that he learned his craft from one Isaac b. Gershon, and that he wrote the Bible (he was also the scribe) for Moses Ibn Habib, who may be the one mentioned in the responsa of A s h e r B. YEtflEL. The 1306 Bible has elaborate representations of Temple cult objects and utensils, several “window frame” pages such as those of the La Coruna Bible (which it undoubtedly influenced). One so-called carpet page is actually a frame decorated with foliage shapes sur­ rounding a blank space, in the center of which is a maze of geometric design with a three-towered castle in the center (similar to the Castilian coat of arms). It is obvious that this was inspired either by a window or even a carved ceiling typical of Castilian architecture. This manuscript also contains coats of arms of Castile (a castle), Aragon (fleur de lys), and Leon (lion ram­ pant) in Jewish art (B. Narkiss 1982, 12, fig. 22; the seal of Aragon appears also at the bottom of the page). Bible manuscripts of the late fourteenth and fif­ teenth centuries in Spain were more elaborate and or­ nate. These include several manuscripts that were done in Catalonia. The richness of the illuminations of these manuscripts suggests that they were done for wealthy patrons, unlike the earlier Castilian Bibles, some of which were done for rabbis and perhaps even for the private use of the scribe or illuminator himself. The Royal Library of Copenhagen has at least two fif­ teenth-century Bibles from Spain and one from either Spain or Provence (1301). The latter, in fact probably Spanish, has a full-page illumination of Temple imple­ ments. Very interesting is the three-volume Bible (ca. 1460), on vellum, with carpet pages in the Arabic geo­ metrical pattern at the end of each volume. Finally, a Bible of the late fifteenth century has beautifully deco­ rated initial word panels, in gold, with arabesque de­ signs in arched frames that take up most of the page (Haxen 1983, 2: 17-18, no. 5; 19-20, nos. 7 and 8. 41

Art, Jewish

Fewer examples have survived from Portugal, but notable is the “Hispanic Society Bible” (New York), done possibly in Lisbon in the late fifteenth century. This is perhaps the most elaborately decorated of all medieval Bible manuscripts. Many pages are fully decorated, with wide borders trimmed in gold and framed with foliage, flowers, birds, and animals done in rich colors of every hue. Inside the borders are still other frames surrounding the text in rich shades of gold, red, and magenta and overlaid with gold lacy designs. Important again are the coats of arms, combining Catalan, Castilian, and Leonese symbols (the seal of Catalonia—not “Aragon”-—has bands of red and green, not gold, as Narkiss said; this is either an error or an unexplained deteriora­ tion of an original gold color; see B. Narkiss 1969, 82 and plate 21). While Spain dominated both in quantity and qual­ ity of illuminated biblical manuscripts, there are ex­ amples from other countries. Surprisingly, the obscure Jewish community of Poligny, on the Swiss border, was the site of an important Pentateuch manuscript il­ luminated by “Joseph ha-Sofer’ (scribe) in 1300. Typ­ ical of such manuscripts in Germany or France, initial word panels at the beginning of each book of the Pen­ tateuch were decorated, and there was a full-page illu­ mination of a menorah at the beginning or end of the manuscript. In this case, it is a stylized menorah in gold on a blue background with Aaron lighting the menorah at the upper right. Among the branches of the menorah are drawn animals, hunting scenes, and so on, and also depicted are the “judgment of Solomon” (I Kings 3.16-28), on the lower right, and the “sacrifice” of Isaac (Gen. 22), on the lower left (the deteriorated state of the page makes it somewhat diffi­ cult to see all the details). Of interest is the fact that this manuscript was once owned by Cardinal Riche­ lieu (B. Narkiss 1969, 88 and plate 24). Somewhat earlier from Germany (1236-1238) is a large three-volume complete Bible, the “Ambrosian Bible,” with two full-page miniatures at the end, the most interesting of which depicts Jewish mythology of the afterlife: the “wild ox” and Leviathan (mythical giant fish), which are supposed to feed the righteous in the world to come. These are in the top panel, to­ gether with a griffin figure, while the bottom panel depicts some of the “righteous” drinking and eating at a table, shaded by semirealistic trees (although 42

painted in red) and with two figures playing musical instruments for their entertainment. Each of the “righteous” is crowned, in accord with midrashic teachings about the world to come. The human fig­ ures all have animal heads (see below on this feature in the famous “Birds’ Head Haggadah”). Only lim­ ited color is used—red, blue, and gold—but the col­ ors are vibrant, and the illustrations display some artistic talent as well as humor (B. Narkiss 1969, 90 and plate 25). Possibly influenced by the German manuscript, the French “Hebrew Miscellany,” ca. 1280, contains large illuminations of the same ani­ mals but also of the mythical bird known as “Bar Yokhaniy,” rather like a giant duck, which has just laid an enormous egg (see Bird’s Head Haggadah 1967, 1: 145-46). One of the most elaborate exam­ ples of micrography is found in a Pentateuch with the Aramaic translation of “Onqelos” done in Rothenburg in 1290. Initial word panels of each book contain the masorah in large decorated micro­ graphic forms of architectural elements and grotesques of animal figures (see Haxen 1983, frontispiece and 16). The Regensburg Pentateuch (ca. 1300) contains an unusual number of actual text illustrations, six full-page illuminations (three are illustrations of Es­ ther and Job, since the Megiyllot, “Scrolls,” and Job were added to Ashkenazic Pentateuch manuscripts). In contrast to some of the other German illumina­ tions, human faces appear on the figures, further proof that the use of animal or bird heads had noth­ ing to do with any qualms about portraying the human figure. In the illumination of Moses receiving and presenting to the people the Ten Command­ ments, all the figures are portrayed in typical me­ dieval German Jewish costume with the standard “Jews’ hat” (see CLOTHING). In spite of the limited colors, the figures are depicted in bright-colored cos­ tumes, and the robe of Moses is decorated with a flo­ ral pattern. As Moses descends from the mountain, handing the tablets with one hand to Aaron (?), he balances precariously on the limb of a tree while clinging to another tree; such touches of humor are perhaps unexpected from what is generally consid­ ered to be a grave and strict society (see B. Narkiss 1969, 98, plate 29). Two German manuscripts compare well with their Spanish counterparts. These are the famous “Schocken Bible” (ca. 1300) and the “Duke of Sussex

Art, Jewish

Pentateuch” of the same date. The former contains the typical initial word panels but is remarkable for the full-page illumination at the beginning of Gene­ sis. Framed in bright red and with a light blue back­ ground of floral and foliate designs are forty-six roundels surrounding the initial word panel Bereshit, illuminated in gold and outlined in red. Each of these roundels contains miniature scenes from Gene­ sis, against alternating blue and red backgrounds. Human figures are again realistically portrayed, if in somewhat of a cartoon style. Some, but not all, of the men are depicted with the “Jews’ hat” (see B. Narkiss 1969, 102 and plate 3, and Gutmann 1978, 74 and plate 18; both Narkiss and Gutmann provide identi­ fications of the scenes depicted). The second Pentateuch is on vellum and has mag­ nificent illuminated full pages at the beginning of each book. Panels also surround the initial word of each book, but both the lucidity of the colors and the artistic perfection of the figures set it apart markedly from other German or French examples. In the open­ ing page of Numbers, for example, four medieval knights in chain mail armor hold flags, presumably representing the heads of the tribes of Israel; yet the devices on the flags are typical feudal emblems and hardly represent Jewish iconography. Interspersed with the knights’ figures are four mythological beasts, half human and half animal. The introductory page of Deuteronomy is even more remarkable, showing a large cathedral in bright red and gold colors as the most prominent feature on the page. A six-pointed star (the Magen David; see below in this article) ap­ pears at the bottom to counterbalance the picture of the cathedral. In the center of the star is an amusing picture of an elephant (popularized in medieval Ger­ many by Frederick II, who paraded one through the streets along with other exotic animals in his en­ tourage), wearing indeed an imperial crown. Though the six-pointed star was used in medieval Jewish art, it was also prominent in Christian art and, in fact, in windows of cathedrals. It is not at all impossible that these illuminations were the work of a Christian rather than a Jewish artist (as were, apparently, those of the famed “Darmstadt Haggadah”) where the Jew­ ish scribe simply outlined the Hebrew initial word, which then was overlaid with gold (see the two dif­ ferent illuminations in B. Narkiss 1969, 104, plate 32, and Gutmann 1978, 77 and plate 19).

Especially important is the richly illuminated Pen­ tateuch with the commentary of “RASHl” from Brus­ sels, 1309. The scribe and possibly also illuminator was Joshua b. Elijah from Oxford. Full-page illumi­ nations of exquisite workmanship depict fantastic animals, Samson slaying the lion, etc., and an initial word panel is equally rich in details, with mermaids fighting (!) and animal and bird figures. One illumi­ nation covers nearly the entire page with a graceful flowering tree and a man seated with a monkey {Judische Lebenswelten 1991, 128-29, no. 6/46). There are numerous illuminated manuscripts of “Rashi” on the Pentateuch (e.g., ibid., 125-30). Relatively few biblical manuscripts have survived from medieval Italy, although some have been de­ scribed in obscure Italian journals. One of the earliest is a Rome manuscript (1284) known as the “Bishop Bedell Bible” because purchased in the seventeenth century by that bishop when he was then a chaplain in Venice, with the aid, surprisingly, of the renowned Rabbi Leon (Judah Arieh) Modena. One might have expected that this important scholar would have been reluctant to see a Jewish treasure of this kind go to a Christian cleric. Aside from its historical significance, the illuminations of this Bible, essentially two ama­ teurishly painted frontispieces, lack any artistic signif­ icance (B. Narkiss 1969, 132, plate 46). Another elaborate, not to say rococo, example of Portuguese il­ lumination was completed in Florence at the end of the fifteenth century. Like the Lisbon Bible of the British Museum, this was intended to have full illu­ minated pages at the beginning of every book of the Bible, but only a few were completed. So fine and de­ tailed are the drawings of cherubs, deer, a lion, and so on that it is hard to believe that it is a painting and not a printed work. Yet, in spite of an admitted sub­ tlety of color (muted shades of red, blue, and brown, with overall gold scrolling and decorative details), the total effect is overwhelming, with not a single empty space to relieve the clutter (B. Narkiss 1969, 156, plate 58). In the fifteenth century Joel b. Simon, a scribe from Germany (Bonn or Cologne), went to northern Italy and headed a workshop of scribes and illuminators. He illuminated some but not all of the thirteen manuscripts attributed to him (see examples of some of these in Mann 1989, 92-97). The Soncino Bible, 1488 (not “c. 1490,” nor was it the “second” printed Bible), printed at Naples by 43

Art, Jewish

Joshua Soncino, contains handwritten masoretic notes in micrographic designs of fantastic animals (Haxen 1983, 20, no. 10). Several medieval printed books also contain illustration or decorative elements (see Bibl e m a n u s c r i pt s , printed e d it io n s ). H aggadot After the Bible, the next most popular object for dec­ orative illumination was the Passover Haggadah. So popular was this, a copy of which was necessary for all participants in every family, that it may safely be assumed that most personal Haggadot were deco­ rated in some fashion, however primitively. No copies of these have survived from the medieval pe­ riod, but some have from later centuries. The elabo­ rate, richly illuminated examples that have survived were made for wealthy patrons or perhaps designed for synagogues (the Passover seder was never held in a synagogue in the Middle Ages, of course, but syna­ gogues or schools often contained libraries where valuable books were kept for the community). Haggadot from Castile are rare. Noteworthy, therefore, are two examples, the so-called “Moresque Haggadah” and “Mocatta Haggadah,” both ca. 1300. Illuminations in the first include one of a man hold­ ing a wine flask and cup (wrongly identified by Narkiss as “Israelites despoiling the Egyptians”!), both of which appear to be glass; a rabbi teaching students in a yeshivah (very rare and important); a king, possibly a real portrait (contrary to the claim of some, “real portraiture” did exist in the medieval pe­ riod, particularly in Spain); armed foot soldiers and mounted knights; a furnace; and the sacrifice of Isaac (Narkiss 1982, 2: 21-22, 25). Mounted knights also appear in the “Golden Haggadah,” and two knights jousting are portrayed in the Barcelona Haggadah. The second manuscript is much more elaborate, with more colorful decoration and illumination. The “Golden Haggadah” (Barcelona, ca. 1300) (see Bibliography) is one of the most richly illumi­ nated examples, containing the Genesis cycle (vari­ ous figures), the Joseph cycle, and Moses and the Exodus; all stories are portrayed in magnificent illu­ minations. It is called “Golden” because of the field of the illuminations done in gold paint. The Gothic influence, particularly on the second artist), has been noted (Gutmann 1978, 60-61). The work shows not mere influence, however, but direct copying from 44

Christian iconography, and may have been done, in fact, by a Christian artist. While the illustrations are thus of virtually no value with respect to Jewish art, they are of great importance for showing details of construction of buildings (the Tower of Babel, B. Narkiss 1982, 34, fig. 126 [b]; Pharaoh’s cities, p. 41, fig. 133 [a] and [b]). The somewhat less skilled work of the first (Jewish) artist, on the other hand, reveals elements of great importance for Jewish his­ tory. Among these are the bedroom scene, slaughter­ ing lambs, cleaning the house (p. 44, fig. 136 [b]; p. 45, fig. 137 [c] and [d]). Unique is the magnifi­ cent illumination of Miriam and the Jewish women, draped in gracefully flowing gowns and holding mu­ sical instruments (amusingly described as “cleansing the dishes” in the scholarly description of the image in The Bird's Head Haggadah, 1: 156). The so-called “Sister Haggadah,” a naive imitation of the “Golden Haggadah,” in spite of the lack of artistic skill, has much of historical importance; for instance, the de­ tailed portrayal of shipbuilding (Noah’s ark; ibid., 51, fig. 57) and a synagogue (p. 59, fig. 187; better view in B. Narkiss 1969, facing p. 59, plate 9). The more famous “Barcelona Haggadah,” mid­ fourteenth century, is notable for the full-page illu­ mination of the prepared Passover table with the family seated, including a child (B. Narkiss 1982, 2: 65). The central scene is framed and topped with an elaborately decorated panel, and outside the borders figures blow long trumpets at the four corners (better examples of this motif may be seen on pp. 64 and 77). There is a possibly unique picture of a man and his son performing the havdallah ceremony (p. 67, fig. 215, bottom right portion, and p. 68, figs. 217 and 218; the latter is especially interesting because the human figures have animal heads, as in some of the German illuminations). There are also pictures of the heads of five rabbis, and a scholar studying at his desk (p. 73, figs. 225, 226), as well as a horsedrawn wagon, and men and women in traveling cos­ tume (p. 75, fig. 232). Some of the decorative ele­ ments (foliate designs, birds and animals, flowers) bear a strong similarity to the Barcelona Libro verde (a work on the genealogy of noble families, intended in part to show the converso origin of some of them) of the same period, from the shop of the so-called Master of St. Mark (see Meiss 1941, 45-87; espe­ cially p. 80, fig. 36, and compare it with B. Narkiss

Art, Jewish

A page o f Genesis. Bible written in He­ brew. Provence, probably Avignon, c. 1422. Copyright © The Pierpont Mor­ gan Library/Art Resource, NY.

1982, 2: 66, fig. 210). In fact, the scribe and illumi­ nator was probably Levi b. Isaac Caro, who did the “Copenhagen Moreh nevukhim” (see below, “Other Manuscripts”). In the case of the “Barcelona Hag­ gadah,” the naive style of the Jewish illuminator compared with his source is obvious. The “Rylands Haggadah” (Catalan, fourteenth century), of dubious artistic merit, nevertheless is of interest because of the strong Gothic influences and obvious affinity to such Catalan manuscripts as the Libre dels fets del rey Jaime (now published as Chronicles o f the King Jaime I). Biblical “cycles” are again portrayed, but the style of the figures is naive (B. Narkiss 1982, 2: 81-93 and

color plates 98-99). The one remarkable illumina­ tion is the full-page depiction of the Israelites cross­ ing the Sea of Reeds, portraying Jews as armed sol­ diers and repeating the red and blue colors of the frame; the outstanding artistic feature is the subtle portrayal of Egyptians drowned in the sea, colored figures almost hidden by flowing pale blue water (Gutmann 1978, 65, plate 13). The famous Sarajevo Haggadah has been the sub­ ject of numerous studies over the years. Of impor­ tance are again the “cycles,” a unique “Creation cycle,” one of scenes from Genesis, and a final one of the life of Moses. There are elements clearly bor45

Art, Jewish

rowed from other Haggadot, although with less artis­ tic merit, such as Miriam and the women singing or the Egyptians drowning in the sea. Of particular im­ portance is the well-drawn illumination of a family seated at the seder table, with a glass decanter con­ taining not red but white wine (often considered su­ perior in medieval Spain). Noteworthy too is the presence of a Muslim slave seated at the table (not in Narkiss, but see color plates of Moses receiving the tablets, and the very stylized illumination of the Temple, B. Narkiss 1969, 60 and facing plate; see also Gutmann 1978, 68-69 and plates 15 and 16). Bearing strong similarities to the Sarajevo manu­ script is another “Aragonese” (Catalan) Haggadah (Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria Ms. 2559), but showing far more sophisticated artistic technique (see two illustrations in Jiidische Lebenswelten 1991, 266). The Kaufmann Haggadah, for which Italian origin was once claimed, is definitely Spanish, obvi­ ously Catalan, and from the fourteenth century. The Spanish origin was correctly assumed already by Wischnitzer, but completely proven by its editor, Scheiber. Remarkable are the full-page illuminations of scenes from Exodus at the beginning of the Hag­ gadah, with others at the end. Unfortunately, possi­ bly because of this placement, most of them are ex­ tremely deteriorated. Nevertheless, the superior artistic quality of the work is evident. Particularly in­ teresting is an illustration of three women playing musical instruments while other women, in richly designed gowns, dance. Notable also are the illustra­ tions of the family at the table and a synagogue. The entire text is richly illuminated with initial word pan­ els, lettering in gold on blue or red background. The decision to sell the famous Sassoon collection in 1971, despite pleas from the president of Israel and other measures, meant the irretrievable loss of hun­ dreds of important manuscripts now in the hands of private collectors. Nevertheless, the National and University Library of Jerusalem was able to acquire at least some of these, among which is the “Sassoon Haggadah.” Apparently of Spanish origin, perhaps late thirteenth century, but with additions from Avi­ gnon at a later date, this manuscript contains a num­ ber of small drawings actually illustrating the text of the Haggadah (see the very brief description by Erika Oyserman in Hadassah magazine, April 1978, with il­

46

lustration on the cover). Important, too, are the in­ structions for the seder in the text (the list of vegeta­ bles, in various languages, should be published). From medieval Germany, the most important ex­ ample is the Birds’ Head Haggadah (late thirteenth century), in which most, but not all, of the human figures are portrayed with the heads of birds (the fan­ tastic suggestion has been made that these are “ea­ gles,” and somehow symbolic of the Jewish people). The influence of Christian iconography on the Birds’ Head Haggadah is discussed in the introductory vol­ ume (p. 5 Iff). As noted above, the “Barcelona Hag­ gadah” also contains a scene showing human figures with animal heads, while the other figures portrayed throughout have human features. This alone should be enough to prove how absurd are the various theo­ ries that the use of animal or bird heads on human bodies was an effort to avoid the alleged prohibition on portraying human figures, under the influence of Christian pietists of Germany (see, e.g., B. Narkiss 1969, 15). Not only do the Spanish manuscripts show the error of such views, but so do the German ones themselves. Human faces appear in the very same manuscript, and on the very same page, where figures with animal heads appear (e.g., ibid., plate 27; plates 33 and 34). Other German manuscripts have only human faces (see, incidentally, Gutmann 1978, 95 and plate 28, with some human and some animal heads, and his remark that why only certain figures have animal heads “in this manuscript” [!] re­ quires further investigation; as we have seen, this fact is hardly remarkable). As noted previously, the fa­ mous “Darmstadt Haggadah” was almost certainly il­ luminated by Christian artists. Prayer Books

Prayer books for daily prayers (the siddur), as well as those for holidays (mahzor), were often illustrated or decorated. One of the earliest is a German prayer book of 1272, from the “Rashi synagogue” in Worms (destroyed by the Nazis), which also combines fig­ ures with human faces and bird’s head faces (see Rimon 1 [1922], frontispiece and also p. 4). A particularly interesting example is one of the few extant illuminated prayer books from Spain, the “Hamilton Siddur” (thirteenth century), in which the artist enlarged two words in the text, one above

Art, Jewish

the other, and formed their letters from various gar­ goyle and animal figures, filling the elongated ascen­ ders and descenders of certain letters (such as lamed, final khaf) to create an artistic impression while not interfering with the integrity of the text (see B. Narkiss 1969, 54 and plate 7). M e i r B. B a r u k h of Rothenburg was asked about the permissibility of drawings of animals and birds in a mahzor (holiday prayer book), and he replied that it was not proper, because while the worshiper is looking at these images he does not concentrate his heart “on his Father in heaven”; but he did not prohibit it be­ cause the Talmud permits such drawings, and he was of the opinion that even a Jewish artisan is allowed to make such drawings without fear of violating the com­ mandment ( Tosafot on Yoma 54a-b; see there his lengthy discussion also about carved images, etc., and cf. his responsa, ed. Bloch [Berlin, 1891], p. 134, No. 97, where the responsum is given as an answer to his student ASHER [B. YEIilEL], who indeed cited it in his own collection of laws, see the note there). It is inter­ esting that, unlike biblical or Haggadah manuscripts, the largest number and most important illuminated mahzorim come from Germany. Particularly remark­ able are the “Dresden mahzor (early fourteenth cen­ tury), richly illuminated (see, e.g., the hanging of Haman in “Bird’s Head Haggadah” 1967, 1: 130, and Moses receiving the commandments, p. 131); the “Tripartite mahzor (ca. 1330), with illuminated word panels and with a combination of human figures with normal heads and with the heads of birds or other ani­ mals (Narkiss 1969, plates 33, 34; note the depiction of Moses receiving the commandments dressed as a Christian bishop, with Jews in typical hats); and the “Leipzig m a h z o r also with an illumination of the hanging of Haman and his sons and an interesting de­ piction of a legend of the young Abraham saved from a fire (Gutmann 1978, plates 24 and 25; facsimile edi­ tion, Machsor Lipsiae, Leipzig, 1964). Particularly charming are the naive pictures of Jews baking ma$ah for Passover, in three different German mahzorim (Bird’s Head Haggadah 1967, 1: 138). This may be compared with the similar picture from a fourteenth-century Spanish Haggadah (ibid., p. 155). In all cases the men are doing the baking, but in the Spanish manuscript and the Leipzig mah' zor, they are assisted by women who hold the fin­

ished ma$ot on boards. The most important, from an historical and halakhic point of view, is the famous Mahzor Vitry. A thirteenth-century manuscript has a full-page micrographic decoration with the name of the scribe and figures of a knight with drawn sword, a man hunting a deer with an axe (!), another blow­ ing a horn, and two peacocks (Jiidische Lebenswelten 1991, 115, no. 6/17; important examples of German illuminated mahzorim of the thirteenth and four­ teenth centuries may be seen, ibid., pp. 116-18, 446-55). The best example from Italy is the renowned “Rothschild mahzor (Florence, 1492), which contains richly illuminated word panels and border illustrations, one of which shows Moses re­ ceiving the tablets while elaborately costumed Jews wait below; another is a zodiac and “wheel of for­ tune” scene, undoubtedly the work of a Christian ar­ tisan; not only are the names of the zodiacal signs in Latin, but the iconography is definitely Christian (Mann 1989, 98-99; also pp. 113, 190). A richly decorated prayer book (Ferrara, ca. 1470) has an unusual illumination of a circumcision, show­ ing father and mother standing by the “chair of Eli­ jah” while the sandeq (honored man, in this case el­ derly) holds the tightly swaddled infant, before whom stands the mohel (circumciser) with a small knife; interestingly, none of the men is wearing a prayer shawl (a large color reproduction can be found in Haddasah magazine, October 1978, 13). A very important book of Psalms, with every page richly illuminated, is of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin, ca. 1470—1480 (the “De Bry Psalter,” see Jiidische Lebenswelten 1991, 425, no. 20:1/14). An even earlier (thirteenth-century) parchment manuscript of the Psalms with the commentary of Ibn ‘Ez r a is cu­ riously decorated with roosters and other animal and human figures (Hebrew Manuscripts from the Palatine Library, pp. 24-25; the colophon of Ibn ‘Ezra is not, of course, an autograph). Unusual is a separate volume of liturgical prayers (piyyupiym) from Spain (fourteenth or fifteenth cen­ tury) in which the poems are decorated with fine line ornamentation, but not illustrated (Haxen 1983, 20, no. 9). In the “Rothschild mahzor (Mantua, 1492) the important poem of Ibn Gab ir ol *Keter malkhut” is richly illuminated with figures of angels, a crown, and ornamental word panels (Mann 1989, 9).

47

Art, Jewish

Casket with Zodiac Sign and other motifs, with circumcision knife. Ger­ many 15th—16th century. Fruitwood. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Norman Zeiler in memory of Mrs. Nan Zeiler. Copy­ right © The Jewish Museum of New York/Art Resource, NY.

Other Manuscripts

The Hebrew translation (Moreh nevukhim) of the “Guide of the Perplexed” of Maimonides was im­ portant enough to be suitable for elaborate illumina­ tion. Examples include the “Oxford Catalan Mai­ monides,” a fourteenth-century Spanish manuscript, with richly illuminated panels dividing the three books of the text (see Narkiss 1982, 2: 128-29). The “Copenhagen Moreh nevukhiym (Salamanca, Barcelona, 1348) is the finest of all. The illuminator, of the so-called “Master of St. Mark” workshop, was the Jewish artist Levi b. Isaac Caro. One illumination (f. 3v), unfortunately not reproduced anywhere, shows the scribe presenting the work and a teacher lecturing; f. 114 depicts, not “scientists discussing the laws of nature” as Narkiss said, but an as­ tronomer with an astrolabe and book, seated, lectur­ ing (B. Narkiss 1969, 76 and plate 18; also in Gold 1988, 30; Haxen 1983, 2: 18, no. 6). Because this is only the second such illustration of a Jewish as­ tronomer (see “First Kennicott Bible” above), it is of obvious importance. The beautiful frame of the outer border shows various fowl: pheasants, quail, peacock, and rooster. Another example comes from fifteenthcentury northern Italy (Hamburg cod. Levy 115; see Paleographie hebraique 1974, 119—20 and 125, nos. 1 and 3); the sample illustrations nevertheless have a distinctive Christian feel to them, and it is very likely that they were not done by a Jewish artist. The earli­ 48

est surviving illuminated manuscript of the Mishneh Torah (Maimonides’ code of law) is the giant fourvolume manuscript illuminated in Cologne, Ger­ many (1295-1296), now known as the “Kaufmann Mishneh Torah.” The opening of the work and the title pages of each of the fourteen books have richly illuminated initial word panels (B. Narkiss 1969, plate 30). Very important is another of the same work, written in Spain in the fourteenth century but illuminated in Italy, also by a Christian artist (Narkiss 1969, plate 47). The “Lisbon Maimonides (Mishneh Torah) (1472), written for a member of the illustrious Ibn Yahya family, is also richly decorated, with full-page foliate and floral borders in multiple colors (ibid., 136-39; Jiidische Lebenswelten 1991, 279, 281, no. 12/37). An incomplete copy of the Mishneh Torah from Italy, fifteenth century, contains some lovely full-page illuminations (ibid., plate 60). Very important historically is the depiction of liti­ gants appearing before a bet din (Jewish court), con­ sisting unusually of four judges sitting outdoors in a garden (Gutmann 1978, 31). The Copenhagen Royal Library also has a beauti­ fully illuminated manuscript of the Sefer mi$vot hagadoly an important legal work by Moses b. Jacob of Coucy, done in 1410 in France or Germany (Haxen 1983, 2: 17, 18, no. 3). An earlier example of the same work, Germany ca. 1344, also has carefully dec­ orated initial word panels (Jiidische Lebenswelten

Art, Jewish

read and write (ibid., p. 21). Secular H e b r e w LITER­ also provided examples of illuminated works, particularly the popular Mashal ha-qadmoniy by Isaac Ibn Sahulah (1281, Spain). Because the author him­ self indicated in the text what should be illustrated, virtually every manuscript and later printed editions include these illustrations, in a variety of styles (ex­ amples in Paleographie 1974, plate 81; Gold 1988, 160). The extant examples are all from northern Italy, fifteenth century, except for that in Paleogra­ phic, which is from Germany (see also the excellent large reproduction in Jiidische Lebenswelten 1991, 277, no. 12/31). The first printed edition (Brescia, 1491) is also illustrated. ATURE

“Star o f D a v id 99

Hanukkah lamp, bronze, 14th c., Berizzi, Musee du Jadaisme, Paris, France. Reunion des Musees Naionaux/ Art Resource, NY.

1991, 130-31, no. 6/49), as does also a 1373 manu­ script of the halakhic work of MORDECAI B. HlLLEL (ibid., 130-31, No. 6/49). Jacob b. Ashers legal code Arbaah furim was also sometimes illuminated, and a splendid example is that done in Mantua in 1435, with richly decorated and illustrated pages (Gutmann 1978, 30-31, fig. xviii; 104-107, plates 33, 34). “Religious” works were not the only ones consid­ ered suitable for illumination, however. Examples of secular illuminated manuscripts include mathematics (from Florence, Paleographie 1974, 124, fig. 6; vari­ ous Italian, plate 14, figs. 6-8), medical manuscripts (Gold 1988, 34, 164; B. Narkiss, 1969, plate 51), the important Hebrew translation of the “Canon” of Ibn Slna (Narkiss 1969, plate 54; Gutmann 1978, plate 35; Jiidische Lebenswelten 1991, 469-70, no. 20:1/80), and a childrens primer from the Cairo GE­ NIZAH, with a columned arch framing a menorah and two six-pointed stars on the right leaf and the letters alefi bet, vavy and gim m el repeated in rows on the left leaf. The colors used are red and blue. Such books were commonly used to teach very young children to

As noted previously, with respect to the “Duke of Sussex Pentateuch,” the so-called Magen David (“Star of David”), which in modern times has often been considered the Jewish symbol par excellence, was not necessarily Jewish at all in the Middle Ages. In fact, it would appear that it is an ancient symbol that was not Jewish in origin; for instance, it was found on Greek wine jars from Thasos (see Frank Cross, “Pa­ pyri of the Fourth Century B.C. From Daliyeh,” in David N. Freedman and Jonas C. Greenfield, eds., New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, 1969, p. 60, n. 50). Thus, the fanciful theory that it is merely a variant of the fleur-de-lys, and yet somehow at the same time an “ancient” Jewish symbol (Klagsbald 1997, 25ff), is incorrect. However, the star was sometimes employed as a motif in Jewish art and for other purposes. Examples of micrography in which the symbol appears in Jewish Bible manuscripts may be seen in Paleographie hebraique plates 48, 49, 99, 100, 108, and in Ferber 1977. One of the earliest ex­ amples is the previously mentioned children’s primer from the Genizah. According to Wischnitzer (1922­ 1923, 212-14), Spanish Jews may have been respon­ sible for its renewal as a Jewish symbol, although its use in the “Lapidary” of Alfonso X and even in the “Catalan Atlas” is not necessarily evidence of Jewish influence. An interesting example is the decorative star intertwined with a rosette design, all in microg­ raphy, with one star inside another, in a Spanish Bible manuscript of the thirteenth or fourteenth cen­ tury (Hebrew Manuscripts 1985, 12-13). A Bible manuscript from Toledo, 1307, the so-called “Ibn 49

Art, Jewish

Rothchilds Manuscript 24 (ca. 1485). The ark of the Law. Bezalel National Art Museum. Copyright © Art Re­ source, NY.

Merwas” Bible No. 2 (formerly Ms. Sassoon 508; now in Switzerland, whereabouts unknown) had a six-pointed star, and similarly we find it on one of the pillars of the Santa Maria la Blanca synagogue and in the tiles of the El Transito synagogue (now the National Sefardic Museum) in Toledo. Other exam­ ples in illuminated manuscripts include the “Cam­ bridge Pentateuch and Hagiography,” Castile, early fourteenth century (B. Narkiss 1982, 2: 16, fig. 54), the aforementioned “Moscatta Haggadah” (ibid., 29, fig. 113) and “Golden Haggadah” (ibid., 48, fig. 149), the “Castellon de Ampurias Bible,” 1396 (ibid., 123, figs. 341, 342; and 122, fig. 339), the “First Kennicott Bible” (ibid., p. 154, fig. 457). Ap­ parently David b. Judah he-faasid (early-fourteenth50

century Spain), grandson of Nahmanides, is the first medieval author to mention it as a Jewish symbol. Miscellaneous

Items for ritual use, whether in the home or syna­ gogue, certainly were given artistic treatment. It is unfortunate that almost none of these have survived; for instance, Torah cases from Spain or Muslim lands (wooden, silver, or sometimes even gold cases in which scrolls of the Torah were kept in the syna­ gogue), or cloth coverings from Spain and other countries; the rimmoniym (“pomegranates”), silver decorative tops placed on the rollers of the Torah scroll (a few extant examples are in the cathedral of

Art, Jewish

Palma de Majorca; in medieval Spain, some had glass ornaments); qiyddush cups for recitation of blessings over wine to inaugurate the Sabbath or holidays, also for the havdallah (“separation”) ceremony at the end of these special days. However, at least two examples of spice boxes used in the havdallah ceremony have survived. Such boxes, usually in the shape of a tower, were used to hold the spices that by custom were in­ haled to “refresh” the soul at the end of the Sabbath and prepare it for the weekdays. The earliest example is from Spain, thirteenth century (see Mordechai Narkiss, “Origin of the Spice Box,” Journal o f Jewish Art [1981]: 28 and 29, fig. 1). This box is bronze, in the form of a square three-tiered tower with horse­ shoe arch windows, showing the Muslim influence typical in Spain. The second is from Italy, late fif­ teenth century, in gilded copper, and is a tower form clearly in imitation of a Christian reliquary (Jiidische Lebenswelten 1991, 70, no. 3/43). Contrary to Wischnitzer and Schwarz, Mordechai Narkiss contends that the fifteenth-century Second Nuremberg Haggadah does not depict a spice box (see M. Narkiss, ibid., 31, n. 19). Special plates used for the Passover seder were also richly decorated. Spain was particularly famous for its magnificent ceramic work, and an important seder plate of this type, mid-fifteenth century (full color in Journal o f Jewish A rt! [1975]: 52), is a typical example of the gold luster ware style of Muslim ceramic and metalwork design (see other examples in Du Ry 1970). The gold geometrical and foliate designs cover most of the plate, with a small blue border on the inner rim and a larger one in the center of the plate. The Hebrew words, in gold, designating the necessary elements for the seder are inscribed within this large circle and sur­ round a blue and gold rosette design. The authenticity of this plate has been challenged and defended and again challenged. The fact that all except one of the Hebrew words is misspelled has been commented upon and various explanations offered, none convinc­ ing. It seems merely to be the result of a virtually illit­ erate craftsman who did not know the correct spelling of the words (had it been copied from another plate, as suggested, that plate also would have had the same problematic misspellings; nor is it likely that a “forger” would have made such an error on only one word). Very rare are medieval menorot. One is from Lyon, fourteenth century. It is in bronze, triangular in

shape with cutout “rose window” and arched window shapes, obviously copied from churches, and small cups for oil, a style sometimes reproduced in modern menorot (Jiidische Lebenswelten 1991, 120, no. 6/25; this and a similar one with more elaborate design from France at the same period is shown in Gutfeld 1968, 88). Another is from Teruel in Aragon and is composed of a ceramic tray decorated with triangular designs and containing ceramic cups for holding oil (this, and other pieces of decorated ceramic pottery, may be seen in Miguel Angel Motis Dolader, La ex­ pulsion de los judios del reino de Aragon, Zaragoza, 1990, vol. 1,304). Extremely rare and remarkable is a small silver box engraved with three female figures performing reli­ gious duties assigned to women (separating dough, immersion in a ritual bath, kindling a Sabbath lamp) with accompanying scrolls containing the Hebrew blessings for these acts. Dials on the top of the box are labeled in Judeo-Italian with names of different types of linens. Apparently it was intended for the lady of the house to store keys to the linen cabinets (see Mann 1989, 196, 309-10). The present article is by no means exhaustive with respect to all of the illuminated biblical or other manuscripts of the medieval Jewish world, having touched on only the most important. There is still no complete history or study of medieval Jewish art. Given the vicissitudes of Jewish life in the medieval and later periods, it is remarkable that so many out­ standing examples of such work have survived. One can only surmise what has been lost to the ages. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bird's Head Haggadah (Jerusalem, 1967), 2 vols. (in­ troductory volume, edited by M. Spitzer, with es­ says by various authors). Du Ry, Carel J. Art o f Lslam (Baden-Baden; New York, 1970). Ferber, Stanley. “Micrography: A Jewish Art Form.” Journal o f Jewish Art 3-4 (1977): 12-24. Gold, Leonard Singer, ed. A Sign and a Witness (New York, Oxford, 1988) (articles and illustrations on Hebrew manuscripts and printed books). Golden Haggadah (London, 1970), 2 vols.; ed. Bezalel Narkiss. 51

Art, Jewish

Gutmann, Joseph. Hebrew Manuscript Painting (New York, 1978). ---------, ed. No Graven Image. Studies in Art and the Hebrew Bible (New York, 1970). Haxen, Ulf. Kings and Citizens (descriptive catalogue of Jewish Museum exhibition on the Jews of Den­ mark) (New York, 1983), 2 vols. Hebrew Manuscripts from the Palatine Library (Jerusalem, 1985). Kaufmann Haggadah (Budapest, 1957); facsimile, with an important introduction by Alexander Scheiber (separate booklet in the end-cover). Mann, Vivian B., ed. Gardens and Ghettos (Univ. of California Press, 1989); catalogue of exhibit on Jewish life in Italy, the Jewish Museum (New York). Nachama, Andreas and Gereon Sievernich. Jiidische Lebenswelten. Katalog (Berlin, 1991). Narkiss, Bezalel. Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts (English; Jerusalem, 1969). --------- . Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts o f the British Isles (Oxford, 1982), 2 vols. Nordstrom, C. O. “Some Miniatures in Hebrew Bibles,” Synthrononl (1968): 89-105. La Paleographie hebraique medievale (Paris, 1974). Roth, Cecil. The Kennicott Bible (Oxford, 1957). Sarajevo Haggadah. Edited by Cecil Roth in 1963 (English, Hebrew, and Italian editions); a new fac­ simile edition appeared inTel-Aviv, 1986. Sed-Rajna, Gabrielle, “Toledo or Burgos?” Journal o f Jewish Art2 (1975): 6-21. Wischnitzer, Rachel. “Illuminated Haggadahs,” J.Q.R. (n.s.) 13 (1922-1923): 193-218.

Art, Jews in

Jews were portrayed in medieval Christian art (not, as far as we know, in Muslim art at all) in different ways. Some depictions of religious subjects, whether of “Old” or “New” Testament scenes, include figures who are obviously based upon contemporary Jews. Rarely do such figures, whether sculpted or in draw­ ings and paintings, exhibit anti-Jewish caricature; on the contrary, they can be important sources for the apparently accurate depictions of costume and ap­ pearance of medieval Jews. Other, rarer depictions are actual portraits of real Jews incorporated into a religious or contemporary scene. Finally, there are 52

some truly anti-Jewish caricatures that exaggerate ethnic features and fashion virulent depictions in­ tended to reflect or inspire hatred. The modern scholar must, nevertheless, be careful not to assume “anti-Semitism” in every symbol or even direct por­ trayal of Jews in medieval art. Unfortunately, such care is rarely exercised, and otherwise very astute writers have not refrained from the most excessive rhetoric characteristic of the “lachrymose concep­ tion” of Jewish history, as Salo Baron aptly termed it, in discussing medieval Christian attitudes to Jews or in seeking for these alleged attitudes in symbolic artistic representation. Thus, in spite of the oft-cited book of Blumenkranz, there is as yet no adequate, and certainly no complete, treatment of the subject. This article can only sketch some details. There are numerous examples of depictions of Jews in manuscript and other sources in which the figures of the Jews are realistically portrayed without any negative characteristics. One of the earliest is an illumination of Ildefonsus of Toledo, a Visigothic bishop, arguing with Jews, which was drawn in Toledo about 1200 (there is a photograph of this illu­ mination in David Raizman’s interesting article, “A Rediscovered Illuminated Manuscript of St. Ildefon­ sus s De Virginitate Beatae M ariae. . . Gesta 26 [1987]: 40, fig. 6); although romanticized and not realistic, there are no negative aspects to the Jewish features. An illustration of the ceremony of Jews re­ ceiving the Holy Roman Emperor (in this case, Henry VII, d. 1313) and presenting a Torah scroll to him (Hermann Vogelstein, Geschichte der Juden in Rom [Berlin, 1896], facing p. 202; Rubens [see Bibli­ ography], p. 98, No. 130, wrongly identified as Henry VIII). Though the ceremony itself was humil­ iating—because the emperor recited a customary for­ mula accepting the Torah but noting that the Jews themselves did not “understand” what it contained— the Jews are not here portrayed in any denigrated manner, although they of course are shown with the required “Jews’ hat” (see CLOTHING). From approxi­ mately the same time in England there is a drawing of a Jew, with cap and hood (not yet the Jews’ hat) and BADGE (tablets of the Ten Commandments), which again shows no caricaturized treatment. The same is true of a Jew in a French biblical manuscript (Stavordale Bible) of the eleventh century (see Rubens 1967, 92, for both illustrations); although it

Art, Jews in

is incorrect that he is shown wearing a “Jews5hat,” it is instead a bishop’s miter. Particularly interesting is a fresco, ca. 1210, in a Swedish church, showing the worship of the golden calf (Rubens 1967, 95, no. 122). Although it could be argued that the subject matter was intended as a negative portrayal of Jews, there is absolutely nothing in the way of caricature in the features of the bearded Jews, with blond hair, wearing the Jews’ hat. The same is true of the picture of a prophet, dressed as a contemporary Jew with hat, in a thir­ teenth-century English fresco, or the famous Spanish fourteenth-century fresco (Tarragona) of the descent from the cross, showing a hooded Jew with badge (reproductions of all of these, loc. cit.). In both cases, the Jew is shown with a slightly hooked nose and down-turned mouth, but the very nature of the fig­ ures they are supposed to represent, a prophet in the English fresco and one of the disciples in the Spanish one, demonstrates that they can hardly be attempts at anti-Jewish caricature. Again from England, from the fourteenth century and thus long after the expul­ sion of Jews from that land, is a picture of the parents of John the Baptist (Luke 1.5) in which Zachariah, the father, is bearded and wears a pointed hood (Rubens 1967, 96, no. 123); whether or not based on an earlier portrayal of Jews, it is a fairly accurate rep­ resentation. Similar is a drawing of the circumcision of John the Baptist (England, 1325-1330), which quite accurately shows Jews in prayer shawls, one brandishing tablets of the Ten Commandments. Other distinctly Jewish figures appear in such scenes as the marriage of Joseph and Mary (Germany, 1260), the redemption of the firstborn son (in this case, Jesus; Cologne, fourteenth century), and the circumcision of Jesus (Germany, fifteenth century), and in a sixteenth-century painting from Spain, where the Jewish details are even more exact (in Boletin de la real academia de la historia 116 [1945], after p. 148, Lamina 22). A thirteenth-century Christian Psalms manuscript from Wurzburg shows Jesus arguing in the Temple (?), with bearded Jewish figures wearing the typical hat (described by the re­ porter as “hats shaped like flying saucers”!), again with no negative characteristics (New York Times, 19 January 1997, 48, with photograph). The earliest picture of Jews in Poland, a miniature from a Christ­ ian manuscript (twelfth or thirteenth century) also is

without any negative features, showing a group of bearded Jews, some with caps and others apparently without, staring toward the heavens (Rubens 1967, 109, no. 150). In the various medieval German law codes, most typically showing the Jew under protection of the king’s “peace law,” there are drawings of a Jew mounted on a horse, with a sword and wearing the hat; none of these drawings is in any way a caricature or depicts the Jew with negative features (see examples in Guido Kisch, Jewry-Law in M edieval Germany [New York, 1949], p. 39; Rubens, p. 97, no. 126); see also Jews testifying in court or participating in guard duty (in Kisch 1949, 51, 91). Even when the Jew is shown in a negative situation, such as being judged as a thief in the Sachsenspiegel code of 1300, he is not portrayed in a caricaturized manner (picture in Kisch, “The ‘Jewish Execution’ in Medieval Germany,” Historia Judaica 5 [1943]: following p. 108). Even in portrayals of such fiercely anti-Jewish charges as H o s t d e s e c r a t i o n or R i t u a l m u r d e r , none of the Jewish crowds shown in medieval illustrations ex­ hibits negative features in any manner (see examples in Trachtenberg 1966, 112, 156), in striking contrast to similar pictures from the sixteenth century. (In general, characteristic of the “lachrymose conception” of Jewish history is the tendency to attribute to the medieval period attitudes and actions more character­ istic of later periods; Trachtenberg himself was cer­ tainly not free from this.) In a carefully drawn scene representing the “Jewish O a t h ” from Germany in the fifteenth century, the hooded figures of Jews with badges on arms or shoulders display no negative fea­ tures (Rubens 1967, 101, no. 135). In the famous Bible moralisee (France, 1250), the descent of the patriarchs into hell shows them as me­ dieval Jews, but without any negative aspects other than the usual hats. In sculpture or bas-relief, also, the same thing is found. For example, although the facade of the Nuremberg cathedral (thirteenth cen­ tury) has a scene of the arrest of Jesus in the garden that shows Peter striking a Jew (a guard) who is wear­ ing a Jew’s hat, again, there is no anti-Jewish carica­ ture in the figures. The famous “Darmstadt Hag­ gadah” (late fourteenth century) was undoubtedly illuminated by a Christian artist. Its depiction of Jewish men and women is highly romantic, many of them learning or teaching (including women) and 53

Art, Jews in

with features that can only be described as noble, or even beautiful in the case of the women. If Gutmann’s suggestion that this was illuminated by a Christian artist for a Christian patron is correct, it is even more striking that such favorable representation of contemporary Jewish figures is found in it (Gut­ mann, Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts, p. 96 and facing plate). Jewish Representations in M iracle Tale

Unique are the depictions of Jews in the famous col­ lection of stories and poems concerning Mary in the Cantigas de Santa Maria, composed, ca. 1280, under the patronage of Alfonso X of Castile. The most im­ portant manuscript, from the point of view of illumi­ nation, is that of the Escorial Palace, of which there are various facsimiles as well as separate colored re­ productions of some illuminations. It is by far the most richly illustrated, both in quality and quantity, of any medieval manuscript. This is, incidentally, the work that shows the famous illustration of young men playing baseball, with the amusing accompany­ ing “miracle” tale (translation in Keller 1985). Schol­ ars have debated the sources of influence on the illu­ minations, and although much research is yet needed, it would appear that French Gothic influ­ ences played a dominant role, with possible Italian additions, but that medieval Muslim illustrations also were an important source (see Keller, with refer­ ence to earlier studies; Kosmer and Powers add very little to Kellers discussion, other than reference to some specific French and Italian works that may have served as models). What is important for our consid­ eration is the treatment of Jews in these illumina­ tions, since several of the “miracle” tales relate to Jews; and even in those that do not focus on Jews, such as that of the siege of Constantinople, Jewish figures appear (see Kosmer and Powers 1990, fig. 4-2, bottom left, bearded figures with “Jews’ hat”). The drawings of Jews show no negative characteris­ tics (Cantiga 25; or 108, the Jewish pharmacy, top, or the Jews in a synagogue, bottom left). The figures are nevertheless very stylized and scarcely represent figures of real Jews. Very interesting is a fresco by Andrea da Firenze (Andrea di Bonavito), ca. 1366-1368, in the Spanish chapel of the Church of Santa Maria Novella in Flo­ 54

rence, that shows dogs attacking the “wolves of heresy” before Peter Martyr and THOMAS AQUINAS (the dogs symbolize the Dominicans, “God’s dogs” in black and white habits). St. Thomas, on the extreme lower right, argues with Jews as one tears a book and another stops up his ears (Eve Borsook, The Mural Painters o f Tuscany [Oxford, 1980], Plate 61; cf. her discussion, pp. 49-50, although she appears not to have realized that Jews are portrayed). Negative portrayals of Jews in medieval Christian art do, of course, exist. One of the earliest of these is a drawing from an English tax roll (1233) of the devil claiming the agents of the wealthy Isaac of Norwich (top, wearing the king’s crown and facing simultane­ ously in three directions), one of whom, hooded, holds a scale filled with coins; the other, whose nose is tweaked by the devil, wears the pointed “Jews’ hat,” while the woman, Abigail, also tweaked on the nose by the devil, is dressed in typical medieval style for noblewomen. Other devils parade on the castle ramparts (Rubens 1967, 93, no. 117). Also from England (1277) is a drawing of a hooded Jew with a prominent hooked nose and bulging eyes, labeled Aaron f i l diaboli, “Aaron, son of the devil” (Trachten­ berg 1966, 27). In one manuscript of the Bible moralisee, Jews are boiled by the devil in a pot over flames (Blumenkranz 1970, plate VI.2). Such carica­ tures reflected, of course, the animosity against wealthy Jewish moneylenders at the time, which was one of the factors that led to their expulsion shortly thereafter. The Judensau, or Jewish swine, while hardly “one of the commonest caricatures of the Jew in the Middle Ages” (Trachtenberg 1966, 26; cf. p. 8, a seventeenth-century drawing), was sometimes used to further the idea of the Jews’ connection with the devil. It appears carved on a French capital as early as the late twelfth century, with the devil astride it while Moses holds aloft the tablets of the commandments (Ruth Mellinkoff, “The Round-Topped Tablets of the Law,” Journal o f Jewish Art 1 [1974]: 31, fig. 3). In later drawings, Jews were depicted either riding the pig or even being suckled by it. In the choir stalls of the cathedral of Cologne, dating from the mid­ fourteenth century, were drawings of Jews emptying a bucket from which a sow and its young tumble, and another Jew leads a child to suckle from the sow. Again, this symbol was more common of the postmedieval than the medieval period.

Art, Jews in

Portraits o f Jews

Portraits of actual Jews include that of the famous minnesinger; or troubadour, Siisskind of Trimberg (Germany, thirteenth century), shown bearded and with long hair, wearing the typical “Jews’ hat” but with a cloak trimmed in ermine (Rubens 1967, 97, no. 127; in color in Jiidische Lebenswelten 1991, 125). Some have questioned the authenticity of the drawing, with insufficient reason, and although it is perhaps true that the face is more stereotypical than factual, so that it may not be an actual portrait, it is still an attempt to portray the Jewish poet realisti­ cally. What has been presumed to be the earliest ac­ tual portrait of a Jew is that of a rabbi in a stainedglass window (Munich, ca. 1485) (Paul Frankl, “The Earliest Jewish Portrait,” Historia Judaica 5 [1943]: following p. 164, plate 3; note there also plate 1, showing the presentation of Jesus in the Temple). In fact, it is not the earliest portrait of a Jew; that dis­ tinction belongs to a portrait of Daniel Norsa and his family (Mantura, early fifteenth century), in which the Christian artist has realistically depicted the fig­ ures (two men and two women); note the circular badge worn only by the men (Rubens 1967, 104, no. 143). In a portrayal (1481) of a legend in the life of St. Vincent Ferrer, a notoriously anti-Jewish preacher who lived nearly a century earlier, Portuguese artist Nuno Gon9 alves used the six panels of the painting to depict and glorify the victory of the Portuguese king Alfonso V over the Muslims at Arzila in 1471. At the extreme right end of the last panel is the standing figure of a corpulent man in a robe and hat that are in no manner Jewish, holding a volume that may be a Bible. He has been identified, perhaps somewhat too enthusiastically, as Isaac ABRAVANEL. The only possible reason to identify him as a Jew at all is the presence of what appears to be a six-pointed star (badge?) on the front of his robe (enlarged detail of the figure in Rubens 1967, 104, no. 144). If he is Jewish, it might well be a portrait of the chief rabbi of Portugal at that time, a certain mestre Abas, also a physician, although the possibility of Abravanel can­ not be ruled out. Unique is the portrait of Guglielmo Ebreo, a Jewish dancing master (Italy, 1463) in the service of the renowned Sforza and d’Este families (New York Times, 5 October 1986, 6; as with other important manuscripts, this has so far received no scholarly attention; one may sometimes learn more

about Jewish art from newspapers and Hadassah magazine than from the scholarly journals). Negative Symbols o f Judaism

Whereas negative depictions of Jews are relatively rare in medieval art, the use of iconographic symbols to represent the Jewish faith in a debased manner was more common. Thus, for example, the aforemen­ tioned Bible moralisee, while never caricaturizing the Jewish figures portrayed, has numerous examples of this symbolic iconography: the breaking of the tablets of the commandments; the “burial” of the fig­ ure of a dead woman, representing the Synagogue, while the triumphant figure of the Church stands over her (examples in Blumenkranz 1970, 81 and plates; see generally Blumenkranz, 1963, 105-15; Seiferth 1970). Later depictions of the Synagogue (representing the “old” law, while the Church repre­ sents the “new”) show her with nude breasts and holding a banner with, apparently, a figure of a scor­ pion (Blumenkranz plate VIII; cf. pp. 86-87; Blu­ menkranz rightly observed that the scorpion was not necessarily a symbol for Jews, although sometimes it was). Not even Spain was immune from this kind of representation, although it was much rarer there than in France or Germany. Thus, a painting in the Prado Museum (Madrid) by Fernando Gallego (fifteenth century) shows a triumphant Jesus seated and on his right side the small figure of the Church as a woman with a banner, and on his left, barely visible, the fig­ ure of a bent woman representing the Synagogue. Even more prevalent, from the mid-thirteenth century on, again particularly in France, was the por­ trayal of the Synagogue not merely as a subjugated woman but blindfolded, first depicted as such in the “Sugerius Window” of St. Denis, and more fre­ quently thereafter, including sculpted statues con­ trasting the blindfolded Synagogue, eyes downcast, with the Church victorious and triumphant. Inter­ estingly, this symbol of the blindfolded synagogue was even accepted by a Jewish artist, who in an illu­ minated prayer book, Germany, ca. 1300, depicts a Jew in typical hat and cloak kneeling and placing his hands in homage in those of a blindfolded woman (Synagogue) with a crown on her head (Jiidische Lebenswelten 1991, 118, no. 6/21); there is no ques­ tion here of a Christian artist having drawn this be­ 55

Art, Jews in

cause the Hebrew text is too closely associated with the drawing of the figures. Realistic Portrayals o f Jews

From medieval Spain are a number of realistic paint­ ings of Jews, at least some of which are obviously drawn from real-life models (Jews such as the artist saw every day around him). Examples include the fourteenth-century Catalan painting of Jews disput­ ing with St. Stephen, in which the Jewish men are shown in the hooded garment then required in Catalonia (see the black-and-white reproduction in Martin de Riquer, Historia de la literature catalana [Barcelona, 1964] II, 208). The medieval cathedral of Barcelona, in the very center of the former Jewish quarter, has on the outside sculpted figures of seated Jewish women wearing the characteristic turban with a small roll on top. Other fourteenth- and earlyfifteenth-century paintings in the Catalan art mu­ seum of Barcelona also show realistic, and even favor­ able, representations of contemporary Jews in settings of New Testament scenes. The men are invariably bearded and with cloaks that also cover their heads. Most significant, perhaps, because it appears to be actual portraits, is a retablo by the fourteenthcentury artist Luis Borrassa, in the cathedral of Tar­ ragona. The various Jewish men depicted, one of whom holds the rounded tablets of the Ten Com­ mandments inscribed in perfectly correct and read­ able Hebrew, have distinct features that clearly are those of actual individuals. The Ghent Altarpiece (“Adoration of the Lamb”) by Hubert and Jan van Eyck (1432) depicts the “redemption” of the Jews at the end of days, and the union of Jews and Gentiles in the triumphant Church (see Lotte Brand Philip, The Ghent Altarpiece and the Art o f Jan van Eyck [Princeton, 1971]). Duqueker Luc (see Bibliogra­ phy) has identified the Tortosa Disputation (see D IS­ PUTATIONS) as a major source of the iconography, and if so, it is possible that actual Spanish Jews who participated in that disputation are portrayed in the work. Van Eyck, or one of his students, also painted “Fountain of Life,” or “Triumph of the Church Over the Synagogue” (Prado Museum; the painting was apparently originally in the chapel of San Jeronimo in the cathedral of Palencia). At the top is Christ en­ throned, with Mary and the evangelist John on either side. The water flowing in a fountain is obviously 56

baptismal, flowing from the lamb at the feet of Christ (the meaning has been debated, but that it represents the “fountain of life” seems most proba­ ble). The bottom third is the main topic, the tri­ umph of the Church, represented by a pope, perhaps Martin V, and his retinue, over the Synagogue (a high priest, blindfolded, with a retinue of Jews). The Jews wear neither distinguishing hats nor badges (so also in the Ghent Altarpiece). The rabbi in the fore­ ground holds a Torah scroll with gibberish “Hebrew” writing. Another Jew shows a scroll to a figure, appar­ ently Christian, who tears his clothing at the sight. In summary, while there were some definitely neg­ ative portrayals of Jews in medieval Christian art, and even more so in the use of certain iconographic mo­ tifs to represent “Judaism,” overall the depiction of Jews was either neutral (stylized, romanticized fig­ ures) or realistic, including portraits of actual Jews. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Biblia moralisee (facs. ed., Graz, 1973); also Biblia moralizada (Madrid, 1992). Blumenkranz, Bernhard. Le j u i f medieval au miroir de I’a rt chretien (Paris, 1963). ---------. “Juifs et judai‘sme dans Tart chretien du haut moyen age,” Spolenta (Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di studi suH’alto medioevo) Gli ebrei nell’alto medioevo (1990), pp. 987-1016. ---------. “La representation de synagoga dans les bibles moralisees fran^aises du Xllle au XVe siecle,” Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Proceedings 5 (1970): 70-91. Gutmann, Joseph. Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts (New York, 1978). Jiidische Lebenswelten Katalog, ed. Andreas Nachama and Gereon Sievernich (Berlin, 1991). Keller, John E. “The Art of Illumination in the Books of Alfonso X (primarily in the Canticles o f Holy Mary),” Alfonso X the Learned\ Emperor o f Culture (= Thought60 [1985]: 388-406). Kosmer, Ellen and James F. Powers, “Manuscript Il­ lustration: The Cantigas in Contemporary Art Context,” Robert I. Burns, S.J., ed. Emperor o f Culture: Alfonso X the Learned o f Castile and His Thirteenth-Century Renaissance (Philadelphia, 1990), pp. 46-58.

Asher b. Yehiel

Luc, Dequeker. “Jewish Symbolism in the Ghent Al­ tarpiece of Jan van Eyck (1432),” in Jozeph Michman and Tirtsah Levie, eds., Dutch Jewish History (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 347-62, illustrated. Rubens, Alfred. A History o f Jewish Costume (New York, 1967). Seiferth, Wolfgang. Juden undJudentum in der mittelalterlichen Kunst (Munich, 1964). ---------. Synagogue and Church in the Middle Ages (New York, 1970). ---------. “The Veil of Synagogue,” in Joseph Frank, Helmut Minkowski, Ernest J. Steinglass, eds. Horizons o f a Philosopher; Essays in Honor o f David Baumgart (Leiden, 1963), pp. 378-390. Shachar, Isaiah. The Judensau, a medieval anti-Jewish m otif(London, 1974). Trachtenberg, Joshua. The Devil and the Jews (New York, 1966; paper rpt. of Yale, 1943 ed.).

Asher b. Yehiel

Rabbi Asher b. Yehiel, known by the Hebrew acronym “Rosh” (not only the initial letters of ifobbi Asher, but not coincidentally also meaning “head; chief in impor­ tance” in Hebrew) was born ca. 1250 in GERMANY and died in 1327 in Spain. He was born into an elite rab­ binic family, fourth generation in direct descent from Rabbi Eliezer b. Natan (the famous Raavari). His fa­ ther Yehiel was descended also from the renowned Rabbenu G e r s h o m B. JUDAH, as well as from Natan of Rome, author of the famous dictionary Arukh (see HEBREW g r a m m a r ). Asher studied in France when he was very young, and continued his studies in Ger­ many, where he ultimately became second in impor­ tance only to his principal teacher, Rabbi M e i r B. BARUKH of Rothenburg, the leading figure of the Ashkenazic communities in the thirteenth century. After his teacher was imprisoned in 1286 (he was cap­ tured while trying to emigrate following a pogrom), and particularly following his death in 1293, Asher was recognized as the chief rabbinical authority in Ger­ many. He and his family also fled Germany because of the difficult conditions under Rudolf I, and, passing through France and Provence, he finally reached Spain in 1305. There were already many Jewish refugees from Germany in Spain, including one of Asher’s own sons

who had been sent ahead to prepare a place for the family. He may have spent some time in Barcelona, with the renowned sage Solomon IBN ADRET; but in any case he soon made his way to Toledo at the re­ quest of community leaders there. He became the leading rabbi of the community, opening also his own yeshivah. While in Germany he had taught at the yeshivah of his own teacher, M e i r B. B a r u k h , and may also have had his own yeshivah later. His yeshivah in Toledo, however, was to become interna­ tionally famous. Asher was a prolific writer, and his literary output belongs to the great classics of medieval rabbinic lit­ erature. Primarily, he is famous for his three main works: novellae on the Talmud (titled Tosafot ha-Rosh on many tractates, written in the classical style of the French Tosafot); Pisqey ha-Rosh, a running commen­ tary on the Halakhot of Isaac al-FasI; and a collection of some thousand responsa covering a multitude of aspects of daily life and Jewish law. Most of this work was done, or at least brought to its final phase, in Spain, including his responsa, most of which were written in answer to Spanish questioners. An aston­ ishing fact is the disappearance of most of his re­ sponsa written in Germany, a small number of which survive in the collections of his teacher Meir of Rothenburg. The collection of his Spanish responsa was made by his son Jacob, for reasons to be ex­ plained below, and in itself bears witness to the suc­ cessful acclimatization of the family to Spain. His compilation of Tosafot, based on the French proto­ type, incorporated also many sources from Spain. This work greatly facilitated the acceptance of the French Tosafot in Spain, where they soon became an integral part of talmudic study, thus providing a cen­ tral vehicle for the important historical process of cultural integration between Spain and FrancoGermany. The Pisqey ha-Rosh, or “decisions,” is dedi­ cated mainly to a detailed comparison between the legal interpretations of al-FasI and the parallel Franco-German tradition of the Tosafot, with the im­ portant addition of later Spanish traditions such as those of Jonah Gerundi, Meir Abulafia, and Moses b. Nahman (NAHMANIDES). The chief distinction between the Pisqey ha-Rosh and his Tosafot is that the former deal with practical application of law rather than mere commentary upon the talmudic text. Spanish Jewish legal tradi­ 57

Asher b. Yehiel

tion often differed from that in France or Germany, and Asher followed generally the positions taken by his teacher Meir b. Barukh, who accepted al-FasI and MAIMONIDES except where they were contradicted by the Tosafot. Asher nevertheless made concessions to Spanish Jewish law and custom, while always main­ taining the superiority of Ashkenazic positions with regard to liturgical, festival, and dietary customs. These “decisions,” together with many of the re­ sponsa, were later adapted and processed by his eldest son and successor, Jacob, into a formal code of law, Arba‘a h puriym (“Four rows”), which together with the codes of Maimonides and al-FasI became one of the three pillars upon which Joseph Karo in the six­ teenth century erected the final work of codification of Jewish law, the Shulhan ‘arukh (“Prepared table”). Asher’s responsa, alongside those of his friend and colleague Ibn Adret, are the choicest of their kind in medieval rabbinic literature. Ashers responsa are or­ ganized in a unique method, according to topics (Kelaliym), but this was not the original arrangement and was probably instituted by his son Jacob to expe­ dite locating specific laws. However, in the process, and with additional errors made in copying and printing, completely wrong attributions of historical data have been made. Urbach was the first to call at­ tention to this fact, and a new and much better orga­ nized edition, on the basis of manuscript material, was published in 1994. Asher was asked his opinion on many problems arising from accepted local practices in Spain that were often foreign to his native, German, way of life, and to which he had to habituate himself or ruth­ lessly resist if he wished to be obeyed. One of the se­ crets of his great success in winning his way in Castile was his insight and judgment as to when a struggle was important and worth the effort and when to yield or keep quiet and adopt a neutral stand. As an example, in Spain shemifat kesafim, the remission of debts every seventh year, was not practiced. Asher tried hard to change this but had to admit failure, and he therefore refused to handle problems arising from such debts. Another example is the law of yiybbum, levirate marriage (Deut. 25.5-10). This was practically annulled in Germany, and the yavam was forced to give haliy$ah to his sister-in-law. Spain fol­ lowed Maimonides5 ruling that yiybbum was always preferable, even when it was clear that the woman 58

was justified in refusing to cooperate. In this case, Asher was far less tolerant. More important than these specific cases of divergence in legal tradition was the essential problem of whether it was permissi­ ble, and at all possible, to mix philosophic, abstract logical, linguistic, and general juristic considerations in the process of deciding Jewish law. The procedure was quite acceptable within the Spanish tradition, but extremely foreign to German rabbis, and Asher took an extreme stand on the issue, totally negating the option and deeming it sacrilegious and contrary to the nature of the halakhic procedure. This bitter argument went on for many years, and it finally brought about a breach between Asher and Rabbi Is­ rael of Toledo, who for many years had been a friend and colleague of his. A similar ambivalence existed in his relations with Ibn Adret, whom he admired and to whom he wrote with extreme respect. But the striking fact is that throughout Ashers responsa Ibn Adret is not quoted more than once or twice, and only a few more times in his monumental Pisqey ha-Rosh. Similarly, Asher is scarcely ever mentioned in Ibn Adret s work or that of his pupils [nevertheless, the Tosafot ha-Rosh were cited by Ibn Adret’s pupil Zeratyah b. Isaac ha-Levy of Zaragoza, prior to 1411]. The two rabbis admired each other deeply, but when dealing with halakhic is­ sues they stuck to their native traditions, thus creating in Spain two distinct “camps” whose strong influence can be detected up to the time of the Expulsion. Asher was the final link in the long chain of Franco-German inroads into Spanish rabbinic literature and culture, the origins of which can be traced to Jonah Gerundi. [Ed. note: Asher, as noted above, achieved great renown through his yeshivah in Toledo, which was maintained after his death by his eldest son, Jacob. Students came from all over Europe—Germany, France, Bohemia, and other lands—to study under Asher. Since these students obviously did not know Spanish, and it is indeed doubtful that Asher himself knew that language, it is probable that the language of instruction was Hebrew. Illustrious students of Asher included Yeruham b. Meshullam of Provence, who later wrote the halakhic work Toldot Adam veHava; Estoriy ha-Fartuy, author of a noted work that is still a valuable source of the geography of Palestine, Kaftor ve-perah (which contains important references to his teacher); Isaac b. Joseph Israeli, who as noted

Asher b. Yehiel

Fifteenth-century CE. Jacob Ben Asher, Arba’aTurim (Hebrew) col. Ill, folio 3v. Constantinople: David & Samuel Ibn Nachmias, 14 December 1493. Copyright © The Pierpont Mor­ gan Library/Art Resource, NY.

composed at Ashers request an important work on astronomy (see SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS); Abba Mari b. Moses of Lunel, who later lived in Montpel­ lier and was a central figure in the “Maimonidean controversy”; Yissakhar b. Yequtiel, whose sister mar­ ried Asher’s son Solomon, and who wrote an abridg­ ment of the important halakhic work Sefer ha-terumot of Samuel b. Isaac ha-Sardi; and many others. Asher had eight (not seven, as sometimes stated)

sons. In order of their birth they were Yehiel, who died while Asher was still alive; Solomon (known as “the pious”); Jacob; Judah (who took his father’s place as rabbi in Toledo; author also of several responsa); Eliakim; Moses; Eli ezer; and Simon. The tombstones of many of the family, including sons, grandsons, and their wives, were extant in Toledo in the last century, and the inscriptions have been published.] ISRAEL TA-SHMA

59

Asher b. Yehiel BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baer, Yitzhak. A History o f the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1966), vol. 1. Freimann, Alfred. “Ascher ben Jechiel.” Jahrbuch der jiidisch-literarischen Gesselschaft 12 (1918): 237-317. Hebrew version, ha-Rosh ve-$e$a’a v (Jerusalem, 1986). Galinsky, Yehuda D. “Arba’ah turim ve-ha-sifrut hahalakhtit shel Sefarad be-meah ha-14. ” (Bar-Ilan University, 1999; dissertation). Greene, Wallace. “Life and Times of Judah b. Asher.” (New York, Yeshiva University, 1919; dissertation). Ta-Shma, I. “Shiqulim filosofi’im be-hakhra’at hahalakhah [Heb.],” Sefunot 16 (1985): 99-110. ---------. “Rabbenu Asher u-veno Rabbi Yaaqov— bein Ashkenaz le-Sefarad [Heb.],” Pe‘a mim 46-47 (1991): 75-91. ---------. ccRashi-Rif-and Rashi-Rosh.” In Rashi, ‘iyyunim be-ye$irato, ed Z. A. Steinfeld. (Bar Ilan University, 1993), pp. 209-20. Urbach, E[phraim] E. “She’elot u-teshuvo ha-Rosh be-kitvey yad u-ve-defusim.” Shanaton ha-mishpat h a -w r iy l (1975): 1-153. ---------. Ba‘a ley ha-tosafot (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 586-99, and index, passim

Austria

There are various legends about the earliest settle­ ment of Jews in Austria, none of which are supported by historical evidence. The earliest documents that attest to the presence of Jews in this region are from the Carolingian period. Jews are mentioned in the decisions of the church council of Salzburg in 799, approximately the same time at which is mentioned a Jewish doctor in the service of the bishop of that city. The most important document is the tax ordinance of Rafelstetten in 906, also close to this region, in which are mentioned Jewish merchants who were moving in western Austria because of their trade, possibly part of the international group of Radhanite merchants (see CO M M ERCE). Only in the period of the First Crusade (see CRUSADES) is it perhaps possi­ ble to speak of a Jewish settlement, when the govern­ ment was in the hands of the dukes of the House of Babenberg. Certain locales are mentioned that bore as an additional title the term Juden (Jew), such as Judenburg, Judendorf, Judenau, and so on. Possibly 60

these were settlements established by the aforemen­ tioned merchants, or more likely by refugees who arrived from Germany in the wake of the attacks during the Crusade. From this period also were dis­ covered the first tombstones with Hebrew names on them. An important royal document from 1156, at­ tributed to Emperor Friedrich I, is a privilege granted to the Austrian dukes in which among other things he gave them permission to have Jews in their land, provided that this did not interfere with his rights as lord of the Jews as “servants of his chamber” (servi camerae). In fact, during the period of the dukes of the House of Babenberg an economic momentum oc­ curred in which the Jews also played a part. They possibly even encouraged the immigration of Jews to their land. The first mentioned by name is Solomon of Vienna, who served as mint master for Duke Leopold V at the end of the twelfth century. Another Jew who served as a financial advisor was Teka in the first half of the thirteenth century, who also served as surety at the time of the peace treaty between Leopold VI and the Hungarian king Andrew II in 1225. There were no restrictions on the Jews during this period with respect to acquiring property; they bought houses and established a synagogue in Vi­ enna, attested from the year 1204. As a result of the feud between Friedrich II and the Austrian duke of the same name, Vienna was conquered by the em­ peror in 1237, and at the request of the inhabitants of the city he [allegedly; see FREDERICK II] inserted into the charter of privileges to the city clauses that discriminated against the Jews, as for instance the prohibition against Jews holding public office. In ad­ dition, he [allegedly] emphasized even more the sta­ tus of the Jews as servants of his chamber, but the fol­ lowing year he granted a privilege to the Jews of Vienna that in essence is no different from that which he granted two years earlier to the Jews of Ger­ many. The emperor’s control of the city did not last long, for already at the end of the year 1239 the duke again controlled Vienna, and after that the entire dukedom. In order, perhaps, to show who was “mas­ ter” of the Jews he granted to all the Jews of the duke­ dom a general privilege in 1244. This privilege, known by the name “Fridericianum,” served as a model for Jewish legislation for the majority of the lands of central and eastern Europe, and in fact re­

Austria

mained in force until the expulsions from Vienna and Austria in the years 1420 and 1496. From the time of this privilege on, a change in the economic status of the Jews is apparent, as they now were seen primarily as MONEYLENDERS. More than two-thirds of the thirty-one sections of the privilege deal with this topic, including the appointment of an official known as Judex Judaeorum who supervised litigation between Jews and non-Jews. Following the enactments of IV Lateran, the ecu­ menical council of the church, in 1215, Jews were re­ quired to wear the Ba d g e and the special “Jews’ hat” (see CLO TH IN G ). However, under the aforemen­ tioned general privilege, Jews had protection against physical harm, damage to synagogues and cemeter­ ies, and so on. Subsequent governments in Austria did not essentially change this privilege, although from time to time additions or minor changes were made. Such was the case under the rule of Ottokar II of Bohemia, who ruled after Friedrich II until the as­ cendancy of the Habsburgs at the end of the thir­ teenth century. Ottokar added a prohibition against BLOOD LIBEL charges leveled against Jews. When Rudolf I Habsburg became ruler in 1277, in order to strengthen the support of the cities he enacted a clause in his privileges excluding Jews from public of­ fice, and imposing certain economic restrictions. The next rulers, Albrecht I and, following his murder, Friedrich I, were first dukes of Austria and then kings of Germany. W ith respect to the Jews, generally the situation worsened, particularly economically and fi­ nancially, with increasing tax burdens [see Ge r ­ ma n y ]. During this period there were increased blood libel charges and also RITUAL MURDER and H ost d e se c r a t io n charges.

Albrecht II and his brother Otto made an agree­ ment with the new German ruler, Ludwig the Bavar­ ian, by which they retained their rights over the Jews, particularly the Judenregal, or right of taxation of the Jews. Thus, the Jews of Austria became formally the possession of the dukes with respect to their taxes. Nevertheless, Albrecht II received the derogatory title of “shield of the Jews” because he acted to punish those who attacked the Jews of Pulkau in connection with a host desecration charge in 1338, and also dur­ ing the B l a c k D e a t h attacks in 1348. Albrecht’s son, Rudolf IV, was able to obtain from the emperor Carl IV in 1360 a formal privilege of the

right to maintain Jews in his kingdom. He and his successors made full use of this, imposing tax obliga­ tions, seizing the property of Jews who left their lands, and so on. Nevertheless, the Jews were able to maintain their internal autonomy. This situation continued throughout the successive reigns of the second half of the fourteenth century. Albrecht V in 1420 issued the “decree of Vienna,” expelling all the Jews from his kingdom, and many hundreds lost their lives. There exists a Jewish chron­ icle, in Yiddish, describing the events. Jews were at­ tacked primarily in the area of Vienna and the vicin­ ity. Albrecht was chosen as king of Germany prior to his death in 1439, and he was succeeded in Austria by his son, Ladislaw, born after his death. Ladislaw’s son and successor, Maximilian, issued a decree of ex­ pulsion of the Jews in 1496. Cultural a n d Spiritual Life

In spite of the deterioration in spiritual life in Ger­ many, this center continued its influence for a long period throughout Europe. However, already in the period of the Tosafists we find a number of talmudic scholars in Austria, including some who were among the students of *Rabbenu Tam. ” An example was Pater b. Joseph, who was killed in France during the Second Crusade. Others included Rabbi Shalom b. Barukh, Rabbi Hayyim b. Moses, Solomon of Vi­ enna, Judah b. David, Yedidyah, and Jacob b. Natan. There were two extremely important scholars. One was Isaac b. Moses, known according to the title of his book by the name “Or zarua\ ”He is mentioned in books of the period simply as Isaac of Vienna. The other was Avigdor b. Elijah ha-Kohen, called Avigdor Katz of Vienna. In my opinion, these two scholars lived and worked in Vienna at the end of their lives and apparently also died there, and thus were called by the name of the city. However, Isaac mentions Vi­ enna altogether only twice in his work, and also on Avigdor’s presence in Vienna there are only isolated references. One of these, a question from Meir of Rothenburg, addressed to him as head of a yeshivah, confirms the existence of a yeshivah in Vienna in the middle of the thirteenth century. Rabbi Avigdor himself emphasizes in a responsum the existence of an “Austrian custom” (minhag). At the end of the thirteenth century, a number of scholars stayed in Austria, some for a long period 61

Austria

and others known only to have died there. One of these was Moses b. Hasdai, called “Taqu,” a renowned scholar both in talmudic and in philo­ sophic learning, to whom are attributed commen­ taries on tractates of the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds, and a philosophical work called Ketav tamiym. According to the testimony of those in his generation, including NAHMANIDES, he lived in east­ ern Europe and died in the city of Neustadt close to Vienna (it is possible that he was related to one of the inhabitants of Vienna by the same name as his). Hayyim b. Isaac, son of the “Or zarua,” also lived and worked in Vienna and Neustadt and wrote re­ sponsa. In his book he mentions his teachers in Austria, among them Rabbi ‘Ovadyah and Rabbi JJayyim b. Moses of Neustadt. From the beginning of the fourteenth century, we encounter a number of men who were rabbis of com­ munities and were called by the government by the title of Juden-meister. Their signatures are found on ordinances enacted by communities and Jewish doc­ uments. Some of these may have been appointed by the government to collect taxes, a kind of “court rabbi.” The most important scholar in this period was Rabbi Israel of Krems, who wrote notes on the halakhic composition of A SH ER B. YEHIEL. There were also other important rabbis throughout this century. The most important was Meir b. Barukh haLevy from Fulda, known also as Maharam Segel, who served as rabbi in Vienna together with Rabbi Abra­ ham Klausner, author of Sefer minhagiym (Book of customs). Meir is famous for having initiated the “Ashkenazic ordination” of rabbis, because he de­ cided that not every rabbi was capable of judging laws of personal status (marriage and divorce, etc.) or the more complicated laws in general, unless he had received ordination from his rabbi or from a famous rabbi of the time. Thus, he sought in some measure to correct the chaos that prevailed in the German rabbinate from the period after the Black Plague. A student who later became a famous rabbi, Jacob haLevy from Mayence (called Maharit) reported in his book about Vienna as a place of Torah and about the scholars of the city whom he met and with whom he studied. There were renowned rabbis in other cities as well, especially Neustadt, where Rabbi Shalom headed the yeshivah. Jacob ha-Levy also learned there. 62

After the liquidation of the Jewish community of Vienna in 1420, Rabbi Israel Isserlin, author of Terumat ha-deshen, a major legal work, was solely respon­ sible for keeping alive the study of Torah in the re­ gion. He headed the Neustadt yeshivah for a period of thirty years, until his death in 1460. Under his leadership the yeshivah became famous throughout central Europe, attracting students from many lands. He lived a simple and pious life, and in some respects continued the traditions of the Hasidim of Germany (see H a s id is m — G e r m a n y ) , and in his book can be found the influence of Sefer hasiydiym of Judah b. Samuel of Germany. His book also serves as an im­ portant historical source for conditions in Austria in the fifteenth century. Study of the Talmud played the central role in the learning of the yeshivah. The rabbi gave lectures on the tractate being studied, and the learning was divided into “periods”: one for the study of the Tosafot, and a period of “explanation” (peirush) in which the Talmud was learned with the commentary of “RASHl” under the personal guidance of the head of the yeshivah. Manuscripts written in the medieval period that can definitely be determined to be of Austrian origin are very few. Knowledge of secular learning was very little and consists of some knowledge of German grammar, for instance in the lengthy discussion by Is­ rael Isserlin about the proper form of writing the names of Austrian and German cities in a bill of di­ vorce. Secular learning was not acceptable among the Jews of Austria at the time. There is no information about any knowledge of philosophy or science, aside from a very few doctors. There was little difference between Jewish life in Germany and in Austria, and yet one cannot over­ look the “Austrian custom” previously mentioned, and which is cited already in the middle of the thir­ teenth century. There were specific customs of the Jews of Austria that covered virtually every aspect of Jewish life and practice. SHLOMO SPITZER

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eidelberg, Solomon. Jewish Life in Austria in the XVth Century (Philadelphia, 1962). Fraenkl, J., ed. The Jews o f Austria (London, 1967). Gold, Hugo. Gedenkbuch zur Geschichte der Juden in Oesterreich (Tel-Aviv, 1971).

Avignon

Lohrmann, Klaus. Judenrecht undJudenpolitik im mittelalterlichen Oesterreich (Vienna, Cologne, 1990). Schubert, Kurt, ed. Das oesterreichische Judentum; Voraussetzungen und Geschichte (Vienna, Munich, 1974). Spitzer, Shlomo. “Das Wiener Judentum bis zur Vertreibung im Jahre 1421,” Kairos 19 (1977): 134-45. ---------. “Das Altagsleben der oesterreichischen Juden im Mittlealter,” Kairos 26 (1984): 66-79. Wadi, Wilhelm. Geschichte der Juden in Kaernten im Mittelalter (Klagenfurt, 1981).

Avignon An ancient tradition places the first migration of Jews to the region around Avignon just before the first century C.E. Giberti, an author writing in the eigh­ teenth century, echoes this notion in his Histoire de Pernes: “The settlement of the Israelites in Avignon began in the most distant past and not long after their dispersion during the sack of Jerusalem.” This legendary vision of the past does, however, have for­ mal archaeological evidence; for example, the oil lamp of Orgon, found twenty kilometers from Avi­ gnon, provided proof from antiquity of a Jewish presence in the south of France. There was then a break, and not until the twelfth century do traces of a Jewish community reappear in Avignon when, in Au­ gust 1178, Emperor Friedrich I placed the Jews under protection of the church authorities in the city of Pons. The region of Comtat Venaissin came under papal rule in 1274, and Avignon became the residence of the pope beginning with the reign of Pope John XXII (1316-1334). During the Middle Ages the Jews lived in two distinct districts of Avignon, forming a close and rich community. The first district was situated outside the northwest ramparts of the city at the opening of the St. Benezet bridge; this quarter was divided by a main thoroughfare, the rue de Vieille Juiverie, and two smaller cross streets, which in 1843 were named the rue Vieille Juiverie and the rue de la Petite Reille. From the front, a cul-de-sac opens up to a square house that still reveals the remains of its for­ mer construction as the Jewish temple in the city. Jews occupied this area of Avignon until the begin­ ning of the thirteenth century.

In 1221 the Jewish population relocated to the in­ terior of the city ramparts, in the neighborhood of St. Peters parish. They paid the church prior for the right to live in this locale. In this second Jewish set­ tlement, situated at the center of the city but nar­ rower than the first, they established a new syna­ gogue. There is abundant information on this structure; several notary files mention the work and repairs done and the donations received from provi­ sions of a will. There is also rich documentation of other elements in the Jewish community: a school, paid for by a bequest in 1466; two butchers in the fif­ teenth century; a hospital; a bakery. All of these were situated in the building that served as the commu­ nity s center. The drinking well was behind the syna­ gogue in the center of a little square that was first called the Planet of the Jews, and then renamed Jerusalem Square after the center of the Jewish dis­ trict was demolished and later enlarged. There were two cemetery grounds. The location of the first is not precisely known; the second was called Pignotte and lay a short distance from the second Jewish district on flat elevated terrain within the ramparts of the city. After the fifteenth century the second cemetery underwent two expansions. These successive settlements by the Jews of Avi­ gnon during the Middle Ages correspond to the his­ tory of the city. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, the Jews abandoned their first settlement during the siege and defense of the city against Louis VIII. The range of cultural activities supports the idea that this was a thriving and important community. The archives at Vaucluse contain lists of citizens and Jews: according to these statistics, Jewish families in the years 1358-1360 numbered 209. This means that around one thousand people were concentrated in the Jewish quarter, the area of which was never more than one hectare, or about two and a half acres. The Jewish district was the most densely populated in Avignon, and it ranked fourth, after Marseille, Arles, and Aix, among large Jewish Provencal communities. Many documents describe the internal organiza­ tion of the Jewish community. One finds mention of institutions typical of communities in the south. The 1558 statutes of the Avignon Jewish district reflect the statutes of the general population from the four­ teenth and fifteenth centuries, displaying aspects common to other internal organizations of Proven9 al 63

Avignon

communities in the Middle Ages. The governing body of the communitas judeorum was limited to two or three notable members, baylons (consuls or agents), required to collect taxes, distribute property, arbitrate conflicts, and serve as intermediaries be­ tween their group and the surrounding majority. An act from 1468 called for two treasurers, and in 1477, in addition to the baylons, fourteen councillors made up the members of the Jewish district council. The community council, elected for a dozen years, was recruited from among the three classes of the population (those who possessed more than 200 pounds, 100 to 200 pounds, and fewer than 100 pounds). It had a combination of legislative and exec­ utive powers: authorizing the levying of taxes, the dis­ posing of funds, the choosing of functionaries, con­ trollers, collectors, and so forth. It held its meetings in a school or synagogue (as it did in Provence). Laws could be revisited every four years but always on the basis of active statutes, then approved by the provost, the legate, and the pope. They were applied equally to all Jews. Anyone who broke them was condemned by the temporal court to pay a fine of 25 pounds and was excommunicated. Religious sanction conferred on the council an omnipotence limited only by the authority of the provost. Council members had the right only to make statutes concerning the internal administra­ tion of the Jews; they were prohibited from imposing any penalties other than fines or excommunications. They wielded considerable power, which often degen­ erated into despotism. Historical documents also explain the duties of other functionaries who were responsible for the cor­ rect operation of cultural and charitable life in the Jew­ ish community. There were a director of charities; a di­ rector of gatherings and festivals; a director of lighting (elected every two years); a director of the fraternity of kosher purifiers (four); a director of the treatment of the sick (elected every year on the first day of the month Elul); a director of the Talmud-Torah; a direc­ tor of cantors; a director of meat inspectors; and so on. In this well-structured community every Jew had to share the burden of paying the taxes levied on the group. Abusive communal taxes were often imposed, as well as an annual charge; for this annual contribu­ tion, called the tallia judeorum, every Jew was taxed according to his wealth: one had to know the eco­ nomic situation of each member of the community, 64

and the individual had to make this clear—in a tax declaration—in order to determine the real state of his wealth. In an oath, one had to enumerate to the baylons des manifestes all ones property, real estate, furniture, jewels, and loans. Nothing could be with­ held; fraud was punished by fines. Every four years, they held a general declaration, after which leading members, who were responsible for supervising and collecting the debt owed by the community, an­ nounced the general financial state of the Jews. There were benefits to such financial self-regulation. By or­ ganizing the tax collection and running it well, the Jews diminished the role of the local authorities and deprived them of exclusive control over fiscal matters. Three areas of activity that often interfered with one another and that characterize the range of Jewish professions in southern France were the lending of money, the trading of goods, and the practice of medicine. Though Jewish MEDICINE did not have a great number of practitioners in Avignon in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, it was greatly appreciated by the public, which would account for the thirtyfour Jewish doctors in the city between 1353 and 1400. The practice of medicine reached a level of considerable importance in the fifteenth century. During this time the number of doctors was as high as sixty-two, a number that decreased in the sixteenth century. Jewish medicine was conducted just as other Jewish professions were: Jewish doctors cared for church clergy, nobles, and commoners, working with their Christian counterparts and unrestricted in the exercise of their art, just as they lent money and traded goods in the heart of the community and be­ yond. They had a leading and noteworthy role in their community and made up the most learned members of the congregation. In the fifteenth cen­ tury the right of Jews to practice medicine and con­ duct surgery was instituted as law, requiring all prac­ titioners to pass an examination. Certified with master’s diplomas in surgery, Jewish surgeons played an important role during the plague that recurred in Avignon from 1468 to 1505. Though Pope John XXII protected Jews against mob violence, which never reached Avignon, the cel­ ebrated Gersonides (1288-1344), philosopher and astronomer (see SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS), who lived between Orange and Avignon, said he was un­

Avignon

able to pursue his work because the troubles of the age prevented one from pursing any form of specula­ tion. In 1340 Christians and Jews came together at a cenacle (similar to the one in Montpellier in 1300) to ponder the scientific problems of the day. There, scholars such as Philippe de Vitry, Pierre d’Alexandrie, and Jean des Murs and the papal court took a great interest in the work of Gersonides. In 1348 Pope Clement VI assumed an important role in stopping anti-Jewish incidents, and his letter from September of that year eventually prevented Jewish persecution during the BLACK D e a t h . How­ ever, many serious incidents did take place in the fol­ lowing years. In 1350-1351 the house of the cardinal of Limo­ ges fomented a riot that provoked terror throughout the diplomatic service and compelled much of the population of Avignon to leave for Catalonia. These people’s experiences are recorded in trial proceedings against some of the perpetrators—a trial conducted after their return to Avignon in 1365 in which they sued for the return of family property. In 1382 the plague continued to rage. It ravaged the region and left touching evidence in its path. On October 13, 1382, the plague entered the home of a doctor and scholar, Jacob ben Salomon §arfatiy of Avignon, and killed three of his children. Later, dur­ ing a resurgence of the plague in the fifteenth cen­ tury, the city council prohibited the Jews from clos­ ing the gates to the street running through their district in order to permit health officials to work everywhere in the city. Fortunately, Jews could take refuge in Avignon from Balme near the city of Sisteron, and escape the massacre of May 16, 1348, that destroyed the community. During the years 1484-1486 the papal city of­ fered refuge to Jews fleeing riots in Arles and Tarascon. In 1487 the city decided to reintegrate the earl­ dom of Provence to pay for the fiscal debt this influx caused. The actions of Jews from Tarascon certainly indicate that there were upheavals in the region; fac­ ing the threat of the times, they sold their loans to their compatriots in Avignon. In 1486 the Jews of Marseille secretly departed to Sardinia and trans­ ferred their loans to subjects of the pope in Avignon. This action was denounced before the court of Charles VIII. These actions, like the influx of Jews to papal territory after the expulsion of Jews from

Provence in 1501, explain by extension the close ties between the Jews of Avignon and those in the sur­ rounding principality. Notably, Avignon offered refuge to Jews expelled from Spain, among them the celebrated family ha-Kohen, who arrived in 1492. Joseph ha-Kohen was born in 1496 in Avignon, where he lived for five years before the family set off along the wandering roads to Genoa. Always isolated in the narrow confines of their papal refuge, the Juifs-temoins of the pope (follow­ ing the doctrine of Augustine) had a singular, quasiinsular history. In the opinion of the church and the public at large, these heterodox centers of life seemed more and more archaic and dangerous. DANlfeLE IANCU-AGOU

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bardinet, Louis. “Antiquite et organisation des juiveries du Comtat Venaissin.” R.E.J. 1 (1880): 262-92. Dahan, Gilbert, ed. Gersonide en son temps (Louvain and Paris, 1991). Guillemain, Bernard. “Citoyens, juifs et courtisans dans Avignon pontificale au XlVe siecle.” Bulletin Philologique et Historique de la Commission des Travaux Scientifiques et Historiques (1963): 147-60. Hayez, Michel, and Anne-Marie Hayez. “Juifs d’Avi­ gnon au tribunal de la cour temporelle sous Urbain V.” Provence Historique 23 (1973): 165-73. Iancu, Carol, ed. Armand Lunel et les Juifs du Midi. (Montpellier, 1986). Iancu, Daniele. Les Juifs en Provence (1475—1501): De llnsertion a Vexpulsion. Marseille, 1981. Iancu, Daniele, and Carol Iancu. Les Juifs du Midi: Une Histoire seculaire. Avignon, 1995. Kaufmann, David. “Le 'Grand Deuil’ de Jacob b. Salomon Sarfati d’Avignon.” R.EJ. 30 (1895): 52-64. Moulinas, Rene. Les Juifs du pape en France. Toulouse, 1981. Pansier, Paul. “Les Medecins juifs a Avignon aux Xllle, XlVe etXVe sib ck s” Janus (1910): 421-51. ---------. “Les Oeuvres de charite Juives a Avignon du XlVe au XVIIIe siecles.” Annales dAvignon et du Comtat- Venaissin 10 (1924): 71-133. Shatzmiller, Joseph. “Les Juifs de Provence pendant la Peste Noire.” R.E.J. 133, nos. 3-4 (1974): 457-80. 65

C\ Taylor & Francis ~Taylor & Francis Group

http://tayl ora ndfra ncis.co m

B Badge, Jewish

Jews were distinguished from their non-Jewish neighbors already by the observance of certain bibli­ cal laws and rabbinical customs, including the almost universal prohibition against shaving the beard and the custom for males to wear some sort of head cov­ ering (although this was by no means universal). In the Muslim world some rulers imposed dress restric­ tions on Christians and Jews (see CLO TH IN G ). There is, however, no evidence to support the claim made by some that these laws influenced the Church deci­ sion (1215) to require “distinctive clothing” to be worn by Jews, which was interpreted in most coun­ tries as a requirement to wear a “badge” on the cloth­ ing. In 1200, a local church council (Alais, in France) had imposed the requirement that Jews be distin­ guished from Christians in their dress. This was but a minor incident in the long series of hostile decrees against Jews enacted by numerous local church coun­ cils prior to the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. Unlike earlier “ecumenical” councils (representing the clergy and laity of Christian Europe), this coun­ cil, convened by Innocent III, was the most outspo­ ken against the Jews, enacting several canons against the “Jewish perfidy,” one of which (tit. lxviii) ex­ pressed concern lest Christians “by mistake”(!) have intercourse with Jewish or Muslim women, and therefore mandated that they be distinguished by the “quality of their clothes” from Christians, which, it was claimed, was indeed required by the law of Moses. No such requirement, of course, is to be found in the Torah, but some rabbis had indeed insisted that Jews not dress in the fashion of

Gentiles, although this was almost universally the practice. In the same year the pope wrote to the archbishops and bishops of France, and no doubt similar letters were sent to other countries, clarifying that Jews should be ordered to wear “clothing by which they might be distinguished from Christians,” but that they should not be forced to do so if this would incur dan­ ger to their lives. England apparently was the first country to decree that Jews actually wear a “badge.” In 1217 Henry III ordered that Jews wear a representa­ tion of the tablets of the Ten Commandments, made either of white linen or parchment, on the front of their outer garments. As part of a series of general discriminatory regulations, the Council of Oxford (1222), noting that “confusion” had often arisen there between Christians and Jews, ordered that Jewish men and women wear a linen patch of a different color than their clothes, two fingers in width and four in length. This was the first regulation that prescribed a specific size. It has been noted that, in fact, Jewish women in England were exempted from the badge until the reign of Edward I (1275). Under that ruler, responsible also for the eventual expulsion of the Jews altogether, the color of the badge was changed to yellow and the size increased. These laws were reaffirmed in 1279 and 1281. The age at which Jews were required to start wearing the badge in England was seven years. In France, according to the testimony of Isaac b. Moses of Vienna (author of Or zarua ‘) on his visit to Paris in 1217, the Jews wore “wheels” or circles sewn onto their garments. The wearing of the badge was not, however, widely established in France until 67

Badge, Jewish

later. In 1221 the new pope, Honorius III, wrote the archbishop of Bordeaux complaining that Jews there “scorned” the wearing of the signs by which they should be distinguished from Christians. Raymond VII, count of Toulouse, ordered the wearing of the badge for Jews in 1232, and various local city and provincial councils elsewhere in France soon fol­ lowed. The first official royal enactment for all Jews was by Louis IX, the notoriously anti-Jewish “saint,” in 1269, followed in rapid succession by all the suc­ ceeding kings preceding and following the various expulsions and recalls throughout the fourteenth century. Only Marseille followed England in requir­ ing Jews seven years old and older to wear the badge; elsewhere the age was thirteen or fourteen. There ap­ pears not to have been any dictate as to the size of the badge in France, other than the provision of the council of Narbonne in 1227 that prescribed an oval badge one finger in width and a palm in height. Generally the color of the circle that was the badge in France was yellow, but in later years different col­ ors were prescribed, including a combination of red and black, and in the fifteenth century even green. Fines were imposed for not wearing the badge, and the regulations of Louis IX prescribed that a Jew ac­ cused by a Christian of not wearing the badge should forfeit his outer garment to his accuser. In special circumstances, such as danger in travel, Jews could temporarily be excused from the requirement. Certain individuals of prominence, or particular fi­ nancial value to the crown, were also exempted. This was the case in 1372 with Manessier de Vezou, the procurator general of the Jews of Languedoc, and his family. Gregory IX wrote the archbishops and prelates of Germany in 1233 complaining in strong terms about the general condition of Jews there, in violation of canon laws that prohibited them from holding offices over Christians, converting Christian slaves, using Christian wet nurses and servants in their homes, and so on. Among these complaints he men­ tioned that, in spite of the decrees of IV Lateran, “in some parts of Germany” no distinction was observ­ able between Jews and Christians. Kisch (1942), also, was of the opinion that the badge was not generally employed in Germany because the distinctive “Jew­ ish hat” (see CLOTHING) already separated Jews from Christians; yet the same form of hat was worn in 68

England, France, and other countries (except Spain). Indeed, an examination of Jewish illuminated manu­ scripts reveals that in Germany, too, the badge was worn. Nevertheless, it appears that it was not until the fifteenth century that it became widely prevalent. In 1451 the papal legate Nicolas of Cusa, followed by the notoriously anti-Jewish John Capistrano, arrived in Germany to ensure that church decrees about the Jews were being enforced, including the badge. Nico­ las was instrumental in having several ecclesiastical councils adopt rules concerning the badge, but Fred­ erick III requested that the pope, Nicholas V, revoke the ordinance about the badge adopted by the Coun­ cil of Bremberg, and the pope complied. Nor was the badge generally enforced, curiously enough, in Italy. Only in Sicily in 1222 did the Hohenstaufen em­ peror, Frederick II (generally well disposed toward the Jews), insist on enforcing the Lateran Council de­ cree. This he probably did to avoid further trouble with the Church, as he was constantly under excom­ munication or the threat thereof. In Poland apparently the wearing of the badge was not enforced, for in 1267 the church synod of Bres­ lau tried to reintroduce the requirement but with lit­ tle success. Spain was, as usual, a special situation. In 1217 Honorius III complained to Bishop Tello of Plasen­ cia and the dean of Toledo that in spite of the decree the Jews of the diocese of Burgos were not wearing any distinguishing clothing. This had no effect, and the following year the pope wrote to the archbishop of Toledo, Rodrigo Jimenez de Rada, complaining that the Jews of the entire province, “supported as they are by the favor of certain Christians,” do not observe the regulations of the Lateran Council. There were, in fact, repeated demands from the pope to the archbishop about this; the demands were ig­ nored. This is the more remarkable given that Jimenez was a delegate to the Lateran Council, where indeed he had protested these decrees, and that he was at the moment engaged in a struggle with the bishop of Plasencia for the position of prelate of Spain. So strongly did he feel about the injustice of the discriminatory rules against the Jews, however, that he was willing to risk that title (indeed, not only for himself but for future archbishops of Toledo) and defy the pope. In 1219 he made the remarkable deci­ sion to sign a concordat with the Jews, in the pres­

Badge, Jewish

ence of the king, exempting them from the council’s decrees about tithes. Nothing was said about the badge because, acting on the complaint of Fernando III (who warned that the Jews would flee Spain to live among the Muslims if the decrees were en­ forced), the pope temporarily suspended the require­ ment of the badge for Castile. However, perhaps an­ gered by the concordat signed by Jimenez, the pope completely reversed himself in 1221 and again wrote the archbishop demanding that Jews wear some form of clothing to distinguish them from Christians. Again, however, the archbishop ignored the demand (indeed, he had no authority to “compel” the Jews in Castile to do anything, even if that had been his de­ sire; only the king and his council had any such au­ thority, and he certainly had no intention of acting in this). The next pope, Innocent IV, wrote (1250) to the bishop of Cordoba as though he did not know of his predecessor’s action rescinding the badge in Castile, and complained that the Jews in the province of Cor­ doba were not observing the decree of the Lateran Council. During the minority of Alfonso XI, his first Cortes (parliament) in 1313 demanded that Jews be re­ quired to wear “a sign of yellow cloth,” as in France. The young king responded that, with the consent of the knights and town representatives who consti­ tuted his council, he would agree. In fact, there is no evidence that such a law was enacted, which would indicate that no such consent was forthcoming. Again in 1371, in the reign of Enrique II, the Cortes required Jews and Muslims to wear some sort of sign on their clothing. The notorious converso (apostate) Pablo de Santa Maria, formerly a rabbi of Burgos and after 1391 its bishop, stated that this requirement had never before been heard of in Castile. Not to be dissuaded, the Cortes tried again in 1405 (the peti­ tion was obviously the work of the clergy who had virtually taken over the king’s chancellery), claiming that Enrique II had required such a sign to be worn by Jews, which is false (at least we have no record of this), even though it was admitted that in the reign of Juan I Jews wore the same clothing as Christians. Owing to the missionary zeal of Vicente Ferrer, the Valladolid Ordinances of 1412, again with a minor as king, sought to impose the badge. These laws were not, however, enforced. The “antipope” Benedict

XIII, a Spaniard and recognized by Spain, in 1415 issued a bull (manuscript in Madrid) in which he in­ sisted on the badge and even drew its shape, a wheel with spokes. The “humanist” pope Martin V (1417­ 1431), as part of a series of measures seeking to pro­ tect the Jews, issued orders against forced baptism and the wearing of the badge. In 1437 Juan II attempted anew to enforce the wearing of the badge, but with little success. The council of nobles of Enrique IV in 1465 demanded that Jews and Muslims wear special signs; for the Jews these were to consist of colored pieces of cloth, and for the Muslims yellow caps with “blue moons” on them. There is no evidence that this was enforced, and it is highly unlikely that it was, given that king’s friendliness with Muslims and Jews. Finally, at the Cortes ofToledo (1480) Fernando and Isabel decreed that all Jews and Muslims must again wear a special sign on their clothing. As is evident from paintings and manuscript illuminations, this law was enforced. In neighboring Portugal also, Jews were required to wear the badge. In Aragon-Catalonia there seems to have been concern among the Jews even before the Lateran Council was convened. A general convention of dele­ gates of the Jewish communities was apparently held (according to the account in the not always reliable chronicle Shevet Yehudah) to send representatives to Rome to work against any possible anti-Jewish de­ crees. It is a fact that Isaac Benvenist, mentioned in that chronicle, who was the personal physician of Jaime I, continued his efforts against the badge. A letter to him from Honorius III in 1220 indicates this, and the pope said that he had given in to the re­ quests of the archbishop of Tarragona and the bish­ ops of Lerida and Tortosa who had testified as to Isaac’s piety and freedom from the “crime” of usury (see MONEYLENDING), and that he “shows regard to Catholics in proportion to [his] abilities,” and there­ fore was granted special protection. The pope also wrote to the archbishop of Tarragona that he had been informed by the king that Jews there had in fact been distinguished “from ancient times” from Chris­ tians in their dress, and that under pretext of enforc­ ing the council’s decrees certain clerics try to force the Jews to wear the badge in order to “extort money” by this means from them (bribes to be exempted). Many Jews had left the country because of this, and 69

Badge, Jewish

the king feared that more would leave; therefore, as long as Jews wear distinctive clothing so that Chris­ tians may not “accidentally” have sexual intercourse with them (again!), they should not be compelled to wear the badge. The respite granted the Jews did not last long, however, for in 1228 the Corts (parliament) imposed certain restrictions on them, including the badge. In the privileges granted by the king in 1268 to the Jews of Barcelona, Perpignan, Gerona, and Montpellier, he again excused them from the badge but required them to wear distinguishing round capes. In 1268, approximately, in response to an incident in which Jews were attacked on Easter, one of the communities incurred large expenditures for bribes to protect themselves on that holiday, and also “be­ cause of the matter of the signs that our lord the king commanded all Jews to wear.” They paid a large amount, and the size of the badge was reduced by half, “nor is one required to wear a badge if he wears a cape” ( I b n Ad r e t , Sheelot u-teshuvotV. 5 183). In 1283 the Corts of Barcelona again imposed the badge. The city council in 1313 ordered that all Jew­ ish males wear the “customary” cape and if not wear­ ing it they must wear on their outer garments a badge either of yellow or red. Once again, certain impor­ tant Jews won royal exemptions from these decrees. In Valencia (part of the kingdom of Aragon-Catalo­ nia) in 1393 the council also imposed a badge of yel­ low or red. In Lerida in 1436 the same requirement was enacted. In Provence the Lateran decree was largely ig­ nored, but in 1227 the council of Narbonne renewed the law, as did the (local church) councils of Beziers (1246), Nimes (1252), Albi (1254), Carcassonne (127). The local laws of Alais, an important commer­ cial center, also required the wearing of the badge. In 1257 Pope Alexander IV wrote a letter to the dukes of Burgundy and to Charles of Anjou, duke of Provence, complaining that the decrees of the Lat­ eran Council were not being observed by the Jews in their provinces (R.E.J. 1: 116; not in Grayzel 1933). It is perhaps not surprising that certain modern English historians attempted to justify the badge legislation as intended to “protect” the Jews, but it is disconcerting to see an otherwise sympathetic Church scholar write recently that claims that this was “a device to humiliate, or to degrade, the Jews re­ 70

quire qualifications,” in spite of complaints by Jews against wearing “even” (!) a badge, for in reality the intention was only a “pastoral concern” against mixed marriages. Nothing was said, of course, about mixed marriages, which in any event would have been forbidden by medieval law; rather, the excuse was the peculiar concern about “accidental” sexual intercourse with Jews. Certainly the badge, the wear­ ing of which continued in some lands well beyond the medieval period, was the direct inspiration for the Nazi requirement of the yellow star, about which there can be no doubt as to humiliating and degrad­ ing intention. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grayzel, Solomon, ed. and tr. The Church and the Jews in the Xlllth Century. (Philadelphia, 1933), pub. see index, “Badge.” Kisch, Guido. “The Yellow Badge in History.” Historia Judaica 4: 95-144; revised version published in the same journal, 19 (1957): 87-146. Roth, Norman. “Rodrigo Jimenez de Rada y los judios: La ‘divisa’ y los diezmos de los judios.” Anthologica annua 35: 469-81. Synan, Edward A. The Popes and the Jews in the Mid­ dle Ages. (New York, 1965). Ulysse, Robert. Les Signes d ’i nfamie au moyen dge. (Paris.

Banking Scholars generally have distinguished between inter­ national bankers, pawnbrokers, and local deposit bankers in the medieval period (references in Lane and Mueller 1985, 1: 69). International bankers were actually merchants “who made short-term credit available in the course of their international transfers of funds.” Deposit bankers were essentially money­ changers, who also received and distributed newly minted coins (see M lN TE R S OF COINS) and weighed and determined the value of various moneys offered in exchange. Often they recorded this value in an ac­ count that could be drawn upon by the depositor, or an order was given by him for transfer of the sum to a third party (Lane and Mueller 1985, 62-63). Pawn­ brokers, of course, lent money in exchange for

Banking

pledges, and usually this was small-scale lending ac­ tivity. The question arises to what extent, if at all, we may speak of Jewish “bankers” in the Middle Ages, according to these categories. More specifically, it is important not to confuse Jewish moneylenders and bankers. Even in medieval Muslim society, while it is true that there was a gradual evolution from money­ changer to moneylender and banker (jahbadh), not all moneylenders became bankers (the role of Jews in this respect is dealt with in MONEYLENDING). Muslim Lands

The Abbasid caliphate, in the early tenth century, permitted Jews and Christians to serve sometimes in the capacity of true bankers, in Baghdad, Syria (in­ cluding Pa l e st in e ) and Eg y pt . The most famous of these Jewish bankers were Yusuf b. Pinhas and his son Netiyrah, and Harun (Aaron) b. Amram. In ap­ proximately 912 C.E., while they acted as tax farmers (paying an agreed sum to the government and then collecting the taxes due in hope of receiving a larger return than had been paid) for the region of Ahwaz (Persia), the vizier Ibn al-Furat borrowed 10,000 di­ nars from them, a sum they were apparently reluctant to lend but were finally forced to agree to, at 30 per­ cent interest. In that same year, Yusuf and his son were also involved in the controversy between the Jewish Exilarch Mar ‘Uqba and the yeshivah of Pumbedita (in Iraq), as a result of which the exilarch was banished. The considerable wealth of these bankers came from their role as merchants, and they became the personal deposit bankers of the vizier. The vizier borrowed enormous sums from these Jew­ ish bankers—for example, 150,000 dinars a month merely to pay the army (only when threatened with possible “penalties” did they make this loan; Fischel, 1937, 23 ff.)* In return, they were granted the rev­ enues of the aforementioned province of Ahwaz, which was also a center of Jewish COMMERCE. Their period of activity lasted until 923, after which their heirs continued the operation. In 928, when Sa ‘a d y a h had become the gaon, he wrote to the Jews of FUSTAT in Egypt that they should send all requests and petitions for the government to him and he would present them to the important leaders in Baghdad, the sons of Aaron and of Netiyrah. (Baron [1957, 209], thought that deposit banking had be­

come so important that Saadyah compiled a special treatise “dealing with deposits and pledges”; this is incorrect, and none of the sources or literature cited there in n. 77 [p. 344] has anything to do with de­ posits or banking, but rather with moneylending.) Other Jewish bankers during this period were Yaqub, Isra ll b. Salih, and Sahl b. Nazir, bankers of the provincial governor of Ahwaz; and Aaron (All b. Harun) and AbuAll b. Fadlan (fl. 998), both of Bagh­ dad. In 941, All b. Harun was assassinated after being forced to lend an official 110,000 dinars (obviously so that the loan would not have to be repaid). Because Abu All b. Fadlan refused to lend a large sum to the governor of Baghdad, the Jews of the city were perse­ cuted and a heavy tax burden was imposed upon them. In Egypt at least from the eleventh century there is some evidence of Jewish banking activity (although Baron [1957, 199] writes that there “seems to have existed in 973 a regular guild of Jewish bankers” in Egypt, he gave no source for this otherwise unknown guild). Baron also confused moneylenders with bankers. The famous Tustari brothers, although QARAITES and not “Rabbanite” Jews, were apparently involved in banking, especially Abu Nasr. The dar al$arf, or money exchange, at Fustat was the official center for Egypt and much of international ex­ change. Jewish bankers also had offices there (the equivalent term in Hebrew for such an exchange banker is shulhaniy; literally “table keeper,” found al­ ready in the Talmud; see examples of Jewish use of such exchange bankers in Moses b. Maimon, Teshuv oty ed. Blau [Jerusalem, 1957-1989, 1] 79, 112-14, and 4: 35-36; in the last text, the exchange banker is clearly named as being a Jew; so undoubtedly were the others, one in Alexandria). An important development in the history of banking, the origins of which are not yet fully known, was the suftaja—“checks,” or paper transfers of payment, which were already in use in tenthcentury Baghdad. According to Goitein (1967), some money was always kept on deposit with bankers, who did not charge for their services (other than money changing) but rather invested the money; however, this was not so in Baghdad, where Jewish bankers charged commissions. Nor were bankers always to be trusted, for money was often hidden in all sorts of unlikely places (as, indeed, was the case in Muslim Spain). The discovery of “hoards” of Muslim coins in 71

Banking

various locales has aided greatly in the study of nu­ mismatics and commerce (Barons remarks on money changing in Jewish law [1957, 209], and the exten­ sive discussion of literature in n. 78, pp. 344-45, are accurate, but more applicable to commerce than to banking). Spain

Neither in Muslim nor in Christian Spain does there appear a single example of a Jewish banker, properly speaking (as opposed to moneylenders). Only in 1264 was there a privilege granted by JAIME I of ARAGON-CATALONIA to the Jews of Calatayud, con­ firmed in 1276 by Pedro III, which among other things allowed them to establish a “store of change” (money changing). In 1283, we learn of a Jewish offi­ cial commissioned by the king to import money from Castile, but whether this could truly be consid­ ered a banking function or merely a commercial ac­ tivity is unclear. Christian Europe

Similarly, neither in France, Germany, nor England in the medieval period do we find any evidence of true Jewish bankers. It would appear that not only did Jews play no such role with regard to the nonJewish community, but that even within the Jewish communities themselves bankers were unknown. Ev­ idence for this is seen also in the complete lack of ref­ erence to such activities, or to the Hebrew term shulhaniy or similar terms in the responsa or literature of the entire medieval period. Individual Jewish money­ lenders, of course, frequently made loans to kings and other Christians (see MONEYLENDING). In Italy, the situation is further confused by the fact that in some cities, Venice or Florence, for exam­ ple, a contract (condotta:) would be established with individual Jews, or groups of families of Jews, to lend money to Christians of the city for a specified period of time. Such Jewish moneylenders were known as “bankers,” and functioned primarily in the four­ teenth century. However, they were not true bankers. Only in the fifteenth century do we apparently find examples of Jewish bankers. Yehiel (Vitale) di Sabato from San Miniato settled in Pisa, where in 1416 he opened a loan bank. His son-in- law Isaac di Manuele da Rimini continued the business, and eventually came to be known as Isaac da Pisa (“from 72

Pisa”), and was the head of an illustrious family. He and his son Yehiel da Pisa were granted the conces­ sion to open a loan bank also in Florence in 1448, and until his death in 1490 Yehiel was the foremost Jewish banker in Italy. Other so-called bankers, such as the Finzis and the Norzas, were in reality money­ lenders only, however wealthy and influential (seals of some of these, and of Isaac da Pisa, with detailed information about them may be found in Friedenberg 1987, 338-62). Some Jewish bankers in Flo­ rence were given special privileges to accept deposits from Christians—presumably sureties for loans— and the Jewish bankers were required to pay taxes on such deposits. Only in 1481 were they allowed also to change money. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baron, Salo W. Social and Religious History o f the Jews (New York, Philadelphia, 1957), vol. IV. Fattal, Antoine. Le statut legal des non-musulmans en pays dislam (Beyrouth, 1958). Fischel, Walter. Jews in the Economic and Political Life o f M edieval Islam (London, 1937; rpt. with new introduction, New York, 1969). Friedenberg, Daniel M. M edieval Jewish Seals from Europe (Detroit, 1987). Goitein, S[hlomo] D. A Mediterranean Society (Berkeley, etc., 1967) I, 229-49. Lane, Frederc C., and Reinhold C. Mueller. Money and Banking in M edieval and Renaissance Venice (Baltimore, London, 1985).

Banking, Italy

We know two types of banks that dealt with loans. Some lent money “according to the rates of ex­ change,” getting letters of exchange; the others lent money first with municipal authorization, then with a papal derogation, “according to the rates of inter­ est.” The papal privilege appeared for the first time with Martin V (1417-1431). It had a characteristic medieval origin, and it included the prohibition of any interest on the borrowed capital as a form of ille­ gitimate profit. The canonical law seems to make dis­ tinctions between Christians and non-Christians that benefited the non-Christian financiers in the area of banks of credit with authorized interest. Who in Italy

Banking, Italy

could take advantage of this situation but the Jews, who represented the most active group in the credit area? “Today,” Gino Luzzatto observes, “the political corporations contribute with all their strength to the introduction of public credit institutes, indispensable for the regular development of any form of industry and commerce. In the same way the medieval re­ publics and princes turned mostly towards the Jewish bankers, in a period when it was not yet a habit to consider credit as a public function.” At that time most or maybe all of those who “stayed at the rates of interest”—the owners of privileged concessions for leading official banks of credit—were therefore Jew­ ish. As a consequence, there were anti-Jewish groups. On one side, there were the Mendicant Orders, which insisted on scrupulous observance of the canonical law on interest. On the other side, there were the big mercantile families (from whom, it should be noted, the most combative Minorites came), who were deprived of the most important fonts of profit. As W. Roscher says, many of the forms of medieval and later anti-Semitism have to be interpreted in the picture of the conflicts of the na­ tive mercantile classes to remove the Jews from the economic positions they had reached. Going back to the privileged banks, what distin­ guished them from the other banks was the juridical nature of their existence as recipients of an autho­ rized interest, which was still formally forbidden to the others. Loaning at interest as an activity was not a distinguishing point, but rather was normally prac­ ticed by all banks registered in the art of exchange, by acquiring letters of exchange. As for the cost of money, the rates of interest of the privileged banks were, according to De Roover, usually more conve­ nient than the rates required by the banks of ex­ change, and even more so than those of the private lenders. Even the warranty, represented by the pledge, was not exclusive to the privileged banks. Historians who were concerned with Jewish banks in the Middle Ages and Renaissance generally applied to them another reduction in status, whose meaning should be studied on a psychological level. In fact, they defined the Jewish bankers with the term “lenders,” and they used the more honorable title of “banker” only for bankers of exchange. At that time the members of the Tuscan exchange banks were called without distinction “exchanges” or “bankers,”

but the owners and managers of the privileged banks, those ruled by conduct, were called both “lenders” and bankers. The definition of the privileged banks as “Jewish” banks could arouse criticism from those who do not consider this title corresponding to a correct defini­ tion of how the economic mechanisms work outside medieval schemes (see BANKING). For this reason it is important to make clear that the adjective “Jewish” has to be used in the same way as in the nineteenth century “Protestant” banks in France and “Catholic” ones in the United States were mentioned. It is legiti­ mate to define the privileged banks also as “Tuscan” banks, remembering that in the republic of Florence and in the one of Siena they reached their highest ex­ pansion and the most complete development. At this point it has to be highlighted that Siena and Florence are the two reference points, the two banking cities where the greatest Jewish financiers were born or that were their inspiration. In this sense, Siena was more than Florence. In the Ghibelline republic, the Jewish bankers were already present at the beginning of the fourteenth century, much before Florence, and their activity went on until 1570. The age of pontifical au­ thorizations and of Jewish monopoly in the area of privileged banks and commerce of money was pre­ ceded by the development of many small banks. Since the end of the thirteenth century these small banks rose mainly in the regions of central Italy on the base of particular agreements between municipal authorities and Jewish and Christian bankers. Then the church, which was aware of the beginning of this process, brought its authoritative and official guaran­ tee from Rome. The Italian Network o f Jewish Bankers

“In these lands the practice of credit is more wide­ spread than in the rest of the Jewish Diaspora. . . . In these areas, now that lending money represents a common profession, it becomes necessary for the ex­ istence of a treaty that explains in general the differ­ ent laws of credit.” This is what the banker Jechiel (Vitale) Nissim of Pisa wrote in 1559 in the intro­ duction of his treatise on credit (Maamar hayye ‘olam ‘a l ‘inian ha-riybiyi). He expressed two important truths: In Italy, more than anywhere else, the banks of loan of the Jewish companies had found ideal con­ ditions to prosper; and important groups of Jews liv­ 73

Banking, Italy

ing in Italy had gathered around this activity. Though Jechiel Nissim was drawing from his experi­ ence in the first years of the Counter-Reformation (when the credit system was already in crisis and sub­ ject to heavy limitations), his observations are even truer of the previous period. As it is well known, starting from the end of the thirteenth century, the cities of central and northern Italy represented a con­ siderable pole of attraction for the Jewish financiers from Rome and from beyond the Alps. In addition, many Italian Jewish communities formed after the migrations of the first Jewish merchants and bankers. In the last part of the thirteenth century and at the beginning of the fourteenth century, financiers deal­ ing in the area of commerce of money, alone or in companies, moved behind the city walls of ROM E. Huge movements of capital were all related to the Curia of Rome, and in Rome itself these merchants and bankers had developed a noticeable presence and social bonds. They moved also toward central-northern Italy, stopping in those places where capital was most requested and the security conditions and the fiscal rules offered were most convenient. Their first ap­ pearance was generally marked by a big loan to the city-state. In central Italy, in Lazio, Umbria, Marche, Ro­ magna, and Tuscany, a constellation of Jewish com­ munities formed very soon. They rose in the foot­ steps of those first Roman bankers, who constituted the first nucleus, together with their many followers. This ascending flow, made up of Jews with a Roman origin involved in the commerce of money, did not stop in central Italy. In the second half of the four­ teenth century it restarted its march toward the north, creating new and important Jewish communi­ ties in the valley of the Po. The thesis that the diffu­ sion of Jewish banks in this period was a consequence of the economic crisis following the BLACK D e a t h is unconvincing, for it would have us believe that the Black Death ruined the Christian bankers while sparing the Jewish ones. The Romans, who reached the plain of the Po starting in the 1360s, did not su­ persede societies destroyed by the general economic crisis and therefore unable to stop a massive flow of Jewish competitors in the local money market, though the reduction in population undoubtedly favored the newcomers. Instead, it is possible that the Christ­ ian financiers often gladly gave up their position to 74

the Jews. They may well have chosen to take advan­ tage of new prospects in manufacturing (in particular luxury goods) and in the textile industry, or privi­ leged investments in agriculture and in land goods. Anyway, it cannot be denied that the psychological aftermath of the plague may have motivated many Christian merchants to leave the field of loans at interest, on which there was a burden of religious condemnation. The massacres following the Black Death per­ suaded groups of survivors to leave the German lands. Many decided to follow the pioneers who had long since found in the Italy of city-states, mainly in Friuli, Istria, and northern Veneto, a calmer existence to­ gether with the possibility of making money from their capital and their experience in the economic field. The descending flow of the Ashkenazi Jews just behind the Alpine passes created various communities, some of which had a certain consistency (such as Cividale, Mestre, Treviso, and Pavia). They joined later the ascending flow of the Jews of Roman origin and strengthened the new Jewish concentrations in the Po plain, in the city-states, and in the signioris in Emilia, Veneto, and Lombardia. Finally, after the expulsion of the Provencal Jews in 1394, another flow of bankers, though a smaller number, crossed the Alps. They spread in all regions of central-northern Italy, but they particularly concentrated in Piemonte and Savoy. During the age of the city-states, a relevant Jewish presence both in marketing and in banking was maintained and developed. The emphasis on a sup­ posed economic segregation of Italian Jews in the Middle Ages appears inexact and to some point anachronistic. In fact, their condition was generally dependent on local conditions, varying from region to region and from city to city. Many possibilities were always open to them in favorable political situa­ tions. Because of the religious bonds connected to the corporations in the Middle Ages, the Jews sought out those areas in which working was comfortable for them. There was no scarcity of city-states (where the priori were less dependent on the corporations and the Mendicant Orders), of signors (who wanted any­ way to take advantage of their skill and experience) and arts (interested in secure financial support or in the introduction of more advanced techniques con­ nected to the availability of investments), or in the conquest of new markets. Since the fourteenth cen­

Banking, Italy

tury, in Tuscany, the republics of Siena and Pisa had welcomed companies of Jewish merchants and then bankers, who worked in the area of official and arranged commerce of money. Next to Tuscany (and considered in the Middle Ages part of Tuscia), Peru­ gia during the papal exile in Avignon became the seat of various Jewish companies that managed loan banks, where large amounts of capital were invested. Some of the most important financial houses of Jews of Roman origin, connected to the Curia, were lo­ cated and acted in the Umbrian city-state, where the papal delegate had settled since 1370. The priori from Perugia gave the right of citizenship and the possibility of owning properties, with renewable au­ thorizations, to the Roman bankers. Besides having been the home of the most rele­ vant Jewish community of Roman origin in the four­ teenth century (declining in the following century), Perugia, as well as Siena, represented a starting point toward Florence for some banking families that were destined to count themselves among the most impor­ tant of the Renaissance. In the second half of the fourteenth century, the documents reveal the intense activity of Matassia di Sabauccio of Rome. He was al­ ready solid in the financial markets of Perugia and of the main centers of Umbria, and together with his sons stipulated in 1393 a bank conduct for the citystate of San Miniato (which was followed by the im­ portant city of Prato, then Pescia and Colle val d’Elsa). In so doing he introduced himself in the do­ main of Florence. Vitale, Matassias son, later settled in Pisa as an owner of the Jewish bank of the city. In Perugia, the group of Bethel from the Scola (Matassias sons) was joined in the last part of the fourteenth century by another family of bankers, the Bethel from Montalcino, certainly connected by family bonds. From their toponym we can guess that they had stayed for some time in the republic of Siena, one of the Italian homes of the commerce of money. It is important to notice how the system of Jewish privileged banks found its most suitable and fertile field in the cities and regions more developed and with a more intense and active economic activity. In the fifteenth century, we will find the most impor­ tant Jewish banks in Tuscany, first in Pisa and Siena, and then in Florence. This fact by itself is enough to contradict those who saw in the Jewish banks a corol­ lary of the backward feudal economies.

The Logic o f the Privileged Banks

We observed how the commerce of money in the city-state was difficult because its forms of expression were heavily dependent on the canonical doctrine of usury. As De Roover said, “It is not possible to un­ derstand the medieval bank if the doctrine of the Church on the usury is not taken into account.” He adds that theological preclusion was at the origin of the difference between medieval bank techniques, in operation until almost the seventeenth century, and modern ones. The problem became particularly rele­ vant with the development of the economy of the Italian city-states and the signioris and with the con­ sequent increased need for circulating money. In the fifteenth century, political rulers were interested in credit activity, practiced by the international banks of exchange. However, at the same time they pre­ ferred to substitute Jewish bankers for the less con­ trollable Christian ones, for loans at medium and small interest. City-states gave an official role to the Jews, bind­ ing them to the precise observance of contracts, in which the allowed rates and the other laws in defense of the people asking for the loan were fixed. This pragmatic attitude, typical of the Church, was one of the factors that determined the great development in Italy of the “usury” activity of the Jewish financiers, whose pioneers all came from the Urbe (Rome). As Le Goff says, the whole confessional practice and its canonical elaboration looked for the justification of the activity of the merchant and the banker, even though they enclosed it within the limits of a regula­ tion in which too often religion decays into casuistic moralism. From its side, the rabbinic law also con­ formed to the economic reality of the time and ad­ mitted for the Jews, even though with some limits, the compromise of lending money on interest to those who were not Jews. A large group of Italian Jews thus ended up taking the position that was of­ fered to them by the pontifical authority. They founded their economic bases almost exclusively on the practice of credit, the official and profitable loan, with a real mobile warranty (the pledge). This was an activity that, in the limits of the rates imposed by law and custom, was considered by most of the Italian middle class, and even the aristocracy, as a mercantile activity little different from the others. This was in spite of campaigns by the Minorites to turn on the 75

Banking, Italy

Jews the popular resentment at the time of economic crises, wars, and famines. If we analyze the texts that authorized the Jewish companies in the practice of the commerce of money, we notice the presence of two different and parallel levels: the civil one, connected to the procedure, and the religious one, represented by the canonical doc­ trine, which could be defined as theological-theoreti­ cal. The first level found expression in the concept that the commerce of money had a function of “use­ fulness and convenience” for the city. The second one, which had the mark of the religious thought of the “wise doctors,” manifested itself in the noneco­ nomic concept of banking as intended as “help for the poor people.” The medieval citizen did not feel the contradiction of these two levels and did not try to reconnect them in a coherent and harmonic vi­ sion, and the absence of such vision was not disturb­ ing. Mental attitudes and practical needs did not join together, nor was it considered compulsory that they had to. Only with the Counter-Reformation was there a search for the squaring of the circle, the har­ mony between the theological-theoretical level and the economic-practical one. As a consequence, the Jewish bankers, defined as usurers, were marked by an unavoidable condemnation. The Church did not give up even in the most dif­ ficult moments and tried to control, often without succeeding, the anti-Jewish activity of the Minorites, who threatened the recalcitrant cities with interdict and excommunication. However, the zealous Fran­ ciscan preaching was destined to awaken in the peo­ ple deep anti-Semitic resentment. In fact, they built an easy target in the banker (and in the Jew in gen­ eral), which connected irrational mental attitudes, anchored to religious reasons, with the social com­ plaints against the system. However, if in general the condition of the Jews in Italy in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance was much better than that in other European states, that may be attributed to the poli­ tics of Medici, Estensi, Gonzaga, Montefeltro, Savoia, the Republic of Venice, and the Roman Curia, who knew how to take advantage of the Jews for their principalities. They were averse to the religious preju­ dice, necessarily careful of the public wealth even against the oligarchic pressure groups, and interested in gaining the loyalty of the Jews.

76

For a long time, it has been said that the Monti di Pieta rose to put an end to the “usury avidity” of the Jews. But the reality is very different. For example, in the archives of the Otto di Guardia and Balia, the Florentine magistracy for the control of the autho­ rized credit banks, cannot be found any reference to infractions of the limits of the interest rates fixed by law. The virulence and the perseverance of the antiJewish propaganda would not have been enough to bring the system of privileged banks to crisis. There was also at the vertex of Italian society the prevalence of the conservative groups. In Florence the monop­ oly for the privileged banks passed in 1437 from the Florentine companies, which took care of it until that moment, to a trust of Jewish financiers. This caused an immediate drop in the cost of money. As we saw above, the Jewish companies es­ tablished themselves during the fourteenth century in the area of privileged banks in various city-states and signioris of central and northern Italy (we re­ member Perugia, Forli, Rimini, Siena, Modena, Fer­ rara, Pisa). They could also enter the city of Florence at the time of the victory of the Medici over the Albizzi. In the group of the Albizzi, who ruled from 1393 to 1434 and were going into exile, the Bardi, Gianfilazzi, and Peruzzi were represented. They were prestigious bankers whose presence in the area of privileged banks was strongly felt. In Florence, four official and privileged banks for the credit at interest were active. We will find them later with the names of Bank of the Borghese, Bank of the Vacca, Bank of the Vecchietti, and Bank of the Four Peacocks. By ac­ cessing the Tuscan center, the financial group of Bethel from the Scola, with its different branches, from Tivoli and from Perugia, found some structures already existing where they could enter, even with the intent of developing and strengthening them. More­ over, in so doing they took a social position that be­ longed until then to such families as the Bardi and Peruzzi. The Jewish companies, divided into four different groups, invested in 1438 not less than 40,000 florins in the Florentine privileged banks. The republic gave the authorization to Abraham Bethel da San Miniato, who in his turn associated with other bankers with notarial deeds. These others became the direc­ tors of the four banks, and in their turn entitled

Banking, Italy

minor members, directors, and employees. As we saw before, the Bethel-from the Scola family had a Roman origin and in the fourteenth century moved toward Umbria (Perugia, Assisi, Gubbio), the March of Ancona, the Romagna, and southern Tuscany, to work in the mercantile activity and open banks of credit authorized by the city-states. At the end of the century the family was divided into different branches (not associated), whose last name attests the area where they settled (Bethel from Camerino, Bethel from Montalcino, Bethel from Sanminiato). Structure an d Operation o f the Privileged Banks

The system of privileged banks was widespread all around Italy and assumed a structure with a particu­ lar relevance in the more developed cities. In Flo­ rence the concessions concerned one bank at the time. The financiers who, for example, were inter­ ested in the Bank of the Borghese or the Bank of the Vacca, belonged to family companies who had other concessions in the main cities of central and northern Italy or were interested in those banks as minority members. The main one among these Tuscan compa­ nies, the one from Pisa, moved invested amounts (half of which maybe belonged to the family group, the rest to depositing members, even Christians) no less than on the order of 150,000/200,000 florins. This estimation puts without any doubt the family from Pisa among the vertices of Tuscan finance of the time. As we mentioned before, besides the normal procedure of the deposit from other bankers, those from non-Jewish capitalists were well accepted. We found various signs of it in the documents of the pe­ riod. The privileged banks, as well as the ones of ex­ change, were interested in accepting and rewarding capital from third parties. The intertwining of these capitals, in fact, allowed a rapid and solid expansion, even in moments of less favorable political circum­ stance, by creating a safe distribution of risks. The Christians who deposited, on their side, could avoid in this way the income taxes and the ecclesiastic con­ demnation of the loan, which was considered usury. In this sense maybe H. Kellenbenz (1986) is right when he says that the Jewish bankers became tem­ porarily the rivals of the big banking institutes. “In fact,” the famous scholar of economic history says, “they also worked with the savings of the wealthy

people, thus being in competition with the ‘deposit at discretion’ of the Christian bankers; probably the sunset of the art of exchange of Florence has to be connected to the flourishing of the banking transac­ tions of the Jews.” There was a negotiation between Pope Pius II and Francesco Sforza concerning the tax that the pope wanted from the Jews for financing the crusade against the Turks. In this context, the duke of Milan in March 1460 instructed his ambassador at the Holy See to remind the pope “that a lot of money of Christians is in the Jews’ hands. It is therefore a warning, because burdening these Jews in paying more than the twentieth of their receipts would make many men unhappy.” There was a similar situation to the one in the dukedom of Milan in the court of Ferrara and in Florence. Here, as we saw before, the beginning of the Jewish monopoly in the area of credit at authorized interest corresponded with the ascension to the power of the Medici group, lead by Cosimo. In the second half of the fifteenth century, the de­ posits in the Florentine Jewish banks were taxed in the measure of 10 and 12 percent, but it was allowed to be anonymous. After the fall of the Medici, the “reformer” Domenico Cecchi requested the expul­ sion of the Jews, who were considered guilty of cover­ ing with their banking activity the “usury” specula­ tions of many Christian families in the city. In 1457 the city-state of Siena summoned the Jewish banks to deliver to the authorities the list of the citizens and inhabitants of the domain who had money deposited “in a loan.” Fra Cherubino from Spoleto expressed his condemnation of many citizens from Umbria who invested their capital secretly in the Jewish banks. He warned them that sooner or later they would be discovered and punished. The official formulas of concession often high­ light how the credit system of the privileged banks was accepted by the governors of the city-states “to meet the needs of the poor people.” It was in fact pre­ ferred to refer to the loan activity, showing that it was considered a social need, even though with uncom­ fortable moral and religious implications, rather than a necessary support of the city economy. This atti­ tude, which was by the way only verbal, took part in the logic that tended to exclude the concept of profit and even condemned it. On the other hand, it is not

Banking, Italy

correct to connect the activity of the big privileged banks and their function in the credit system of the Italian capitalism of the fourteenth and fifteenth cen­ turies to the more limited one of the small banks of pledge, nor to the one of the Monti di Pieta. We have observed, for example, how the Florentine Jewish companies in 1438 invested a total amount of 40,000 florins in the practice of the loan activity. Reinhold Mueller noted that in 1366 the Jewish bankers of Mestre committed themselves with the governor of Venice to act on the market practicing an interest on loans of 20 percent, while the rate so far used by the Christian bankers was 25 percent. In that occasion the Jews made available for the Serenissima a credit of 40,000 ducats, “an amount that at that time a small family, or even a Florentine big one, was not able to put together.” The action of credit was expressed both in the supply of small amounts, for a short period, and in the execution of loans with a higher amount. The first one was usually destined to small middle-class clients (mainly artisans and merchants) who used it for consumer goods and for daily needs of cash. The second one was for important commercial compa­ nies, the large middle class, and the aristocracy, who used these amounts even for nonessential reasons. It cannot be denied that the main activity of the privi­ leged banks was to provide retail money, financing small amounts for a short time. Inside the privileged system, whose pin was represented by Tuscany, we can find a significant documentation as a proof of a constant and explicit financing activity to various economic enterprises. Among these, there is the in­ dustry and commerce of clothes and fabrics, of met­ als and precious stones, and the agricultural market­ ing. In Perugia in 1435 the Jewish banks made huge loans to the producers of wool to acquire the new machinery coming from Florence. In Assisi in 1389, Sabbath Bethels bank sustained financially the citystate, involved in realizing a brave program to safe­ guard and boost the agricultural production of the countryside. Isaia da Urbino, the greatest Jewish banker of the counts of Montefeltro in the last part of the fourteenth century, financed the import of cotton from the Levant, through the port of Ancona, its distribution in the regions of central Italy as a raw material, and its transformation into a semifinished and finished product (clothes in cotton, cotton wool 78

veils), made in the factories in Perugia, Orvieto, and Gubbio. The bank of Pisa, during the first half of the fifteenth century, anticipated deposits for the credi­ tors of the city-state by paying on behalf of the gov­ ernment and replacing later the note of the supplied amounts. The same bankers from Pisa in 1468 of­ fered a credit with a particularly convenient rate to the city-state of Pisa for the construction of the hos­ pital of Saint Lazzaro, outside the walls of the city. Larger loans, those on the order of thousands of florins, were less common but not a rarity. They were given by the various privileged banks to the govern­ ments of the states in which they worked (a phenom­ enon that was relevant in Perugia in the last part of the fourteenth century under the seigniory of Baglioni and Visconti, and in Florence in the periods of anti-Medici government). The forms used in the Middle Ages and Renais­ sance as a warranty and proof of the debt were vari­ ous. First were the credit instruments or letters of credit, based on experience and trust, especially for the commercial companies; then the notarial obliga­ tions; finally the real warranties of various kind, preferably mobile and easy to make, the pledges. It has to be taken into account that the debtor could not generally be prosecuted by law if he was insol­ vent. The rate that was fixed in Florence for the credit transactions, the 20 percent annual rate, repre­ sented the half of what was used so far for the “usury” banks (and therefore at the minimum limits com­ pared to the real cost of money). Moreover, it was also below the level that public opinion condemned as usury. The Tuscan mercantile banks, which often had business also with other banks (but also with private individuals), in order to give loans invented, besides the system of letters of exchange, new letters of credit, which were used frequently. In these there were writ­ ten forms of warranty or forms of real mobile war­ ranty, the pledge. During the last week of October 1488, a privileged bank of Brescia registered 161 pledges divided thus: 86 pieces of fabrics and clothes, 35 belts, 20 pieces of jewelry and precious silverware, 20 objects of various other kinds. The average of the loans of a privileged bank of Padua, around the mid­ dle of the fifteenth century, expressed sometimes in ducats and sometimes in lire, was 53 ducats (out of 68 transactions) and 125 lire {out of 45 transactions). Its

Barcelona

customers were selected, of high class. Among them were the marquis d’Este, many university professors, gentlemen, and merchants. Among the pledges, which were left in the banks of Angel from Ferrara in Assisi in 1456, there were rich embroidered clothes for men and women and precious furs for the value of hundreds of florins, given to the banker by the most outstanding families from Umbria. In the list of pledges, kept in 1428 in the bank of Daniele d’Isaia from Urbino in Imola, there was much armor, owned by “noble knights” and mercenary captains in the ser­ vice of the pope. The most solid privileged banks of credit, such as the Florentine ones, worked exceptionally also in ex­ changes, on the inter-Italian market (Florence, Re­ public of Venice, Dukedom of Mantua, etc.). How could a mercantile-industrial system as developed as the Tuscan one work without the presence of a recog­ nized and public rate of the cost of money? This is a question raised as a comment on the discovery by De Roover (1970) of the “dry exchange,” that is, the use of letters of exchange for the transactions of credit at interest. In Florence the system of privileged banks since 1438 fixed the cost of money in a precise and public way, to levels that could represent an effective reference point. The different branches of these banks, in Tuscany and in the nearest regions, were in con­ stant relationship through couriers. Through this means, the various financial markets and the main branches of the banks were in close connection, and thus they could work between different states in cen­ tral and northern Italy. As for the customers of these banks, we can say that all social classes were repre­ sented there, and not only nor particularly the popu­ lar class—even if the official documents, in order to keep the view of the theological-theoretical defini­ tion of credit, tried hard to highlight the utility of the privileged banks “as help for the poor people.” The privileged banks do not find comparisons or analogies in modern banking practice. The system they belonged to derived from the medieval doctrine on usury. If we look at the type of customers they addressed, they could be roughly related to the “re­ tail” credit activity practiced by the ordinary modern banks and the “financial” ones, specialized in per­ sonal loans and in family credit. The main character­ istic of these banks consisted not in the technique of the use of the pledge, but rather in their status as or­

ganizations that had exclusive authorization for the commerce of money. Some contemporary chroni­ clers, influenced by the Minorites preaching, gave a distorted image of these banks, which has been taken up without any criticism by many modern historians. The periodical renewal of the canonical condemna­ tion of the profits on loans, together with the identi­ fication of the banker and the “usurer” with the Jew, created and continues to create this image. ARIEL TOAFF [TRANSLATED BY e

d it o r ia l st a f f

]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

De Roover, R. II banco M edici dalle origini al declino, 1397-1494 (Florence, 1970). Kellenbenz, H. “Lo stato, la societa e il denaro.” In La repubblica internazionale del denaro tra XV e XVI secolo, ed. A. de Maddalena and H. Kellen­ benz (Bologna, 1986). Le Goff, J. Tempo della chiesa e tempo del mercante (Torino, 1977). Luzzatto, Gino. I banchieri ebrei in Urbino neU’eta ducale (Padua, 1902). Mueller, Reinhold. In Gli ebrei a Venezia (secoli XIV— XVIII). Atti del convegno internazzionale organizzato dalla Fondazione Cini (Milan, 1987). Poliakov, L. Les banquiers ju ifs et le Saint Siege du XIIIe au XVIIsiecle (Paris, 1967). Toaff, A. “Convergenza sul Veneto di banchieri ebrei romani e tedeschi nel tardo medioevo.” In Gli ebrei a Venezia (Milan, 1987). ---------. “Jewish Banking in Central Italy, Thirteenth through Fifteenth Centuries.” In Jews in Italy, ed. H. Beinart (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 109-30.

Barcelona

The earliest evidence of Jewish settlement in Barcelona is a sixth-century inscription. Little is known about the size and nature of the Jewish com­ munity at the time, including how long Jews had lived in Barcelona. All we can say is that by the time Barcelona was recaptured from the Muslims in 801, Jews had been living there for several centuries. By the ninth century, the community boasted a cadre of scholars, some of whom were in communi­ cation with the Babylonian yeshivot. It was to Barcelona that the gaon Amram bar Sheshna (d. ca. 79

Barcelona

8/5) sent his famous siddur, or prayer book. We know nothing about the community itself, nor about its relations to its rulers apart from a letter (876) from Charles the Bald that refers to his fid elis Judah or Judacot (Baer 1929, 1). Only in the eleventh century does the community emerge from the shadows. Its political structure re­ mains unclear, but the number of documents dealing with Jewish landholding increases sufficiently to yield a picture of a solidly established and comfort­ able Jewish population, with a long-established ceme­ tery on Montjuic, the mountain to the south of the city (now incorporated into the modern city). Most valuable is a list from 1079 of the names of approxi­ mately fifty-five men and five women, probably a catalogue of Jewish landowners drawn up for fiscal purposes (Baer 1929, 6; Klein 1996, 319-23). The ca ll (Jewish quarter) is first mentioned in 1082. It consisted roughly of the northwest quarter of the city. Although by this time Jewish property holdings within the city seem to have been restricted to the Jewish quarter, Jewish landholdings in the vicinity were extensive. Jews and Christians held ad­ jacent plots of land and freely sold land to each other. Communal Politics

When B en jam in OF T u d e l a arrived in Barcelona in the 1160s, he referred particularly to four Jewish no­ tables bearing the title nasi. They represent three families who emerged after 1150 as a new elite. The basis of their position was service in the expanding administration of the counts of Barcelona, either as bailiffs (fiscal agents) and accountants, or as al fa q u im s (Arabic secretaries and advisors). Their con­ nections at court made them attractive to the com­ munity as leaders. Their position in the community was gradually formalized by an agreement of the communal elders and a charter from the king.

This regime endured for two generations, under the leadership first of Sheshet Benvenist and then of his son-in-law Makhir b. Sheshet, both of them pow­ erful royal officials. Makhir s use of his influence to punish his enemies ultimately led to reservations about entrusting communal power to those with in­ fluence at court. Coupled with the rise of a group of families whose wealth was based primarily on moneylending and commerce, and who represented

80

a new culture less influenced by the elitism of An­ dalusian Jewish society, these reservations ultimately led to the replacement of the loose administration of the nesiim by a more structured regime of elected of­ ficials, confirmed by JAIME I in 1241 (Baer 1929, 96-97). Although Jews continued to serve as bailiffs, the thirteenth-century bailiffs were only minimally in­ volved with the Jewish community. Benvenist de Porta, the last Jewish bailiff of Barcelona (d. 1268), was not even from Barcelona but from the smaller community of Vilafranca. Ironically, the diminished role of Jewish bailiffs in the kingdom of A r a g O n CATALONIA in the 1280s led to the strengthening of the community’s direct relationship to the king. The administration of the Jewish community of Barcelona increased in complexity somewhat during the later thirteenth century, with more formalized roles for the elected officials (called secretaries, n eemaniym , or beruriym ). A council of thirty, not unlike the Council of One Hundred of the city itself, gradu­ ally emerged in the early fourteenth century. The council was confirmed in a new constitution given to the community in 1327, which regulated the manner of elections, the responsibilities of officials, and taxa­ tion, among other topics (Baer 1929, 250-56). This constitution was in turn replaced in 1386 by one ex­ plicitly conceived as a reform. Notable among its changes was the formalization of the three ranks of taxpayers, each of which was to elect its representa­ tives (Baer 1929, 580-93). With the expansion of Catalan Jewry, the numer­ ous new communities in the latter thirteenth and fourteenth centuries naturally looked to Barcelona for leadership. Barcelona was the chief community of the collecta, or tax district ( I b n A d r e t , S heelot utesh u vo ty. 411). It also hosted the assembly that met in 1354 to organize and unite all the communities of the kingdom (Baer 1929, 348-59). This effort has been considered a response to a new sense of vulnera­ bility induced by the upheavals caused by the Black Death in 1348, but the issues it dealt with ranged far beyond responses to violence, which in any event did not occur in Spain, and suggest a broader agenda. One of the three signatories to the ordinances was a prominent Barcelona Jew who had several times served as secretary of the community.

Barcelona

Economic Life

Little is known about Jewish occupations in Bar­ celona before the thirteenth century. A few eleventhcentury Jews used epithets that suggest they were ar­ tisans. We know of a Jew involved in minting coins, and four Jews in 1104 with a monopoly on returning Muslim captives to their native lands (Baer 1929, 4, 7-8; see also COMMERCE). Finally, a mid-twelfthcentury document offers evidence of Jewish-owned market stalls (Millas Vallicrosa 1927, 16). Beginning in the thirteenth century, Jewish eco­ nomic activities are better documented. Jewish par­ ticipation in M o n e y l e n d i n g , negligible before 1200, increased gradually, and in midcentury Jewish money­ lenders controlled more than half of Barcelona’s loan market for the first time. The interest rates on Jewish loans was fixed in 1228 at 20 percent per annum of the principal. The majority of loans were moderate in size; most were short-term loans to provide tempo­ rary liquidity, and most were repaid. There is little evidence that moneylending created the resentment more typical of northern Europe (Berner 1986, 2l4ff.; Klein 1996, 284-94). Jews also invested in royal monopolies such as milling, almost always as part of a mixed group of Jewish and Christian investors. The earliest Jews in­ volved in milling were royal administrators, but by the later thirteenth century a broad cross section of the community’s economic elite was involved (Klein 1996, 279-83). Jews also participated in commerce, most often investing in the voyages of Christian mer­ chants, although we also know that Barcelona Jews were found in such markets as Alexandria and Acre. In the later thirteenth century, we begin to find more information about Jews in humbler occupa­ tions, including artisans. Jews were found in a wide variety of crafts. It appears from apprenticeship con­ tracts as well as from the establishment of separate Jewish craft guilds in the later thirteenth and four­ teenth centuries that Jewish and Christian artisans did not work together in the same way that business­ men did. Women engaged in some of the same economic activities as men; we find a few women making loans, and many more administering landed property. It is likely that women in the poorer segments of the community engaged in some forms of business, but

these forms of economic activity are poorly docu­ mented at best. Intellectual Traditions

Barcelona’s Jewish community was home to various scholars over the centuries. The eleventh-century Isaac b. Reuven (b. 1043) is mentioned by Abraham Ibn Daud as originating from Barcelona. Judah b. Barzillay (d. ca. 1135) was the author of a number of legal works of which only some survive, including the Sefer ha- ittiym, dealing with the laws of festivals, and the Sefer ha-shetarot, a manual of document forms, originally part of a longer work called Sefer ha-diyn. He also wrote a commentary on Sefer Ye$iyrah (see also SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS). In the following century, Barcelona produced no rabbinic scholars of note, but it did have luminaries in other fields, including Joseph b. Meir Ibn Zabara (b. ca. 1140), physician and author of “The Book of Delights,” an entertaining collection of stories writ­ ten in rhymed prose (see LITERATURE, HEBREW S p a in ) . H e dedicated his work to the aforementioned Sheshet Benvenist, who was not only a royal official, physician, and patron of literature, but also a philos­ opher and poet. During the Maimonidean contro­ versy, he wrote a letter attacking the belief in bodily resurrection. Some of his personal letters also survive, revealing not only his erudition but also his diplo­ matic skills. A generation later, we find two passionate defend­ ers of rationalist philosophy, the brothers Abraham and Judah Ibn Hasdai. Abraham was also an impor­ tant philosophical translator (see TRANSLATION BY J e w s ) and author of Ben ha-melekh ve-ha-naziyr, adapted from an Arabic source (see “LITERATURE, HEBREW ”) . On the opposite side of this struggle was their contemporary Samuel ha-Sardiy (1190-1255), author of an important work on Jewish law, Sefer haterumot. Apart from its own merits, this work is also notable for preserving a number of responsa by the talmudist, commentator, and qabbalist NAHMANIDES. Although Nahmanides himself lived in Gerona, he had close ties to Barcelona scholars. His most famous association with the city, however, was his participa­ tion in a DISPUTATION with the apostate Paul Christiani in 1263.

81

Barcelona

The most notable rabbinical scholar of thirteenthcentury Barcelona, and one of the towering figures of his generation, was Solomon Ibn Adret. He was the author not only of thousands of responsa but also of important commentaries on the Talmud and other legal writings. He was active in the local community, serving as secretary in 1282, and was also appointed to judge numerous important cases in various com­ munities. He was one of the initiators of the ban on the study of philosophy pronounced in 1305 in Barcelona. Despite some differences of opinion, he often worked closely with his contemporary Aaron ha-Levy (1235-1300). In the fourteenth century, Ibn Adret s legacy was continued in Barcelona by two noted scholars: Nissim b. Reuven Gerundiy (1310-ca. 1375) and ISAAC B. S h esh et (1326-1408). Nissim is known primarily for his commentary on the laws ( Halakhot) of Isaac al-FasI. He was also a noted physician. His student Isaac is known for his important collection of re­ sponsa. His slightly younger Barcelonese contempo­ rary, the philosopher Hasdai Crescas, was famous for his Or Adonai, an anti-Aristotelian work, and for his A n ti-C h ristian polemic “Refutation of the princi­ ples of Christianity.” Destruction o f the Jewish Community

The Black Death itself had a traumatic impact on the Barcelona Jewish as well as Christian community; perhaps a third of the population perished from the plague, while only about twenty Jews died in the ac­ companying riot in Barcelona. The most cataclysmic violence to hit the Jews of Spain came four decades later. The violence that began in Seville in the early summer of 1391 reached Barcelona on August 5, set off by a boatload of Castilians arriving from Valencia, and exacerbated by the presence of troops on their way to Sicily. Leading citizens and artisans tried to stop the first wave of riots, but about a hundred Jews were killed, and others took refuge in the New Cas­ tle. The rioters attacked the gates of the Jewish quar­ ter and the notarial archives. The council arrested the Castilians and executed ten of them. The next Mon­ day it was the turn of the port workers and fishermen to riot, killing some four hundred Jews and forcibly converting those who did not succeed in fleeing (Wolff 1971, 10-14).

82

Despite the councils efforts to prevent violence and protect the Jews, however unsuccessfully, after 1391 Barcelona’s patriciate opposed the restoration of the Jewish community. Hasdai Crescas, whose son was among those killed in Barcelona, was instrumental in attempts to rebuild the community in the 1390s. The king initially supported him but desisted in 1402 in the face of local opposition. Many of Barcelona’s con­ verted Jews and their descendants remained there in the fifteenth century, living as Christians, but Barcelona would not have an officially recognized Jew­ ish community again until the twentieth century. ELKA KLEIN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baer, Fritz (Yitzhak). Die Juden im christlichen Spanien. Erster Teil: JJrkunden und Regesten Aragonien und Navarra (Berlin, 1929). Berner, Leila. “On the Western Shores: The Jews of Barcelona during the Reign of Jaume I, ‘El Conqueridor,’ 1213-1276.” (Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, 1986). Bofarull i Sans, Francisco, ed. 1910. Los judios en el territorio de Barcelona (siglos x al xiii): reinado de Jaime I (1213-1276). Originally published as “Jaime I y los judios” in I Congres d ’h istoria de la corona dArago (Jaume I i la seva epoca), Barcelona, 1909, 2:819-943. Cinta Mane, Maria. The Jews in Barcelona 1213-1291. Regesta o f Documents from the Archivo Capitular (Jerusalem, 1988). Klein, Elka Beth. “Power and Patrimony: The Jewish Community of Barcelona, 1050—1250.” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1996). Millas Vallicrosa, J. M. D ocum ents hebraics d e ju eu s Catalans (Barcelona, 1927). Wolff, Philippe. “The 1391 pogrom in Spain: Social crisis or not?” Past and Present 50 (1971): 4-18.

Benedict XIII

During the schism of the Church, the pope of Avi­ gnon (“antipope,” according to orthodox doctrine) from 1394 until 1416 was Benedict XIII. Born in Aragon, his full name was Pedro Martinez de Luna (which is almost never used, but perhaps should be to avoid confusing him with his relative Pedro de

Benedict XIII

Luna, archbishop of Toledo, who was the uncle of Alvaro de Luna, the condestable of Castile. Pedro Martinez de Luna was Alvaro’s cousin). He was bishop of Zaragoza, and then cardinal of Aragon. At his urging, Juan I of Aragon-Catalonia refused a planned marriage with Maria of Sicily and agreed instead to marry Violant de Bar of France, thus bringing the Spanish kingdom under the obedience of the Avignonese papacy. But Juan had no objection when his brother Martin “the Humanist,” who was to succeed him as king, married Maria (1392), thus reinstating Barcelonese rule over Sicily and uniting it also under obedience to the Avignon papacy. As soon as he became king (1397), Martin made a trip to Avi­ gnon to see Benedict, who told the king he would re­ nounce his papacy if the pope of Rome would also do so (which he did not, of course). Among the many loyal supporters of Benedict was Vicente Ferrer, whose missionary campaigns and preaching brought about the CONVERSION of thousands of Jews in Spain. Vicente accompanied Benedict on his flight from Avignon to Italy. After his condemnation by the council of Pisa, Benedict, who was a relative of Queen Maria de Luna, returned to Catalonia and was offered the hos­ pitality of the royal palace in Barcelona by Martin I. Juan II of Castile broke with the Spanish tradition of supporting the Avignonese papacy in 1416 when he renounced obedience to Benedict. Martin I died in 1410 without heirs, and the compromise choice for the next king of Aragon-Catalonia was a Castil­ ian, Fernando de la Antequera, who had been regent of Castile. This aged enemy of the Jews, strongly in­ fluenced by Vicente Ferrer, became ruler as Fernando I in 1412. Ironically, it was Benedict’s close friend and protege Vicente Ferrer who in 1416 persuaded Fernando to renounce obedience to the former pope of Avignon. The king himself died in that year. How­ ever, by then the considerable damage to the Jews, brought about by the combined machinations of these men, had already been accomplished. Not only Vicente Ferrer but also the notorious converted Jew Jeronimo de Santa Fe worked upon the pope’s hatred of Jews. Upon his arrival in Barcelona, the three planned a major campaign for the further conversion of Jews, resulting in the Tortosa DISPUTATION (1413-1414). Already several

years earlier, before becoming pope, Pedro (Benedict) had engaged in a disputation with Jews in Pamplona, particularly with Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut (who left a record of this in his work). In his letters commanding various Jewish commu­ nities to send delegates to the Tortosa disputation, he refers to his order banning the study of the Talmud, an order that he says had been completely ignored. This was to be the subject of a special bull issued by Benedict in Valencia in 1415, in which he gloried in the massive conversion of Jews (even most Jewish rabbis at the disputation had converted), but noted that many are still “blinded” by the Talmud, which he condemned. He also condemned other books, in­ cluding “those which according to them are called maceihu: that is, the notorious Ma aseh Yeshu, a fabri­ cated and slanderous account of the life of Jesus. In­ deed, Fernando I himself issued an order prohibiting Jews from reading this work. The bull continues to raise almost every issue ever found in Christian legislation concerning Jews, in­ cluding synagogues and intermarriage. It also insisted again on the wearing of a BADGE and even shows the form that it is to take (no colors are mentioned). In fact, his desires with regard to synagogues were at least partially realized. The synagogue of Gerona was closed in 1415, although reopened the next year. Even though in Toledo he apparently prohibited Jews from building new synagogues, yet in 1404 when the Jews of Toro (near Zamora) had been expelled be­ cause of a riot and their two synagogues were con­ verted into churches, Benedict allowed them to build new synagogues after they returned to their city. But the Jews in Spain did not just passively accept the anti-Jewish activity and legislation of Benedict. Already in 1414 the Jews of his native Zaragoza sent a converso, Gonzalo de la Cavalleria, as delegate to Rome to intercede with Pope John XXIII (deposed) against Benedict’s activity. In 1419 the Jews of Aragon petitioned the new king, Alfonso V (who generally returned to the favor­ able treatment that Jews in Spain were accustomed to receiving from their rulers) to modify and change certain laws enacted by Fernando I and the condem­ nation of the Talmud and other books ordered by Benedict. The king responded positively to most of these petitions, and in that same year the apostolic

83

Benedict XIII

nuncio from Rome, at the request of Alfonso, an­ nulled all of the anti-Jewish decrees of Benedict. Finally, it is of interest that the inventory of Bene­ dict s personal library indicates not only that he had the “books of St. John Chrysostom” (in translation from the original Greek, of course), that notoriously anti-Jewish polemicist, but a number of other polem­ ical works against Jews (strangely missing are any of the writings of Ramon Lull or even of Benedict’s pro­ tege Jeronimo de Santa Fe). NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carreras i Candi, Francesch. L’a ljama de juheus de Tortosa (Barcelona, 1928), p. 86ff. Madrid. B. N. Ms. 13089, ff. 109 v-118 v (bull of Benedict). Soldevila, Ferran. Historia de Catalunya (Barcelona, 1962), II, 49Iff.

Benjamin of Tudela

Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela (in the kingdom of Navarre, Spain; ca. 1130-ca. 1173), whose full name was Binyamin b. Yonah, was the author of a famous “Book of Travels” (Sefer masa‘o tm Hebrew). Few per­ sonal details are known concerning him. His work demonstrates a mastery of Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as Arabic and the Romance of his native region; he understood Greek and Latin and had a knowledge of classical history. He was expert in various crafts and trades, which reinforces the supposition that he was a merchant and that his voyage was a commercial venture. At the end of 1165 or the beginning of 1166 he began from his native Tudela a grand journey through the Mediterranean region, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Arabia, Egypt, and other parts of Asia Minor before returning through Castile in 1172— 1173 (4933 of the Hebrew reckoning). His “Book of Travels” is a report of this journey, in which he “wrote all the things which I have seen and heard from the mouths of trustworthy men . . . which have not been heard in the lands of Spain.” This work was widely diffused in the Jewish world by virtue of numerous manuscripts that were aug­ mented by various literary additions not of the au­ thor’s making (anonymous prologue and several in­ 84

terpolations in the text), and surely were imperfect recensions of the original diary. The Sefer masa'otcontains varied and valuable his­ torical, geographical, economic, demographic, reli­ gious, ethnographic, and folkloric information, which makes it a documental source of obligatory reference for reconstructing not only the past of the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean basin, the Holy Land, and Near East, but also of the villages and po­ litical entities of these regions during the second half of the twelfth century. The tone of the account is agile and pleasant, moderate and precise in its descriptions, lineal and vivacious in its narration, direct and almost collo­ quial, without excessive aesthetic pretensions. Ben­ jamin, in accord with the classical structure of an “itinerant,” examines three basic and omnipresent as­ pects throughout his book: 1) the Jews and their so­ cial, economic, political, and religious situation; 2) the general outline of the politics in the western Christian world and their relation to the Islamic re­ gion of the Near East; 3) the mercantile and artisan centers of both these worlds, as well as the commer­ cial routes that unite or could unite them. The “itinerant” began in his native Tudela, pass­ ing through Zaragoza and descending to Tortosa, from there to Tarragona and passing through Barcelona and Gerona and going on into Roussillon and Provence. He provides scanty observations con­ cerning the Jews in Spain but mentions the impor­ tant Jewish community of BARCELONA and its princi­ pal rabbis. In Marseille he set out on a course for Pisa, pass­ ing through Lucca and Rome, skirting the coast of Italy to Salerno, and crossing the peninsula to the Adriatic. He continued his voyage from Otranto to Corfu and via Arta he entered the lands of the Byzan­ tine Empire. He visited Greece and arrived at Con­ stantinople, passing through the Aegean islands and reaching Asia Minor at Corycus (Korghos). He crossed the sea between the coasts of Turkey (Anato­ lia) and Syria and arrived at the Holy Land—at that time in the hands of the Crusaders—and visited Nablus, Jerusalem, and other places of interest to such an illustrious rabbi. Later he journeyed to Dam­ ascus, and tracing an arc through the Syrian desert he passed through Hamah, Aleppo, Rakka (in Mesopo­ tamia), and thence through the Tigris valley he

Benjamin of Tudela

reached Baghdad. There he remained for a consider­ able time in the opulent Jewish quarter, attracted by the possibility of substantial benefits in such an im­ portant mercantile center. Baghdad was the center of operations for his minor travels in the surrounding regions, perhaps as far as Basra in the lower part of Mesopotamia. The narration becomes most realistic in dealing with Egypt: Cairo, ancient F u s tA J , ALEXANDRIA, the Nile, Mount Sinai, and Damietta, from whence he embarked by ship for Sicily. From that island, ac­ cording to a patent interpolation in Benjamins text, he returned to visit Rome, and by way of Lucca and Verdun arrived at Paris, at which point the account brusquely terminates. This interpolation includes the idyllic description of the situation of the Jewish communities of the Rhine valley, with noncredible references to Bo­ hemia, the Slavic lands, and Kiev in Russia. This last part also is not by Benjamin (the description of cen­ tral Europe does not coincide with the tone of that of the Mediterranean and the Near East in the rest of the book), and it is more than probable that our trav­ eler was detained for some time in Christian lands— possibly the Balearic Islands or Catalonia—until 1173, when, according to the introduction, “he brought with him this book to the lands of Castile,” passing first through the territories of the kingdom of Aragon. The Sefer yuhasin of Abraham Zacut (late fif­ teenth, early sixteenth century) says that Benjamin of Tudela died in 1173, probably in his native Tudela. Manuscripts

The most important of those that have been pre­ served are a) No. 27.089 of the British Museum, end of the eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century, which is the oldest and offers the purest and most faithful text; b) No. 26 of the Sacerdotal catalogue of the Casanatense Library of Rome, copied by Isaac of Pisa in 1430; c) Ms. Epstein, of Vienna, end of the fifteenth century; d) two mss. of the Oppenheim col­ lection, Bodleian Library of Oxford, of minor impor­ tance because of their fragmentary character: Ms. Opp. Add. 8-36 (Neubauer 2,453), ff. 58-63, and Ms. Opp. Add. 8-58 (Neubauer 2,580).

Editions

The first edition appeared in Constantinople in 1543, at the press of Eliezer Soncino. It is unknown which manuscript(s) served as the basis of the edi­ tion, which contains numerous errors, perpetuated later through Latin translations. From this editio princeps derived the editions of Freiburg (1583), Lei­ den (1633), Amsterdam (1696), Leiden (1762), and Sulzbach (1782), and others. The second important edition appeared in Ferrar (1556), at the press of Abraham Usque, based upon a manuscript similar to that of Epstein (Vienna). Other editions, derived from the earlier ones and various manuscripts, include the important ones of London-Berlin (1840-1841), Jerusalem (1903-1904), and New York (1926). Translations

The earliest translation was the Latin, Itinerarium Beniamini Tudelensis, of Benito Arias Montano (1575), based on the text of the editio princeps, and republished in Helmstadt (1636) and Leipzig (1664). ~ " From this Latin version were derived an English translation (London, 1625, in the “Purchass Pil­ grims” series) and a French (1673), published in “Collection de Voyages faits principalement en Asie, dans les XII, XIII, XIV et XV siecles,” Vol. 1 (Hague, 1753; republished Paris, 1830). The second Latin translation is that of Constan­ tine “l’Empereur” (Freiburg, 1583), accompanied by the Hebrew text and containing a harsh attack on the pioneering translation of Arias Montano. Neverthe­ less, this version is plagued with errors and absurd “erudite” notes. This version served as the base of a Dutch transla­ tion (Leiden, 1666) and Judeo-German, or Yiddish (Amsterdam, 1691, and Frankfurt, 1711). In 1903 there appeared the edition of the Casa­ natense manuscript of Rome, with a German transla­ tion by L. Griinhut of Jerusalem. Thereafter followed a critical edition of the Hebrew text, based upon the British Museum manuscript and earlier editions, with an English translation, the work of the erudite M. N. Adler. Even earlier, the Hebrew edition of A. Asher, based on all previous editions, contains his English translation. Even more useful is the second volume, 85

Benjamin of Tudela

consisting of copious notes of the editor and of the famous Jewish scholars Rapoport and Zunz, as well as a major essay by Zunz, “Geographical Literature of the Jews.” Other translations include Russian (St. Peters­ burg, 1881) and Arabic (Baghdad, 1945). The first Spanish translation was that of I. Gonzalez-Llubera (Madrid, 1918), following the He­ brew text of Adler; and the second, that of Mag­ dalena Nom de Deu, also based on the Alder text. Fi­ nally, two Italian translations, appearing almost simultaneously, are those of Giulio Busi (Rimini, 1988) and Laura Minervini (Palermo, 1989). JOSfi R A M 6N MAGDALENA NOM DE DfiU [TRANSLATED NORMAN ROTH]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benjamin of Tudela. Itinerary, ed. and tr. A. Asher. (London, Berlin, 1840-1841). ---------. The Itinerary o f Benjamin o f Tudela, ed. and tr. M. N. Adler (London, 1907). ---------. Die Reisebeschreibungen des R. Benjamin von Tudela, ed. L. Grunhut (Jerusalem, 1903). ---------. Libro de Viajes de Benjamin de Tudela, tr. with introduction and notes by Jose Ramon Mag­ dalena Nom de Deu (Barcelona, 1982). Wright, Thomas. Early Travels in Palestine (New York, 1968; rpt. of 1848 ed.).

Bernard of Clairvaux

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090—1153) was a preacher, mystic, activist, and head of the Cistercian order. Bernards impact on the fate of medieval Jewry was protective and highly dramatic in the short term, and its long-term significance was complex and am­ bivalent. His position on Jewish issues illustrates in striking fashion the growing tension between the tol­ eration afforded European Jewry by a deeply en­ trenched tradition of church law and growing hostil­ ity toward Jews on both the popular and the clerical level. The Second Crusade (see CRUSADES) began in the m id-1140s with a reprise of the First Crusade mas­ sacres that had decimated Rhineland Jewry at the end of the previous century. A monk from Bernard’s own 86

order was instrumental in fomenting the killings. Bernard, who as leader of the Cistercians was proba­ bly the most influential churchman in Europe other than (and perhaps even including) the pope, re­ sponded with a resounding, unequivocal denuncia­ tion of such attacks. Not only did Bernard write a let­ ter forbidding the killing of Jews; he traveled to the site of the massacres, possibly at some risk to himself, to see to it that they stop. Such behavior struck Jew­ ish chroniclers from the twelfth to the sixteenth cen­ tury as so noteworthy that they made a point of com­ menting on this “decent priest” who intervened without any expectation of payment from the Jewish beneficiaries of his actions. Killing Jews, Bernard wrote, “makes the prophets liars and empties out the treasures of piety and mercy of Jesus Christ.” His formulation of the theological basis for this assertion is quite standard. Jews are liv­ ing witnesses to the suffering of Jesus and the re­ demption of Christians; Psalm 59 requires that they not be destroyed, and Romans 11 speaks of their ulti­ mate salvation. Although elsewhere Bernard carries standard theology to its most liberal limits by sug­ gesting that Jewish chosenness may persist in some temporal contexts to this very day, it is the setting, not the content, of his argument that endows it with special significance. This setting is broader than the Second Crusade itself. In the early Middle Ages, when popular hostil­ ity toward Jews had not yet reached virulent levels, the churchs tolerant position was under no particular pressure. By the mid-twelfth century, however, antiJewish sentiment had intensified. Classical Christian theology and the preaching of the friars contributed substantially to the development of this transfor­ mation; still, on the new, more dangerous scale of tolerance and intolerance toward Jews, the tradi­ tional position of the Church had moved toward the protective end of the spectrum. Thus, a reiteration of the policy of restrictive toleration that the Church had always granted the Jews could no longer be seen as a routine affirmation; it became a significant, sometimes even courageous, assertion of principle. What is particularly striking about Bernard’s pro­ tective stance is that he shared and encouraged the very hostility toward Jews that made his intervention necessary. The Jews of Bernard’s sermons, letters, and commentaries seem hardly deserving of protection:

Bible Manuscripts, Printed Editions

they are “cruel,” “incredulous,” “hard,” “stubborn,” “venomous,” “coarse,” “wicked,” possessors of a bovine intellect that “stopped short in the thick husk of the law,” quintessential usurers, simultaneously blind and haters of the light. In one instance, his dis­ like of Jews probably played some role in influencing the stance he took on an important policy question, though it is unlikely that it determined that stance. In 1130, a man of Jewish descent was chosen as Pope Anacletus II in a disputed election. Bernard vigor­ ously—and successfully—supported his rival, and in the course of the fierce polemics that swirled around the election, he wrote, “It is to the injury of Christ that a man of Jewish race has seized for himself the see of Peter.” Bernard was not unaware of the tension between his Judaeophobia and his commitment to toleration. On more than one occasion, he commented on the incredible charity and mercy exhibited by the Church toward these blasphemous, evil enemies. This ten­ sion, so sharply delineated in the person of Bernard of Clairvaux, was writ large in the history of late medieval European Jewry. For Bernard himself, toler­ ation prevailed; on the larger historical canvas, a dif­ ferent, more tragic scenario began to unfold. DAVID BERGER

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berger, David. “The Attitude of St. Bernard of Clair­ vaux toward the Jews.” Proceedings o f the American Academy fo r Jewish Research 40 (1972): 89-108.

Bible Manuscripts, Printed Editions

The Hebrew Bible is divided into three sections: the Torah (the five books of Moses, also known as the Pentateuch); Neviiym (Prophets), and Ketuvim (the Writings, Hagiographa). The three divisions of the Bible are known collectively as TaNaKH (acronym formed from the initial letters of the divisions). The Torah, considered to be divinely revealed, has to be handwritten according to strict rules handed down by tradition and by law from generation to genera­ tion of trained scribes, and must be written on a scroll made of specially prepared hides (smoothed skins) sewn together. It must be written only with a reed pen and specially prepared ink. According to Yehudai Gaon, at some time during the Byzantine oc­

cupation of Palestine, as part of the general persecu­ tion of Jews that took place there (including the pro­ hibition against reciting the “Shema” (“Hear O Is­ rael . . . ,” Deut. 6.4; so-called “Jewish creed”), there was also a prohibition against reading the Torah. Pirqoi b. Baboi reported (at about the same time) that the decree against reading the Torah resulted in all Torah scrolls being hidden away lest they be burned, “and when the Muslims came [conquered Palestine from the Byzantines] there were no more Torah scrolls, nor were there scribes” who knew how to prepare the hides and write the scrolls (Ginzberg, Ginzey Shekhter [New York, 1929] II, 143, 561; cf. 507, 526; R a s h i , Pardes, no. 2). Although every Jewish adult male is obligated to write a Torah scroll, in fact this duty was usually del­ egated to a trained scribe, and rarely could individual Jews actually afford to have such a scroll written for their own personal use. Sometimes a man would pay for the writing of a scroll for the benefit of the com­ munity or the synagogue of which he was a member. Traditionally, the other books of the Bible were also written on scrolls, particularly when intended (the Prophets) for reading as part of the synagogue ser­ vice. At some point in the early medieval period, however, Jews adopted the Muslim and Christian custom of binding books into codex form. Codices were made of cut and folded leaves, either of parch­ ment or paper, and were always lined when used for writing biblical texts (optionally for other texts). These were sewn together and bound in boards or covers of animal hides or of metal. Sherira gaon (tenth century) described in detail the making of parchment (see responsum, translated in Wischnitzer 1965,61). Paper was introduced to the Muslims from China by way of Samarqand in the eighth century and was being produced in Muslim Spain at least by the eleventh century. Isaac al-FasI (d. 1103) referred in a responsum to a document written on “paper which was not strong” and had to be rewritten on stronger paper. Paper made in Spain was generally highly re­ garded, particularly that from the factories of Jativa. That city was not conquered by the Christians until 1252, and thus it was not until 1256 that paper be­ came used in northern Christian Spain. It was still relatively unusual there later in the century, when I b n A d r e t described a book written on paper, and 87

Bible Manuscripts, Printed Editions

had to explain that each folio consisted of two leaves (yad\ from the meaning “portion”). Scrolls were of course written on only one side, whereas codices were usually written on both sides (leaves). Reed pens were usually used in Spain and the Muslim countries, and quill pens were used in Christian Europe. The larger codices usually contain three columns of text per page, although some had two and some only one. In Spain it seems that codices consisted of two columns until the fourteenth century, when three be­ came standard. Such codices ranged from very simple and even hastily copied texts to elaborate and skillfully pre­ pared ones, often richly illuminated and perhaps with precious or semiprecious stones in the bindings. Although the high cost of owning a Torah scroll pre­ cluded most from fulfilling this obligation, the neces­ sity of having a copy of the Bible for learning led to the practice of Pentateuchs or complete Bibles being written in codex form for private use. The accuracy of such texts varied, according to the skill of the scribe who copied them or the amount of money the patron could afford to pay. M a i m o n i d e s , in a ruling subsequently ignored, wrote that combining the entire Bible (Torah, Prophets, Writings) together in one bound codex as was the practice is incorrect, since at times one of the books of the prophets or another writing would be opened to be read and it would thus open on top of the Torah (which would lie underneath) and this is not proper {M.T., aSefer Torah,” 10. 5; cf. Talmud Megillah 27a). Masorah

Carefully copied Bible manuscripts were written in accord with masoretic traditions {Masorah, in fact, means “tradition,” or “handing down,” and refers to rules of orthography, punctuation, and so on that were designed to ensure accurate transmission and copying of the text). Many Bible manuscripts, and later printed editions, have the text of the Masorah (actually two, the “greater” and “lesser” Masorah) written in the outside margins. The Masoretes oper­ ated chiefly in Tiberias, and although there were vari­ ous methods of punctuation (“Palestinian,” “Baby­ lonian,” etc.), by at least the early tenth century the form prescribed by the Tiberian school predomi­ nated. Many of the Masoretes were QARAITES, but 88

others were traditional, or rabbanite, Jews. (Premasoretic, Palestinian punctuation texts, not only of the Bible but of numerous midrashic and other works, were brought to light through the work of the indefatigable Spanish scholar A. Diez Macho, and at least some of these have been published or are in the course of publication.) There has been and continues to be much schol­ arly debate about the nature of the “true” masoretic text as reflected in these manuscripts. For many years it was believed that the Leningrad (St. Peters­ burg) manuscript B19a of the Pentateuch (see below) was the most “perfect” example of this tradi­ tion. However, the discovery of the now famous “Aleppo codex” (about which more below) resulted in a generally accepted scholarly opinion that it is closest to the “true” masoretic text. To some extent, this is a matter of opinion, since in fact both manu­ scripts adhere to the ben Asher masoretic school and Maimonides approved that tradition, and specifi­ cally the Aleppo codex, whereas S a ‘a d y a h Gkcwhad preferred the ben Naftali tradition. Even more con­ tentious is the claim of at least one respected author­ ity that in general the early medieval manuscripts re­ flect a more “accurate” adherence to the masoretic text than do later manuscripts, which tend to be more corrupt. This ignores the testimony of many medieval Spanish rabbis, for instance, who carefully examined as many manuscripts as they could and continually made corrections. The first printed He­ brew Bibles also were based on careful correlation of numerous manuscripts, many of which have since disappeared, and cannot cavalierly be dismissed as “inaccurate.” Before Maimonides, it appears that both masoretic schools were considered authoritative in Spain. Ibn Janah (see HEBREW GRAMMAR) wrote that there is much to be learned from the Masoretes, and also that he relied upon carefully corrected biblical codices. “There already have come into my hands a Jerusalem Bible and another from Babylon,” he wrote, adding that he also had seen some of the books from the “Palestinian” writers (the Masoretes) upon which he relied {Sefer ha-riqmah 1: 253; cf. 15-16). I b n ‘E z r a indicated his awareness of both traditions, without deciding between them (see his commentary on Lev. 19.20 and Weisers note 85 there in his critical edi­ tion). But owing to the approval by Maimonides, the

Bible Manuscripts, Printed Editions

ben Asher tradition was accepted as authoritative in Spain and Muslim countries. Qimhi, in the intro­ duction to his Shorashiym, wrote, “We depend upon ben Asher.” Long ago, Assaf called attention to a responsum by Moses Halawa (a student of Ibn Adret) that men­ tions three important Bible manuscripts that were in Barcelona, the older of which were known as Keter Torah (which would appear to indicate its origin from Castile) and Sefer Sinai. The third was called Tammiyd, and was kept in the main synagogue in Barcelona, but had been declared unfit by Nissim Gerundi until it was corrected according to masoretic rules. Ibn Adret also dealt ( Teshuvot ha-meyuhasot, no. 232) with Bibles not written in accord with the Ma­ sorah, saying they are not to be declared unfit because of that, and additions and deletions are not to be made because of masoretic books or midrashim. In any case, there are disagreements in the masorah, Eastern or Western traditions, the school of ben Asher or ben Naftali, and so on. Nevertheless, with regard to indications in the Talmud of correct read­ ings of the Bible, our manuscripts shouldbt corrected according to those sources, and in general manu­ scripts should be examined and corrected in accord with the majority reading. The aforementioned re­ sponsum of his student Moses Halawa essentially dealt with the same issue of Bibles not written in ac­ cord with the Masorah, and Ibn Adret s responsum was also cited by Nissim Gerundi (comm, on Sanhedrin 4a); see also Simon Duran ( Tashbe$ I, no. 125). In the fifteenth century the important Spanish scribe Abraham Hasan, one of the exiles, wrote that Meir A b u l a f i a ’s book on the Masorah (Siyyag leTorah) had become already in the author’s lifetime (early thirteenth century) the standard by which all Torah scrolls in Germany, France “and all the West­ ern lands and distant isles” (i.e., England) were cor­ rected, and that communities in all those countries had sent messengers to Toledo to obtain copies of Abulafia’s book. The colophon of a Toledo Penta­ teuch written in 1256 states specifically that it was collated with Abulafia’s work (Parma Ms. 2025). In addition to the Masorah, another major feature of importance is the formation of the letters them­ selves, particularly as written in a Torah scroll, in­ tended for synagogue use, as opposed to a codex (al­

though many of these also preserve this feature). An­ cient tradition dictated the precise formation of every letter, including those with special “flourishes” or loops or certain letters that were to be written ex­ tending above or below the line (a matter of some dispute in medieval responsa). The Talmud indicates that laws were even learned from the special forma­ tion of the letters in the Torah, and later tradition claimed “secrets,” or mystical elements, were con­ nected with each shape, as well as with the “crowns,” or flourish strokes that adorn the tops of certain let­ ters (see Ratzaby 1978). It should be noted that virtually all scholarship has focused on the nature of the Masorah in the me­ dieval biblical manuscripts, which although impor­ tant has nonetheless largely ignored the more impor­ tant question of the variants in the actual biblical text itself. An example of this is the important Zaragoza 1341 manuscript at the Hebrew University (Ms. Heb. 8° 1401), which has received careful study by Yalon {Kiryat sefer 32: 97-111), but only with regard to the masoretic material and divergences. Until de­ tailed investigations of at least the most important medieval manuscripts are done, together with re­ search on variants in biblical texts quoted by me­ dieval authorities (on which so far almost nothing has been done), we are very far from appreciating these sources for the eventual reconstruction of the Hebrew text of the Bible. Another major problem that scholars have only recently taken notice of is the “correction” of editions of works by medieval author­ ities to make them coincide with what is perceived to be the “received” text of the Bible, thus obliterating all trace of important variants. Where adequate man­ uscripts are still available, new and accurate editions of these works are a necessity. Earliest Bible Manuscripts

The unfortunate loss of many medieval manuscripts, through fires and exile and finally by destruction at the hands of the Nazis, is an irreversible blow to es­ tablishing a truly “accurate” text of the Bible. In spite of this loss of material, there are extant several thou­ sand manuscripts either of the complete Bible or of parts of it. Many of these manuscripts, or fragments, came from the famous Cairo GENIZAH, including more than thirty boxes of biblical texts in the Cam­ bridge University collection alone. Many manu89

Bible Manuscripts, Printed Editions

Bible (Hebrew) Soncino: Joshua Solomon ben Israel, 22 April 1488. Opening of Joshua. First completed edition of the Hebrew Bible. Copy­ right © The Pierpont Morgan Li­ brary/Art Resource, NY.

scripts became part of the former Leningrad collec­ tion (now again St. Petersburg) in Russia. Still other manuscripts wound up in the hands of private collec­ tors, some generous in allowing scholarly access and others denying such use. To the present time no at­ tempt has ever been made to catalogue all of the He­ brew biblical manuscripts even in the more or less public collections in the world, including photo­ graphic or microfilm copies in private and public li­ braries. Nor is there a central archive that contains photographic copies of all medieval biblical manu­ scripts, as there ought to be. Few of the extant manu­ scripts and fragments have received any kind of in­ vestigation, other than cursory catalog descriptions.

90

It may be judged from this how reliable are categori­ cal statements that there are no significant differences in the manuscript sources of the textus receptus (and, indeed, how questionable is that term) of the Bible. The earliest extant medieval biblical manuscripts date from the latter part of the ninth century and early part of the tenth (a codex of the Prophets in the Oriental Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg pur­ porting to date from 747 is probably a forgery). These include the extremely important codex of the Prophets from Cairo (896 C .E .), written by Moses ben Asher, the father of the famous Masorete Aaron, carefully described by Harkavy (1970, 106—8), who saw the codex in Cairo. U. Cassuto’s edition of the

Bible Manuscripts, Printed Editions

Bible (Jerusalem, 1953) was based on this (for the Prophets), and it was also used for Kittels Biblica hebraica. The publication of a critical edition of this text was begun by the renowned Spanish biblical scholar F. Perez Castro in 1979 and continues. Another early text, also a codex of the Prophets, is from Babylon (916 C.E.), of which there are two facsimile editions: by Strack (1876), and Jerusalem, Makor (1971). There are other tenth-century manuscripts of Pen­ tateuchs and of complete bibles. Of some interest is another Leningrad manuscript of the Pentateuch, dated 930, that was copied by Solomon b. Buya a, the same scribe who did the “Aleppo Codex.” The manu­ script agrees with the ben Asher tradition in most points, but with that of ben Naftali in others. Also important is a tenth-century Pentateuch manuscript that belonged to the Qaraite synagogue in Cairo and was corrected by the famous Masorete Mishael b/Uzziel (author of an important masoretic work). The aforementioned Leningrad B19a Bible writ­ ten in Cairo in 1008-1009 is the oldest dated com­ plete Bible manuscript in existence. It was the basis for the controversial Kittel-Kahle (“Stuttgart”) Biblia Hebraica, which even in its “corrected” edition con­ tains numerous and serious errors, chiefly in the crit­ ical apparatus. There is also a facsimile edition of the manuscript (Jerusalem, 1971). An interesting Pentateuch codex is the “First Gaster Bible,” a manuscript from Egypt (tenth or eleventh century), now in the British Library (Ms. Or. 9879), in which the book of Genesis is written entirely in verse form. One of the earliest biblical manuscripts, and the longest extant “Babylonian” text, is that of the Ketuviym, J.T.S. ms. 510 (formerly Berlin Or. Qu. 680), published in facsimile (Jerusalem, 1972). Also of importance is the well-known Reuchlin codex (Codex Reuchlinianus) of the Prophets, dated 1105, which was written in accord with the ben Naf­ tali masoretic tradition (edited, correlated with other mss., by A. Sperber, 1956; 1969). This manuscript, presumed to be from Germany, is one of the very few extant biblical codices of Germany that remained after World War II. An interesting manuscript that has received little attention is the beautifully illumi­ nated Pentateuch and some other biblical books with the commentary of Solomon b. Isaac ( “Rashi'),

which was written in Brussels in 1309 by the scribe, formerly of Oxford, Joshua b. Elijah (Codex Levy 19 in the Hamburg library). Much has been written about the influence of Babylonian traditions and texts upon Spanish Jews, but evidence for the same influences in Germany has gone unremarked. “Rashi” wrote that he had seen a Bible of Moses b. Meshul­ lam that had been brought from Babylonia (.Pardes, 1880, f. 13b). In a commentary that has escaped scholarly notice (except for Harkavy), Ibn ‘Ezra wrote (Ex. 25.31) that he had seen biblical codices that had been exam­ ined by the “Tiberian sages,” and fifteen of their el­ ders swore that they had looked three times at every word and vowel point. The text nonetheless con­ tained a reading that Ibn £Ezra said he had not found in any of the books in Spain, France, or “across the sea” (by which he meant probably England or North Africa). The story of another earlier manuscript is even more interesting. In the last century three dif­ ferent scholars reported discoveries of a list of variant readings in the Bible; one of them, Harkavy, saw a manuscript in Damascus that contained such a list as well as other interesting historical material. How­ ever, he failed (1970, 102-3) to correctly identify the manuscript he had seen, which in fact is the famous “Farhi Bible” (to be discussed below). In any event, the list investigated by these scholars, and since also by others, refers to a Torah scroll that was found in the “synagogue of Severus” in Rome. It was realized that this relates to the report found in the midrash Bershiyt rabbatai, and also to a statement by David Qimhi (comm, to Gen. 1.31), concerning the “Torah of Rabbi Meir,” the famous talmudic sage. It is re­ motely possible that his personal Torah manuscript, or a copy of it, was taken from Jerusalem to Rome. In any event, the so-called “Severus scroll” has long since disappeared. Yemenite manuscripts are also of interest, particu­ larly for study of the Masorah. Very few early me­ dieval manuscripts have survived, but one of great importance written in 1481, with unusual instances of special formation of certain letters, was offered for auction by Sotheby’s in 1983 (apparently unsold; see description and photograph in the catalogue Highly Important Judaica Printed Books and Manuscripts, 23 June 1983; part 1, no. 178),

91

Bible Manuscripts, Printed Editions

The “Aleppo Codex”

Most important of all the Bible manuscripts is un­ doubtedly the so-called “Aleppo Codex” {Keter Aram $ovah). This manuscript, written by scribe Solomon b. Buya a and carefully punctuated and annotated ac­ cording to the Masorah by Aaron b. Asher and others, was kept in the Qaraite synagogue in Jerusalem. Torah manuscripts belonging both to the Qaraite and to the rabbanite communities in Jerusalem were plundered during the CRUSADE in 1099 but were re­ turned in 1106. Many of these manuscripts, includ­ ing that which later came to be known as the “Aleppo Codex,” were then taken to Egypt. The codex even­ tually wound up in Aleppo, where it was jealously guarded by synagogue officials for years. In 1948 Arab attacks on the synagogue resulted in a fire in which a significant portion of the codex was de­ stroyed, but the remainder was rescued and brought to Israel. Finally, in 1976, a facsimile was published in Jerusalem. Hopefully, a printed Bible edition, cor­ rected according to this codex, will eventually be fin­ ished (so far, only a portion of Isaiah has been pub­ lished; Jerusalem, 1965). Maimonides gave detailed instructions for the proper writing of Torah scrolls {M. T., “SeferTorah”) and at the end of chapter 8, he says that the “book which we relied upon in these matters is the one renowned in Egypt which contains the twenty-four books [of the Bible] that was in Jerusalem for many years in order that [biblical codices] could be cor­ rected in accord with it, and all relied upon it because it was corrected by ben Asher.” In spite of the fact that this exactly suits the notice in the colophon of the Aleppo Codex, over the years some scholars (in­ cluding Harkavy, who in the last century personally examined the entire codex in Aleppo) have doubted that it is the text used by Maimonides. One of the reasons for skepticism, the fact that the text of Deut. 32 contains 67 lines, whereas Maimonides there had said it should contain 70 lines, has been shown to be due to a “correction” in the text of Maimonides to make it coincide with what had come to be the cus­ tom in writing the text, for both the (twelfth cen­ tury) Oxford manuscript and the Spanish (or Por­ tuguese; s.a., fifteenth century) edition of M. T. do read 67 lines (see Havlin’s introduction to the 1975 facsimile of the edition, f. 4 ff.).

92

Goitein discovered and published a genizah text that refers both to this codex, Taj (Arabic “crown,” corresponding to the Hebrew title for it as Keter), and a “brother” text to it, also of great value, both of which were in the synagogue at Fustat during Maimonides s lifetime {Homenaje a Millas- Vallicrosa [Barcelona, 1954], I, 713-16). This note has gone largely unnoticed since its publication. Im portant Manuscripts from Spain

A Pentateuch manuscript from tenth-century Spain in the British Museum (Ms. Or 4455) is the earliest known extant text. The Codex Hilleliy (or Sefer Hilleliy) is an early complete Bible manuscript known in Spain at least in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, when it was cited by Jacob b. Elazar, a grammarian and literary author. He in turn was the source for sev­ eral references to the manuscript by David Qimhi, who apparently did not see it firsthand (see Finkelstein 1966, xxvii-xxviii; it is astonishing that A. Darom’s “critical” ed. of Qimhi’s commentary on Psalms repeats the erroneous reading in Ps. 109.10 that Finkelstein already corrected). The manuscript was kept in Toledo and is mentioned also by Menahem ha-Meiri and again by Joseph Ibn Nahmias (a student of ASHER B. YEHIEL) in his commentary on Proverbs. It is curious that there seem to be no other references to it. However, Abraham Zacut in his chronicle (f. 220b) relates that in 1196 there was an attack in Leon and that “then they [the Jews] took out of there the [Bible] written some 600 years be­ fore that by Rabbi Moses b. Hillel, which was called after his name ‘H illeliy,’ which was very exact and from which all the [other Bible manuscripts] were corrected.” He adds that he had seen the section of the early and later Prophets from this codex that had been brought after the Expulsion to Portugal and were then sold in Bougie (Boujai) in Algeria. (This was apparently the source for the absurdly confused statement of the seventeenth-century writer Joseph Sambari, who repeated the story but stated that it was in “1199 at the time of Moses de Leon” [author of the Zohar, who wasn’t born until the mid-thirteenth century!], and that it was named after the talmudic sage Hillel.) Finally, Zacut adds that Menahem Lonzano “ho$i’o ” (probably means “cited,” not “published”

Bible Manuscripts, Printed Editions

it) in his Or Torah and said that the codex was brought to Egypt; but in fact this was not that codex but an­ other old one in which the scribe indeed alludes to having corrected it according to the Hilleliy. The codex that Jacob Sapir reported having seen in Cairo was a different one altogether, perhaps indeed a forgery, as some have suggested. A Pentateuch codex written in Toledo in 1241 by the scribe Israel b. Isaac Ibn Israel was corrected according to the Hilleliy and was apparently intended as a model for the writing of Torah manuscripts (it is in the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York). Strangely unknown to Zacut, the Torah printed in Guadalajara in 1475 (see the section below on printed Bible editions) states in the colophon that it was “corrected according to the Hilleliy:” Shem Tov Ibn Gaon’s famous Soria (1312) codex (see below) has several important masoretic notes based also on the Hilleliy. A manuscript of the Pentateuch, but not the Prophets mentioned by Zacut, copied in Toledo in 1240 from the original Hilleliy (J.T.S. 44a), has been published in a facsimile edition (Jerusalem, 1974). A manuscript of the entire Bible written in Toledo in 1277 (ms. de Rossi 782) was the basis for Yedidyah Solomon Norzis important work Minhat shay (written 1626; first printed in the Mantua, 1742 Bible). The earlier (1270) Pentateuch from Toledo has already been mentioned. A very fine complete Bible codex (Toledo, 1280) served as the basis of the new “Madrid Polyglot” and has been analyzed by Fernandez Tejero (1976), a model for the kind of tex­ tual study that needs to be done on medieval biblical manuscripts. The legendary “Torah of 'Ezra” was a scroll, nearly as important in Spanish tradition as the Hilleliy In 1366 when Enrique II entered Burgos he imposed a huge tax on the Jews there (who had supported his half-brother Pedro in the civil war). They had to sell all the silver ornaments of the Torah scrolls “except for [those of] Sefer ‘Ezra, which were not sold (ac­ cording to Samuel Ibn Zarza, in manuscript, not the printed edition). In 1391 the Jews there were asked to swear on their Tora de Yzra not to sell arms. It is re­ ferred to again in the fifteenth century by the renowned scribe Abraham Hasan, one of the Spanish exiles who settled in Salonica, who simply stated that

the scroll “called of ‘Ezra the scribe” was in Burgos, perhaps as early as the time of Meir Abulafia. It is likely that this refers to an early, perhaps important, Torah scroll written by a scribe named ‘Ezra. How­ ever, Elijah Capsali (a not altogether reliable author) reported a visit by one of the Jewish exiles from Por­ tugal, a qabbalist, who claimed to have spoken to the Portuguese king in 1508, as part of an embassy from Fez, and had been given permission by him to see the codex of the (entire) Bible, “written in the days of ‘Ezra the Scribe,” in which supposedly gold letters on every occurrence of the word “sorrow” ($arah) was a prophecy that the messiah was to come in 1630 {Seder Eliyahu zufa 1: 238). If there is any truth at all to the story, it is obvious that a medieval scribe named ‘Ezra has been confused with the biblical ‘Ezra; unfortunately a key word is missing in the text that would have given us the name of the codex. Many individual rabbis and scholars either wrote or had written for them codices of the Bible. One of these was Joseph b. Solomon Ibn Susan (so, not “Shoshan,” etc.), an important official and scholar in Toledo. Abraham b. Natan ha-Yarlpiy wrote (1204) that carefully corrected versions of the Megillot (“Scrolls”: Esther, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamenta­ tions, and Ecclesiastes) were written for Joseph (Sefer ha-manhiyg, f. 251). Another example is Todros b. Meir ha-Levy A b u l a f i a of Burgos, father of the renowned scholar Meir whose important work on the masorah has already been mentioned. This manu­ script was written for Todros in 1207, and is now in Paris (Zotenberg catalog no. 82); unfortunately it has not received any scholarly attention. This is not the case with another important man­ uscript done in Burgos in 1260, the so-called “Da­ mascus K eter” which because of its splendid carpet page illuminations (see A r t , J e w i s h ) has received some study. The “First Cambridge Castilian [Hebrew] Bible,” written in mid-thirteenth-century Castile, has an interesting colophon by the scribe Solomon b. Ishmael, with a table of the Christian chapter divi­ sions and Spanish names of biblical books. This was hardly done, as Narkiss thought (1982, 18-19), “for quick reference in the recurrent controversies be­ tween Jews and Christians,” since such controversies were rare in Spain and nonexistent at the time the colophon was written. Rather, it was certainly be­

93

Bible Manuscripts, Printed Editions

cause Jews were familiar with Spanish Bibles, most of which were in fact translated by Jews (see B i b l e TRANSLATION JE W ISH ), and no doubt knew also of the Christian chapter divisions. The Soria Bible (1312) is another that has re­ ceived some attention. At the end of the last century it was reported that a family in Tripoli owned the manuscript, which has an unusual order of the arrangement of the books (however, it should be noted that some other Spanish manuscripts also have different arrangements). Variants from the aforemen­ tioned Codex Hilleliy are included. This manuscript was written and signed by Shem Tov Ibn Gaon, whose brother was Joshua, illuminator of at least four biblical manuscripts, including the “First Ibn Gaon” (Tudela) Bible of 1300 (Paris, B.N. ms. Heb. 20), the “Dublin Ibn Gaon” codex of Prophets and Hagiographa (also done at Tudela in 1300), and the very richly illuminated Soria Bible. Narkiss, who has fre­ quently described the Soria Bible and the other man­ uscripts, apparently was unaware of who Shem Tov was, however (he casually dismissed him as a mere scribe). He was an important scholar, author of the commentary M igdal \oz on Maimonides, and other works. The manuscript was used by Snaith for his controversial edition of the Bible (rpt. 1962), which nonetheless relied primarily on the Lisbon, 1483 manuscript written by Samuel b. Samuel Ibn Musa (facsimile edition Jerusalem, 1988), for no apparent reason except that it is “extensively and beautifully il­ luminated.” The Soria Bible is fully described in the catalogue of David Sassoon, Ohel David, pp. 2-5; unfortunately, that collection was sold to a private collector, and the manuscript is no longer accessible. The “Serugiel Bible,” a complete Bible written in 1304 in Soria by several scribes, and which also con­ tains the commentary of “Rashi? has its name from the scribe of the books of Daniel and Ezra, Samuel b. Jacob Serugiel (the only scribe whose name is found in that Bible). This important manuscript (see Narkiss 1982, 37-38) was seen by Leon da Modena, the famous Italian rabbi, in 1628, who wrote an Ital­ ian inscription attesting to its accuracy. The “Farhi Bible,” so called because it belonged to a member of the illustrious and fascinating family of that name in Damascus in the last century, has al­ ready been mentioned. It was actually written in Rousillon (Provence, then part of Spain) by the 94

scribe Elisha (Crescas) b. Abraham Benvenist (Ben­ venist, not Benveniste, was the form of that name in Catalonia) sometime between 1366 and 1382 (see Loewinger 1970, xxv ff.). In the fourteenth century important biblical man­ uscripts began to emerge in Aragon-Catalonia. Harkavy, on a trip to Palestine in 1886, saw in a Qaraite synagogue in Jerusalem “a very old Bible” called Miqdashiyah written (obviously in Catalonia from the names in the colophon) in 1322. The “Farhi Bible,” which Harkavy also saw in Damascus, was also called Miqdashiyah, which appears to have been rather a generic term for important Bible codices written in Catalonia, just as Keter was for those produced in Castile. In 1326 Salamo (^aporta (or Sa-Porta) of Cervera had inherited from an uncle in Santa Colomoa de Queralt a Miqdashiyah (in the Catalan source Magdasia) bound in red covers and worth 12 livres, a substantial sum. In 1473 in Cervera, Cresques Adret, a physician and secretary of the Jewish community, had an ill relative who owned a valuable Bible called Magdesiha (in Catalan), which he ordered Cresques not to sell unless in the most dire circumstances. A broker had already offered the tremendous amount of 60 livres for the book. It seems obvious that these are the same manuscripts. Ginsburg (1966, 748) mentioned the Miqdashiyah as one of the codices that he had used, but it is impossi­ ble to determine if this is the same manuscript re­ ferred to here. Since it is mentioned as having be­ longed to a “Talmud Torah” society it is unlikely to have been the same. A number of manuscripts that have come to be designated as “Catalan Bibles” (leading to possible confusion with Bibles translated in Catalan, whereas these are, of course, Hebrew) were produced in the late fourteenth century. None of these (including that of 1357 now at Paris, B.N.) is of particular im­ portance; however, for the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that the “Kings Bible,” written at Solsona in 1384, was written for Isaac b. Judah of Tolosa (Spain) and not “Toulouse” (France) as Narkiss thought (1982, 110). The “First Kennicott Bible” is, of course, famous because of its illuminations by Joseph Ibn Hayyim. It was written at La Coruna in 1476 by Moses Ibn Zabara for Isaac de Braga. Ibn Zabara was the author of a work on the writing of Torah scrolls, Malekhet

Bible Manuscripts, Printed Editions

ha-sofer; which remains unpublished (Jacob Toledano [1960, 211] mentions that he saw a Bible manuscript that had been corrected in accord with the Bible written by Ibn Zabara in 1472, and that he had writ­ ten “dozens” of such manuscripts, three of which were at one time still in Morocco; yet Toledano did not mention the “Kennicott” Bible). Another fif­ teenth-century manuscript, the “Aberdeen Codex,” was edited by Cecil Roth (1958). Snaith’s previously mentioned edition of the Bible utilized also B.M. Ms. Or. 2626-8, another fifteenth-century codex. Of some interest because of its ownership is the “Abravanel Pentateuch,” written by Moses b. Jacob ha-Sefardiy Ibn Khalifa (Narkiss, p. 171 transcribed the name erroneously; cf. fig. 521 there) in 1480, un­ doubtedly in Lisbon, since the appellative Sefardiy al­ ways applied to one who had left Spain. It was owned eventually by Samuel ABRAVANEL, son of Isaac, who was born in Lisbon in 1473 and was later rabbi of Naples, 1496—1541. A very poignant manuscript (complete Bible) was that written in 1492 in Toledo only months before the Expulsion. The scribe was an otherwise unknown Abraham Khalifa (cf. above), and he wrote it for Rabbi Jacob Aboab, son of Samuel. Masoretic notes and other additions were made in Constantinople in 1497 (the manuscript is at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York). Aside from these there are very few extant fif­ teenth-century Spanish biblical manuscripts. There are, or were, two in Vienna: a complete Bible written at Valladolid in 1479 and a Pentateuch undated but described by its cataloger as fifteenth-century. There are apparently only three medieval Torah scrolls (not codices) extant in Spain, one in the museum at Tar­ ragona, and one that belonged to the Jewish commu­ nity of Vitoria, and a miniature scroll in the Museo Mares of Barcelona (most of those referred to in the Allony-Kupfer index of photocopies of manuscripts at Hebrew University are in fact modern scrolls found in Spain, not medieval). A very peculiar example is a manuscript (fourteenth or fifteenth century) of the Bible in which the entire text of Ibn Tibbon’s He­ brew translation of Maimonides s “Guide o f the Per­ plexed’ appears in very small letters at the tops and bottoms of each page (the first part of the manu­ script, Torah and Early Prophets, is at Cambridge, and the second part is at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati).

Responsa an d Other Rabbinic Sources

Rabbinical sources provide us with some interesting information about biblical scrolls and manuscripts. Abraham b. Natan ha-Yarfaiy (=of Lunel), ca. 1155-1215, went to Toledo, where he composed his important collection on customs, ha-Manhiyg. He also wrote a few responsa, one of which was ad­ dressed to the rabbis of Aragon in which he soundly rebuked them for declaring unfit Torah scrolls writ­ ten in Toledo where the parchment had been cured in dog feces (mixed with liquid colored with saffron). He stated that such scrolls were perfectly fit even for use in the Temple, and that such had always been the custom also in France and Germany. Furthermore, everywhere the ink used for writing Torah scrolls was made from vitriol, or an ink of locusts (the vernacu­ lar word he uses, which I was unable to find in any language, derives from Lat. atramentum, which is the same as vitriol). He also mentions the custom of the Jews of France who purchase ink from Christians who make it from large thorns boiled in wine and vinegar and then place it in a parchment skin to dry it. He also explains at length how the parchment for Torah scrolls was prepared in Toledo, and mentions that he had issued a prohibition when he was in Bur­ gos against writing names for God in gold letters in scrolls. He also notes that the custom in some places of reading from a codex, such as is used to teach chil­ dren, rather than a scroll is wrong and that it was per­ mitted (in case there was no scroll) in the Talmud only because at that time all books were written on scrolls. Maimonides ( Teshuvot, ed. Blau, No. 234) ruled that it is certainly permissible to recite the blessing over a scroll that is unfit (invalidated because of some defect in the writing), since the blessing is on reading and not on the scroll; a distinction that he says many Eastern scholars had not understood. He observed also that the Jews of the “West” (Spain) had read from scrolls of parchment (rather than hides as re­ quired) in the days of Ibn Megash and others and that they recited the blessing on those scrolls. None­ theless, every congregation should have a proper (hide) scroll to read from, but if not they may use even one that is unfit, but not a codex (humash), and thus ruled “Rabbi Hanokh ha-Sefardiy ’ (Hanokh b. Moses, tenth century) and the sages of Narbonne (this responsum is also found in Ibn Adret, Teshuvot 95

Bible Manuscripts, Printed Editions

ha-meyuhasot, No. 239; rightly attributed to Mai­ monides). Ibn Adret himself apparently did not know of this ruling, for he wrote that if a scroll read in the synagogue is found to be unfit and another is taken out, the person called to the reading must again recite the blessing over the second scroll “for it is an obligation to read from a proper scroll and the blessing he made on the first one was in vain” ( Teshu­ vot I. 227, repeated in 230). His colleague Asher b. Yehiel in Toledo issued the exact same ruling {Sheelot u-teshuvot 3. 8). From Germany we find some important informa­ tion from the thirteenth-century compilation of the “pietists,” known as Sefer hasidiym (see HASIDISM— GERMANY). For instance, the ruling that if someone lost a portion of a biblical codex and began to write a replacement and then found the lost portion before he had finished writing the part to replace it, he is not permitted to write anything else on the blank leaves of the unfinished segment, lest it appear that what he writes there is more important than the Bible; but this does not apply to writing the masorah at the end, or in the margins, of a Bible “for that is [like] a correction of the text” (no. 639). One who hires a scribe to write the masorah in a Bible codex must make a condition with the scribe not to make illustrations on it (often the masorah was written in micrography; see A r t ) “because we are not expert in the masorah as the earlier [people] were,” and if it is covered with illustrations it cannot be read easily. Furthermore, it should not be written in the margins since then it is not readily apparent that a correction needs to be read in the text (in fact, some manu­ scripts had the masorah in the center of the page, be­ tween two columns of the biblical text) (no. 709). There are many other statements of interest in this work. Rabbi M e I r b. BARUKH of Rothenberg was very strict in his unique ruling that a Torah scroll written by a Gentile, heretic, proselyte, slave, or one who is deaf, insane, or a minor is forbidden for use ( Teshuvot [Berlin, 1891], no. 511).

M edieval P rinted Editions

Far more attention has been given to the so-called “Rabbinical Bibles”—Bibles with commentaries—of the sixteenth century than to the first editions of Bibles or parts of the Bible. Indeed, although several

96

of the former have received modern reprint (facsim­ ile) editions, none of the latter has merited one. The first Pentateuch was printed in Guadalajara, Spain, perhaps as early as 1475 (as noted above, based on the Hilleliy codex). It included also the Scrolls and the Haftarot. Only one copy survives, in Florence. A Pentateuch with the commentary of “Rash? was published at Reggio di Calabre, Sicily (then part of Spain), in 1475. A similar example ap­ peared in Guadalajara in 1476. At the Hebrew press established by the converso (Jew converted to Chris­ tianity) Juan de Lucena at Montalban-Toledo around 1476 it is known that a Bible was printed (only frag­ ments of the production of that press survive). Some­ time after 1484 another (Jewish) Hebrew press was established at Zamora, and from the colophon of the commentary of “Rashi published there it is known that the press also printed a Pentateuch. At Hijar (in Aragon) another Hebrew press produced, among other works, an edition of the “Former Prophets” (1487) and two Pentateuch editions, one with Scrolls and Haftarot and the other (1489-1490) with the Aramaic translation of Onqelos and the commentary of “Rashi.” Meanwhile in Italy a Pentateuch, also with Onqelos and “Rashi,” was printed in Bologna in 1482, and a beautiful edition of the “Former Prophets,” with the commentary of Qimhi, was pub­ lished by the famous Soncino press in 1485, and the “Latter Prophets” published (location and date un­ known) with the same commentary. The book of Psalms (only), printed together with the commentary of Qimhi, with no indication of place (possibly Bologna) in 1477, was the second printed biblical book. The text of the Psalms has many errors. Naples was responsible for the first edi­ tions of the Hagiographa, beginning with Proverbs (i486), a second part containing all the other books except Psalms in the same year, followed by the Psalms in 1487. Part II of this edition, which com­ prises the majority of the books, is remarkable for also containing the first editions of the commentaries of Levi b. Gershon, “Rashi,” and Joseph Caro on these texts. Finally, a complete Bible was published at the meticulous Soncino press in 1488. The first printed book of any kind produced in Portugal was a Hebrew Pentateuch at the press of Faro ca. i486, established by Samuel Chacon, a Spanish Jew from an important family; the printer

Bible Commentaries, Jewish

was one Samuel Porteirah, or Porteiro (possibly Ital­ ian). It was also published with the commentary of “Rashi and targum (Aramaic translation) attributed to Onqelos (1487). The renowned press of Eliezer Toledano at Lisbon printed several works, including (1491) a Pentateuch with “Rash? and Onqelos, a splendid edition. This was followed in 1492 with editions of Isaiah and Jeremiah with the commentary of Qimhi. The final Hebrew press in Portugal was es­ tablished in Leiria in 1492 and lasted until 1496. In the first year that press published Proverbs with the Aramaic translation of Pseudo-Jonathan ( Targum Yonatari). The “Former Prophets” with the same translation and with the commentaries of Qimhi and Levi b. Gershon were published in 1494 (there are extant fragments from a Pentateuch). The “Latter Prophets” with the commentary of Qimhi was printed at Lisbon in 1492. Proverbs, with the com­ mentaries of Menahem ha-Meiri and Levi b. Ger­ shon, was printed at Leiria also in 1492, and with the commentary of David Ibn Yabya, at Lisbon in the same year. Concluding again with Italy, an improved edition of the Bible was published in Naples (1491-1493), also by the Soncino family, and in Brescia in 1495 appeared the so-called pocket Bible (because of its small size), which Hebrew text was used by Luther (to the extent that he knew Hebrew, which was very little) for his German translation. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Assaf, Simha. Meqorot ve-mehqarim be-toldot Yisrael. (Jerusalem, 1946); 182-85. Breuer, Mordecai. Keter Aram $ovah ve-ha-nusah hamequbal shel ha-miqra. (Jerusalem, 1976). Fernandez Tejero, Emilia. La tradition textual espanola de la Biblia hebrea. (Madrid, 1976); Toledo manuscript as base of the new Polyglot Bible. Finkelstein, Louis. Introduction to The Commentary o f David Kimhi [Qimhi] on Isaiah (New York, 1926; photo rpt. 1966). Ginsburg, Christian D. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition o f the Hebrew Bible. (New York, 1966; rpt. of 1894 ed.). Harkavy, Abraham. Hadashim gam yeshanim (Jerusa­ lem, 1970); p. 10Iff.

Kahle, Paul. The Cairo Genizah. (London, 1947; sec­ ond ed., Oxford, New York, 1959). Loewinger, D. S. “Prologomenon to Aptowitzer, V.” Das Schriftwort in der rabbinishchen Literatur (photo rpt. New York, 1970). Narkiss, Bezalel. Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts in the British Isles, Vol. 1 (Oxford, 1982). Penkower, Jordan [Yitzhak] S. Nusah ha-Torah beKeter Aram §ovah (Ramat-Gan, 1992). Ratzaby, Y. “Strange letters in the Torah” (in He­ brew). In Torah shelemah, ed. M. Kasher (Jerusa­ lem, 1978), Vol. 29, 72-234. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism o f the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, 1992; revision of his Biqqoret nusah ha-miqra. Wischnitzer, Mark. A History o f Jewish Crafts and Goods. (New York, 1965).

Bible Commentaries, Jewish

The Bible, of course, and particularly the Torah (Pen­ tateuch), traditionally believed to be the direct reve­ lation of God to Moses, was central to Jewish life. Every week a portion of the Torah was read in the synagogue, not only on the Sabbath but also twice during the week. Already in Palestine in the Hellenis­ tic period, however, Hebrew had been forgotten wholly or in part by a large segment of the Jewish people, and almost entirely so in the lands of the Di­ aspora. Therefore, the reading of the Torah in the original Hebrew was replaced or supplemented by readings in Greek translation. Even more was this true of the readings from the prophetic books at Sab­ bath and holiday services. In Babylon, Aramaic took the place of Greek, as its Palestinian form did also in that land at least beginning in the Herodian era (al­ though Greek was never entirely displaced, especially among the aristocracy). Following the civil war with Rome and destruc­ tion of the Temple (69-70), Aramaic became increas­ ingly the official as well as the spoken language of the Jews remaining in Palestine as well as the increased population of Jews in Babylon. During the talmudic period, various translations (Syriac as well as Aramaic and Greek) of the Bible reflect the continued deterio­ ration of knowledge of Hebrew. All translations are themselves commentaries, and these are no excep­ tion, particularly the Aramaic translations attributed 97

Bible Commentaries, Jewish

to Onkelos (of the Torah) and the so-called “Targum Jonathan” of the other books of the Bible (actually composed at a much later date, certainly after the rise of Islam, and very possibly in Palestine). These trans­ lations introduced substantial rabbinical and homi­ letic interpretations, often in complete disregard of the obvious literal meaning. Polemical a n d Homiletic Work

For medieval Jews, the difficulty of comprehending the biblical texts was further compounded by the ex­ istence of interpretation and homiletic exegesis within the Talmud itself. The extreme difficulty of the Hebrew text of much of the Bible other than the Torah itself, along with the problematic and even po­ tentially dangerous nature of some of the content (for instance, the complete lack of reference to resur­ rection or immortality in the Bible, doctrines firmly espoused by rabbinic teaching) resulted in making the Bible literally a “closed book” for most of the Jews in the early medieval period. With the Muslim expansion and conquest of the lands where the majority of the world Jewish popula­ tion resided, including Babylon and Palestine, Arabic became the lingua franca also of that population. However, much reverence attached to the sacred texts and therefore their comprehension became an in­ creasingly difficult problem. Homiletic exegesis of the Bible continued in He­ brew in the numerous midrashiym (s. midrash) pro­ duced in Palestine or Babylon in the sixth and sev­ enth centuries (e.g., Midrash Rabba on Genesis, sixth century; on Song of Songs and Ruth, seventh cen­ tury; on Ecclesiastes and Esther, later), and the later additions from the ninth to twelfth centuries (Deu­ teronomy, ca. 900; Numbers, twelfth century). To these are to be added numerous other homiletic works, such as the Tanhuma and Yelamdenu (ca. sixth century), Pesiqta de Rav Kahana (Palestine? end of seventh century), Pirqey de R. Eli‘ezer (eighth cen­ tury), Midrash Tehillim (Psalms, tenth century, Italy), and Midrash Shoher Tov (Psalms, Proverbs), several minor midrashiym on Song of Songs and other books; Tuvyah b. Eliezer (Greece, eleventh century), Leqah Tov; Midrash Bereshit Rabbatai (eleventh cen­ tury, Narbonne); and Simon Kara, Yalquf Shimoniy (thirteenth century).

98

Without exception, all of these followed the homiletic method of the Talmud, however, and be­ long more to the literature of preaching and polemic than to biblical exegesis. Exegesis Began with Qaraites

There is no doubt that the real origin of biblical exe­ gesis properly understood is to be found among the QARAITES, a sect founded by Anan (early eighth cen­ tury) in Babylon (Iraq), which owed much to similar heretical sects among the Muslims and which split with rabbinical (“normative”) Judaism in that it sought a return to the text of the Bible as the sole au­ thority for observance. This was not fundamental­ ism, however, for it quickly became evident in Qaraite writings that there was little question of a lit­ eral interpretation of the biblical text, apart from the actual observance of commandments. Anan wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch, and while these early works were written in Judeo-Arabic, the next generation of Qaraite authorities wrote also in He­ brew. Benjamin al-Nahawendi (ca. 800-830) wrote commentaries on the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Daniel, and the five “scrolls” (Song of Songs, Ruth, Esther, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes). Very important was Daniel al-QumasI (or Qumlsl), who lived in Palestine also in the early ninth century. His commentaries, written in Hebrew, make comparative references to words as found throughout the Bible and are very important for the history of the development of the Hebrew language. Salmun b. Y e ru lia m (885-960) lived in Egypt, where he composed (Judeo-Arabic) commentaries on Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Psalms (Ps. 45.1 and 5 he interprets as referring to the messiah). Sahl b. Masliali (910-950) of Jerusalem was a grammarian and lexicographer whose com­ mentary on the Pentateuch is mentioned disparag­ ingly by Ibn ‘E z r a . Hazan b. Mashiah, a contempo­ rary of Sa ‘ADYAH G a o n (early tenth century) is also mentioned by Ibn ‘Ezra. Yeshua‘ b. Judah (Abu’lFaraj Furqan) ibn Assad (1050) also commented on the Pentateuch. Jacob al-Qirqisanl (early tenth century), a very important Qaraite scholar whose history of the “Rabbanites” is well known, also composed an extensive commentary on the Pentateuch. Much later came the work of Aaron b. Joseph of Constantinople

Bible Commentaries, Jewish

(1270-1300), who wrote a commentary on the Pen­ tateuch and the Prophets. Without doubt the most important of the Qaraite commentators were Abu’l-Faraj Harun ibn al-Faraj (Aaron b. Yeshua) of Jerusalem (late ninth century), whose commentary on the Pentateuch is frequently cited by Ibn ‘Ezra and others, and especially Yafet (often erroneously “Yefet”) b. All, who lived almost certainly in the eleventh century (Palestine), and not earlier as often believed. His Judeo-Arabic commen­ taries on many books of the Bible, several of which have been published, indicate that he was truly one of the most significant of the Jewish commentators. The fact that Ibn ‘Ezra, although strongly opposed to the Qaraites in general, continually cites these com­ mentaries is indicative also of their importance. The role of the Qaraites in the development of the study of H e b r e w g r a m m a r and lexicography must also be emphasized, for in their quest to correctly un­ derstand the text of the Bible they realized the im­ portance of understanding Hebrew grammar, by then a nearly forgotten science. It is significant that such Qaraite commentators as Abu’l-Faraj Harun ibn al-Faraj and Sahl b. Masliah were also Hebrew grammarians. Exegesis by Rabbanite Jews

Among the Rabbanite Jews, the first known attempt at biblical exegesis was that of Saadyah Gaon (882-942), born in Egypt and the only non-Babylon­ ian to be appointed to the office of gaon, owning principally to his anti-Qaraite writings. Saadyah composed commentaries (Judeo-Arabic) on the Pen­ tateuch (of which only part survives), Isaiah, the scrolls, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Daniel (possibly also the “minor prophets”). He also translated (JudeoArabic) the entire Pentateuch, Isaiah, Proverbs, and Job. In spite of his hostility to the Qaraites, and a bit­ ter literary battle that ensued with them, he recog­ nized their superiority in comprehension of the He­ brew text and the study of Hebrew grammar. In turn, his own commentary on Genesis was copied by Jacob al-Qirqisanl, and parts of it were also used by Yafet b. All. Ibn ‘Ezra, who conferred upon Saadyah the title “the primary spokesman in all things,” nevertheless harshly criticized his interpretations throughout his

own biblical commentaries. Perhaps his chief impor­ tance today remains his Arabic translations of difficult words, which sometimes shed light on the possibly correct meaning. Two contemporary Hebrew grammarians (JudeoArabic) were Judah Ibn Quraysh and Dunash b. Tamim. The former stressed the importance of Ara­ maic and the Targumim for comprehension of bibli­ cal texts, while the latter emphasized Arabic. A successor to Saadyah, both in position and ide­ ology, was Samuel b. Hofni (d. 1013). His JudeoArabic commentary on the Torah was strongly influ­ enced by that of Saadyah. Breakthrough: Study o f Hebrew

Meanwhile, in Muslim Spain (al-Andalus) the ground was being prepared for the scientific investi­ gation of Hebrew grammar, which was essential for the proper understanding and interpretation of the Bible. In the tenth century, Menahem b. Saruq, sec­ retary to the Jewish official Hasdai b. Shaprut, com­ posed the first known biblical dictionary, in Hebrew CMalpberet). This work, for all of its influence later on the commentaries of “Rashi? was premature and contained serious errors. Dunash b. Labrat, a poet, and his students immediately criticized the work, and students of Menahem came to its defense. From this important controversy came the essential dis­ covery, by Judah Hayyug, of the triliteral root system of the Hebrew language, and an accurate investiga­ tion of Hebrew grammar was now possible. This cul­ minated in the important volumes (again in JudeoArabic) of Jonah Ibn Janah. In fact, the writings of all of these, and particularly of Ibn Janah, themselves offer important insights into the exegesis of biblical texts. Moses Ibn Chicatilla (which is the correct form of his name), d. ca. 1050—1080, may have been a stu­ dent of Ibn Janah. He was the author of JudeoArabic commentaries on Isaiah, the prophets (all), Job, the Psalms, and perhaps other books of the Bible. As with some of his predecessors, he was not reluctant to cite the commentaries of Qaraite author­ ities. In spite of Ibn ‘Ezra’s frequently harsh attacks on him, his commentaries are significant. He was the first to determine the late date of many of the Psalms,

99

Bible Commentaries, Jewish

and of chapters 40-66 of Isaiah (bold conclusions for any medieval exegete). Judah Ibn Bilam (not “Balam” as almost always written), also eleventh century, was a more tradi­ tional commentator. He was the author of commen­ taries on most of the Pentateuch (perhaps all) and on Jeremiah, and portions are extant on Job and Daniel, Joshua, Judges, and other books. His commentary on Isaiah, like that of Ibn ‘Ezra, was almost entirely de­ rived without credit from that of Ibn Chicatilla. Isaac Ibn Yashush (Ibn Qastar), an important physician, wrote a commentary known from its citation by Ibn ‘Ezra, who harshly condemned it and its author. Ibn Yashush recognized that portions of the Pentateuch (e.g., Gen. 36.31-43) could not have been written by Moses; but Ibn ‘Ezra also hinted at the non­ Mosaic nature of portions of the Pentateuch. In his commentary on Daniel (10.17), Ibn ‘Ezra also dis­ paragingly cites “the son of a potter,” referring to Ibn al-Fakhkhar, but which member of that distin­ guished Jewish family of Spain is unknown. Samuel Ibn Naghrillah (993-1056)—a student of Hayyuj, prime minister of the Muslim kingdom of Granada and commander of its army, the first major Hebrew poet, and a legal authority—clearly composed a (lost) commentary on much of the Bible. This is evident from the frequent citations in commentaries of Ibn Bilam, Ibn ‘Ezra, and authori­ ties as far as Provence and France. His son and suc­ cessor as prime minister, Yusuf, taught his fathers biblical interpretations in his own yeshivah in Granada. Solomon IBN GABIROL, the renowned philosopher and Hebrew poet, also is known to have written a biblical commentary, which is cited in Ibn ‘Ezra, Qimhi, and others (excerpts have been edited). Isaac Ibn Ghiyath, a student of Samuel Ibn Naghrillah and an important talmudic scholar and poet, made a Judeo-Arabic translation of Ecclesiastes and wrote a commentary on it (published). The first known commentary composed by any European Jew (late tenth century) and the earliest commentary anywhere written in rabbinical (talmu­ dic) Hebrew, as well as the first example of a work written in Hebrew in Spain, was a commentary on Psalms by Joseph Ibn Abitur. He may also have com­ posed commentaries on other books of the Bible.

100

France a n d Germany

The most famous, especially to non-Jewish scholars, of the medieval Jewish exegetes is certainly “Rashi ”— Rabbi Solomon b. Isaac, or Yishaqi (ca. 1040-1105), born in TROYES (Champagne). In addition to his renowned commentary on the Talmud (most trac­ tates), he composed commentaries on most of the books of the Bible (ending, apparently, with Job 40.27, although a statement by his grandson Solomon b. Meir would seem to indicate that “Rashi did not die while at work on his commentaries). “Rash? was a legal authority of the first rank, head of a yeshivah that attracted students from afar, and his undisputed knowledge of the most difficult tal­ mudic texts guaranteed an authority second to none to his biblical commentaries, particularly those on the Pentateuch. To this very day, “Orthodox” Jews rigorously adhere to the obligation of studying the weekly Torah portion with this commentary. His in­ fluence on medieval Christian exegesis has been thor­ oughly investigated more than once. Yet, does he deserve the great reputation he has ac­ quired? Certain it is that because of the serious de­ cline in knowledge of Hebrew among the Jews of the lands of western and middle Europe, his commen­ taries gave access to what otherwise would have been a closed book to generations of Jews. And although he had no knowledge of Arabic, and relied on the often erroneous views of Menahem b. Saruq or Dunash Ibn Labrat, his own grammatical explana­ tions are not without value. Yet the claim most fre­ quently made for his commentary, that he offered the “simple” explanation of a text (peshai), even when re­ stricted to the talmudic understanding that a biblical text can never be wholly removed from its plain meaning, was most often followed by him in the breach rather than in reality. Already Ibn ‘Ezra rightly said of him that his “p eshat”vras more often “midrash”(homiletic interpretation). (A similar criti­ cism has been applied by a modern scholar to the commentary of “Rashi? grandson Solomon b. Meir.) The fact remains that today, at least for the secular scholar, “Rashi,T commentaries are of interest pri­ marily for their oft-studied French glosses and for their frequent references to contemporary customs, not only of Jews but also of non-Jews, only some of which have been adequately cataloged. The enor­

Bible Commentaries, Jewish

German Old Testament. Fourteenth century. Copyright © The Jewish M u­ seum of New York/Art Resource, NY.

mous popularity of Rashi’s commentary, even in Spain, is attested by the fact that the first known printed Hebrew book was the text of his Torah com­ mentary (Soncino, Italy, 1475; Spain, 1476). Joseph Qara was another important exegete of roughly the same period. If anything, he was even more devoted to the “simple” explanation (not to say literal) of the text than “Rashi . His commentaries also cite those of his uncle, Menahem b. Helbo. “Rashi had only daughters, one of whom married Meir b. Samuel, and all four of their sons were im­ portant scholars, including Samuel ( “Rashbam”), who composed a biblical commentary only some­ what less popular than that of “Rash? himself. An­ other important exegete was Samuels student Joseph

Bekhor Shor, who also studied with Samuels more famous brother, Jacob ( “Rabbenu Tam”), and com­ posed a commentary at least on the Pentateuch. This, too, is important for its French glosses. Finally, in the same period (twelfth century), was Eliezer of Beaugency. Mention should also be made of the collec­ tions of commentaries attributed to the “Tosafists”— students of Rashi and of Jacob b. Meir. (Authentic is the commentary of Isaiah di Trani on Psalms, the Torah, the scrolls, Prophets, and other writings). From Germany itself very little survives, other than some exegetical remarks to be found in the re­ sponsa of Meir of Rothenburg and some other rab­ bis, or in works of the Ashkenaz I^asidim (see Hasid im

, Ge

r ma n y

).

101

Bible Commentaries, Jewish

Other Lands

In North Africa, other than the previously men­ tioned scholars, Isaac Israeli is presumed to have written a two-volume commentary only on chapter 1 of Genesis (according to a reference in the commen­ tary of Ibn £Ezra). Similarly, Nissim b. Jacob Ibn Shahin of Qayrawan composed a commentary on the Pentateuch; I^efes b. Yasliah wrote at least on Exo­ dus, Leviticus, and Numbers (all published); and Samuel Masnut of Aleppo wrote on Job. Abraham Ibn \Ezra

All of the commentators hitherto mentioned fade into insignificance when compared with the work of the greatest biblical commentator certainly of the Middle Ages, perhaps of all time, Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra. Born in Tudela (then Muslim Spain), he spent much of his life wandering through various lands, includ­ ing Italy and Provence, where he composed most of his commentaries. At the end of his life he returned to his native Spain, where he died in 1165. In spite of considerable scholarship devoted to Ibn ‘Ezra, many erroneous notions exist. For example, he certainly did compose commentaries on every book of the Bible. This can be established not only from his own words, but from later citations. The published text of the commentary on Proverbs is, however, not his but that of Moses Qimhi. Nevertheless, some fragments of the actual commentary are extant. It had been suggested by an important scholar of the last century that the “long” recension of the com­ mentary on Exodus was written not by Ibn ‘Ezra, but rather by one of his students, and this view was accepted by Friedlaender in his important Essays (1877). However, it was only copied by his student, Joseph of Moudeville (or Morrville) in Normandy. Ibn ‘Ezra also composed commentaries on all of the prophets; that on Isaiah has received a more or less critical edition and English translation. An at­ tempt to reconstruct the lost texts of commentaries on the “early prophets” (sic; Joshua, Samuel, Judges, and I Kings) was made by Ludwig Levy in 1903. Ibn ‘Ezra often made two recensions of his com­ mentaries, a “long” and a “short” one. These are of great significance, meriting always careful study. Un­ fortunately, the texts are often to be found only in relatively rare journals, and there is a great need to bring together the carefully edited texts of all these 102

commentaries. A so-called critical edition (actually, lacking some manuscripts) of his commentaries on the “minor” prophets has recently appeared. Of particular interest are his introductions, espe­ cially the general introduction to the Pentateuch, which contains important analyses of the different categories of biblical exegesis prior to and contempo­ rary with his own. Equally interesting are the “digressions,” really small treatises, scattered throughout his commen­ taries, on such subjects as creation, the names of God, the Jewish calendar, and variants in the versions of the Decalogue, cosmology, and ecology. As an im­ portant scientist and philosopher, his observations on these and other matters throughout his commen­ taries are of interest. Though one cannot expect a modern text-critical approach in a medieval exegete, a healthy sense of skepticism pervades Ibn ‘Ezra’s commentaries. He apparently suspected, quite rightly, the authenticity of the Targumiym of Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan, and was extremely critical of the interpretations of Saadyah, anti-rationalists, and anyone who lacked his own profound understanding of Hebrew. In one of his books he states boldly that if one finds in the writings of the GEONIM any explanation that does not fit intuitively or logically it is not to be accepted without proof, “and so we must do with the Talmud, the Mishnah, and scriptures, both the ‘writings’ and the Torah.” On Deut. 1.2 he provides a cryptic list of the opening words of certain passages in the Torah (all of which could easily be identified, of course) as proof that these could not have been written in the period of Moses. Nevertheless, this did not prevent him from attacking the suggestion of Isaac Ibn Yashush (Qastar) that Gen. 36.31 was written in the time of Jehosaphat (he said of him: “And so his name is called Yisfraq; all who hear this shall laugh \yi$ahaq\ at him, and his book is worthy of being burned”). Ibn ‘Ezra’s knowledge of Arabic, his native lan­ guage, stood him in good stead in the explication of difficult passages. His commentaries also are of value for the information they provide about contempo­ rary customs and ideas. Even in his own time, they were, without doubt, accepted as the most impor­ tant, at least by the communities of Spain and Provence, and numerous supercommentaries were

Bible Commentaries, Jewish

composed on them in the medieval and later peri­ ods. Some of the most important of these (pub­ lished) are those of the Provencal scholar Joseph Bonfils ( “Tov \Elem”), and the fourteenth-century Spaniards Samuel (Ibn) Motot and Samuel Zarza. (Only the latter has been the subject of serious study.) The Qimhis an d Others

In Provence lived the Qimhi family and indeed Ibn ‘Ezra visited Joseph Qimhi and referred also to his commentaries. Josephs sons David and Moses, the au­ thor of the commentary on Proverbs published under Ibn ‘Ezras name, were the most important scholars in the family. However, Joseph is also known to have written some commentaries, of which little has sur­ vived (those on Job and Proverbs are published). Moses, the oldest son, wrote commentaries on Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Proverbs. David has been cred­ ited with writing a commentary on Job, but what has been published as this is merely excerpted from his well-known grammatical books. However, he did comment on most of the other books of the Bible, and particularly of interest are the harsh anti-Christian polemical statements found in his commentary on Psalms and elsewhere. A student of Joseph Qimhi, Menahem b. Shimon of Posquieres, wrote commen­ taries on Jeremiah and Ezekiel (frequently published). M aimonides

Most medieval writers referred to the Bible in their works, and in some cases it has been possible to ex­ cerpt sufficient comments to publish them as “com­ mentaries.” In this regard, Maimonides deserves mention because much of his Guide o f the Perplexed is devoted to explication of biblical passages and terms, and some people have written on his role as “ex­ egete.” What is not generally known is that he is said to have written a commentary on the Pentateuch (so Bahya b. Asher, see below, who adds that it did not “arrive” in Spain). However, it appears unlikely that Maimonides wrote such a work, given that no one else mentions it (including Ibn ‘A k n i n , who surely would have known of it had it existed). Christian Spain

To return to Spain, this time the Christian lands, the first known exegete was Moses b. Nahman (NAH­

1194-1270) of B a r c e l o n a . Most famous is his commentary on the Pentateuch (often pub­ lished, and with English translation), but he also wrote on the “major prophets” (unfortunately, the modern editor of his writings, Chavel, ignored years of scholarship and so wrongly attributed to Nah­ manides commentaries long known to have been written by others). Though not devoid of merit, his commentaries were strongly influenced by the Q a b BALAH, and therefore a pronounced mystical-allegori­ cal interpretation is to be found. Other qabbalistic commentaries include those on Song of Songs by ‘Ezra of Gerona and the extensive commentary on the Pentateuch that Bahya b. Asher of Zaragoza wrote in 1291. Bahya was a student of the renowned rabbi of Zaragoza Solomon Ibn ADRET, whom he cites frequently. Bahya’s commentaries are an important source for certain prevalent notions, as well as for interesting polemical material. In truth, however, his commentary is neither “qabbalistic” nor “philosophical,” but rather endeavors to summarize traditional rabbinical teachings and interpretations. His commentaries were popular in medieval Spain, but their popularity was even greater in later cen­ turies. A commentary on Nahmanides’ commentary on the Torah, attributed to his student Meir Ibn Sahulah of Guadalajara, is actually almost certainly the work of Joshua Ibn Shuavb of Tudela, a student of Ibn Adret and author of an important collection of ser­ mons. A number of other relatively minor commen­ taries are the work of various other exegetes of this period. MANIDES,

Philosophical Commentaries

Levi b. Gerson (Gersonides) of Provence (1288­ 1344) stands out (after Maimonides, of course) as the foremost philosophical exponent of the Bible, with complex and lengthy commentaries on the Penta­ teuch, the early prophets, and other books. His com­ mentary on Proverbs, however, is an attempt at “sim­ ple” interpretation, and therefore has frequently been published in Hebrew Bibles with commentaries. A special case is Jospeh Ibn ‘A k n i n (twelfth cen­ tury) of Spain, a contemporary of Maimonides who frequently is confused with the latter’s student, Joseph Ibn Shimon of Ceuta. Ibn ‘Aknin knew Mai103

Bible Commentaries, Jewish

monides’s work and was an ardent admirer. Of im­ portance is his Judeo-Arabic commentary on Song of Songs (published recently with a not always accurate Hebrew translation) in which he comments on the text first in accord with traditional rabbinical homily, and secondly according to his own (generally philo­ sophical) interpretation. Menahem ha-Meiri (1249-1306), also of Pro­ vence, provided a philosophical interpretation, in part, to his commentary on Proverbs; more tradi­ tional is his commentary on Psalms. Moses Ibn Tibbon, son of the famous translator Samuel, also pro­ vided philosophical exposition to his commentary on Song of Songs, and we know of a philosophical com­ mentary on the entire Pentateuch by Nissim b. Moses of Marseille (early fourteenth century). Of considerable interest are the commentaries, ra­ tionalistic, at least, if not actually “philosophical,” of Joseph Caspi of Argentieres (born ca. 1280-1290, date of death uncertain), who lived also in VALENCIA and Catalonia. Of particular importance is his com­ mentary on Proverbs. A s h e r b. Y e h i e l , who came from Germany to serve as rabbi of Toledo (1305), has been credited with writing a very popular commentary on the Pen­ tateuch, and his son Jacob also wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch. Joseph Ibn Nahmias (fl. 1300-1330) of Toledo, a student of Asher b. Yehiel, was the author of very in­ teresting commentaries on Proverbs, Esther, and Jere­ miah (these have survived; possibly he wrote others). Finally, in the fifteenth century we have such commentaries as Joel Ibn Shuavb on Lamentations; Isaac Arama on the scrolls; and Meir Arama on Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Song of Songs; and Isaac Aboab on the Pentateuch. Mention should also be made of the little commentary on the Pentateuch by Isaac Caro, uncle of the famous author of the Shullpan 'Arukh (code of Jewish law). Though not itself of par­ ticular importance, it is interesting as an example of one of the last such works written by a Spanish rabbi (and, incidentally, government official). Isaac ABRA­ VANEL, not a rabbi but a very important official of Fernando and Isabel, may have begun at least some of his biblical commentaries while he was yet in Spain before the Expulsion, although he himself states that he wrote all of his works only afterward, in Italy.

104

Fourfold Interpretation

The statement has been made (Scholem) that the fa­ mous “fourfold” classification of biblical interpreta­ tion, known by its acronym Pardes (peshat>rernes, derash, sod) first appeared in the Zohar and other writings of Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century in Spain, as well as in Bahya b. Asher, and others. Nevertheless, this is apparently not correct, for al­ ready St. Epifanius (315-403), bishop of Constan­ tinople and opponent of Origen, refers to this Jewish fourfold interpretation. In fact, the Talmud (Hagigah 14b) would already seem to refer to this. Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra also discussed this fourfold in­ terpretation, without, however, the use of the acronym. In addition to Ibn ‘Ezras very important dis­ cussion of the various methods of biblical interpreta­ tion, previously mentioned, the poet MOSES Ib n ‘E z r a ( h ) — no relation—also provides some interest­ ing insights in his work on poetics, as does Bahya Ibn Paqudah (ca. 1080) in his ethical work Duties o f the Heart (Judeo-Arabic, with medieval Hebrew transla­ tion, and now available in English translation). To conclude, the Bible obviously was central to medieval Jewish culture. Vast differences in interpre­ tative approach, as well as basic comprehension of the text, existed between early medieval French and Andalusian exegetes, and these paths continued to diverge with respect to the later medieval period (when, indeed, Bible exegesis virtually ceased other than in Provence and Spain). Qabbalistic influences threatened a temporary setback, but what survived fi­ nally in Spain was the rationalistic and text-determi­ native approach. NORMAN ROTH BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Editions of commentaries are omitted, as are the nu­ merous articles and books in Hebrew.) Bacher, Wilhelm. Die jiidische Bibelexegesis (Trier, 1892). ---------. “Die Bibelexegese.” In Die jiidische Littera tu rll (Geschichte der rabbinischen Litteratur), ed. J. Winter and A. Wiinsche, (Berlin, 1897), 239-339. Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History o f the Jews Vol. 6(1958): 235-325.

Bible Translations, Jewish

Friedlaender, M. Essays on the Writings o f Abraham Ibn Ezra (London, 1877). Magne, Saebo, ed. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament; the History o f Its Interpretation. Vol. I, Part 2; The Middle Ages (Gottingen, 2000); has important ar­ ticles on Jewish commentaries. Mann, J. “Early Karaite Bible Commentaries.” J.Q.R. (n.s.) 12 (1921): 298-527. Roth, Norman. “Seeing the Bible through a Poets Eyes: Some Difficult Biblical Words Interpreted by Moses Ibn Ezra.” Hebrew Studies 23 (1982): 111-14. Ruiz Gonzalez, Gregorio. Comentarios hebreos medievales al libro de Amos. (Translations and notes; Rashi, Eliezer of Beaugency, Ibn ‘Ezra, D. Qimhi, Caspi.) (Madrid, 1987). Saenz-Badillos, A., ed. Tesubot de Dunas ben Labrat. (Granada, 1980), with Spanish translation. ---------. Menahem ben Saruq, Mahberet. (Granada, 1986), with Spanish translation. Saperstein, Marc. “Jewish typological exegesis after Nahmanides,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 1 (1993— 1994): 158-170. Touitou, E. “La Renassiance du 12e siecle et l’exegese biblique de Rashbam.” Archives ju ives 20 (1984): 3-12.

Bible Translations, Jewish

Translations of the Bible, in whole or in part, go back at least to the Hellenistic period, to the Greek version known as the Septuagint (although later heavily in­ terpolated by Christians). After this were other trans­ lations (Syriac, the Peshitta), including a revision of the Greek by one Aqilas, of whom little is yet known, Aramaic translations of the Torah by Onkelos, and the so-called Targum Yonatan (Pseudo-Jonathan), ac­ tually a Palestinian translation that was adopted as authoritative in Babylon in the talmudic era. There were also Aramaic translations of the rest of the books of the Bible (the actual Targum Yonatan., and the Palestinian translation represented by the Vatican Neofiti manuscript found and published by A. Diez Macho [Madrid-Barcelona, 1968-1979], and several volumes since then). The best brief discussion of all this remains George Foote Moore’s Judaism (Cam­ bridge, Mass., 1927 and numerous reprints) I, 101

ff., 174 ff.; Philip Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Trans­ lations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Martin Jan Mulder, ed. Mikra (Assen, etc., 1988), 217 ff. is less informa­ tive but has some updated bibliography. Spanish scholars have also recently edited several volumes of other Aramaic translations, but these must be used with caution as they are of uneven editorial quality. The custom of reading the weekly portion of the Torah together with the Aramaic translation re­ mained in effect throughout the early medieval pe­ riod, until it was replaced in most communities by the reading of the commentary of “RASHl”. Unno­ ticed so far by all who have written about this is the geonic responsum in reply to a question raised about their ruling that the Torah should be read with “our targum ’ (Onkelos; cf. Qiddushin 49a for the expres­ sion), and about the targum of Palestine, to which the reply was, “We do not know who said [wrote] this targum, and we do not even know [the text] nor have we heard but a little about it.” He continues at length to explain the problem of, in fact a prohibi­ tion against, translating the Torah into any language other than the established targum: namely, that many biblical passages permit various interpretations, and selecting one over other possibilities would result in an incorrect or incomplete understanding of the meaning. Thus, “to translate the Torah from lan­ guage to language, except for our targum which is heard from [authorized by] the prophets, and to say this is a translation of the Torah is not proper.” It would appear from this that the gaon perhaps re­ ferred not to Onkelos but to “Pseudo-Jonathan,” which he may have believed was actually by Yonatan (see Megillah 3a, which attributes prophetic author­ ity to that translation, but only the translation of the prophets). On the other hand, Ezra is said to have authorized the reading of the Torah in transla­ tion in synagogues, and it may be generally that au­ thorization to which he refers as “the prophets” (text of the responsum in Teshuvot ha-geoniym 1956, 124­ 26). Nevertheless, in the later medieval period a different understanding developed, as recorded in the thirteenth-century Shiboley ha-leqet (no. 78) of Zedekiah b. Abraham of Italy, in the name of his teacher and other authorities, that the obligation of translating the Torah reading in the synagogue is so that women and ignorant people may understand,

105

Bible Translations, Jewish

and therefore the local vernacular has replaced Ara­ maic for this purpose. Translations into Arabic

As noted elsewhere (e.g., LANGUAGES), after the con­ quest by the Muslims of the former Persian Empire, including what the Jews continued to call “Babylon” (Iraq, as it was renamed by the Muslims), Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa—the lands encompassing the majority of the Jews of the world—Arabic be­ came the written and spoken language of those Jews. In 711, nearly the whole of the Iberian Peninsula was added to the conquered nations. Hebrew was used al­ most entirely for liturgical purposes alone and was nearly forgotten except by the scholars. It soon be­ came necessary to have Arabic translations of the Bible for study, and perhaps even to replace the read­ ing of the scriptures in Greek, which had been the practice in many of the synagogues. Nevertheless, the earliest known Arabic translation of the Bible by a Jew was that of SaAdyah GAON (tenth century). In Muslim Spain, Juan, a Christian bishop of Seville, made the earliest Arabic translation (ca. 724), but this was certainly from the so-called Vulgate, or Latin version, as were also some later Christian Arabic translations. There were also some Muslim Arabic translations, or excerpts, chiefly from the Septuagint and the Peshifta (later medieval Arabic translations by Muslim authors do not concern us here). In addi­ tion to his translation, Saadyah also made a com­ mentary on most of Genesis and on several other books of the Bible (see B ib le COMMENTARIES, JEW­ ISH). The textual transmission of Saadyahs transla­ tion, as well as of his commentaries, is problematic, and much work remains to be done. Derenbourg’s edition (Paris, 1893) is faulty and based on limited and inaccurate sources (see Kahle 1959, 54-55; Moses Zucker, Al targum RS”G le-Torah [New York, 1959], while important on some subjects, deals with everything except the targum, or Arabic translation, which only an expert in medieval Jewish Arabic texts is qualified to discuss). There are other editions of his translations and commentaries on Psalms and, re­ cently, on Job. QARAITE scholars, who of course had a particular interest in the biblical text, also made some Arabic translations, for example, that of Yeshuah b. Yehudah Abu’l Faraj Furqan Ibn Asad in the eleventh cen­ 106

tury (extant in manuscripts; see Steinschneider 1902, 91-92). Hefes al-Qufi> almost certainly a Jewish author, about whom little is known, may have made an Ara­ bic poetic version of Psalms (see IBN GABIROL section on Ethics: Sources for details). In general, however, it appears that Jews in Arabic­ speaking lands, perhaps heeding the aforementioned geonic decision, refrained from translating the Bible or any part of it into Arabic. Certainly a factor in this reticence was the desire to keep the Bible out of the hands of Muslim polemicists, who in any case accused the Jews of “forgeries” and misrepresentations. Judeo-Persian an d Vernacular Versions

Apparently the oldest known “Judeo-Persian” (Per­ sian written in Hebrew characters) manuscript of a translation of the Torah dates only to 1319, and other such manuscripts also are from the late thir­ teenth or fourteenth century (Fischel, 827). This is somewhat surprising, for the “nationalist” revival of the Persian language in the ninth century might be expected to have resulted in a similar Jewish interest in translating the essential source of their culture; however, again the previously mentioned geonic rul­ ing certainly weighed heavily in what was part of “Babylon” as far as the Jews were concerned. Accord­ ing to Fischel, these early translations of the Bible show a devotion to traditional rabbinical exegesis (every translation being, as so often observed, a “commentary”), as well as to that of such European scholars as “Ra s h i , ” Ib n ‘E z r a , and Qimhi. Christian Spain saw the emergence of the first Eu­ ropean vernacular, evidences of which date at least from the early eleventh century (probably earlier). This coincided also with the beginning of the Christ­ ian “Reconquest” of territory occupied by the Mus­ lims, in which there was a significant Jewish pop­ ulation. The conquest and subsequent Christian settlement in the chief cities of ANDALUCIA was not completed, however, until the mid-thirteenth cen­ tury in the reign of ALFONSO X. The “learned” king (el Sabio) displayed a strong interest in science, phi­ losophy, and literature and surrounded himself with many Jewish scholars and translators. He himself possessed a Hebrew Bible (although, unlike his rela­ tive FREDERICK II, he was unable to read either Ara­ bic or Hebrew), and may have ordered the transla­

Bible Translations, Jewish

tion of the Bible into Spanish (it is known only that he ordered such a translation from Latin in 1260). The General estoria (world history) composed for him states that “the Arabs have their Bible, translated from Hebrew, as we do . . . and also have their com­ mentaries on it and adduce their proofs from the teachings of Moses in the Bible “(I, iv, ch. 6), but this probably is a confused reference to the Quran rather than to an Arabic translation of the Hebrew Bible. Evidence of Jewish vernacular biblical texts dates at least to the fourteenth century, in the rabbinic dis­ cussions about the reading of the Megillah (Esther) in the vernacular in order that women should under­ stand it; these discussions were not theoretical but refer to actual written translations. The earliest Castilian translation of the Bible, together with the Hebrew text, was done by Almerich (or Aimerich), archdeacon of Antioch, for Raimundo, archbishop of Toledo in the twelfth century (edited by Moshe Lazar as La fazienda de ultra mar in 1962, and see Lazar, pp. 271-72). The translator surely must have had a Jewish collaborator. Jewish Translations into Spanish

Jewish translations of the Bible, in whole or in part, began to appear in the thirteenth century. The ma­ jority of the manuscripts are from the late fourteenth or fifteenth centuries, however. These manuscripts, which also were among the first complete written ex­ amples of Spanish, lay dormant in libraries for cen­ turies until their discovery, one by one, in modern times. This fact is all the more astonishing because many are to be found in the famous Escorial Library, catalogued and frequently visited by scholars from around the world. Since the discovery and publica­ tion of the first of these, a Pentateuch (1927), several other complete Bibles have been discovered and pub­ lished. Indeed, these manuscripts have captured the attention of scholars in France and the United States, and especially in Spain, although little or no interest in Israel aside from a few reviews. Spain leads the world in biblical scholarship, and many of the fore­ most Spanish biblical scholars have devoted study and editorial work to these important manuscripts. There are four basic groups of the Escorial manu­ scripts: “pre-Alfonsine” (I-i-6; I-i-8; I-i-2), “Alfonsine” (employed in the aforementioned General estorid), “J udio-Cristiano” (i.e., by Jews for Christian

readers; I-i-4; I-i-5; I-i-7), and “J udio” (by Jews for Jewish readers; I-i-3; J-ii-19). One of these manuscripts, Escorial I-i-3 (ed. Lazar as Biblia Ladinada), is supposed to be the mothertext of all Jewish Spanish versions up to the famed Sefardic (Ladino) Bible published in Ferrara in 1553; however, in its present form it dates from the fif­ teenth century and once belonged (as did many of the manuscripts) to Queen Isabella and then to Philip II. The “peculiar” order of the books, which while corresponding to the Hebrew canon (with the addition of the first two books of Maccabees, typical of all Spanish Bibles) does not correspond to the order found in Hebrew Bibles, is not unusual even for some Hebrew biblical manuscripts. The language of all the medieval translations, it should be pointed out, is standard late medieval Castilian (Lazar has re­ ferred to these Bibles as ladinado, a somewhat con­ fusing term not defined, which is proper in that it re­ lates to the medieval Arabic term for “Romance,” thus, translated into Romance, but misleading if it suggests “Ladino,” which is something else entirely, Spanish written in Hebrew characters). Llamas correctly noted that the division of the chapters of the Pentateuch correspond with the parashiyot, or order of readings in the synagogue, and not with chapter divisions of the Christian Bible (see Lazars sound criticism, p. xii, of erroneous state­ ments of others on the cycle of readings in the medieval synagogue). Llamas is also correct that a translation that follows the traditional synagogue arrangement of readings could not have been made for conversos (converts to Christianity; see CONVER­ SION BY J e w s ). Somewhat controversial, however, is his conclusion, contrary to his above classification of Escorial manuscripts in an earlier article, that this is a copy of an earlier Jewish translation made for Chris­ tians. This is based on the illuminations of the manu­ script (it is, however, incorrect that Jews were permit­ ted to illustrate only the Haggadah and the scroll of Esther!), which according to him contain some stereotypical images of Jews (this is also incorrect; see the illuminations reproduced at the end of Vol. 1 of Lazars edition). In any case, these illuminations may have been added to the manuscript when it came into Christian possession, possibly even after the Ex­ pulsion of 1492. The only argument to be considered seriously is the inclusion of Maccabees, not found in 107

Bible Translations, Jewish

the Jewish canon; but that could possibly be ex­ plained on other grounds. As Llamas himself noted, the use of “poetic” division of certain biblical texts follows the Hebrew text, and the name of God is Adonay rather than Christian Senor; also, proper names follow the Hebrew and not the Christian spelling. Surely all of this would have been changed, even in a copy from an earlier Jewish manuscript, if this were written for a Christian patron. Even more astonishing is Lazar s claim that “none of the surviv­ ing biblical translations in Spanish was intended for a Jewish readership” (p. xiii), a statement that is completely incorrect, and self-evidently so from the readings in the texts of some of the manuscripts themselves. Ms. I-ii-19 (published) also dates from the fif­ teenth century, but may be a copy of an earlier man­ uscript. It clearly was made by a Jewish scribe for Jewish readers. The manuscript as it is today is in­ complete, consisting of the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges (in one book), Samuel, and Kings (in one book). A separate partial volume contains the later prophets and “writings” (Ketuvim). Maccabees is not included, but may have been lost. As in the previous manuscript, the name of God is translated as Adonay. Gen. 49.8-12 contains phrases taken from the Ara­ maic Targum. There are other interesting differences in manuscripts translated by Jews for Christian, as contrasted with Jewish, patrons. For example, Gen. 49.10 (which became the basis of much polemical discussion between Jews and Christians)—“the rod [or scepter] shall not depart from Judah until [he] comes to Shiloh”—is read in Christian interpretation as “until Shiloh comes,” and “Shiloh” is understood to be a reference to Christ. In the Spanish transla­ tions for Christian readers, the Jewish translator duti­ fully refers to the “messiah” anticipated by the “peo­ ples” or the “Gentiles,” whereas translations for Jews follow the traditional Jewish understanding of the text in I-ii-19, but “the anointed” in I-i-7. Nearly all of the Escorial manuscripts, and one Madrid manu­ script, of these translations have been published, al­ though some in poor editions (those of Lazar and of Pueyo Mena are the most reliable). Translations from Latin in Spain

The most thorough analysis of the relationship of the manuscripts to each other has been carried out by 108

Lazar and his colleagues in the introduction to Biblia romanceada . . . Ms. 87 (see Bibliography), following the important research of Margherita Morreale and others. No single extant manuscript is a completely original translation, but rather each is more or less a “composite adaptation” of preceding translations, sometimes corrected anew according to the Hebrew text or utilizing rabbinic interpretation. The Real Academia de la Historia Ms. 87, fifteenth century, is unique in that it contains the Latin text of the Vul­ gate and a Spanish translation of it, rather than of the Hebrew text; although in places it has been corrected to conform to the Hebrew, or where interpolations in the Vulgate are not reflected in the Hebrew and have not been translated. The editors concluded, again concurring with Morreale (an esteemed biblical scholar), that this was once a complete Bible, but the extant manuscript contains only the prophets and Maccabees. Other manuscripts remain to be pub­ lished, including one written at Evora in 1429. However, the Spanish Jewish Bible that first came to the attention of the world and at once achieved a certain fame is that known as the “Bible of the Duke of Alba.” It was so called because the manuscript eventually came into possession of the powerful Alba house, and was owned by the duke of Berwick and Alba, who had a facsimile edition of the manuscript published in 1920. It was written by Rabbi Moses Arragel of Guadalajara between 1422 and 1433, at the request of the Master of the Order of Calatrava, don Luis Guzman. The translation was based on the Vulgate, but where the Vulgate differed significantly from the Hebrew text, that was noted and the trans­ lation corrected accordingly. Arragel also made use not only of rabbinic tradition, as he understood it, but of the medieval commentaries of “Rashi,” Ibn cEzra, M a i m o n i d e s , Qimhi, and others. Where the Jewish interpretation differs significantly from the Christian, he noted that fact and gave the Jewish in­ terpretation. Lazar, Pueyo, and Enrique-Arias have demonstrated the close affinity between the Real Academia Ms. 87 and Albas translation, both of which are from the Vulgate rather than (or in prefer­ ence to) the Hebrew text. Arragel himself knew Latin, obviously, and this is shown not only in his translation of the Vulgate itself but in his quotations from classical authors. The work is a perfect example of the convivencia, or harmony, existing between

Bible Translations, Jewish

Christians and Jews throughout most of the medieval period in Spain. This is reflected not only in Guzmans introductory letter, but in the very nature of the translation and the willingness of the rabbi to undertake the work. It is also reflected in the numer­ ous magnificent miniatures that decorate the manu­ script, and was the primary cause for the expensive (astronomically so) facsimile reprint of the manu­ script published in 1992. Some of these show mem­ bers of the Order of Calatrava tending to sick Jews, feeding Jews, and even burying their dead (this limited-edition facsimile exists in half a dozen or so American libraries).

,

pigraphic “Dream of Mordecai,” which is a revised version of Jeromes Latin translation (Ibn Tibbon s text published in Jellinek 1853-1877, 5: 9-16; the attribu­ tion of the work to Ibn Tibbon is by Steinschneider). There are Yiddish (or old German) glosses found in biblical manuscripts from at least the thirteenth cen­ tury, but these, along with French glosses in commen­ taries of “Rasht’and others, hardly constitute evidence of translations of the Bible. The earliest example of a “Yiddish” translation is of the Psalms in a manuscript from 1490. It is, of course, possible that earlier exam­ ples were lost. The “Cambridge Yiddish Codex” (1392), a manuscript found in the GENIZAH, contains rhymed prose versions of some biblical stories.

Catalan French, a n d Portuguese

In addition to the Castilian translations, there were also Catalan translations of the Bible, in whole or in part, of which some manuscripts or fragments are ex­ tant, including Psalms and fragments of Maccabees. Already in 1287 Alfonso III authorized a complete Catalan translation of the Bible from a French trans­ lation, but this was not done by a Jew; other transla­ tions, probably from the Latin, were done in the fourteenth century. There was also a Provencal Bible translation, ap­ parently Jewish, which is cited by Qimhi (Shorashim), and may perhaps be referred to or used in other works (this should be investigated). Medieval Portuguese translations were not done by Jews nor from the Hebrew text, which is astonish­ ing considering the large Jewish population and be­ cause the first book (of any kind) printed in Portugal was the Hebrew Pentateuch (Faro, 1487), edited and printed by Jews. However, the “Biblia historial de Acoba^a,” a kind of compendium of biblical history to the period of the Maccabees, is extant in at least one manuscript that appears to have been the work of a converso (Reinhardt and Santiago-Otero 1986, 41, 43). There is, however, an important study of the use of the Bible in the sixteenth-century lachrymose chronicle of Samuel Usque (A Biblia na consolagam de Samuel Usque by Bertil Maler [Stockholm, 1974], catalogued by libraries as a Portuguese version of the “Old Testament”). In addition to the translations from the Vulgate noted above, Jacob b. Makhir Ibn Tibbon (ca. 1266—1307), who lived in Provence but also in Castile, apparently made an adaptation of the pseude-

NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Bible. O.T. Spanish [Old Spanish]). Biblia. Translated by Moses Arragel (Madrid, 1920-1922), 2 vols. Biblia medieval romanceada judio-cristiana [Esc. Li.4], ed. Jose Llamas vol. 1: Gen.-Kings (Madrid, 1950); vol. 2: Chron.-Maccabees (Madrid, 1955). Biblia Ladinada [sic]. Escorial I.J.3 [I.i.3]. Edited by Moshe Lazar, Vol. 1: Pentateuch-II Kings (Madi­ son, Wise., 1995). Vol. 2: Early, latter prophets; Writings; Maccabees (Madison, Wise., 1995). Biblia romanceada: Biblioteca National de Madrid. Ms. 10.288. Edited by Francisco Javier Pueyo Mena (Madison, Wise., 1996). Biblia Romanceada. Real Academia de la Historia Ms. 87 (15th Century). Edited by Moshe Lazar, Francisco J. Pueyo Mena, and Andres EnriqueArias (Madison, Wise., 1994). Biblia Romanceada 1.1.8 : the 13th-century Spanish Bible contained in Escorial MS. 1.1.8, ed. Mark Lit­ tlefield (Madison, Wise., 1983). Escorial Bible : I.iL 19 [I.ii.9]. Edited by Mark Little­ field (Madison, Wise., 1992). Escorial Bible 1.1.7 [I.i.7]. Edited by Mark Littlefield (Madison, Wise., 1996). (Escorial Bible I.j.4 [I.i.4]) vol. 1: The Pentateuch; ed. O. H. Hauptmann (Philadelphia, 1953) (same as above, but he was unaware of Llamas s ed.); vol. 2: (Joshua-II Maccabees), ed. Hauptmann and Mark Littlefield (Madison, Wise., 1987). Fischel, Walter J. “Israel in Iran (A Survey ofJudeo-Persian Literature),” in Louis Finkelstein, ed. The Jews (New York, 1949), II, 817-58, with bibliography. 109

Bible Translations, Jewish

Kahle, Paul. The Cairo Genizah (New York, 1959). Lazar, Moshe. “La plus ancienne adaptation castillane de la Bible.” S efa ra d ll (1962): 251-95. Llamas, Jose. “Nueva biblia medieval judia e inedita en romance castellano.” Sefarad9 (1949): 53-74. Morreale, Margherita. “Apuntes bibliograficos para la iniciacion al estudio de las traducciones biblicas medievales al castellano.” Sefarad 20 (1960): 66-109. Reinhardt, Klaus and Horacio Santiago-Otero. Biblioteca biblica iberica medieval (Madrid, 1986). Saadyah b. Joseph Gaon. Die arabische fo b Ubersetzungen des Gaon Saadja (Munich, 1962); see re­ views, especially in Qiryat sefer A1 (1966): 336-38. --------- . The Book o f Theodicy: translation and com­ mentary on fob. Translated by Lenn E. Goodman (New Haven, 1988).

Black Death (see also Egypt)

The existence of the Jews in the European Middle Ages was never more jeopardized than in the phase of the large area persecutions in Germany that ended in the mid-fourteenth century. After the massacres of Jews in 1096, new crusading appeals provoked at­ tacks in England in 1189-1190 and in the northern and western provinces of France in 1236. In 1290 the Jews were expelled from England, and between 1182 and 1322 they were expelled from most

provinces of France. In Germany during the major part of the thirteenth century there were only local attacks that resulted mostly from BLOOD LIBELS. These, however, multiplied toward the end of the century and spread to larger areas. A RITUAL MURDER charge (“Good Werner”), for instance, produced a persecution in the Moselle-Rhine region in 1287, re­ sulting in attacks on some twenty locales and claim­ ing at least five hundred victims. The HOST DESE­ CRATION libels in Franconia in 1298 (Rintfleisch) ended with probably more than five thousand vic­ tims in about 130 localities, and additional attacks in the whole of southern Germany (Franconia, Alsace [“Armleder”], Bavaria, Swabia, Austria, Styria, and Bohemia) between 1336 and 1338 caused probably even more victims (cf. GERMANY, JEWS IN). All these afflictions, however, were soon outdone. The Black Death—the plague—of the years 1348 to 1350 provided the devastating climax of half a cen­ tury s succession of bloody widespread persecutions. After Genoese ships imported the plague from the Crimea to the seaports of the northern Mediter­ ranean coast in late 1347, the Black Death soon spread to Provence. The pestilence, which in some places carried off more than half the population, was beyond all past human experience. Naturally, it in­ spired a search for causes. Masters of the Paris univer­ sity pointed at astrological conjunctions and mali-

The Plague a Tournai in 1349, manuscript illumination from Gilles Le Musisit’s “Annals.” Copyright © Giraudon/Art Resource, NY.

110

Black Death

cious exhalations in consequence of an earthquake, but soon the opinion prevailed that someone had poisoned the water. At first suspicions remained vague and were leveled against the poor, the nobles, wandering monks, or lepers, but then it concentrated on the Jews. This reproach had a tradition. Since the Carolingian era Jewish physicians had been accused of killing Christian clients, especially rulers, by poison. During the First Crusade, a charge was fabricated against the Jews of W O RM S that they cooked a corpse and poi­ soned the wells. In 1161 and 1163 many Jews were said to have been charged and executed in Bohemia because of well poisoning. And in 1267 the synods of Breslau and Salzburg had accused Jews of selling poi­ soned food to Christians. In 1321 in France, one year after the “Shepherds’ (pastoureaux) Crusade” and its suppression, a new horrible rumor took up the old legend of a world­ wide conspiracy against the whole of Christendom. At first only the lepers were accused of having poi­ soned wells to annihilate Christians. Soon, however, it was said to be a conspiracy by the Muslims of Granada and the Jews, who had only entrusted the lepers with distributing the poison everywhere. Many lepers were arrested, tortured, and made to confess. At last, all the lepers were executed and the Jews banished. In 1348, Christians in many places were con­ vinced that the Jews breathed vengeance against them everywhere because of the former oppressions and persecutions. Thus, in Dauphine they were said to want to revenge themselves for the prohibition against consulting Jewish physicians. In Freiburg a Jew confessed on the rack to have taken vengeance for the violence “king Armleder” did to them in 1338. A most important chronicler of the time of the Black Death, Matthias of Nuremberg, connects the massacres of 1336—1338 with Louis the Bavarian’s preferential treatment of the Jews and concludes: “Under Louis the people of Israel had so increased that they already hoped with his help they could kill all the Christians before long.” Trials, Torture, an d Confessions

When in Toulon in 1348 the pestilence culminated the night before Palm Sunday, 13 April, Gentiles in­ vaded the Jewish quarter and slaughtered forty men

and women; they also burned the mortgage bonds. Thus, at the very beginning of this extended area conflagration, we recognize already the combination of existential dread and hatred against debtors. Soon afterward, massacres afflicted five localities in the upper Provence that had been especially hard hit by the plague. Queen Joan I of Anjou, however, pun­ ished the culprits and called them sons of damnation and pupils of the devil. Nevertheless, the massacres did not stop, and, finally, the Dauphin ordered the arrest of the Jews in his territory. In July these events obliged Pope Clement IV to renew the traditional protection of the Jews by re­ peating the Sicut-Iudaeis bull. But this general appeal proved ineffectual, and so he promulgated at the end of September a new mandate to all prelates, the clergy, and the monastic orders to act against those who persecuted the Jews because of the plague. He emphasized that God had punished the Christian people for their sins by the pestilence. The Christians were seduced by the devil to accuse the Jews falsely of well poisoning. Because the plague hit Jews and Christians alike, the former could not be guilty of such a crime. And if there still remained suspicion, they should be convinced by legal action. This direction was taken also by the count of Savoy in September and October. In two trials in Chillon on the Lac Leman some Jews on the rack confessed what the interrogators wanted to hear: The poison was sent from Toledo to Chambery and then distributed to many other localities to infect the wells and springs. It was a widespread conspiracy, and all the Jews of the world knew of that. They confirmed the confessions by each other, and the poison even was found at the indicated spots. Some Christians were said to be accomplices, and in the end all of them were executed, Christians and Jews alike. Meanwhile, the news of the trials spread to the towns north of the Alps, Berne, Freiburg in Breisgau, and Strasbourg. When they asked for precise infor­ mation, the judges of Chillon and Lausanne handed over the court records. With the advancing of the plague, attacks on Jews spread to Catalonia and the upper Rhone valley. In Spain, however, the plague did not give rise to persecutions such as those in cen­ tral Europe. Even in France the wave subsided, for there not many Jews remained. All the more the dis­ aster now broke over central Europe, where the Jew­ 111

Black Death

ish population had increased considerably. At first, the wave of trials overran the Swiss towns Solothurn, Berne, and Zofingen. They always ended with con­ fessions and executions by burning. The wave of per­ secutions now had even outstripped the advancing line of the disease. In November, long before the plague arrived, attacks spread to the southwest of Germany—Stuttgart, Augsburg, Landsberg, Kaufbeuren, Memmingen. In December the attacks spread to areas including Nordlingen, Lindau, Reutlinge, Esslingen, Colmar, and Heidelberg; in January 1349, they reached Constance, Bale, Freiburg im Breisgau, and Speyer. Yet doubts and warnings concerning the causes still arose. Thus, in January the Cologne council warned the one in Strasbourg that no evidence for the Jews’ guilt had been produced and noted that a persecution could always provoke riots, which had already caused much misery and damage to some towns. The contemporaries, therefore, knew well the social connections of the persecutions. On the other hand, the city councils that had al­ ready sentenced and burned their Jews tried energeti­ cally to stress the legality of the procedures, the cred­ ibility of the confessions, and the dangers that all the towns had to fear. Although they made it quite plain that all the confessions were obtained by torture, they continued to maintain that the well poisonings were perpetuated by a worldwide conspiracy. The rich Jews were said to have organized and financed the poisonings and all the Jews were involved. Thus, contrary to the former attacks that were founded on pseudoreligious pretexts, these mostly did not even leave the Jews the loophole of baptism. Because es­ cape through baptism was now exceptional, the per­ secution gained the character of a genocide. A knight Burkart of Miinsingen had already incriminated the baptized Jews at this early phase of the massacres. A convert had confessed on the rack that the Jews let themselves be baptized only to do harm to the Chris­ tians. After the Jews were killed, the converts would poison the wells. Power Struggles Cut Resolve

The situation in Germany, however, was shaken not only by news of the plague and of well poisonings but by political and economic developments. After the long conflict between Emperor Louis the Bavar­ 112

ian (1314-1347) and the papacy, most of the electors in 1346 voted for Charles IV of Luxembourg (1346-1378) as anti-king. When Louis died in October 1347, his faction did not give in and some­ time later elected Gunther of Schwarzburg as his suc­ cessor. The quarrel over the throne continued until Gunther resigned in June 1349. Charles had to fight against his opponents in order to defend and stabilize his position. Since he had almost no resources, he could only apply his almost last trump card, the Judenregal: his royal right to dispose of the Jews as his chamber serfs. His predecessor, Emperor Louis the Bavarian, had at least striven hard to protect the Jews by many measures, although he did not succeed in saving many of them during the persecutions from 1336 to 1338 in southern Germany. As late as 1345, at his suggestion the bishop of Strasburg had entered an agreement about land-peace [see GERMAN L a w , JEWS IN] with nobles and towns of the Alsace, to face any uproar against the clergy, Christians, or Jews. Charles IV resumed certain measures of his prede­ cessor when in October 1347 he not only assigned the burgraves of Nuremberg 1,000 pounds on the taxes of the Nuremberg Jews, but also absolved them from all debts, capital, and interest, due to the Jews of the empire. In justifying even this measure, by Jewish chamber-serfdom he cited a former royal edict: “they [Jews] belong to our chamber with body and property and are under our power, so we can admit and do with them all we want.” Charles, how­ ever, now began also to sell amnesties for wrongs and crimes done to the Jews. Indeed, already before anything had been heard of the plague in Alsace, there had broken out riots against the Jews. Therefore Charles, in some man­ dates in November-December 1347, at first made his representative John of Lichtenberg promise to the Alsatian towns that he would not hold them respon­ sible for their inroads on the Jews. Then, in mandates of December he personally allowed the councils and citizens of Schlettstadt (Selestat) and Miilhausen (Mulhouse) to condone and ignore (abelosen unde ubersehen) the assault and the damage the citizens had done to the body and possession of the Jews. Moreover, he absolved them of all further demands for debts, capital, and interest they had incurred. Thus, it becomes evident that—even before the plague or news of it arrived—there was a widespread

Black Death

tendency to get rid of debts owed to Jews by violence. It was the same motif that had induced people in Franconia and Alsace in 1336-1338 to extricate themselves from the debtors by the “Armleder” mas­ sacres. At that time, at the zenith of his power and in spite of all his loyal efforts, Emperor Louis was not very successful in stopping the persecutors. Now, Charles had to struggle from the beginning for the stability of his rule. His interest in the Jews, there­ fore, was concentrated mainly upon making capital out of them for his vital needs. There were other factors, too, that affected the de­ velopment. As during the former persecutions in 1298 and in 1336-1338, constant tensions and con­ flicts involving several secular and ecclesiastical town officials, the king, dukes, nobles, and bishops were the background. Mostly their spheres of influence were doubtful, overlapping, or controversial. They were confronted, moreover, by the city councils and burghers with their efforts to win civil autonomy. Within the cities, moreover, tensions and conflicts not only between patriciate and guilds of artisans, but also between factions of the upper class and of craftsmen influenced political development and change. As the lower strata were more excited by the rumors, more convinced of the Jews’ guilt, and al­ ways ready to lay hands on the Jews and their prop­ erty, they became a factor of menace to the propri­ etors, but also a disposable potential tool for leading groups who wanted a change in government. Those were the decisive factors that determined the future when the news about the plague arrived. From the beginning, Charles showed his will not to engage in vain but to use the constellations, however they were, to his advantage. Unwilling to offend the evildoers by punishment, however, he in effect en­ couraged them. The sources of Bale and Freiburg, and above all those of Strasbourg, testify best how those entanglements worked out badly for the Jews. Last-minute Baptisms Fail to Appease

In Bale the emancipation of the city from episcopal domination was going on but not yet completed. In the council, the guilds cooperated with patricians and knights, and there were no social uprisings. The Jews were pledged to the bishop but taxed also by the town. It was the council of Bale’s banishment of some nobles who had laid hands on Jews that unin­

tentionally released the persecution. At once, the guilds with their banners rushed to the town hall and demanded that the council call back the exiled no­ bles. The frightened council complied, but now peo­ ple also forced it to swear that further on no Jew should live in the town. Thereupon, the Jews were ar­ rested and, without any judicial hearing, burned in a wooden house. Some Jews who wanted baptism and the children were spared. Obviously, it was no spon­ taneous action. The council, contrary to its convic­ tion, had abandoned the Jews to avoid social con­ flicts. Sometime later, when the plague had at last reached Bale, the baptized Jews were charged anew. This time the council even arranged a trial and, as usual, obtained a confession that the baptized Jews had poisoned the water and that all baptized Jews knew about that. ThuS in the end all the Jews, non­ baptized and baptized alike, were killed. In Freiburg the situation was quite similar. Here also the guilds participated in the council, and there were also attempts to become emancipated from the city lord, the count of Freiburg. He was also the lord of the Jews, but the town took taxes from them. The persecution, however, seems to have taken a slightly different course than in Bale. Here the news of well poisoning and the confessions and executions of Jews in other towns sufficed as justification for incarcerat­ ing them. But now legal proceedings were made, records of which are preserved. As usual, some Jews confessed to having poisoned the wells and causing the dying in “Welshland.” They also stated that it was a conspiracy of all the Jews. So the Jews could be burned “legally.” However, not only pregnant women and children who wanted to be baptized were spared, but also twelve of the wealthier men, in order to make better use of their letters of credit and to skim off the sums from their debtors. Thus, it seems, in this case the council took the initiative without any popular tumult. Obviously, the news of the trials and confessions induced the town to repeat this pro­ cedure, but the chance to enter upon the inheritance of the Jews may have determined this decision more than any real belief in their guilt. In Strasbourg there was still another constellation. The bishop had lost control over the town in 1262, but tried everything to engage in the town’s affairs. In other respects too the situation in Strasbourg was un­ stable. In 1332, when the long-lasting government of 113

Black Death

the patricians was shaken by open conflict between aristocratic clans, the guilds succeeded in invading the city council. It now consisted of twenty-five members of each of both groups, but the patricians never aban­ doned hope to win back the whole council. In 1338, during the Armleder riots the (mixed) council, to­ gether with bishop and other towns, had supported the upper class of Colmar in defending the Jews, and later granted the Jews of Strasbourg a protective char­ ter ( Trostbrief). But there were other patricians and knights who in 1339 had to be forced to swear not to support anew any “Armleder” or other slayers of Jews. However, the unrest continued. Therefore, in 1345, the bishop and many Alsacian towns again made an agreement to stop all riots against Christians and Jews. In January 1348, however, when the news about the trials and persecutions of the Jews multiplied, the situation changed. Bishop Berthold and many nobles of the Alsace, who were badly encumbered with debts, summoned the lords and representatives of the towns to Benfeld to decide how to deal with the Jews. Only the delegates of the Strasbourg council still per­ sisted that they did not think the Jews to be guilty. But the bishop, the Alsatian lords, and the imperial towns all agreed that they did not want to have Jews any more (de non habendis Iudaeis). Soon in most of the towns the Jews were burned; in others they were expelled. In Strasbourg, however, the “Ammannmaster” (chief of the citizens besides the mayors) Peter Swarber and the major part of the council were willing to protect the Jews. Swarber tried to calm the people and declared that if the bishop and the barons succeeded in killing the Jews, they would not stop short in enforcing further intentions as well, on the townspeople. Some fomenters were broken on the wheel, too, in order to suppress the tumult. But all was in vain. At last the butchers assembled and demanded a part of the Jews’ money that Swarber allegedly had received from them. When Swarber denied this, the bishop and barons did not hesitate to encourage the lower people to support their aims. The guilds assem­ bled with their banners, and were soon joined by the nobles. Although some of the guilds supported Swar­ ber and the old council, the butchers and the furriers prevailed at last. Now the way was free. The insur­ gents removed the old council, banished Swarber, and restored the old (pre-1332) order with four pa­ 114

trician mayors. The leader of the butchers’ guild be­ came the new Ammann-master. Now, the pipers had to be paid; the Jews, creditors of the bishop and the lords, had to be eliminated, and the guilds had to be rewarded. On Friday, the Jews were captured, and on Saturday (14 February) they were burned. Again some women and many children were saved and bap­ tized. There were said to be two thousand victims in Strasbourg. It was no real legal action, although after­ ward the council maintained it was, in order to jus­ tify its deeds. But even the contemporary chroniclers knew: money was the poison that killed the Jews. Fear a n d Greed Cut across Classes

The events of Strasbourg make it quite evident that persecutions of the Jews were not caused by an atti­ tude specific to certain social strata. There always were masses of lower people excited by the fear of the plague and by the alleged well poisonings, vulnerable to being manipulated by popular leaders. Some no­ bles, patricians, and knights were willing to help the Jews just as others attempted with all means to get rid of their Jewish debtors by murdering them. Also, the members of some guilds were more indebted to the Jews than others. Moreover, the butchers and the furriers were competitors of the Jews and therefore always and everywhere their fiercest enemies. There­ fore, some guilds strove to kill the Jews, and others were ready to protect them. In February, the wave of massacres suddenly leaped over to the Saale-Elbe region. The piety of the margrave of Meissen and landgrave of Thuringia, Frederick II (1310-1349), is praised by all the chron­ iclers. Louis the Bavarian had conceded to him in 1330 all the Jews of his territories with their taxes and services. When the news of the plague and the confessions arrived, Frederick at once ordered all Jews killed in his and even in the neighboring towns. So in March also the imperial city of Miihlhausen, Erfurt, and later Nordhausen followed. Erfurt was nearly of similar economic importance as Strasbourg. Quite emancipated from its town lord, the arch­ bishop of Mainz, it had strained relations with the neighboring powers, especially the margrave of Meis­ sen. There were also heavy tensions among patri­ cians, burghers, and the guilds, all of which were rep­ resented in the council. This situation was not favorable for the Jews in times of crisis. In Erfurt,

Black Death

there was a large Jewish community, which was taxed by the city lord and the council. When the council repeatedly declared its intention to keep and protect the Jews, it rather marked thereby the instability of the situation. Indeed, after the extermination of the Jews in Thuringia some patricians and artisans conspired against them and against the council. They elected four chieftains, two each for the community and the rich. At the time settled upon, the four groups assem­ bled with their chieftains and banners. A patrician who was sent by the council to calm the excitement did not obey but, on the contrary, stirred up the crowd to kill the Jews. About one thousand Jews, maybe more, fell victim to the persecution. After­ ward, however, when the tension had relaxed the council proceeded against the plotters. The records mention the punishment of forty-three citizens, among them nine patricians and knights. At least two of them were executed, and the rest were exiled. The archbishop continued to demand the Jews’ tax, but conceded the city their inheritance and also the right to cash their outstanding debts. Here also the persecution took place without the pronounced will of the council (or at least not of most of its mem­ bers), but apparently as an effect of social tensions to be diverted at the expense of the Jews. Nevertheless, the position of the Erfurt council contrasts with the margrave’s action. Some Communities Protect Jews

Still, there were other imperial princes, as, for exam­ ple, the Habsburg Duke Albert II of Austria, who stand out plainly from this bad example of a “pious” man. In May 1348 King Charles had confirmed to him and his heirs all the rights over the Jews in his territories. In September 1349, when the plague broke out in Krems, the lower people of the town and the neighboring localities attacked the Jews, killed most of them, and plundered their houses. Some of them managed to escape to the castle. Duke Albert, however, took drastic steps: he executed three ringleaders, incarcerated many citizens, and imposed considerable fines on three towns. In this way, he succeeded in saving the Jews of Austria and Styria from further persecutions. But he was not able to save those in the remote old Habsburg territories on the upper Rhine.

Quite the same happened in King Charles IV’s own territories. In Bohemia with Silesia, the main part of his dynastic heritage, he was in the main able to pre­ vent persecutions. In Breslau, however, most of the Jews were murdered in the course of a riot after a blaze. The council, which was entrusted with the protection of the Jews, apologized and laid the blame on non­ residents, outlaws, and persons unknown. Charles charged the land’s chieftain and the council to arrest and punish the murderers. Some citizens were pun­ ished. The property of the Jews was redistributed: the town obtained the sites and the houses, the king the money, treasures, and pledges. In the western territo­ ries of the king as in Luxembourg and in the imperial cities Charles was able neither to prevent the pogroms nor to enforce any adequate retaliation. Thus, almost no major city with a Jewish commu­ nity beyond the eastern territories of Charles IV and Albert II was able to keep and protect the Jews. There are only a few exceptions, among them Goslar and, above all, Regensburg. Regensburg had defended his Jews successfully not only in 1298 against illegal exe­ cutions by the Rintfleisch bands, but it preserved them also from the pogroms of 1336-1338. In Octo­ ber 1347 Charles confirmed the Council of Regens­ burg’s rights over its Jews, and so neither the bishop nor the Bavarian dukes had any authority over them. In 1349, therefore, the mayors, the patrician council, and the best of the burghers obliged themselves by oath to protect their Jews. Violence against them should be regarded as an offense against the honor and dignity of the town itself and be punished most severely. Surely, the council’s undisturbed disposition of the Jews saved them in this case. Extermination a t Nuremberg

The destiny of the most notable communities of Worms and Speyer testifies, on the other side, that interference with the towns’ rights over the Jews jeopardized their existence. In November 1346 Louis the Bavarian had pledged the Jews of both towns to the Count Palatine Rupert I. Charles, however, at the turn of 1347 to 1348, conceded all the rights con­ cerning the Jews again to the towns. When at the be­ ginning of 1349 Rupert supported Gunther of Schwarzburg, the cities were in danger of his interfer­ ence. The Jews themselves felt the increasing menace, and many of them took refuge in Heidelberg and 115

Black Death

other castles of the Count Palatine. This situation, however, kindled the desire to get rid of the Jews within the towns, and so they were soon killed. Like Speyer and Worms, most of the other famous com­ munities perished: Heilbronn and Wurzburg in April, Breslau in May, Rothenburg possibly in June or after, Frankfurt in July, Mainz, Trier, and Cologne in August 1349. The most appalling case, however, was the extermination of the Jews of Nuremberg as late as in December. However, Charles, if he could not prevent the extermination of the Jews, still tried to make the best of it “when the Jews there soon are slain.” Charles IV, when he himself stayed in Nuremberg early in October, stated in a mandate that the Jews were exposed to manifold hostility of the common people, and that the burghers’ lives and property were not secure as long as the Jews were in town. Therefore Charles conceded to the council that it should not be held responsible when the Jews were hurt against its will. The council, however, now felt encouraged to ask the king to cancel all former trans­ fers of Jewish property to the neighboring lords. Moreover, it asked for permission to pull down cer­ tain rows of houses, the synagogue, and the Jewish school in order to establish two plazas and a church. Charles, obviously, either would not or could not meet this petition with a refusal, although now he not only removed all the barriers against the looting of Jews’ property but even encouraged their murders. Three days after the council obtained his concession, the Jews were killed. Today the Liebfrauen church (St. Mary) and two markets occupy the sites of the second Jewish community of Nuremberg. (The first one had been extinguished by the Rintfleisch bands half a century before, in 1298.) The extermination of the Nuremberg Jews marks the climax of the persecution,- In 1350 the wave grad­ ually ebbed away in some towns of the northern and eastern fringes of Jewish settlements in Germany; but there still were massacres in Dortmund, Munster, Minden, Halle, Rostock, Stralsund, Gorlitz, and Konigsberg in the Neumark. From there, the perse­ cution leaped over to Poland-Lithuania. However, we have little information about what happened there. Polish and Hebrew sources state only that some years later, many Jews in Poland were killed, especially in Krakow. 116

Jews Fought, Danced, K illed Themselves

There are Christian and Jewish testimonies (cf. Graus 1988, 249-74) about the actions of Jews in the face of the persecutors. In Mainz, Magdeburg, and Co­ logne, the Jews were said to have defended them­ selves with arms. Christian testimonies like these, however, may be apologies and therefore should be regarded with suspicion. Christian and Jewish sources alike testify, however, that the Jews (like the Christians) often accepted events as God’s fate. And so they often simply submitted to the supposed will of God. Joyfully, even dancing, they sometimes faced death at the stake and conceived it as martyrdom pleasing to God (qiddush ha-sherri). In some places, the Jews themselves set fire to their houses and burned within them. The Sefer minhagim of Worms describes the end of the Jewish community of Nordhausen. It prepared its death in consent with the Christian citizens: “The Jews arrayed themselves in their prayer shawls and shrouds . . . they hired a mu­ sician to play dancing tunes . . . They took each other by the hand, both men and women, and danced . . . before God” (Ben-Sasson 1972, 1067). The contemporary sources about the persecution of the Black Death leave in abeyance many questions that later scholars tried to answer. We can distinguish three types of attacks on Jews in the run of events: persecutions that broke out spontaneously and took a tumultuous course, those that were planned and carefully prepared from the beginning and mostly took an orderly course, and persecutions ordered by the prince (as was the one in Meissen-Thuringia) (Haverkamp 1981, 59f.; Graus 1988, 383f.). All three types presupposed a general mood of fear arising from the news of mass deaths from disease, al­ leged well poisonings, and the old legend of the con­ spiracy of the Jews. In general, spontaneous assaults on the Jews were not produced by the arrival of the plague itself, but required special impulses. It could be a blaze (Breslau), an unexpected damage to the crops (Wurzburg), or simply a meeting of crowds at religious feasts. On occasions like these, individuals could stir a mob to action. Contrary to the former charges of blood libels and host desecrations, in these latter cases we scarcely find any indications of ecclesi­ astical initiative such as speeches or sermons by pop­ ular preachers (Graus 1988, 330, 377). But these pogroms were, nevertheless, so irresistible that the

Black Death

city lords or councils mostly could not stop them even if they decided to protect the Jews. Often the town leaders could do nothing but take care not to be themselves endangered. Therefore they did not in­ tervene but made every effort to confine the excess to the Jews. Later, however, they sometimes succeeded in punishing the ringleaders. This situation particularly characterizes the fading transition between the first type and the second one. Town government officials soon realized that the pogroms not only were almost inevitable and irre­ sistible, but that they could menace even them, either directly or through the exploitation of the people s re­ belliousness by dissidents among the citizenry. If offi­ cials were not sure they could face down a revolt, they had to find ways to divert it from themselves. There­ fore planned persecutions were organized either with the approval or even the complicity of the town gov­ ernment or against its will and its measures of protec­ tion. In the first case, the criminal procedure was offi­ cially observed, and the persecution assumed the character of an execution. A broad consensus among all groups of townspeople could be achieved when all of them got a portion of the Jews’ property. In those cases in which the city government refused to aban­ don the Jews, very few were strong enough to be suc­ cessful (Goslar, Regensburg). As matters stood, the opposition inside the town usually exploited its chances and organized an uprising. The uprisings that were able to oust the old government were mostly combined with pogroms and therefore often orga­ nized on Saturdays (Haverkamp 1981, 61). The third type, persecutions by a princely order, might either release “spontaneous” assaults on the Jews or provoke planned executions, and it effected no trials. It disarmed the protectors of the Jews but did not disunite council and population. Using Fear fo r Political Ends

Another question even more discussed by scholars is whether certain attitudes toward the Jews were spe­ cific to social groups or strata. To be sure, the old the­ sis of the pro-Jewish conduct of the town lords and the urban patriciate and of the continuous antiJewish feelings on the part of the other townspeople, especially the artisans, becomes dubious in our ac­ count. Whenever we encounter precise sources, a more differentiated picture appears. And the more

the patricians, knights, burghers, and artisans partici­ pated in the uprising, the greater was the variety of factors involved. Indebtedness to Jews or simply the intention to enrich themselves mingle with political entanglements. Almost everywhere there were some patricians and burghers who took an interest in ex­ terminating the Jews and in bringing about a change in government. On the other hand, often it was guilds or members of guilds who refrained from at­ tacking the Jews or the government. The conviction that the Jews had poisoned the wells and thereby pro­ duced the mass deaths must have seemed at least du­ bious, and was more and more used as a pretext. The only constant factor is the rebelliousness of the lower strata of urban and rural populations that were ex­ cited by those rumors. Therefore they were a contin­ ual threat to the stability of the government, but had a potential that could be manipulated for political purposes. The political entanglements among king, town lords, nobles, and councils, on the one hand, and be­ tween councils and dissidents, on the other, brought forth a different situation in each place. In this re­ spect we cannot arrive at general conclusions. How­ ever, there remains one question: Was the king really a decisive factor in controlling the pogroms? His atti­ tude and his part in the extermination of the German Jews and in particular those of Strasbourg and Nuremberg is most controversially discussed among scholars. Some decades ago most authors eulogized the per­ sonage of Charles IV and passed over or palliated his role during the persecutions. Recently, however, schol­ ars have stressed the failure of the king to protect the Jews: Charles IV “prepared the pogroms undisputably”, his measures testify to his “immediate complicity” (Graus 1988, 236, 240; cf. Bork 1982, 72f.), he was even said to be the “mainly responsible [Schreibtischtater (armchair culprit)] for the cEndldsung (final so­ lution)’ at least in Alsace, Frankfort and Nuremberg” (von Stromer 1978). However, can we really compare the government criminality of the twentieth century with Charles’s attitude and the crimes of our time with those of the Middle Ages? Alfred Haverkamp (1981, 85-91) offers a more balanced view that covers politi­ cal, social, and historical factors and preconditions. We cannot judge the events of 1348 to 1350 in Germany without referring to the waves of massacres 117

Black Death

that had spread like wildfire during the fifty years be­ fore that and had covered larger and larger areas. Al­ most always the urban, territorial, and royal authori­ ties proved to be more or less helpless against the people’s rage. During the Black Death, the king, the princes, and the territorial and urban lords were mostly not able to guarantee the safety of the Jews even when they were willing to do so. Often, the king or city lords tried to invigorate the interests of the cities and town councils in the life of the Jews by constitutional and financial concessions. They also tried to diminish the chances of looting by transfer­ ring the inheritance and assets of the Jews to mighty lords outside the towns. Transfers of property, how­ ever, also menaced the towns’ liberties and could all the more induce the citizens to get rid of the Jews. We can be sure that Charles did not believe the Jews to be guilty of well poisoning. Certainly, too, he regarded the killing of the Jews as a heavy loss to his treasury. Finally, most of the Jews of the territories he ruled directly did survive. Surely, in his statements we will never find human pity and compassion for the sufferings of the Jews, and probably that is because he did not feel these things. Wlien he speaks of God’s fate {gots verhengknusse), however, we should not re­ gard it as loathsome hypocrisy (Graus 1988). Indeed, there were contemporary authors who did not believe that the Jews had poisoned the wells but who at the same time regarded the persecutions as God’s will. There is no conclusive indication that Charles himself wished, initiated, or even consciously assisted assaults on the Jews. He only did not resist persecu­ tions when he was not able to prevent them. When there were pronounced challenges to kill the remain­ ing Jews, as in Strasbourg in July 1349, he protested. Concerning Nuremberg, the king had informed himself about the situation. Possibly, the king’s char­ ter from 2 October may not mirror fully his true con­ viction, but we cannot wipe away its insights: the Jews had to fear the common people, and the burgh­ ers felt menaced by the presence of the Jews because they feared they could become involved in an immi­ nent pogrom. So the council and Charles alike re­ garded the massacre more or less as an inescapable fate. The council, therefore, petitioned for an am­ nesty beforehand, and Charles promised it on the condition that the council not consent to an assault

118

on the Jews. Surely, the council also got awarded the Jewish houses and the synagogue before the mas­ sacre, and it did not intervene in the pogrom. But must we conclude from this that the council and the king plotted the persecution? Could this conclusion really be warranted on the basis of the actual sources? If we compare the event with other ones from that period it seems more likely that the king and council simply resigned themselves to the fate of the Jews, that they did their best to parry the incalculable vio­ lence of the popular uprisings and to secure at least the assets of the Jews to their common advantage. At the end we come to a conclusion that is similar to that concerning the persecution decades before. After the spread of the new fatal legend of the con­ spiracy of all Jews to kill the whole of Christianity, the conviction of Jewish depravity was so over­ whelming and so deeply rooted in the common peo­ ple that the least provocation could incite an uprising that threatened to involve even the ruling strata. It was like a natural force almost nobody was able to withstand. People could seek only for possibilities to turn the catastrophe away from themselves or to use it for personal advantage. For example, they might get rid of heavy debts or exploit the remaining assets as well as possible, or at least realize their political in­ tentions. Afterward, when people had come back to their senses, almost nobody was convinced any more of the Jews’ crimes. On the contrary, the Christians then discovered that the Jews were indispensable as moneylenders. So they could be readmitted in most of the very towns that shortly before had decided not to have Jews anymore. The conditions, however, had changed fundamentally. An epoch of ChristianJewish relations had come to an end in the waves of persecutions that began at the end of the thirteenth century and annihilated the great Jewish communi­ ties in most of the larger cities. Never should they rise again as before. The well-poisoning accusation against the Jews, nevertheless, time and again emerged anew, mostly in connection with outbreaks of epidemic diseases. Therefore, in a 1422 reissue of the Sicut-Iudeis bull, Pope Martin V enacted a special prohibition to per­ secute and murder the Jews under the pretext that they poisoned the wells. FRIEDRICH LOTTER

Blood Libel

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andernacht, Dietrich. “Die Verpfandung der Frank­ furter Juden 1349. Zusammenhange und Folgen.” Archiv fu r Frankfurter Geschichte und Kunst 53 (1973): 5-20. Barber, Malcolm. “Lepers, Jews and Moslems: The Plot to Overthrow Christendom in 1321.” His­ tory 66 (1981): 1-17. Ben-Sasson, Haim Hillel. “Black Death.” Ency­ clopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1972) 4: 1063-1068. Bork, Ruth. “Zur Politik der Zentralgewalt gegeniiber den Juden im Kampf Luwigs des Bayern um das Reichsrecht und Karls IV. um die Durchsetzung seines Konigtums bis 1349.” In Engel, EvaMaria (ed.), KarlIV. Politik undIdeologie im l4.Jh (Weimar, 1982), 30-73. Graus, Frantisek. Pest-Geiftler-fudenmorde. Das 14. Jahrhundert als Krisenzeit (Veroffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Geschichte 86, Gottin­ gen, 1988). Haverkamp, Alfred. “Die Judenverfolgungen zur Zeit des Schwarzen Todes im Gesellschaftsgefiige deutscher Stadte.” In A. Haverkamp (ed.). Zur Geschichte der Juden im Deutschland des spdten Mittelalters und der friihen Neuzeit (Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 24, Stutt­ gart, 1981), 27-67. Hoffmann, Hermann. “Die Wiirzburger Judenverfolgung von 1349.” Mainfrankisches Jahrbuch fu r Geschichte und Kunst 5 (1953): 91-114. Lopez De Meneses, Amada. “Una consecuencia de la peste negra en Cataluna: el pogrom de 1348.” Se­ farad 19 (1959): 92-131; 321-64. Schmid, Alois. “Die Judenpolitik der Reichsstadt Re­ gensburg im Jahre 1349.” Zeitschriftfur Bayerische Landesgeschichte 43 (1980): 589-612. Schnurrer, Ludwig. “Die Reichsstadt Rothenburg im Zeitalter Karls IV. 1346-1378.” In Hans Patze, (Hg.), Kaiser Karl IV. 1316-1378 (Gottingen, 1978), 563-612. Shatzmiller, Joseph. “Les Juifs de Provence pendant la peste noire.” Revue des Etudes Juives 133 (1974): 457-80. Von Stromer, Wolfgang. “Die Metropole im Aufstand gegen Konig Karl IV.” Mitteilungen des Vereins Jur die Geschichte Niirnbergs 65 (1978): 55—90.

Blood Libel (see also Ritual Murder)

One of the most notorious defamations of Jews, which began in the medieval period and lasted until the twentieth century (Russia), was the accusation that Jews killed Christian children and drank or used their blood for ritual purposes. This charge, while similar to the ritual murder charge, is distinct from it in that the latter accusations, which began earlier in the Middle Ages, alleged the murder of children, in that the latter made no mention of the use of blood. Many writers, including not a few Jewish scholars, have confused the two accusations and assumed that all charges of Jews killing children involved also the charge of using their blood (see TROYES, which men­ tions a “blood libel” case that in fact was a ritual murder charge). In fact, the origin of the myth that Jews killed and then ate the flesh of non-Jews is to be found in the first century B.C.E. in the outrageous lie concocted by certain Greek anti-Semites, such as Damocritos (pos­ sibly lived in Alexandria; not to be confused with the writer Democritus), who is reported to have said that the Jews captured a foreigner every seven years and cut him up in small pieces. More detailed is the ac­ count of Apion, against whom Josephus wrote an en­ tire book, who tells of Antiochus Epiphanes entering the Temple at Jerusalem and there finding a Greek man in chains near a table full of food. He told the king that he was kept as a prisoner by the Jews, who were “fattening him up” so that they could kill him and then eat his flesh (Theodore Reinach, Textes des auteurs grecs et romains relatifs aux Judaisme [1895], p. 121; Josephus, Contra Apion II, 91 ff., L.C.L. ed. and tr. I, 329-30). The highly regarded Roman his­ torian Dio Cassius was not above mentioning the fantastic charge that Jews in the rebellion in Cyrene ( 1 1 5 C.E.) ate the flesh of their Greek and Roman victims, made belts of their entrails, and covered themselves with their blood (Reinach, ibid., p. 197). Medieval Christians were certainly not aware of these ancient accusations but shared with their originators a dread of the “strange,” particularly of the infidel Jew in their midst. Although accusations of ritual murder against the Jews began in England in the twelfth century, the first reported incident of an accusation of Jews using human blood came at Fulda in Germany in 1236.

119

Blood Libel

Five Christian boys died in a mill that burned, while the parents attended mass. Charges were immedi­ ately raised that not only had Jews murdered the boys, they had used their blood as a “remedy.” Thirty-two Jews, men and women, were slaughtered. FREDERICK II, the Holy Roman Emperor, was the ruler least likely to believe any such charges, highly educated and favorably disposed as he was to the Jews. When the report reached him, with a delega­ tion that brought three of the corpses with them, he said rather sarcastically that the first thing to be done was to bury the bodies of the dead children. How­ ever, he went further than this and convened an in­ ternational conference to determine the truth or falsehood of such charges. Even more shrewdly, the emperor invited newly converted Jews to participate, since given the well-known hatred of such apostates for their former religion, if they were to exonerate Jews of these charges it would be even more decisive. Furthermore, they could give testimony from Jewish sources as to the falseness of such charges (Chazan 125-26). The result of the council was a decision, on the basis of biblical, talmudical, and midrashic law, that Jews were prohibited from the use of blood and could not possibly be guilty of such “rituals.” The emperor used this in his renewal of privileges to the Jews of W O R M S, extended to take under his protec­ tion all the Jews of the empire, and included a long and erudite account of the decision of the council, concluding with his complete absolution of the Jews of any charge of ritual murder (Kantorowicz 1931, 4l3f£; Luebeck 1949; older sources and references in Aronius 207-8, 216-17). Pope Innocent IV issued a bull of protection for the Jews of Germany in 1246 in which he specifically denounced such accusations against Jews of using human blood, such as the charges that had been raised at Fulda “and in many other places” (we know of no other charges at that time, but certainly Jews from other towns had complained to the pope) (Aro­ nius 1888, 239, no. 556). It is in this context, and not just the more general ritual murder charge, that the famous bull of that pope “Lachrymabilem judaeorum Alemaniae, ”sent to the archbishops and bishops of Germany and France in 1247, is to be understood. In it, the pope states that he had received “a tearful

120

complaint” from the Jews of Germany, and that in spite of clear biblical prohibitions against murder (Ex. 20.13; Deut. 5.17) and not to have contact with anything dead during Passover (cf. Num. 9.6; 19.11), certain Christians charge that the Jews “in that very solemnity” (Passover) share the heart of a murdered child, for which they are punished by seizure of goods and property and even death. “Wherefore, fearing their extermination,” they ap­ pealed to the pope, who ordered that anything taken from the Jews be restored to them and that they be protected from future harassment on such charges (text in Aronius 242-43; Grayzel 268-71). The bull was renewed in 1274 by Gregory X and confirmed by Emperor Rudolph in 1275. Only a few months later (9 July 1247), Innocent IV, in confirming the standard papal bull of protection for Jews, issued a general statement to all “faithful Christians” ordering that no one should accuse Jews of using human blood in their religious rites “since in the Old Testa­ ment they are instructed not to use blood of any kind, let alone human blood.” Again, the pope men­ tioned that at Fulda and “other places” Jews had been killed because of such charges, and therefore “we . . . strictly forbid the recurrence of such a thing in the future,” on pain of loss of honor or office and excommunication (Grayzel 274-75, No. 118). In 1245, Ottokar, king of Bohemia and duke of Austria, issued a privilege to the Jews in which he referred to the papal bull and prohibited charging Jews with using human blood (Aronius 255, no. 597). This was also mentioned in the privilege to the Jews by Duke Boleslav of Poland in 1264 (Chazan 93, no. 31). Ac­ cording to Baron (X, 35), the first blood libel in Poland was in 1347, but the inclusion of this clause in Boleslavs privilege may indicate that such accusa­ tions had already occurred. A particularly vicious tale originated around an event in Pforzheim in Baden in 1267. Some Jews al­ legedly bought a seven-year-old Christian girl from an old woman, and after killing her they placed her body on linen, which absorbed the blood. They then supposedly threw the body into the river where it was found by fishermen. The local people, when the body was found, started a rumor that Jews were guilty. According to incredulous “sources” of the time, when the margrave of Baden came to view the

Burgundy

body, it suddenly extended its hands to him, as if pleading; but when Jews were brought before the corpse its wounds opened and blood oozed forth. The old woman was soon made to “confess,” and she and several Jews were hung. Two DOMINICAN preachers, claiming to have witnessed the events, spread the story, and other outrageous charges about the Jews using Christian blood were added as the “miracle” tale spread (Aronius 306-8). Associated with this was the claim of Thomas of Cantimpre that the Jewish use of Christian blood derived from the trial of Jesus by Pilate, at which the crowd had said “his blood be upon us and upon our children.” Ever since, Thomas said, the Jews had been afflicted with hemorrhoids. A Jewish sage, or prophet, had told them that they could be cured by “Christian blood” (i.e., belief in the blood of Christ), but the Jews had taken it literally. Therefore, in every province Jews endeavored to kill a Christian each year and dis­ tribute the blood to all the Jews (see Aronius, loc. cit.; for an earlier variation of this story, see RITUAL MURDER. Shatzmiller argued that the apostate Nicholas Donin [see TALMUD, CONDEMNATION OF] initiated blood libel charges at Paris, and Thomas is one of the sources upon which Shatzmiller bases his claim). In 1272 Gregory X issued the usual papal bull protecting the Jews, but added to it an extensive con­ demnation of blood libel and ritual murder charges, noting that some Christians claim that Jews abduct children and kill them “and offer sacrifices of their heart and blood,” even though such things are pro­ hibited by Jewish law. “This has been corroborated in our Curia a number of times by Jewish converts to the Christian faith.” The pope added that Christians may not testify against Jews on such charges, and any Jews “seized on frivolous accusations of this sort” must be freed (Baron IX, 40—41). Pope Martin V in 1422 issued a bull specifically condemning accusations that Jews mix human blood into their unleavened bread (the first time that this specific aspect of the blood libel is actually men­ tioned). In Switzerland there were blood libel accusa­ tions in Dissenhofen (1401), Zurich, Ravensburg (1429) and Ahausen (1443) (Baron X, 13), and Baden (1470) (Baron IX, 167). No matter the false nature of such charges, the very fact of the retelling and embellishment of them

increased the hostile attitude toward and suspicion of Jews throughout Europe. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aronius, Julius. Regesten zur Geschichte der Juden in franischen und deutshen Reiche bis zum Jahre 1273 (Berlin, 1888). Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History o f the Jews (New York, 1965), vols. IX, X. Chazan, Robert. Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages (New York, 1980). Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). Kantorowicz, Ernst. Frederick the Second, tr. E. O. Lorimer (London, 1931). Luebeck, Konrad. “Der angebliche Fuldaen Ritualmord des Jarhes 1235,” in his Fuldaer Studien vol. 27: 165-85 (Fulda, 1949). Russell, Jeffrey Burton. Witchcraft in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, N.Y., 1972). Schatzmiller, Joseph. “Did Nicholas Donin promul­ gate the blood libel?” (Heb.) in Mehqarim betoldot (am-Yisrael ve-ere Yisrael mugashim le Azriel Shoe (Haifa, 1978) IV, 175-82. Strack, Hermann. Die Blut im Glauben und Aberglauben der Menscheit (Munich, 1900); tr. as The Jew and Human Sacrifice (New York, 1909).

Burgundy

The first records of Jews in Burgundy come from the early decades of the ninth century, from rural areas near Chalon-sur-Saone and Macon, where individual Jews cultivated fields and vineyards. For the rest of the Middle Ages, Jews formed communities in major and secondary market centers in Burgundy while maintaining strong links with the rural economy. In the early thirteenth century, Jews of Chalon, Auxonne, or Seurre, all under the protection of the duke, received feudal domains as collateral and even bought pieces of land, with quiet ducal blessing. In urban settlements, Jews did not belong to the social fabric. They did not mix with the Christian population and did not enjoy the privileges of burghers. The coutumier bourguignon (Burgundian

121

Burgundy

customs book), codifying the legal practice as it evolved at the end of the fourteenth century, stated that Jews were under the direct protection of the duke. An indication of their social status is seen in the stipulation that Jews convicted of capital offenses be executed hanging by their feet, like animals. The exclusive power of the feudal lord over the Jews living in his land was reinforced when city dwellers were granted charters: most of these exclude Jews from their jurisdiction. In Burgundian city charters of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Jews are specifically excluded from the privileges of burghers in Dijon, Seurre, and Chaussin. Because Jews were directly protected by the dukes of Burgundy, they were exempted from contributing to levies he imposed on the inhabitants of the cities in which they lived. During the thirteenth century, the Jewish com­ munities of Burgundy grew through immigration from other provinces. Jewish settlements are attested in some fifty locations, among them Auxonne, Avallon, Chatillon-sur-Seine, Dijon, and Montbard. The largest community in Burgundy before the 1306 expulsion was in Dijon. Their status is always defined by a charter, individual or collective, granted by the Burgundian ruler, authorizing Jews to settle on his lands. Legal stay was conditional on payment of an entrance fee and an annual contribution. MONEYLENDING was the main economic activity for Burgundian Jews. At first, Jews seem to have been involved in large loans to nobles and clerics, but other lenders—local burghers, Italians—sup­ planted them. In the thirteenth and fourteenth cen­ turies, Jews were more often involved in subsistence loans to the lower and middle strata of the popula­ tion: poor city dwellers and entrepreneurial peasants such as grape growers around Dijon, Beaune, and Macon. The status of Jews in Burgundy, both in the duchy and in the county (Franche-Comte) gradually paral­ leled that of Jews in royal France. Following expul­ sions, rulers confiscated Jewish estates: when Philip the Fair (see PHILIP IV) expelled Jews from his king­ dom in 1306, Jews were also expelled from Bur­ gundy, their debts collected and recovered, and their real estate properties, including their cemeteries, confiscated. Jews in the duchy of Burgundy were ex­

122

pelled while Jews in the county of Burgundy were al­ lowed to remain. When Jews were allowed back into the kingdom in 1315, the liquidation of their prop­ erties, undertaken since 1306 in the kingdom and in the duchy, was not yet complete. Jews resettled in Dijon, Beaune, Montbard, and Semur, but soon left when Jews were expelled in France. Several families expelled from the kingdom and the duchy settled in Franche-Comte. These communities suffered from persecutions following the B l a c k D e a t h (1348). Although we have no record of massacres as violent as those in Dauphine and Savoy, Jews from the county were jailed in the fall of 1348 in Gray and in Vesoul, their properties seized and sold. Jews in Vesoul were re­ leased only in the summer of 1349 and probably expelled. After the Black Death, the only Jewish settle­ ments in France-Comte were Bracon, Gray, and Salins. Jews were readmitted to the kingdom of France in 1359, and Jews quickly settled also in Dijon and formed a well-organized community there. During the second half of the fourteenth century, a total of thirty heads of family paid taxes in Dijon, Chalon, Beaune, and Auxonne. In 1374, Duke Philip the Bold authorized twelve Jewish families to settle for ten years in Burgundy and to engage in moneylending. In 1384, the right of settlement was extended to fifty-two families. These two ordinances shared most of their provisions with the 1361 privileges granted the Jews of France, some­ time copying the same text. In the second half of the fourteenth century, Jew­ ish moneylenders in Dijon extended short-term credit more to rural borrowers than to city dwellers. Over the years, as fewer and fewer Jews monopolized the granting of credit to city residents and the imme­ diate rural area around the capital of the dukes, other lenders had to find their borrowers farther away and in smaller villages. Jewish moneylending was never dominant either in town or in the countryside; burghers and Italian merchants generated the larger loans to nobles, city officials, and Christian religious communities. Jews in the duchy of Burgundy did not experience the riots suffered in 1380 and 1382 by the Jews in

Byzantium

France but were expelled with them in 1394. A few families found temporary refuge in Franche-Comte, in Gray, Champlitte, and Besan^on. In the early fif­ teenth century, a few Jewish physicians employed by the dukes resided in Burgundy. ROGER S. KOHN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blumenkranz, Bernhard. “Geographie historique des Juifs en Franche-Comte medievale.” Actes du 99e Congres national des societes savantes h Besangon 1974. (Paris, 1977), 53-83. Reprinted in Juifs en France. Ecrits disperses (Paris, 1989), 61-88. Gauthier, Leon. “Les Juifs dans les Deux—Bourgognes. Etude sur le Commerce de l’argent aux Xllle et XIVe siecles.’” Revue des Etudes juives, XLVIII (1904), 208-27; XLIX (1904), 1-17; 224-61. Reprinted with additions, in Memoires de la societe d ’emulation du Jura, 9e serie, 2e vol. (1913), 58-232. Kohn, Roger S. Les Juifs de la France du Nord dans la seconde moitie du XLVe siecle (Louvain-Paris, 1988). Morey, J. “Les Juifs en Franche-Comte au XlVe sie­ cle.” Revue des Etudes juives 7: 1-39. Simonnet. Jules. “Juifs et Lombards.” Memoires de Vacademie imperiale des sciences, arts et belles-lettres de Dijon. 2e serie, XIII (1866), 145-245.

Byzantium

Byzantium was an ancient Greek colony founded on the shores of the Bosphoros midway between the Aegean and the Black Seas. It became the capitol of the Roman Empire in 330 and was renamed Constantinopolis [in Hebrew, Kushta, from the Greek Kosta, an abbreviation of Constantinopolis] after the Emperor Constantine. In 1453, on Tuesday, 29 May, the city fell to Mehmet II, the sultan of the Osmanli Turks. By the end of the fifteenth century Armenian, Spanish, and Turkish were so commonly spoken in the city that Greek was no longer the dominant lan­ guage there. Hence the eleven centuries between 330 and 1453 are conveniently, if somewhat inaccurately, designated by historians as Byzantine to describe a Greek-speaking Christian Orthodox empire that ab­ sorbed numerous ethnic groups, especially Slavs, and

acted as a bulwark of Greco-Roman-Christian civi­ lization against the Sassanian Persians and the Mus­ lim Arabs and Turks. The Jews of the Byzantine Empire had resided in the lands and cities surrounding the Aegean Sea and its islands since the days of the Second Temple (cf. Septuagint, Ezekiel; and New Testament, Acts of the Apostles). Archaeological remains and inscriptions show that they constituted a well-organized minority of tradesmen and craftsmen whose numbers are esti­ mated at about 10 percent of the urban population of the empire. The resources of the communities were spent in building elaborate synagogues and community centers, and in philanthropy; women were well represented among the communal leader­ ship. A diversity of Judaism flourished throughout the Greek-speaking east Mediterranean including syncretistic sects (e.g., at Corinth), Samaritan col­ onies from Israel (in Thessaloniki), and “God­ fearing” polytheists who enjoyed the ethical teach­ ings of the rabbis. Normative Jews consisted of the Hellenized Jewish communities who followed the au­ thority of the High Priest in Jerusalem (until 70 C.E.) and later the Nasi of the Sanhedrin (in Greek, ho Patriarchos ton ludaion until 429) who claimed descent from the Pharasaic Sage Hillel the Babylonian. The Jews, as a well-established middle-class urban group, faced increasing pressures during the Chris­ tianization of the Roman Empire. In the fourth cen­ tury a series of ad hoc laws restricted Jews’ participa­ tion (usually local) in the political, legal, military, social, and economic life of the empire. These laws were incorporated in the Theodosian Code (438), which effectively made the Jews in general secondclass citizens. The Theodosian Code was the source from which later medieval breviaries and codes de­ rived and thus influenced Western legal attitudes to­ ward the Jews until the Code of Napoleon. The canons of local and ecumenical church councils, which attempted to create social barriers between Jews and Christians—by outlawing intermarriage and social intercourse, for example—ultimately came to be enforced as state law vis-a-vis the Jews. The theology of a Christian empire was openly hostile toward its monotheistic rival. Expanding on the polemical rhetoric in the New Testament, Christ­ ian preachers and theologians used the Jews as a foil

123

Byzantium

to teach the new doctrine of love, sacrifice, and salva­ tion. The church, in its polemics against Jews and polytheists, claimed to be the New Israel that God had chosen, and the Jews were the rejected Cain to be cursed and hounded until they saw the truth of Christianity and voluntarily submitted to baptism. Eusebios of Caesaria (ca. 260-339/40) wrote his Praeparatio Evangelica to attack polytheism, deriving his proof texts from a rich library of ancient pagan and Jewish literature. His sequel, Demonstratio Evagelica, “proved” that Christianity had superseded Judaism and that the New Testament had justifiably replaced the Old Testament. The theological and legal animosity to Jews and Judaism encouraged the newly developing monastic movement to sacralize synagogues into churches and harass Jews in general. Even occasional secular attempts to curb these at­ tacks were condemned by high ecclesiastics (e.g., Ambrosius, bishop of Milan). The combination of active hostility and reduction of civic rights doubtless induced numerous Jews to convert to Christianity and thus regain, if not improve, the civic status they had enjoyed under the more tolerant pagan Roman Empire in which they had enjoyed full citizenship since the degree of Caracalla (212 C.E.). Not all Jews converted, however. Until 430 they were organized as a religio licita, a permitted ethnic urban group, represented by the “Patriarch of the Jews” who resided in Galilee. The patriarch (Nasi or president) dealt with the government on their behalf, collected and paid the Jewish taxes to the state, con­ trolled the religious calendar that dictated the rhythm of their lives, and maintained schools to train bureaucrats and to study and interpret the Oral Law (Mishnah). Codified ca. 160 C.E., the Mishnah be­ came the basis for the rabbinic Judaism that replaced the priesthood, whose authority had declined after the failed revolt of 66-73 in which Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed. Jews remained a majority of the population in Galilee while they were banned from residence in the environs of Jerusalem following the revolts of 70 and 132—35. The Christian policy of degradation allowed Jews, however, to make pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the ninth of Ab, the traditional date of the destruc­ tion of both Temples, and to pray at the remaining Western Wall, now pejoratively called the “Wailing Wall.” As Jerusalems and Palestine’s sites were pro­ 124

gressively Christianized, so the city and the land was correspondingly de-Judaized, and the Temple area was turned into a rubbish dump to emphasize the victory of Christianity over Judaism. In 429 the of­ fice of the Nasi was recognized as vacant, effectively putting an end to a supreme leadership for the Jews of the empire. Palestine was divided into three provinces. Scholars quickly and incompletely edited the Palestinian commentary to the Mishnah, known today as the Talmud of the Land of Israel (also as the Jerusalem Talmud). The reign of Justinian (527-565) intensified the legal and theological attacks on the Jews coupled with military campaigns against the Samaritans. Many of the Judaizing sects disappeared, although the term “Judaizer” became one of opprobrium in intrachurch disputes. Justinian’s mid-sixth-century code (Corpus Iuris Civilis) effectively Christianized Roman law: the death penalty was replaced with mu­ tilation, and Judaism was declared a superstition. Jews were further degraded by law: the Samaritans lost their Jewish status as a religio licita and were re­ defined as Christian heretics who were outlaws in the empire. The ensuing military campaigns destroyed their center on Mount Gerizim and crippled their demography and institutions. Jews of Naples and North Africa who had fought with the Germanic in­ vaders against the Roman attempt to reconquer these areas were punished through special Novellae (37 and 45). Finally, in the famous Novella 146 (553 C.E.), Justinian responded to a Jewish request to settle the question of whether the Torah could be read in Greek or had to be read in Hebrew. He responded with a restrictive definition of Judaism and encour­ aged the reading of the Septuagint, which had al­ ready been permeated with Christian interpretations, or in any other vernacular. The reading of the Torah and the Prophets in demotic Greek translations re­ mains part of the Romaniote synagogue service to the present day. While the rise of Islam and its conquests of Pales­ tine, Syria, Egypt, and Byzantine North Africa came as a respite to Jewish suffering, Jews under Byzantine control in Asia Minor, the Balkans, and Italy suffered further vicissitudes until the latter tenth century. Heraclius, despite the aid given to his campaign by Benjamin of Tiberias, exacted retribution for Jewish support of the Sassanid occupation of Palestine

Byzantium

(614-629); he influenced the Visigothic (see VlSIking of Spain, Sisibut, to forcibly convert his Jews, and apparently baptized his own Byzantine Jews. Later sources argued that he was influenced by the prophecy that a circumcised people would con­ quer the empire; in truth the Arab Muslims practiced circumcision. Subsequent emperors forcibly baptized the Jews as a policy reflecting domestic and foreign pressures on the empire: Leo III in 722 (possibly revoked by the Second Nicaean Council of 787); Basil II in 868 (most likely repealed by his son Leo the Philoso­ pher); Romanus I Lekapenos (ca. 930 repealed by Constantine Porphygenitus after 944). The last forced baptism is hinted at in the actions of John Vatazes of Nicaea in 1254; whatever the situation, he died shortly thereafter. The Byzantine Church never accepted these forced baptisms as legitimate conver­ sions and pressured the state to reverse them. Bap­ tism was never to carry the same indelible fealty that it did for the western Church. The state pressures on the Jews are reflected in the anti-Jewish iconography of several ninth-century Byzantine Psalters that con­ tinue the hostile theological attitudes of the church toward the Jews (cf. Kathleen Corrigan Visual Polemics in Ninth Century Byzantine Psalters, Cam­ bridge, 1992 [an alternative view is presented by Elis­ abeth Revle-Neher, The Image o f the Jew in Byzantine Art, Oxford) and in the Crusader-influenced antiJewish iconography in the Mavriotissa Church of eleventh-century Kastoria (pace Annabel Jane Whar­ ton, Art o f Empire, Pennsylvania State, 1988, 1150. As a corollary to the ninth- and tenth-century perse­ cutions, Byzantine Jews fled to the hospitable wel­ come of the Khazar Kaganate in southern Russia, whose leaders had converted to Judaism in the eighth century. Byzantine South Italy underwent a renaissance of Hebrew letters beginning in the late ninth century that continued into the Balkans through the twelfth and beyond. The Chronicle of Ahimaas, Megillat Ahima a$, is an eleventh-century family hagiography that enumerates the author’s ancestors in Oria. Writ­ ten in rhymed prose, it relates the south Italian devel­ opment of payetanic poetry and recalls numerous poets who continued the piyyut style originating in Byzantine Palestine. (The latter developed perhaps as a response to Justinian’s interdiction of the oral tradi­ GOTHS)

tion [deuterosis] in his Novella 146.) The piyyut re­ mained the major style of Byzantine rabbanite and Qaraite liturgical poetry until the Ottoman period. From southern Italy the piyyut moved north to the Rhineland and than eastward to the newly develop­ ing centers of Ashkenazi civilization in Poland. Megillat Ahimd a$ also traces the origins of Ashkenazi mysticism to Abu Aaron, an immigrant scholar from Babylonia. Shabbatai Donnolo was the most impor­ tant scholar of Byzantine Italy, well trained in astron­ omy, astrology, and medicine. He wrote the first medical book in the Christian West (Sefer Hamerkahoth) and a polymath commentary on the mystical classic Sefer Ye$irah. The Byzantine origin of the med­ ical classic Sefer Assaf ha-Rofe has recently been averred. The most lasting contribution of Byzantine south Italy is Sefer Yosippon (dated according to one version to 953). Sefer Yosippon is a history of ancient Israel from David to the destruction of the Second Temple. Based on the Vulgate and its Apocrypha and on the Latin Josephus, it contains valuable ethno­ graphic data on the tenth century. Written in an ele­ gant mixture of biblical and midrashic style, the anonymous text quickly became authoritative as the original Hebrew version of Josephus and remains so in the yeshivot to the present day. Other translations include fragments of Maccabees, a chronicle of Byzantine rulers, and an eleventh-century version of an early Greek manuscript of Pseudo Kallisthenes’s Deeds o f Alexander. The Vision of Daniel (fjazon Daniel) is an apocalyptic tract, though containing some useful historical data, written in Constantinopolis in the second decade of the tenth century, ac­ cording to latest scholarship, where the author had access to the imperial library. The study and production of midrashic and mys­ tical works was a significant feature of Byzantine Jew­ ish intellectual life. In addition to Donnolo’s com­ mentary on Sefer Ye$irah and the anonymous Hazon Daniel, there was continued reading of classical Palestinian midrash as well as new works such as The Throne and Hippodrome o f King Solomon. Qabbalah made its appearance in the thirteenth century with the early career of Abraham Abulafia, who sojourned and later married in Greece. His ecstatic qabbalah left a local tradition that continued into the Ot­ toman period. In the fourteenth century Elnatan ben Moses Kalkis wrote his lengthy (350 folios) mystical 125

Byzantium

treatise Even Safir (The sapphire stone), which was developed along Aristotelian (via Maimonides?) lines. And a Sefardic scribe, R. Shem Tov ben Yaakov ibn Polia, copied a number of Spanish qabbalistic classics for Greek patrons at the beginning of the fif­ teenth century and may well have authored the clas­ sics Sefer ha-Kanah and Sefer ha-Peliah there. This mystical interest led to messianic speculation and several messianic movements. Already in the fifth century a messiah called Moses attempted to lead the Jews of Crete overland to Israel. According to the hos­ tile church historian Sophronios, many drowned and the rest converted. On the eve of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem, several piyyupm attest to the expectation of redemption by another people who bear the name of God (Arabs = Ishmael). The Jews of Salonika, on the eve of the First Crusade, packed their bags and waited at the port for the Messiah to lead them to Is­ rael. The Emperor Alexias I had to cancel their taxes for that year because of the disruption of their com­ mercial lives. And in Andravida (Peloponnesus) in the late 1250s, there was widespread excitement over ru­ mors of the imminent redemption of the Jews by the conquering Lost Tribes of Israel, as the Mongols were identified in the West. The Byzantine reconquests of Syria in the later tenth century encouraged immigration of Qaraites to the empire. They quickly acculturated to the Greek environment and produced a number of scholars, in­ cluding Tobias ben Moses, who transferred Qaraite learning from Jerusalem to Constantinopolis on the eve of the CRUSADES. It is interesting to note that he apparently married a Byzantine Christian who con­ verted to Judaism after the death of their daughter. Yehudah Hadassi (of Edessa, twelfth century) wrote Eshkol ha-Kofer (Cluster of henna), a major polemic against the rabbanites, in rhymed prose. Byzantine Rabbanite scholarship produced major works through Hillel ben Eliakim (beginning thir­ teenth century), who wrote still useful commentaries on Sifre and Sifra and other halakhists whose works reached eastern Europe. Bible commentators include the influential Tobias ben Eliezer of Kastoria (eleventh century), whose Lekafa Tov on the Pentateuch and the Five Scrolls preserve many unique midrashic sources, and Meyuhas ben Eliahu (possibly twelfth century), who wrote an extensive commentary on the Pentateuch, Chronicles, and Job. These Byzantine 126

commentaries, including those of the Qaraites, are valuable for the study of the developing demotic Greek language examples that they, like “Rashi” for medieval French, preserve. The reorganization of the empire after the Latin interlude (1204-1261) witnessed a flowering of Qaraism and a strengthening of ties with the Crimea. Leading scholars include Aaron ben Joseph ha-rofe (end of the thirteenth century), who wrote a com­ mentary on the Bible and a grammar of Hebrew, and who as a liturgical poet arranged the Qaraite liturgy and argued for the study of rabbinic material; Aaron ben Elijah the Nicomedian (fourteenth cen­ tury), a biblical commentator, codifier of Qaraite law, and philosopher in Constantinopolis; the re­ forming Bashyachi clan (fourteenth century), espe­ cially Menahem in Adrianople and his grandson Eli­ jah in Constantinopolis, the latter producing Addereth Eliahu, subsequently the normative Qaraite code of law in the late-fifteenth-century redaction of Kaleb Afendopopolo; and the polymath Mordachai Khomatiano, who reintroduced Ibn ‘Ezra into Qaraite studies. A major source for the demographic and eco­ nomic life of Byzantine Jewry in the twelfth century is the itinerary of BENJAMIN OF TUDELA. His travels took him to some twenty-five cities in the empire where he lists Jewish leaders and gives data on the size of the communities. Scholars have extrapolated his figures (totaling some nine thousand men, or guild members [pace Ankori]) for the empire to indi­ cate a population ranging from twelve thousand (Starr) to one hundred thousand (Baron). He partic­ ularly emphasizes the role of the Jews in the garment industry: tanning (emphasized as an obnoxious occu­ pation), silk dyeing and weaving, and the production of high-class purple cloth with gold and silver em­ broidery. Jews were prominent in the garment indus­ try because it was necessary to produce ritually pure garments (following the rules of shaatnez, the prohi­ bition of mixing wool and cotton in the same gar­ ment) since Hellenistic times, as we learn from the New Testament. The Code of Theodosius prohibits Jews from marrying imperial garment workers, while later codes (e.g., The Book of the Eparch) suggest that Jews formed unofficial guilds in these crafts. Jews also traded in a variety of products, for example, in wines and cheese (for reasons of kashruth and as

Byzantium

merchants) both domestically and internationally. Central and eastern European synagogue art reflects these Byzantine skills and suggests a northward im­ migration pattern. As city dwellers, Jews also engaged in the sale and rental of urban property as well as a host of crafts connected with the manufacture and sale of luxury goods, such as glass, silver, and gold. The Palaeologan period (1261-1453) witnessed better relations between the state and the Jews al­ though the increasing conservatism of the church ex­ acerbated the tradition of ecclesiastical hostility against Judaism. The state found itself relying on economic support from Armenians and Jews to offset the advantages gained by Venice and Genoa during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. At the same time, some Jews took advantage of the states com­ mercial protection. Byzantine Jewry flourished with new communities strengthened by immigration from Italy and Spain, the latter appearing already in the fourteenth century in Boeotia and Attika, which was under the rule of the Catalans. Jews moved freely throughout the Balkans, now fragmented among a host of little states ruled by Byzantine Greeks, Serbs, Catalans, Italians, and the rising power of the Ot­ tomans. They too suffered the vicissitudes of the BLACK D e a t h , the plague that swept through Europe in the fourteenth century, although numbers are not generally available. Intellectual life flourished. Major scholars in­ cluded the fourteenth-century polymath Shemaria Ikriti (philosopher and commentator on Ibn cEzra); his pupil Judah ibn Moskoni, who edited an ex­ panded Sefer Yosippon; and Moses Kapsali, who led the community of Constantinopolis from the Ot­ toman conquest to the end of the fifteenth century. Dozens of payetanim contributed an increasing num­ ber of liturgical poems to the Romaniote synagogue rites of Constantinopolis and Corfu. Scholars trans­ lated Greek texts into Hebrew for the Sefardic mer­ chants immigrating to the empire and produced their own studies on a variety of subjects. Adrianople flourished under the aegis of the Ot­ tomans, who made it their first European capitol (Edirne) from 1361 to 1453. The conquest of Con­ stantinopolis in 1453 by Mehmet (and of Mistra in 1260) ended the Byzantine Empire and restructured

Byzantine Jewry, henceforth known as Romaniotes (or pejoratively by the Sefardim as Gregos). A moving dirge on the fall of the city is extant from R. Michael ben Shabbtai Kohen Balbo of Crete. By 1455 the Jews of the northern tier—the communities along the Via Egnatia, which stretched from Durazzo to Constantinopolis—were forcibly transplanted to­ gether with upper- and middle-class Greeks and Ar­ menians from the Balkans and Anatolia to rebuild the new capital of Istanbul (i.e., the Turkish pronun­ ciation of eis ten poliri). In 1477 the Romaniote pop­ ulation of the city (called Kushta or more properly Kosta from Konstantinopoli) was about seventy-five hundred, or 10 percent of the city’s population. This figure is useful for reconstructing the demography of late Byzantine Jewry. Numerous communities of Ro­ maniotes could still be found in the western and southern provinces of Greece, Epirus, Acarnania, Peloponnesus (Morea), the isles of the Ionian and Aegean Seas, and Crete (the latter under Venetian rule since 1204). With the fall of Constantinopolis, the Byzantine legacy was translated to Moscow (the “Third Rome”), where the rivalry with the Jews in­ herent in Byzantine tradition was exacerbated into a virulent antipathy for political and religious reasons. STEVEN BOWMAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ankori, Zvi. Karaites in Byzantium: The Formative YearSy 970-1100 (New York and Jerusalem, 1959). Bowman, Steven. The Jews o f Byzantium, 1204— 1453. (Tuscaloosa, Ala., 1985). Jacoby, David. “Les quartiers juifs de Constantinople a l’epoque byzantine.” Byzantion 37 (1967): 167-227. Parkes, James. The Conflict o f the Church and the Syn­ agogue: A Study in the Origins o f Antisemitism. (London, 1934). Sharf, Andrew. Byzantine Jew ry from Justinian to the Fourth Crusade (New York, 1971). Starr, Joshua. “Byzantine Jewry on the Eve of the Arab Conquest (565-638).” Journal o f the Pales­ tine Oriental Society 15 (1935): 280-93. ---------. The Jews o f the Byzantine Empire, 641— 1204. (Athens, 1939).

127

C\ Taylor & Francis ~Taylor & Francis Group

http://tayl ora ndfra ncis.co m

c Canon (Church) Law and Jews Canon law refers to the codification, or more correctly the collection, of decrees of church councils, popes (not only official papal bulls but even letters), and so on that set forth the attitude of the medieval church on a variety of topics. It was, of course, binding upon clergy, but the attempt to make it binding upon all Christians, if indeed that was the intent, certainly failed. In medieval Europe there was a struggle and constant tension between civil law and canon law, as there was between church and state. This struggle came to a head in the eleventh and twelfth centuries with the revival of Roman law, long forgotten, and the codification of the Decretals, the final version of canon law. It was, strangely enough, in Germany (the “Holy Roman Empire”), where the struggle against papal dominance was most marked, that the reception of canon law was most effective, becoming integrated into German law (the Schtuabenspeigel, 1274-1275). According to Kisch, there was a “mutually supple­ mentary jurisdiction of ecclesiastical and secular courts . . . to enforce rules concerning Jews and their relationships to Christians” (1949, 40). This was never true, or true only to a very limited extent, in other lands (the Byzantine Empire, of course, was an exception, a complete theocracy; see BYZANTIUM). The two main collections of medieval canon law were the Decretum of Gratian, ca. 1140, and the Decretals, compiled by Ramon de Penafort in 1234. There were, throughout the Middle Ages, numerous glosses and commentaries to these, particularly to the Decretals, which, however important, cannot be con­

sidered here (see Pakter 1988 and Czerwinski 1992). Specialists in canon law will be dismayed at this, and therefore dismissive of the whole presentation here, but the intent is only to present a brief outline of statements concerning Jews in these two major and official collections. One may know a good deal about the Constitution of the United States, for instance, without having read every Supreme Court decision ever written. The Decretum

The Decretum is often referred to, especially in me­ dieval sources, as Concordat, and cited by title of the particular decretum. It was written by Gratian, a monk, and is a collection of various canon laws up to his time. At the outset, there is a polemical statement to the effect that the Jews acknowledged their guilt in cruci­ fying Christ (c. 11, C .I , qu.4). This is in itself peculiar, since in fact this was a charge rarely made in medieval Christian writing (contrary to popular opinion; see J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n RELATIONS for details). Gratian also refers to the Jews as “slaves” in the shadow of the law (c.2,D.I, de cons). This reflects the old polemic dating back to the early Fathers of the Church. The first serious discussion of law applicable to Jews, however, is baptism. Children of baptized Jews need not obey their parents who are not faithful Christians (c. 7, C. II, qu. 4; taken from Visigothic law, IV Toledo, c. 60). The issue of forced baptism has a long history (see CHURCH AND J e w s ). The let­ ter of Pope Gregory I (590—604) to the bishop of

129

Canon (Church) Law and Jews

Naples that gentleness rather than harsh measures must be used in converting Jews was included also in the Decretum (c. 3, D. XLV). So also is the ruling of IV Toledo, the Visigothic council, that Jews should not be baptized by force, but it also provided that Jews who had in fact been forcibly baptized and had meanwhile returned to Judaism must revert to the Catholic faith (c.5, D XLV; read IV Toledo, c. 57 there, instead of c. 56). Baptism is a sacrament, and as such is effective even if administered by a drunk­ ard, murderer, or adulterer (c.46, C. II, qu.l). Once baptized, whether or not in accord with what ought to be done, a person must remain a Christian. Thus, converted Jews, “who frequently return to their vomit” (Judaism), must remain catechumens for eight months before being allowed to receive baptism (c.93,D.IV de cons.; quoting the Council of Agde in 506, also IV Toledo there in c.94). To be fair, we know of some cases of medieval Jews pretending to accept Christianity in order to receive payment, and then returning to their apparently lukewarm Ju­ daism, some doing this several times at different churches. The expression about Jewish converts re­ turning (usually, “like a dog”) to their vomit is one frequently used in medieval Christian writings. Jews married to Christians (presumably a spouse who converted, although intermarriage was not un­ known) must either separate or convert. Children of mixed marriages, however, follow the mothers faith (if the parents separate)—provided that it is Chris­ tianity and not the Jewish “superstition” ( c .1 0 ,C . XXVIII, qu.l; cf. IV Toledo, c. 59). Children of such separated parents, indeed, should be sent to a monastery or raised by devout Christians (ibid., c. 11; presumably, the Christian mother was not con­ sidered sufficiently “devout” to raise her own chil­ dren). A Jew who converts, but the spouse does not, may (indeed, must) separate from the Jewish spouse (ibid., c.12; both this and the previous law are from IV Toledo, c.60 and 61). No Christian may marry a Jew, or have sexual relations outside of marriage with a Jew (c.l4,C.XXVIII,qu.l). A letter of Alexander II to the bishops of Spain is cited, in which it is said that Jews should not be per­ secuted, only the Saracens (Muslims) (c.l 1,C.XXIII, q. 8). What constitutes “persecution” is not specified (cf. Synan 1967, 69). As has been noted, this had

130

nothing to do with crusaders, but rather the Chris­ tian reconquest of Muslim Spain. No Christian may accept azima (probably Heb. ma$$ah, the text seems to intend food in general) from a Jew, or live with a Jew, or be treated by a Jew, or take medicine from a Jew, on pain of excommunication (c.13,C.XXVIII, qu.l; the main source, not cited, is IV Toledo, c .ll; also the Council of Agde, c. 40, and the fifth-century Council of Laodicea, tit. 36). The concern about Jewish ownership of slaves, going back to Byzantine law, is also reflected. Gratian cites a letter of Gelasius I (492-496) concerning a slave who claimed that, although a Christian from infancy, he was circumcised by a Jewish master. The pope had ordered an investigation into the truth of the charge (c.34,C.XVII, qu.4; cf. Synan 1967, 34). A Christian female slave bought by a Jew must be freed, lest she be polluted by the Jewish religion (c .13,D.LIV). Even pagan slaves of Jews who desire to become Christians must be freed (c .15,D.LIV, cf. c .l7; from XIIToledo, c.9). No Jew may hold public office over Christians (C14,D.LIV; III Toledo, c.14; and cf c.31, CXVII, qu.4), which is also from Byzantine law. Pagans, heretics, and Jews cannot accuse a Chris­ tian (c.25,CII, qu.7); from the context, it is clear that this refers to accusations of a religious nature only, but this was later extended to include a broad range of charges. The Decretals

While it is clear that the Decretum reflects mostly a theoretical approach to Jews, drawing on outdated laws of Visigothic and even earlier councils, and in­ cluding some while excluding most, the Decretals represent an attempt to codify centuries of decrees and make some order out of the chaos in a manner in which these canons could actually be applicable. Fur­ thermore, it was compiled by one of the most antiJewish church figures, Ramon de Penafort, a notori­ ous Catalan Dominican who had studied at the University of Bologna before becoming one of the foremost legal authorities of the age. He was also re­ sponsible first for the harsh anti-Jewish laws of the Siete partidas, a theoretical encyclopedia of law, most of which he wrote, for ALFONSO X of Castile, and in­ directly for much of the equally harsh anti-Jewish law

Canon (Church) Law and Jews

in the national law code of Aragon. He went from Castile to his native Catalonia stirring up hatred against Jews (see details in DOMINICANS AND FRAN­ CISCANS, S p a n i s h l a w , also T a l m u d , c o n d e m n a ­ t i o n o f ). This Jew-hater was later made a saint. Immediately giving his attention to one of his fa­ vorite concerns, he ruled that testimony of Christians must be accepted against Jews in all cases, since they “presume” to use their own witnesses in cases against Christians. Those who give preference to Jews in this shall be under anathema, “since it is proper that these [Jews] be subjected to Christians, and that they be treated kindly by them [Christians] solely for hu­ manitarian reasons” (C.21.X.II,20; from III Lateran, c.26). This was aimed particularly at secular rulers, most of whom had decreed that in cases against Jews both a Christian and a Jewish witness were needed. The Church apparently could not tolerate such “equality.” The threat of “anathema”—excommuni­ cation—did not deter kings, particularly in Spain, who continued to uphold the laws requiring equal representation. The statement about Jews being treated “kindly. . . solely for humanitarian reasons” comes directly from a bull of Gregory IX, the pope by whose orders the Decretals were compiled: “It ought to have been sufficient for the perfidy of the Jews that Christian piety, solely for humanitarian rea­ sons, received and sustained them” (Grayzel 1933, 198-99; Synan 1967, 238-39, correcting both trans­ lations here slightly). This, in turn, was merely fol­ lowing what Innocent III had written, also included in the Decretals, that “Christian piety accepts and sustains living with Jews who, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they cruci­ fied the Lord” (Grayzel 1933, 114-15, again correct­ ing the translation; cf. Deeretales III, 145). Clement V, at the Council of Vienne (1311-1312), complained that the privileges of kings and princes allowed Jews and Muslims not to be convicted in civil or criminal matters solely on the basis of Chris­ tian testimony, and decreed excommunication for Christians who granted such privileges (1,11,8, in Clem). This was ignored, certainly in Spain. Alexander III (1159-1181) complained of Jews who sometimes summon a cleric before a secular court in cases involving a Jew, something that was not even allowed a Christian to do (cf. C.10.X.V,1),

much less the “enemies of Christ” (C.23.X.II,20). The text of the letter in Decretals is very corrupt, or deliberately refashioned as some texts were; cf. Mansi XX, 356; not in Synan. The same pope wrote that Jews must pay ecclesiastical tithes on their property, for they must be compelled to serve the Church (C.29.X. II, 28; cf. Grayzel 1933, 38 n. 16). In prac­ tice, this was rarely required of Jews. However, several laws did require Jews to pay tithes on property they acquired from Christians who had paid tithes. This obviously restricted the rights of Jews to buy property. We again revisit the issue of Jewish converts. Gre­ gory IX wrote that a Jew who came from the “error of Jewish blindness to the true light of Christ,” and whose wife remained Jewish, brought suit to raise the infant son as a Christian. The pope replied that the child follows the father (note the previous ruling in the Decretum that the child follows the mother!), and especially when it may be in danger among those who are “suspect of plotting against his salvation and life” (C.2.X.III,33; cf. Grayzel 1933, 182-83, not mentioned in Synan). An “infidel” converted to Christianity who, before conversion, was married within a grade of consanguinity prohibited by canon law need not dissolve the marriage, for marriage of any kind is binding among the Jews (C.4.X.IV,14, letter of Innocent III; cf. also C.7.X.IV,19 where In­ nocent ruled that a person who converts to Chris­ tianity may not continue to cohabit with the non­ converted spouse. If one of them converts to Judaism or Islam, or becomes a heretic, the Christian partner may not remarry. True marriage does exist among “infidels,” but it is not permanent [non tantum est ratum\.) Ramon de Penafort repeated this in the Siete partidas (IV.vi.6), including also a pejorative com­ ment about marriage in “other religions,” noting that only Christian marriage is really valid because the Church never allows a marriage to be destroyed whereas “other religions” permit divorce and remar­ riage (IV.x.4). The statement that any kind of mar­ riage is binding among Jews is, of course, false, and the pope ought to have known that. It was simply one more polemical and degrading remark against “enemies of the faith.” Prelates are ordered to “restrain” new converts, who have not completely abandoned their old ways, from observing their previous rites (C.4.X.V,9).

131

Canon (Church) Law and Jews

Children of an “infidel” who later convert to Christianity are considered legitimate even if born from a marriage not within recognized canonical grades of consanguinity (C.15.X.IV,17). Although forced baptism is “contrary to the Christian faith,” once baptized the convert belongs to the jurisdiction of the church and can be com­ pelled to observe Christianity. A distinction is made: one who is baptized in order to avoid violence or fear of torture is considered to have a “conditional will­ ingness,” although—absolutely—he or she is unwill­ ing (could even a skilled canon lawyer make any sense out of this statement?). Thus the Council of Toledo (IV Toledo, c.57) is to be understood, which said that those forced to be baptized must remain Catholics. Only one who never consents, but com­ pletely objects to baptism, may not be compelled (C.3.X.Ill,42). They may, of course, then be killed, and apparently that is all right. In fact, the only time popes ever intervened to protest such killings was in the numerous instances of RITUAL MURDER charges. Following the attacks on Jews in Spain in the sum­ mer of 1391, for example, when many were killed and others forcibly baptized, no church authority protested. There are again laws about Jewish ownership of slaves, far more detailed than the casual reference in the Decretum, even though this had become nearly a dead issue by the thirteenth century. No Jew may own a Christian slave, and any such must be bought from the Jewish owner, even against his will (C.1.X.V,6; citing the Council of Macon [581]). No Jew may own Christian slaves, lest he bring them to observe the “Jewish superstition” (C.2.X.V,6; Gre­ gory I). That some Jews did still have Christian slaves in the twelfth century we learn from a complaint of Alexander III to Louis VII of France, who had inter­ ceded concerning a Jew who kept a Christian female slave; the pope ordered him to “desist” (C.29.X. 11,28; whether the king listened is unknown). Jews and Muslims are not permitted to have Christian slaves, whether for nursing their children or for any other purpose. Christians who live in Jew­ ish homes shall be excommunicated. Converts to Christianity shall not be deprived of their hereditary rights, “for converts ought to be in better circum­ stances than they had been before accepting the Faith” (C.5.X.V,6; III Lateran, c.26). The threat of 132

excommunication was repeated by Innocent III, the councils of Montpellier, Paris, Oxford, Narbonne, Rouen, Tarragon, Worcester, and Beziers in the thir­ teenth century (see Grayzel 1933 for all of these). Alexander III repeated the decree of III Lateran, for “Jewish ways and ours are in no way in accord” and such contact may cause Christian souls to incline to Jewish “superstition and perfidy” (C.8.X.V,6). Inno­ cent III, in the previously cited letter, also prohibited Christians from nursing Jewish children (this con­ tains the famous charge that Jews force Christian nurses to empty their milk into latrines after having taken Communion; apparently Jews believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation according to this ridic­ ulous and false charge); nor may Christians enter into any commercial relations with Jews (C.13.X. V,6). This latter law was obviously unenforceable, and ordinary Christians, being less intolerant than the pope, continually engaged in commercial rela­ tions, including partnerships, with Jews (see C O M ­ MERCE, Christian-Jewish relations). It should be noted that in the original form of the Decretals, before additions, the reference to the Jews crucifying Christ, contained in Innocent’s letter, was left out. No Jew may buy or keep a baptized slave or one who desires baptism. The Jewish owner may receive twelve solidi for such a slave provided the slave is sold within three months (C.19.X.V,6). Jews are not allowed to build new synagogues, but must be permitted to maintain their old ones “with­ out disquietude” (C.3.X.V,6). They may not build a new synagogue, even where they have not previously had one; only if an old one has been destroyed or is ruined may it be rebuilt (C.7.X.V,6). These laws all come from Byzantine legislation, and were also part of the famous Sicut Judaeis bull of protection for Jews issued by every pope. In practice, although popes sometimes did try to intercede to prevent new syna­ gogues being built, Jews did build new synagogues, usually without hindrance. On the other hand, whenever a mob rioted, because of a “blood accusa­ tion,” “ritual murder” or H OST DESECRATION charge, and synagogues were burned (sometimes with Jews in them), there were seldom any protests from the popes. On “Good Friday,” Jews are not allowed to open their doors or windows, which must remain closed the entire day, nor may Christians hold conversation

Canon (Church) Law and Jews

with the “perfidious Jews” (Alexander III; C.4.X. V,6). “Holy Week” was always a time of dread for Jews. Not only church laws but also local or royal or­ dinances decreed that Jews must remain indoors ei­ ther the entire week or at least on Good Friday and Easter. Jews were often stoned, in their houses or not, during this time. A Jew who strikes a priest is to be punished by a fine, or any other secular punishment that gives satis­ faction (Innocent III; C.14.X.V,6). Nothing is said about striking a Jew. Jews and Muslims must be distinguished from Christians by the quality of their clothes. There is no mention of a BADGE, although in fact that became the universal practice (see that article), nor may they go in public during “Holy Week” or on Easter, nor in any way insult Christ (IV Lateran, c.68; C.15.X.V,6). Only in Spain was the badge not enforced. Jews may not hold public office over Christians (IV Lateran, c.69; C.16.X.V,6). Gregory IX warned Sancho II of Portugal, as other popes had warned various Spanish rulers, not to give any preference to Jews over Christians in public office (C.18.X.V,6). These warnings, and the canon law, were ignored. Innocent Ills letter to the archbishop of Nar­ bonne (1198) is cited, in which he ordered that Jews be forced to remit “usury” on loans to Crusaders (C.12.X.V,19). The complaint against Jewish “per­ fidy” in dealing in usury is also mentioned, with the decree that if a Jew engages in “heavy and immoder­ ate” usury, all commerce with Christians be denied him (IV Lateran, c.67; C.18.X.V,19) (see the article M o n e y l e n d i n g for further details). It should be noted that although all of Title 19 deals with usury, only these two canons mention Jews. The prevalent notion that the church was particularly concerned with Jewish usury and strenuously acted to repress it is not supported by these sources. The Sicut Judaeis, the papal bull protecting the Jews, missing in the Decretum (although, in fact, it originated with Gregory I) is found in full in the Decretals (C.9.X.V,6) in the text as issued by Clement III (1187-1191). Clement V, as noted elsewhere, established chairs of Hebrew, Arabic, and “Chaldean” (the meaning of which in medieval sources is always problematic; per­ haps Syriac, although that is unlikely; more probably

Aramaic, as it usually is), and this is found in the later addition to the Decretals (1,V,1, in Clem). The only law concerning Jews in the later addi­ tion Extravagantes is that of John XXII (1316-1334) decreeing that goods that belonged to Jews before conversion to Christianity must not be taken from them, nor are Jews to be molested in any way after they convert, so that they not return to the “perfidy” that they left (cap. Dignum arbitrantes, De Iudaeis. V, 1, Extrav. com m .;ct. Synan 1967, 130). Conclusions

What may be concluded from this survey of the main collections of canon law? Various polemical terms aside (perfidy, superstition, enemies of the faith, killers of Christ, etc.), it is clear that Jews did not play a particularly important role in canon law, espe­ cially considering the vast number of sources from which statements could have been drawn. These in­ clude the numerous papal letters, some of great sig­ nificance, and also canons of local and even ecumeni­ cal councils, which were strangely not included. Although the decidedly anti-Jewish legislation of the Visigothic councils was utilized in the Decretum, it was largely ignored in the Decretals (see complete de­ tails of these in Roth 1994). This is not merely be­ cause some of these were already in the earlier collec­ tion, since some are included and others not in the Decretals; rather, it reinforces the impression of a haphazard collection of bits and pieces. Clearly, much of what was included in canon law was merely theoretical and was never put into actual practice (the various threats of excommunication against Christians, the prohibitions on commerce with Jews, etc.). It must again be emphasized that these laws, as also papal bulls and other decrees, had only “moral authority” behind them, and depended finally on the will of local rulers to enforce them. Of course, the threat of excommunication was real enough, but sev­ eral rulers showed that they were not particularly concerned about that. The Decretals were never binding in civil courts, nor did they have any particular influence on Euro­ pean civil law, other than in Germany, as noted. In Spain, the influence was indirect, chiefly through Ramon de Penafort. While the Siete partidas never were accepted fully as an operative “national code” of law in Castile, even in the fourteenth century, there is 133

Canon (Church) Law and Jews

no doubt about the influence of the attitudes con­ tained in it as reflected in some later local ecclesiasti­ cal councils. In Aragon the situation was quite differ­ ent. The Fueros, also the work of a canonist (Vidal de Canellas), became the law of the kingdom, and the same canonist wrote the Furs of Valencia and other local ordinances. He was a disciple of Ramon de Penafort. In Spain there were also many canonists who commented on the collections of canon law, both the Decretals and the Spanish codifications. There has to date been no research whatever on the attitude toward Jews in these glosses and commen­ taries, and such work very much needs to be done. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works o f Canon Law

Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Emilio Friedberg and A. L. Richter (Leipzig, 1878-81; rpt. Graz, 1959), vol. I: Deere turn, vol. II: Decretals. Decretales de Gregorio IX\ ed. Jaime M. Mans Puigarnau (Barcelona, 1940-43), 3 vols. in 4 (not a translation, but an independent version). Mansi, Gian D., ed. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Paris, 1857-66), 55 vols. Works on Canon Law

Cicognani, Amaleto. Canon Law (Philadelphia, 1934); more complete than Van Hove. Czerwinski, Francis Richard. “The Teachings of the Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century Canonists about the Jews.” (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1972). Garcia y Garcia, Antonio. “Valor y proyeccion de la obra de San Raimundo de Penafort,” Revista espanola de derecho canonico 18 (1963): 233-51. Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the X lllth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). Kisch, Guido. Jews in M edieval Germany (Chicago, 1949). Kuttner, Stephan. The History o f Ideas and Doctrines o f Canon Law in the Middle Ages (London, 1980). Pakter, Walter. M edieval Canon Law and the Jews (Ebelsbach, 1988). Roth, Norman. Jews, Visigoths & Muslims in Me­ dieval Spain (Leiden, 1994). Synan, Edward. The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New York, 1967). 134

Van Hove, A. Prolegomena, commentarium Lovaniense in codicem iuris canonici (Mechlin, 1928; Rome, 1945).

Capital Punishment

Medieval halakhists ruled, on the basis of talmudic sources, that the Jewish judiciary (lesser Sanhedrins) could not try capital cases unless the Great Sanhedrin was sitting in its chamber at the Temple. The death penalty was rarely imposed even in the days of the Temple, however, which suggests that capital punish­ ment was considered by Jewish law more as a deter­ rent than as a viable option. Nonetheless, medieval talmudic exegetes interpreted and analyzed passages that dealt with capital punishment, and suggested new theories and applications. Despite the limitations imposed by talmudic law, rabbinic courts in the Middle Ages did occasionally hand down death sentences. Most of these sentences were imposed in cases involving Jews who informed against their brethren. The potential danger that in­ formers posed to Jewish life and livelihood was such that capital punishment might be necessary. In some instances, a death sentence was imposed only after the recommendation or implementation of other punitive measures including corporal punishment. Medieval Jewish courts did not claim the right to impose capital punishment as part of their usual ju­ dicial authority. Rather, an informer was branded with the status of a rodefi a pursuer, who could be maimed or even killed according to Jewish law with­ out due process, in order to prevent him from taking or endangering the life of another Jew. Rabbinic courts often proceeded with the approbation and sometimes even at the behest of secular local rulers. External authorization was welcomed in order to en­ sure that there would be no reprisals from the rulers. In addition, this authorization served to indicate the special circumstances under which the Jewish court functioned. Secular authorities usually carried out the death sentence mandated by the Jewish court, and, on occasion, conducted the trial themselves, after the accused was released to them by the Jewish community. Rulers who granted Jewish courts the right to impose a death sentence did so because they felt that even if the losses caused by Jewish informers might benefit the rulers’ cause initially, the inability

Capital Punishment

of Jewish communities to remove their most destruc­ tive members would ultimately have a negative im­ pact on the rest of society. Evidence for medieval rabbinic figures who tried capital cases comes mostly from Spain and North Africa. R. Joseph Ibn Abitur (ca. 1000) refers to an an­ cestor who meted out all forms of capital punishment as well as corporal punishment. (A similar claim made in regard to Abu Aharon of Baghdad during his sojourn in southern Italy is far more doubtful.) R. Joseph Ibn Megash (1077-1141) once had an informer stoned at the conclusion of the Day of Atonement. MAIMONIDES (1138-1204) asserts that well-known informers were put to death throughout the western part of the Moslem world. On the other hand, Abraham Ibn Daud (1110-1180) writes that heretical Spanish QARAITES were spared this fate, but were expelled instead. There is nary a reference to capital punishment in geonic litera­ ture, nor is there evidence for capital punishment in the documents of the Cairo GENIZAH. Judah (1270-1349), son of A s h e r b . Y e h i e l (ca. 1250-1327), wrote that he and his colleagues in Castile were permitted by the authorities to try capital cases. In Judahs view, this right was beneficial for two reasons. It prevented a non-Jewish court from impos­ ing a death sentence upon a Jew who did not deserve to die for his crime, and it allowed a Jewish court to sentence to death a Jewish informer who might not re­ ceive the death penalty in a trial before the authorities. Asher b. Yehiel, a native of Germany who was forced to flee to Spain, expressed surprise on finding that rab­ binic courts in Spain formally tried capital cases. He noted that rabbinic courts in his homeland did not do so. Responsa of Asher s teacher, Meir of Rothenburg (ca. 1215-1293), confirm that although Jews were justified according to Jewish law in putting an in­ former to death as a rodef, there was no provision in Germany that allowed for the capital trial or punish­ ment of an informer by a Jewish court. Indeed, after authorities in Strasbourg found out that Samuel Schlettstadt (d. 1370) had imposed a death penalty on two informers, he was forced to flee, even though the sentence was carried out by a local Gentile magistrate. On the other hand, Meir of Rothenburg s younger contemporary Solomon I b n A d r e t (ca. 1235-1310) describes the imposition of death sentences on in­ formers in Aragon, with the approbation and involve­ ment of the royal courts. Responsa of ISAAC B.

(Spain and Algeria, 1326-1408) and Solomon b. Simeon Duran (Algeria, 1400-1467) also discuss the implementation of capital punishment. An ordinance passed by the Jewish community in Tudela in 1288 required that an informer be delivered to the authorities for a death penalty. A similar mea­ sure was included in a Castilian ordinance of 1432. Spanish sources also indicate that the death penalty was imposed by rabbinic courts for heinous crimes such as murder and public blasphemy, but only rarely. These penalties were imposed based on a provision in talmudic law that allowed rabbinic tri­ bunals, in unusual situations where they perceived that lawlessness or other significant societal deterio­ ration might result from a particular violation, to put to death even those who had not committed capital crimes. This rationale was cited occasionally in cases involving informers as well. For the most part, however, Jews who committed capital crimes were punished by means of lashes and other physical pun­ ishments including amputation, monetary fines, ex­ communication, restrictive bans, or expulsion. Corporal punishment was employed in Germany not only for crimes against humanity, but also as both a deterrent and as a form of penance for serious viola­ tions of ritual law such as Sabbath desecration, which under certain conditions was considered a capital of­ fense. The German Pietists (ca. 1200-1250) devel­ oped an elaborate system of penances and penitentials for a range of sins including those that were punish­ able according to biblical law by death. The extent to which these practices were in vogue among the Jewish community at large is difficult to ascertain. Nonethe­ less, some of them were reproduced in Ashkenazic rabbinic compendia of the later Middle Ages. Medieval halakhists also discussed the question of whether death sentences imposed by secular authori­ ties for crimes committed in their realms were valid according to Jewish law, based on the principle of “the law of the land is law.” Here too, societal and temporal conditions, in addition to considerations of talmudic law, helped shape the positions that rab­ binic scholars adopted. SHESHET

EPHRAIM KANARFOGEL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Assaf, Simcha. Ha-Onshin Aharei Hatimat ha- Tal­ m ud (Jerusalem, 1922). 135

Capital Punishment

Bazak, Jacob. “Harigat Nefashot ve-Dinehah beSifrut ha-She’elot u-Teshuvot.” Sinai 68 (1971): 275-87. Elbaum, Jacob. Teshuvat ha-Lev ve-Qabbalat Yissurim (Jerusalem, 1993), 18-30, 44-53. Hershler, Moshe. “Teshuvot Geonim ve-Qadmonim (Be-Seder Tiqqun ve-Onshim be-Dinei Nefashot ba-Zeman ha-Zeh),” Genuzot 1 (1984): 169-74. Quint, Emanuel, and Neil Hecht. Jewish Jurispru­ dence (London, 1980), 34-37, 154-83. Schreiber, Aaron. Jewish Law and Decision-Making (Philadelphia, 1979), 400-422.

Cartography and Geography

Knowledge of geography and mapmaking, as with so many things, originated with the Greeks. The first map is said to have been made by Anaximander of Miletos (ca. 610-ca. 545 B.C.E.) and the first geogra­ phy to have been by Hecataeos (ca. 550-ca. 475 B.C.E.). However, it was Ptolemy (second century C.E.), the “father of cartography,” whose influence shows most clearly in medieval maps. The Ptolemaic orientation (north above, east to the right) is still used, although it was not always so in Muslim geog­ raphy. The need for sailing charts was obvious, and it is impossible to imagine that some such charts did not exist also in the ancient world (Phoenician and Jewish ships from the time of Solomon, and also in later Palestine and Babylon). Certainly Muslim navi­ gators pioneered such charts (portolani) in the early medieval period, although apparently none prior to the fourteenth century have survived. Medieval maps, particularly those produced in Christian Eu­ rope, were absurdly inaccurate, not even correct with regard to local areas (see Sarton 1930, 2.1:40, 2.2: 770 ff.). Muslim maps were only slightly superior, still vague and inaccurate in many details, but their geographical writings were another matter. The out­ standing example was the work of “al-ldrldsl,” writ­ ten for Roger II of Sicily in the twelfth century. However, there were many earlier works, particularly o f North Africa and other Muslim regions, that pro­ vide still useful information (an eight-volume edition of Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum was pro­ duced by de Goeje [1879-1939; rpt. 1967]; mean­ while the historical-geographical work of “al-Masudi” [All b.Husayn], Les prairies d ’or, had been published 136

in nine volumes, 1861-1877 [a revised and corrected edition was made by Charles Pellat in 1962]; see Bib­ liography for studies about Muslim geography). Unfortunately, there has been little serious re­ search on Jewish cartographers or geographers, and almost none at all by Jewish scholars. (The article of Anita Lebeson, an enthusiastic dilettante, “Jewish Cartographers,” Historia Judaica 10 [1940]: 155-74 is worthless, full of mythology and errors derived from uninformed authors.) In the Middle Ages, while Italy produced some of the earliest maps, the most important place was held by the school of cartographers and nautical charts of Majorca, far superior to anything else produced until the modern era. The earliest known world map from Majorca was done in 1339 by Angelino Dulceti (Dulcet), a con­ verted Jew. It is an elaborate map, with particular de­ tail in the Scandinavian countries, drawn in various colors. It shows Europe, the Azores, and the Canary Islands, and approximately half of the coast of Africa. It has been conjectured, convincingly, that the fa­ mous “Catalan Atlas” was in part copied from this map, with which it shows many similarities (see Llabres 1888 and 1890). Like the “Catalan Atlas,” this map includes legends about various countries and locales, drawn from classical sources, Isidore of Seville, and others. Abraham Cresques (sometimes called Cresques Abraham) and his son Judah (variously Jehuda, Jafuda, etc.) were the most important cartographers of Majorca and of the Middle Ages in general. It was only in the nineteenth century that their exis­ tence came to light, thanks to the investigation of the now famous “Catalan Atlas,” which was kept as a treasured possession in France. Gabriel Llabres, in a series of articles (1888 and 1890a, b), began to unravel the mystery, and this led to investigation of the archives by others. In 1381, Juan I, son of Pedro IV of Aragon-Catalonia, sent a messenger to Charles VI, the king of France, with a world map made by the Jew Cresques (Llabres 1890b, 310). In 1382, Pedro IV ordered the treasurer to pay Cresques, “a Jew of our house,” 150 gold flo r in s for making certain tables with a figure of the moon. The following month, the king ordered the governor of Majorca to see that “Abram Cresches” and “Jaffuda” his son, makers of certain mapa-

Cartography and Geography

mundis (world maps) for the king, be provided with meat for their meals by the Jewish butcher “every hour which they demand” (!). It is apparent from these two documents (Rubio y Lluch 1918-1921, 2:253, No. CCLX and 2:255, Doc. CCLXII) that both father and son had been known to the king for some time; indeed, from the first document, it appears they may have lived part of the time in BARCELONA. In 1387 the infant Juan again ordered a map from Judah, at the very high cost of 68 libras. During the mob attacks on Jews throughout Spain, including Majorca, in the summer of 1391, many Jews con­ verted to Christianity. Among them was Judah Cresques. Nothing more is heard of his father, who may have died prior to these attacks; in 1381 he was given permission to construct a public bath on his property, and that is the last we hear of him. Judah assumed the name Jaime Ribera upon his conversion. When he became king, Juan I (1387-1395) contin­ ued his support of Judah, sending various letters of protection and safe-conducts for him. In 1394, the king wrote the official in charge of property and money that belonged to the robbed Jews of Majorca as a result of the “insults against the Jewish commu­ nity,” and in that letter he noted that he owed money for some work he had ordered to Jaime Ribera, for­ merly a Jew of that city. Jaime had owned a house there that now belonged to the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and the king ordered that Jaime be reim­ bursed for the house. (Reparaz published as an ap­ pendix some documents relating to Abraham and the family, including his daughter and wife.) As Llabres correctly guessed, Jaime went to Portu­ gal. The navigational charts used by Pero da Cavilha and Afonso de Paiva in the discovery of Brazil were based on maps of two medieval Jewish cartographers, one of whom is called “mestre Moyses,” a Jew (Reparaz, p. 9). The other was, apparently, Jaime Ribera (Judah Cresques). According to another source concerning the discovery of the Madeira Is­ lands (1420), the infante Enrique sent to Majorca to “mestre Jacome,” master of sea charts to make navi­ gational charts for the expedition (Pacheco Pereira, p. 98). This is confirmed by the famous chronicler Joao de Barros, Decadas de Asia, Decado /, p. 133, who adds that mestre Jacome (Jaime Ribera) was very learned in the art of navigation, who made charts and

instruments. The argument (see Reparaz, p. 19) that Jahuda Cresques was at least twenty-five in 1381 when he composed the “Catalan Atlas” and thus would have been fifty-four if he went to Portugal in 1410 is hardly an argument; many people lived to an advanced age in medieval Spain. The “Catalan Atlas” remains the most important of the medieval world maps. Among other things, it depicts everyday scenes, caravans, and so on. It also was the first map to show the peninsular shape of India, and reflects the reports of travelers to various countries. Gabriel de Vallsecha (1439), another probable convert, of whom little is known, made a world map that was used by Amerigo Vespucci, after whom “America” is named. The map is now in the Museo Maritimo in Barcelona. Judah Ibn Zara made a world map in Alexandria in 1497, preserved in the Vatican. The Red Sea is col­ ored in red, and the Baltic in blue, while major cities are in polychrome. Judah was on a journey to Pales­ tine. Another map by him, of the Mediterranean (1500) is in the Hebrew Union College library in Cincinnati (color reproduction in Jiidische Lebenswelten Katalog, p. 275), and a third was made when he reached Safed in 1505 (Yale University library). The 1500 map is the most complete and includes Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, absent in the first map. Elijah Mizrahi, an important rabbi in Constan­ tinople (1492—1496) and mathematician (see SCI­ ENCE AND MATHEMATICS), included in his commen­ tary on “R a s h i ” on the Bible a map of Palestine, which was the first such map ever printed. Geography a n d Travelers

The earliest Jewish scientific work in this field is $urat ha-are$ (Form of the earth) by A b r a h a m b a r yAYYA (or Hiyya) of Barcelona (ca. 1065-1136), which has also been made available in a Spanish translation with notes by the renowned Spanish his­ torian of science Millas Vallicrosa. The work carefully describes geographical features, the poles, equator, and so on, and one manuscript of the work shows a crude sketch of a world map (facing p. 48 of the translation); probably the author himself had drawn such a map, as there are numerous other figures in the work.

137

Cartography and Geography There were, o f course, many Jewish travelers throughout the years. Their accounts can be called “geographies” only in the loosest possible sense. These begin with Ibrahim ibn Yaqub o f Tortosa (Spain) in the tenth century. This world traveler was the source o f information on Christian Spain and on Europe in general for the famous Muslim writer alBakrl, and is cited also by other Muslim geographers and historians. His account is also one o f the earliest eyewitness reports o f the Slavic lands. Areas o f north­ ern Europe described by him are France, Germany, Ireland (but perhaps hearsay), Poland, and the east­ ern lands. Benj am in of T u d e l a , o f course, was the most famous o f all Jewish travelers, although his de­ scriptions are often vague, in spite o f which much valuable information at least on Jewish communities is provided.

A certain Rabbi Jacob of Paris made a pilgrimage to Palestine (the date of ca. 1258 was challenged by Steinschneider, who suggested that it may have been as late as the fourteenth century). His account was published in Hebrew and in a French translation by the notorious Carmoly, rarely to be trusted (see Sarton 1931,2.2: 1064). From the fourteenth century also are brief ac­ counts in Meir b. Isaac Ibn al-Dabiy, Sheviley emunah and (very general) Joseph b. Eliezer Bonfils, $afenatpdn eah. Estoriy ha-Farhiy, who went from Spain to Egypt in 1313 and finally to Palestine, provided precise and valuable information in his Kaftor u-ferah (see Pa l e s t i n e for details). Abraham Farrisol of Avignon (1451-ca. 1525) was the first Jewish writer to mention the New World, but with no details, in his geographical work Orhot < olam (Roads of the world). NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY Medieval Muslim Geography (studies)

Alavi, S. M. Z. “Arab Geography in the 9th and 10th centuries A .D .,” Indian Geographical Journal 22 (1947): 53-61, 141-55; 23 (1938): 40-67. Nafis, Ahmad. Muslim Contribution to Geography (Lahore, 1947), good introduction. Jewish Cartographers

Almagia, Roberto. Planisferi carte nautiche e affini dal secoli XIValXVII esistenti nella Biblioteca Apos138

tolica Vaticana (Vatican, 1944), pp. 47-48 (Judah Ibn Zara). Bonet, Miguel. “Cartas sobre Jafuda Cresques,” Bolet in de la Sociedad arqueologica luliana 7 (1897): 124-26, 148-50, 176-77. Jiidische Lebenswelten Katalog ed. Andreas Nachama and Gereon Sievernich (Berlin, 1991), p. 275, color plate 12/15 (Judah Ibn Zara). Llabres, Gabriel. “Los cartografos mallorquines. Siglo XIV,” Boletin de la Sociedad arqueologica luliana2 (1888): 323-28; 3 (1890): 313-18. ---------. “El maestro de los cartografos mallorquines [Jafuda Cresques],” Boletin de la Sociedad arqueologica luliana 3 (1890): 310-11. Pacheco Pereira, Duarte. Esmeraldo de situ orbis, modern edition by Augusto Epiphano da Silva Dias (Lisbon, 1905). Reparaz, Gon^alo de, Jr. Mestre Jacome de Malhorcay cartografo do infante (Coimbra, 1930). Rubio y Lluch, Antoni, ed. Documents p er Vhistoria de la cultura catalana mig-eval (Barcelona, 1918— 21), 2 vols. Roth, Cecil. “Judah Abenzaras Map of the Mediter­ ranean World, 1500,” Studies in Bibliography and Booklore 9 (1970): 116-20. Geography

Abraham bar Hayya (Hiyya). La obra Forma de la tierra, tr. Jose Ma. Millas Vallicrosa (MadridBarcelona, 1956). Canard, Marius. “Ibrahim ibn Ya qCxb et sa relation de voyage en Europe,” Etudes d ’o rientalisme. . . LeviProvengal (Paris, 1962) II, 503-8. Miguel, A. “L’Europe occidentale dans la relation arabe d’Ibrahim b. Yaqub,” Annales 21 (1966): 1048-64, with bibliography. Sarton, George. Introduction to the History o f Science (Baltimore, 1931), vol. 2, parts i and ii.

Castile

A major division of medieval Spain was Castile, which comprised “old” and “new” Castile (the latter consisting of ever-expanding territory reconquered from the Muslims in the twelfth and thirteenth cen­ turies) . The early history of the Christian Reconquest was marred by constant internal strife and wars among the various princes. Sancho III of Navarre

Castile

was able to unite “old” Castile under his reign (1000-1032). His son Garcia (Sancho IV) ruled Na­ varre (1035-1054) until he lost his life in battle in Castile, and Sancho Ills second son, Fernando I, ruled jointly over LeOn and Castile (1035-1065). There was a division among his sons, with Sancho II (1065-1072) as king, followed by Alfonso VI (1065­ 1109) and his daughter Urraca, who reigned (1109— 1126) over Leon and Castile jointly. Urracas son Alfonso VII ruled from 1126 to 1157, and the two kingdoms were divided among his sons, which division lasted until the death of Enrique I in 1217. Fernando III became king of Castile (1217-1252) and then also of Leon (1230), and it was he and his renowned son ALFONSO X (1252-1284) who suc­ cessfully completed the Reconquest of most of Muslim Spain (excepting only the large kingdom of Granada). Jews lived in substantial numbers both in the old and the new territories of the kingdom from the time of the VISIGOTHS, but the Jewish population was considerably augmented by increasing migration into Muslim Spain (al-Andalus) from the ninth century on. In old Castile, the largest concentration of Jews was in Burgos, the chief city, and the surrounding towns. Surviving privileges from the late eleventh century and throughout the twelfth century indicate that Jews were treated with equality in the laws, exactly as Christians. These were local fueros, or laws enacted by the towns and approved by the kings. They are thus very significant for establishing the actual treat­ ment of Jews, as well as providing a record of at least some of the areas of Jewish settlement. It is also obvi­ ous that most Jews at the time were landowners and engaged in viticulture and AGRICULTURE. Contrary to earlier assumptions of some scholars, these charac­ teristic occupations did not diminish over time, and throughout the medieval period Jews in Castile con­ tinued to engage in agriculture and the growing of grapes and manufacture of wine, not only for their own consumption but also for sale to Christians. Alongside these pursuits, of course, Jews were ac­ tive in numerous crafts and trades, generally operat­ ing from small stores on the ground level of their two- (or even three-) story homes, although special groups of merchants operated frequently in markets, a carryover from Muslim custom.

Although some Jews fought in Muslim armies against Christian forces in the early stages of the Re­ conquest, generally they welcomed the Christian rulers. Toledo was a particularly difficult situation, first conquered in 1085 but lost again to invading Muslims and repeatedly the subject of attempts to re­ gain it by the Muslims throughout the twelfth cen­ tury. Jews were massacred in the city by Christians in 1108, and when Alfonso VII granted his privilege to the city in 1118 he (his advisors, that is, since he was not yet of age) pardoned all who had been in­ volved—in spite of the fact that this specifically con­ tradicted legislation that sought to protect the Jews. Yet Jews continued to flourish in the city and its environs, and Jewish officials were even placed in charge of government property. When the previous ruler, Alfonso VI, had died in 1109 there were (as often happened in such an event) general riots and uprisings throughout the kingdom. In some towns in old Castile, Jews were attacked and killed or robbed. When Alfonso VII came of age he showed that he was still incensed at the memory of this outrage, which indicates how little he personally had to do with the pardon in Toledo for the similar attack there. One of the most important cities in new Castile was Avila, whose Jewish community was established already in 1085. The Jewish population increased substantially in the city, and by the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries Jews occupied a substantial portion of the city. Burgos, with numerous nearby towns and villages, was another major Jewish center, and during the fif­ teenth century Palencia in the north (in old Castile) became probably the chief center of Jewish popula­ tion. Valladolid, Segovia, and Salamanca were other major centers. Indeed, Jews lived in medieval Spain in virtually every town and village, as well as in the major cities, a mark of the general atmosphere of cor­ dial relations that prevailed even to the very date of the Expulsion. Jews also often occupied or maintained castles throughout Spain, and so in most of the strategic points and cities of Castile. While nothing remains of most of these except some ruins (Duenas, where the Jewish castle existed already in the tenth century; Najera; and a few others), attention should be called to that of Soria, which at one time was inhabited by 139

Castile

most of the Jews of the city. Today its ruined walls may be seen adjacent to theparador (guest inn). Alfonso VIII (1158-1214), an enlightened and very successful ruler, not only displayed considerable generosity to individual Jews and Jewish communi­ ties but also worked to improve the general economy (which indirectly certainly benefited the Jews) and to further guarantee Jewish equality in law. Though some mostly minor Jewish officials had served rulers before this time, and many local officials and judges in Toledo and elsewhere were Jewish, Alfonso VIII was the first to make substantial use of Jewish offi­ cials. This set perhaps a precedent for following kings; in any case, all the subsequent rulers—not excepting FERNANDO a n d I s a b e l —employed numerous Jewish officials in their service. The rulers par excellence of the Reconquest, Fer­ nando III and his son Alfonso X, were notable exam­ ples of this trend. They conceded substantial grants of houses and property in cities such as Seville and Jerez to these officials. Much attention has been called to the intellectual activity of Alfonso X, the “wise” king (seldom is it re­ marked that he personally played little role in the scholarly works on which this reputation is based), but it must also be remarked that his reign brought about the attempt to enact the first national codes of law, the Fuero real and Siete partidas. While these also were not his personal compositions (the latter, es­ pecially, was chiefly the work of the anti-Jewish DOMINICAN fanatic Ramon de Penafort), they at­ tempted to codify several anti-Jewish measures. Most of these were not apparently intended to be actually enforced, and few of them were. Those that were, however, were the laws concerning usury, which now limited strictly the interest that Jews could charge on loans. These were enforced by Alfonso s erstwhile rebel­ lious son and successor, Sancho IV (1284-1295), who also for the first time repealed the age-old right of Jews to be tried in all cases involving Christians before both Jewish and Christian judges. While this measure did not generally outlast his reign, it was a dangerous precedent in interference with Jewish privileges. Fernando IV, if anything, was even less cordial in his relations with the Jews, strictly enforcing laws on usury 140

and staunchly maintaining his pledge—unlike other rulers—not to utilize Jewish officials of any kind. Nevertheless, both Sancho IV and his wife, Queen Maria de Molina, mother of Fernando and regent during his minority, had employed Jewish officials, and Fernando did not entirely refrain from following their example. Members of the powerful Ibn Susan family and others continued in various tax and other positions. Alfonso XI was one year old when he began his reign (1312-1350). Again, the early years of his reign were plagued by uprisings and unrest. This was to prove to be a nearly disastrous period for the Jews, and not because of the BLACK DEATH (1348), which, while it certainly claimed Jewish victims in some parts of Castile, was not nearly as disastrous as in Aragon-Catalonia and certainly far less than in Eu­ rope generally. Rather, the first half of the fourteenth century in Castile was marked by an increasing antiJewish sentiment, expressed chiefly through demands of the Cortes (parliament) concerning Jewish loans, the demand that no Jews be allowed to collect taxes or hold government offices (which the king agreed to with a clever-worded clause that in effect allowed him to ignore the demand). The cause of this increasing anti-Jewish hostility cannot easily be explained either as “ideological” (re­ ligiously motivated) or as due to “urban oligarchies” resenting competition with the Jews. As usual, it was probably a combination of factors. It is clear that many of the complaints came from the middle and lower classes, who appear to have equally resented the aristocracy and clergy. With respect to Jewish officials, Alfonso was in fact served by some of the most powerful and impor­ tant Jews, such as Samuel Ibn Waqar and Yu^af de Ecija, and his scribe Moses Abzardiel. Yu^af, a power­ ful and wealthy man who was a friend and advisor to the king as well as essentially the royal treasurer, fell into difficulties when discrepancies in his accounts were discovered and he was removed from his posts (apparently also temporarily imprisoned). While the military-religious Order of Alcantara had long exhibited hostility to Jews, there is no truth whatever in a late Hebrew tale about an alleged plot of its master, Gonzalo Martinez (supposedly a knight in the service of Yu^af, no less) to “annihilate” the Jews of the kingdom, as Baer (1966) has claimed.

Castile

Nevertheless, more reliable and nearly contemporary Hebrew sources do mention some attacks by Gonzalo against certain Jews, probably in the frontier re­ gion during the war against Granada. The most serious interference with the rights of Jews came with the Ordenamiento enacted at the Cortes of Alcala in 1348, according to which restric­ tions were placed on Jewish loans and an attempt (unsuccessful) was made to impose limits on the amounts of property that Jews could buy or sell. But Alfonso was by no means despised by the Jews, as numerous sources attest. Indeed, one of the most important Jewish writers in medieval Spain, Shem Tov de Carrion (author of the famous Proverbios morales), to whom the king owed money that he never repaid, nevertheless praised him and at his death wrote that no one could believe that so great a king had died. (There is no hidden motive, nor did Shem Tov “suffer persecution” at the hand of the king, as some of his editors have claimed.) The other great disaster of that year, of course, was the plague. Though we have little information on deaths in Castile generally, the clues that we do have—extant tombstone inscriptions of Jews in Toledo, for instance—indicate that there were few deaths from the plague (nine out of a total of twentyfive; of course, not all the tombstones survived or were recorded). Those affected included members of prominent Jewish families, men, women, and chil­ dren. In Seville the situation was certainly worse, and the king himself died of the plague there in 1350. Alfonsos son Pedro I (1350-1369) has often been portrayed as more favorably inclined than his father toward the Jews, but the facts hardly support this. In­ deed, at the first Cortes of his reign, at Valladolid in 1351, he imposed severe restrictions on the Jews in matters of dress and made the first attempt (however unsuccessful) to set up quarters for Jews apart from Christians. He also used the services of various Jew­ ish officials, however, particularly in Murcia, but most famously as his chief treasurer, Samuel ha-Levy (Abulafia). The reign of Pedro was beset by the rebellion of his half-brother, Enrique, and many of the nobility who supported him. The “Trastamara civil war” (so called after the name of Enriques dynasty) began at once with Pedro’s ascension to the throne, and at once the Jews

were caught up in it. Jews in the town of Arjona (near Cordoba) were attacked and killed in 1350. Most serious, however, was an attack on the Jews of Toledo in 1355 by Enrique and his forces. At least one Jewish quarter—the one in which Samuel haLevy lived—was besieged and sustained great loss of life, though the report that twelve hundred Jews were killed is certainly an exaggeration. During this at­ tack, all of Pedro’s treasury, hidden in the house of Samuel ha-Levy, was stolen. When the king returned and took control of the city, he removed various offi­ cials who had supported the uprising, but issued a general pardon to the inhabitants, except for the Mus­ lims who had “done certain injuries” to the Jews. In spite of the efforts of Samuel to rebuild the royal finances, he soon fell from favor (for reasons that are unclear) and in 1360 Pedro ordered his ar­ rest, along with all members of his family. It is not true, as Baer (1966) claimed, that Samuel “died in prison under torture,” however. Nevertheless, all of his possessions and those of his family were seized, and his famous house (which is said to have later been the house of the artist “El Greco” and is now a museum) was sold to a Christian noble. Among the property seized, and later converted into a church known as “El Transito,” was also the nearby syna­ gogue, now the national Jewish museum. Jews continued to suffer from the attacks of En­ rique’s troops, supported by French soldiers (who no doubt played a major role in the massacre of Jews). However, in several cities the inhabitants rebelled in support of Enrique, and they too attacked and killed Jews. The Jews themselves remained loyal to the king, and at Burgos they defended the city in 1366 against Enrique and fired upon his troops with ar­ rows and with muskets (one of the first recorded in­ stances in history of the use of firearms). The death of Pedro in battle and the acclamation of Enrique as king certainly did not bring peace and stability, as many pretenders claimed the throne, in­ cluding Fernando I of Portugal and John of Gaunt, the duke of Lancaster. Continuous battles and naval expeditions resulted. Another disastrous consequence of the war for the Jews, scarcely noticed by historians, was the closing of all the yeshivot. This we know from a Hebrew chronicle written in Castile in 1372, which is con­ firmed by other sources. It was not until late in the 141

Castile

fifteenth century that new yeshivot were established in Castile. When Enrique became ruler as Enrique II (1369-1379), petitions presented at his first Cortes sought to place all the blame for the troubles of the war on Jewish officials, and he was requested not to appoint any such; this was a request he categorically refused, however. As with previous kings, Enrique had several Jew­ ish officials, including two who served as contador mayor (in charge of all fiscal matters), Mosse Romano and Yu^af Picho. Jewish officials are also found in the service of some of the nobility, including the admiral of Castile, and especially in the Cantabria region in the extreme north. Thus, the specific demand at the Cortes of Burgos (1377) that no Jewish official be al­ lowed in the service of any of the nobility was totally ignored. During the reign of Juan I (1379-1390), there continued to be a number of Jewish officials and tax collectors, but more and more conversos were found in these positions. In a statement to the Cortes of Soria in 1380, the king said that “many Jewish men and women are turning to the faith of God” (sic; Christianity). Noting that Jews treated these converts with contempt, the king prohibited the use of certain insulting terms. On the popular, if not the official, level, Jews and Christians generally continued to get along quite well in all these periods. The evidence for that is overwhelming, and it is confirmed, for example, in the petulant complaint at the Cortes of Valladolid (1385) that Christians and Jews were living together, eating and drinking together, and that Christian chil­ dren were thus unduly influenced by Jews. In fact, there were repeated complaints of Jews and Chris­ tians “conversing together”—indicating general har­ monious relations—which ultimately was to be used to justify the expulsion of the Jews from Spain (1492). The unfortunate death of Juan in 1390, trampled by a horse, brought to the throne again a minor, a boy of eleven, Enrique III (1390-1406). As usual, there were widespread riots and unrest at the death of the king. Economic crises also marked the early reign of the new king. The most serious event for the Jews, which spread beyond the borders of Castile into all of Spain, resulted from the preaching of a fanatic and at 142

least half-mad archdeacon of Ecija, Ferrant Martinez. During the reign of Juan I this cleric had attempted to incite the masses against the Jews, and that king had repeatedly ordered him to stop, which he refused to do. Finally, in 1390 the archdeacon ordered the destruction of a synagogue, and in the summer (June) of 1391 he incited a mob to attack and rob the Jews in Seville and Cordoba. The sources state clearly that these attacks were carried out by the lower classes and peasants, and the young king did every­ thing in his power to halt the attacks and order the protection of Jews in other cities, such as Burgos. Soon, however, the riots had spread throughout the kingdom. While Jewish life did not “come to an end” in Burgos, Jews were attacked in the city, though not in the numerous surrounding villages, and also in Madrid, and elsewhere—spreading also into A r a g On CATALONIA, Valencia, Murcia, and Majorca. It would appear that relatively few Jews were killed, since the reports refer mostly to robberies, but many panicked, and perhaps some took their own lives, as reportedly was the case with Judah b. Asher of Burgos (a great-grandson of the famous Asher b. Yehiel of Toledo), his wife, and his mother-in-law (the widow of Jacob b. Asher, author of the important legal code the Tur). Masses of Jews converted, and en­ tire Jewish communities were virtually brought to an end, though some were revived later in the fifteenth century. Unlike the Jews of Germany in the First Cru­ sade, the converts did not return to their people after the riots ceased, in spite of efforts by the king and others to protect the Jews in every possible way. The death of Enrique III in 1406 left infant son, Juan II, on the throne. Once again, the country was thrown into a state of anarchy. Fernando de Antequera, brother of the late king, was appointed regent, but the lack of an heir to the throne of AragonCatalonia led to the decision to name him king there, and from 1412 until his death in 1416 he was both king of Aragon-Catalonia and regent of Castile, maintaining tight control of that kingdom through his children. Fernando cultivated the support of the “antipope” Benedict XIII, a Spaniard recognized by all of Spain, and of the outstanding preacher Vicente Ferrer, both of whom were notorious haters of Jews. Fernando encouraged Ferrer in his extremely success­ ful missionary campaigns, resulting in the further conversion of thousands of Jews.

Castile

The Ordinances of Valladolid (1412) were appar­ ently the direct result of a sermon by Ferrer, who im­ plored the queen mother and co-regent to act against the Jews. These ordinances again sought to restrict Jews to separate quarters and to prevent them from practicing certain professions (including medicine) or from associating with Christians. In fact, the ordi­ nances were never put into effect, and the exagger­ ated interpretation of them at the hands of a modern historian (see Baer 1966) can, without loss, be totally discounted. As king, Juan II also was served by prominent Jewish officials, some of whom were, however, caught up in the charges of treason against Alvaro de Luna, the constable of Castile. At least some Chris­ tians regretted their long campaign to prevent Jews from being tax officials and now petitioned the king to encourage this, since many trustworthy Jews had left for Portugal or gone into service with various nobles. Enrique IV (1454-1474), at best a most peculiar monarch, although certainly much maligned by his converso chroniclers who later supported his sister Is­ abel, pursued an inconsistent policy with respect to the Jews, as he did in most matters. Real or imagined, the alleged excesses and faults of the king led to open rebellion against him in 1464, and the council of no­ bles and clergy who met in 1465 to end the rebellion leveled a series of accusations concerning the Jews. Sponsored, certainly, by the notoriously anti-Jewish master of the Order of San Jeronimo, Alonso de Oropesa, who played a leading role in the council, the council demanded that Jews be forced to wear a distinguishing BADGE (several attempts had previ­ ously been made in this regard, to no avail), not to hold offices, and to live apart in separate quarters. Es­ pecially, yet again, they were to avoid ‘ conversation and familiarity” with Christians. Nevertheless, recog­ nizing the undeniable value of the Jews, it was stated that if any should attempt to leave the kingdom they would forfeit their property and be permanently en­ slaved to the king. As usual, practically none of these demands was actually enforced. Jews continued in the same occu­ pations, badges were not worn, nor did they live in separate quarters. Jewish physicians, for example (one of the “prohibited” professions), continued even on public salary paid by the councils of numerous

cities, as well as in service to the king. The Jews cer­ tainly supported Enrique, and immediately after the humiliation of the council, the king issued a decree commending the jews of Soria for maintaining the castle and defending him, with similar commenda­ tions to other Jews during the siege by French troops. Continued moral and political deterioration in the kingdom, ruled by a weak and ineffective mon­ arch, led to further rebellion and the acclamation fi­ nally of his sister Isabel as queen. Her secret marriage to Fernando, in spite of a contrary promise made to her brother, led ultimately to the union of Castile with Aragon-Catalonia when Fernando succeeded to that throne. Thus, the final chapter of the Jews in Castile belongs properly to their joint reign. Jewish Culture

A final word about the cultural contributions of Jews in Castile is appropriate. Heirs to the great tradition of al-Andalus and the mingling of Muslim and Jew­ ish cultural developments in literature, science, and philosophy, the Jews of thirteenth-century Castile continued this creativity with important scientific (and linguistic, since these were the first such works written in Spanish) works, both by translating Arabic scientific treatises and by composing their own origi­ nal works. Similarly, the twelfth and thirteenth cen­ turies saw the translation of the Bible into Romance, almost exclusively the work of Jewish translators (for Christian as well as Jewish readers). Hebrew POETRY and LITERATURE continued to flourish at least to the end of the thirteenth century and slightly beyond, and then there was a sudden de­ cline. What literary work continued was either very poor in quality or was written in Spanish (such as the work of Shem Tov de Carrion). The mass conver­ sions of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries seem to have taken the best minds of the Jewish commu­ nity, who as conversos now composed much of the Spanish poetry and novels and most of the historical chronicles, as well as the translation of Latin classics. Jewish “religious” (an entirely incorrect term, in reality) culture was thoroughly represented in Castile in the form of numerous biblical commentaries, compendia of Jewish law, responsa, and talmudic commentaries. There were also some continued, if generally minor, contributions to science (an excep143

Castile

tion was certainly Abraham Zacut, an important as­ tronomer). If many o f Castile’s most famous rabbis came from elsewhere (Jonah Gerundi, Abraham b. Natan o f Lunel, Asher b. Yehiel), there were others who ei­ ther were born there or grew up there and made their significant contributions in Castile: Judah and Jacob b. Asher, Isaac Aboab, Meir Arama, Jacob Ibn Habib, Isaac de Leon, and others). W ith the excep­ tion o f Asher b. Yehiel and his sons, none o f these can compare with the giants o f Aragon-Catalonia— men like Na h m a n i d e s , Ib n A dret , Is a a c b . S he sh et — yet they remain important figures in the world o f Jewish learning.

There remained some interest in PHILOSOPHY, even in the fifteenth century; and QABBALAH, al­ though originating probably in Provence, found fer­ tile soil in Burgos and Soria, and even in Guadala­ jara, where Moses b. Shem Tov de Leon apparently composed the monumental Zohar. This eclectic tradition of Jewish scholarship was enough to inspire and keep alive Jewish culture for sev­ eral generations among the exiles from Spain and their descendants in the various lands of their dispersion. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baer, Yitzhak (Fritz). A History o f the Jews in Chris­ tian Spain, tr. Louis Schoffman (Philadelphia, 1966), 2 vols. (Historia de los judios en la Espana cristiana, tr. Jose Luis Lacava [Madrid, 1981], 2 vols.). Gonzalez, Julio. El reino de Castilla en la epoca de Al­ fonso VIII(Madrid, 1960), 3 vols. Ladero Quesada, Miguel Angel. “Los judios Castel­ lanos del siglo XV en el arrendamiento de impuestos reales,” in Salvador de Moxo, ed., Estudios sobre la sociedad hispdnica en la edad media (=Cuadernos de historia. Anejo de Hispania, 6 [1975]), pp. 417-39. Leon Tello, Pilar. Judios de Avila (Avila, 1963). Montes Romero-Camacho, Isabel. “Notas para el estudio de la juderia sevillana en la Baja Edad Media (1248—1391),” Historia. Instituciones. Documentos 10 (1983): 251-77; rpt. in En la Espana medieval 10 (1987): 343-65.

144

Roth, Norman. Conversos, Inquisition, and Expulsion o f the Jews from Spain (Madison, Wise., 1995).

Champagne

Jews made their first appearance in Champagne long before that territory existed as a separate, named en­ tity. Laws and restrictions on Jews first appeared in the fifth century, along with reports about individual Jews, mostly negative, which are found in Latin records. Eudes, count of T r o y e s from 854 to 878, was the first ruler granted the right to transfer to his heirs parts of an area referred to as Champagne. From that date, the territory of Champagne changed its bound­ aries often. Sections of it were pieced together from various inheritances and dowries. Other parts were won or lost in wars. Not yet a cohesive unit, Champagne had no Jew­ ish policy apart from the older Roman law codes and the general Carolingian interest in promoting trade. These proved enough to create a hospitable environ­ ment for Jews to come into Champagne as part of their general northward immigration beginning late in the eighth century. By the tenth century, a small number of Jews had permanently settled in the developing Champenois towns. From a variety of both Jewish and Christian records, settlements in Reims, Sens, Vitry, Troyes, and Chalons-sur-Marne are known. Although evidence that Jews lived in these towns is all literary, it is relatively reliable. For example, a Latin document from the ninth century mentions the expulsion of Jews from Sens in 876. Isaac b. Eliezer ha-Levy, a tenth-century Rhineland scholar, wrote that his family had originated in Vitry and stipulated that the law was carefully followed there. Several responsa attributed to Joseph Tov cElem (d. ca. 1040) discussed Jews from Reims, Troyes, and Sens. However, the presence of Jews does not consti­ tute proof that a Jewish community existed. The first sign that Champenois Jews were becom­ ing organized was the H e r e m HAYISHUV (ban of set­ tlement), a document whose first use has been traced back to the end of the ninth century. The herem hayishuv banned commercial competition by prevent­ ing Jews from settling in a given area without the per­

Champagne

mission of the Jewish residents already there. By the time it was committed to writing, approximately one hundred years later, the herern was already well estab­ lished in Champagne. Another measure of how communal structure was developing is the repeated mention of the parnas (mayor) and the povei h a ir (elders) to be found in an increasing number of responsa texts during the tenth century, as well as other signs of community. These included communal meetings, mention of existing charitable organizations, and community traditions. All this early evidence of collective organization was not unique to Champagne. Jews from northern France and the Rhineland shared a common devel­ opment that paralleled the communal associations of the growing Christian towns with their merchant guilds. By the early eleventh century, representatives from forty-three Jewish settlements in Champagne were listed as participants in an assembly presided over by Gershom of Mainz. Many of these forty-three com­ munities were very small—perhaps one or two fami­ lies in each—but by the year 1000, they were grow­ ing steadily. Two of the largest concentrations of Jews were in the areas of Troyes and Reims. The development of collective methods of taxa­ tion put the definitive stamp of communal govern­ ment on the Jewish communities of northern France. From Tov ‘Elem’s responsa, we learn that methods of proportionate taxation were already being used and contested by the mid-eleventh century. More than one of these queries specifically refers to Troyes by name, indicating that Champagne was an integral part of this developing communal legislation. Tax law was a positive innovation for both Jewish and Christian governmental structure. It was more efficient for the counts and local lords to collect Jew­ ish taxes in one lump sum than piecemeal from indi­ vidual Jews. For their part, by paying their taxes as a group, Jews gained a new cohesion and their leaders achieved a new status. Now the Jewish parnas (or bishop as he was sometimes called in Latin docu­ ments) was the representative of a corporate body, the official Jewish community. The richer the Jews were, the higher their taxes. The higher their taxes, the more leverage the Jews had as a group. As European trade and commerce ex­

panded, Jews, who were still mostly merchants, quickly became important financial assets to local secular or church rulers. With prosperity came an in­ crease in urban population, both Jewish and Chris­ tian, and a physical expansion of Champagnes towns. Following this trend, Jewish communities grew in numbers and prosperity. The Jews of Champagne were most active and successful in the areas of com­ merce and legal scholarship. Following closely the development of the majority Christian community, they honed methods of exegesis and based new rul­ ings and codes on the older talmudic and biblical texts. Solomon b. Isaac (Rashi) (d. 1105), after study­ ing with several sages in the Rhineland, established an academy in his native Troyes in approximately 1070. He taught a handful of disciples, all of whom became the next generation of leaders. These in­ cluded Meir b. Samuel, Judah b. Natan, Simliah of Vitry, and Shemayah and Judah b. Abraham. Meir ben Samuel and Judah ben Natan each married one of Rashi’s daughters, and their sons became famous scholars in their turn. The most notable of the new generation of schol­ ars were Samuel b. Meir (Rashbam) (d. ca. 1160) and Jacob b. Meir Tam (d. 1171). Under their leadership two synods were held at Troyes in 1150 and 1160, and joint legislation was passed that was binding on all the Jewish communities of Champagne as well as communities beyond its borders. The process of systematically interpreting the laws of the Talmud was begun by “Rashi in the eleventh century and was continued by his son-in-law Meir and “Rashis” other disciples. However, it was with Rashbam and Rabbenu Tam, “Rashi? grandsons, that this form of exegesis reached the peak of its de­ velopment. Additions or tosafot, as these scholars’ comments came to be called, were skillfully used to reinterpret the older rulings of the Talmud and make them relevant to the newer communities of Jewish merchants. Under the skilled guidance of several gen­ erations of Champenois Tosafists, Jewish law was adapted to the living conditions and the needs, both financial and spiritual, of Champagne’s Jews. The Tosafists’ methods became widely accepted and spread from Champagne to other communities of western Europe.

145

Champagne

Jewish Champagne reached its intellectual peak in the second half of the twelfth century. By then, edu­ cation in the Talmud and Bible was almost universal for males, and a growing group of scholars was gain­ ing prominence beyond Champagnes borders. Rab­ benu Tam, perhaps more than any other scholar, guided and united the disparate communities, de­ manding that their laws and practices be consistent. His efforts coincided with similar trends toward the unification of Christian practice being urged by the Church. Rabbenu Tams leadership kept the Jewish communities of Champagne dynamic, unified, and productive long after his death in 1171. The 150 years that marked the height of Jewish Champagnes intellectual development also marked the peak years of its financial growth and prosperity. By the twelfth century Troyes had already become a favorite city of the counts of Champagne and the site of two of Champagnes six major commercial fairs. The fairs were located in the towns of Troyes, Provins, Bar-sur-Aube, and Lagny and were held at regular intervals, according to a yearly cycle. The development of the fairs, encouraged by Count Thibaut II (1125-1152), pushed Champagne into prominence and offered new business opportu­ nities for Jews. The fairs were meeting places and centers for commercial traders from Italy and Flan­ ders as well as northern and southern FRANCE and GERMANY. Jews, the majority of whom were active traders, participated in these fairs from their earliest conception. In fact, a Jewish responsum concerning a merchant taken captive and held for ransom in ap­ proximately 1000 is generally accepted as one of the earliest written proofs of the existence of the Cham­ pagne fairs. Subsequently, Jews benefited by the poli­ cies of Count Thibaut II and succeeding counts who gave guarantees of protection to merchants traveling to and from the fairs. Jewish COMMERCE in France had begun with an almost exclusive concentration on international trade, but individual Jews quickly branched out into trade in local commodities such as wine, livestock, and wheat, and MONEYLENDING—a logical spin-off from selling on credit. Gradually, as Christian merchant guilds gained in numbers and in influence, and a need for money in the medieval economy increased, more Jews gravitated to lending money at interest.

146

The policies of the Champenois nobility encour­ aged Jewish moneylending and kept it under tight control. By promulgating a series of nonretention treaties, beginning in 1198, the counts effectively blocked Jewish emigration out of Champagne. This prevented Jews from bargaining with other rulers for better financial opportunities. The nonretention treaties kept Jews locked into dependence on the counts and other powerful lords who ruled Cham­ pagne. In addition, the nobility, by going along with royal decrees that strictly monitored Jewish credit documents, profited from Jewish loans in several ways. They were able to collect a fee on each transac­ tion as it was registered and sometimes supervised the gradual repayment by acting as a trustee for mortgaged property. Finally, they were able to col­ lect, in the form of a tax, a percentage of the profit as each loan was repaid. This arrangement could be beneficial to Jews as well, since it gave lords a power­ ful reason to protect their Jewish subjects and enforce collections. The Jews benefited most from this policy under Countess Blanche, who ruled Champagne as regent for her minor son Thibaut IV from 1201 to 1222. Blanche’s rule was precarious and heavily dependent on the approval and support of the French king. She owed him large amounts of tribute and was burdened with debts, partly inherited from her late husband. For these reasons, the countess was in desperate need of Jewish money and supported her Jews with protec­ tion and privileges. She even sided with them against the church, insisting on their right to lend money. Although the Jewish BADGE was being adopted in other parts of France pursuant to the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, Blanche ignored the order. The wearing of a badge was never enforced in Champagne while it remained independent. The countess was well rewarded for these liberal policies. In 1222, the year of her sons succession, a tax on the Jewish community of Champagne yielded 70,000 livres de Provins (the local coinage) to be paid over the course of five years. The result of this large tax was that Thibaut IV, the new count, now had both the incentive and the power to resist the kings newest decree severely limiting Jewish lending. With both money and protection secure, Cham­ penois Jews continued to enjoy prosperity for another

Charity

few decades. Ultimately, however, they could not maintain that prosperity against the combined forces of the church, expanding royal power, and increasing antipathy from the local population. By 1268, the Jews of Champagne suffered a grievous blow. Count Thibaut V, in conjunction with King Louis IX, con­ fiscated all Jewish movable goods and Jewish loans in order to finance a new Crusade (see CRUSADES). Jewish Champagne never fully recovered from this major confiscation of wealth. Evidence of this is amply shown by the differential between the amount of taxes (70,000 livres) collected by Countess Blanche and her son in 1222, and the considerably lesser amount collected in subsequent assessments. In 1284, Champagnes only remaining heir, Countess Jeanne, was married to Prince Philip, and Cham­ pagne was annexed to royal France. The tax on Champenois Jews at that time was only 25,000 livres, a reduction of almost two-thirds. From the time of Champagnes annexation to royal France, evidence points to the continued im­ poverishment and disintegration of Champenois Jewry. Few names of scholars or communal leaders appear in the records. The royal administration hired a network of Jewish and Christian tax collectors to gather decreasing amounts of taxes. Records suggest that even these lesser amounts were a growing bur­ den. In the face of severe restrictions against lending, Jews moved from place to place searching for other means to make a living. The massacre of 1288 in Troyes, a result of a BLOOD LIBEL against one Jews, Isaac Chatelaine, ended in the burning of thirteen Jews and the confis­ cation of their property. This event dealt the final blow to a once confident and thriving community. Less than twenty years later, in 1306, seventeen thou­ sand to twenty thousand Jewish men, women, and children were expelled from Champagne, together with all the Jews of royal France. Although they did return several times after that for short periods, the Jews of Champagne never again enjoyed the success of past centuries.

Baron, Salo W. “Rashi and the Community of Troyes,” in Rashi Anniversary Volume (New York, 1941), pp. 47-71. Eidelberg, Shlomo. “The Community of Troyes be­ fore the Time of Rashi” (Hebrew) Sura 1 (1954): 48-57. Taitz, Emily. The Jews o f M edieval France: The Community o f Champagne (Westport, Conn., and Lon­ don, 1994).

Charity Leading rabbinic figures emphasized the great impor­ tance that Judaism attached to giving charity, as well as the lengths to which individuals and communities must be prepared to go in the fulfillment of this precept. MAIMONIDES (1138-1204) wrote that “we have never seen nor heard of a Jewish community which does not have a charity fund.” NAHMANIDES (1194- 1270) noted that charity is a weighty precept that engendered numerous exhortations and admo­ nitions in biblical literature. “And I need not men­ tion the sources in rabbinic literature because the en­ tire Talmud and all prescriptive works are replete with such material.” Judah the Pious of Regensburg (d. 1217) instructed that “if a community has neither synagogue building nor hospice for the poor, the hospice should be built first.” M e i r OF ROTHENBURG

EMILY TAITZ

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arbois de Juvainville, Henri. Histoire des dues et des comtes de Champagne (Paris, 1965).

Box for collecting alms, Spanish, circa 1319. Photo: J. G. Berizzi. Copyright © Reunion des Musees Nationaux/Art Resource, NY.

147

Charity

(ca. 1215-1293), extending a passage in Tosefta that allowed members of a community to compel a resis­ tant minority to participate in the building of a syna­ gogue and in the purchase of Torah and other biblical scrolls, ruled that coercion might also be utilized to ensure that sufficient charity funds were collected. Although earlier Tosafists disagreed about whether charity should be coerced, Meir’s legal decision was cited by subsequent Ashkenazic authorities. Rabbinic thinkers also debated whether the pre­ cept of charity was directed primarily toward the bet­ terment of the individual in society (mi$vah bein adam la-havero), or whether this precept was in essence a devotional one, since God could have pro­ vided a poor person’s needs through another venue. Halakhic and ethical treatises mentioned numerous rewards to which one who gave charity was entitled. Above all, charity was to be given gladly and sympa­ thetically. In halakhic constructs, money donated or even pledged to charity took on a status similar to that of funds or material that had been consecrated to the Temple. Indeed, charitable donations and charity funds were often referred to as heqdesh/ heqdeshim. Questions arose as to whether charity that had already been pledged or collected could be desig­ nated by the giver or by the collectors (gabba’irn) for a different cause than was indicated initially. The purposes for which charity was given, as well as the nature of charitable institutions, were quite varied. The Cairo GENIZAH contains copious docu­ mentation of charitable contributions and disburse­ ments. A representative sample of these records in­ cludes funds spent on synagogue repairs, the amount of bread that was distributed to the poor, and sums paid for the teaching of an orphan, for the settling of an outstanding debt, and for salaries, food, and clothing given to religious functionaries. Paying the poll tax on behalf of the poor was deemed a particu­ larly important priority, tantamount to ransoming a captive, since nonpayment meant possible incarcera­ tion. Standing needs were often assigned particular sources of income. There are also detailed lists of the individuals who received funds together with the amounts that were given. Funds were collected by medieval Jewish commu­ nities to care for the sick (larger settlements main­ tained hospitals) and to defray the education costs and wedding expenses of children from poor fami­ 148

lies. Food and lodging were provided for itinerant scholars and wayfarers (although the guests \akhsena’e\ referred to in Ashkenazic rabbinic texts of the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries, who were ap­ parently supported or boarded at community ex­ pense, were probably local paupers rather than travel­ ing merchants or scholars). A responsum of Nissim Gerundi (ca. 1310-1375) refers to five circles or so­ cieties in Perpignan that were responsible for Torah study, care of the sick, charity (for the poor), lighting (for the synagogue), and burial, to which individuals might pledge either money or their services. ASH ER B. Y e h i e l (d. 1327, Toledo) noted the existence of a cir­ cle that would assist the bereaved when a death oc­ curred. Members would sleep in the mourner’s home before the funeral, assist him with the burial, provide food for him, and pray with him during the mourn­ ing period. In both Germany and Spain, charity funds were lent out to accrue interest or invested in fields or other productive real estate as a means of augmenting their value and yield. Individuals also bequeathed their property and other assets directly, to be used to generate perpetual incomes for Torah study and other charities. Genizah documents refer to homes that were leased or sold with the proceeds going to charity. The practice of lending charity funds to earn interest posed a problem for Jews who borrowed those funds. The trend in Germany during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was to create an in­ vestment instrument where the interest paid was not biblically prohibited. Solomon IBNADRET (ca. 1235— 1310) agreed that these monies were best invested in a manner that violated only rabbinic usury law. This could be countenanced since these monies had no le­ gally defined owners and were being used for the benefit of the poor. But Ibn Adret offered an addi­ tional justification for collecting even biblically pro­ scribed interest, which was apparently the common practice in Spain. Since the members of the commu­ nity (in a case presented to Ibn Adret) had accepted the responsibility for supporting certain minors and students as evidenced by their attempts to lend out and further enlarge the funds collected for this pur­ pose, those in the community who borrowed the funds and paid back additional amounts did not con­ sider this to be interest since the support of the stu­ dents was incumbent upon them in any event.

Charles IV

The control and management of charity funds raised other halakhic issues. Lawsuits involving the funds required that agents be appointed who could represent the funds. The cases had to be tried in other jurisdictions because the members of a com­ munity might be inclined to influence how their fund fared. Rabbinic decisors intervened when funds for a particular need were lacking, or to maintain the equitable distribution of resources. Meir b. Todros ha-Levi ABULAFIA (1165-1244) required all the mem­ bers of a community to contribute to the salaries of elementary-level tutors, including those who did not have young children, because the small number of parents whose children were actually being served by the tutors could not sustain the full expense on their own. R. Isaac of Dampierre (ca. 1180) ruled that wealthy people who left money to charity did not as­ sume that their assets would be used only in their own locales because the numbers of poor and tran­ sients in each city at that time (in northern France) were relatively small. Isaac b. Moses Or Zarua (ca. 1180-1250) noted, however, that sums pledged on the High Holidays to commemorate the dead by res­ idents of small villages, who joined larger communi­ ties for prayer services, should be given to the charity funds in the small villages and not in the larger com­ munities where they were first expressed. Ashkenazic sources in particular stressed the importance of mak­ ing charitable contributions to mark happy occasions and to remember the departed. Several types of mandatory seasonal collections, such as the Passover provisions assessment (mas m aot hittim), were also common. EPHRAIM KANARFOGEL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ben-Sasson, Menahem, and Avraham Grossman. Ha-Qehillah ha-Yehudit Bimei ha-Beinayim (Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 137-50. Gil, Moshe. Documents o f the Jewish Pious Founda­ tions from the Cairo Geniza (Leiden, 1976). Goitein, S. D. A Mediterranean Society (Berkeley, 1971) 11,91-143. Rabinowitz, Louis. The Social Life o f the Jews o f Northern France in the XII— XIV Centuries. 2nd ed. (New York, 1972), pp. 99-102.

Twersky, Isadore. “Some Aspects of the Jewish Atti­ tude toward the Welfare State,” Tradition 5 (1963): pp. 137-58. Yuval, Israel. “Hospices and Their Guests in Jewish Medieval Germany” (Hebrew). Proceedings o f the Tenth World Congress o f Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1990) [Division B, I], pp. 125-29.

Charles IV Born on 18 June 1294, Charles IV was the third son of Philip the Fair and Jeanne of Navarre and Cham­ pagne. In January 1308, he was married with little fan­ fare to Blanche of Artois and Burgundy (younger sister of his brother Philips wife, Jeanne), who with Louis X s wife, Marguerite, was imprisoned for adultery in the spring of 1314. Reputed to be simple and impru­ dent, Charles enjoyed far less authority than his broth­ ers; not until 28 November 1314 did Philip the Fair grant him his appanage of la Marche. After the death of Louis X and his posthumous son, John, Charles fruitlessly attempted to obtain part of the kingdom of France, but his brother Philip V finally won him over by making him peer of the realm in March 1317. When Philip died without male heir in January 1322, Charles succeeded him unopposed and was crowned at Reims on 21 February; on 19 May he received the papal annulment of his marriage to Blanche, which he had long been seeking. Desperate for a male heir, he married Marie of Luxembourg on 21 September, and after her death on 21 March 1324 wed Jeanne of Evreux on 5 July; Jeanne quickly produced two chil­ dren, both girls, and was pregnant when Charles died at thirty-three on 1 February 1328. Dominated by his uncle Charles of Valois, Charles IV nonetheless proved an effective ruler. He attempted to rule justly and pursued Philip Vs treasurer for pecu­ lation; he sanctioned the execution of the southern noble Jourdain de PIsle in punishment for numerous crimes including robbery, homicide, and rape; in 1327-1328 he ordered an unprecedented general cen­ sus of the realms hearths and parishes. He demon­ strated sufficient support for the Crusade to secure a grant from the pope. He settled the succession to the county of Flanders in favor of Louis II of Nevers, who did homage to him; in the winter of 1325-1326, he led an expedition to help Louis combat rebellious sub­

Charles IV

jects. Edward II of England procrastinated in doing homage for his Continental lands, and hostile acts by his Gascon officials led Charles to confiscate Edward’s lands in 1324. Charles of Valois commanded a suc­ cessful expedition against Gascony, but decisive reso­ lution of the conflict was deferred by truces and fi­ nally, on 24 September 1325, by the homage of Edwards eldest son and namesake, negotiated by his mother, Isabelle, Charles IV’s sister. War broke out again in 1326, but after Isabelle invaded England and secured the deposition of her husband and the acces­ sion of her son to the throne, peace was made. For his ordinary expenses and his wars Charles IV relied not only on subsidies from his subjects, se­ cured in a variety of ways for his military campaigns, but also on traditional fines due for the alienation of fiefs, and on trading taxes. He accepted “gifts” from the Italians at his accession and enforced the pay­ ment of annual fines; pressure on them increased in 1325, when Charles ordered prosecution of usurers and exacted extraordinary fines that yielded some 70,000 livres tournois. The Jews were constrained to pay the fine imposed by the Parlement of Paris in 1321, and by the beginning of 1326, 72,500 livres tournois had been realized; Jewish property seized in 1321 was sold. After the trials they had suffered, the Jews are unlikely to have wished to remain in France; the agreement negotiated with Louis X in 1315 was in any case due to terminate in 1327. In February 1322 the king ordained that those who wished to leave should be permitted to depart with their prop­ erty after they had acquitted their obligations to the crown. Many undoubtedly did so before 1327, when, upon the expiration of the agreement of 1315, any remaining Jews would have been required to leave. Later Jewish historians said that the king went so far as to protect them as they departed; Solomon Ibn Verga termed him “a righteous ruler.” When Charles’s widow gave birth to another daughter on 1 April 1328, his cousin Philip of Valois, son of Philip the Fair’s brother Charles, became king, since by 1328 it was accepted that “a woman does not inherit the kingdom of France.” Thus a year after the end of Jewish residence in France, the rule of the direct Capetians (who had held the crown of France since 987) abruptly terminated. ELIZABETH A. K. BROWN

150

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Henneman, John Bell. Royal Taxation in Fourteenth Century France: The Development o f War Financ­ ing, 1322-1356 (Princeton, 1971). See also the bibliographies for the articles on Philip IV, Louis X, and Philip V.

Christian-Jewish Relations

One of the most important, and at the same time most misunderstood, aspects of medieval Jewish life are the relations that existed between Jews and their Christian neighbors on a daily basis. It is perhaps not surprising that confusion exists about this because it was a paradoxical relationship. On the positive side, Jews and Christians were in fact neighbors who lived side by side, and normal conditions prevailed be­ tween ordinary Jews and their neighbors for the most part. On the negative side, these relations could quickly deteriorate or be disrupted entirely at the slightest provocation. Contrary to popular belief, rarely, if at all, was the source of such disruption the Church. With some notable exceptions, for example, the imposition of the wearing of a distinguishing sign, or BADGE, or the attempt to limit or even eradi­ cate the charging of interest on loans (see MONEYLENDING), ecclesiastical authorities rarely intervened in the lives of Jews. Even in the short-lived and in the end impossible attempt to curb interest, they realized that the only punitive action they could take was the threat of excommunication of Christians who bor­ rowed money from Jews on interest. This does not, of course, mean that all individual bishops, theologians, or popes were “friendly” toward Jews; many of them were outspoken enemies, and it scarcely matters whether this was a “theological” en­ mity based on hatred of Jewish “heresy” and blind­ ness to the Christian “truth” or whether it was an ac­ tual personal hatred of Jews as such. Nonetheless, it is true that most of the animosity was directed at “Ju­ daism” (perceived religious beliefs or, more impor­ tant, the failure to “properly” understand the Bible) and not at the Jews as such; thus, there really was no such thing as anti-Semitism in the medieval pe­ riod, nor indeed until the nineteenth century when that racist theory was invented. (The one exception

Christian-Jewish Relations

to this was precisely the racist anti-Semitic theory that attacked conversos, Jewish converts to Christian­ ity, in fifteenth-century Spain; see CONVERSION BY Je

w s .)

Jewish °'Mystique”

In the popular imagination of ordinary Christian people, a certain mystique attached to Jews. It was obvious that they were different; they dressed differ­ ently, Jewish men wore their hair and beards long (whereas by no means all Christian men did), and they worshiped differently Probably few ordinary Christians could have known precisely what being a Jew meant, since ignorance of the Bible and indeed of their own religion was so widespread. Most Chris­ tians, including even the nobility, were illiterate. Few went to church at all; and even for those who did, the services were incomprehensible, conducted in Latin with priests facing the altar, which was separated and enclosed from the people. The local clergy were usu­ ally as illiterate as the laypeople, and sermons were rarely preached. These facts must serve as a correc­ tive to any false notion that medieval Christians “blamed” the Jews for the Crucifixion. Sources indi­ cate that even in the High Middle Ages supposedly educated nobles often had little or no knowledge of the basic gospel stories, and much less did the peas­ ant or working class. This “Jewish mystique” manifested itself in many ways; for instance, in Frankish Gaul and Visigothic Spain (see VISIGOTHS AND J e w s ) in the fifth and sixth centuries, Jews were often asked to bless the crops of their Christian neighbors, a function traditionally of the priest. This notion that Jews had some kind of di­ rect “pipeline” to God continued throughout the Middle Ages and beyond, as in the common custom of asking Jews to offer special prayers, outdoors and with their Torah scrolls, when there was a need for rain (this continued at least into the seventeenth cen­ tury in the Ottoman Empire and in Egypt). The ap­ parent coincidence that on some occasions the prayers were accompanied by a sudden rain only reinforced the idea of the special efficacy of Jewish prayers. Theory a n d Reality

As Christian piety, if not literacy, increased among the masses, so too did the desire to know something

about the Bible. For medieval Christians, of course, the Bible meant the Latin translation, whether the so-called Vulgate of St. Jerome or the many different Latin versions that in fact were used in various coun­ tries, especially Spain and Ireland. In any case, only the very learned clerics could read and understand the Bible. The old tale that copies of the Bible were chained to a reading desk in the churches to prevent people from reading them is untrue; there was in any case no need for such a thing, since handwritten Bible codices were rare and costly and the common people could not read and understand them at all. At Paris around the year 1000, we hear of ordinary Christians gathering together with Jews to study the Psalms. Since Jews also could not read Latin, they must have used the Hebrew text, which they trans­ lated and explained for their Christian neighbors. Of course such joint study was immediately banned by local church authorities. It is impossible not to as­ sume, nevertheless, that on many occasions Jews and Christians discussed religious matters or biblical sto­ ries of common interest. Jews, like Christians, worked for a living, and for the most part did the same sort of work. During most of the medieval period this was primarily in AGRICULTURE (again, contrary to an old misconcep­ tion that Jews ceased to own land or do agricultural work after the attacks during the First Crusade; see C r u s a d e s ) . We know from the writings of “r a s h i ,” his grandson Rabbenu Tam, and other sources that Jews and Christians cooperated in this work, helping each other to harvest grapes or other crops, loaning animals to one another, and sharing in the trans­ portation of produce to the market. Jews and Chris­ tians sometimes were partners in ownership of fields or cows (e.g., Meir of Rothenburg, She’e lot u-teshuvot, ed. Prague, No. 452; cf. ed. Bloch, No. 445). Even hostile sources shed light on this, such as the protest that Jews were processing grapes grown by Christians for the production of wine. Wine consti­ tuted a special problem, because of the talmudic pro­ hibition against “libatious wine” {yein nesekh)—wine used by idolaters in their worship. Even though most Jewish authorities in Europe ruled that Christians are not idolaters (see, e.g., “Rash” as cited in Pardesy No. 268, f. 48b, twice about this), there still remained the prohibition of drinking wine touched by Gentiles

151

Christian-Jewish Relations

“because of their daughters” i.e., fear of sexual rela­ tions resulting from drunkenness. Wine produced by Jews and put in barrels was sometimes collected by Christians with wagons and taken to market, and in one case this happened on a Jewish holiday. When the Jewish producers saw that the wagons had left, they decided to pursue them and ride with them in order to “guard” the wine from Gentile touch, which might render it unfit, and when “Rashi was asked whether this act of violating the holiday (by riding on the wagons) in itself made the wine unfit for Jew­ ish use, he replied that in his opinion it was permit­ ted (Pardes, No. 261), although in fact he also ruled elsewhere (see above) that benefit from “libatious wine” at this time is allowed, since Christians are not idolaters. Nor were “Rashf and his school the first to de­ clare that Christians were not idolaters. GERSHOM B. Ju d ah (ca. 960-1028) was asked whether it was per­ mitted to keep garments of priests as pledges for loans, since they are worn while “singing to their idols.” He replied that one may rely upon the talmu­ dic teaching ( Hullin 13b) that Gentiles of the Dias­ pora are not true idolaters (Hilkhot pesuqot min-ha geonim , ed. Joel Mueller [Cracow, 1893], p. 6, No. 10). For that very reason, it was permitted to do busi­ ness with Christians not only before their holidays but even on the days themselves (not allowed with idolaters), as was forcefully pointed out by Rabbi Yehiel of Paris in the trial of the Talmud that took place in 1240 (see Talm ud, condem nation o f ) . Nevertheless, there appears to have been some confu­ sion as to the views of “Rashi” for he is also reported to have ruled that it is not permissible to recite the blessing for havdallah (end of a Sabbath or holiday) over candles or spices of Gentiles or of the dead or those used for idolatry (cf. Berakhot 51b, mishnah), but those of Muslims are permitted “for their gather­ ings are not for idolatry” ( Sefer ha-orah, No. 62; also in Pardes, No. 118). By “gatherings” ( mesiybot), he must have meant the wine parties at which spices were used for their fragrance (it is amazing that he knew of that custom), and clearly he distinguished between Muslims as nonidolaters and Christians, whose spices and candles he obviously did not con­ sider permissible for use.

A frequent discussion was whether it was allowed to accept oaths from Christians. One ruling stated 152

clearly that they may be allowed to swear by the gospels, which they do not worship, and even though they mention the name of Jesus they also “mean thereby the Maker of heaven and earth,” nor is such “association” (shittuf) prohibited to Gentiles (Katz, Exclusiveness, p. 35, and cf. p. 163, see notes for the sources). There is, in fact, a considerable amount of source material on this concept. In the heat of polemics, this was nevertheless sometimes forgotten by those zealous writers who accused Christians of believing in “three gods.” Jews and Christians owned furnaces in common (for baking; dangerous if done in a private house); Jews employed Christian laborers and contracted with them to build houses; they had their horses shoed by Christian blacksmiths and their clothes washed or repaired by Christians. They borrowed food for their animals from Christians, and of course borrowed money from and lent it to Christians (all attested in many sources, see “Rashi,” Sefer ha-orah 1905, 2: 41, 53, 54, 56 [though this work is attrib­ uted to “Rashi,” some claim it was written at a later period]). On the holiday of Purim, which has a rabbinical obligation to give gifts to the poor, Jews commonly gave gifts of food or money to their servants and to Christian neighbors (Abraham b. Natan ha-Yarhiy mentioned only the “custom of France” that Christian nurses bring Jewish infants to the synagogue “and [Jews] give to them” [i.e., the nurses; read la-heri\ gifts, but the rabbis disapproved [ha-Manhiyg I, 248-49; the editor cites extensive sources on this]. Other au­ thorities permitted it “because of the ways of peace” (see Hagahot Maimoniyot on Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Zemaniym”: Megiyllah, at end of chap. 2). The opinion of Rabbi Kalonymos is cited in Pardes, f. 38a, not to give money to Gentiles on Purim because this may deprive Jewish poor from receiving money. Jews also sent gifts to their Christian friends on “Lag b’Omer” (a minor Jewish holiday), and especially on the first day of the Christian year (Natale or Calend, the eighth day after Christmas), and on the Christian Pentecost the custom was to give gifts to priests (Berliner 1900, 19-20). The giving of gifts to Chris­ tians was common also in Spain, where it was also not unusual for Jews to leave money or property in their wills to Christian friends or even in some cases to priests or bishops to be used for charitable purposes.

Christian-Jewish Relations

Sabbaths a n d Holidays

Jews and Christians cooperated in other ways, and one of the most important of these involved Sabbath and holiday observances. The strict Sabbath laws prohibit the kindling of any fire, whether for light, cooking, or heating, from sundown Friday until after dark on Saturday. In addition, carrying anything in the “public domain” is forbidden, as is the milking of cows or tending to other animals, among a host of other prohibitions (Meir of Rothenburg permitted asking a Gentile to milk cows on the Sabbath, as did some other authorities; this was because of “distress to an animal”). It should be remembered that me­ dieval houses, particularly those of common people, were dark and gloomy even when lit by a candle or two, even in the daytime. Not being permitted this light, or the scant warmth of a tiny fire on cold win­ ter days, would have been a considerable hardship. Fortunately, rabbinic law found a way around this: one is not permitted to ask a Gentile to do something on a Sabbath or holiday that the Jew may not do, but a hint can be offered. Thus, a Jew could say to a ser­ vant or Gentile neighbor that it is cold in the house, and if the Gentile understands and lights a fire, then the Jew is allowed to “use” its warmth. Similarly, in many towns and cities hot food was prepared before Friday night and then sealed in a pot that was placed in the community oven to be kept warm until the Saturday noon meal. In most communities, only a Gentile would have been allowed to carry the pot from the ovens to the home of a Jew, since carrying anything was forbidden to a Jew. In some cities in Spain, it is true, there were in fact kitchens and ovens in private houses. If the oven was lit before the Sabbath and the oven remained warm, then of course Jews could eat hot food removed from their own ovens. Various responsa concern such things as whether, if a Gentile on his own initiative brought a letter ad­ dressed to his Jewish neighbor on the Sabbath, the letter could be opened and read. Others discuss whether it was allowed to have a Gentile bring a book needed for learning, carrying it in the public domain (see Meir of Rothenburg 1891, No. 37; he apparently did not allow it). In some towns in Spain, where a significant num­ ber of Jews and Christians lived together, a legal fic­ tion, known as < e ruv was created, whereby an area of

a common courtyard, or even an entire town, could be considered to be “enclosed” for the purpose of car­ rying. This involved a fairly complicated ceremony, which of necessity would have to be explained to the Christians, and they had to agree. That such things were routinely done is evidenced from the frequent references in the rabbinical responsa. Some Jews obviously took advantage of rabbinic laws allowing Gentiles to do things that could not be done by Jews. Thus, Todros b. Judah ABULAFIA, an eminent rabbi and qabbalist, wrote that some Jews ordered their slave girls (Muslims, of course) to kin­ dle lights on the Sabbath, and some ordered other non-Jews (Muslims or Christians) to write for them on the Sabbath, both of which were forbidden (in Judah b. Asher, Zikharon Yehudah, f. 45 a; this is not a “sermon” by Abulafia as some have called it, but a part of his commentary on Shabbat). Positive a n d Negative Relations

Just as there were favorable relations between Jewish and Christian men, so also were there with women. For example, Jewish women were recognized for their skill in sewing, and Christian women often brought their own work for their Jewish neighbors to sew. The most amazing statement in this regard is the ruling of Aaron ha-Kohen of Lunel that it is permit­ ted to Jewish women to sew crosses on the garments of Christians, since Christians do not worship them. Christian nobles even visited some Jewish women who were imprisoned and treated them with honor (see Berliner 1900, 9-10; Berliner misread Aaron haKohen, however, who does not talk about sewing crosses on clothes of Christian women, but in general on clothes of Christians; on other examples of posi­ tive Christian attitudes, see Berliner 1900, 61). In Spain, just as Jews sometimes left money in their wills to Christians, so Christians even more fre­ quently left money and property to Jews. This in­ cluded members of the royal families who left money to their Jewish officials, or bishops and archbishops to Jewish friends or officials (one of the archbishops of Zaragoza left money to his Jewish tailor). An ex­ traordinary example of Christian consideration for Jews was that of a nobleman in Falset, where there was a substantial Jewish population, who was cele­ brating the wedding of his son and arranged for a Jewish slaughterer to slaughter a calf so that some of 153

Christian-Jewish Relations

the meat could be sent to Jews (Isaac b. Sheshet, Sheelot u-teshuvot, No. 73). The negative laws against Jewish and Christian contact, particularly those enacted by church coun­ cils, were rarely if ever enforced. Thus, in the early fifteenth century there were reports in Castile that in spite of laws prohibiting Jews from having Christian servants or serving in public office, none of the laws had been observed, bringing the complaint from a clerical lawyer that Christians “eat and drink with these Jews continually.” Reading between the lines in responsa or other legal works also of Germany is quite revealing, for example when one reads ques­ tions about a Gentile who has drunk wine from a cup in a Jewish home, or the frequent questions in Spain about Christian neighbors who come into a Jewish house carrying or eating bread during Passover. These are clear indications of the constant inter­ course between the two groups, of which the un­ happy lawyer had complained. On the “official” level, laws affecting the relation­ ship of Jews to the government, there was the tradi­ tional reverence of kings that is found in the Talmud and is expressed in statements to “pray for the wel­ fare” of kings and of the government, instructions that were carried out in the synagogues with prayers for the kings. Jewish law required not only respect for Gentile laws but that, in fact, the “law of the land is the law” (dina de-malkhuta dina). This meant that in matters of civil law, the laws promulgated by kings or by local overlords were recognized as supreme, even if they contradicted Jewish civil law. Jewish religious customs were also significantly changed, or new customs created, under Christian influence, at least from the thirteenth century on. An interesting example is the creation of the bar-mi$vah (“son of the commandment”) ceremony, at which a boy who had reached the age of thirteen (legal adult­ hood in Jewish law) was called to the reading of the Torah in the synagogue. This was the direct influence of the equivalent Christian confirmation ceremony (prior to this period, the “coming of age” of a Jewish boy was purely a legal matter, dependent technically on his reaching puberty, but generally assumed to be at the age of thirteen). Jewish betrothal and wedding ceremonies also underwent significant changes as a result of Christian influences (see Gutmann 1983, 128-38). 154

Not all of the sources attest to friendly relations, of course. For instance, the custom of lighting the Hanukkah menorah (candelabrum, oil was usually used) outside the doorway of the house, so that the light could be seen by passersby (“proclaiming of the miracle,” as the Talmud put it) was prohibited by some rabbis, from the time of the “danger,” which probably refers to the attacks on German Jews during the Crusade (Maaseh ha-geoniymy ed. A. Epstein [Berlin, 1909], p. 44, last line). Although Jewish sages argued that Christians were not “idolaters,” clearly they were so considered by many ordinary Jews. With regard to lending money on interest, as the debate between Yehiel of Paris and Nicholas Donin revealed (see MONEYLENDING and T a lm u d , c o n d e m n a t i o n o f ) , Christians were not considered as “your brother” with regard to the bibli­ cal prohibition. From the Christian side, the earliermentioned “Jewish mystique” could quickly degener­ ate into superstitions that gave rise to such things as the “smell” of the Jew or stories of Jewish associations with the devil (see A r t , J e w s in ) . Offensive drawings of Jews on the walls of churches, or carved images of Jews with the devil or the ubiquitous statues of the blindfolded synagogue and the triumphant church, no doubt made an impression on the ignorant and il­ literate masses. Tales a n d Literature

Popular folklore and written tales also played a role. The legend of the “Wandering Jew” is an example. In its original form, a man saw Christ on the way to Calvary, and when Christ paused to rest at his doorstep, the man drove him away. Christ said, “I go, but you will walk until I come again.” This gave rise to two legends, the Legend of Malchus (emphasizing the suffering of the wanderer as punishment for his insult) and the Legend of St. John (emphasizing the waiting for the return of Christ). The Malchus leg­ end derives from John 18.4-10, with Malchus there being identified with the officer in John 18.20-22. The St. John legend derives from Matthew 16.28 and John 21.20-22. There is evidence of this legend from the second and third centuries, whereas the Malchus legend is first found in a written version in the sixth century. The Crusaders seem to have brought the legend in some form to Italy, from which it spread. It was not until the thirteenth century,

Christian-Jewish Relations

however, that the “wanderer” specifically becomes a Jew, which became embellished in later years. In the Spanish version (“Juan espera en Dios”) from the early fifteenth century, there is again no reference to the Jewishness of the wanderer, who is rather a “ser­ vant of God” and a missionary (see Anderson 1965). Anti-Jewish sentiment is found in Christian po­ etry and literature throughout the medieval period. The famous Scholastic monk Abelarad in the 1130s wrote a poem for Easter: “Give a tambourine to Mary: The Lord is risen! / By her singing let her ex­ cite the Jews to song, / let Jacob offer holocausts of songs . . . ” (Peter Dronke, The M edieval Lyric [Lon­ don, 1968]). There were also poems by Berceo and others, and see already the following lines by Wipo (d. 1050), who held high positions in the courts of Conrad II and Henry III in Germany: “There is only one person to believe: Mary who tells the truth; Never that lying crowd of Jews” (James J. Wilhelm, M edieval Song\ New York, 1971], p. 44). In medieval bestiaries, Jews are compared to owls and hyenas (Manya Lifschitz-Golden, Les juifs dans la litterature frangaise du moyen ctge [New York, 1935], p. 53, actu­ ally a disappointing book; the time has come for a fresh and complete study). The Physiologus, also, a work of unknown origin, possibly Alexandrian, which was written no later than in the fourth cen­ tury, was extremely important in medieval literature, particularly the aforementioned bestiaries and other collections; it contains many anti-Jewish allegories. A theory has been advanced (Weinraub 1976) that the famous Conte du graal, work of the poet of Champagne, Chretien de Troyes (ca. 1160-1190), was a reworking of the Passover seder; however, Frappier has rejected this elaborate hypothesis. Caesarius of Heisterbach (1220-1235) wrote a very popular work in which he also had at least two anti-Jewish tales, one of which concerns an English cleric who “debauched” a Jewish maiden, who told him that they could lie together only on the Friday before Easter, “for then the Jews are said to labor under a sickness called the bloody flux.” Some Jews caught them in the act, but when they entered the cathedral to protest they were struck dumb (because God had mercy on the cleric who suddenly re­ pented), and they were driven from the church. The Jewish girl, of course, converted. The second story tells of another young cleric, this time in W O RM S,

who also seduced a Jewish girl. When she became pregnant, he tried to deceive her parents by telling them that their “virgin daughter” had conceived the messiah! Everyone believed this, but unfortunately she gave birth to a girl. Another tale is of an all too real nature, a young Jewish girl becomes convinced of the truth of Christianity when she hears her father debating with a chaplain, and she converts. The fa­ ther bribes the duke to have her returned to him, but the girl (then in a convent) smelled the “evil odor” of the Jew, her father, as he approached and warned the others. Another story is also about a Jewish girl bap­ tized (Dialogue on Miracles, tr. H. von E. Scott and C. C. Swinton Bland [London, 1929], ch. xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, and see also pp. 113—14). There is sometimes (rarely) a counterbalancing point of view in medieval literature; for example, the German poet Heinrich der Teichner (ca. 1340­ 1375), who wrote that all are Gods children and even Jews should be protected by law, or the fourteenthcentury Flemish poet Jan van Boendale, who also ex­ pressed the remarkable idea that Jews are “human be­ ings” (see Kisch 1949, 325). Even more “tolerant” views are found in some Spanish literary works. Throughout the medieval period, but particularly from the thirteenth century when veneration of Mary reached new heights, “Marial” tales, or miracle stories involving Mary, were popular. There are ver­ sions in literally every language, including Arabic (by Christian Arabs). Several of these were stories involv­ ing Jews. The most famous of these collections was the Cantigas de Santa Maria composed by various poets at the court of ALFONSO X of Castile. An inter­ esting collection related in some respects to this is the French version of the prophecies of Merlin (Les Prophecies de Merlin, ed. Lucy Allen Paton [New York, London, 1926-27], dating from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries). There are several interesting ref­ erences to Jews in this work, for example, that Adam was a Jew, and all people were once Jews, and He­ brew was the original language, spoken also by Jesus (in fact, of course, Jesus would have spoken Ara­ maic). Derogatory items include a standard attack on Jewish “usury” (1: 153), the claim that Jews lost their “heritage” when they “killed” Christ (1: 203), warn­ ings of the danger of death at the hands of Jews (1: 258), a discussion of the treachery of Jews with Christ (1: 336), and an indirect reference to the fa­ 155

Christian-Jewish Relations

mous custom of the king or pope showing reverence for the scrolls of the Torah brought to them in pro­ cession but asserting that the Jews do not understand the Bible (1: 476-77). Most interesting is the proph­ ecy concerning the Antichrist, which contrasts the power of the synagogue before Christ and then the supremacy of the Church over the synagogue (1: 325; cf. 2: 200 for a discussion of this theme). There is a great need for a thorough study, so far never done, of Jews in medieval literature in general. Holy Week an d the Jews

Part ecclesiastical law, part superstition (see the above reference to Jews having a “flux” of blood) required that Jews stay indoors with their windows closed at least on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, and often during all of Holy Week. This was a time of height­ ened emotions in the Christian community, which became more intense in the later medieval period (any Jew who has witnessed the processions of hooded and barefoot penitents in Spain, carrying re­ alistic images of the bleeding corpses of Jesus and of saints while drums beat and trumpets sound, cannot help but be frightened and imagine that fear magni­ fied a hundredfold among medieval Jews). Jews at any time were required to kneel or bow when a “holy procession” with the cross or statues passed in the street, but during this week they were often attacked with stones or beaten if they were found on the streets. There is no doubt that some Jews did ridicule Christian beliefs during Holy Week. Innocent III also complained in 1205 to Philip Augustus of France that Jews publicly ridiculed Christians in the street on Good Friday (see Grayzel 1933, 108-9; for the ruling of the council of Beziers about Jews staying indoors, see pp. 332-33 and cf. Decretals C.4.X.V,6 for the official canon law). In Spain, this was incorporated into the law codes of Alfonso X and of his father-in-law, JAIME I (for Valencia only). Jews were sometimes caught up in the riotous fer­ vor of Christians almost by accident, as in 1353 in Catalonia when during Holy Week the Christians of Vic attacked nearby Palau, destroying most of the vil­ lage and also attacking Jews and stealing their books. The culprits were punished by the king. Already in 1321 the city council of Barcelona had passed an or­ dinance prohibiting Jews from going out of their houses on Good Friday. Uniquely, perhaps, the Jews 156

of Tortosa (1369) were specifically protected from any attack during Holy Week; no person was allowed to enter the Jewish quarter “with intent to do harm” or to climb on nearby houses. However, in 1349 the Jews of Barcelona complained of attacks, and the king promptly responded, as he did for the Jews of Jaca and Zaragoza the following year. Yet in 1354, at the extraordinary council of all the Jewish communi­ ties of the kingdom, one of the concerns was again the occasional attacks on Jews during Holy Week. This petition seems to have helped for a time, but in 1418 in Gerona the civil judges ordered that after noon on Good Friday and Saturday (not Easter Sun­ day) of Holy Week, Jews must remain in their houses and the gates to the Jewish quarter must be closed. In Germany, at least according to one legal code, all Christians were obligated, by day or night, to “hasten” to help stop any attacks on a Jew or Jewish house. The only exceptions were if Jews violated spe­ cific laws, such as appearing in public on Good Fri­ day, reviling the Christian religion, or attempting to proselytize (Kisch 1949, 183-84; cf. p. 301 and p. 520 n. 37). Status o f the Jews

The Jew in the Middle Ages was neither an “alien” (legally or in any other way) nor a “stranger,” nor is it true that the main, “if not the only,” reason for discrimination against him was religion (so Kisch 1949, 306, a view unfortunately shared by many other writers). Even Kisch eventually admitted (p. 323) that “several causative factors” were responsible for what he called, anachronistically, “medieval anti­ Semitism.” Certainly economic factors, such as the hated role of moneylender and jealousy of Jewish fi­ nancial success, played a major role. Yet once again Kisch asserted that “of course” the roots of “popular hatred” of Jews can be traced to religious differences, primarily the position of the Jew as “a deliberate un­ believer” (also the title of a chapter in Salo Baron’s history of the Jews, in spite of the significant differ­ ences between his views and those of Kisch). The Jew, religiously speaking, “knew the truth but refused to recognize it” (Kisch 1949, 323). This is correct, of course, but the fact that this was only the theological position, taken over also by canon law, is nowhere acknowledged. The ordinary Christian layperson held no such lofty theological conceptions.

Chronicles, Jewish They were not themselves so “religious” as to waste precious time and thought on the theological or other differences between themselves and Jews. For the most part, they neither hated nor loved Jews, they simply got along with them as neighbors; how­ ever, as stated previously, they were also ignorant and intensely superstitious, and the least rumor (see Bl o o d l ib e l , H o s t d e se c ra ti o n , R it u a l m u r d e r ) could turn them against their Jewish neighbors. Kisch cites the opinion, with which he tentatively seems to agree, that “anti-Jewish prejudice originated among the classes, not among the masses” (p. 327), but this is true, if at all, only in France with regard to moneylending. On the contrary, the nobles, and often the archbishops and bishops, protected the Jews. The actual riots against Jews came always from the lower class, whether during the First Crusade in Germany and some other lands or the so-called pogroms (another anachronistic term) o f 1391 in Spain. To this may be added, o f course, the slaughter o f Jews during the BLACK D eath , or the rumors o f poisoning o f wells. Not one o f these incidents was sponsored or condoned by nobility or ecclesiastical officials (Ferrant Martinez, the fanatic and perhaps insane archdeacon who stirred up the masses in 1391, was condemned both by ecclesiastical and by royal authority). It should be recalled that when the mobs attacked German Jews in the Crusade, bishops and nobles did everything in their power to protect the Jews and punish the perpetrators. So, too, in 1349 during the “Black Death,” in Regensburg 247 leading Christian citizens assured the protection o f the Jews there (Urbach, p. 374).

As is always true in human relationships, the situ­ ation of the Jews among Christians was complicated. For the most part, they got along well enough, con­ trary to what Baron aptly termed the “lachrymose conception of Jewish history,” which sees everything as unrelieved hostility and persecution. Hostile acts against Jews were, in fact, rare, and what is often for­ gotten is the long period between such incidents dur­ ing which more or less normal relations prevailed. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham b. Natan ha-Yarhiy. Sefer ha-manhiyg, ed. Yitzhak Raphael (Jerusalem, 1978), 2 vols.

Anderson, George K. The Legend o f the Wandering J ew ( Providence, 1965). Berliner, Abraham. Hayyey ha-yehudiym be-Ashkenaz bi-mey ha-beinayyim (Warsaw, 1900). Frappier, J. “Le Conte du graal est-il une allegorie judeo-chretienne?” Romance Philology 20 (1966): 1-31. Grayzel, Solomon, ed. and tr. The Church and the Jews in the Xlllth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). Gutmann, Joseph. “Christian Influences on Jewish Customs,” in Leon Klenicki and Gabe Huck, eds., Spirituality and Prayer: Jewish and Christian Un­ derstandings (New York, 1983), pp. 128-38. Kisch, Guido. The Jews in M edieval Germany (Chicago, 1949). Meir b. Barukh of Rothenburg. Sefer shaarey teshuvot, ed. Moses Bloch (Berlin, 1891). —------. She’e lot u-teshuvot(Prague, 1608). Der Physiologus nach den Handschriften G und M, ed. Dieter Offermanns (Meisenheim am Gian, 1966). Physiologus, tr. Michael J. Curley (Austin, 1979). Solomon b. Isaac (“Rash?), attributed. Pardes hagadol(Stfaxsaw, 1880; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1969). ---------. attributed. Sefer ha-orah (Lemberg, 1905). Urbach, Ephraim E. Ba’a ley ha-tosafot (Jerusalem, 1968). Weinraub, Eugene J. Chretiens Jewish Grail: A New Investigation o f the Imagery and Significance o f Chretien de Troyes's Grail Episode Based upon Me­ dieval Hebraic Sources (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1976).

Chronicles, Jewish

Jewish interest in history begins, of course, with the Bible and continues with books of the Apocryphya, such as Maccabees, and the Jewish historians of the Hellenistic period, Josephus, and frequent statements in the Talmud. With the spread of the Diaspora to include northern and southern Europe, there was an increasing interest in knowing about the rabbis and sages whose views shaped the Mishnah and Talmud. The first such known work is the Seder tannaiym veamorayim by Jacob b. Mordecai, ca. 884-886 (it was once erroneously attributed to the French rabbi Joseph Tov ‘Elem, eleventh century, see Neubauer 1887, 1: vii n. 2; on a different text of the work, see Bubers introduction to Isaac de Lattes 1885, 4). Jacob discusses the chronology of the talmudic sages 157

Chronicles, Jewish

but also devotes considerable space to rules of talmu­ dic interpretation. Also in the ninth century, proba­ bly in Palestine, was written Seder ‘olam zufa (text in Neubauer 1887, 2: 68—73), intended to trace the Palestinian branch of the family of the Exilarch Mar Zutra III and to dispute the claim to Davidic descent of the Exilarch Bustanai. It copied the format of the earlier Seder \olam, which now became known as Seder \olam rabbah. In spite of the numerous errors of dating and other problems, the work acquired an enormous popularity in later medieval times and was even used by MAIMONIDES to calculate the genera­ tions from Moses to the end of the compilation of the Talmud. It was fundamental for chronological statements of “R A S H f and his school, and other Ger­ man and French rabbinical works, including the Seder keriytot of Samson of Chinon (see below). There were also other smaller works of a historical nature, such as the report of Natan b. Isaac “the Babylonian” (956), which provides interesting infor­ mation about the yeshivot of the geoniym (Neubauer 1887, 77-88; see also Friedlaender, “The Arabic Original of the Report of R. Nathan Hababli,” J.Q.R. [o.s.] 17 [1904-05]: 747-61). Local incidents and controversies, such as the on­ going debate over the Davidic descent of Bustanai or the history of the Palestinian yeshivot, were recorded in so-called scrolls; actually the name was only bor­ rowed from the biblical books and such talmudic-era compositions as the famous Megiyllat ta ‘a niyt (Scroll of fasts), and included Megiyllat Eviatar (1094) and Megiyllat Zutta (see Baron 1958, 215). Later exam­ ples were short works commemorating a local “Purim,” when a Jewish community was saved from some disaster, or the Megiyllat Zaragoza on events in that Spanish community in the early fifteenth century The famous Megiyllah, or Chronicle, of Ahimaas b. Paltiel, completed in Italy (Oria) in 1054, has been the subject of much controversy. The author claimed descent of his family from captives taken from Pales­ tine by the Roman emperor Titus. The “chronicle” is thus more a family history than a record of Jewish history, other than a brief chronological listing of Jewish leaders. The historical information that the author does provide, important for the little-known conditions of the Jewish communities in Italy at that

158

time, is complicated by the legendary and fictitious nature of much that he relates (text originally edited by Neubauer [1887, 2: 111-32] and then by Ben­ jamin Klar [1944], and in a very good English trans­ lation by Marcus Saltzman [1924]. The unique Toledo manuscript has also been issued in a facsimile edition [Jerusalem, 1967]; see also Bonafed 1989). The first chronicle, strictly speaking, was the anonymous medieval Hebrew version of JOSEPHUS known as Yossiypon, or Sefer Yosef ben Gurion (Book of Joseph ben Gurion), composed in Italy in the early tenth century. It is fully discussed in that article. At the request of Jacob b. Nissim gaon of Qayrawan, Sherira gaon of Pumbedita wrote (987) his famous Iggeret, or “Epistle,” actually a lengthy treatise about the nature and composition of the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the history of the talmu­ dic sages and the geoniym up to his own time. This work, which has survived in two textual traditions (“Spanish” and “French”; see Barons commendable explanation [1958, 426-27] of the reason for the dif­ ferences of these traditions), remains of crucial im­ portance for the attempts to reconstruct the history not only of the geoniym, but the even more obscure period of the saborayim who completed the redaction of the Talmud and added to it (nevertheless, Abra­ ham Zacut in his chronicle [see below] made a list that does not match Sheriras). Sherira used not only oral traditions but written records, long since lost, that were kept in the yeshivah at Pumbedita. In this respect, he stands out as the first Jewish “historian” of the medieval period. To some extent, Sheriras chron­ icle reflects the influence of Qirqisani’s history of the Qa r

a it e s.

Jacob’s more famous son, Nissim, author of Hiybburyafeh miy-ha-yeshuah (moral tales), also wrote a chronicle, referred to by the Hebrew title Seder haqabbalah (Order of the tradition), but whether it was in fact written in Arabic or was one of the unknown “books written in Hebrew” that early sources at­ tribute to the sages of Qayrawan, is uncertain; in any event, the work is lost, but was cited by Menahem ha-Meiri in the introduction to his commentary on Avot (1964, 25; not Ibn Daud, as the editor mistak­ enly assumed there, see the notes at the end of Zacut 1857, 58). It is possible that Zacut also used it in his chronicle (e.g., f. 82a and possibly f. 37b) aside from

Chronicles, Jewish

Nissims commentaries on the Talmud frequently cited by Zacut. Zacut also cited (f. 205a) the Qunfres ha-tannaiym of Samuel ha-Nagiyd, which apparently extended be­ yond the teachers of the Mishnah to include also the sages of the Babylonian Talmud. Ordinarily the name Samuel ha-Nagiyd is understood to mean Samuel Ibn NAGHRILLAH of Granada (993-1056), to whom also was erroneously attributed an “introduc­ tion to the Talmud” (Mavo ha- talmud), and thus it could also be an error here for Samuel b. Hofni or even for one of the Samuels of Egypt who also held the title nagiyd. There is no basis for the statement that this was an “epitome” of Yosiyppon (Baron 1958, 191). Also from Spain, perhaps late eleventh century, is the much-debated Sefer ha-yashar (Book of the up­ right), not to be confused with other works of the same title. It is a retelling of the biblical account from the creation of the world to Joshua, borrowing also from Yosiyppon and other sources, but in fact devoid of any historical merit (Baron 1958, 197-98). In Italy, but probably not southern Italy as Neubauer (1887, 1: xxi) suggested, Yerahme’el b. Solomon wrote, ca. 1040-1050, a chronicle from Adam to Judah Maccabee. Using the Yosiyppon as well as homiletical sources found also in later writers such as Moses ha-Darshan and the Spanish D O M IN I­ CAN polemicist Ramon Marti, he also included a chapter on the history of Rome and a briefer account of the history of Greece (excerpt of the chronicle in Neubauer 1887; see also Baron 1958, 195-97 and important information in his notes; however, there is nothing at all by Albeck in his introduction to Moses ha-Darshan, nor his note to Zunz, as cited by Baron, p. 421, n. 55). ABRAHAM B. FIlYYA (or Hayya) of Barcelona wrote Megiyllat ha-megalleh (Scroll of the revealer) in 1129, which, though not, properly speaking, a “chronicle,” nevertheless contains some historical information. He was, however, primarily interested in eschatology, particularly in the already well-established theory of six “days” as six thousand years for the duration of the world and the messianic significance of this. The same is true, even more so, of the earlier commentary of Judah b. Barzilay on Sefer ye$iyrah (see Roth 1986). A unique Arabic (in Hebrew letters) chronicle to 1159, perhaps from Egypt, is the Kitdb al-tankh,

which was edited by Neubauer (1887, 2: 89ff.) but otherwise remains unstudied by scholars. The last section contains important information on the exilarchs. Another Spaniard, this time in al-Andalus (To­ ledo), Abraham Ibn Daud, wrote Sefer ha-qabbalah (Book of tradition), the first complete chronicle of Jewish history from the biblical period to his own day. This work, possibly written in Hebrew by the author (unlike his philosophical work written in Ara­ bic and later translated into Hebrew), served as a major source for almost all of the historical compila­ tions that followed. It was written in 1160-1161, and follows a carefully thought-out scheme or “phi­ losophy” of history, intertwined with polemical (chiefly anti-Qaraite, but to a lesser extent anti-Muslim) atti­ tudes. While he may, as Cohen (pp. 1-li of the intro­ duction) asserted categorically, have depended to an extent on the Muslim notion of isnad, or “attested tradition” for the transmission of teachings, it should be noted that this is already found in such traditional texts as the first chapter of the Mishnah Avot (Ethics of the Fathers). Furthermore, he utilized not only the Seder tannaiym ve-amorayim and Sheriras Epistle, as mentioned by Cohen, but also the Seder \olam zufa and perhaps other works mentioned above. Obviously, the primary importance of this work is in its information on the rabbis in North Africa and Spain prior to and during his own time, and the brief remarks about French and German rabbis at the end of the work. Even in these sections, however, there is sometimes a “hidden agenda,” and it cannot be relied upon as entirely accurate. It is also the only medieval Jewish chronicle that has been critically edited and with an English translation (this and some additional works have also been translated into Spanish). Ibn Daud also wrote a chronicle of the kings of ancient Israel and of Rome, drawn chiefly from the Yosiyp­ pon, which has been frequently published and was translated into Latin in the sixteenth century (as was the Sefer ha-qabbalah). The twelfth century in Germany saw various re­ ports on the attacks on Jewish communities during the CRUSADES, written of course many years after the events (at least one, the Mainz Anonymous, no ear­ lier than the fourteenth century). True, they all relied apparently on earlier sources, but those were already

159

Chronicles, Jewish

corrupted, and the “chronicles” as they have survived are further corrupted. All of these are of the “lachry­ mose” kind, ranging from martyrologies (listing the names of victims and communities that were at­ tacked) to lamentations in pseudobiblical style and language, which make them of limited value as actual historical “sources” (for a contrary view, see Chazan [1987], who relied heavily on these works; see Eliezer b. Natan 1854, Habermann 1946, and Eidel­ berg s translation of the sources [1977]). In four­ teenth-century France, Samson b. Isaac of Chinon wrote his Sefer keriytot, an important work on hermeneutic rules that also contains a chronological section on the mishnaic and talmudic sages (see Ur­ bach 1968, 557-58). The above works also contain the chronicle of Ephraim of Bonn on the Second Crusade. The previously mentioned commentary on Avot (Beit ha-behiyrah) by Menahem b. Solomon ha-Meiri of Perpignan (1240-1306) contains an important introduction that, drawing on numerous previous sources, once again details the history of the Jews from the biblical period to his own time; however, it is by far the most extensive such chronicle, and although it has been little studied by scholars, it con­ tains much valuable information. Toledo in the four­ teenth century saw two important works that contin­ ued the chronicle tradition. In 1310, Isaac b. Joseph Ibn Israel (called “Israeli”) wrote, at the request of A s h e r b . Y e h i e l , an astronomy treatise, Yesod \olam., which includes much important information on me­ dieval scholars and events up to his own time (some of the most important information is available only in the rare Cracow 1581 edition of Zacut s chroni­ cle). Also in Toledo, ca. 1374, Menahem b. Aaron b. (not “Ibn”) Zerah (ca. 1310-1385) wrote his ethicallegal treatise $edeh la-derekh (Provision for the journey) for Samuel ABRAVANEL. It contains an intro­ duction that has much useful historical information (that section is printed also in Neubauer 1887). David (b. Samuel) of Estelle (not “Estella”) in France, ca. 1320, also contributed some details in the introduction to his Qiryat sefer (see Gross, Gallia judaica., pp. 50—51; text in Neubauer 1887, 2: 230-32). Isaac b. Jacob de Lattes of Perpignan, ca. 1370, a student of Nissim b. Reuven in Spain, often confused

160

by writers with Isaac b. Immanuel de Lattes of Italy (ca. 1600), wrote Shaarey $iyyon (Gates of Zion), the introduction to his still unpublished Qiryat sefer (not, as Buber thought, Toldot Yi$haq). The work is based in part on earlier midrashim and other sources, and is also heavily dependent on Menahem ha-Meiri; how­ ever, in the most important part, dealing with rabbis of medieval Spain, there are sections that are not to be found in Menahem. Apparently Isaac did not use Abraham Ibn Daud. Buber in his introduction (p. 2) indicates the influence of Isaac’s work on such later writers as David Conforte and Azulai, but more im­ portant is the unresolved issue of whether Zacut used the work (not considered either in Friemann’s intro­ duction to his chronicle). To some extent these works served as a source, probably along with other source material since lost, for the very significant chronicle of Joseph b §addiq of Arevalo (Castile), known as Qi$$ur zekher $addiyq, originally part of a much larger legal work (Neubauer 1887, 85-100 [Heb. section]). This chapter recounts the lives and work of sages up to 1467. Though there are some serious errors in the work, it is nevertheless valuable, particularly given that it is the only source for some names or works. It was supplemented by Abraham b. Solomon ofTorrutiel, Sefer ha-qabbalah (the same name as Ibn Daud’s above-mentioned work). Both of these are found in Neubauer, and in an excellent Spanish translation (the date of the jour­ nal in which Fita’s article, cited by Neubauer 1887, 1: xiv n. 2, appears should be 1887, not 1867). Zacut used both chronicles extensively, although for some inexplicable reason he sometimes made mistakes not found in his sources. Saadyah (Seadyah for those who insist on that spelling) Ibn Danan was a dayyan (judge) in Granada, the capital city of the Muslim kingdom, in the second half of the fifteenth century. He wrote ex­ tensively in Arabic, and one of his most important works is a chronicle that was preserved only in a He­ brew translation, Seder ha-dorot (Order of the genera­ tions). After the conquest of Granada by Fernando and Isabel and the expulsion of the Jews in 1492, Ibn Danan went to North Africa (Oran), where he served as a rabbi. It is clear that he did not depend on (per­ haps did not even see) Ibn Daud in his discussion of the saborayim and geoniym. The value of the chroni­

Chronicles, Jewish

cle as an historical source is not great, but there are some interesting statements in it. Certainly the most important and complete Jew­ ish chronicle of the medieval period (although actu­ ally completed only after the expulsion of 1492) was the Yuhasiyn of Abraham Zacut. This learned scholar of Salamanca (although he certainly was never a pro­ fessor there, as has been claimed) knew Latin and sci­ ence, particularly astronomy, and was also thor­ oughly versed in talmudic and rabbinic literature. As with many of the previous chronicles, Zacut s begins from the creation of the world, but provides far more detail on the patriarchs, prophets, and other matters. His thorough knowledge also of the commentaries, legal works, and other writings, particularly of Span­ ish but also of other scholars, is found on every page. There is scarcely a page of the work that does not have some important insight. It is well known, for in­ stance, that in spite of his own respect for the Zohar, he included important information from Isaac of Acre (perhaps taken from his own chronicle, no longer extant, which Zacut used) concerning the forgery of that work by Moses de Leon (f. 88b ff., cf. ff. 95-96). Zacut had access to, and used, numerous sources, non-Jewish as well as Jewish. Curiously, his list of the saborayim and geoniym (like that of Ibn Danan) does not match the list in Sheriras letter. Of primary interest for historians are sections four to five of his book, dealing with medieval rabbis and events. Much of his information about the early me­ dieval period is derived from Ibn Daud. There are also some glaring errors; for example, like many modern writers who have not studied the literature, he stated that Joseph Ibn Aknin was the student of Maimonides (f. 213b), when of course that student was Joseph Ibn Shim on. He also sometimes repeated legends as fact, as when he claimed that JUDAH HA-L e v y and A b r a ­ HAM I b n ‘E z r a “are buried together” (f. 217b), when we know that ha-Levys ship was sunk in a storm on the way to Palestine. He confuses Meir ABULAFIA with Meir of Rothenburg in saying that the former (instead of the latter) “never saw his father from the day he as­ cended to greatness, but he came to him” (f. 221b, somewhat of a confusing remark in any case; Asher b. Yehiel, whom Zacut frequently cited, said of Meir of Rothenburg that he never saw his father because of his fear that his father would stand to show him respect).

Nevertheless, he provides much valuable informa­ tion, particularly about the fifteenth century in Spain, some of which is derived from the earlier chronicles of Joseph b. Saddiq and Abraham ofTorrutiel. Other details are clearly derived from indepen­ dent sources, and in some cases from his own per­ sonal memories. Still, there are some serious errors in this section, some of which may possibly be due to careless copying of the manuscript. The historian who uses this section must exercise caution and com­ pare it with other sources. The edition of Filipowski (Zacut 1857) contains some editorial errors, includ­ ing numerous errors in Freimann’s introduction, and is lacking an important section found in the first edi­ tion of the work. The sixth section of the work has been reedited by Neubauer (see Zacut 1896, 209­ 18) according to another manuscript, in Tehiyllah leMosheh (Moritz Steinschneider jubilee volume, He­ brew volume [Leipzig, 1896; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1970], pp. 209-18; cf. the vernacular volume, pp. 243-44). This is an extremely important section on medieval Byzantine and Christian history, as well as some important astronomical information. As may be seen from this survey, we can scarcely speak of a “Jewish historiography” in the Middle Ages, and certainly none of the chronicles begin to approach the sophistication of the great Muslim historians. Even Zacut, the most learned and “scientific,” was prone to accepting miracles and folklore as historic fact, and his writing style certainly does not bear comparison with the volumes of narrative history both of earlier and of contemporary Muslim writers. Nevertheless, when used with caution and in conjunction with other sources, the medieval chronicles can provide the mod­ ern historian with important information. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History o f the Jews (New York, Philadelphia, 1958), ch. 28. Bonafed, R. “Myth, Rhetoric or History? Investiga­ tion of Megillat Aima‘a$” [Heb.]. In Tarbut vahevrah be-toldot Yisrael bi-mey ha-beinayiym (H. Ben-Sasson Memorial volume) (Jerusalem, 1989). Chazan, Robert. European Jew ry and the First Cru­ sade (Berkeley, 1987); see important critique by Ivan Marcus in Speculum 65 (1989): 685-88.

161

Chronicles, Jewish

Eidelberg, Shlomo, tr. The Jews and the Crusaders (Madison, 1977); translation of the Hebrew sources. Eliezer b. Natan. Quntres gezerot TTN”U, ed. Adolph Jellinek (Leipzig, 1854); see also ed. Habermann; tr. in Eidelberg. Gross, Heinrich. Gallia judaica (Paris, 1897; rpt. Amsterdam, 1969). Habermann, A[braham] M., ed. Sefer gezeirot Ashkenaz ve-$arfat (Jerusalem, 1946). Ibn Danan, Saadyah. “Seder ha-doroty” in Z. H. Edelmann, ed. Hemdah genuzah (Konigsberg, 1856; photo rpt. Tel-Aviv, 1971), ff. 25a-31b; Spanish tr. and commentary by Judit Targarona in Miscelanea de estudios arabesy hebraicos 35 (1986): 81-149. Ibn Daud, Abraham. Sefer ha-Qabbalah, The Book o f Tradition, ed. and tr. (Eng.) G. Cohen (Philadel­ phia, 1967; London, 1969). Joseph b. §addiq. Spanish tr. Yolanda Moreno Koch. Dos cronicas hispanohebreas del siglo XV (Barce­ lona, 1992); with the chronicle of Abraham b. Solomon. Kahana, Abraham, ed. Sifrut ha-historiya ha-Yisraeliyt (Warsaw, 1922-23), 2 vols. (texts of almost all of the chronicles mentioned here, reprinted from original publications with additional notes and bibliographies). de Lattes, Isaac b. Jacob. Sha‘a rey $iyyon, critical ed. Salomon Buber (Jaroslav, 1885; photo rpt. s.l. [Tel-Aviv], 1968-69); extremely rare in the United States, a copy of the limited edition reprint, but not the original, is in the Library of Congress. Also a brief excerpt in Neubauer II, 233-41. Menahem b. Solomon “ha-Meiri.” Beit habehiyrah . . . Avot (Jerusalem, 1964; 1968); criti­ cal ed. of the historical introduction by M. Shoshan, with notes by S. Z. Havlin (Jerusalem, 1995) (English t.p.: History o f the Oral Law and o f Early Rabbinic Scholarship). Neubauer, Adolph, ed. Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles (Oxford, 1887), 2 vols. in one. Roth, Norman. “‘Seis edades durara el mundo,’ temas de la polemica judia espanola” (“For six ages shall the world endure: themes of Spanish Jewish polemic”), Ciudad de Dios 199 (1986): 45-65. Sherira Gaon. Iggeret, ed. Benjamin Lewin (Haifa, 1921). 162

Urbach, Ephraim E. Baaley tosafot (Jerusalem, 1968). Yerahme’el b. Solomon. The Chronicles ofjerameel, tr. Moses Gaster (London, 1899; photo rpt. New York, 1971). Zacut, Abraham. Sefer yuhasiyn ha-shalem, ed. H. Filipowski (London, Edinburgh, 1857; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1963, with the intro, of A. Freimann from the Frankfurt, 1925 edition).

Church and Jews

Not only popular myth but also much historical writing of the type so aptly described as “lachrymose” by the late Salo Baron, an outstanding Jewish histo­ rian, blames the Church for most of the evils that be­ fell the Jews throughout history. Not only is this fac­ tually wrong, it is based on the incorrect premise that there is some monolithic institution that can be iden­ tified as “the Church.” While sometimes useful shorthand in reference to a specific attitude or action, in fact the concept of the Church is a theological one that has little meaning in actual historical analysis of the relations between Jews and Christians. What is meant by “the Church”? The popes, archbishops and bishops, ecumenical councils, local church councils, theologians, canonists, or local priests? Indeed, theo­ logically, the Church means the whole body of Chris­ tian believers; thus, perhaps we mean every single Christian person? Seen in this light, it is obvious how inaccurate, and incorrect, it is to speak of the Church having done anything to Jews (probably the best gen­ eral study, as background to the “ecclesiology,” and anti-Semitism, of Martin Luther, is the first section of Hendrix 1974, noting that he quite rightly re­ frained from discussing canonist or conciliar aspects of the nature of the Church, for which see Brian Tierney, Foundations o f the Conciliar Theory [Cam­ bridge, 1968], p. 42 ff. and p. 202 ff.). Nevertheless, because of the traditional popularity of the term, this article shall endeavor to survey some of the church issues relevant to Jews, such as papal atti­ tudes and actions, enactments of ecclesiastical councils (some of which became part of CANON L a w ), bishops, and some theological issues. (Related articles include Al

b ig e n sia n s,

By z a n

t iu m ,

Aq Ch

u in a s,

r ist ia n

-J e

Ba d w ish

ge

,

Bl

o o d

r e l a t io n s,

l ibe l

Cr

u

, ­

Church and Jews sa d e s,

D ispu t

a t io n s,

Ho

st

d e se c r a t io n

, M

o n ey-

and R i t u a l m u r d e r .) Ecclesiastical attitudes toward Jews varied from person to person and from period to period. From the earliest medieval times, we find local bishops who were antagonistic and insisted on conversion of the Jews, by force if necessary. Others were concerned about synagogues of the Jews, or the owning of slaves by Jews. In general, as we shall see, popes generally saw their role as that of protectors of Jewish rights, in accord with canon law. They often had to curtail the zealous reactions of local bishops or the general popu­ lace. Generally speaking, the Church had no concern with Jews as such except for anything by which Jews might exercise power over Christians, such as holding public office, “usury,” or any attempt to convert Christians. Whether or not theologically the Jews were considered to be in a state of “perpetual servi­ tude” to Christianity, an issue that has been argued ad nauseam, the fact remains that they also were seen to be important as “witnesses” to the true faith and were to be protected until the end of time, when with the “second coming” of Christ they all would convert of their own will to that “true faith.” (The actual posi­ tion on “perpetual servitude” was clearly set forth by that expert theologian and canonist Pope Innocent IV, who stated that Jews are consigned by their own guilt to “perpetual servitude” but are permitted to live as Jews “in the Christian midst”; finally, he explains this “servitude” as being “slaves rejected by God” and “slaves of those whom Christs death set free at the same time that it enslaved them” (Grayzel 1933, 115, 117). This “servitude” was theological and theoretical, not some papal plot against Jews. l e n d in g

, Oa t

h

, Po

l e m ic s,

Jew s as “W itnesses” With respect to the “Jews as witnesses” doctrine, Au­ gustine (354-430) put it best: “They preserve it [the Christian truth] for us against their wills . . . in every corner of the world, as that prophecy of the psalm which they themselves do read foretells them: slay them not, lest my people forget it, but scatter them abroad with Thy power. . . . So it were nothing to say, Slay them not, but that he adds, scatter them abroad; for if they were not dispersed throughout the whole world with their scriptures, the Church would lack their testimonies concerning those prophecies ful­ filled in our Messiah” (City o f God, Book 18, chap.

46; cf. also Augustine on Ps. 59:10-12). Of course, St. Augustine was certainly no friend of Jews. The point of his “witness” doctrine is, indeed, that the Jews are witnesses to the “truth” for the salvation of others, but not for themselves. If he never gave up, as Christian teaching never gives up, the idea that by preaching to them Jews can still be “saved,” and if it is true that he added that this should be done in a “spirit of love,” he also condemned the Jews for their “blindness” and “corruption,” and he was one of the few theologians or Christian writers who blamed the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ (these statements are found repeatedly in Augustines writings, e.g., his homilies on the Psalms: Psalms 7, 9, 13, 19; see Flan­ nery 1965, 50, and sources cited there). Nevertheless, the doctrine of Jews as “witnesses” survived and played an important role in canon law and later Christian thinking about Jews in general. When it was decided to wage the Second Crusade in 1146, aware of the attacks on Jews in Germany and elsewhere at the time of the First Crusade, B e r n a r d OF CLAIRVAUX wrote a letter warning against any vio­ lence to Jews (the text we have is to England, but no doubt letters were sent to other countries as well). In it, he repeated Augustine’s idea: “Ask anyone who knows the sacred scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm: cNot for their destruction do I pray,’ it says. The Jews are for us the living words of scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered. They are dispersed all over the world so that by expiating their crime they may be everywhere the living witnesses of our redemption” (Chazan, p. 103, from The Letters o f St. Bernard o f Clairvaux [London, 1953], pp. 460-62; apparently Bernard’s own knowl­ edge of scripture was not too profound, since no Psalm says any such thing, but he had in mind the Latin version of Ps. 59 as glossed by Augustine). Alexander of Hales (d. 1245) stated positions pro and con as to whether Jews should be tolerated, and cited the very Psalm that Augustine had discussed (although Alexander cited a different gloss), and also the argument that “testimony taken from adversaries is the very best” (almost the same words were used by Augustine), since testimony to the “truth” of Chris­ tianity is taken from the “Old Testament,” which Jews cannot negate (Chazan 1980, 45). Related in some respects to the notion of Jews as witnesses to the true faith was the even older doctrine 163

Church and Jews

of Christians as the “True Israel,” a concept going back to Paul. This was the idea that the promises that God had made to the people of Israel (the Jews) had been abrogated because of the stubborn blindness of the Jews and had been transferred to the Christian believers. This was a constant theme among the early Church Fathers, but continued throughout the Mid­ dle Ages (e.g, in the commentary of Beatus of Liebana 1930 [II.2.8, p. 175], and in Bernard of Clairvaux, De contemptus mundi). The Jews were not unaware of this doctrine. In this respect, the Greek translation of the Bible by Christians (forgeries in the Septuagint) was seen as a problem in the medieval Midrash Tan/puma, for it was foreseen that the Gen­ tiles would then claim that they are also “Israel” (ed. S. Buber [Vienna, 1885] I, 88 [f. 44b], “Va-yiyra” No. 45, and cf. II, 116 [48b]); perhaps this was the source Judah b. Barzilay (d. ca. 1070) had in mind when he wrote that the “nations of the world” will learn Torah “and say, We are Israel, as they say today; therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, did not write the oral Torah,” so that the Jews could say that the real “Israel” are they who have the “mysteries” of God as a key and commentary to the written Torah (Peirush Sefer ye$iyrah, ed S.Z.H. Halberstamm [Berlin, 1885; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1970], p. 6). Even Judah ha-Levy, who lived most of his life in Muslim Spain, placed in the mouth of the Christian in his literary debate the claim that Christians are “children of Israel” although they are not Jews, since they follow the “Messiah” and his twelve companions (apostles), who “took the place of the tribes” (a novel and unique argument). “We are worthy of the degree of the Children of Israel” (KuzariyY. 4; tr. H. Hirchsfeld, Kitab al-khazari [London, 1905], p. 41). Inno­ cent III (1198-1217), perhaps the most antagonistic medieval pope, repeatedly referred to the “carnal Jews” and called the Jews “liars.” He also claimed that the “figure” of the fever-ridden mother of Peter (Luke 4.38—39) was an allegory of the Synagogue (Judaism) and that Peters wife was the Church, and other such allegories, all revolving around this ulti­ mate notion that “the Church” has replaced “the Syn­ agogue” as the True Israel (see Synan 1965, 88-92). Synagogues

Christian animosity toward the synagogue dates to the Book of Revelation (2.9) with its reference to 164

“the synagogue of Satan.” It was perhaps natural for Christians to assume that just as they were required to worship in churches, so Jews were required to wor­ ship in synagogues. This is not so, however, for no law, talmudic or later, requires such a thing. Jews may say prayers wherever they happen to be, even out­ doors. True, the assembly of at least ten adult males is required for the public recitation of certain prayers, but no great harm results if this cannot be accom­ plished. Emotionally, of course, most Jews preferred to have a designated place for worship and reading of the Torah, either a private house or a school (beit midrash) or, in communities that could afford it, a special synagogue building. Early “Church Fathers,” particularly Saints Au­ gustine, Jerome, and John Chrysostom, railed against the synagogue, and this certainly played a role in the pernicious medieval notion of the special association of Jews with the devil. However, name-calling was one thing, actual destruction of synagogues quite an­ other. In the fourth century at Callinicum (in Mesopotamia), the synagogue was burned by order of the bishop. The Byzantine emperor, Theodosius, ordered that it be rebuilt at the bishops expense, and that those involved be punished. When St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan (373-397), heard about this, he re­ buked the emperor in a letter in which he suggests facetiously that he himself had ordered it burned and is willing to take the blame, or at least he sees noth­ ing wrong with it, the bishop only “did his duty.” Anyway, a synagogue is “of no value”; what did the “scheming Jews” lose? “Will you grant the Jews this triumph over Gods church?” he asks, adding that they will make a holiday of it ( St. Ambrose, Letters, tr. Sister Mary Melchior Beyenka [New York, 1954], Letter 40, p. 9ff.). This could have been a precedent with disastrous consequences for the Jews, were it not for the strong stand taken by Gregory I, the first important pope (540-604), who, when synagogues in Italy and Sicily were invaded and in one case contaminated by the placing of a cross and a statue of Mary, the pope wrote the local bishops reminding them of the law that Jews should be allowed their synagogues. This refers, in fact, to the code of that very Emperor Theodosius, which stated that Jews must be allowed to possess the synagogues they already have but are not permitted to build new ones. Not only did this protection of exist­

Church and Jews

ing synagogues and prohibition of new ones become part of canon law (although, in fact, often ignored), it was sometimes evoked by later popes; for instance, Alexander II in a letter to the bishops of Spain in the eleventh century also forbade “a certain bishop” from destroying a synagogue (merely summarized in the copy of the letter that was preserved; Synan 1965, 69; text, 218-19). There are various references to the “synagogue of Satan,” particularly in writings of the VISIGOTHS. Yet Beatus of Liebana, a monk in Spain in the late eighth century, in his important commentary on Revelation did not refer the statement to actual Jews but rather to heretical Christians, “they who are called]ews but are not” in the verse being understood by him as “Jews, that is bad Christians” (Beatie in Apocalipsin 1930, II.2.7, p. 175). Another saint, Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) wrote to Alfonso VI of Castile castigating him for al­ lowing Jews to serve as government officials, which is “to oppress the Church of God, to exalt the syna­ gogue of Satan, and in aiming to please the enemies of Christ, to throw contempt upon Christ himself” (Emerton 1932, 178; cf. Synan 1965, 65). There were also frequent protests about noise from services in synagogues disturbing nearby church services, and in some cases the Jews were actually ordered to move their synagogue (further information on specific in­ stances of interference with synagogues will be found in the article SYNAGOGUES). This pope virtually es­ tablished the position of canon law and later atti­ tudes on Jews holding public office. At the Fifth Council of Rome (1078) he decreed generally that Jews should not be given advantage over Christians in anything (J. D. Mansi, ed. Sacrorum conciliorum [Florence, Venice, 1759—89] XX, 508; not in Synan). Papal Protection o f the Jews

Increasingly in the Middle Ages the popes viewed themselves, or were so described by their lawyers and theologians, as the “vicars of Christ,” or representa­ tives of Christ on Earth. As such, the pope had theo­ retical jurisdiction (the power of the two swords the­ ory) over both spiritual and temporal realms and was spiritually responsible for all—Christians, Muslims, Jews, and “pagans.” Though the theological position that there is no salvation outside of the Church was (and is) maintained, the Church also recognized that the “Old Testament” came from God and that its

laws were binding upon Jews. Thus, the pope had as part of his responsibility, paradoxically, to ensure that Jews observed their law. Although rarely invoked, it was possible for Jews to be accused of heresy for fail­ ure to practice their own traditions. Theologically, too, the witness doctrine demanded that Jews be pre­ served alive until the end of time. Any attempt to kill Jews, except for proven crimes, was therefore not to be tolerated. All of this, in any event, provided a basis for the popes to intervene to protect the Jews when necessary. Gregory I, the same pope who acted against the desecration or destruction of synagogues, used in that decree the words that were to become famous as they were renewed by every subsequent pope in the Middle Ages as the “Sicut Judeis” bull, or “Constitutio pro Judeis” as it came to be known: “Just as, therefore, license ought not be granted to the Jews to presume to do in their synagogues more than the law permits them, just so ought they not to suffer curtailment in those (privileges) which have been conceded them.” From this introductory formula, each pope would then add specifics in each bull as it was needed. Gre­ gory was praised by an important fourteenth-century Jewish philosopher and scholar, Judah Mosconi, not only for his translation of Josephus but because “he was a great sage and complete philosopher” who delved into Hebrew books “and loved Jews very much and made for them great deliverances [from harm] in his days,” citing the canons as his source for this (Joseph ben Gorion, Yosiyppon, ed. Hominer [Jerusalem, 1955], p. 39; the quote is from Mosconi s own introduction to that medieval Hebrew version of Josephus). In the period between 1198 and 1254 alone, the “Sicut Judeis” bull was issued no fewer than five times, and eleven other specific protective bulls were issued. From 1254 to 1305 the bull was again issued five times, but in the fourteenth century the popes at Avignon issued it only twice. After that, we do not hear of it. One pope, Innocent III, in 1199 decided to add his own “preamble” to the traditional word­ ing, in which he condemns “Jewish perfidy,” but notes that nevertheless Jews are not to be killed, be­ cause they preserve the “truth” of Christianity (he virtually quotes Augustines words). When it was issued by Gregory IX in 1235, it names Calixtus, Eugene, Clement, and Coelestine 165

Church and Jews

among the popes who had also issued the bull; we do not have texts from them, but it is likely that in fact they had also issued it (Grayzel 1933, p. 119; Grayzel, “Popes,” 1979, p. 159, argued that the bull lost its efficacy in the thirteenth century and was no more than a feeble exhortation not to kill Jews, but this is an untenable position, contradicted by the very texts he had earlier edited; indeed, if it was so “feeble,” why was it repeatedly requested by the Jews and repeatedly issued?). We have evidence from Jewish sources that it was probably issued more times than we have official texts (and hardly because of Jews having “bribed” the popes, as some Jewish historians have claimed with­ out any evidence). In addition to this “generic” papal bull of protection, the popes often intervened in spe­ cific instances either to protect the Jews or to praise those who had done so. Thus, Alexander II wrote (1063) to the archbishop and also the viscount of Narbonne praising them for protecting the Jews, and also protesting against attempts elsewhere to force­ fully convert Jews. This culminated in a letter to all the bishops of Spain praising them also for protect­ ing the Jews against some who wished to attack them while fighting against Muslims in Spain. He made a careful distinction between the Muslims, “who perse­ cute Christians and drive them from their own towns and estates,” against whom “warfare is just,” and Jews, who “are everywhere ready to do service” (Synan 1965, pp. 69, 218-19; Grayzel, “Popes,” 1979, p. 153 n. 10). As noted elsewhere, the pope also permitted Jews forcibly baptized in the attacks in Germany during the First Crusade to return to Ju­ daism. Following the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the popes were much concerned with attempting to en­ force the BADGE and with increasing protests about Jewish “usury” (see MONEYLENDING). Nevertheless, Gregory IX could severely condemn oppression of Jews in France, including imprisonment and torture, and state: “that brand of kindness ought to be shown the Jews by Christians which we wish shown Chris­ tians who live in pagan lands” (Grayzel 1933, pp. 200-3; Synan 1965, 110). It was not the fault of the popes, but rather of Jewish converts to Christianity, that slanderous charges were brought against the Tal­ mud and other Jewish books that they contained “blasphemies” against Christianity (see TALM UD , 166

Gregory IX was outraged when he learned of such charges and ordered an immediate investigation and seizure of copies of the Talmud everywhere. His successor, Innocent IV, generally less than favorable to the Jews, at first followed his prede­ cessor s course of action. However, when he became convinced by the Jews that there were no such “blas­ phemies” and that they needed the Talmud in order to interpret and follow their own laws, he not only relented but spoke, for the first time, of the necessity of “tolerating” the Jews. If this is not very impressive by modern standards, it was nearly unique in me­ dieval terminology. Martin V (1417-1431) became pope at a crucial time, for the ecumenical Council of Constance, in many ways the most important of all, was held in that year. We have an eyewitness description of the opening procession, in which as usual the Jews brought forth “their [!] Ten Commandments” (prob­ ably the Jews had learned, after centuries of abuse of the Torah in such ceremonies, and created a special scroll of just the commandments for this occasion). The Jews “sang aloud in Hebrew,” and when they reached the pope they knelt, presented him the scroll, and asked him to confirm their privileges; “but he did not grant their request.” Then the em­ peror (Sigismund of Germany) recited the traditional formula that the commandments are good but the Jews do not rightly understand their meaning. Then, only, the pope blessed the Jews (using the trinitarian formula), but only after having loudly proclaimed that God should remove the veil from the eyes of the Jews. On Maundy Thursday in 1418, the pope ap­ peared in full regalia and “denounced all heathen, heretics and schismatics . . . all Jews, all Moham­ medans, and Pedro de Luna” (the antipope Benedict XIII). All of these were placed under “perpetual curse and ban” (“Richenthal’s Chronicle,” translated in L. R. Loomis, The Council o f Constance [New York, 1961], pp. 172,294). Yet this pope also expressed an entirely different attitude when in 1419, noting that Jews “possess the image of God,” he ordered that Jews should be free from molestation in their synagogues, but they must not insult the Christian faith and were still forbidden from public work on Sundays. He went even further in 1422, noting that preachers had tried to prevent any contact between Jews and Christians (in fact, this CONDEMNATION OF).

Church and Jews

had long been the theoretical policy), he prohibited any such attempts in the future. He desired that “every Christian treat the Jews with a humane kind­ ness” (Synan 1965, 136). He also changed the old opposition of the Church to Jewish physicians’ treat­ ing Christian patients, and in 1429 granted an exten­ sive bull of rights and privileges to the Jews of Flo­ rence. Eugenius IV (1431-1447) was something of a puzzle. On the one hand, he rescinded all papal priv­ ileges that had been granted to the Jews of Castile (al­ though in reality this had little effect), yet in 1433 he reissued the “Sicut Judeis” and added to it specific prohibitions against forced baptism, killing Jews, molesting their cemeteries, and other things (text ed. A. Neubauer in J.Q.R. [o.s.] 2 [1890]: 530-31; not mentioned by Synan). Heresy an d Church Corruption

Possibly another factor that protected the Jews from any campaign against them was the problem of wide­ spread heresy in Christian Europe throughout the Middle Ages, and the corruption within the Church itself. One scholar has astutely observed that “a chief reason for the existence of heresy lies in the nature of Christianity itself. . . . The Christians’ interest in ab­ stract truth led them to try to define it in a system of orthodoxy, and since no definition of truth ever goes unchallenged, the inevitable companion of ortho­ doxy is dissent” (Russell 1965, 2). For a brief discus­ sion of some of the most important heresies of the medieval period, see ALBIGENSIANS. There was widespread sexual promiscuity among the clergy, monks, and nuns. Gregory VII prohibited priests guilty of fornication from saying Mass (Rus­ sell 1965, 7). The presiding bishop of the Council of Ravenna (1261) told the clergy he could not trust them to hear confessions of women because they reg­ ularly took them behind the altar and had inter­ course with them (James Cleugh, Love Locked Out, a survey o f love, license and restriction in the Middle Ages [London, 1963], pp. 91, 93, and images of sodomy in the churches, pp. 22-26. Similar charges were re­ peatedly made later in Spain). The sexual immorality of priests and monks was common knowledge also among medieval Jews, who referred to it in their writings. The canonist standard for what constitutes “notorious heresy” for which a pope might be dis­

posed included as an example if he were found forni­ cating on the high altar. Greed was also a factor in clerical corruption. The first ecumenical council of the Lateran in 1139 con­ demned clergy for taking payment for administering the sacraments (Russell, loc. cit.). Gregory VII com­ plained to Hugo of Cluny that throughout Europe, “I find scarce any bishops who live or who were or­ dained according to law and who govern Christian people in the love of Christ and not for worldly ambi­ tion. . . . As to those among whom I live, Romans, Lombards and Normans, as I often say to them, I find them worse than Jews and pagans” (see Emerton 1932, 64-65). Indeed, many archbishops and bishops simply bought their offices, or had them bought for them by their families (some were minor children), and there are several examples of such “princes of the Church” who never in their lives attended Mass. It was the determination to root out heresy that gave rise to the INQUISITION. Remarkably, though, the Inquisition never concerned itself with Jews un­ less they either aided relapsed converts to return to the Jewish fold or else were themselves supposedly “false” converts, “returning like a dog to its vomit” as was the repeated phrase. The very denial of basic Christian doctrines—the divinity of Christ, virgin birth, resurrection, the inherent sinfulness of man, which was instantly condemned as heresy and pun­ ished by the cruelest torture and death if expressed by a Christian, was tolerated among Jews. Indeed, the Jews were defined as “heretics” in the Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, and in the first compilation of canon law, the Decretum. Yet in spite of all this, no Jew was ever persecuted by the Church, or any branch or agent of it, for beliefs contrary to Christian doctrine. In what sense, then, was the Jew a “heretic”? Jewish Perfidy

Until abolished in modern times by the Second Vati­ can Council, on every Good Friday prayers were of­ fered “for the perfidious Jews” {pro perfidis Judaeis). This term is found in the letters of Gregory I, the very pope who otherwise was so concerned about protecting Jewish rights (Synan 1965, 175-76 n. 15, provides some bibliography relevant to the topic, pointing out also the occasional use of the term to apply to non-Jews. To that bibliography may be 167

Church and Jews

added E. Peterson, “Perfidia judaica,” Ephemerides liturgicae [1936]: 296-311, and a French version of John M. Oesterreicher’s article, “Pro perfidis Judaeis,” Cahiers sioniens 1 [1947]: 85-101). Rather apologetically, Msgr. Oesterreicher argued that the term did not mean “perfidious,” but rather “unfaith­ ful, non-believer.” This point of view is supported by some other authors, whom he cited. Nevertheless, one cannot deny the meaning of the Latin term, which is not “incredulous” or “non-believer,” but “against the faith.” The Jew, therefore, is worse than the pagan, for the Jew knows the “truth” but stub­ bornly refuses to acknowledge it. This was the constant theme of medieval theolo­ gians and of many popes, who repeatedly wrote of the “stubbornness” of the Jews, the “blindness” of the Jews, the Jews as “oxen” (Gregory I, Bernard of Clair­ vaux, Innocent III; cf. Synan 1965, 38, 77, 88). Isidore of Seville, in his Etymologies, referred to “Jew­ ish perfidy,” as did Ildefonso (who specifically com­ bined the term with blindness and error), Braulio, the synod of Agde (506), Gregory I, the Twelfth and Sixteenth Toledo Councils (681 and 693) of the Visigoths (which became part of canon law) and was picked up again by medieval popes, such as Innocent III in his viciously anti-Jewish letter to the arch­ bishop of Sens and bishop of Paris in 1205, noting inter alia that because of Jewish “perfidy” even Mus­ lims who persecute the Church “cannot tolerate the Jews and have expelled them from their territory” (a false accusation, but truth never bothered Innocent; see on all these Roth 1994b, 15, 19, 23, 26, 31, 32, 33, 37, and 129). There is no point in listing all of the numerous medieval references to demonstrate that the common conception of the Jew was that of a stubborn and deliberate unbeliever, one who knew the truth and yet denied it. The danger of the Jew was precisely that he was a “witness,” however unwitting, to Christian “truth,” that he possessed the sacred scriptures that were the foundation of that belief, that he was of the very people of the Christian Savior in the flesh, and yet denied all of this. Jew s as K illers o f Christ One of the most pervasive misunderstandings, not only by laypeople but many who presume to be scholars of Jewish history, is that “the Church” blamed Jews for the Crucifixion. Indeed, it is some­ 168

times assumed that this supposed belief was the en­ tire basis of “anti-Semitism” (an anachronistic term if applied to the Middle Ages, or indeed to any period prior to the nineteenth century when this racial con­ cept was developed). In fact, this is not at all the case. Several early Church Fathers (through the fourth century) do, indeed, make this accusation (among the more famous: Origen, Augustine, Jerome, John Chrysostom). As we move closer to the medieval pe­ riod as defined in this encyclopedia, we can add to the list Isidore of Seville, Ildefonsus, and Braulio, alone in the Visigothic era (it may be noted that these were the same who accused the Jews of “perfidy”), the aforementioned Beatus of Liebana (Prologus Liber 11. 10. 35; p. 157), Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter Damian, Innocent III (alone of all the popes), Hugh of St. Cher, Nicholas de Lyre, Thomas Aquinas, and some medieval commentators on Ps. 68.2 (on whom see Hendrix 1974, 100-101 and n. 14). To these may be added the “much-read” German theologian Gabriel Biel (d. 1495; see Heiko Obermann, The Roots o f Anti-Semitism in the Age o f Renaissance and Reformation [Philadelphia, 1981], p. 136, n. 123). This is not much for a period of history covering several centuries. Other Christian writers either placed no blame at all or blamed the Romans, or (Gregory I) stated that the Romans are also responsi­ ble (Blumenkranz 1963, 86, no. 92f), as did also Bernard of Clairvaux. Bede the Venerable specifically stated that not the Jews but the Christians (allegori­ cally speaking) crucified Christ (Blumenkranz 1963, 134, no. 119g). A b e l a r d specifically denied that the Jews had any responsibility. Remigius of Auxerre, who incidentally was the successor of Agobard and Amulo, both virulently anti-Jewish, as bishop of Lyons, stated that not the Jews only, but all “sinners,” share respon­ sibility for the Crucifixion (Parkes 1976, 30). F orced Baptism Although Christians never gave up hope for the con­ version of Jews and worked zealously to win that conversion, there was debate about the validity of forcibly converting anyone, Jew, Muslim, or pagan. There is evidence from the very earliest days of Christianity in Europe of such forced baptism, at times with the blessing or even the connivance of local bishops. However, such unwilling converts ob­ viously proved a problem. According to a complaint

Church and Jews

from Braulio, the Visigothic bishop of Zaragoza in the early seventh century, Pope Honorius I, had al­ lowed reluctant Jewish converts to return to their people (whether or not this had to do with the com­ pulsory baptism of Jews ordered by the Byzantine emperor Heraclitus in 630 after his conquest of Jerusalem is not clear). Forced baptism of Jews had already long been a fact in Visigothic Spain, although King Recared did not approve of the decision of III Toledo (589), over which he presided, ordering com­ pulsory baptism, even though it was only for chil­ dren of mixed marriages. In 612, King Sisebut con­ firmed the decree of the council and went further, ordering the compulsory baptism or expulsion of all Jews. Obviously this was ineffective, for the next Toledo council (633) actually decided that Jews should not be forcibly baptized. Pope Hadrian I (722-795) refused to accept canon 8 of the Second Nicean Council (787), which stated that baptized Jews who continue to observe the Jewish religion ought to be rejected by the Church. A letter of Gregory IV (827-844), referring to IV Toledo, was included in Gratian s Decretum (the first definitive code of canon law), that, al­ though force ought not to be used, those who had been baptized by force must remain Christian (Roth 1994b, 21). This became, in fact, the canonical posi­ tion on compulsory baptism: force ought not to be used, but once baptized, a Christian must remain a Christian. This had less to do with the will of the baptized person than with the fact that baptism is a sacrament, which takes effect even if not done in ac­ cord with the rules (for instance, by a layperson in extreme situations, or by compulsion). Thus, we see that the statement that although “Catholic personali­ ties” forced Jews to be baptized, or argued that it is permitted, “not one pope has been found among their number” is incorrect (Synan 1965, 55, yet he himself proceeded to include at least the information about Hadrians approval of compulsory baptism, p. 58; strangely, Gregorys statement, although canon law, is not mentioned). Pope Alexander II (1065) expressed his thanks to Landulf, prince of Benevento, for refusing to force Jews to convert (Synan 1965, 68; Grayzel 1979, 153 n. 10). Nevertheless, papal attitudes and canon law did not always reach the masses, and in the attacks on Jews by mobs on their way to join the First Crusade

in 1096, large numbers of Jews were baptized by force. Remarkably, however, the pope, who already had shown his disapproval of such acts, permitted all such Jews to return to their former “faith.” The first compiler of canon law, Gratian (ca. 1140), included the aforementioned letter of Gregory IV in his collec­ tion, thus setting the rule that Jews forcibly baptized must remain Christians (Decretum I. ch. XLV, c.5; Grayzel 1979, 158, discussed this but failed to take into account the sacramental nature of baptism; this was not an “anti-Jewish” action of some kind on Gra­ tian s part). Innocent III (1198-1217), who, as noted here, was one of the most anti-Jewish popes, never­ theless adhered to canon law and decreed that force not be used to convert Jews, particularly by Cru­ saders in France (Synan 1965, 98-99; only one text was included in Grayzel 1933, 93, but cf. 121). Some individual philosophers or theologians, such as the Franciscan Duns Scotus (from England; he lived also in Cologne, where he died in 1308), continued to advocate baptism of Jews by force (Synan 1965, 48). In his native England, when the Jews were expelled many children were in fact forced to remain and were raised as Christians. When the BLACK D e a t h of 1348 ravaged Europe, Jews were again attacked and slaughtered in many places. Some willingly chose baptism as an escape, but others were compelled to convert. Pope Clement VI issued a stern command against this, while at the same time encouraging those who willingly accept conversion (Synan 1965, 133). After the Visigothic period, compulsory baptism was not an issue in Spain, except possibly in the riots in the summer of 1391. Even then, we hear of no Jews returning to their former “religion”—or rather, people—which they surely would have been allowed to do if they had so desired. The massive conversions of Jews that followed, and even more in the fifteenth century, were entirely voluntary and there is no record of any compulsion. Bishops a n d Jews

The relations between Jews and local archbishops and bishops were in some respects even more impor­ tant than those between Jews and popes; for after all, the Jews were more likely to come into frequent con­ tact with these prelates. Agobard, bishop of Lyons (ninth century), was a descendant of Visigoths and 169

Church and Jews

possibly influenced by their hostile attitudes to Jews. In any event, he was decidedly an enemy of the Jews; he falsely accused them of selling Christian slaves to Muslims, wrote on Jewish “insolence,” and preached a number of anti-Jewish sermons. His disciple and successor, Amulo, continued his teachers attitudes and anti-Jewish campaign, and to­ gether with the bishops of Reims and Sens endeav­ ored to reinstate Visigothic measures against the Jews at the Council of Meaux (846), although this failed. Either, or both, Agobard or Amulo appear to have been responsible for the conversion of large numbers of Jews. Some Jewish parents sent their children se­ cretly to Arles in an attempt to save them, but the bishop of Lyons (whichever it was) sent letters to the bishop of Arles urging him also to baptize those chil­ dren. Nevertheless, the letters of Agobard were pri­ vate, not public, and written in Latin, which few in the Middle Ages could understand. He was careful to state also that Jews should not actually be harmed in person or property. At about this same time the arch­ bishop of Sens expelled the Jews there. Not all French bishops were hostile to the Jews, however. Archbishop Pierre de Lubieres allowed Jews to settle in Aix in 1143 in return for an annual pay­ ment of two pounds of pepper. Very important was Guy Fulcondi, archbishop of N a r b o n n e (later Pope Clement IV, 1265-1268), about whose “wisdom” and “justice” a contemporary Jewish author spoke with greatest respect. According to this writer, he re­ sponded favorably to virtually all the requests of the Jews relating to moneylending and other problems. The most important and powerful bishop in thir­ teenth-century England was Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln. He had mixed attitudes toward Jews, on the one hand disapproving of friendly rela­ tions with them and yet approving a plan (which was not successful) to settle Jewish refugees as laborers on estates of some nobles. While disapproving of Jewish “usury,” he preferred Jews to the exorbitant rates charged by Christian lenders. He championed the study of Hebrew, which he considered necessary for knowledge of the Bible, and sponsored a new Latin translation of importance. In Germany in 939, Frederick, archbishop of Mainz, received a letter from Pope Leo VII in reply to his question as to whether he should force the Jews to accept baptism or be expelled. The pope urged 170

preaching to them, but if that failed they should in­ deed be expelled (Julius Aronius, Regesten zur Ge­ schichte der Juden [Hildesheim, 1970], p. 62, No. 146). But not all the bishops were hostile. When Adalbero II, bishop of Metz (984-1005) died, the Jews of the city reportedly wept and mourned for many days because of his friendly attitude toward them. The same is reported with the death of other archbishops and bishops. Repeatedly told, of course, is the story of Bishop Rudiger of Speyer, who in 1084 invited Jews to settle there, wishing, he said, to “en­ hance a thousandfold” the glory of the city thereby. His successor, Bishop John (1090-1104), defended the Jews when they were attacked by mobs in the First Crusade, as did the archbishops of Mainz and Cologne, while the archbishop of Trier preached in defense of the Jews but hid in the church when the mobs attacked. Also in 1302, Archbishop Wicold of Cologne decreed that Jews should live “quietly and peacefully in the security of their body” and property, and “increase in a healthy and fruitful fashion.” Among his specific decrees was that the entire Jewish community could not be held liable for the actions of individuals. In Spain, also, there were archbishops and bishops who befriended the Jews. None was more important or more successful than Rodrigo Jimenez de Rada of Toledo (1208-1247), who went against the decrees of IV Lateran and of two popes in promising the Jews that they need never wear the badge. Jews in Spain, of course, had unusually good relations with Chris­ tians in general, and also with priests and bishops. As mentioned elsewhere (see CHRISTIAN-JEWISH RELA­ TIONS), archbishops and bishops sometimes gave gifts to Jews, and Jews gave gifts to them. Pedro de Tenorio (1376-1399), archbishop of Toledo and re­ sponsible for much of the building in that city, left in his will two golden cups, enameled with his crest, which had been given him by an illustrious Jew of the city (see on all of the above Roth 1994a). Ecumenical Councils

Church councils could be either “national” (such as the Visigothic Toledo councils) or local (diocesan), presided over by a local bishop, or if convened to deal with serious issues facing the entire “body of believ­ ers,” ecumenical. Space does not permit, nor has there been adequate research for, a discussion of

Church and Jews

diocesan councils (some, but by no means all, of the canons of these councils for the late twelfth and thir­ teenth centuries are in Grayzel 1933, 297ff.). How­ ever, the highlights of medieval ecumenical councils as they relate to Jews seem important. Mention has already been made of II Nicea (787), convened by the Byzantine empress Irene to discuss the restora­ tion of the worship of images, but also to deal with the problem of the conversion of Jews, since compul­ sory baptism had failed. It was only in the twelfth century that an ecu­ menical council was called by the pope, I Lateran in 1123 (the Lateran palace in Rome was the residence of the popes prior to the building of the Vatican); however, it said nothing at all about Jews. Only III Lateran (1179), dealing in part with heresy in Provence (see ALBIGENSIANS), began to consider Jews. Canon 26 renewed the old prohibition against Jews and Muslims having Christian slaves or servants. The pope, Alexander III, further prohibited the use of Christian women to nurse Jewish babies in the homes of Jews. Also, Jewish converts were not to be in a worse economic condition after their conver­ sion (converts were sometimes disinherited, or their goods and property confiscated by rulers). According to a sixteenth-century Jewish chronicle, not always reliable, the Jews were distressed when they heard of plans to call the council and allegedly fasted for three days, but the pope “spoke only good” about the Jews (Solomon Ibn Verga, Shevet Yehudah, ed. E. Shochet [Jerusalem, 1947], p. 146, lines 22-25). The famous Jewish traveler BENJAMIN OF TUDELA reported that he met in Rome Yehiel, grandson of Rabbi Natan (author of the famous dictionary ha-‘Arukh), “a handsome, understanding and wise young man,” who was in the service of Pope Alexander (III) and was in charge of his household and finances ( The Itinerary o f Rabbi Benjamin o f Tudela, ed. and tr. A. Asher [London, Berlin, 1840], I, 38 [tr.], 8 [text]). It is possible that he exerted some influence on the pope. It is far from settled whether the story in the same chronicle about the preparations of Jewish commu­ nities in northern Spain and southern France prior to the next ecumenical council, IV Lateran (1215), is accurate (Ibn Verga 1947, 147, lines 30-35). It is certainly not impossible that rumors reached these communities about the planned agenda, which for

the first time was to deal at length with the Jews. The canons (67-70) on Jews have frequently been pub­ lished, translated, and discussed (Chazan, Grayzel, Synan, etc.). The first dealt, again, with the issue of Jewish “usury,” but nothing could be done except to urge rulers to control the interest charged by Jews and to assure that Jews pay tithes to the Church on property formerly owned by Christians. More serious was Canon 68, which dealt with separation of Chris­ tians and Jews lest “accidentally” they have sexual re­ lations. The means to that end was to be the require­ ment that Jews wear “distinguishing clothing.” Nothing was said about a “badge,” and yet that was how the law was universally interpreted (on Jewish clothing generally, see CLOTHING, and see specifically the article B a d g e ). Canon 69 again prohibited Jews from holding any office over Christians, and Canon 70 dealt with converts to Christianity, who must be “restrained” from observing the “old rites” of their former (Jewish) religion. The Council of Vienne (1311-1312) again had lit­ tle to say about Jews, other than to raise again the issue of Jews and Christians in trials, urging that no special privileges be granted Jews that would make it difficult for Christians to testify against them. It was also this council that ordered the establishment of chairs of He­ brew in the universities of Paris, Oxford, Bologna, and Salamanca, largely as an aid to the missionary cam­ paign of the D o m i n i c a n s a n d F r a n c i s c a n s . The aforementioned Council of Constance (1414-1418) succeeded in ending the schism that split the Church, with three different claimants to the title of pope. The Jews in Italy sent a delegation to Martin V as soon as he was elected pope and re­ ceived some favorable concessions. King Sigismund apparently was responsible (he claimed credit for it) for the favorable bull that Martin issued for the Jews of Germany, but imposed a special tax on some Jew­ ish communities to defray his expenses in attending the council. No negative action toward Jews was taken by the council, but a provision was made that Jewish converts to Christianity could keep half of their wealth if it were gained from usury (and, of course, all the rest of their wealth). In 1434 the Council of Basel met, and the validity of the actions of this council, never validated by the pope (Eugenius IV), has been the subject of debate. The most serious provisions affecting the Jews were 171

Church and Jews

the requirement, yet again, that bishops send “learned preachers” to the Jews, who must be com­ pelled to listen to their sermons. Secondly, yet again, Christians should not be permitted to serve Jews in any capacity, or attend their weddings and other cele­ brations, or bathe together with them (probably in­ fluenced by some earlier Spanish laws forbidding this). Still other “old issues” were the renewal of the requirement that Jews wear distinguishing clothing (again, not a badge) and that they be compelled to live apart from Christians. This did not yet establish, except for a very few places, the “ghetto” of the six­ teenth century but probably did encourage the in­ crease of separate Jewish quarters in many towns of Spain. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blumenkranz, Bernhard. Les auteurs chretiens latins du moyen Age sur les juifs et le judaism e (Paris, 1963). Chazan, Robert, ed. Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages (New York, 1980). Emerton, Ephraim. The Correspondence o f Pope Gre­ gory VII, Selected Letters from the Registrum (New York, 1932). Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish o f the Jews (New York, 1965). Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the XLLLth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). ---------. “Jews and the Ecumenical Councils,” in Abra­ ham A. Neuman and Solomon Zeitlin, eds. The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume o f the Jewish Quar­ terly Review (Philadelphia, 1967): 287- 311. ---------. “Popes, Jews and Inquisition,” in Abraham I. Katsch and Leon Nemoy, eds. Essays on the Oc­ casion o f the Seventieth Anniversary o f the Dropise University (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 151-88. Hendrix, Scott H. Ecclesia in Vita (Leiden, 1974). Parkes, James. The Jew in the M edieval Community (New York, 1976). Roth, Norman. “Bishops and Jews in the Middle Ages,” The Catholic Historical Review 80 (1994): 1-17. ---------. Jews, Visigoths &Muslims in M edieval Spain (Leiden, 1994). Russell, Jeffrey Burton. Dissent and Reform in the Early Ages (Los Angeles, 1965). 172

Simonsohn, Shlomo, ed. The Apostolic See and the Jews (Toronto, 1988-90), vols. I—III. Stern, Moritz. Urkundliche Beitrage iiber die Stellung der Papste zu den Juden (Kiel, 1893; photo rpt. 1970). Synan, Edward A. The Popes and the Jews in the Mid­ dle Ages (New York., London, 1965).

Clothing (see also Badge ) Biblical laws concerning clothing are limited to pro­ hibitions against garments of mixed wool and linen (Lev. 19.19) and wearing garments or adornments of the opposite sex (Deut. 22.5), and the positive com­ mandment to make fringes ($iy$iyi) on four-cornered garments (Num. 15.37-38). Though actual evidence is lacking, there is no reason to believe that Jews in the biblical or Hellenistic periods wore any distinc­ tive style of dress that differentiated them from Gen­ tiles. This appears also to be the case in the talmudic era, both in Israel and in the Diaspora, where Greek and Roman styles were adopted by the Jews. As the famous reliefs of the Dura-Europa synagogue dem­ onstrate, Jews in the Persian Empire wore a mixture

Jewish procession in 1417. Copyright © Foto Marburg/Art Resource, NY.

Clothing

of Greek and Persian clothing. The so-called Jewish hat of medieval Europe (chiefly in Germany, France, and England) appears actually to have originated in the Persian hat, soft and with a brim and slight coni­ cal point on top. This may be seen also in the Dura paintings, as well as in a sixth-century (c.E .) Egypt­ ian wall painting portraying the miraculous story of the three children saved from the furnace (Daniel 3.21) and in pottery figurines from China (ca. 618— 907) representing, presumably, Jewish merchants. Muslim Lands

Similarly, under the spread of Islam (seventh-eighth centuries) when the majority of the Jews of the world came under its cultural influence and political con­ trol, Jews easily adopted the new styles of dress and were in no way distinguishable from their Muslim neighbors. The so-called Pact of ‘Umar, allegedly drawn up by the first caliph to regulate Christians and Jews, is of course a forgery, as has been known (or should have been known) for more than a cen­ tury now. That forged document supposedly re­ quired that Christians and Jews not dress the same as Muslims. There is, however, evidence for a require­ ment that Christians (Jews are not mentioned) wear a distinctive sash {zunndr) and distinctive sign or mark on their headgear and that of their animals. In 850 the caliph al-Mutawakkil did, in fact, order both Christians and Jews to wear the taylasdn, a shawl-like head covering, and the zunndr. In Muslim Spain, however, such restrictions were not generally en­ forced. A particularly fanatical Muslim judge in Seville in the twelfth century attempted to enforce regulations that included among other things that Jews and Christians may not dress in the clothing of people of position and must wear a distinguishing sign “by which they are to be recognized to their shame.” Nevertheless, we have certain contemporary evidence from Seville that indicates that these regula­ tions remained theoretical. In fact, people of the upper classes (and this included most Jews) dressed elegantly in fine silk and linen clothes. These in­ cluded the jubba, a flowing robe with large sleeves and of various colors depending on taste, such as green, orange, or rose. Women as well as men wore this, and women also wore the qami$, a fine tunic of transparent gauze. Veils were not common for women, and in fact in the early Muslim period were

worn more by men. This is incidentally confirmed by Ibn ‘Ez r a , who wrote that the veil is a long, thin piece of cloth covering the head and is worn by women only in a few places; “for in the land of Ishmael [Arabia], Spain, Africa, Egypt, Babylon and Baghdad [!] it is worn on the head by distinguished men and not by women” (commentary on Ex. 29.36). In Muslim Spain until the thirteenth century the turban was customarily worn by men, including Jews, but was abandoned after that except for certain provinces. The turban was gradually replaced by a woolen cap, usually green or red, and the Jews often wore yellow. The Jews of Muslim North Africa gener­ ally continued to wear turbans. In Egypt, ca. 1005, the fanatical caliph al-tlakim ordered Jews and Christians to wear black robes, and in the public baths Christians had to wear iron crosses around their necks, and Jews bells (in the street they were re­ quired to wear a wooden image of a calf, in “mem­ ory” of the biblical golden calf). This obligation with regard to wearing bells while in the baths had earlier precedents. However, these rigid ordinances were not strictly enforced and were apparently soon forgotten (Goitein 1967, 71; note that his statement there about Yemenite Jews refers to the modern period). In fact, Jews, both men and women, continued to dress in lavish apparel. There were Jewish makers and sell­ ers of clothes, including secondhand, in Egypt, and if we hear of few such in al-Andalus at least there were merchants engaged in the silk trade and import of textiles. Christian Europe: The “Jewish H a t”

In general Jews in European countries did not wear any clothing that was distinctive or different from that worn by their Christian neighbors, though per­ haps they dressed somewhat more lavishly, particu­ larly the women. The one exception to this, pecu­ liarly, was the so-called Jewish hat. Much ink has been spilled in attempts to explain this curious phe­ nomenon and to give fanciful, and wrong, explana­ tions and descriptions. Jewish custom, which only in the early modern era became law and only then for Ashkenazic Jews, was that males should cover their heads especially at synagogue services and often (though not universally) while studying. At some pe­ riod it became customary to wear a cap or hat at all 173

Clothing

times, at least outdoors. We do not know when this custom developed, but Isaac b. Moses Or zarua of Vienna (ca. 1180-ca. 1250) already mentioned the hat of the Jews. Lacking iconographic or other evi­ dence for an earlier period, all that we can say with certainty is that by the mid-thirteenth century Jews were wearing hats, often simply a soft cap with a peak, but also what appears (in manuscript illumina­ tions) to be a hat of stiff material with a distinctive point on the top. We have already noted the pointed caps worn by Babylonian (Persian) Jews, and it is not unlikely that this custom survived among northern European Jews; however, the “harder” hat version may have been the result of special legislation, cer­ tainly in Germany and probably in England and France, requiring Jewish men to wear such hats. Drawings in thirteenth-century German law codes show Jews bearded and wearing such hats, and these early laws specifically mentioned that they must wear them on leaving the synagogue and when taking Oa

t h s.

The provincial council of Breslau enacted a provi­ sion (1267) requiring Jews to wear “the horned hat” that they earlier had been accustomed to wear but that they had “presumed in their temerity” to stop wearing (this law applied also to Poland). In some manuscript drawings a cap, unpointed, may be seen secured around the chin with cloth or a strap (a clear example of such a strap may be seen in the late-thirteenth-century seal of a Jew of Regensburg; Friedenberg 184-85). The explanation for this seems to be found in a responsum of M e i r B. BARUKH of Rothen­ burg (ca. 1220-1293), who ruled that it is permissi­ ble to go out in the street on the Sabbath wearing tall hats that cannot be blown off by the wind, even though the brim protrudes in order to cover the wearer from sun or rain (it is nonetheless not consid­ ered a “tent,” which would be forbidden), but those that are not so secure on the head must be attached with a strap (1891, No. 25; Maimonides was more strict about this, see M. T., “Shabbat”22. 31, and see the commentaries there; cf. also Aaron ha-Kohen of Lunel, Or/pot hayyiym, “Shabbaf No. 138). The hats appear to have been made from cloth, although some have suggested metal in certain cases. Israel Isserlein (1390-1460) wrote about hats woven of straw and whether they are suitable as head covering for pray­ ers ( Terumat ha-deshen, No. 10). Jews sometimes 174

adopted the “Jewish hat” as a prominent feature of their personal seals. Some French illuminations show a wide variety of Jewish hats, including one in a skyblue color with a small brim and soft pointed peak, others without any peak (in colors such as pink and bright red-orange), and a black hat with a wide brim and no peak or point at all. Jews in Spain did not wear this special “Jewish hat” at any time; in ARAGON-CATALONIA, at least in the thirteenth century, it was customary to wear a kind of hood with the point flopping down in back or to the side (illuminations of the Cantigas de Santa Maria depicting such hats indicate the foreign, nonSpanish, origin of the artists). Although some sources refer to “distinctive dress” worn by Jews in Italy (to differentiate them from Christians), contemporary illustrations show no evidence of this, nor was the hat worn there. Clothing in Europe

Rabbinic sources always need to be used with some caution, since they tend to express the most conserv­ ative views. On the basis of some of these it has been stated, for instance, that Jews in Germany eschewed bright colors, preferring dark or even black. How­ ever, manuscript illustrations from Germany (thir­ teenth through the fifteenth centuries) do not sup­ port this. The standard clothing for men was a robe, reaching to just below the knees, and at times (prob­ ably to protect from the cold) this was covered by a cloak no different from those worn by Christians, which was fashioned with a broach. The colors of the robes and cloaks were red, blue, green, or yellow, and sometimes tan. A special garment worn originally only for holidays was the sargenes, or kittel, which was a broad robe or cloak with the right side sewn up to prevent carrying, when it became customary also to wear this garment on the Sabbath (although the community ordinances of Speyer, W O R M S, and Mayence had earlier prohibited the wearing of this garment in the synagogue on Sabbaths). From other sources it appears that this was also the garment used for burying the dead, and possibly because of this it became customary to wear it also on Yom Kippur (even now many traditional Jews wear a kind of thin white robe, which is also called a kittel, on Yom Kip­ pur and at the Passover seder).

Clothing

While many of the manuscript illuminations por­ tray either biblical characters, albeit in contemporary costume, or Jews celebrating a holiday or in the syn­ agogue, some few show more mundane examples of working Jews, men and women, or on horseback, and in such scenes may be seen the more typical daily clothing worn for working purposes. Again, there is no distinction between this and the similar clothing worn by Christians. Some of the aforemen­ tioned French manuscripts (not by Jewish artists) portray Jewish men in long, flowing robes of various mixed bright colors (red-orange, forest green, yellow-tan, and some light gray), with hose of contrast­ ing colors. In Spain an outer garment was worn that was open on the sides and had loops through which a belt was fastened (Ibn Adret, Sheelot u-teshuvotVJ. 266). Similarly, Meir b. Barukh of Rothenburg had been asked about the permissibility of wearing trousers fastened by a belt on the Sabbath. He also disap­ proved of the custom of attaching a house key to a piece of metal as adornment on a belt on the Sab­ bath, since this would be carrying (even though he admits that some allowed this). Jews in Spain, men and women, wore fairly luxurious clothing, often adorned with gold or jewel ornaments. However, early depictions, such as the illustrations of the thir­ teenth-century Cantigas de Santa Maria, show Jews dressed little differently from those of France and Germany; however, as noted above, these were by artists of non-Spanish origin. Also in late medieval Italy, particularly in the north, Jews were lavish in their costume, with fur-trimmed garments and cloaks, luxurious cloth, and often with hose of con­ trasting colors for the men. Shoes were usually of leather (in Germany one of the rabbis was asked about the permissibility of making shoes from hides originally intended for Torah scrolls). In an interesting responsum Ibn Adret was asked if it were permitted to wear patines in the street on the Sabbath, a word that seems to refer to a wooden shoe or shoe with cork soles to prevent slipping on the ice (in modern Spanish it means “skates,” but the medieval term used is akin to a French or Lombard word), to which he replied that it is the custom of “all the wise of the land” to wear them and is certainly permitted (Sheelot u-teshuvot\. 607).

Decrees Concerning Jewish Clothing

There were some attempts in Christian Europe, as there were under certain Muslim rulers, as noted, to enforce regulations regarding Jewish dress (see also B a d g e ) . The most notorious of these, of course, was the canon enacted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Contrary to popular belief, however, this canon did not decree that Jews should wear a “badge,” only that they be distinguished from the rest of the people “by the quality of their clothes.” Nevertheless, in most countries this was interpreted as a requirement to wear a particular sign, or badge, on their clothing. Only in Spain was this legislation not enforced, not only because the Jews themselves protested it but because the kings had no intention of enforcing it. In 1220 Pope Honorius III specifi­ cally granted an exception to the Jews of AragonCatalonia, at the insistence of JAIME I. The following year he ordered the archbishop of Toledo to enforce the regulations, but that prelate, the famed Rodrigo de Jimenez, repeatedly defied papal orders and in fact signed a public concordat with the Jews of the prov­ ince that the laws would never be enforced. Innocent IV tried again in 1250, this time with an order to the bishop of Cordoba, which likewise was ignored. In some places in Spain and France there were objec­ tions that Jews wore round capes, similar to those worn by priests, which provoked “scandal.” The church council of Valladolid in 1228 attempted to enforce restrictions against this, as did the council of Albi (1254). Nevertheless, the thirteenth-century Costums (“customs,” laws) of Tortosa imposed a re­ quirement that Jews wear an outer garment that must completely cover their clothing, or a cape like that worn by clergy assisting in the choir, closed with a hood; and they must also wear a kind of hood with a narrow band worn by Muslims (this is the only ex­ ample of sartorial laws, other than the badge, from medieval Spain). There were also some attempts by secular govern­ ment councils to enforce restrictions; the city of Cologne, for example, ordered Jews (1404) to wear distinctive clothes and imposed specific rules about the size of sleeves and collars, the wearing of fur or lace, and even how many rings and of what value women were allowed to wear. In Aragon-Catalonia in 1393 the king, Juan I, issued a strongly worded de­ cree ordering Jews to wear a “Jewish cap” and scarlet 175

Clothing

robe (granalla larga) or other “dark, honest cloak” and attempted to enforce also the badge—unsuccess­ fully, it seems. More serious, potentially, were the en­ actments at Valladolid in 1412, which were to apply to all of Castile, and which sought to impose the wearing of long robes and a red badge for Jews and Muslims, and limiting the value of clothes to be worn. In fact, however, these regulations were never enforced. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Friedenberg, Daniel. M edieval Jewish Seals from Eu­ rope (Detroit, 1987). Goitein, S[hlomo] D. A Mediterranean Society (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1967), vol. 1. Grayzel, Solomon, ed. and tr. The Church and the Jews in the Xlllth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). Kisch, Guido. The Jews in M edieval Germany (Chicago, 1949), pp. 296-98 on the “Jewish hat.” Meir b. Barukh of Rothenburg. Sheelot u-teshuvot (Prague, 1608), Nos. 65, 532. ---------. Sefer sha‘a rey teshuvot. Moses Bloch (Berlin, 1891). Roth, Norman. “Rodrigo Jimenez de Rada y los judios: La ‘divisa’ y los diezmos de los judios.” Anthologica annua 35 (1988): 469-81. Rubens, Alfred. A History o f Jewish Costume (New York, 1967).

Cologne

In Roman Colonia, the capital of the province Ger­ mania Inferior; there already existed a Jewish commu­ nity with rabbis (hierei), chairmen (archisynagogi), el­ ders of the synagogues (patres synagogarum), and other officials. Two edicts by Emperor Constantine (306-7) testify that there were even Jewish land­ owners, who should no more be exempted from the duties of the council (decurionatus) requiring consid­ erable expenses. It cannot be verified whether the Jews in Cologne survived the Merowingian and Carolingian periods, nor at what time they may have settled there again. Jews as merchants visiting the Cologne fairs are first mentioned again in responsa by the famous rab­ bis of Mainz, Gershom b. Jehuda (ca. 960-1028) and Jehuda ha-Kohen (died ca. 1055). Although neither 176

Christian nor Jewish sources speak of a Jewish quarter before the eleventh century, it certainly dates back at least to the tenth century. Remarkable is its location immediately south of the cathedral, in the very center of the ancient and medieval city around the Roman Praetorium and the medieval town hall inside the Roman eastern hall. (The Christian merchants’ quar­ ter, however, was located before the eastern wall on the banks of the Rhine.) Some old Hebrew sources even preserve the Roman name of the town. At the end of the eleventh century the Jewish community already numbered about one thousand members. The Jewish community of Cologne was headed by a council of thirteen members. One of these was annually elected the Jews’ bishop (episcopus ludeorum), and he could also be reelected. In earlier times it did not have to be a rabbi, so even a mar could be the most noble chairman and speaker of the sages’ conference. Salomo b. Simson relates this about Mar Juda b. Abraham, a most wise and hon­ ored councillor and a famous martyr of 1096. In the lists of the Cologne martyrs of 1096 we even find two almoners. The Jewish council was to raise the community’s taxes and to apportion them among the members according to their assets. A rabbinical court of justice exercised jurisdiction in case of litigations within the Jewish community. During the thirteenth century the Jewish commu­ nity extended considerably. In particular, financially powerful Jews immigrated from the Lower Rhine, Westphalia, Brabant, and Limburg, but also from the Middle and Upper Rhine, the Main, and Thuringia. All the Jews lived in the Jewish quarter and in the im­ mediate neighborhood. From 1235 to 1340 the quarter expanded to the north as far as the Kleine Budengasse (Botengasse), to the west up to Unter Goldschmied. The number of Jewish houses and courtyards had increased from fifty to seventy-five. Around the turn of the century, the Jews built a wall that separated them from the adjoining Christian houses on the “old marketplace” in the east. Cologne Jews had business and familiar relations with the Jews of most of the important towns of western, southern, and middle Germany, the Low Countries, and England. The main line of Jewish business in the High and late Middle Ages in Cologne consisted in loans against security. The debtors were to be found in all layers of Christian so­

Cologne

ciety: archbishops, canons, monasteries, churches, princes and lords, city, councillors, artisans, and other citizens. A medieval synagogue existed from 1040 (or 1014). It was destroyed in 1096 and in 1349, and after the expulsion in 1424 it was turned into the councils chapel of St. Mary in Jerusalem. After the Second World War, the well-preserved miqvah was excavated and made accessible. There were also a school for women, a warm bath, a baking house, a hospital, and a great dance and wedding hall. South of the (Roman) wall in St. Severin’s parish was the cemetery. In 1174 it had to be enlarged by five acres. Near the cemetery there was the place of execution, named Judenbiichel. In 1266 Archbishop Engelbert granted the Jews that executions should no more be performed there. A letter of protection in 1302 in­ cluded the custody of the cemetery. In the eleventh century Cologne already possessed a central function for Ashkenazic Jewry. As the chronicle of Salomo bar Simson relates, three times a year during the fairs the sages of Ashkenaz assembled there in the synagogue and administered justice for the communities. Possibly, the most relevant takkanot of early Ashkenazic Jewry, ascribed to Rabbenu Gershom b. Jehuda of Mainz, may have been dis­ cussed and proclaimed here (see G e r m a n y ). Religious life in the Cologne synagogue has left its marks. The synagogue, rebuilt after its destruction in the First Crusade, had stained-glass windows with pictures of lions and snakes. These caused a dispute: R. Eliakim ben Joseph of Mainz (died ca. 1150) de­ clared them to be inadmissible. Ephraim b. Isaac of Regensburg (1110-1175), however, decided in a re­ sponsum that they were harmless. From early times on the Cologne synagogue practiced a liturgical rite that was partly based on Palestinian customs. Around 1295 Nathan b. Simeon of Cologne copied the Mishneh Torah by MAIMONIDES, one of the finest ex­ amples of Ashkenazic calligraphy and miniature painting, today preserved at Budapest. From the twelfth century on, there were famous rabbis in Cologne. Rabbi Eliezer b. Simson (born ca. 1100) had studied in Speyer and Mainz, composed responsa and legal decisions about matrimonial law as well as on ritual and liturgical questions, but also liturgical poems. Rabbi Eliezer b. Joel ha-Levi (ca. 1160-1235), too, born in Bonn, studied in Mainz

and Speyer and around 1200 went to Cologne as a rabbi. He was noted for his mild decisions. He ap­ proved, for instance, the use of Christian musicians at the Sabbath of the matrimonial week, and can­ celed an obsolete table rule that originated in cus­ toms of the Roman Triclinium. He participated in the rabbinical synods in Mainz in 1220 and in Speyer (presumably) in 1223. Rabbi Abraham b. Alexander (Abraham of Cologne, thirteenth century) was a pupil of Elazar b. Jehuda of Worms (cf W O R M S ), but studied also in Spain with the qabbalist R. Ezra. In a treatise about the tetragrammaton he tried to es­ tablish a synthesis between the mysticism of the Hasidim and the qabbalah of the Sefirot. The famous tal­ mudist Asher b . Yehiel (ca. 1250-1327) operated in Cologne for a long time and may have been born there. From there he moved to Worms, where his teacher Meir B. BARUCH of Rothenburg was elected rabbi in 1281. After the latter s imprisonment he be­ came the acknowledged head of German Jewry and tried in vain to accomplish the release of Meir by ran­ som. In 1303 he immigrated to Spain and later was elected rabbi in Toledo. The earlier Christian and Jewish sources testify to good relations between Jews and Christians. Arch­ bishop Anno II (1056-1075) on his deathbed obliged his officials to pay truly his (considerable) debts like­ wise to Christians and Jews. The Jews are said to have mourned his death in the synagogue and extolled his probity and sincerity. When during the First Crusade in June 1096 the persecutors invaded the quarter of the Jews, nearly all of them were saved by their Chris­ tian neighbors. Later, however, when the archbishop had distributed them to seven neighboring localities for better protection, the majority perished. Never­ theless, the community soon recovered. When the fortifications were extended in 1106, the Cologne council even gave the Jews the order to build, guard, and defend a part of the wall near the “Jews’ gate” (Judenpforte). During the Second Crusade, the Cistercian monk Radulf of Clairvaux tried to excite the people of Cologne to kill the Jews. The archbishop, however, conceded them shelter in the castle of Wolkenburg in the Siebengebirge beyond the Rhine. Therefore they were saved. At the same time, he captured and exe­ cuted a Christian who had murdered two Jewish boys. In the last decades of the twelfth century rela­ 177

Cologne

tions began to be disturbed by incidents the famous chronicler and poet Ephraim bar Jacob of Bonn has handed down in his “Book of memoirs.” In 1171, two foreign Jews in Cologne were accused (falsely, as Ephraim says) of using counterfeit coins. The custom officers arrested them, denied them an advocate, and decided to cut their hands off. The whole commu­ nity bewailed them and took refuge in prayer. At last their representatives succeeded in releasing them for a sum of 105 marks. In 1179 Jews traveling upstream from Cologne were charged with murder in the death of a Christian girl. They were drowned by some boatsmen at Boppard. Moreover, Emperor Frederick fined the Jewish communities 500 marks in silver, and the archbishop, Philip of Heinsberg (1167-1191), demanded from them 4,200 marks. The decisive turning point of Jewish history in medieval Cologne came with the annihilation of the community in the time of the BLACK D e a t h . Since the turn of the thirteenth century, signs indicating changes for the worse in Jewish-Christian relations had multiplied. At first the goldsmiths guild decided to work no more for Jews. In 1311 two burghers and a Lombard founded a hospice for poor baptized Jews. In 1327 the Jews felt menaced by a rumor that “bad things” had been found in the community’s well and in the court of the synagogue. The city council, how­ ever, assured the Jews protection. In 1330 it again promised protection against murder. In 1340, how­ ever, the cathedral choir was decorated with pictures that showed contempt for the Jews. In 1341, the city council decreed that Jews were not to acquire im­ movables without its unanimous consent. Thus it practically put an end to further expansion of the Jews’ quarter. In 1348, with news about the plague raging in the south, a rumor spread as well that the Jews had poi­ soned the wells. Thereupon the councillors became quite alarmed that people would attack the Jews under this pretext. They wrote many letters to the towns in southern Germany asking for precise infor­ mation about the actual events. Some correspon­ dence with Strasbourg has been preserved. Answer­ ing a message on 12 January 1349 about the massacres that had occurred in several places, the Cologne council declared its will to prevent any such massacre there if possible, as long as the Jews would

178

prove to be innocent. The councillors declared that the plague was God’s punishment for sins and noth­ ing else. Therefore, they were willing to protect and to defend the Jews. They urged the Strasbourg com­ munity to deal with the Jews lawfully and reasonably, and to soothe the fury of the common people. The warning, however, was in vain. On 14 February, after the overthrow of the old Strasbourg council, the Jews were slain there. It may have been the news of the death of Arch­ bishop Walram (d. 14 August in Paris) that prompted the assault on the Jewish quarter in Cologne on the night of 23 August 1349. All the Jews were killed, and their property plundered. The murderers came from Cologne and surrounding communities. Reports are scanty and suggest that the slaughter occurred against the will of the “good men” and the burghers, and that some culprits were banished. The main interest of the authorities, after the disaster, was securing the Jews’ assets. On 23 September the council reached an agreement with Archbishop Wilhelm about the divi­ sion of the Jews’ property. After the annihilation of the Jewish quarter, Jews were not admitted again in Cologne for two decades. Nevertheless, internal differences grew and erupted in 1371 in the so-called Weberschlacht (weavers bat­ tle). In 1372 Archbishop Frederick III (1370-1414) and the city council came to terms about the read­ mission of Jews, and both conceded them new letters of protection. They renewed the old benefits, even the exclusive jurisdiction of the Jews’ court in money affairs. Conditions, however, were changed now. The contract was to be reinstated in 1384 and then after every ten years. In 1384 the archbishop and the council each appointed two commissioners who ex­ ercised rule over the Jews in their name, jurisdiction, assessment of taxes, and the preparation of regula­ tions. Every Jew had to buy a residence certificate and protection from the city and to pay an annual tax corresponding to his respective means. The commu­ nity as a whole, however, also had to pay taxes to the archbishop. Moreover, the emperor now and then demanded imperial taxes, and the city or the arch­ bishop special payments sometimes in the form of free loans. The Jews of that period, therefore, must have been equipped with considerable economic resources. They

Cologne

commenced moneylending on a large scale and granted loans against securities and pledges including immovables and bonds. The city was the most im­ portant client; other debtors were towns like Andernach, high and lower nobility, as well as citizens of Cologne. The Jews also traded in real estate. They lived in the old Jewish quarter and in its neighbor­ hood near the town hall, and the synagogue and the womens school were reconstructed. The number of Jewish households fluctuated between eight and thirty-three from 1372 to 1421. The community engaged one rabbi, who taught and presided over the council and the Jewish court of justice. The jurisdiction of the Cologne rabbi tem­ porarily even covered Bonn. A rabbi of Cologne at­ tended the rabbinic synod of Mainz in 1381 that dealt with questions of matrimonial law Neverthe­ less, the Cologne community itself rejected the de­ crees of this synod and adhered to the old customs. In that period also there lived some notable rabbis in Cologne. Menacham Zion b. Meir or Mannus of Speyer (ca. 1335-1410) was a scholar and poet. He had studied at the yeshiva of Isaac ha-Levi in Jerusalem and lived in Cologne at least from 1332 to 1384. He was one of the few qabbalists in four­ teenth-century Germany and also wrote a commen­ tary on the Torah. Sueskind or Jekutiel of Cologne was a rabbi, Jews’ bishop, and moneylender. He lived in Cologne from 1386 to 1420 and had a yeshiva in his house. He also discussed with Maharil (Yacov Molin of Mainz) some legal questions. In August 1423, the city council decided definitely not to prolong the contract of protection. It ap­ pointed a board of nine burghers to handle the expul­ sion of the Jews. The decision must have had grave motives, for the city was determined to dispense with the substantial revenues it had received from the Jews until then. About the arguments for its proceedings the council itself delivered two documents. When Archbishop Dietrich protested the expul­ sion of his proteges, no fewer than three lawsuits emerged. The city sued the archbishop before the papal court, the archbishop sued the city before the emperors court, and finally Duke Adolf of Berg acted as mediator between the archbishop and the city. In July 1425 he decided the case in favor of the city, and the Curia did the same. The city council

justified its decision by arguing that (1) The Jews had put many citizens in utmost poverty by unjust usury; (2) therefore robbery, theft, and prostitution had spread, and the band of Christian faith loosened; (3) dissension and struggle between the archbishop and the city has to be feared; (4) the protection of the Jews, even in the past, gave rise to war against the archbishop; (5) because of the Jews the archbishop infringes upon the liberties and customs of the city; and (6) the city is decorated with the relics of innu­ merable saints and therefore should not be filled with blasphemous enemies of Christ. Later, the city composed another line of argu­ ment. Emperor Sigismund (1410-1437) was inter­ ested in preventing the expulsion and repeatedly re­ quested the city to withdraw it. After long delay the city composed another report in 1431. Here we find some of the same arguments joined by new ones: (1) The Jews made proselytes among simpleminded Christians; (2) during the war against the Hussites the burghers of Cologne barely succeeded in defend­ ing the Jews against the crusaders, and they are kept against God’s honor; (3) other electors also have ex­ pelled the Jews; (4) there were rumors that the Jews would poison the wells as they did in other towns; (5) the council feared a riot because of the Jews. Certainly, these additional arguments are not of high value. They try to support the decision rather on pretended religious reasons. But at the same time they unveil the fact that the real causes are to be found predominantly in the area of politics and economy. The emperor, indeed, could do nothing but give up. Jewish life in Cologne had come to an end for centuries. Nevertheless, Jews did not disappear com­ pletely. As in other large cities, they settled in the minor towns and even in villages in the surround­ ings: in Deutz on the opposite side of the Rhine, in Bonn, in Zons, and many other areas nearby. They might have been excluded from moneylending on a large scale, but they still ruled over the pawnbroking business in Cologne. The archbishop would be con­ tent, for he disposed of the Jews and their income now without any quarrel with the city council. Not before the end of the eighteenth century would Jews settle again in Cologne under French occupation. FRIEDRICH LOTTER

179

Cologne

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aronius, Julius. Regesten zur Geschichte der Juden im frdnkischen und deutschen Reich bis zum Jahre 1273 (Berlin, 1902). Asaria, Zwi, ed. Die Juden in Koln (Koln, 1959). Bauer, Kurt. Das Judenrecht in Koln bis zum Jahre 1424 (Koln, 1964). Kober, Adolf. Cologne (Philadelphia, 1940). ---------. “Jewish Monuments of the Middle Ages.” Proceedings o f the American Academy fo r Jewish Re­ search 15 (1945): 1-91. Planitz, Hans, and Thea Burken. Die Kolner Schreinsbiicher des 13. und 14. Jh. (Weimar, 1937). Wenninger, J. Markus. “Man bedarfk em er Juden mehr” (Beihefte z. Archiv fu r Kulturgeschichte 14 (Vienna and Cologne), pp. 74-101.

Commerce

Following the Jewish rebellion against Rome and the destruction of the Temple (69-70), Palestine was devastated, food was scarce, and Jewish ownership of land was generally prohibited. Under these condi­ tions, the sages of the Talmud began a concerted pro­ paganda campaign to encourage Jews to engage in commerce rather than agriculture, and while obvi­ ously intended primarily for the Jews remaining in Palestine, this included also the Jews of Babylonia (the Persian Empire). We have, indeed, evidence of the involvement of Jews in international trade from the fifth and sixth centuries, including scanty infor­ mation about Jewish merchants going as far as China (also in the tenth century). The Jews of Persia in the Sassanid period are reported to have acquired great wealth through merchant ships in the Bay of Erythrae (off Asia Minor, near Chios). However, it was under the Muslim domination of the Mediterranean world from the seventh century on that Jews pros­ pered most both in local and in international com­ merce. In Isfahan, for example (which according to legend had been founded by Jewish exiles at the time of Nebuchadnezzar), Muslim sources reported that there was a large Jewish population, in spite of the fact that there had been anti-Jewish riots there under the Persians in the late fifth century and supposedly half the Jewish population had been killed and the rest forcibly converted to Zoroastrianism. Following 180

the Muslim conquest, most of the Jews there were weavers, but in the ninth and tenth centuries they became active in international trade, and the city be­ came a main center of commerce. Balkh and Mar were other important Jewish commercial and popu­ lation centers in the former Persian Empire; and Mosul, Aleppo, and Basra (on the Persian Gulf), and later of course Baghdad, in the region that Jews con­ tinued to call “Babylonia.” In Palestine, conquered by the Muslims in 640, there were at least forty Jew­ ish settlements and probably more. Dyeing and glassmaking were the major industries among Jews, as well as metalworking. In Tyre there were many Jew­ ish settlers from as far away as Morocco and Spain. Glass manufacture and dyeing were, again, the main trades. Caution needs to be exercised in relying too much on Arabic sources that refer almost exclusively to Jews as tanners, dyers, and other menial workers. This is probably mostly polemics, intended to indi­ cate the “denigrated” status of Jews. The large amounts of taxes paid by Jews in itself raises doubts as to the accuracy of such testimony. The somewhat later documents of the Cairo GENIZAH record some 250 manual occupations (crafts, etc.) of Jews and 170 in commerce, professions, and administrative posts. Dyeing and trade in silk and other fabrics were major occupations of the Jews. The main center for production of silk was Spain, followed by SICILY; al­ though silk was produced also in the Byzantine Em­ pire (see BYZANTIUM), laws prohibited its export (see the source in Lopez and Raymond 1968, 22). How­ ever, by the twelfth century many Jews were involved in silk production in Constantinople, according to Benjamin o f Tudela. Jews may have controlled silk manufacture and dyeing in Sicily, which occupations coincidentally ended with the expulsion of the Jews by Roger II in 1147. Later, under FREDERICK II, Jews again prospered in Sicily and held monopolies on silk production in Palermo, Capua, Trani, and Cosenza. Ordinances of the Jewish community of Candia (1228) decreed that in honor of the Sabbath all work should cease at noon on Friday, including the making of veils and gowns and any other commerce (it appears, however, that additions were made to the document in 1328; see text, Giidemann 1898, 276 ff., ignored by historians; there is other impor­

Commerce

tant information on Jews as dyers and in the silk trade there, e.g., p. 51 and especially pp. 280­ 81). ' “ Commercial partnerships were formed, some­ times also with Muslims. Such partnerships, carefully defined by Muslim and Jewish law, involved either actual joint ownership and sale or the investment of capital by one partner for a share of the eventual profits. An example of particularly important mer­ chants were the Tustari family (ca. 1036-1049), the brothers Abu Sa’d Ibrahim and Abu Nasr Harun (Hesed), dealers in precious goods, and bankers and brokers for other merchants (there is an extensive bibliography on the brothers; see especially Moshe Gil, ha-Tustarim [Tel-Aviv, 1981], in Hebrew). Of particular interest is the case of a Jewish woman bro­ ker in the late eleventh century in Egypt who was ex­ tremely wealthy. She was unmarried but had a son by a Jew from Palestine. Goitein (1967) has published some documents relating to her, including her will (“A Jewish Business Woman of the Eleventh Cen­ tury,” in Neuman and Zeitlin, pp. 225-42). The in­ fluence of Muslim business practices and law, which in turn had borrowed heavily from talmudic law, may be seen in such things as the term arufi, derived from the Arabic, and meaning “customary, equi­ table” (not found in Hebrew dictionaries), used first in the responsa of the GEONIM and later also in Ger­ many. Other examples could be added. On the important, if still somewhat problema­ tic, RADHANITES, apparently Jewish merchants who brought slaves and other things from Western lands to the Muslim East, see that article (additional bibli­ ography can be added; see Roth 1994, 292 n. 43 and 295 n. 85). Trade with the Sudan was extremely important, and there were Jewish communities in all of the an­ cient North African ports of access to western Sudan: Sus (Sousse), Draa (no longer extant), Tafilalt, and Touat. In the area of Marrakesh was the Jewish center of Agmat (Aghmat), a major caravan route to the Sudan. However, trade with India was perhaps the most profitable, and Jewish merchants from Spain, Egypt, and other communities made constant trips by sea or the longer overland routes (one through Egypt and Yemen, another through Iraq and Iran) to India. Important material, actually from the Ge­ nizah, was sometimes overlooked by Goitein. One

example is a letter (1134) by Abu Zakhri ha-Kohen to the dayyan I^alfon b. Netanael about his own suc­ cess and that of even young, inexperienced mer­ chants in India, whose profits were at least double their investments. Another relates the success of an important Jewish spice merchant on his return from India, who also traded in Syria and Yemen (both doc­ uments were published long before Goitein wrote his Mediterranean Society). IBN ‘EZRA made several refer­ ences to Indian customs in his commentaries, no doubt from information he received from Jewish merchants who had been there. Overland routes, whether for trade or travel, focused on the important city of Qayrawan (from which comes the word “cara­ van”), another major center of Jewish population. This route connected the important centers of Bagh­ dad and North Africa and eventually Egypt. The considerable profits that Jewish merchants made in such trade were partly offset by heavy tolls and du­ ties they had to pay on the import of goods. In one case, the chief of Jewish merchants in Aden sent sev­ eral camel loads of goods to Egypt, but had to in­ clude eight camel loads of pepper and one hundred valuable robes for payment of import duties (see Goitein, “From the Mediterranean to India,” Specu­ lum 29, where this and much other valuable infor­ mation is found, not included in his Mediterranean Society). Spain-Muslim

In Visigothic Spain we have very little evidence of Jewish commercial activity; in fact, Jews seemed to be mostly engaged in AGRICULTURE. However, the most oppressive of the rulers, Egica, enacted laws (693-694) that virtually forced the Jews into slavery, including a law that they had to sell all their posses­ sions and not engage in any commerce in the king­ dom or in international trade. For the period follow­ ing the Muslim conquest of Spain (711), and indeed for at least three centuries, we have absolutely no evi­ dence of Jewish commercial activity, although this does not mean that there was none. Even by the early tenth century there is limited information. Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, the Jewish minister of the caliph Abd a l-R a h m a n III, wrote in his famous letter to the king of the Khazars that he was responsible for overseeing all of the import of goods to the kingdom. There are 181

Commerce

vague reports about the fathers of such important fig­ ures as Ib n Na g h r Tl lah and Ibn G abi ro l being in­ volved in commerce. Even though the Genizah records contain little from Spain, there are references to commercial activity involving Jews of Spain, for example, the sale of silk and copper in Ifriqlyah (modern Tunisia), mercury in Alexandria, and the silk trade in general. Jewish merchants from Spain wrote some letters that have been preserved and add to the details. An interesting example from the Ge­ nizah involving a Spanish Jew was that of a merchant from al-Andalus who died in Fustat and before his death appointed guardians of his estate for his son, with Jewish, Muslim, and QARAITE witnesses. When the orphan came of age (thirteen) in 1026, he chal­ lenged the actions of the guardians, who were threat­ ened with flogging for their abuses of the estate (Goitein, Mediterranean Society III, 293-94; cf 1: 69). Jews in Spain were also involved to some extent in trade in tuna fish, an important industry. As in the Byzantine Empire, where Jews had a mo­ nopoly on the famous purple dye used for “royal pur­ ple,” so also in Muslim Spain they had a monopoly on the production of crimson dye. Several sources in­ dicate the importance of Jews in the silk trade. Jews had their own market officials, but of course were also subject to regulation by Muslim officials. There are also sources concerning Jewish business partner­ ships, often in foreign lands. Later, in Christian Spain in the fifteenth century, we find examples of Muslims engaging in partnerships with Jews, but we have no evidence of such a thing in the earlier peri­ ods. Women, who had an unusual amount of free­ dom generally in Muslim lands, in Spain had the power to own property, make loans, and write con­ tracts (in Jewish law also; and possibly unique to Jew­ ish law in Muslim Spain, even minors could own property). Responsa are a major source of informa­ tion on these and other aspects of commercial activ­ ity—for example, the question of whether cows and other animals brought by Muslims for sale in the Jewish market ofL ucena on a Jewish holiday may be purchased, and the decision that they may not, since Lucena was entirely a Jewish city and it is known that the Muslims brought the animals there only for Jews to purchase (for all of the above, see Roth 1994, espe­ cially p. 145 ff. and notes). In the eleventh century

182

we hear of Jewish merchants involved in trade in cot­ ton cloth. As with the Muslims, so also Jewish houses often had a shop on the first floor in which they sold goods, while the residence was on the second floor. According to Joseph I b n A k n i n (not, of course, the student of MAIMONIDES, as sometimes claimed), under the ALMOHAD persecution of the twelfth cen­ tury the worst burden of all was that Jews were totally prohibited from any kind of business. Yet apparently this prohibition did not endure, for at about the same time or only somewhat later Maimonides talked about ships going from Seville to Egypt (the question had to do with travel aboard ship on the Sabbath). ISAAC AL-FAs T discussed a case of three Jews who traveled to sell merchandise in other cities in Spain and were killed. Some Muslims were heard talking about other Jewish merchants, saying that if they had known they had left the city, they would have killed them as they did those others. Jewish travelers, not only merchants but even women and children, faced great dangers, including attacks on caravans, piracy at sea, and the constant practice of holding captives for ransom. Isaac al-FasI, for exam­ ple, was asked about two business partners who in­ vested in merchandise and one went to another land to sell the merchandise. When he had finished he set out to return with a caravan of Muslims, and robbers attacked the caravan, stealing all his profits. His part­ ner asked him to swear an oath, but he claimed he had witnesses ready to testify. Nevertheless, the great rabbi decided that he must take an oath (clearly be­ cause the witnesses were Muslims; otherwise, they would be believed). There is no doubt that Jewish commercial activity suffered also in other cities of North Africa under Al­ mohad domination; however, Fez was uniquely ex­ empt from such persecutions, and it was to that city that Maimonides and his family went for safety. His brother David supported the family as a merchant in the jewel trade, but on a business trip his ship sank in a storm and he died. It is rare that we hear of Jews in­ volved in trade in diamonds or other jewels at this period, but after the medieval period it would be­ come more common. Jews, however, were frequently goldsmiths or jewelers, as such belonging more to the crafts than to the topic of commerce as such. Accord­ ing to one respected author, a single Jew controlled

Commerce

all the pearl collection in the Persian Gulf (Adam Mez, The Renaissance o f Islam [Patna, 1937], p. 478). Christian Europe

There is little doubt that Jews played an important role in commerce, perhaps particularly in interna­ tional trade, also in Christian Europe; yet it is an ex­ aggeration to claim that they played a “decisive” role, for surely the Venetian and Genoese Christian mer­ chants were far more important, as were later the Lombards and Frisians. Nevertheless, Jews did have certain definite advantages, such as sharing a com­ mon language (thus Jewish merchants from France or Germany were able to converse in Hebrew at least with their colleagues in eastern Europe, and in Mus­ lim countries or in Sicily, where Greek and then Ara­ bic were the spoken languages), and also through the use of such things as letters of credit and checks, rec­ ognized by Jewish “bankers” (to the extent that these, essentially money changers and lenders, could be called bankers). In point of fact, however, aside from some isolated cases we hear next to nothing about such Jewish traders. Goitein has also observed, from the other side, that there is very little evidence in the Genizah records of commerce even with Sicily, much less France or Germany. The major instance of Jewish involvement in trade with Muslim countries was slaves, but even here Jews served as middlemen in the ultimate sale of Scandinavian and other as yet nonChristian slaves to Muslim purchasers. Another fac­ tor that no doubt inhibited any significant involve­ ment of European Jews in international trade would have been the reluctance, indeed the refusal, on the part of rulers to allow them to travel outside the bor­ ders of their countries (see below on royal privileges). No such restrictions were imposed, of course, on Jews in Christian Spain. There were, nevertheless, some exceptions to this that show that certain mer­ chants must have received special privileges for such trade. Thus, a man from Germany went to North Africa and entered into partnership with another Jew to sell merchandise, and he went from one country (or city) to another but was unable to sell anything, and therefore gave the merchandise to another to take to “the city of the king” where it could easily be sold. He then told his partner that he would receive his profits when that man returned, but “Rash” said

that this was not proper, in case the other man never returned (Pardes ha-gadol.>“Liqufim, ”f. 61a; note also responsa o f “Rashi on partnership, Teshuvot hokhmei $arfat ve-Lotir, Vienna, 1881, nos. 23, 26). In the “Holy Roman Empire,” Louis the Pious (814-840) already granted special privileges to Jew­ ish settlers, including freedom of trade. However, not only local Christian clergymen like Agobard of Lyons, but also officials of the Byzantine Empire and Venice, who had a mutual trade pact, protested such preferential treatment of Jews, and petitioned Henry I in 932 to end this either by baptizing or expelling the Jews. Neither of these radical measures was put into effect, however. As has been noted (see G ER­ MANY), the frequent use of the term “Jews and other merchants” in the charters of privilege for various cities throughout the tenth century shows the impor­ tance of Jews in commerce. Most notable, however, is the famous privilege granted by Bishop Rudiger, overlord of the city of Speyer, in settling Jews there, as he said, in order to “increase a thousandfold” the glory of the city. Why he went to such trouble be­ comes obvious from the provision that Jews there shall have the right of freely exchanging gold and sil­ ver and buying and selling as they wish. More gen­ eral, and yet more specific, was the imperial charter granted to all Jews by Henry IV in 1090, in which among other things he granted that Jews have the freedom of just trade with all people and the freedom to travel within the boundaries of the kingdom for that purpose, without any tolls or levies to be exacted for such travel. Here, too, we find a reference to Jews as makers of dyes, for they were specifically given permission to sell “their wine and their dyes and their medicines” to Christians (Chazan 1980, 62, no. 14). These provisions were repeated in the charter of Frederick I in 1157 to the Jews of W O R M S (ibid., p. 64), which he applied to virtually all the Jews of the empire (see also G e r m a n LAW). Some details of busi­ ness transactions, involving very large sums of money, including also references to travel by ship, may be found in Irving Agus, “The Volume of Trade of the Jews of North-Western Europe in Pre-Crusade Pe­ riod” in Neuman and Zeitlin, p. 75 ff. As in Spain, women in Germany, at least in the early medieval period, could own property and ap­ parently engage in business; for example, a respon-

183

Commerce

sum of “Rashi concerns a woman who owned two vineyards and four houses, a substantial amount of property {Teshuvot hokhmei $arfat ve-Lotir, No. 13). See also “Mordecai” on B.B., No. 481 concerning a Jewish woman of Troyes who owned vineyards that the communal authorities wanted to tax. As in the Muslim world, so also in Europe Jews, along with other merchants, had to pay various tolls and duties; sometimes these were paid in pepper, a valuable commodity. Interesting in this regard is the charter of Duke Boleslav of Greater Poland (1264) that no Jew who passes in the territory should be hin­ dered by anyone, but if he carries any goods on which he must pay custom duties he is only required to pay the amount that a resident of the city would pay (ibid., p. 90, No. 12). In England, a charter of Richard I exempted a Jewish merchant from any tolls or duties (although granted to this one merchant, it is probable that it applied generally). The freedom of travel that Jews enjoyed was nevertheless restricted to some extent by Jewish law. Thus, there was a ruling that if a Jew owns a ship or a wagon he is not allowed to rent it to Gentiles to use on the Sabbath (cf. M a‘aseh Geonim, ed. J. Friemann [Berlin, 1909], p. 31, No. 47). Caution must be used, however, in tak­ ing too literally infrequent references to Jews “own­ ing” ships, which in many cases merely meant that they temporarily hired a vessel for commercial pur­ poses. Jewish merchants in Europe were in danger of robbery or worse on the often unsafe and unpro­ tected roads. A worse fate befell two Jewish mer­ chants, Benjamin the “noble” from far-off Vladimir in Russia and Abraham the Scribe from Carnetan in Normandy, who in Cologne in 1161 were falsely ac­ cused by a Christian woman of defrauding her with copper instead of silver coins. They were immedi­ ately arrested and, in spite of efforts by the local Jews, put on trial by the bishop and sentenced to death. At the last minute, by bribery the Jewish community succeeded in securing their release. Letters were dis­ patched far and wide to warn of the dangers should any Jewish merchant be accused of lying or deceit (Ephraim of Bonn, in A. M. Habermann, ed., 1945, 128-30). Sefergezeirot Ashkenaz ve-$arfat [Jerusalem, 1945], pp. 128-30). Allegedly, Jewish involvement in commerce de­ clined drastically in the later medieval period. Never­ 184

theless, we should like to know more about the ap­ parent business dealings of Chandelin, a wealthy Jewish widow of Regensburg, who in 1356 was or­ dered by the city, together with her “business associ­ ates,” to determine the amount of taxes that some new Jewish settlers were to pay. Later, she was assassi­ nated, although by whom and for what reason is not known (see Raphael Straus, Regensburg and Augsburg [Philadelphia, 1939], p. 109). In France, Jews were renowned as gold- and silver­ smiths in Lyons and then Trevoux. In Paris and other cities they were particularly active in the cloth indus­ try, both in the production (weaving) and selling of cloth. An exaggerated statement by a Christian chronicler claimed that Jews “owned” half the city of Paris. Jewish merchants also played an important role in medieval fairs, particularly those of COLOGNE, C h a m p a g n e , and T r o y e s , but also others throughout Europe (see also Agus 1967, 72). Some were accus­ tomed to exchanging money for profit, as “Rashi wrote in the name of GERSHOM B. JUDAH, who pro­ hibited giving someone at the fair of Cologne a silver mark worth 12 ounces and having it exchanged at the fair of Mayence for thirteen ounces, which violates the laws of interest (“Rashi,” Pardes ha-gadol\ No. 269). Agobard of Lyons complained that by order of the king the local fair was postponed from Saturday to any other day the Jews might prefer (including Sunday, but not specifically Sunday; this was misun­ derstood by Ta-Shema in an otherwise informative ar­ ticle on the prohibition of doing business with Gen­ tiles on the days of their holidays (Tarbiz 47 [1978]: 200, n. 13). Of course, the talmudic prohibition on doing business with Gentiles prior to and after Gen­ tile religious holidays, as well as on the holidays them­ selves, was held to apply only to idolaters, and the rabbinic authorities of Christian Europe (including Spain) went out of their way to prove that Christians were not idolaters (a notable exception to this was Samuel b. Meir, grandson of “Rashi,” who ruled in the name of his grandfather that it was indeed forbid­ den to do business with Christians, but only on days specially dedicated to Jesus, such as Christmas and “lamentation” (Good Friday?); on other days, even if devoted to Jesus, it was allowed (Urbach, Ba ‘a ley hatosafot, p. 50). However, in general “Rash” said, “we cannot refrain from dealing with Gentiles because we

Commerce

live among them and receive our income from them, and also because of fear [of them]” (commentary on ‘A.Z. lib , end). Also according to Maimonides such business was forbidden especially with Christians, a ruling that was never observed (see below on Chris­ tian Spain for fuller discussion), nor, apparently, was that of “Rashi.” Yehiel of Paris expressed the generally prevalent view when he stated that Christians are not idolaters of ancient times, and that everywhere Jews did business with them even on their essential holi­ days, and so all the other things that the talmudic sages had prohibited with respect to idolatrous Gen­ tiles (Urbach, ibid., p. 374). There was another potential problem that could have seriously undermined business involving Chris­ tians. Isaac of Corbeil in 1227 observed that “the sages prohibited making partnerships with idolaters [Sanhedrin 61a] lest they be obligated to take an oath by their god, but now we are not concerned about this since the Gentiles [Christians] swear by the Name [of God]” (Sefer mi$vot ha-qatan, No. 119); and so even more, a fourteenth-century legal work stated, “It is permissible to receive an oath [from Christians] on their crosses [qerisin = Germ. Kreuz\.” Not all Jewish authorities held such charitable views, however. RABBENU T am wrote that “an ordinary Christian [not “Gentile”] is a liar . . . and even if there are a hundred witnesses [against him] he will swear falsely.” Both his grandfather “Rashi and his brother Samuel b. Meir held that it was forbidden to accept oaths from Christians, yet in spite of his state­ ment that Christians are liars, he ruled that it is per­ missible to accept such oaths because “all of them [Christians] swear by saints and there is no aspect of divinity [in their oaths],” and even though they men­ tion the “name of heaven” and their intent is Jesus, they do not mention any idolatry (Urbach, Bd aley ha-tosafot, pp. 58-59; see also O a t h ) . From the Christian side, there was increased hos­ tility toward Jewish merchants and shopkeepers, just as there was toward Jewish moneylenders. An interest­ ing example comes from a complaint (1412) concern­ ing Jews of Retimo (Italy), where the local inhabitants complained that the Jews, “not content with the in­ terest and the incalculable profit” they obtained from usury and business partnership contracts, “capture all profit and proceeds that are obtained from the art and profession of commerce,” and that they occupy all the

stalls, shops, and stores of the town so that Christians are unable to have shops there. Accordingly, the Venetian senate, to whom the complaint was ad­ dressed, revoked an old privilege granting Jews per­ mission to have shops outside the Jewish quarter (Lopez and Raymond 1968, 104). Christian Spain

Spain was, of course, a major player in the area of maritime trade in the Middle Ages, and not only AragOn-Catalonia but also Castile. Yet even be­ fore the Christian “Reconquest” of Al-Andalus, Jews in the former kingdom were active in sea trade. One of the earliest records we have is a grant (1104) by Ramon Berenger III to four Jews of Barcelona, giving them exclusive rights for the transport of Muslim captives for ransom (presumably to North Africa, al­ though this is not stated). Ashtor (“Jews in Mediter­ ranean Trade,” especially pp. 161-65) stated that at the end of the fourteenth century Catalan Jews “held first place among Mediterranean Jews in the mar­ itime trade,” both numerically and in amount of cap­ ital invested. Jewish investments were made in trade with Valencia, by investment partnerships (commendas) with Jewish ship patrons, and Jewish trade was also carried on with Sardinia and Sicily, as well as North Africa and territories of the Byzantine Empire. In 1295, between March and August alone, and just in the records of one notario, some thirteen Jews of Barcelona were engaged in trade with Alexandria. In 1299 many Jews ventured also to Crete and Cyprus, which had become important centers of maritime commerce (see Assis 1988; there were still others from that same year from Barcelona, Tarragona, Vails, and Majorca, overlooked by Assis). Jews con­ tinued to trade with Alexandria and Cyprus through­ out the fourteenth century at least. At the end of the fourteenth century, the majority of the Jews of Ma­ jorca were engaged in maritime trade. ISAAC B. SHESHET, then a rabbi in Valencia, wrote to the renowned rabbi of Majorca, Ephraim Vidal (or En Vidal Ephraim), expressing his astonishment that the community had not long before established a proce­ dure to allow a woman to remarry if her husband dis­ appeared on a voyage and was presumed (but not proven) dead. “Since the majority of the community is engaged in commerce and goes down to the sea in ships,” he wrote, they should have followed the pro­ 185

Commerce

cedure outlined in Shabbat 56a (Sheelot u-teshuvot ha-RiVaSH, No. 377). We have several other re­ sponsa from various rabbis that also refer to this trade. Pirates were still a constant threat, as had been the case in the earlier Muslim periods. For instance, a Jew of Majorca was robbed of his merchandise by pi­ rates in Sicily in 1375. He appointed certain Jewish merchants as his representative to recover the goods, but they allegedly defrauded him, and Lope Fernan­ dez de Luna, the archbishop of Zaragoza and chan­ cellor of Aragon-Catalonia, intervened at the request of the king. Among the incredible and patently false charges made against certain Jews of Majorca in 1385 was that they engaged in commerce with “Muslim lands” (North Africa), which of course they did, and that they also maintained ships and armed galleys that could be used by the Muslims against the king. The commenda was one of the most important factors in medieval commerce, yet it was hardly a “medieval innovation,” as it has been called. In fact, it may very well have originated with the Jews, for it already existed in talmudic law, where it is known as ‘isqa (cf. B.M. 104b, B.B. 70b, Bei$ah 32b, Ketuvot 111b). This is created when one partner owns the money and/or merchandise, and the other actually transacts the business. The “working partner” usually receives one share of the profits and the owner of the merchandise or capital two shares. The equivalent concept in Muslim law, which as in other areas was derived from Jewish law, was called muqarda (cf. Lopez and Raymond 1968, 24, for an example prob­ ably of the late ninth century, and Ch. IX for Chris­ tian documents, mostly from Italy; there is one from Barcelona on p. 181). The immediate origin in me­ dieval Christian practice was, of course, the Muslim contract, but the ultimate source was Jewish. Possibly the earliest reference to Jews involved in a comanda (Catalan form) was in 1282, when two Jews of Barcelona settled a debt to the widow of a Christian who had taken merchandise to “Barbary” (North Africa) for them. In the same year, two other Jews of Barcelona entered into an agreement with the wife of another Jew to sell silk for them in Tarragona (in Spain women were free to carry on business transac­ tions). There are several instances of Jews making commenda agreements with Christians, either to act as their representatives or to be represented by them. This possibility was recognized already in the Fueros 186

(laws) of Aragon enacted by JAIME I in 1247, which stated that if Jewish or Muslim partners in a comanda with a Christian subsequently denied that any part of the profit belonged to the Christian, they must swear an oath in the synagogue or mosque. We also find mention of it in rabbinic sources; for example, Isaac b. Sheshet was asked by Moses Gabbay, rabbi of Ma­ jorca, whether it is permissible for a Jew to loan money to another with the security being a ship sail­ ing for another country in which the borrower has a partnership interest (i.e., commenda), and on its re­ turn the lender would be paid slightly more than the value of the loan. The issue concerned the possibility that this is not prohibited interest, since risks were involved in the voyage and the ship might be lost in a storm or attacked by pirates. Isaac replied that never­ theless it is forbidden because it is still a loan and the money given is completely in the care and responsi­ bility of the borrower. The case is different, he ex­ plained, from the common practice of giving a mer­ chant money to engage in the sale of a commodity for which he will receive a profit, and even if the ship then is lost the merchant is still obligated to pay the investor, which is not like usury but his legal respon­ sibility for the goods (Sheelot u-teshuvoty No. 308; there are additional legal sources on this issue). There were some restrictions on commerce, but rarely did these apply only to Jews. For example, some of the local Aragonese laws prohibited anyone, Christian or Jew, from selling the juice of unripened grapes prior to the time when wine was ready to sell. The obvious reason was to ensure an adequate supply of mature wine-producing grapes. There were several laws prohibiting the sale of weapons to Muslims, and papal law also prohibited the export of arms, iron, wood, and certain other things to Muslim lands. In 1401 the Jews of Zaragoza complained to the offi­ cials and city council of their numerous losses be­ cause they were not allowed to have stores in the Jew­ ish quarter for selling cloth or meat and other food for Jews. In its lengthy reply, the council noted an “ancient royal privilege” that prohibited Jews having such stores in the Jewish quarter, although they were allowed to have them in the Christian quarter. Nev­ ertheless, they noted that at the present time Jews made many varieties of cloth in their houses, and this was the principle occupation of widows, and thus it would be to the disadvantage not only of Jews but

Commerce

the entire city to prohibit this; and furthermore “as is public and notorious [the Jews] make a much better market of cloth” that they sell than do Christians (whether this means that their prices were lower or that they had better quality is unclear), and therefore the prohibition was rescinded. Just as in the fairs of France previously mentioned, so also in Castile special concessions were made to the Jews in the market. Alfonso XI, in a privilege (1326) to Aranda de Duero, an important commu­ nity south of Burgos, changed the market day from Saturday to Monday to benefit the Jews. No doubt that privilege influenced Pedro Tenorio, archbishop of Toledo and chief chancellor of the realm, in his de­ cree of 1386 to the officials of Brihuega ordering that the weekly market day be changed from Saturday to Wednesday, since Christians often had to travel on Sundays to return to their homes, but most impor­ tant because Jews could neither buy nor sell on Sat­ urdays, and since they constituted a major part of the market this was an obvious inconvenience. Many Jews in Spain were tailors, drapiers, and owners of clothing stores. The manufacture and sale of clothing became an increasingly lucrative business as clothes became ever more elaborate. In Murcia in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries Jews had a vir­ tual monopoly in these trades. There were com­ plaints that some tailors, Christians as well as Jews, did not use all the cloth for which they charged their customers. A particular problem was the proximity of Murcia to Valencia, and tailors suspected of dis­ honesty could simply move to one of the nearby Valencian towns, and in order to prevent this in 1374 an order was issued that Jewish tailors must produce fiadores (“trustees” who would swear to their hon­ esty). However, the difficulty of finding a sufficient number of men of standing for all the tailors there were led to a compromise whereby the officials of the Jewish community in effect licensed tailors, for whom they were then collectively responsible. In the city of Murcia alone, for the period 1398-1413, the total number of such licensed Jewish tailors and other clothiers was 124. For the cloth trade in general, one gets the impres­ sion that in the thirteenth century and perhaps later the Jews of the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia, in­ cluding Valencia, nevertheless played a larger role than did those in Castile-Leon (including Murcia).

Alfonso III in 1289 granted a special privilege to the Jews of Zaragoza to sell cloth in Christian shops, but required that all Jews who engaged in dyeing cloth furnish a substantial bond as guarantee against in­ debtedness or bankruptcy. In 1286 he had already granted a privilege to the Jews to sell cloth from France and other lands, and the Jews of Huesca were allowed to establish a factory and store for the sale of French cloth (presumably the factory was for making clothes from such cloth). In Barcelona in the early fourteenth century several Jews were silk merchants, often working together with Christians in this im­ portant industry. The Jewish law of commercial infringement (hasagat gevul\ a topic that itself deserves study) did not always serve to protect mer­ chants. Thus, Ib n A dr et was asked about a Jewish tailor who for several years was used exclusively by a Christian courtier. Another Jewish tailor came to the city and wanted to take over this arrangement at a cheaper price, and Ibn Adret ruled that the Jewish court there could not prevent this, since the Chris­ tian freely chose to do business with the new tailor, but that everything should be done to prevent the new tailor from lowering his price and interfering with the accustomed trade of the established tailor (Sheelot u-teshuvotW , No. 259). Tailors, as well as other craftsmen, took on apprentices, and there are extant several documents of such apprenticeships from Barcelona; later, in fifteenth-century Seville, Jewish youths were apprenticed with Christians and Christians with Jews. There are numerous other sources referring to Jews in the clothing industry in Spain. Since scholars did not normally receive a salary (with some exceptions), they had to earn their living as they were able, as doctors or in business. Isaac b. Sheshet wrote that it is permissible to buy merchan­ dise from a caravan, or traveling wholesalers, who ar­ rive during the “intermediate days” of a holiday week (Passover or Sukkot), in order to resell the merchan­ dise at a profit after the holidays. He concluded, “and so I also conduct myself thus,” even though some au­ thorities (such as Na h m a n id e s ) prohibited it (She’e lot u-teshuvotj No. 320). Commerce in Jewish Law

There is not room to enter into a detailed discussion of all of Jewish law with regard to business, of course, 187

Commerce

but some important aspects should be mentioned. “Partnership” in Jewish law included both joint own­ ership and commercial partnership. In joint owner­ ship, property is actually separate property indi­ vidually owned by each partner (cf. B.B. 84b; Maimonides, M.T., Qinyan: “Shelihim,” chap. 4; Hoshen mishpat 160.4). In a commercial partnership, apparently each partner is viewed in a sense as an agent of the other, but only in the sense that the acts of one bind the other. Such a partnership is formed in the first instance by acquisition of property. If money is involved, for instance, each must con­ tribute an actual sum of money, which each partner then “acquires” by a legal fiction. Business partner­ ships cannot be formed by agreeing to share future earnings, which comes under the talmudic category of “a thing not yet in existence” (davar shelo ba le‘olarri), but if two or more people jointly invest in a business then they are partners and may share equally (or otherwise as specified) in the profits. An interest­ ing example of this is a question that came before M e i r B. B a r u k h of Rothenburg about a Jew who persuaded his friend to go with him to the fair at Cologne and he would divide with him all the profit he made there; however, he made additional profit on his own at the fair, and his companion now de­ manded part of that also. Meir ruled against the demand, on the grounds of “a thing not yet in exis­ tence” ([Prague, 1608], no. 766). The question nev­ ertheless arose as to why money invested in a com­ mercial partnership that then realizes a profit is not considered usury, and the explanation, known as heter ‘isqa (see above on comendd) is that it is not usury because the investor takes a greater share of risk than of profit: he always receives less profit than his share of liability would be in the case of loss (cf. B.M. 104b). An interesting responsum from “Rashi in­ volved two Jews who entered into a partnership agreement to share equally, and one was captured by Gentiles and ransomed himself and then claimed re­ payment for this from the partnership funds. The other partner claimed that their partnership was lim­ ited to the market in their town, but his partner had left the town and therefore deserved no recompense, to which “Rashr agreed (Sheelot u-teshuvot hokhmei $arfat ve-Lotir, no. 26; cf. also Asher b. Yehiel, Sheelot u-teshuvot wo. 89.4). In the case of the afore­ mentioned eomenda (isqa in Jewish law), half of the 188

money or property invested is considered legally like a loan and half a deposit, or bailment (piqadon). Thus, the one who conducts the actual transaction of business is responsible for any loss or accident on the part that is considered a loan, while the part consid­ ered a deposit is the responsibility of the owner (there are numerous medieval legal sources on this; see gen­ erally Maimonides, op. cit.: “Shelulpin ve-shotfin 6. 1-2 and 3). A special term that has apparently not hitherto been noticed is hazron, not with its recorded mean­ ing of “courtier” (a confusion with ha$rari), but rather “agent” or “trustee,” someone well versed in the laws of sale and commerce (see Roth 1994, p. 148 and n. 55). Without further getting into the complicated laws with respect to property, agency, and obligations, it is perhaps of interest to note briefly some things about Gentiles in Jewish law with respect to business. Thus, acquisition (qinyan) by a Gentile is recognized in Jewish law, and a Gentile may acquire property (movable or immovable) according to the laws of the land where the acquisition is made, and acquisition may be by money and a document (as in the case of a Jew) or even by money alone (not allowed for a Jew); movables are acquired by money or other means of acquisition prescribed by talmudic law; however, property cannot be acquired by a Gentile by “pre­ sumption” (hazaqah, possession for a period of time) because of the fear that the Gentile will not use this justly or according to law (i.e., he may simply seize property belonging to a Jew and then claim owner­ ship; of course, nothing in reality could prevent Gen­ tiles from doing exactly that). A serious problem arises with respect to agency, which is essentially religious and therefore not ap­ plicable to Gentiles even in secular matters; if so, a partnership between Jew and Gentile ought not to have been valid according to Jewish law, but appar­ ently this was simply ignored. According to Jewish law, interest may be charged to Gentiles, but not to Jews. Gentiles may not be accepted as witnesses (and yet, of course, Jews were often forced to accept them; in Spain in many early medieval laws provision was made that only Jewish witnesses could testify against Jews, but this gradually changed). Especially striking, in light of the quite different attitudes toward strangers that prevailed in Roman law, the Talmud

Commerce

explicitly prohibits deceit, “stealing the mind” (geneivat daai), even of Gentiles (Hullin 94a). Thus, Maimonides ruled that it is forbidden to deceive peo­ ple in buying and selling or to mislead them in any way, “and it is the same for an idolater and for a Jew in this thing” (M. T., Neziqin: Mekhirah 18.1; cf. also M ada: De‘o tl.6 ). Since he used the term “idolater” and not, as his talmudic source, simply “Gentile,” it is clear that he included specifically Christians, whom he considered to be idolaters. Judah b. Samuel of Germany also mentioned the law (Sefer hasidim, no. 51 and no. 661, and several other places there). Moses of Coucy wrote that those who lie to Gentiles and deceive them desecrate the name of God (Sefer mi$vot ha-gadol, “Lo’ tdaseh” 431). The aforemen­ tioned decrees of the community of Candia also in­ cluded a specific law against deceiving or lying to Gentiles, and since the same expression about dese­ crating God s name is used as in the Sefer hasidim (overlooked by Giidemann there), it is probable that this work was known to them (Giidemann, ha-Torah ve-ha-hayyim, p. 277, no. 3).

many primarily) where the Jews were attacked; nor is there evidence of any widescale abandonment of land ownership by Jews after that period. Furthermore, such theories concentrate, however incorrectly, on what supposedly was the situation for the Jews of Germany, ignoring France, England, and other countries. Another problem has to do with the issue of Jews and moneylending. The question must be raised as to how these Jews obtained the money in the first place that they then loaned to Christians. It is overly sim­ plistic, and generally incorrect, to assume that Jews sold land and from the proceeds were able to make substantial loans. The research that so far has been done in extant archives and documents, even of al­ ready published sources, is barely the tip of the ice­ berg. One can only hope that someday detailed stud­ ies of Jewish communities in individual towns and cities will be done for the rest of Europe as they have been done, and continue to be, for medieval Spain.

Unresolved Questions

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In spite of the obvious importance of the topic, it can hardly be claimed that there is an abundance of re­ search on Jewish commercial activity in the Middle Ages. Far more attention has focused on Jewish moneylending than on any other occupation. In­ deed, general medieval histories, if they mention Jews at all, refer to them almost exclusively as money­ lenders or involved in slavery (for details see the arti­ cles here on those subjects). Sweeping generalizations are made by highly respected scholars that would be laughable and unthinkable in any other context. One such author unflinchingly wrote about Jewish traders “swarming” all over Europe, rather like a plague. Jew­ ish scholarship is rarely better, however. Simplistic theories have been unquestioningly accepted as fact, in spite of research (Chazan and others) that chal­ lenges some of these theories, for example, the as­ sumption that until the First Crusade (1096) Jews lived peacefully on their lands and essentially were in agriculture, and after the attacks on Jews they then abandoned land ownership and settled in cities for “safety.” They then began to engage primarily in moneylending. The absurdity of such theories is evi­ denced by the fact that it was precisely in cities (Ger­

NORMAN ROTH

Ashtor, E. “Jews in the Mediterranean Trade in the Later Middle Ages,” H.U.C.A. 55 (1984): 159-78. Assis, Yom Tov. “Jews of Barcelona in maritime com­ merce with the East” (Heb.), in Galut ahar galut (Haim Beinart jubilee volume) (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 257-83. Chazan, Robert, ed. Church, State, and Jew in the Middle Ages (New York, 1980), pp. 58-64 (trans­ lation of charters of Speyer and of Henry IV and Frederick I). Giidemann, Moritz. ha-Torah ve-ha-hayyim be-ar$ot ha-maarav bi-mei ha-beinayim II (Warsaw, 1898). Lopez, Robert S., and Irving W. Ramond, ed., Me­ dieval Trade in the Mediterranean World (New York, London, 1968). Neuman, Abraham A., and Solomon Zeitlin, eds. The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume o f the Jewish Quarterly Review (Philadelphia, 1967). Roth, Norman. Jews, Visigoths & Muslims in Me­ dieval Spain (Leiden, 1994). Ta-shema, Israel. “Judeo-Christian Commerce on Christian Holy Days in Medieval Germany and Provence,” Immanuel\2 (1981): 110-22. 189

Commerce

Urbach, Ephraim E. Baaley tosafot (Jerusalem, 1968).

Conversion by Jews

Conversion of Jews to Islam or Christianity was both voluntary and compulsory. In the cases of voluntary conversion, motives might be a desire to improve one s social or economic situation, or despair over the inferior status of the Jews and the prolonged length of the exile (constantly unfulfilled messianic predic­ tions certainly played a role; see M ESSIAN ISM ), or love of a member of another group, or sincere conviction of the truth of the claims of another faith. Sometimes such converts left accounts of the reasons that moti­ vated them, but it would be wrong to generalize from these very few examples. Conversion under com­ pulsion was obviously motivated by fear; usually no account is available about such a process on an indi­ vidual basis. Often, but not always, such converts re­ turned to their people when they had the opportu­ nity. This article will briefly survey Jewish conversion to Islam and Christianity in the medieval period. Conversion to Islam

Islam in the medieval period was a culture, a civiliza­ tion, with much in common with the Jewish one. It was not merely a religion, although like the Jewish civilization it contained elements of religion (belief, prayer, religious obligations, and a “sacred scrip­ ture”). Because of these similarities, including things with which Jews were familiar, such as specified daily prayers, worship in a mosque devoid of human im­ ages or symbols, rituals, and religious obligations that were largely derived from Jewish practice and law, some Jews were no doubt attracted to Islam. The Muslim conquest of the Persian Empire in the sixth century, followed by the rapid conquest of the Near East, Asia Minor, Egypt, North Africa, and Spain in the following two centuries, brought the majority of the Jewish population of the world directly under Muslim control. There was no persecution of Jews or Christians; in fact, these had the status of dhimmi (“protected”). They were, to a degree, respected as ah I al-kitab (“people of the book”), who had the “sa­ cred scripture” that was the underlying basis for Islam. However, among other restrictions, they had to pay special taxes from which Muslims were ex­ 190

empt. This in itself was no doubt a motivating factor of conversion, just as it was for the majority of the population of those countries conquered, who be­ came Muslims and then spread the conquest to other lands. Nevertheless, we have no record of any large conversion of Jews during the first several centuries of Muslim rule. There were individual cases, mostly government officials (see details in the various arti­ cles dealing with Muslim lands, such as ALMORAVIDS, E g y p t , N o r t h A f r i c a , and in general I s l a m a n d THE J e w s ). Several Jewish scientists and physicians also converted (see SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS). One of the problems in this regard is the reliability of later Muslim sources, which for polemical reasons or simply out of ignorance may have claimed the Mus­ lim status of an author who actually was Jewish. Only under the half-mad caliph of Egypt alHakim (Abu All al-Mansur) in the eleventh century was there a widespread persecution of Christians and Jews, with pressure to convert. This did not last long, however, and the status returned to normal for a pe­ riod of time. It was only with the rise of a fanatical sect that emphasized its interpretation of Islam as es­ sentially a “religion,” with fundamentalist doctrines demanding absolute obedience, that widespread per­ secution began, and it targeted not only Christians and Jews but all Muslims who disagreed with them. This was the A l m o h a d movement of the mid­ twelfth century. Jews and Christians throughout North Africa were forced to convert or die. When the Almohads invaded Muslim Spain in 1145, they brought with them the same fanaticism. Actual “con­ version” was apparently a simple process: the mere recitation of the creed affirming belief in Allah and his “messenger” Muhammad was sufficient. Many Jews felt they could do this without compromising their own principles, substituting in their minds “God” for Allah, and the ambiguity of the word rasul in Arabic (“messenger,” or “prophet”) meant that they could have in mind, perhaps, only the former meaning, or that he was the “prophet” of the Mus­ lims. They could even, if necessary, attend services in a mosque without having violated any Jewish law. Others, such as MAIMONIDES and his family, felt that such compromises were not acceptable, and while disagreeing that this was a technical “persecution” (shemad) as defined in the Talmud, where one had to sacrifice ones life rather than convert, he did advise

Conversion by Jews

that all who could should flee the country. He and his family went to Fez in Morocco, the one city (as the Almohad capital) where there was no persecu­ tion. It hardly need be said that, contrary to claims by ignorant authors, Maimonides himself never con­ verted, even for “appearances sake.” Others, such as Joseph Ibn A kn In of Seville (often confused with the student of Maimonides), remained and apparently converted. He is one of the few who has left an ac­ count of what life was like under this persecution, and the guilt he felt at having even temporarily ap­ peared to have abandoned his faith. He ultimately fled to Barcelona in Christian Spain. The suspect nature of the Jewish conversions is openly discussed in Muslim sources at the time. Were there real proof of insincerity, the offender would have been subject to the death penalty. However, the authorities were unsure as to the sincerity of the con­ verts and could not prove anything. Most Jews pre­ ferred the pretense rather than to face life in an un­ known land and strange culture, although many did flee north to Christian Spain. It has been conjectured that Isaac Ibn ‘Ezra, son of the renowned biblical commentator and general scholar Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra, and son-in-law of Judah h a -L e v y , converted in Baghdad while on a journey to Palestine. While this is probably false, it is true that his teacher there, Netanel b. ‘All (Abu’lBarakat Ibn Malka) converted, as did his fellow stu­ dent Sama’ual Ibn ‘Abbas in 1163. After his conver­ sion, Sama’ual al-Maghribl, as he was known, wrote a polemic against the Jews in which he also left some important autobiographical information. He was not born in “what is today Syria, Iraq and Iran” (a rather large section!), as his editor opined, but in Spain or in Fez (see, indeed, n. 4 there, p. 16). His father was hardly a “minor Hebrew poet,” but rather a very im­ portant one, Yahya (Judah) Ibn ‘Abbas (Abun in He­ brew), known as Judah Samuel. He lived in Malaga in al-Andalus and then went to Fez, probably also to escape the Almohad persecution. Not only was he a poet of renown, he was, as scholars seem not to have realized, the author of an important work, Yaiyr natiyv (see Roth 1994, pp. 218-19 and notes 57-58 for further details, and discussion of Samaual s polemic). Most, if not all, of the mathematical and medical works mentioned by his editor (introduc­ tion, p. 16) were in fact written before his conver­

sion; the work discussed in n. 5 has been published: al-Bahir f ’tl-jabr (Damascus, 1972). There are vari­ ous other errors in the introduction, but those need not detain us here. Leaving aside the polemic (see Roth 1994 and the article cited in n. 57), what is important is the ap­ pended statement about his life. There he says that before he began his serious study of secular subjects at the ages of twelve and thirteen, he studied collections of tales and histories, which led him to study the life of the Prophet and accounts of the spread of Islam and its rulers. However, it seems it was only a few years later that he began to question the “rationality” of adhering to his own (Jewish) tradition simply be­ cause he had inherited it, and that the claims of all traditions are alike (the same “chain of tradition,” an important Muslim concept, was available for Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad; throughout his work he erred in assuming that Jews “venerate” Moses in a way sim­ ilar to Christians and Muslims with respect to their “founders”). While still a youth, he believed in Islam but did not practice “Muslim rites” out of respect for his father, who loved him and took great care in his education. Only on his travels, to the land of Azerbai­ jan, did he finally have a “prophetic dream” that per­ suaded him finally to convert (Ifham al-yahudy text, 94 ff., tr. 75 ff.). This is, therefore, an interesting combination of intellectual doubt combined with “ecstatic” visionary experiences leading to conversion. There are other interesting stories of converts to Islam. The famous Arabic poet Ibrahim Ibn Sahl of Seville (thirteenth century) is said to have converted, but there are conflicting Muslim accounts, and state­ ments in his own poetry are ambiguous (Roth 1994, 201-2). Other cases are less unclear, and we know from several sources, including Maimonides’ letter to the Jews of Yemen, of individual conversions. Many Jewish converts, like Sama’ual, composed polemics against the Jews (details may be found in Steinschneider, Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache. . . [1877; rpt. 1966]). In the Mongol Empire, Rashid al-Dln, the great­ est wazir of the Il-Khan dynasty of Baghdad, con­ verted at the age of thirty (1278) and became wazir in 1299. Falsely accused of poisoning the ruler Uljaytu, he was executed in 1318. There are also some rare occurrences of Jewish conversion to Islam in later medieval Christian 191

Conversion by Jews

Spain, even though theoretically such conversions (from one “faith” to another, other than to Christian­ ity, of course) were punishable by exile or death. Conversion to Christianity

Conversion to Christianity, frequently through forced baptism, took place particularly in the Byzan­ tine Empire, and gave rise to discussion by Church authorities, who ultimately ruled that compulsory baptism should not be allowed, but that once bap­ tized, the person must remain a Christian (see CANON l a w ) . The most notorious example is the First Crusade (see CRUSADES) when in GERMANY in 1096 many Jewish communities were attacked by unruly mobs and some were forcibly baptized, while others chose baptism in order to escape a worse fate. Every effort had been made by local authorities, bish­ ops, and archbishops to protect the Jews, and the patently unjust nature of these baptisms and the compulsory nature of the “willing” conversions were obvious both to the Holy Roman Emperor (Henry IV) and William II of England and Normandy, who permitted such converts to return to their former faith, a decision no doubt made easier by the antipapal positions of both rulers and the fact that the Church was then split by schism. Even earlier, ca. 1010, in France, the king (Robert “the Pious”) had reportedly ordered all the Jews of his domain either to accept baptism or to leave. There were also other instances, such as Henry II of Germany who in 1012 is said to have ordered the conversion or expulsion of the Jews of Mainz (see G e r m a n y ) . Converts, such as those of the First Crusade, who were known, or assumed, to have acted under duress were granted the legal status of anusiym (Heb. “com­ pelled”) by Jewish scholars, the assumption being that they would return to the Jewish fold as soon as possible. It was with this understanding that authori­ ties such as “R A SH f coined the expression “a Jew even though he transgresses remains a Jew”; such a convert is not considered to have willfully abandoned his people. An indication of the reality of the attitude of Jews who had remained opposed to erstwhile apos­ tates come from a responsum of that very sage, a case involving two families who had insulted each other, one accusing the other of having been “defiled” (bap­ tized) at the time of the persecutions. The accused family replied that such charges had been expressly 192

f o r b id d e n b y

Rabbeinu

p u n is h m e n t o f t h e b a n .

GERSHOM B. JU D A H , w it h a

“Rashi,” w h o

co n cu rred , w as

a s k e d w h e t h e r s u c h a b a n c o u ld b e a n n u l le d .

He was also asked about refraining from wine made by anusiym until they had demonstrated true repentance, “and these who have recently come” so that the nature of their repentance is not yet estab­ lished and perhaps their wine should not be permit­ ted. “Rashi replied that certainly no prohibition should be applied, to embarrass them, for they never intended to use wine for idolatrous purposes (Pardes, f. 59a). 1 Even later in thirteenth-century Germany, the pietist Judah he-hasiyd wrote that an apostate may wear a cross if he wishes to escape a city in order to return to Judaism. The Second Crusade (1146), which certainly saw less harm and loss of life to the Jews, also brought a protest from the archbishop of Mainz against efforts to forcibly baptize Jews. B e r n a r d OF CLAIRVAUX, who showed himself theoretically opposed to Jewish “error,” nevertheless intervened to protect the Jews from this violation of canon law. Despite his efforts, a riot broke out at Wurzburg and several Jews were forcibly baptized. In France in 1144, Louis VII, whose record with Jews was far from hostile, nevertheless forced Jewish converts to remain Christians on pain of exile, death, or mutilation. Louis IX, of course, was anything but friendly to Jews, and he not only supported conver­ sions but sponsored the baptism of many Jewish chil­ dren and adults. By 1260, there was a “crescendo” of such conversions. The general expulsion of the Jews from France in 1306, on the other hand, seems to have resulted in very few conversions in order to evade the edict. In England in the twelfth century Jews seem to have withstood the various attacks and even mas­ sacres without converting, the only exception being some Jews at the massacre of York who allowed them­ selves to be convinced that if they accepted baptism they could be saved. They were not, however, but were slaughtered instead (see ENGLAND). Neverthe­ less, whether as the result of active preaching cam­ paigns (unlikely) or conviction, there was a sufficient amount of Jewish conversion that in 1232 a Domus Conversorum, or house for converts, was established outside of London. With the expulsion in 1290,

Conversion by Jews

there appear to have been many more conversions, which kept this house occupied for several years. In the mid-fourteenth century, the czar of Bul­ garia, John Alexander, even abandoned his own wife in order to marry a converted Jewess, Theodora, dis­ inheriting his son from his former marriage and de­ claring as his heir his and Theodoras son, John SiSman (who briefly ascended the throne in 1371 but could not withstand the Ottoman invasion). Whatever the demands of the Church authorities and canon law may have been with regard to con­ verts’ maintaining their rights to inherit, royal law in Germany, France, and England did not recognize such rights, and Jews were allowed to disinherit apos­ tates; in fact, the potential loss of revenue to the trea­ sury was a major factor behind this. In England, the kings confiscated the property of Jews who converted (see details of all this in Grayzel 1933, 19 n. 36). Many converts simply were interested in money, at­ tempting, often successfully, to get the Church to support them and their families. Even popes got caught up in these schemes (see ibid., p. 17, for ex­ amples). In one case in Sicily, the former head of a synagogue converted and was paid an annual stipend of six gold ounces on condition that he denounce Jewish writings and endeavor to convert other Jews. The kings, of course, were not the only ones with jurisdiction over converts. The INQUISITION had al­ ready been established to weed out heresy within the Christian community, and it also extended its con­ cern to recalcitrant Jewish converts. Pope Nicholas III ordered the Inquisition to burn such backsliders at Carcassone (Provence) in 1278. In other cases, the inquisitors did not await papal permission. In Eng­ land, too, we hear of such cases, and indeed the apos­ tasy of converted Jews was sometimes offered as an excuse for the expulsion of 1290. We shall return to the Inquisition and converts in Spain below. CANON l a w tore families apart, demanding the separation of converts from nonconverted spouses, and taking children away from their converted moth­ ers (to be raised by “devout Christians” or in a monastery). The fate of infant children was deter­ mined by the mother, provided she was the convert, according to the Decretum. One of the most tragic cases involved a man who was “saved from the error of Jewish blindness” and converted, while his wife re­ mained as a Jew. He tried for some time to get cus­ v

tody of their son, four years old, arguing that because the child had not yet “reached the age of discretion” he should follow him and be raised a Christian, but she argued that the boy was still an infant in need of his mother’s care, and the pain of bearing and raising him (reasons why marriage is called “matrimony” and not “patrimony”) gave her the right to keep the child until he reached maturity, at which time she was willing to allow him to express his own desire (we see from all of this the actual argument of lawyers). Gregory IX, however, completely disregard­ ing the law that the child goes after the mother, ruled that the child must go with the father, especially since there is fear of him remaining among people who plot to deprive him of his “salvation” or even his life. This ruling became canon law in the Decretals (see Grayzel 1933, 181-83). On tales of conversions in medieval Christian literature and the disruption of families involved, see CHRISTIAN-JEWISH RELATIONS. All of this took place despite Thomas A qu inas ’s careful, but false, statement that “it was never the custom of the Church to baptize Jewish children against the will of their parents” (Summa theologica 2, 2, q. 10, art. 12). He also gave a way out if a person felt that his conversion was against reason: if one in good faith thought that becoming a Christian is wrong, he would do wrong in doing so, even though ultimate salvation is possible only through Christian­ ity (ibid. 2, 2, q. 19, art. 5). Unfortunately, few if any Jews knew Christian theology well enough to avail themselves of this argument. As noted elsewhere (DOMINICANS), John Duns Scotus (d. 1308, Cologne) wrote that a Christian prince not only may but ought to take children away from their parents in order to baptize them.

As with conversion to Islam, so in the case of con­ version to Christianity we have some autobiographi­ cal accounts. The most famous of these was that of Hermann of Cologne, who in 1128 at the age of twenty, while on a business trip to Mainz, loaned money to the bishop of Munster, but did not get a pledge of security from him. Urged by his father to return and collect the debt, he was entertained by the bishop for a full twenty weeks until the debt was re­ paid. He engaged in talks and in a public dispute with a Christian abbot (Rupert of Dentz) and others, until he finally was persuaded to convert. He re­ turned to his home, abandoned his wife, and kid­ 193

Conversion by Jews

napped his seven-year-old brother, then returned to Munster where he joined the Premonstratensian monastic order. In 1150 he was abbot of the monastery at Schema. Nor was he the only apostate who wrote polemics against the Jews; so also bishops like Filbert of Chartres. A preview of what was to be found also in Spain is recorded by M e i r b . BARUKH of Rothenburg (1220­ 1293), who wrote about apostates who “repented,” but hypocritically, like those who wander from place to place, now as Jews and then as Christians, depend­ ing on what served them best. Elsewhere he was le­ nient with regard to women who had been converted against their will and who “returned” and then were to be permitted to reunite with their husbands. The pietistic work Sefer hasiydiym also tells of apostates who continued to give to Jewish charity or who wanted to be part owners of Torah scrolls in the syna­ gogue, both of which in fact were approved by Rabbi Judah he-hasiyd, author of the work (sections 1701, 1702, 190, etc.). So also in Spain, even before the mass conversions of the late fourteenth and the fif­ teenth centuries, we hear of similar cases of Jews going from city to city, in some places pretending to be a Christian or Muslim and in others a Jew, accord­ ing to whatever was convenient for them. Spain

In seventh-century Visigothic Spain (see VISIGOTHS) the first order for the mass conversion of Jews any­ where was issued by Sisebut (613). This was hardly met with disapproval by the leading churchman, Isidore of Seville, as has been claimed; he merely noted that the conversions were carried out by force rather than reason. It was, of course, logistically im­ possible to compel the conversion of all Jews in a kingdom that stretched from the southern coast to Barcelona and beyond. Repeated laws were enacted under successive kings, also with unsatisfactory re­ sults. Finally, the Muslim conquest of the peninsula in 711 brought an end to this unhappy persecution. During the Christian “Reconquest” (eleventh to mid-thirteenth centuries) and for many years after, there was no pressure at all on the Jews to convert. The only notable case of conversion during this en­ tire period was that of Moses ha-Sefardiy\ who be­ came PETRUS A l f o n s i . Like so many other learned apostates, he also wrote anti-Jewish polemics. 194

The aggressive missionary activity of the Domini­ cans and Franciscans in the second half of the thir­ teenth century, more than partly the result of the efforts of apostate Jews like Nicholas Donin, who participated in the Paris disputation leading to the condemnation of the Talmud in 1240, or Paul Christiani, who led the Barcelona disputations, was partic­ ularly effective in Spain (see DISPUTATIONS). The compulsory sermons that Jews in Aragon-Catalonia were required to attend led to some conversions, as did the disputations. In Castile, there was the sudden conversion, shortly prior to 1391, of a prominent rabbi of Burgos, Solomon ha-Levy, who took the name Pablo de Santa Maria (see Roth 1995, 136ff.). Not only did he convert, but so did his entire family of brothers, cousins, and children (a son, Alonso de Cartagena, became the first bishop of that see, which included Murcia, and then upon his fathers death also bishop of Burgos). Pablo became the bishop of Burgos, the very city where he had previously been a rabbi, and the consequences of his conversion were felt throughout Spain, including Aragon, where he had friends and relatives. An important Jewish scholar who had been his student, Josha al-Lorqi, also converted. Both master and student became in­ tense anti-Jewish polemicists. Pablo, who wrote in Latin, and Joshua—now Jeronimo de Santa Fe— who wrote in Spanish, produced works that had very damaging effects on the Jewish community (details in Roth, op. cit., see index). Worse was yet to come, for in the summer of 1391 bands of lower-class ruffians attacked Jewish com­ munities throughout Spain, robbing and in some in­ stances killing Jews. In spite of the sincerest efforts of the rulers and local authorities to protect the Jews and halt the attacks, the damage had been done. Thousands converted, chiefly from fear and a sense of despair. Few, if any, of these were forced conver­ sions, however. A further series of disastrous circumstances fol­ lowed. Castile was left with a minor on the throne, and the regency in the hands of the aged but fanatical Fernando de la Antequera. The death of the Aragonese king without an heir was soon to result in the election of this same Fernando to the throne there, as Fernando I (1412). The “antipope” of Avi­ gnon, BENEDICT XIII, a Catalan, was recognized by all of Spain. Notoriously anti-Jewish, he was encour­

Conversion by Jews

aged by his former protege Pablo de Santa Maria and by the most prominent medieval preacher, Vincent Ferrer. The latter, especially, unleashed a preaching crusade throughout the land aimed at the conversion of the Jews, at the same time encouraging Fernando to enact harsh restrictive legislation against the Jews in Castile, and later also as king of Aragon-Catalonia. Entire Jewish communities converted under the spell of his preaching. Synagogues became churches, yeshiyvot were closed, rabbis became priests and monks. The demoralization that set in after the sum­ mer of 1391 led to a serious decline in Jewish religious and cultural life. Many of the last important scholars fled the country to North Africa (Simon Duran, ISAAC B. SHESHET—who had converted before finally flee­ ing Valencia—and others). The Tortosa disputation (1414-1415), the joint project of Benedict, Jeronimo de Santa Fe, and Fernando, resulted in the conversion of many rabbis who participated. Further demoralized by this, many more Jews also converted. PHILOSOPHY, contrary to the views of Baer and his disciples, was hardly the cause or even a minor factor in these mass conversions; indeed, although many rabbis converted, not one documented conversion of a philosopher is known. In fact, the motives were varied: sincere conviction on the part of many, expec­ tations of improved social and economic status for others, fear for some. The rabbinical authorities, both before and after many had fled the country (thereby depriving Span­ ish Jews of the effective leadership that may have helped stem the tide of conversions), were faced with a new dilemma. Clearly, no longer could “Rashis” dictum of “Jew even though he transgresses” be ap­ plied to these willful converts. Therefore, an innova­ tive legal stratagem declared that these converts had abandoned not their faith, but their people—they had become complete Gentiles. As such, they were to be totally shunned and treated as enemies bent upon the destruction of the Jews. They had every opportunity to return to the Jewish people if they wished, either in (Christian) Spain or by easily crossing the border into the Muslim kingdom of Granada, or fleeing to North Africa. Yet they did not do so, but remained of their own volition in their Christian, and Gentile, status. In the second part of the fifteenth century, partic­ ularly under Fernando (I of Castile; II of AragonCatalonia) and Isabel, conversos (Jewish apostates)

were prominent as archbishops and bishops, govern­ ment officials, royal secretaries, and chroniclers. They rose literally to the highest posts in the realm. As their power and influence grew, so did antiSemitic sentiment against them (although this is usu­ ally an anachronistic term inappropriate to the me­ dieval period, the truly racial nature of this sentiment in fifteenth-century Spain justifies the term). A fic­ tion of the “insincerity” of the conversions was cre­ ated, although nothing could be more obvious than the falseness of such claims. Thus, FERNANDO AND ISABEL were persuaded to reinstitute the Inquisition. Under the tyranny of Tomas de Torquemada and other inquisitors, thousands of “suspect” conversos were burned at the stake or given sentences of perpet­ ual imprisonment. Meanwhile, actual warfare had been unleashed against conversos in Toledo, Cordoba, and other cities. A new fiction was invented, in the face of courageous protests by several leading Church figures (even the pope, who nevertheless vacillated in his views depending on who influenced him), to justify the Inquisition and the demands that conversos not hold any government or Church positions. This was the racial distinction between “old” and “new” Chris­ tians, based on a notion of “purity of blood” (limpieza de sangre). According to this pernicious the­ ory, there was not even a question as to the sincerity of the conversos; rather, “Jewish blood” ran in their veins and tainted them down to the fourth genera­ tion (since intermarriage between “old” and “new” Christians was supposed to be forbidden, it is unclear how they were ever to lose this taint, but consistency is never a trademark of the anti-Semite). Alonso de Cartagena and other conversos joined distinguished “old” Christians in attempting to fight this doctrine, to no avail. Of course, this was not a position held by every­ one in Christian society in Spain; indeed, it was defi­ nitely a minority view. Nevertheless, the damage was done, and once the forces of the Inquisition were un­ leashed they could not be halted. The goal was to eradicate, not simply suppress, the conversos. War had been tried, and failed. Now the fires were set to do their work. Total success was never possible, but a sufficient number of conversos were burned and oth­ ers removed from office to ultimately enable the in­ quisitors (Torquemada was constantly in the lead in

195

Conversion by Jews

this) to turn their attention to the ultimate goal: the expulsion of the Jews themselves, as a supposedly “corrupting” influence on the conversos, who, in fact, were hated by the Jews. Conversos in fifteenth-century Spain not only held the highest government posts and were leading fig­ ures of the Church, they also, in spite of the efforts of the Inquisition, held a virtual monopoly in the cul­ tural milieu. Almost all of the chronicles were the work of converso historians. Fernando de Pulgar, one of the converso secretaries of Isabel, has enriched our knowledge of the age with his personalized accounts of the lives of famous figures, as well as his numerous letters. The important fifteenth-century Humanist movement was also very largely the product of converso writers, who also made translations of Greek and Roman classics. Major poets of the time were also, for the most part, conversos', and their poetry provides poignant, if also amusing, insights into their society. There were important converso painters, mu­ sicians, and composers, printers (some of the first printed books, including Hebrew ones, were done by them), and originators of the first modern play (La Celestina:), as well as authors of novels. However brilliant their accomplishments and im­ portant their contributions to Spanish, and ulti­ mately to world, culture and society, the fact is that the conversos were exactly what the rabbis had said of them: enemies of the Jewish people. There was no talk whatever of their being anusiym, a noble term honored by the memory of the forced converts of the time of the Crusades. They were not “brothers” of the Jews, who waited for their return. There was no expectation whatever that they would return, and no one had the slightest degree of sympathy for them, even those who burned to death in the fires of the In­ quisition (this is not guesswork, but based on actual sources). Years later, long after the Expulsion, when descendants of some of the conversos, who continued to be persecuted in Spain, fled to the Ottoman Em­ pire or elsewhere to join the Jewish community, they were required to be circumcised like any other Gen­ tile proselyte. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the XLLIth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). 196

Hermann of Cologne. Hermannus quondam iudaeus, opusculum de conversione sua (Monumenta Germa­ nia Historica IV, 1963); catalogued by libraries as “Hermannus Judaeus”! Roth, Norman. Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expul­ sion o f the Jews from Spain (Madison, 1995). ---------. Jews, Visigoths &Muslims in M edieval Spain (Leiden, 1994). Sama’ual al-Maghribl. Ifdm al-yahud. Silencing the Jews, ed. (Ar.) and tr. (Eng.) Moshe Perlmann (New York, 1964), Proceedings o f the American Academy fo r Jewish Research, vol. 32.

Conversion to Judaism From the biblical period on, Jewish law has recog­ nized that some Gentiles would wish to join the Jew­ ish community and has made provision for that. Throughout history, in fact, a significant number of converts have become part of the Jewish people. The proselyte is called ger $edeq (“righteous stranger”), later simply ger, after the biblical term for a non-Jew who lived among the Jewish people and observed their basic laws. Some proselytes have caused prob­ lems, however (Herod was one: an Idumean by birth, his adherence to Jewish laws and traditions was mini­ mal). In Rome there were many wealthy people who were more or less “hangers on,” attracted by exotic Jewish ceremonies and customs but who were not willing, once converted, to observe the more difficult Jewish laws, such as Sabbath or dietary laws. In the talmudic era, attitudes of the rabbis toward converts thus varied, some even advocating conversion, others making exaggerated statements of praise about them (e.g., a convert is greater than a high priest), while others disparaged them as a burden and serious threat to Jewish observance and harmony. The even­ tual legal position emerged, which was to discourage converts as much as possible, but if the prospective convert fully understood the rigors of Jewish law and the dangers of Jewish life and still insisted, then he or she was to be accepted as a full member of the com­ munity. Two conditions are absolute: the convert must accept and live by all of the Jewish laws and, if a male, must be circumcised (female and male converts have to undergo immersion in a ritual bath). This was certainly enough to discourage most from even considering conversion, particularly when it is real­

Conversion to Judaism

ized that circumcision for an adult male is risky even with modern medicine. Nevertheless, there were a surprising number of converts throughout the me­ dieval period. (There is even the probability that the “talmudic” tractate Geriym, “Proselytes,” was in fact a medieval composition; cf. Polster 1926.) Attitudes toward proselytes varied also in the Middle Ages, and so throughout Jewish history. As we shall see, some proselytes had to endure insults; and others were treated with suspicion (even by rab­ bis), but in general they were well regarded, and some even became scholars and rabbis. Abraham Zacut wrote (Yuhasiyn f. 227b, bottom), as part of his “apologia” for composing a chronicle revealing infor­ mation about important people, that he also wrote about proselytes (i.e., in the talmudic era) “to inform about their virtue, that they were worthy to bring merit to the Jewish people through their teaching [Torah].” Regardless of their merit, though, they were not able to judge certain legal cases even if they come from a Jewish mother, “and there is a mystery in this” (hinting at some qabbalistic notion). But in all other matters, he wrote, their reward is great, and the “men of the Great Assembly” formulated a special blessing for them (recited in the daily prayer). In the medieval period, the active proselytizing of Gentiles came up against two serious counterforces, Christianity and Islam. The initial success of the spread of Christianity on a massive scale, which in­

deed must have included the conversion of large numbers of Jews, meant that any Jewish efforts at proselytizing were of little concern (more serious to Christian orthodoxy was the threat of “judaizing” within: Gentile Christians who insisted on keeping certain Jewish observances, such as the Sabbath or Passover). In the Byzantine Empire, however, conver­ sion to Judaism seems to have been sufficiently com­ mon that it aroused the opposition of authorities, and laws were enacted to prevent it. Indeed, such conver­ sion became a crime of treason against the theocratic state. The second opposing force was Islam, which spread from the sixth century precisely throughout those lands that had the largest Jewish population (Persia, Babylon [Iraq], Syria, Egypt, and North Africa). Contrary to popular myth, Islam did not claim converts by the sword (conversion or death), but it was advantageous for most of the people in con­ quered lands to convert and avoid payment of heavy taxes imposed on non-Muslims, and also to enjoy the full benefits of society. Christians and Jews were toler­ ated as long as they posed no threat to Islam. How­ ever, any attempt by either group to convert Muslims was strictly forbidden and theoretically could result in severe penalties, perhaps even death. In reality, never­ theless, there were cases of such conversions. Jews also were permitted to own slaves, even in the Byzantine Empire where repeated efforts were made to curtail or even prevent such ownership (laws were

197

Conversion to Judaism

enacted, for example, against circumcision of slaves). Throughout the Muslim world also, Jews often had slaves. In some cases, as we know from responsa of the GEONIM, these slaves did agricultural work, but usu­ ally they were assistants in businesses or female slaves who did household work, including cooking. Jewish law required that a slave be held for only a specified period of time before he or she had either to be freed or converted. It is also true that a loophole in Jewish law permitted the offspring of illicit sexual relations (a bastard, mamzer) to become a legal member of the people by first being made a slave and then set free as a Jew. In practice, however, the talmudic laws that very definitely required the manumission or conver­ sion of slaves were generally ignored in the geonic pe­ riod and throughout the medieval period in lands, such as Spain, where Jews were allowed to have slaves. One of the earliest geonic rulings permitted selling slaves who refused to convert (only one in a hundred slaves chose to become Jewish, according to the un­ doubtedly exaggerated and self-serving claim of the questioner in this case). Other authorities (al-FasI, M a i m o n i d e s ) were more strict and said that a slave could only be bought in the first place if there was a good possibility that he/she would convert. On the other hand, some held that if there were a danger that slaves might inform on their masters or cause poten­ tial danger to the people, they should not be kept. There were advantages in many cases for slaves who converted to Judaism instead of becoming Christians or Muslims. Converts to either of those groups enjoyed no special privileges (while early Muslim law provided for a “client” status of new con­ verts, attached to and protected by a clan or family, such practices were not long observed). In the Jewish community, on the other hand, if converts were not always welcomed with enthusiasm at least they en­ joyed the legal support of the community and could easily find employment, marry, etc. (Wacholder s ar­ ticle, see Bibliography, which although somewhat naive offers a generally good survey of geonic rulings on the conversion of slaves.) One case not discussed by Wacholder is the ruling of Saadyah Gaon that a Jewish woman whose father apostasized and then died could inherit from him, and so in any case, even a proselyte may inherit from a Gentile father ( Teshuvot, No. 28, printed together with his Sefer ha-

198

yerushot and other works, ed. Joel Muller, vol. 9 of Oeuvres completes of Saadyah [Paris, 1897]; photo rpt. as separate volume, Jerusalem, 1968). Early M edieval Period

We have little or no information about conversion to Judaism in Visigothic Spain or in Frankish Gaul (church law, of course, prohibited such conversion; this had “teeth” only in Spain, where the VISIGOTHS had established another theocratic state). As part of the increasingly harsh measures enacted against Jews, Sisebut took care of the slave issue by decreeing that any Jew who circumcised a Christian was to be be­ headed, but slaves could be sold outside the country. Christians who converted were to be punished (not specified); Egica, however, decreed the punishment of death in such cases (details in Roth, Jews, p. 28, and cf. p. 29). Baron wrote that, according to Julian, the anti-Jewish bishop of Toledo and himself a de­ scendant of Jews, in 673 in the revolt against King Wamba “many Christians in Gallia Narbonensis had converted themselves to Judaism.” This is a wild ex­ aggeration, based on an account that Baron himself earlier had rightly questioned, according to which only the general sent to crush the revolt had con­ verted (Baron IV, 47; cf. Ill, 46). One of the most celebrated cases of conversion was that of Bodo, court chaplain of Louis the Pious (d. 840) and the beloved boy of Wilfrid Strabo. Whether because he was finally disgusted with the debaucheries of court life or was secretly planning flight and conversion, he made a pilgrimage to Rome. In any event, he encountered (by chance or by design) some Jews in Rome, sold his slaves, and was circumcised and became a Jew in 838 (Ashtor I, 71 and n. 14 argued that he converted in Zaragoza; while rightly dismissing the claim of Kayserling that it was in France, he also dismissed as groundless the idea that he was converted in Rome, but see Katz, p. 45, n. 5). It is true that in 839, following his conver­ sion, Bodo (who took the name Elazar; the source Ashtor cited, p. 411 n. 15, does not say “Eli‘ezer”) went to Zaragoza, where he entered military service. The emperor (Louis) was devastated by the news, which must have created a scandal throughout Chris­ tian Europe. Zaragoza was then a Muslim city, and thus he was safe in taking refuge there. However, he

Conversion to Judaism

engaged in polemics against Christianity, which aroused the ire of Paul Alvarus, the Mozarabic bishop in Muslim Cordoba. There ensued a bitter exchange of letters between them (see Ashtor 1973, 1: 75-80). Katz (1937) correctly concluded (p. 46) that what is significant is that a ninth-century “nobleman” (in any event, a well-educated youth) would convert in spite of the danger, and that this conversion aroused strong feelings against Jews, as reflected in the letter of Amulo against the Jews. “Judaizing” among Christians

“Judaizing heresies” continued also in medieval Spain and in other countries (the subject deserves a com­ plete investigation; for France, see the examples cited by Golb, Jewish Proselytism, p. 15, n. 23). The most interesting case was that of Renard, viscount of Sens in the eleventh century, who observed certain Jewish customs and called himself a “Jewish king” (see also Baron V, 114 and n. 40). We know of such cases in the eighth century, but increasingly in later periods. Some Christians in Muslim Cordoba were circum­ cised in the tenth century, but without converting to Judaism (no doubt they were more influenced by the fact that the Muslims among whom they lived, usu­ ally on cordial terms, were circumcised). In the thir­ teenth century it appears that certain ALBIGENSIANS (or possibly Waldensians, distinctions were not al­ ways clear) were circumcising themselves, according to Lucas ofTuy, in order to “appear” as Jews and thus get away with blasphemous statements against ortho­ dox Christianity (see Roth, “Jews and Albigensians,” p. 86ff. for translation and discussion of the text; how they could “appear” as Jews, unless in public baths, by being circumcised is puzzling). There is also some evidence of conversion in east­ ern Europe (Lithuania and Poland) in the latter part of the fifteenth century, in connection with the “ju­ daizing” movement, which was prominent in Russia in the same period and later and which has been shown to have been influenced by Jews and Jewish ideas of the time (see Samuel Ettinger, “Jewish influ­ ence on the religious ferment in eastern Europe at the end of the fifteenth century” [Heb.] in S. W. Baron et al., eds. Sefer Yi$haq Baer [Jerusalem, 1960], pp. 228-47, especially p. 244ff., with references also to other literature).

Conversion in the Eleventh Century

In 1000, Wecelin, a priest of Duke Conrad in Ger­ many, converted and wrote a treatise justifying his conversion and attacking Christianity (see Monumenta Germaniae historiea, Seriptores VI, 704 and 720-23; Abulafia 1981). Golb (1964) discovered and published an important letter, written ca. 1011 or earlier, which tells of a former Christian who con­ verted and fled to Damascus, where he was pursued by someone (“they came after him”; perhaps mem­ bers of his family) and tried to persuade him to re­ turn, offering him “much money” and mocking him. He then went to Jerusalem, where the Christians also “persecuted” him, and so he intended to go to Egypt (Golb “Ger $edeq,” and see Golb, Jewish Proselytism, pp. 5-7 for a translation of the letter). Golb’s reason­ ing about the dating of this letter is carefully thought out, but his conclusion that the convert referred to is none other than Wecelin is questionable. In the first place, the conversion of Wecelin was in 1000, not 1005, and second his conversion is connected with Mainz in the sources (although it is correct that Con­ rad was duke of Carinthia, but Abulafia is also right that Wecelin could have gone with the duke to “Rhenish Franconia,” and converted at Mainz). Even more interesting is another letter from the GENIZAH from a monk or cleric who converted, also in the eleventh century, and wrote no fewer than four­ teen short treatises justifying his conversion, which he then gave to the priests. He was jailed because of this but managed to escape when one of the guards let him out, and he climbed through a window with a rope. He then had to beg for help Jiom the Jewish commu­ nity to which he fled, apparently in Egypt. More im­ portant was Andreas, archbishop of Bari in Italy, who in 1066 went to Constantinople and “circumcised himself.” Others followed him in converting. He then went to Egypt, where he lived until his death. The news of his conversion, of course, spread throughout Italy and Greece (see Golb, Jewish Proselytism, pp. 9-12 on both these proselytes). Of course, if he liter­ ally circumcised himself, this would not have been ac­ ceptable according to Jewish law to render him a pros­ elyte, but the matter could have been easily rectified when he went to Egypt (by a symbolic “circumcision,” the drawing of a drop of blood, as is done when a prospective convert is already circumcised).

199

Conversion to Judaism

Extremely unusual is the case of a woman prose­ lyte in Provence who fled to NARBONNE and there married a member of the renowned Todros family. The couple fled to Monieux (also in Provence, but remote enough to avoid their discovery); however, an attack on the Jews there several years later left her husband dead and her two older children taken cap­ tive, while she remained desolate with an infant son (Golb, ibid., pp. 12-13; the text of the pertinent let­ ter was published in Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature [Cincinnati, 1931] I, 31-33, with English translation reprinted in Franz Kobler, Letters o f Jews Throughout the Ages [London, 1952] I, 148-50). Golb is, of course, correct that the attack mentioned was during the FIRST CRUSADE. The Genizah records provide a wealth of informa­ tion about proselytes, some Byzantine, others per­ haps European former Christians or former Muslims (see Goitein, pp. 304-11, 592-94; Golb, op. cit., pp. 16-19). In Germany, during the period of the First Cru­ sade, several Christians converted, some of whose names are mentioned among the Jews who were killed, also in the attacks in 1270, and at least two proselytes were burned alive in 1298 (Abraham Berliner, Hayey ha-yehudiym be-Ashkenaz [Warsaw, 1900], photo rpt. [Jerusalem], 1969, p. 62). A Proselyte a n d M aimonides

Moses b. Maimon ( M a im o n id e s ) in Cairo in the twelfth century received three letters from a proselyte named £Ovadyah who was then living in Palestine. ‘Ovadyah apparently wrote in Hebrew even though he was formerly a Muslim, and Maimonides, who usually wrote in Arabic, answered in Hebrew. The first of the replies is the most famous. ‘Ovadyah had asked whether he, as a proselyte, could say certain prayers or blessings that refer to “our fathers” (the Pa­ triarchs), or praise God “who has sanctified us,” and the like. Maimonides answered, with salutations of great respect, that he should certainly say all of these, “just as every Israelite citizen prays and blesses, so it is right that you should bless and pray.” Since Abraham taught all peoples the true way and to abandon idola­ try and “converted” many, all converts in all genera­ tions are like his students and members of his house­ hold. He is the father of all his students, who are the

200

proselytes. The second reply concerned providence, and contains, typically, some profound insights from Maimonides. The third in many ways is the most im­ portant. ‘Ovadyah had said that Muslims are not idol worshipers, but his teacher had told him that they are idolaters, and furthermore, had insulted him. Mai­ monides famous reply was that, indeed, Muslims are not idolaters at all, but unify God as is proper, and after a long discussion of this he concluded that when his teacher insulted him he committed a grave transgression, for which he should ask forgiveness and then fast and pray, “perhaps God will forgive him.” He asks, rhetorically, was he drunk that he did not recall that there are thirty-six places in which the Torah warned about the proper treatment of prose­ lytes? The final words of this letter, in praise of some­ one who leaves his family and home to become a member of a despised people (the Jews), is one of the most outstanding literary masterpieces in Hebrew. Twelfth-Century Conversions

Certainly the most famous medieval proselyte is an­ other ‘Ovadyah, this one a former monk named Jo­ hannes the son of Dreux, from Italy. He converted in 1102. Over a period of years, fragments of letters concerning him came to light from the Genizah (Golb in S. Morag et al., eds., Mehqerey ‘e dot ugeniyzah. S. D. Goitein Jubilee volume [Jerusalem, 1981], pp. 66-107, and see Golb, Jewish Proselytism, p. 2Iff.). He was learned in (Latin) Christian writ­ ings and in Hebrew, and perhaps also Arabic. Among the documents gradually pieced together was a mem­ oir of his life (not, strictly speaking, a chronicle, al­ though it contains some subjective judgments about the First Crusade that are of interest). After his con­ version, he went to Aleppo, Baghdad, and later to Damascus and Palestine, and finally Egypt. Far more has been written about this ‘Ovadyah than any other proselyte in history (Golb cited virtually none of the bibliography; see, e.g., S. D. Goitein, “ ‘Obadyah [sic\, a Norman [sic] Proselyte,” Journal o f Jewish Studies 4 [1953]: 74-84; there, incidentally, he cor­ rectly noted that Fragment III does not contain a ref­ erence to the Khazars, as Mann had thought; yet in an article in the Israeli newspaper ha-Are$ vol. 38 [12 Nov. 1955], p. 5, he already forgot what he had writ­ ten about this in his earlier article. Zvi Malachi also

Conversion to Judaism

published the text of the fragments, Sugiyot be-sifrut yem ei ha-beinayim [Tel-Aviv, 1971], pp. 62-71, with a brief discussion, pp. 73-83). In France, a scholar recorded the fact that his brother had taught Bible and Mishnah day and night to a certain proselyte, and when that man became old some people encouraged him to make a will, which he refused to do without the advice of his teacher (it was also suggested that he leave his property to a nephew who was also a proselyte). He finally agreed, and his teacher was asked to supervise the will, but when he died the teacher insisted on keeping money he had from the proselyte that was to pay for his teaching. Some rabbis said that he was not allowed to keep the money, and his brother then asked the renowned “Rabbenu Tam” his opinion (Urbach, p. 112; the answer has not been preserved). Rabbi Joel of Regensburg was for a time in Wurzburg, and there knew a proselyte whom he saw copying a Christian codex of the Pentateuch from which to study since he did not know Hebrew. The rabbi be­ came angry about this, even though the proselyte told him that the rabbis of Speyer had permitted him to do this. There were also objections when this pros­ elyte was appointed to lead prayers. We see in this case an example of negative attitudes, and deeds, to­ ward proselytes that no doubt were common (see Urbach, p. 180 for further details; Wacholder, “Cases,” pp. 302-03 completely misinterpreted this). Problematic is the alleged “family of proselytes,” the only source for which is a statement in the Tosefot (additional commentaries) on Qiddushin 71, “qashiym” in the name of “Abraham h a - g e r His son (?) Isaac knew “Rabbenu Tam,” one of the great com­ mentators and grandson of “R a s h iHowever, other sources refer to “R’ Isaac mi-ere$ h a g a r which can mean “from the land of Hungary,” or even “from a strange [far-off] land.” Not content with making Isaac a proselyte, and son of Abraham (with no basis whatever), Urbach conjectured further that the “R’ Yehosafiyah ha-ger” in whose name the abovementioned commentary of Abraham is cited in an­ other source is “Joseph” and a brother of Isaac, no less (Urbach, pp. 193-94; Wacholder, “Cases,” ig­ nored this). In the first place, the name Yehosafiyah, although not common, is certainly attested in He­ brew, and is not at all the same as Joseph. Secondly,

Urbach asserted, with no basis, that the “family” was from Hungary (either one reads ha-ger; “proselyte,” or ha-gar as “Hungary;” it cannot be both). Nor is it by any means true that most proselytes had the name “Abraham,” and therefore Isaac must be the son of our Abraham. According to Schwarzfuchs (review of Urbach in RE.]. 116 [1957] 113), it is possible that Abraham was not a proselyte at all, but simply “from Hungary.” On the other hand, it seems clear that the comment cited in the Tosefot was by a proselyte, ei­ ther Yehosafiyah or Abraham (otherwise, why bother to cite one or the other of these obscure people? The context of the comment, incidentally, has to do with proselytes). However, the late-thirteenth-century anonymous polemical work Ni$$ahon ha-yeshan (“Victory of the old,” i.e., of Judaism) also cites both Isaac and Abraham in contexts that make it fairly cer­ tain that both were, in fact, proselytes (see Berger, pp. 62, 63). The Thirteenth Century

Another proselyte named Abraham, from Bavaria, apparently became a zealot on behalf of his new reli­ gion, conducting arguments with Christians and at­ tempting to convert them. He went too far, however, and after damaging images in a church, he was ar­ rested, and many Jews were killed. He was taken to Augsburg in 1264 and burned alive. Among the pen­ itential poems composed to honor him was one by the renowned scholar MORDECAI B. HlLLEL, who also died a martyr’s death in 1298 (Habermann, Sefer gezeirot Ashkenaz ve $arfat [Jerusalem, 1946], pp. 186-90). A certain deacon in England, influenced by his study of Hebrew, decided to convert (1222) and marry a Jewish woman; the affair caused great scan­ dal, and he was arrested and burned alive. Toward the end of the century, just prior to the expulsion, a Do­ minican friar, Robert of Reading, similarly converted because of his study of Hebrew works. He took the name Haggai and also married a Jewish woman. He resisted all efforts, including those of Edward I, to have him return to Christianity, and died in prison. (Cecil Roth, A History o f the Jews in England [Ox­ ford, 1964], pp. 41, 83; cf. Paul Hyams, “The Jewish Minority in Mediaeval England,” Journal o f Jewish Studies [special issue, February, 1974], p. 275). Sev-

201

Conversion to Judaism

eral other cases from the Tosefot and other rabbinical sources, some of them merely theoretical, have been mentioned by Wacholder, “Cases.” It is nevertheless going too far to say there was a “proselytizing move­ ment” in the twelfth or thirteenth century, much less that the rabbis were either aware of or supported such a “movement.” Spain— Thirteenth a n d Fourteenth Centuries

In Spain, where the close relations among Christians, Muslims, and Jews was a constant fact of life, conver­ sion from one faith to another was a real possibility. Alfonso X enacted laws against this in his ordinances for Burgos in 1252 stating that Muslims and Jews may not convert to each others’ religion nor advise or assist anyone to convert. The penalty was fine and imprisonment or enslavement of the convert. This must have applied only to Burgos, for some peculiar reason, since in general in Spain conversion by Jews of their Muslim slaves was allowed (the other possi­ bility is that the Burgos law refers to free Muslims). Christians are not mentioned, but in the generally theoretical law code Flores de derecho written for Al­ fonso, Christians who convert to Islam or Judaism are merely excluded from giving testimony in court, and there is no mention of punishment. Jacob Ibn Crespa, who was head of a yeshivah in Toledo near the end of the thirteenth century, sent a series of questions to Ibn ADRET in Barcelona, one of which concerns a Jew who married his Muslim slave after she converted to Judaism, but without a mar­ riage contract as required in Jewish law. The com­ munity of Toledo had enacted a law that anyone who married a Muslim “or even a Jew” without a marriage contract should either divorce her or give her a contract. Ibn Adret s reply was that the talmu­ dic law clearly states that one should not marry a slave he has converted or freed, but if he does so he need not divorce her, and thus were it not for the community ordinance the man in question could keep her as a concubine (permitted to Jews in Spain); however, as always, the enactment overrides this and he must abide by it (Solomon Ibn Adret, She’e lot u-tesehuvotN. No. 242; the name at the head­ ing of the questions, No. 238, is erroneously “Jacob ben ha-kashshaf” [sorcerer!], which should be cor­ rected to Crespa, a well-known rabbi whose name is

found in other sources; cf., indeed, ibid. II, No. 290). There are other cases of proselytes mentioned in his responsa. In the ordinances concerning Jews issued by Juan I of Castile at the parliament of Soria in 1380, one deals with Jewish proselytizing, noting that Jews cir­ cumcise some “Muslims, Tartalos [Tatars, Mongols] and those of other sects,” which he prohibits on pain of imprisonment. In 1476, a similar law was enacted by Fernando and Isabel. The most serious reprisals against Jews came in 1312 when ten Jews of Tarragona were sentenced to expulsion from the kingdom and a large fine, and the entire Jewish community was fined an even larger amount, because those Jews had assisted two German Christians in their efforts to convert. The two Chris­ tians had been sent to Toledo, where they were cir­ cumcised and converted. However, the king (Jaime II) later relented and allowed eight of the Jews to re­ turn and live anywhere in the kingdom except Tar­ ragona, and a year later he remitted more than half of the fines of the Jewish community. Similarly, in 1327 he remitted a fine imposed upon the Jews of Calatayud because they had circumcised two Christians and helped a Jew converted to Christianity to return to Judaism. There were other such cases. In 1385 in Majorca some Jews were accused of con­ verting a Tatar and a Muslim woman, who then mar­ ried Jews. After the persecution of 1391, it appears that in Majorca and perhaps elsewhere the authorities were stricter about conversion to Judaism. The famous rabbi Simon b. §emah Duran, who had fled to North Africa, wrote shortly before 1435 to his former community in Majorca and mentioned among other things his knowledge of these restrictions: “You do not have per­ mission to accept proselytes, because of the fear of the kingdom” (Tashbe$ III, No. 227). Another of his re­ sponsa dealt with the case of Rabbi Abraham §arfatiy, a proselyte in Algeria, who was insulted by a Jewish woman who called him “heathen, son of a heathen, pork-eater.” This proselyte was a scholar, learned in the Talmud according to the rabbi who wrote to Duran about this, and he had put a ban on the woman. After a lengthy legal discussion about the propriety of a ban in such a case, Duran ruled that even if technically the proselyte should not have done so, if it were only be­ cause of his honor, for the sake of not distressing a pros­

Crispin, Gilbert

elyte (a biblical prohibition) he was certainly allowed to do so. He concluded that if, as had been alleged, Sarfatiy sometimes made mistakes in what he wrote, this was only because he was not fully fluent in Hebrew, not having been raised with that language (ibid. I, No. 33). Because of the obvious danger, no doubt there were hundreds of cases of conversion to Christianity of which we have no record. Throughout the history of the Jewish civilization, proselytes have made im­ portant contributions, from Hellenistic and talmudic times through the medieval period and in modern times. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abulafia, Anna Sapir. “An Eleventh-Century Ex­ change of Letters between a Christian and a Jew,” Journal o f M edieval History 7 (1981): 153-74. Ashtor, Eliyahu. The Jews o f Moslem Spain (Philadel­ phia, 1973); in original Hebrew text, Qorot hayehudiym . . . I, 50 ff. Berger, David. The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages (ed. and tr. of Niaon ha-yeshart) (Philadelphia, 1979). Golb, Norman. “Ger sedeq she-barali le-Mirsayim be-reshiytah shel ha-meah ha-y’a.” Sefunot 8 (1964): 87-104. ---------. Jewish Proselytism—a Phenomenon in the Re­ ligious History o f Early M edieval Europe (Tenth Annual Rabbi Louis Feinberg Memorial Lecture, University of Cincinnati, 1987); printed. Gotein, S[hlomo] D. A Mediterranean Society (Berke­ ley, etc., 1971), vol. 2. Katz, Solomon. The Jews in the Visigothic and Frank­ ish Kingdoms o f Spain and Gaul (Cambridge, Mass., 1937; photo rpt. New York, 1970). Moses b. Maimon. Igerot ha-Rambam, ed. Yishaq Shailat (Jerusalem, 1987) I, 233-41 (the separate responsa are printed in earlier editions, but it is convenient to have all three together, and Shailat s notes are useful). Porton, Gary. The Stranger within Your Gates: Con­ verts and Conversion in Rabbinic Literature (Chicago, 1994); not specifically medieval. Roth, Norman. “Jews and Albigensians in the Mid­ dle Ages: Lucas of Tuy on Heretics in Leon,” SefaradAl (1981): 71-93.

---------. Jews, Visigoths &Muslims in M edieval Spain (Leiden, 1994). Wacholder, Ben Zion. “Cases of Proselytizing in the Tosafist Responsa,” J.Q.R. (n.s.) 51 (1960-61): 288-315. ---------. “The Halakah [sic] and the Proselytizing of Slaves During the Gaonic Era,” Historia Judaica 18 (1956): 89-106.

Crispin, Gilbert Gilbert Crispin (ca. 1045-1117) spent the first part of his life at the newly founded monastery of Le Bee in Normandy. He hailed from a noble Norman fam­ ily that had close links with the monastery and its founder Abbot Herluin (d. 1078). Gilbert arrived in Le Bee as an oblate at a time when Lanfranc (c. 1010-1089) had restructured the monastic school so that he could teach pupils how to use the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic) as a tool to ex­ pound scripture. The school was famous, and as soon as it had been opened to external students it drew pupils from far afield. Anselm (1033-1109) himself was attracted to Bee in 1059; he became a monk there in 1060. Anselm was put to work almost at once as a teacher, and he replaced Lanfranc when the latter became abbot of Caen. Thus Gilbert spent his formative years at the feet of two of the best minds of his day. All his works would betray the imprint of his schooling at Bee. In about 1079 Gilbert was sum­ moned to England by Lanfranc, who by then had be­ come archbishop of Canterbury. In 1085 Gilbert be­ came abbot of Westminster and did much to extend the buildings there. Gilbert is best known for his Disputatio ludei et Christiani (Disputation between a Christian and a Jew), which he composed in 1092 or 1093. Whereas nearly all Gilbert’s other works are extant in only one manuscript, the Disputatio survives in more than thirty manuscripts, of which at least two-thirds date to the twelfth century. In itself there is nothing star­ tlingly original about the disputation. Its main at­ traction must have been that it brings together into a lucid debate a good selection of well-known argu­ ments from earlier Jewish-Christian debates and the fathers. A large section of the Disputatio deals with the validity of the Law of Moses; other topics include

203

Crispin, Gilbert

the Incarnation, the coming of the Messiah, and the propriety of using images like the crucifix to adorn churches. The disputation is unique among JewishChristian disputations in the amount of space it al­ lots to the Jewish viewpoint. Reflecting the didactic methods of Anselm, the tone of the disputation is re­ markably mild, and the issues at hand are discussed as civilly as possible. Scholars have disagreed about the “realness” of the disputation, but there seems no reason to doubt that the basis for the disputation was a series of conversations between Gilbert and a Jew with whom he was friendly and did business at West­ minster. Obviously, Gilbert reworded much of what the Jew had originally said when he wrote his Disputatio Iudei. Gilberts ultimate goal was, of course, to illustrate the truth of Christian teaching, and the words of the Jew had to be reformulated for them to be in any way operational in fulfilling that aim. The disputation reveals how close were Gilbert’s ties with Anselm. Its passages concerning the Incar­ nation reflect Anselm’s thinking about the necessity and possibility of God becoming man, and it is very likely that Anselm was staying with Gilbert at West­ minster when they were written. It was at this time that Anselm himself was beginning to put together his ideas on the Incarnation for his masterpiece, the Cur Deus Homo (Why God became man), which he would argue sola ratione (by reason alone). But Anselm’s influence was even stronger on the second disputation that Gilbert wrote as a follow-up of the first: the Disputatio Christiani cum Gentili) Disputa­ tion between a Christian and a Pagan). Unlike the Disputatio Iudei, the Disputation be­ tween a Christian and a Pagan is fictitious. In it Gilbert pursued many of the issues he had covered in the Disputation with a Jew. Justification by faith is an important addition to the discussion. In the Disputa­ tio Iudei the authority of scripture had been Gilbert’s primary tool of argument, with reason playing a sub­ sidiary role. Encouraged by Anselm, he set out to use only reason in the Disputatio cum gentili. That is why Gilbert pretended that one of the protagonists was a pagan. A pagan would have little time for biblical proof texts, and Gilbert would be compelled to limit himself to rational arguments. In the event Gilbert proved incapable of fulfilling the set task; the dispu­ tation is full of allusions to the Bible. Evidently,

204

Gilbert was too fond of exegesis to construct a dispu­ tation otherwise. The manuscript evidence of the Disputatio Iudei would seem to indicate that Gilbert returned to his text a number of times to make (minor) changes. What he wrote there does appear to have stayed in his mind. For many of his other works, such as his ser­ mon for Palm Sunday, the treatise on the fall of Satan, and the treatise on the Holy Spirit, deal with ques­ tions he first touched on in his Disputation with a Jew. It is no exaggeration to say that his Jewish-Christian disputation played a central role in his oeuvre. His work and his contacts with Anselm show how Chris­ tian objections to Christianity overlapped with many of the questions Christians were beginning to ask themselves about their faith. In all his works, which included treatises on monasticism, the Eucharist, and simony, and a Vita (Life) of Abbot Herluin, Gilbert’s familiarity with the liberal arts was evident. But he al­ ways remained most comfortable when he could dis­ play his skill as an exegete. In final analysis he did not really possess full Anselmian confidence in the (cor­ rect) use of reason. In this respect he remained more a pupil of Lanfranc’s than of Anselm’s. ANNA SAPIR ABULAFIA

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abulafia, Anna Sapir. “The ars disputandi of Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster (1085-1117),” in Adfontes. Opstellen aangeboden aan Professor Dr c. van de Kieft, ed. C. M. Cappon et al. (Amsterdam, 1984), pp. 139-52. ---------. “An Attempt by Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster, at Rational Argument in the JewishChristian Debate,” Studia Monastica 26: 55-74. ---------. “Christians Disputing Disbelief: St. An­ selm, Gilbert Crispin, and Pseudo-Anselm,” in Religionsgesprache im Mittelalter, ed. B. Lewis and F. Niewohner (Wiesbaden, 1992), pp. 131-48. Crispin, Gilbert. Gisleberti Crispini disputatio iudei et christiani, et anonymi auctoris. Bernard Blumenkranz (Utrecht-Antwerp, 1956). Southern, Richard W. “St. Anselm and Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster,” M ediaeval and Renaissance Studies 3 (1954): 78—115Werblowsky, R. J. Z. “Crispin’s Disputation,” The Journal o f Jewish Studies 11 (1960): 69-77.

Crusades

Crusades

In unanticipated ways, the papal call to liberate the sacred sites of Christianity from the Muslims height­ ened anti-Jewish animosities and triggered, during the spring months of 1096, bloody assaults on major Rhineland Jewish communities. While anti-Jewish violence was effectively suppressed during the later organized crusades, spontaneous crusading move­ ments often spawned further slaughter of Jews. No eyewitness testimonies to the precise nature of the papal call at Clermont have survived. Still, it seems unlikely that Pope Urban II aroused antiJewish sentiment or addressed the possibility of antiJewish violence on the part of the warriors setting out on the sacred venture. All reports, particularly the ex­ tensive Hebrew narratives, suggest that the height­ ened animosity and occasional violence took both Jews and Christians by surprise. The armies that coalesced in the wake of the papal call set out slowly and in somewhat haphazard fash­ ion for the Near East. The eyewitness chroniclers of the activities of these ultimately successful forces re­ flect no concern with Jews nor any eruption of antiJewish violence. The only significant loss of Jewish life associated with the successful crusading armies occurred upon the conquest of Jerusalem. In that very special case, there is no evidence of specifically

anti-Jewish sentiment; rather, there is the broad sense of exhilaration run amok, with all residents of the Holy City—Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike— falling prey to blind hatred and misguided zeal. While it seems clear enough that Pope Urban II was concerned with rousing trained knights to undertake the arduous journey eastward, his call sparked an unex­ pected popular response. Preachers fanned out across northern France, carrying the message of the crusade to all levels of the populace. The most charismatic and successful of these preachers was the enigmatic Peter the Hermit. Peter gathered about himself a large force and made his way eastward through the Rhineland. According to the Hebrew narratives, he carried with him a letter from the Jews of France addressed to their coreligionists in Germany, urging the latter to support Peter and his followers with provisions. It seems that the advice was heeded and that Peters troops passed through Germany without incident. Peter’s preaching in the Rhineland aroused cru­ sading sentiment there as well. However, Peter was forced to move on by his followers before he could bring the new recruits into his camp. The result was yet another wave of popular crusading bands, lacking even the somewhat steadying influence of Peter the Hermit. These bands were ideologically radical and organizationally chaotic. They were the key element

Map of Crusades in the Holy Land. 1096-1270. Copyright © Reunion des Musees Nationaux/Art Resource, NY.

205

Crusades

in the anti-Jewish assaults in the Rhineland, although burghers who shared their intense hatred of the Jews provided considerable assistance. The shorter of the two original Hebrew First Cru­ sade narratives provides a striking portrait of acceler­ ating anti-Jewish violence. It speaks of the French crusaders (almost certainly the followers of Peter the Hermit) sparking anti-Jewish animosity among the burghers of the Rhineland, of the arousal of crusad­ ing ardor and anti-Jewish hostility among some of the German barons who took the cross, and of the outbreak of sporadic violence. “When they [the Ger­ man crusaders] saw one of us, they ran after him and pierced him with a spear, to the point that we were afraid even to cross our thresholds.” It was this kind of sporadic violence that broke out in the town of Speyer, with its very young Jewish community, founded only twelve years earlier. A loose coalition of German crusaders and Speyer burghers plotted to surprise the Jews during their Sabbath morning prayers. The Jews, alerted to the danger, came to their synagogue early, prayed, and secured themselves in their homes. Eleven Jews lost their lives in frus­ trated random attacks. Concerned with the danger, the bishop of Speyer reacted energetically to protect his Jews. He moved them to rural fortifications, where they did in fact find safety. Although W O RM S Jewry suffered far more griev­ ously, the pattern was much the same. The Jews, frightened by the reports from neighboring Speyer, split into two groups. Some Jews chose to seek safety in the bishops palace; others opted to remain at home, again indicating that full-blown danger was not yet manifest. First those Jews who had elected to stay in their homes were slaughtered by a loose grouping of crusaders and burghers. Subsequently, those Jews who had sought safety in the bishop’s for­ tified quarters fell victim as well. With the destruction of Worms Jewry, the magni­ tude of the threat was finally clear. Mainz Jewry pre­ pared itself far more carefully than had the Jews of Speyer and Worms. To be sure, the danger now came from a different source, from a relatively wellorganized crusading band, that of Count EMICHO of Leiningen. With the Mainz account, we hear for the first time of an organized assault. The troops of Emi­ cho gathered outside the closed gates of Mainz. The effort to protect Mainz and its Jews through closing 206

the city gates failed miserably, as burghers sympa­ thetic to the crusaders readily let them into the town. The crusaders and their burgher allies besieged the fortified episcopal palace. Although the Jews were abandoned by the archbishops militia, they at­ tempted to defend themselves militarily. As the troops of Count Emicho broke into the palace, the Jews gathered therein accepted martyrdom, some at the hands of their attackers and some at their own hands. From the archbishop’s palace, the crusaders made their way to the burgrave’s palace, and the same drama of hopeless defense, eventual defeat, and mas­ sive martyrdom was reenacted. Eventually, the fol­ lowers of Count Emicho hunted down the scattered remnants of Mainz Jewry. One of the premier Jewish communities of early Ashkenazic Jewry was all but totally destroyed. The story of Cologne Jewry took a somewhat dif­ ferent turn. There, the initial violence was once again sporadic and did little damage. Alarmed by the prospect of more serious attack, the archbishop chose to move his Jews out of the city and into rural re­ doubts. The tactic that had proved effective in the case of Speyer Jewry failed utterly for the Jews of Cologne. Crusaders, in all likelihood followers of Count Emicho, hunted down the Jewish enclaves and destroyed them. Once again, the Jews responded by choosing martyrdom over conversion, some dying at the hands of the crusaders and others by their own hands. The Jewish chroniclers of the Rhineland tragedy tell us of the fate of a few other Jewish communities. In no case, however, was there a repeat of the level of destruction that had been visited upon Worms, Mainz, and Cologne Jewry. As the German crusading bands moved eastward, the danger dissipated, life in the towns of Germany returned more or less to nor­ mal, and—subsequently—those Jews who had opted for conversion were permitted to return to the Jewish faith. In the wake of the tragedy of 1096, two im­ pressions predominated among the Jewish survivors. The first was the underlying animosity of the Chris­ tian majority, with its potential for activation. To be sure, some Christian friends had stood staunchly by their Jewish neighbors in their hour of travail. None­ theless, the broad sense was one of a hostile Christen­ dom, ever ready to invoke the image of the Jew as crucifier of Jesus. Balancing this image of Christian

Crusades

hostility was an awed awareness of Jewish heroism. In effect, the Jewish survivors believed profoundly that the true heroes of the First Crusade were not the eventually victorious Christian knights, but rather the unflinchingly loyal Jews who had regularly elected death over conversion, who had been willing to suppress the most potent human feelings of spousal and parental love in favor of their allegiance to the God of Israel and his Torah. As the Second Crusade was called into being by Pope Eugenius II, the insouciance that had marked the onset of the First Crusade could hardly be re­ peated. All elements in European society—ecclesias­ tical leadership, those charged with secular political power, and the Jews themselves—had to be fully cog­ nizant of the potential that crusading bore for spark­ ing anti-Jewish violence. Anti-Jewish preaching de­ veloped almost immediately, particularly in the Rhineland. Bernard of Clairvaux, the moving spirit behind the Second Crusade, once alerted to the dan­ ger of anti-Jewish agitation, included in his crusading missives a stern warning against anti-Jewish preach­ ing and anti-Jewish actions. Eventually, he came in person to the affected area and put down the key anti-Jewish spokesman. The Jewish chronicler of the Second Crusade turmoil, Ephraim ben Jacob of Bonn, acknowledged fully in his account the critical role played by Bernard of Clairvaux in the mainte­ nance of Jewish safety during the dangerous opening months of the Second Crusade. To be sure, Ephraim also noted the vigilance of the secular authorities and the defensive measures initiated by the Jews them­ selves. The preparedness of all concerned obviated the repetition of the damaging assaults of 1096. In­ terestingly, the technique of moving Jews out of the cities to rural fortifications—a technique that had proven effective in the case of Speyer Jewry and inef­ fective in the case of Cologne Jewry in 1096—be­ came central to Jewish defense efforts during the Sec­ ond Crusade. Word of the onset of the Third Crusade badly shook north European Jewry. While delighted by the news of Christian loss of Jerusalem, the Jews were well aware that renewed crusading would again pose a threat to their safety and security. Once more, how­ ever, all elements in north European society were fully alert to the potential for anti-Jewish violence. The technique of seeking refuge outside the cities, in

well-fortified castles, was again utilized, with effec­ tive results. From the period of organization of the Third Crusade, we possess a remarkable eyewitness account of Jewish intercession with Emperor Freder­ ick Barbarossa, in hopes of winning a statement of protection by the emperor. Exposing themselves to terrible dangers by remaining in Mainz during the famed Court of Christ called by the emperor, a small band of Jews was successful in eliciting from their pa­ tron the desired letter of protection, buttressed by a strong ecclesiastical statement of support for the Jews as well. As was true for the Second Crusade, there was no repetition of the large-scale Jewish massacres of 1096. Curiously, the one area in which Jews were taken by surprise was England, where the powerful monarchs had earlier been most effective in protect­ ing endangered Jews. In the city of York, a tragic mis­ understanding between the Jews of that city and their sheriff led to the death of approximately one hun­ dred and fifty Jews. This incident was the only major loss of Jewish life associated with the Third Crusade. Thus, crusading regularly aroused anti-Jewish an­ imosities in majority Christian society. The evoca­ tion of anti-outsider hostility in a general way and the specific focus on the Holy Sepulcher and—by implication—the purported Jewish crime associated with that shrine combined to disseminate anti-Jewish sentiment among wide sectors of Christian soci­ ety. The key to Jewish well-being lay in the con­ straints imposed by the leadership of church and state. By and large, these twin leaderships played their assigned roles, with considerable prodding on the part of the endangered Jews themselves. During the First Crusade, both the authorities and the Jews were caught off-guard; during the succeeding major crusades, all three elements—ecclesiastical leader­ ship, secular authorities, and the Jews—were pre­ pared and vigilant; occasionally, during popular out­ bursts of crusading excitement, localized anti-Jewish violence resurfaced. Ultimately, the real impact of crusading lay not in the specific casualties produced by the associated vio­ lence. More significant was the general environment of anti-outsider sentiment, which the crusades both reflected and deepened. For the Jews of the affected areas, the Jewish losses—particularly those of 1096— reawakened the painful traditional question of God’s permitting such suffering as the lot of his people. In 207

Crusades

the wake of 1096, this question occasioned an innov­ ative focus on divine testing of a specially gifted gen­ eration of Jews. Just as their Christian contempo­ raries saw in the crusaders unique hero figures, so too did the Jewish survivors see in their slaughtered brethren unmatched strength and courage. Despite the physical losses, the crusading catastrophe of 1096—not really repeated during the subsequent great crusades—hardly gave rise to feelings of aban­ donment and despair; rather, the spirit of the epoch was expressed in Jewish pride in the heroism of Rhineland Jewry’s martyrs. ROBERT CHAZAN

208

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blumenkranz, Bernard. “The Jews of Germany and France in the period of the first and second Cru­ sades” (Heb.), in A. M. Rabello, ed., Mehaqrim be-yahadut (David Kotlar Jubilee Volume) (Tel Aviv, 1975). Chazan, Robert. European Jewry and the First Cru­ sade (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1987). Eidelberg, Shlomo. The Jews and the Crusaders (trans­ lation of the Hebrew documents) (Madison, 1977). Liebeschiitz, Hans. Synagogue und Ecclesia (Heidel­ berg, 1983).

D Dina De-Malkhuta Dina

The legal principle laid down by the talmudic sage Samuel (third cent.) that dina de-malkhuta dina—the law of the kingdom is law—played an important role in medieval Jewish civilization and law. In essence the rule is the halakhic answer to the problem of conflict between Jewish law and Gentile law. The legal maxim itself states that the non-Jewish law of the kingdom is binding on the Jews and may even supersede Jewish law. It is obvious that such a rule cannot be taken at face value since it is a self-destructing rule and would lead to the abrogation of Jewish law. Therefore the post-talmudic scholars had to define and delineate the scope of the maxim so as to give it validity since it was accepted as normative law from talmudic times on­ ward. The most significant development of this legal concept was made by the medieval Jewish scholars. These rabbis explained the rule not only by juridical analysis but they were also well aware of the physical and legal situation of the Jews and Jewish communities in the Middle Ages. They had to tread carefully, since dina de-malkhuta dina was not just another legal rule of Jewish law but was a rule that directly influenced the relationship of the Jews toward their non-Jewish rulers. It was only in medieval times that the legal basis for the rule was analyzed. The explanations given by the rabbis as to the ratio behind the maxim were, to a large extent, influenced by political theories preva­ lent in medieval society. For example, Samuel b. Meir (Rashbam) (ca. 1080-1085—ca. 1174) explained the maxim as based on the peoples consensus that they accept the king or his statutes: “For all the peo­

ple accept the king’s statutes and laws of their own free will.” MAIMONIDES (1135-1204); writing in a similar but different vein, explained that the Jews are to abide by the ruler’s laws, “for all the inhabitants of that country have accepted him [the ruler] and take it for granted that he is their master and they are ser­ vants to him.” Others are of the opinion that the land belongs to the king, the Jews are but tenants on his land, and if they want to remain where they are, they must follow his laws. Their right to remain in his country is conditional on complying with his conditions, adhering to his laws. A foreign rule had to undergo internal examina­ tion by the Jewish scholars of the law before it was recognized as valid by the Jewish legal system. The rabbis had internal veto power over the king’s rule and a number of conditions precedent were developed and expanded by the medieval rabbis. If the foreign rule did not live up to the standard set by the rabbis, it was rejected by them and hence was not a normative rule within the Jewish legal system. If accepted, it be­ came a valid rule of conduct similar to other rules that constituted the legal system of the Jews. One of the principles formulated by the Jewish medieval scholars was that the ruler’s laws should be applied equally to all the citizens under his domin­ ion. This rule was both logical and legally (and morally) correct but could not always be applied within the framework of Jewish life in medieval times. As a result of the condition of Jewish life and the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and be­ tween Jews and the kings who ruled over them, dis­ crimination became the rule. In order to validate cer­ 209

Dina De-Malkhuta Dina

tain laws, the halakha had to bend and reinterpret equality. Some scholars explained that discrimination between Jew and Gentile was to be accepted; only laws that discriminated between Jew and Jew would not be accorded recognition. The legal maxim was applied only to Jewish civil law and not to matters of Jewish religious law and rit­ ual. That this was so since the rules inception from talmudic times was so obvious that it almost is never stated in clear terms by the rabbis. We find this stated explicitly, and not very often, only in medieval times. Another constriction of the rule was the view held by some rabbis that dina de-malkhuta dina applied only to rules that were promulgated to further the kings’ interests and did not apply to rules of law of a purely private nature. Such an interpretation of the maxim obviously relegates the maxim to a relatively small niche of the Gentile legal system. It was generally accepted that a distinction must be made between the kings’ law and local laws and customs. Only the former were binding. As one ha­ lakhic scholar wrote: “the law of the king is binding but the laws of his people are not binding for us.” The medieval rabbis were very much aware of the different sources of the law and decided accordingly. A most salient feature of medieval decision mak­ ing concerning dina de-malkhuta dina was the oft repeated statement by some of the most influential halakhic scholars that only “old law” would be recog­ nized, not “new law.” This distinction paralleled the distinction found in medieval legal theory. The fol­ lowing statement of Fritz Kern about medieval law could have been written by a medieval rabbi dis­ cussing the scope of the dina de-malkhuta dina maxim. Medieval law must be old’ law and must be good’ law. . . . If law were not old and good law, it was not law at all, even though it were formally enacted by the State. . . . Age was then the most important quality of objective law. . . . Law is old; new law is a contradic­ tion for either new law is derived explicitly or implic­ itly from the old, or it conflicts with the old, in which case it is not lawful. . . . the old law is the true law, and true law is the old law. . . . According to medieval ideas, therefore, the enactment of new law is not possi­ ble at all.

210

The branch of law about which there is unanimity as to its validity is in the sphere of taxes. Even those scholars who are of the opinion that dina de-malkhuta dina applies only to what is in the king’s interests agree that taxation is the paradigm of the king’s interests. The Talmud already distinguished between justified and unjustified levies—the former valid according to Jewish law, and the latter invalid. The medieval schol­ ars refined and developed the talmudic rules. For ex­ ample, the halakhic rule is that an unlimited tax is illegal and not to be recognized. But it seems that the exigencies of the times forced some scholars to recog­ nize unlimited taxes. These taxes were approved by those scholars if they were levied for “great needs,” such as financing a war. Other examples prove that the medieval scholars bent the law concerning taxes in ac­ cordance with the precarious position of the Jewish communities. Such forced interpretations were almost invariably contrived so as to give a cover of legality to levies that most probably would have been declared il­ legal according to strict law. Already in Mishnaic times, sundry documents that were executed in non-Jewish courts were considered valid according to Jewish law. In the Gemara this Mishnaic rule was explained as based on the principle that the law of the land is law. Although, historically, this explanation may have been ex post facto—the maxim dina de-malkhuta dina does not appear in Mishnaic times and is a later development of the law—once the Talmud unequivocally stated that the validation of such documents is based on the dina demalkhuta dina maxim, all later authorities, including the medieval rabbis, accepted this explanation. During the Middle Ages, documents executed in Gentile courts or by legally recognized notaries pro­ liferated. The general trend of the halakhic scholars was to validate such documents within the frame­ work delineated in the Talmud. The general trend in this period was liberal, and the more conservative in­ terpretations of the Talmud on this question, which are found in geonic literature and in some of the early post-geonic authorities, were usually not followed. For example, the need to establish the honesty of the courts, mentioned by some of the earlier scholars, was chipped away by the later medievalists, and the presumption of the honesty of the courts executing the documents was assumed unless the contrary was

Dina De-Malkhuta Dina

proven. The development of the law during the Mid­ dle Ages regarding the rules about documents exe­ cuted in non-Jewish courts was undoubtedly influ­ enced by the actual standards and performance of the diverse courts and administrative bodies during the Middle Ages. In the context of documents executed in Gentile courts, there is a glaring difference between the Sefardic (Spanish) centers and the Ashkenazic (FrenchGerman) centers. The amount of legal material on this topic found in Sefardic sources is very signifi­ cantly more than that found in Ashkenazic sources. An excellent example is the responsa of Meir of Rothenburg (Maharam, 1215-1293). In the thou­ sands of extant responsa of this most prominent halakhic authority of thirteenth-century German Jewry, there is not even one dealing with legal documents ex­ ecuted in Gentile courts. From the sources it is clear that in Spain and North Africa it was common to turn to Gentile courts or notaries to execute bills drawn up by Jews; in the German and French communities this was very much less the case. The Sefardic attitude to­ ward the Gentile administrative authorities was much more accommodating than was the case in the Ashke­ nazic center. In contrast, questions concerning taxa­ tion and expropriation were much more prevalent in the Ashkenazic communities than in Sefardic commu­ nities. The Sefardic Jews had considerably more confi­ dence in the Gentile authorities and administration than did the Ashkenazic Jews. However, this may be because it was more customary in the Ashkenazic cen­ ters to execute documents within the Jewish commu­ nity; the non-Jewish authorities gave full legal recog­ nition to these documents and bills. Some further examples of turning to the dina demalkhuta dina principle in the context of medieval civilization are changes in the value of coinage, ap­ pointments to religious and judicial offices in the Jewish community by the government, punishments meted out by the authorities, and confiscation of property by the state. Concerning the changes in the value of coinage, it was decided that if the government decreed that a debt is to be paid in a certain manner, this was to be followed even if both creditor and debtor were Jewish and the decree of the authorities seems to bring about the illegal taking of interest. As to appoint­

ments to Jewish judicial office made by the govern­ ment, some medieval halakhic scholars were of the opinion that this was the perogative of the ruler and in accordance with the dina de-malkhuta dina rule. Although this view was more or less accepted, a rider was added by most rabbis who discussed this ques­ tion, that it is the duty of such an appointee to de­ cline the appointment if he did not have the approval of the Jewish community. In spite of its importance, the dina de-malkhuta dina maxim did not lead to major changes in the fab­ ric of the Jewish legal system. This was probably be­ cause Jews were given wide religious and judicial au­ tonomy during the Middle Ages. The rulers were not interested in forcing the Jews to comply with general legal rules, and only specific ones were binding on the Jews under their control. These had to do mainly with matters of special importance to the authorities. That is why so much legal material in the Jewish sources on the dina de-malkhuta dina maxim concern taxation, confiscation of property, and criminal law. From the standpoint of Jewish law, this led to the development of a legal constriction on the maxim— only those laws that the king specifically declares to be binding on Jews are worthy of being given the im­ primatur of Jewish law’s acceptance based on the “the law of the king is law” maxim. Other laws in the realm are not covered by the rule. Thus the external situation of the king’s limited desire to have the Jews apply the laws of his realm, and the internal develop­ ment of Jewish law that negated the laws of the realm not specifically applicable to the Jews, brought about the medieval rabbis’ constriction of the maxim. This in turn allowed the Jewish legal system to develop on its own, without having foreign law supersede Jewish law, except in a relatively few situations. This, thanks to the manner of integration of the rule by the me­ dieval scholars whose standing and authority within the Jewish legal system were decisive. Thus, the fear for the integrity of the Jewish legal system as a result of “the law of the king is law” rule was allayed. SHMUEL SHILO

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albeck, Shalom. “Dina De’Malkuta Dina in Spanish Communities,” Avraham Weiss Jubilee Volume (New York, 1964), pp. 109-25 (Hebrew).

211

Dina De-Malkhuta Dina

Ben-Dov, Shabbetai. “Dina De’Malkhuta Dina” Talpiot 7: 395-405; 8: 79-84, 526-30; 9: 230-37. Horn, Yisrael Moshe. Melpkarim (Tel-Aviv, 1955). Landman, Leo. Jewish Law in the Diaspora: Con­ frontation and Accommodation (Philadelphia, 1968). Shilo, Shmuel. Dina DeMalkhuta Dina (Jerusalem, 1975). ---------. “Maimonides on ‘Dina De’Malkhuta Dina (The Law of the State Is Law),” Jewish Law An­ nual 1: 146-67.

Disputations, Jewish-Christian

The history of Jewish-Christian contacts included confrontations and disputations almost from the very beginning of Christianity. This was inevitable for a religion, Christianity, that considered itself not only a “continuation” of Jewish tradition but indeed a replacement of it. Christianity thus is not so much a “branch” grafted onto the root (Romans 11.17 ff.; cf. Isaiah 11.1 for the messianic implication) as a new growth that entirely takes over the “rotten” branches of the original tree (as Paul, indeed, indicated there). Disputations took place already between Paul and Jews to whom he preached in his travels, and for that matter between Paul and the still Jewish disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem, before they acquiesced in his new religion. Early written Christian disputations, such as that of Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho), were often a literary fiction, serving merely as a vehicle for the au­ thor to express his anti-Jewish views and Christian doctrines. Church “Fathers” such as Origen and Jerome were personally acquainted with Jews, and both relied especially on rabbis for assistance in un­ derstanding the Bible. Jerome, too, referred to the root and branch idea in his commentary on Psalm 77: “We are an offshoot of their root, we the branch, they the root. We ought not to curse the root, but we ought to pray for our root.” However, he was cer­ tainly no friend of the Jews, and it is entirely proba­ ble that many of his discussions with Jews were de­ bates, if not public disputations. Perhaps also of a more literary than real nature are such disputations as that of Theophylus and Simon ludeus (the Jew) in the Byzantine Empire, or that between Gregentus, bishop ofTaphrens, and a Jew in Arabia, ca. 540, nei­ 212

ther of which has yet received any study. Of consider­ able interest are the scanty details about a disputation between Hai (Hayya) Gaon (d. 1038) and Abu’l Faraj ‘Abd-Allah Ibn al-Tayyib, secretary of the Katholicos, or Nestorian patriarch, of Baghdad. From other sources, we know that the gaon recommended con­ sulting this very patriarch on the meaning of a bibli­ cal text. Many Jewish writers confuse disputations with polemical writings, both Christian and Jewish. In­ deed, sometimes it is hard to distinguish them be­ cause some works pretending to record a disputation are actually literary inventions on both sides, as we shall see. For our purposes, “disputation” refers to ei­ ther an actual oral debate or a written work that is or purports to be the record of such a confrontation be­ tween Jews and Christians. England

In England around 1092 G i l b e r t C r i s p i n , abbot of Westminster, wrote his Disputatio Judaei cum Christiano, which is probably based on real discussions he had with a Jew. Although there is nothing original in it, it is important as being the earliest such work in Europe in the medieval period. At the end of the thirteenth century, Bartholomew, bishop of Exeter, wrote Dialogus contra Judeosy which apparently was a literary polemic rather than a real debate, and Peter of Blois at London wrote a polemical work to be used as a guide by the bishop of Worcester in arguments with Jews. Peter of Cornwall in 1208, on the other hand, seems to have recorded a real incident when he wrote the arguments he had used to effect the con­ version of Simon the Jew (see R. W. Hunt’s analysis in [ed. Hunt], Studies in M edieval History Presented to E M. Powicke, 1948, pp. 143-56). It is more difficult to judge whether the anonymous Dialogus inter Christianum et ludeum de fid e Catholica, which was incorrectly attributed to William of Champeaux, was a real debate. It is dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Lincoln (1123-1148), which gives us an approximate date of writing. All who had written about this work prior to Anna Sapir Abulafia’s careful analysis (see Bibliography) concluded that it was merely a poor version of, or at least based on, Crispin’s “Dialogue”; however, it appears that this interpretation is not en­ tirely correct. There is, in fact, some originality to the work, such as the argument of the “Jew” against the

Disputations, Jewish-Christian

abrogation of the “Old Testament,” if God is perfect and if his law is unchangeable. Nevertheless, we find basically the same argument in earlier Jewish polemic. Abulafia is surely correct in concluding that the Jew in this work is not a real person, and that the disputation is a literary invention (her article is more important than the work itself, carefully correcting errors made by authors such as Funkenstein, Lasker, and Rosenthal with regard to the first appearance of certain ideas in Christian-Jewish polemic, the expla­ nation of the virgin birth by comparing it to the rays of the sun, etc.). Christian a n d Jewish Cautions about D isputations

By the mid-thirteenth century, there was increasing concern about the frequency of “disputations,” actu­ ally not formal ones but rather the more common ca­ sual encounters between Christian laymen, or even priests, and Jews. ABELARD had already noted that clergy often fared poorly in such debates because the Jews had a much better knowledge of the Bible than did the priests. In 1233 Gregory IX issued a bull con­ cerning several Jewish matters, at the end of which he ordered archbishops and bishops of Germany (prob­ ably the same bull went to France and other coun­ tries) to “prohibit most stringently” that Jews should dispute with Christians, “lest under pretext of such disputation the simple-minded slide into a snare of error, which God forbid”; in other words, not only was it possible that Jews would win such debates, there was real fear that Christians might convert to Judaism as a result (Grayzel, No. 69, p. 201). Even earlier, ca. 1200, the papal legate Odo had stipulated that laymen should be forbidden under threat of ex­ communication from disputing with Jews concern­ ing the Christian faith; and in 1227 the local church council of Treves decreed that “ignorant clergy” should not dispute with Jews in the presence of laypeople, and the Spanish council of Tarracona pro­ hibited any layperson from disputing with Jews (Grayzel, pp. 301, 319, 325; it was the papal legate John of Abbeville, not “Juan de Alegrin,” who sum­ moned the Council of Treves). The Councils of Vi­ enne (not Vienna) (1267) and Freising (1440) re­ peated the earlier prohibition. Thomas AQUINAS also discouraged unlearned Christians from participating

in, or even listening to, such disputations (Summa theologica II.ii. 10, 7). From the Jewish side we also detect some caution. Judah b. Samuel he-Hasiyd (thirteenth century, Ger­ many) wrote that a person not a scholar who is con­ fronted by a priest, monk, “learned heretic,” sorcerer, or even a talmudic scholar who is not “fearful of sin” but pursues only his own honor, in order to debate with him about the Torah, should not (read ‘a l in­ stead of im) debate, lest he be misled by them; not only might the opponent cause the Jew to sin, but the Jew might lead the opponent to further sin by causing him to exaggerate his arguments. Further­ more, even if it were a scholar engaging in disputa­ tion with a heretic or non-Jew, he should not allow unlearned people to listen to the disputation lest they be misled (by the opponents words), since they do not understand the truth (Sefer h^siydiym, ed. Wistinezki [Berlin, 1893], p. 204, No. 811). Surpris­ ingly, the well-known adage “Know what to reply to a heretic” (Avot 2. 14 in standard texts, different chapters in medieval texts, repeated also in Sanhedrin 38b) did not evoke any commentary that related this in any way to Christians or to disputations; of course Sanhedrin in general was greatly neglected by our most important medieval commentators, who either wrote nothing at all or who wrote commentaries of which only portions have survived. France a n d Narbonne

There must have been more or less public disputa­ tions between “learned” clergy, or theologians, and Jews about which we have no record, particularly in France. The story of Louis IX, the “saintly” king and fierce Jew hater, according to which he said that the way to win a dispute with a Jew is with a sword, is well known. The greatest threat to Jews was to come from within their own ranks, however; Jews who converted to Christianity were to prove a great dan­ ger from at least the thirteenth century and through­ out history ever after. Even though most of these apostates had a superficial knowledge of Jewish sources, some had sufficient talmudic learning to cause problems for the Jews. By taking statements out of context, or misinterpreting them even when quoted accurately, they endeavored to show either that these statements supported Christian doctrine or, even more dangerous, that they were heretical or 213

Disputations, Jewish-Christian

insulting to Christians. The first such disputation, which involved a converted Jew, Nicholas Donin, was at Paris in 1240 and concerned the Talmud (see Ta l mu d , C on de mn at io n o f for details; as noted there, this was actually a trial and not a disputation). Nicholas debated with Rabbi Yehiel of Paris, an im­ portant scholar, and the result was the confiscation and burning of cartloads of manuscripts of the Tal­ mud and commentaries.

In Narbonne at approximately the same time, a treatise was written that has been attributed on the basis of a much later source to Meir b. Simon, a wellknown rabbinical scholar. This work is presented as a record of disputations, which again may be literary creation rather than a record of real events. The work, “MWpemet mi$vah,” remains unpublished, aside from a few sections, in spite of its great signifi­ cance (sections are translated in Stein’s article [1959] and book [1969]; Chazan [1992] covers much of the same ground, but adds some important details and additional translations). It was discovered more than a hundred years ago and has received considerable scholarly attention, but no one has thought to edit the manuscript. Portions of the work may antedate the Paris trial, since there is no mention or even allu­ sion to it in the work (Stein’s suggestion [1959, 49] that he may have avoided mentioning it deliberately “in order to prevent such calamities or their repeti­ tion in his own town” is peculiar; how could a work written in Hebrew, and in manuscript, have brought about the burning of the Talmud? In any case, both the trial at Paris and the burning of the Talmud would have been well known among Jews and Chris­ tians in Narbonne shortly after the events). Stein himself suggested that the work was written and re­ vised over a period of time, perhaps from as early as the 1230s to 1245 or after. (The lengthy treatise is more a polemical work than a disputation; parts of it are dealt with in “POLEMICS, ANTI-CHRISTIAN.”) There are references to the anti-Jewish decrees of Louis IX, but much of the work focuses on the issue of moneylending to Christians, a point of great con­ tention at the time (see MONEYLENDING). Interest­ ingly, the debate takes place between a Dominican (called, derisively, ha-qadesh: male prostitute) and a Jew, the alter ego of the author himself (ha-qodesh: the holy). DOMINICANS were very much responsible for the investigation and seizure of Jewish books in 214

Catalonia, and probably also in Provence. In any event, the Dominican activity in Barcelona would certainly have been known to the author. Unique in the arguments about moneylending is the claim (otherwise unsupported in Jewish sources) that the biblical prohibition of lending on interest applies only to loans to the poor (cf. Ex. 23.24; Lev. 25.35). Equally unique is the claim that Christians are not “Edomites” or descendants of Esau, and therefore not “brothers” according to the Bible (the author claimed that only Edomites were designated as “brothers” to the Israelites, based peculiarly on a reference to Esau in Malachi 1.2). Jewish sources from the Talmud through medieval literature were unanimous in the view that Esau and Edom repre­ sent the Gentiles, either Greeks or Romans, and other Christians; thus, this peculiar interpretation raises serious questions as to the attribution of the work. Somewhat sounder is the appeal to “the sage of our people,” by whom he apparently means Joseph Official (ha-Meqanne), for the interpretation that Esau has been condemned because of violence to “Jacob” (the Jews), and thus the bond of brotherhood has been broken (see Stein 1959, 56 for translation of the text and notes). One of the accusations that the Christian (in this section it is, according to Chazan, Archbishop Guy Fulcodi, who became Pope Clement IV) raised was that theft from Gentiles is permitted and that lost property need not be returned to them, according to the Talmud. Chazan observed (p. 65) that the Jewish spokesman was “prepared” with a reply to this, namely, that these laws applied only to the original “seven nations” of Canaan against whom the Is­ raelites were ordered to make war. In fact, this reply, if “prepared,” was prepared very poorly, for it ignores completely the talmudic ruling to the contrary, that theft of any kind (even in words or thought) from Gentiles is forbidden, and that lost property must be returned to them “because of the ways of peace” (in fact, these very laws had been cited by Rabbi Yehiel in the Paris trial of the Talmud). This is, indeed, pe­ culiar, for if the attribution of the work to Meir (which rests on shaky ground) is correct, he was an eminent talmudic scholar who wrote commentaries on several tractates, and is the reputed author of a commentary on MAIMONIDES’ code of law (which, of course, also contains the laws referred to here).

Disputations, Jewish-Christian

There were no doubt many unrecorded disputa­ tions, not to mention private debates between Chris­ tians and Jews: for example, the claims made by mem­ bers of the Official family, Natan and his son Joseph and his brothers, of such debates with clergy, allegedly even the pope and the archbishop of Sens (see P o l e m i c s , a n t i - C h r i s t i a n for fuller discussion). Spain

The most famous medieval disputation, repeatedly written about but as yet incorrectly understood, was that of Barcelona in 1263 (the literature is vast, in vari­ ous languages, and includes sources that have not been investigated or have been inadequately investigated; see the most recent study, Chazan 1992, which provides also some of the bibliography). The disputation itself was the result of the preaching campaign of a Jewish apostate, Paul Christiani (see also DOMINICANS AND Franciscans; Talmud, condemnation bF), appar­ ently from Montpellier, who converted sometime after 1236, became a Dominican, and preached missionary sermons to the Jews in Provence, France, and Catalo­ nia. He died in 1274. It was also at Barcelona in 1263, at the instigation of Paul and other Dominicans, no­ tably the notoriously anti-Jewish Ramon de Penafort, that JAIME I was persuaded to order an investigation into the Talmud and other Jewish books alleged to contain “blasphemies.” When the commission met, however, Paul was not included, and thus may already have left Barcelona following the disputation. Amaz­ ingly, according to an unimpeachable source (Isaac de Lattes, writing in 1372), we learn that before his con­ version Paul had been a student of Immanuel de Lattes, whose son Eliezer was a student of NAH­ MANIDES, the scholar with whom Paul held his disputa­ tion. Judah Rosenthal (1974, 2: 61-74) edited the text of a manuscript that he called a “disputation” between one Menahem and Paul Christiani; however, this text, which is not at all a disputation, is of German or possi­ bly German-Italian origin, and not earlier than the end of the fourteenth century (see also Rembaum 1980). While it thus has nothing to do with Paul Christiani, it is important for its relationship to the Wagenseil al­ leged Hebrew record of the Barcelona disputation. The disputation was carefully recorded in two dif­ ferent contemporary Latin versions; the Hebrew texts purportedly were by Nahmanides himself, and may be seen either as a verbatim report of the debate

or as a later polemical rewriting of what was said and what should have been said. Unfortunately, scholars have long tended to dismiss Wagenseil’s seventeenthcentury edition based on manuscripts as “corrupt” (which it is not) and have relied almost entirely on the other Hebrew version, available most recently in a so-called critical edition by Chavel (actually noth­ ing more than a reprint of Steinschneider s earlier edition). The disputation itself centered mainly on the question of the messiah, rabbinical statements concerning him, whether he has come, and so on. According to the Latin texts, Nahmanides (the leader of the Jewish community of all Catalonia, although he was never a rabbi) lost the debate, whereas accord­ ing to the Hebrew text, improbably, he won. It is known that he wrote, or was accused of writing, a polemical work that contained alleged “blasphemy,” for which he was banished from the kingdom imme­ diately after the disputation. He went to the Land of Israel, where he lived until his death. These disputations could have resulted in a disas­ trous change in the favored status of Jews in the king­ dom of Aragon-Catalonia were it not for the fact that the Jews successfully refuted the charges about “blas­ phemies” in the Talmud and other books, and per­ suaded the king that these books were necessary for the proper conduct of their lives and community af­ fairs. Angered at having been deceived by the com­ mission of Dominicans who raised these fraudulent charges, in 1242, the year after the last disputation, the king rescinded his decree against the Talmud and promised the Jews that they would never again have to defend themselves against such charges. Of an altogether different nature is the text of what purports to be a disputation between some Jews of Majorca and a Genoese merchant in 1286. Al­ though published twice (1524 and 1627), this work was virtually ignored until Ora Limor rediscovered it and made a critical edition of the text, as well as an important introductory volume as part of her doc­ toral dissertation (see Bibliography; also Valle 1998). The question as to the “reality” of this disputation is a serious one, since the two names of Jewish partici­ pants are nowhere attested in the extensive sources we have (in addition to those consulted by Limor). One of these, with the improbable name of Astruch Isaiah, was converted to Christianity by the preach­ ing of Inghetto, the merchant. On the other hand, 215

Disputations, Jewish-Christian

there is a sufficient sense of reality about the issues discussed that it may have been based in part on real discussions. Limor has also made it clear that the author bor­ rowed in part from the text of an earlier disputation alleged to have taken place at Ceuta (North Africa) in 1179, the text of which she also published. That text purports to be a disputation between a Jew of Ceuta and another Genoese merchant, who actually existed. Like the “Majorca disputation,” it is naive and stereotypical in its arguments that the messiah has al­ ready come, and like the later disputation it ends with the conversion of the Jew. It hardly need be said that it is entirely a literary fiction. What is interesting about the Majorca text is that it is only the second example (the first being the al­ leged disputation of Ceuta) of a disputation by a noncleric (although a later source claimed that the author became a Carthusian friar). The arguments are based entirely on a few biblical passages with no reference to talmudic or rabbinic literature. The usual Christian argument is used: Jews do not under­ stand their own Bible, “blinded” as they are by their stubborn nature. The question of whether the mes­ siah has come, or is yet to come, is debated, but lack­ ing any originality or subtlety. Such things as per­ mitted and forbidden foods and circumcision are discussed, with the ingenious claim on the part of the Christian that baptism is preferable to circumcision because it includes women as well as men. The Jews, however, made some telling points, particularly in the attack on Dominicans and Franciscans as im­ moral, evil, and violent, and their protest against the compulsory nature of their sermons. Christianity is also clearly denounced as “idolatry,” with reference to the worship of the cross and statues in the churches (while not unknown in Jewish thought, such an interpretation ran counter to almost all rab­ binical teaching, according to which Christianity was not considered idolatry). There are also references to the Barcelona disputation of 1263, but these are put in the mouths of the Jewish disputants; these refer­ ences, needless to say, are suspicious and devoid of historical importance as far as that disputation is concerned. Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut, born in Tudela in the late fourteenth century, a physician in Tarazona, was the author of an important polemical work, Even bohan.

He also wrote other works (some published), and made a Hebrew translation of the gospel of Matthew (published). He engaged in a disputation with Cardi­ nal Pedro de Luna (who became Pope Benedict XIII) at Pamplona in 1379, a version of which he wrote and included in one of the numerous revisions he did of his polemic (it is extant also in a Paris manuscript as a separate treatise). The most important disputation in Spain, how­ ever, and indeed the major Christian-Jewish disputa­ tion of the medieval period, was that convened at Tortosa by order of Benedict XIII in 1413. The pope sent letters to Jewish communities throughout Aragon-Catalonia ordering them to send representa­ tives, noting that he had called the assembly “for the salvation of your souls” and so that “the shadows of Jewish superstition be dissipated.” Jeronimo de Santa Fe, a converted Jew who had been a learned talmudic scholar, a rabid anti-Jewish polemicist who was physician to the pope, was the Christian spokesman in the disputation. Among the numerous Jewish rep­ resentatives was Jonah des Maestre, a grandson of Nahmanides and father-in-law of Simon b. Semali Duran. Other prominent Jewish scholars included Joseph Albo, Matityahu Yishariy, and Zerahyah haLevy. There exist both Hebrew and Latin texts of the extended debates, which lasted more than a year, with a short break. There is little that is new in any of the topics disputed; as usual, the focus was on the messiah and whether he has come or is yet to come. The Jewish rabbis were virtually compelled to admit that the messiah had already “come,” based on aggadic statements that he was in fact born and waiting to appear. Later, they tried in vain to backtrack on this and argue that aggadic statements have no bind­ ing force. Various other issues were also debated (there is a detailed and fairly accurate summary of the debates in Baer 1966, 1: 170-232). One of the Jewish representatives, and an important participant, Astruch ha-Levy, mentioned earlier disputations be­ tween him and Jeronimo in their common birthplace Alcaniz in 1412. In fact, the responses of the rabbis at the disputa­ tion were far from effective, with one or two excep­ tions. This, and the protracted duration of the de­ bates, which exhausted the delegates and threatened to impoverish them, motivated many of them to con­ vert in March of 1413, a month after the disputation

Disputations, Jewish-Christian

had begun. Among the official delegates who con­ verted then or later were members of the prominent Alluf family, including Alfonso de Santangel of Calatayud (as he became known upon his conversion), who became a powerful government official. The Jews of his city refused to pay his expenses for attending the disputation because of his conversion. Neverthe­ less, so many Jews in Calatayud converted that in 1415 permission was obtained from the pope to con­ vert a synagogue there into a church. Some Jews of Zaragoza and Daroca converted, as well as in Gerona and other cities. By the end of 1414, when the dispu­ tation was moved from Tortosa to San Mateo, hun­ dreds of Jews had converted, as recorded also in contemporary chronicles. The lack of leadership by the rabbis, and in fact the conversion of most of them, further demoralized the Jewish communities and contributed to the massive conversions that followed. Years later two feeble “responses” to the Tortosa disputation were written, Joseph Albo’s Sefer ha-‘iyqqariym (Book of principles), in which he tried anew to enumerate basic principles of “faith,” but failed to say anything new or to provide solace to the demoralized Jews of his time, and Shem Tov Ibn Shem Tovs Sefer ha-emunot, which saw QABBALAH as the only hope for the salvation of the people and blamed philosophy for distortion of “faith.” The fact remains, however, that although numerous rabbis converted to Christianity, not one philosopher did so. Prague

In Prague in the early fifteenth century the rabbi of the city, Yom Tov Lipmann Miilhausen, engaged in frequent debates with local clerics and in 1399 an­ other Jewish apostate who had accused the Jews of blasphemy against Christianity in their prayers (an old charge that had repeatedly been dealt with over the centuries). The rabbi and other Jews were ar­ rested and questioned about this, and in a public dis­ putation with Peter, the apostate, the rabbi skillfully defended the Jews against the charges. In spite of this, three of the arrested Jews were burned at the stake. The rabbi wrote a book, Sefer nizahon (Book of victory), presenting his arguments and also a general polemic against Christianity, which enjoyed great popularity in later centuries. He was expert in Latin as well as Hebrew, and thus was able to cite Christian arguments from their own sources.

The disputations of Tortosa, and the less impor­ tant but no less dangerous ones engaged in by the rabbi of Prague, brought to an end such confronta­ tions in the medieval period, but were to be renewed in subsequent centuries. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abulafia, Anna Sapir. Disputational Literature and the Rise o f Anti-Judaism in the West (Brookfield, Vt., 1998). ---------. “Jewish-Christian disputations and the twelfth century renaissance,” Journal o f M edieval History 15 (1989): 105-24. Baer, Fritz. A History o f the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1966), Vol. 2. Burns, Robert L. “The Barcelona “disputation” of 1263: Conversion and Talmud in Jewish Christ­ ian relations,” Catholic Historical Review 79 (1993): 488-95. Chazan, Robert. “Anti-Usury Efforts in Thirteenth Century Narbonne and the Jewish Response,” American Academy for Jewish Research, Proceed­ ings 41-42 (1973-1974): 45-67. ---------. Barcelona and Beyond: The Disputation o f 1263 and Its Aftermath (Berkeley, 1992). Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the Xlllth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). Limor, Ora. Vikuah Maiorqah 1286 (Jerusalem, 1985), Vol. 1: introduction (text in Hebrew, with English summary). ---------, ed. Die disputationen zu Ceuta (1179) und Mallorca (1286) (Munich, 1994; Monumenta Germaniae historica, Bd. 15); cf. also Inghetto Contardo. Disputatio contra Iudeos. Controverse avec les juifs, ed. and tr. Gilbert Dahan (Paris, 1993). Moses b. Nahum. Kitey ha-Rambah, ed. Charles Chavel (Jerusalem, 1971), Vol. 1. 302-20. Stein, S [iegfried]. “A Disputation on Moneylending between Jews and Gentiles in Me’ir b. Simeons Milemeth Miwah (Narbonne, 13th Cent.),” Jour­ nal o f Jewish Studies 10 (1959): 45-61. Stein, Siegfrid. Jewish-Christian Disputations in Thirteenth-Century Narbonne (London, 1969). Valle, Carlos del. “La disputa de Mallorca (a. 1286),” in La controversia judeocristiana en Espana (Ma217

Disputations, Jewish-Christian

drid, 1998), pp. 293-300 (brief summary and analysis). Wagenseil, Johannes. Tela ignea Satanae (Altdorf, 1681; photo rpt. Westmead, England, 1970) Vol. II, 23-60.

Dominicans and Franciscans (see also BLOOD LIBEL; POLEMICS ANTI-CHRISTIAN)

Dominicans (Dominican Order)

From the beginning of its existence, the Church was always concerned with heresy, and waged relent­ less campaigns to alter or eradicate beliefs or prac­ tices that were contrary to its established doctrines. However, it was particularly in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries that widespread heretical movements throughout Europe—the Waldensians, Cathars, ALBIGENSIANS—aroused the greatest con­ cern in the medieval period. In PROVENCE especially, the success of the Albigensians in attracting large numbers of people, including not a few nobles and clergy, caused great concern among the orthodox. Three papal delegates met in Montpellier in 1206 to decide on a plan, but the failure to “convert” any sig­ nificant number of the Albigensians caused despair until the Spanish bishop (Osma) Diego de Azevedo arrived, on his return from Rome. He urged the dele­ gates to renounce their wealth and assume a state of poverty and preach thus to the people, follow­ ing the example of his own subprior Domingo de Guzman (1170-1221). Thus, the Dominican Order of preaching friars was founded (officially, in Toulouse in 1215). However noble and well intentioned the original plans for a mendicant order of preaching fri­ ars may have been, the Church (particularly some local bishops and eventually the pope) had other plans. Following the idea of a holy crusade against the “infidel” Muslims who held the Holy Land, it was decided that a crusade should be launched against the Christian heretics, particularly the Albi­ gensians. When even this failed to eradicate the movement, the INQUISITION, or investigation and condemnation of heretics, was instituted. The first papal bull granting the Dominicans the right to es­ tablish a general Inquisition and punish all Christian heretics and Jews who “induce” Christians to convert

218

was that of Clement IV in 1267 (translated in Roth 1995, 206; there a typographic error, “Against Chris­ tians,” should of course be “Against Jews”). The Dominican Order was established more firmly in the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia, proba­ bly because of its proximity to France and the influ­ ence of French practices, than in Castile, where it was not until the fifteenth century that its program was fully carried out. For that reason, also, the Inquisi­ tion was established first in the former kingdom. The Dominicans, with their black-and-white habits, soon came to be known as “Gods watchdogs” and con­ trollers of the Inquisition. From its inception, how­ ever, the Inquisition in Spain was marked by con­ stant conflicts between the Dominicans and the king (JAIME I) and local bishops, who by law (both that of the king and of the church Council of Tarragona in 1233) were responsible for the trials of suspected heretics. This struggle for control of the Inquisition and the investigation of heresy was to continue through the fifteenth century. Thus although it is somewhat of an exaggeration that the Dominicans were “warmly welcomed” in Catalonia, it is neverthe­ less correct that by 1248 there were five Dominican bishops in the province of Tarragona (Linehan 1971, 78), which somewhat offset the intent that bishops, not Dominican friars, should control the Inquisition. In 1252 the Dominican bishops were replaced by Franciscans in Tarragona. At no time, of course, was the Inquisition con­ cerned with Jews, unless Jews were accused of aiding Christians to convert (there was no similar concern about aiding Muslims), or with Jews who had be­ come Christians and were suspected of relapse (that did not become a major concern until the fifteenth century). Jews, however, were the concern of the Do­ minicans for other reasons. Already defined essen­ tially as “heretics” in canon law, Jews were suspected of preserving “blasphemous” statements about Christ and the Virgin Mary in their books, particularly the Talmud, of cursing Christians in their prayers, and of dangerous influence in their daily contacts with Christians. Not only in Spain proper but also in Provence there was concern with “heresy” in Jewish writings. During the prolonged “Maimonidean con­ troversy,” certain Provencal rabbis attacked both the Moreh nevukhiym (Guide of the perplexed) and some

Dominicans and Franciscans

supposedly heretical statements in the Mishneh Torah. Sometime around 1232 in Montpellier these works were denounced by Jewish informants to certain church officials, with the result that the “Guide,” at least, was publicly burned. Details are very scanty, based mainly on hearsay and later re­ ports, and there is no evidence whatever that the In­ quisition was involved. A letter from David Qimhi alleged that one of these rabbis, Solomon b. Abra­ ham of Montpellier, spoke to the Franciscan and Do­ minican friars, claiming that the “majority” of the Jews were heretics who were misled by these books, and asking them to order the burning of the books. The most important statement, because it is the most contemporary, has been entirely ignored, a letter by Abraham Ibn Hasdai of Barcelona to the Jewish com­ munities of Aragon and Castile in which he states that the priests entreated the Dominicans “to do judgement against the remaining books” and to burn them (there are other somewhat obscure statements in the letter that need to be clarified, but from his statement about “remaining” books it is apparent that an earlier effort had been made to destroy them, and only then were the Dominicans called in to attempt total eradication of the allegedly heretical writings). Nevertheless, this condemnation of the “Guide” did not prevent a Dominican, Moneta of Gerona, from citing it in his anti-Albigensian tract in 1240 (my own statement about the burning of the “Guide” in Maimonides. Essays and Texts, pp. 33-34, must now be corrected; see there p. 41 n. 17 on Moneta). The popularity of the “Guide” and, espe­ cially, the Mishneh Torah among Christians neverthe­ less continued in medieval Spain, and there were translations of both works. The most notorious instance of Dominican inter­ ference with Jewish life was in Cervera in 1420, when a preacher complained bitterly about general im­ morality and blasphemy among Christians, but par­ ticularly about their tolerant attitude toward Jews, “enemies of our Lord God Jesus Christ,” who, con­ trary to papal decrees, did not wear the BADGE on their clothing (nor did they, in fact, anywhere else in Spain). Further, they lived freely among Christians and talked with them. The city council agreed to “re­ quest” of the Jews that they wear a badge, unless they had a contrary privilege from the king (which they

did), and that they live apart from Christians. The queen revoked all of these orders and allowed the Jews to continue to live “as they had been.” Dominican Missionary Campaign in Spain

In 1219 a monastery of Dominicans was established in Barcelona by Bishop Berenguer de Palou, who brought some friars from Bologna and set them up in a private house next to the Jewish call (district; not a “ghetto”). It can be imagined that this caused some consternation to the Jews of the city. Until 1301 the entire Spanish peninsula was considered one Do­ minican province; in that year the General Chapter declared Aragon and Navarre a separate province. The Dominicans came with Jaime I in the conquest of the Muslim kingdom of VALENCIA, and from 1239 on a major concern of the Dominicans was also the conversion of Muslims (also in Aragon and Majorca). Ramon de Penafort (born ca. 1185 in Penafort, Catalonia) studied at Bologna and remained there to teach canon law before returning to BARCELONA, where he became a member of the Dominican Order in 1222. He was appointed confessor to Pope Gre­ gory IX in 1230 and given the job of editing the Dec­ retals (see CANON l a w ). He again returned to Barcelona and helped establish a house for the order there, finally becoming Master General of the Order in 1238. He played an important role in the policies of Jaime I, particularly in the reconquest of Majorca, Valencia, and Murcia. One of his chief concerns was combating “heresy,” and he was responsible for orga­ nizing disputations in synagogues and the censorship of Hebrew books. He also played a major role in es­ tablishing the Inquisition in Aragon-Catalonia, and had a considerable influence on Thomas AQUINAS (although it should be noted, contra Cohen, that Aquinas’s Summa contra gentiles contains practically no anti-Jewish polemic). The teachings of Thomas Aquinas became the official doctrine of the order shortly after his death, and Vicente Ferrer was one of the major exponents of Thomas’s doctrine. Ramon resigned his position as Master of the order in 1240 in order to establish schools for the study of Arabic, and possibly also Hebrew, for missionary purposes. As noted elsewhere (see SPANISH LAW), Ramon also was the principal author of the Siete Partidas of Alfonso X, which is full of anti-Jewish measures and rhetoric.

219

Dominicans and Franciscans

In 1263 Jaime I ordered that Dominicans and Franciscans be instructed in Hebrew and Arabic, and such teaching was initiated also in various universi­ ties. A school was also established at Murcia, but after 1275 it was dissolved, with the Hebrew section moving to Barcelona and the Arabic to Valencia (see Burns 1984, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, 96, and p. 93 on the school in Majorca; and see especially Gallego Salvadores, pp. 517-28). Unremarked by these scholars, however, is the fact that the first recorded instance of a “master of Hebrew” for the Dominicans at Jativa (Valencia) in 1297 was a Jew, one Yom Tov of Jativa, who at the request of the prior was ex­ empted from all taxes while serving in this capacity. Also unnoticed is the fact that Ramon Marti, an im­ portant Dominican and anti-Jewish polemicist, was named master of Hebrew studies at a meeting of the chapter at Estella (Navarre) in 1281. The “missionary zeal” of the thirteenth-century Dominicans has been repeatedly the subject of stud­ ies; however, the most recent ones are marred by var­ ious problems. That of Cohen (1982) is good in part but has serious errors and shortcomings and stops around 1350, while that of Chazan, good on the Jew­ ish response, is very sketchy and devoid of details on the friars. This missionary activity was directed as much, or more, at Muslims as at Jews, however. Not only the Muslims of Spain, but even more those of North Africa were subjected to military as well as preaching campaigns. In 1259, the pope himself had to intervene on behalf of Tunis, an ally of Aragon, against the fleet sent by the archbishop of Tarragona (Catalonia). It should be noted, incidentally, that when in 1216 a council of regency was established for the then minor king Jaime I, Pope Innocent III instructed them among other things to maintain the peace that had been concluded with the Muslims by “Isaac the Jew” on behalf of Pedro II, Jaime’s father. Also in terms of anti-Jewish polemics, Dominicans wrote very few (however important) and Franciscans virtually none. It is chiefly from other records and in­ ferences that we can flesh out the details of their ac­ tivity concerning Jews. In southern Italy, too, the Dominicans carried on their missionary campaign, beginning in 1290. In 1293 two Spanish friars arrived and preached ser­ mons against the Jews there. The Dominicans were

220

quite successful, and by 1294 they had converted most of the Jews of the kingdom (Starr 1946, 206). Compulsory Sermons

The Dominicans and Franciscans at once set about on their campaign to convert Jews, and around 1240 a law was decreed requiring the Jews of AragonCatalonia to attend compulsory sermons. These were preached by Dominican friars outside the Jewish quarter or even in the synagogues. In 1248 Jaime ex­ empted the Jews of Lerida from any obligation to lis­ ten to sermons at all. Nevertheless, the law that Jews and Muslims must “listen patiently” to sermons preached to them by archbishops and Dominican or Franciscan friars remained on the books (Fueros de Aragon, No. 271; the text in its entirety is repeated in a letter of Innocent III [1245] to the archbishop of Tarragona; see Grayzel 1933, 257). In August of 1263, the king notified all of the Jews that the Do­ minican preacher Paul Christiani (“Pablo Cristiano”) was to preach in their synagogues or in other places and that they were commanded to listen to him and also “dispute” with him concerning the Bible. Charges about “blasphemies” in Hebrew books, par­ ticularly the Talmud, led to the establishment by the king of a commission to investigate them. The com­ mission consisted of the bishop of Barcelona (Arnau de Gurb), Ramon de Penafort, Arnau de Segarra, Ramon Marti (on whom see below), and Pere de Genoa. All except the bishop were Dominicans. The Jews were, however, given the opportunity to defend their books, and thus were able to prove the false na­ ture of the charges (see also CENSORSHIP). The king, angered by the false accusations, rescinded among other things any requirement that Jews be compelled to go outside the call to attend such sermons, and that even if preached in their own synagogues they were free not to attend if they chose. Later the same year, Jaime issued a general exemption to all the Jews of the kingdom from being compelled to hear ser­ mons, either in the call or outside of it (Grayzel 1933, 16 n. 21 gave an extremely confused and erro­ neous account of all this). Finally, in 1268, Jaime de­ creed that the Jews of Barcelona were not required to hear sermons preached by any friar outside the Jew­ ish quarter, and if such preachers came to the syna­ gogues they were not to be accompanied by a crowd

Dominicans and Franciscans

of Christians, but by no more than ten responsible citizens. This was not yet the end of the matter, however. After the notorious anti-Jewish polemic Pugio fid ei was written by the Dominican Ramon Marti, Pope Nicholas III issued a bull (1278) ordering that Jews everywhere be forced to attend missionary sermons of Dominican and Franciscan friars. Jaime II (as king of Valencia) issued a decree the following year to the cities of Valencia and Jativa condemning the actions of mobs who followed the preachers and thus alarmed the Jews (contrary to the decree only ten years earlier by his father). The very next year Pedro III, noting that when Dominicans in Huesca or Zaragoza preached to Jews they were accompanied by large groups of Christians whose presence might cause danger to the Jews, ordered that neither priests nor laymen should be allowed at such sermons. The king sent similar letters throughout the realm, and to the Jews he wrote that he had prohibited Christian laymen from going to the synagogues at all and or­ dered the friars not to preach “contumely” and things that could cause scandal (Saldes 1908, 597-99). The very real danger of these sermons may be seen in a letter by the king ordering an investigation in Huesca concerning an incident where a Torah scroll was “baptized” and the Jews had been insulted with “deri­ sive songs” and their religion treated with contempt, concluding with the mock choosing of a “Jewish king” (this incident is remarkably similar to one that took place centuries earlier in Hellenistic Alexan­ dria). In spite of all this, the royal orders were of no avail, and only a few months later the king was in­ formed that numbers of Christians were attending sermons in the synagogues and insulting and injur­ ing Jews. Therefore, he ordered penalties imposed on Christians who attended such sermons. The long list of cities to which this order was sent shows the extent of such compulsory sermons. The problems per­ sisted, however, and in 1278 there were complaints by the Jews of Majorca and the following years by the Jews of Zaragoza, to which the king responded but nonetheless permitted both conversos and Domini­ cans and Franciscans to dispute with Jews in their synagogues concerning the Catholic faith. The aforementioned Jewish convert, Paul Chris­ tiani, apparently from France, preached to Jews also

in Provence and elsewhere. He participated in the two D i s p u t a t i o n s of Barcelona, the second one in 1263 with NAHMANIDES. In 1269, Louis IX ordered that Jews be compelled to listen to the sermons of the Dominican convert. Obviously, his campaign in Cat­ alonia had been without success, and he returned to France. Nevertheless, the accusations raised by him of “blasphemies” in Jewish books led to the commis­ sion appointed by Jaime I to investigate Hebrew books. However, the Jews were able to convince the king that these charges were false. As noted above, this marked a significant change in the king’s attitude toward the friars. In 1297 the Jews of Zaragoza com­ plained to Jaime II about conversos preaching to them and arousing the populace against them, and the king ordered local officials to prevent this but at the same time he permitted such converts and also Do­ minicans to dispute with Jews in their synagogues (see Roth 1995,16). Dominican Polemicists

Ramon Marti (hardly “Raymond Martin,” much less “Martini”) was also active in missionizing among the Muslims, and following the disputations at Barcelona he became active also in the commission that investi­ gated Hebrew books. Little is known of his life; ac­ cording to the earliest bibliographical reference to him (1599), he was born in Subirats in Catalonia, possibly ca. 1230. The claim of his “Jewish ancestry” is, of course, ridiculous. During the years 1245—1248 he assisted Albertus Magnus in Paris. Gregory IX s bull of 1239 concerning the forced attendance of Jews at sermons, the investigation of their books, and the burning of the Talmud at Paris in 1240 and again in 1244 undoubtedly affected his attitude toward Jews. Under the direction of Ramon de Penafort, he and other Dominicans founded a school for the study of languages at Tunis. While he may not have headed the school for Arabic and Hebrew study at Barcelona, it is known that he at least taught Hebrew there, and among his many students was Arnau de Villanova, also an anti-Jewish polemicist (not, however, a Do­ minican; he was a physician and philosopher). It was not, of course, Ramon Marti who asked Thomas Aquinas to write his Summa contra gentiles (so Cohen), but rather Ramon de Penafort. In fact, Marti heavily plagiarized the Summa in his Pugio fidei. He

221

Dominicans and Franciscans

began his writing career not with that work, however, but with Explanation symboli apostolorum (1257), a very important work that has frequent citations of the Talmud and was intended as a sort of guide for missionary activity. This work has received some scholarly attention, but not from Jewish scholars. Next came a more specifically anti-Jewish polemic, Capistrum iudaeorum (1267), which has received vir­ tually no attention, and then Pugio fid ei (1278), which has been the subject of extensive research. Re­ searchers should not get excited, incidentally, about the alleged “Hebrew marginal notes” in a Salamanca manuscript of the work; these are merely a copyists corrections of errors made in the Hebrew text of the work. It should be noted that although Aquinas did not, as mentioned, use the Pugio fid ei, he was influ­ enced by Capistrum iudaeorum. After Pugio fid ei was written, Nicholas III issued a bull ordering the friars to preach sermons to Jews throughout Europe; never­ theless, such orders could be countermanded by the kings, as happened in France in 1326. Finally, there can be no doubt that IBNADRET re­ sponded to the polemics of Ramon Marti, as well as what was reported to him of the polemic of the eleventh-century Muslim theologian Ibn Hazm, in a special treatise (not a part of his commentary on the aggadahy it was partly added to that work; see Roth 1987, 223-31; see also Chazan, Daggers, p. 137ff). The so-called letter attributed to one Samuel Maroccanus (“of Morocco”), allegedly a Jewish con­ vert to Christianity, was “translated” (i.e., forged) by the Dominican Alfonso Bonhome (or Buenhombre) (ca. 1344—1353). This anti-Jewish polemic focuses primarily on the belief in the coming of the messiah, the “rejection” of the Jews, and so on. The work had a long history and influence well beyond the me­ dieval period. There was an English translation of the “letter” with the title The BlessedJew o f Morocco or the Black Moor made White in 1649. Contrary to some authors (including Sarton 1947, 2: 1, 402), it is not a translation of the Iffadm al-yahud, an Arabic antiJewish polemic by the convert Samau’al Ibn Abbas. There are extant some three hundred manuscripts of the “letter” and some twenty editions, of which five are incunabula, all of which testify to its popularity in the medieval Christian world. Alfonso Bonhome also forged a second treatise attributed to “Rabbi Samuel,” called Disputation Abutalib sarraceni et

Samuelis iudaei, which was far less popular but has also received a (modern) edition (see Reinhardt and Santiago-Otero 1986, 57-59 for further details). While there are no other known anti-Jewish polemical works by Dominicans in fourteenthcentury Spain, the real fruits of their “missionizing” campaign appear to have been realized then. Accord­ ing to a statement by the son of the renowned rab­ binical scholar Nissim b. Reuben, the conversion of 140,000 Jews in Aragon-Catalonia alone in 1391 was due to the effectiveness of the preaching of the friars. The converso bishop of Burgos, Pablo de Santa Maria, also remarked, “Who can calculate how many [Jew­ ish] souls have been redeemed” by the preaching of the friars (see Roth 1995, 34, 194, for these sources). The most notoriously anti-Jewish Dominican of the fifteenth century was Vicente Ferrer (ca. 1350— 1419), born in Valencia. After studies in various schools, he was professor of theology in Valencia from 1385 to 1391, after which he went to Avignon to the court of the “antipope” Benedict XIII. That Spanish pope was extremely hostile to Jews, and whether Ferrer aided him in his attitude or in fact picked up his own animosity toward Jews from him, he soon became the most successful missionary in the history of the world. He also turned against Bene­ dict, and persuaded the Spanish rulers to renounce loyalty to him. Already in 1411 he was preaching to Jews in Murcia, and the immediate result was the conversion of many Jews in the capital city and in nearby Orihuela, and also the enactment of antiJewish measures by the city council. The following year, when he was seventy years old, he entered Castile and converted thousands of Jews and Mus­ lims, as he had already done in Aragon (indeed, en­ tire Jewish communities converted because of his preaching). He was welcomed at the Castilian court by the regents (Juan II then being a child), the queen mother, and Fernando de Antequera, who was soon to be chosen king of Aragon. Ferrer demanded of the regents special anti-Jewish laws (the Ordinances of Valladolid). Most, or all, of the Jews of the important city of Salamanca converted because of his preaching, and the midras, or school, was turned into the Hospi­ tal of St. Thomas Aquinas. Jews as such do not reap­ pear in the city until the 1430s. An anonymous Hebrew lamentation of that time records the names of communities where many or

Dominicans and Franciscans

most of the Jews converted, a list that includes most of the important towns and cities in both kingdoms. All but six Jewish families in Tortosa converted, as did the Jews of the important community of Fraga and several others. Ferrer nevertheless sometimes overstepped his authority, as when he imposed an enormous fine on some Jews who arrived late at his sermon (he compelled Jews to attend his sermons), an order that the king at once rescinded. In Perpi­ gnan in 1415 while preaching to the Jews he read from the Bible, in Hebrew, but two Jews complained that he misinterpreted it. He again imposed a fine and sought to bring criminal charges against the Jews for “offensive words” to him, but the king (Fernando I, no friend of Jews) again exempted them from all punishment for this. There are literally thousands of extant sermons of his, which must be analyzed for a better understanding of his success in the mass con­ version that resulted in the majority of Spains Jews becoming Christians (see also DISPUTATIONS, on his role in the Tortosa Disputation). Needless to say, his sermons to Christians contain many references to Jews and the necessity for Christians to separate themselves from the Jews, whom he described as “goats” destined for hell. Apparently only two fifteenth-century Domini­ cans wrote anti-Jewish treatises as such. The first was Martin Trilles (d. 1454), of Villafranca (Valencia). Two anti-Jewish treatises are attributed to him (Rein­ hardt and Santiago-Otero 1986, 230). The second was Gaspar Vicente Fayol, in 1485 named prior of a convent in Valencia, who wrote “Tractatus contra ju daeos” (published 1950). There is no doubt, never­ theless, that the Dominicans continued their cam­ paign, also in Castile, and were successful in the further conversion of thousands of Jews. It would ap­ pear from a statement by Solomon Ibn Verga that the Dominicans also preached “every day” against the Jews and that this played a definite role in the deci­ sion to expel the Jews from Spain in 1492. Important Dominican polemicists in Italy were: • Johannes Baptistae Gratia Dei (ca. 1341), probably a Dominican, who wrote De confutatione hebraicae sectate, a very rare work pub­ lished only in 1500. • Petrus de Pennis (Penna), ca. 1342, wrote a polemical treatise Talamoth, an attack appar­

ently on the Talmud, as well as one against the Qur’an. • Petrus Accolti Florentiae (1455-1532), but apparently wrote primarily against Muslims. • Leonardus Matthaei, called “de Utino” (d. 1469), probably the “Matheo” mentioned in a Spanish manuscript listing some anti-Jewish polemics. He is said to have written libro VII scholas contra hereticos. • Antonius Lollius, apparently unimportant (not listed in standard references), but he preached an anti-Jewish sermon, Oratio passionis . . . contra Judaeorum perfidiam, at the court of Pope Innocent VIII, which was printed in Rome in i486 and should be inves­ tigated (a copy is extant in the British Mu­ seum in London). In Germany: • Berthold of Regensburg preached a series of sermons (1250-1272) with the usual themes: Jews are children of the devil, and anyone he disliked was a “Christian by name, a Jew ac­ cording to his deeds”; Christians must avoid discussing religion with Jews, for they are skilled in knowledge of the Bible and might undermine Christian belief. • Rudolf of Schlesstadt, a prior in Alsace, wrote (ca. 1303) Historiae memorabiles (Cologne, Vi­ enna, 1974), a collection of tales, the largest part of which (twenty tales) are anti-Jewish, including some thirteen on the notorious Rindfleisch massacres in 1298 (see G e r m a n y ). Most of the tales deal with HOST DESECRA­ TION or BLOOD LIBEL charges (see Lotter). • Theobaldus de Saxonia, early fifteenth cen­ tury, wrote a polemical work against the Jews based on the Talmud. Petrus Nigri from Bo­ hemia even preached in Hebrew to Jews in some German cities in the fifteenth century. Franciscans

Founded by Francis of Assisi in Italy and recognized by the pope in 1212 as a “fraternity of penitents,” the friars of this order, like the Dominicans, took vows of poverty. In 1217 some friars were sent to France, Spain, and Germany to establish houses. Francis himself (who was canonized after his death) went to Egypt in an effort to convert the sultan. Having 223

Dominicans and Franciscans

failed, he returned to Italy where he wrote new rules for the order (not without some debate among his fol­ lowers) and died in 1226. Notwithstanding the vows of “poverty,” the Franciscans were granted the right to own property, houses, chapels, cemeteries, and so on, and soon established themselves in the major Euro­ pean cities. At the same time, they began to engage in “worldly” (secular) studies, encouraged by Gregory IX, which were a direct contradiction of the policy of the founder. Some of the friars objected to the new way of life and separated from the main order, forming a sub­ group known as “Spiritualists,” who sought to live in accord with the original plan of Francis. Particularly in Spain in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, a number of theologians and religious writers belonged to this group, and it is obvious that the vows of poverty did not last long among them either. If anything, the Franciscans were even more zeal­ ous than the Dominicans in their missionary ac­ tivities, traveling far to “win souls.” Innocent IV particularly encouraged this, sending Franciscan mis­ sionaries as far as China and launching a special cam­ paign to convert the Mongols. Examples of such bold adventures are Niccolo da Poggibonsi of Italy, who in 1345 went to Palestine, Syria, and Egypt (his detailed account should be studied for information about Jews); Peregrinus of Castello (Italy), who around 1318 went to China, where there were already other Franciscans; and Ordorico da Pordenone, who about the same time traveled throughout Asia Minor to India, Ceylon, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and China; and Andrew of Perugia (Andreas de Perusio), who went to China, where he died sometime be­ tween 1326 and 1335. In his letter of 1326 Andrew mentioned that people of every nation were to be found in China, and that the Franciscans are allowed to preach freely “but no Jew or Muslim is ever con­ verted,” although a good number of “infidels” were (Sarton 1947, 774-80). Note also the French Do­ minican missionary Jordan Catala de Severac, who went to Persia and India (p. 783). It is often difficult to distinguish between Francis­ cans and Dominicans in the sources. The mysterious disappearance of Franciscan records in Spain (just as countless documents of the Inquisition were burned or stolen) forever prevents us from having a true pic­ ture of their activity. It does not appear from the ex­ tant sources that the Franciscans were involved in the 224

investigation of “heresy” in Hebrew books, although the famous Franciscan friar Francesc Eiximenis was engaged in this in Valencia in the fourteenth century. In 1279, Pedro III notified all the Jews that by papal authority the Franciscans were allowed to preach in their synagogues, and that if “by the grace of God” any Jews should be converted as a result of these ser­ mons, they were not to be molested either by Chris­ tians or Jews. Jaime II in 1299 also gave permission to Ra m On Lu ll to preach to the Jews. Lull also was instrumental in the ruling of the ecumenical Council of Vienne (1311-1312) requiring that sermons be preached in an effort to convert “unbelievers.” In 1450 the Jews of Seville complained to Juan II specif­ ically about a Franciscan preaching “scandalous ru­ mors” to incite the people against them. Presumably, the king ordered a stop to this. A “miracle” occurred in 1414 in Guadalajara during the preaching of a Franciscan friar to the Jews, when a cross supposedly appeared in the sky, and 120 Jews were baptized as a result. Fernando I of Aragon-Catalonia wrote to Vi­ cente Ferrer, the Dominican preacher, about this and asked that he see to the proper “devotional life” of the new converts (Ferrer was probably selected because of his notorious missionizing activity). However, the kings of Aragon-Catalonia never forgot their basic obligation of protecting the Jews. For example, Jaime I granted (1274) a safe-conduct and protection to the Jews of Marseille who wished to live in Montpellier, and specifically included a clause that they should be exempt from any inquiries or investigations by Franciscans or Dominicans. In 1326 Jaime II gave permission to the Franciscan Ramon de Miedes to keep some books confiscated from certain Jews of Calatayud accused of heresy. The king noted that the friar knew Hebrew. Numer­ ous Jews of Borja were accused of having attacked with swords and rocks two Franciscans in the street in 1331. Alfonso IV pardoned them, and all the Jews of Borja, on payment of a fine. The friars had at­ tempted to seize a Jewish boy and baptize him forcibly. In 1346 the king responded to complaints by the Jews of Cervera about a Franciscan preacher who incited riots against them. Not all contacts between Jews and Franciscans were hostile. Pedro II in 1277 ordered Mosse Alcostantim, the powerful Jewish official of Zaragoza, to pay the procurador of the Franciscans there a sum

Dominicans and Franciscans

of money promised them in the will of Jaime I, and also a substantial sum of money to a certain Francis­ can friar (these payments were, of course, from royal funds, but it is indicative of the fact that cordial rela­ tions could exist). The Franciscans of Zaragoza, at the request of the Jewish physician Mosse Alazar in 1385, agreed to change the law prohibiting Jewish funeral processions passing in the street in front of the monastery. This they did because of the “constant good services” of the doctor in caring for sick friars. Nevertheless, this permission was only granted dur­ ing his lifetime and on condition that no singing or addresses accompany the funeral processions. In Murcia, Franciscans examined and licensed Jewish doctors (in spite of numerous unsuccessful ecclesias­ tical attempts to prohibit the use of Jewish physi­ cians). In spite of the aforementioned “miracle” of the cross at Guadalajara, the famous translation of the Bible (the “Duque de Alba Bible”) by Rabbi Moses Arragel of Guadalajara was made (1422-1433) at the request of Arias de Encinas, guardian of the Franciscan convent at Toledo. The Franciscan monastery of Santa Clara in Toledo maintained har­ monious relations and business dealings with Jews of the city throughout the fifteenth century (and earlier). Franciscan Polemicists

Antonio de Padua (born ca. 1195 in Lisbon) origi­ nally studied in an Augustinian school in his native town, but in 1220 entered the Franciscan Order and the following year went to Italy. He preached in Italy and in France, and was named by St. Francis himself as the chief master of theology of the order. He died in Padua in 1231 and was canonized the following year. A number of his sermons have been published, but the various biblical commentaries attributed to him are not authentic. The sermons need to be exam­ ined for references to Jewish beliefs. Poncio Carbonell (b. 1260 in Barcelona) was head of the convent in Barcelona in 1308 and then of the Franciscan province of Aragon from 1336. He also exercised extremely important diplomatic missions for Jaime II. He is the first Spanish theologian to have written commentaries on all of the books of the Bible, based not only on the Church Fathers and Aquinas but also including new citations from Mai­

monides. These works unfortunately remain in man­ uscript, but deserve thorough investigation. John Duns Scotus, who was born in England but lived also in Germany (died in Cologne, 1308), was an important philosopher who was an ardent fol­ lower of “Avicebrol” (Ibn G a b i r o l , in Latin transla­ tion, assumed to have been a Christian Arab). The shortness of his life did not prevent him from making virulent anti-Jewish remarks, such as his advise that a ruler not only may but ought to take children away from converted parents in order to ensure that they are raised in the “Christian” way; furthermore, that if Jews are forcibly baptized this is a good and “reli­ giously done” thing (although contrary to canon law, in fact). This Jew hater would have been appalled had he known that his philosophical hero was the Jew Solomon Ibn Gabirol. Nicholas de Lyra (1270-1340) of France is of great importance for his commentaries on the Bible, which to some extent relied on “Rashi (see B i b l e COMMENTARIES, JEWISH). Nevertheless, his other writings remain to be examined. These include par­ ticularly Tractatus de Christi and Tractatus contra quemdam iudaeorum., both appended to his Expositio super universa Biblia (published in the Antwerp, 1634, edition of Biblia Sacra, Vol. 6), and the ex­ tremely rare (ca. 1475 edition) Quaestio deprobatione adversus Christia p er scripturas in Judaeis receptas. Juan Gil (Johannes Aegidius) de Zamora (d. after 1318) was an extremely important theologian, head of the Franciscan province of Santiago and associated with the court of Alfonso X of Castile, who took part in the writing of the Cronica general and the Cantigas de Santa Maria. In some of his other writings are var­ ious anti-Jewish statements. His biblical commentary on Song of Songs is an important work that also needs further investigation. Francesc Eiximenis, or Examenis, born ca. 1326 or 1327 in Gerona, studied at Oxford and lived for a time apparently in Barcelona and Palma de Majorca before settling in Valencia as a theologian and writer. His Primer del Crestih, a massive theological primer, has been partly published and contains many antiJewish polemical statements. Bernardin of Sienna (1380-1444), another antiJewish “saint” and vicar-general of the order in Italy, preached that Jews destroy “the bodily health and life” of Christians and control medicine, and he com­ 225

Dominicans and Franciscans

plained that Christians always choose Jewish physi­ cians and show more confidence in them than in Christian doctors. The Jews “rob” Christians of their faith through flattery, kindness, “death-dealing gifts,” and treachery. John (Johannes; Giovanni) da Capistrano (1386— 1456) of Italy was an ardent preacher; his disputation with Jews in Rome is discussed in the article DISPU­ TATIONS (see also B a d g e ). He was notorious not so much for his sermons to Jews as for those about them; traveling throughout Europe he preached against Jewish “usury” and impiety, and received the title “scourge of the Jews” from the pope. In 1427 he was appointed inquisitor of Sicily, specifically charged to compel Jews to abandon “usury” and to wear the badge. He also held the office of inquisitor for heresy in Germany. At his instigation, Jews were banished from some cities in Germany. He also went to Poland to try to end some of the privileges that Jews enjoyed there, which led to anti-Jewish riots in Cra­ cow and Warsaw, and his campaign was at least partly responsible for the expulsion of Jews from Warsaw in 1483. He was the author of some works that should be investigated, such as De judicio universali (con­ taining a treatise on the Antichrist), and one on usury, all published. As with several other anti-Jewish friars, he was eventually canonized. Juan de Founte Sauco composed a work, ca. 1453-1458, “Libro de verbo contra iudeos,” still in manuscript, which in spite of its title is not so much an anti-Jewish polemic as an attack on philosophy, in which the author appears well versed, particularly Aristotle. He argues that “natural philosophy” prop­ erly understood confirms the Christian doctrine of Incarnation: the divine Word. While addressed to “a Jew” [tu iudio), it is not a specific Jew but rather Jews in general, and the work is completely devoid of any malice. Nevertheless, it influenced a far more important Franciscan: Alonso del Espina (so, not Alfonso and not “de Espina,” as often written). He was born in Palencia in 1412, of a noble family (the oft-repeated claim that he was a converso is totally false; even such renowned scholars as Reinhardt and Santiago-Otero [1986, 63] made this error, as well as incorrectly spelling his name). He entered the Fran­ ciscan convent of Santa Cruz de Valladolid, and died sometime after 1495. He became the confessor of Enrique IV and preached in several cities against Jews 226

and Muslims. His most famous (or infamous) work is his polemic Fortalitium fidei, which is directed not only against Jews but also Muslims and Christian heretics. He most certainly was not the same as the Alfonso del Espina who was inquisitor of Barcelona in the late fifteenth century (see Roth 1995, espe­ cially pp. 101, 183, 294-95, and notes on Alonso, and pp. 86, 252-53 on Alfonso the inquisitor). NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burns, Robert I., S. J. “Christian-Islamic Confronta­ tion in the West: The Thirteenth-Century Dream of Conversion,” American Historical Review 76 (1971): 1386-1434. ---------. Muslimsy Christians and Jews in the Crusader Kingdom o f Valencia (Cambridge, 1984). Chazan, Robert. Daggers o f Faith. Thirteenth-century Christian missionizing andJewish response (Univ. of California Press, 1989). Cohen, Jeremy. The Friars and the Jews (Ithaca, N.Y., 1982); see Roth, 1985, below. Diez Macho, A. “,;Cesara la ‘Tora’ en la edad mesianica?” Estudios biblicos 12 (1953): 115-58; 13 (1954): 5—51 (the most comprehensive article on Ramon Marti) Gallego Salvadores, Jordan. “Santo Tomas y los Dominicos,” Escritos del Vedat 4 (1974): 479-569 (much broader than the title suggests). Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the Xlllth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). Hurter, Hugo. Nomenclator literarius theologiae catholicae (Innsbruck, 1906; photo rpt. N.Y., s.a. [1962]), Vol. 2. Linehan, Peter. The Spanish Church and the papacy in the thirteenth century (Cambridge, 1971). Lotter, Friedrich. “The Jew as an Outcast in Late Thirteenth Century Dominican Popular Tales: Rudolf of Schlettstadts Historiae Memorabiles,” Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies. Pro­ ceedings B. 1,61-68. Reinhardt, Klaus, and Horacio Santiago-Otero. Biblioteca btblica iberica medieval (Madrid, 1986). Roth, Norman. Conversos, Inquisition., and the Expul­ sion o f the Jews from Spain (Madison, 1995). ---------. “Forgery and Abrogation of the Torah: A Theme in Muslim and Christian Polemic in

Dominicans and Franciscans

Spain,” Proceedings o f the American Academy fo r Jewish Research 54 (1987 [1988]): 203-36. ---------. Review of Cohens Friars and the Jews in J.Q.R.74 (1985): 321-25. Saldes, Antonio de. “La orden franciscana en el antiguo reino de Aragon,” Revista de estudios francis-

canos2 (1908): 360 (on Jaime I and Montpellier); 597-99 (order of Pedro III concerning preaching). Sarton, George. Introduction to the History o f Science (Baltimore, 1947) III, Part 1. Starr, Joshua. “The Mass Conversion of Jews in Southern Italy,” Speculum 21 (1946): 203-11.

227

C\ Taylor & Francis ~Taylor & Francis Group

http://tayl ora ndfra ncis.co m

E Education, Jewish Jewish law and life are dependent upon education. The Bible is replete with commandments and pre­ cepts regarding education, and the Hebrew word for education, hiynukh, has its origin in the Bible (Prov. 22.6: “instruct the youth according to his way”); the same root has the meaning “dedicate” (Deut. 20.5). We know that already in Hellenistic Palestine, if not earlier, there was a school system, but truly “univer­ sal” elementary education was established only by the Pharisees. The increasing complexity of Jewish law meant that it was virtually impossible to observe without a thorough educational background. Even when actual knowledge of Hebrew declined in the Diaspora, being replaced first by Greek and then Aramaic, education continued—but with increasing emphasis on the developing Talmud, with the Bible being studied and read in translation. By the time of the Muslim domination of the area that Jews still called “Babylon,” and then expanding to include all of Asia Minor, Palestine, and Egypt, the Jewish ven­ eration for learning, as much as their being guardians of the “sacred scriptures” honored (to an extent) also by Muslims, earned for them the Arabic title ahl alkitab (“people of the book”). Sharing importance with the Bible, as the “oral” Torah elucidating the “written” one, was the Talmud (completed by mid­ fifth century). It was a religious, and legal, obligation for every male, at least, to read the Torah (even though in translation), and preferably also the Tal­ mud, or as much of it as one could master. Learning was central to Jewish life, following the well-known dictum talmud Torah ke-neged kullam (“Learning is

greater than all [of the commandments]”). ASHER B. i e l , early-fourteenth-century German scholar and rabbi of Toledo, wrote that it is a greater obliga­ tion to build a school than a synagogue (Sheelot uteshuvot 13.14; cf. 13.4 and Yoreh d e(a h No. 249).

Ye h

Education in European Countries

As in other aspects of Jewish culture, there was a sig­ nificant difference between education in Muslim lands and in Europe, particularly Germany and France. There, the concern was of course entirely with “sacred” learning. When a boy reached the age of five or six, he was prepared for a public celebration that traditionally took place on the holiday of Shavu ‘o t (commemorating the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai), at which time he was dressed in special clothes and brought to the synagogue where he stood before the Torah while the Ten Commandments were read. Afterward, he was presented to the teacher, who was supposed to carry him in his arms, in reference to a biblical passage (Num. 11.12) and then present the child with a tablet on which were inscribed the first and last four letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the verse “Moses commanded us the Torah; inheri­ tance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deut. 33.4) and other verses. The child (presumably more than one, since all boys who attained the proper age during the year participated in the same holiday ceremony) then repeated the letters of the alphabet and the verses after the teacher. More than a little of a superstitious nature was involved in all this, such as the repetition backwards of the last four letters, and other things. The tablet on which the letters were written was 229

Education, Jewish

adorned with honey, which the child tasted in order to associate “sweetness” with learning. Special cakes were also prepared, or sometimes loaves of holiday bread, on which yet other biblical verses were writ­ ten. The child was also given an egg to eat, again in­ scribed with verses (this appears to have been an imi­ tation of a Gentile custom prevalent in Germany). Actual learning began, usually, with rote repeti­ tion of the opening chapter of Leviticus, dealing with “pure” matters that were deemed appropriate for “pure” children to read. Learning of the Bible was done aloud, to a special tune (whether or not the same as used in the reading of the Torah in the syna­ gogue is not clear from the sources). Eventually not only the Torah but also the Prophets and Writings (Hagiographa) were learned, each with its own melody. (In most cases the entire Bible was not learned, merely segments of it.) “R A SH f warned against learning too much Bible, which could lead to heresy (Berakhot 28b). At least in the thirteenth cen­ tury, possibly earlier, the text was learned along with translation in the vernacular of the land (German or French), to the extent that it was possible to correctly translate the sometimes enigmatic texts given the level of knowledge of Hebrew at the time (even today scholars debate the meaning of some biblical texts, of course). Similarly, prayers were translated into the vernacular by the father at home, and the entire Passover Haggadah was translated into French, ac­ cording to the custom of “Rashf and other rabbis. These customs have continued in Ashkenazic com­ munities until the present time, except that Yiddish, of course, has been substituted for other languages (in modern Israel some extremely “orthodox” Jews still translate the Haggadah sentence for sentence in Yiddish). HEBREW GRAMMAR, even after some rudimentary knowledge of it had penetrated the Franco-German communities, was not a subject of formal study. We have no knowledge of the study of anything that might be termed “secular” studies, such as even fun­ damental arithmetic. “R ashf (Lev. 18.4) expressed the typical hostility to secular knowledge, warning that one should not say that since he has learned Torah he may now also learn the wisdom of the na­ tions. Apparently the learning of the vernacular was itself accomplished through the aforementioned rote translation of biblical passages, and whatever knowl­ 230

edge of calculation or measurements and the like would have been necessary for business purposes seems to have been acquired by “practical” learning. As soon as the boy had adequately “mastered” his biblical study he progressed, also at an early age (which varied in theory, according to various schol­ ars; sometimes thirteen but often earlier), directly to the study of the Talmud. This was learned, of course, from manuscript copies, which often contained erro­ neous or incomplete texts. Part of the study was, therefore, endeavoring to arrive at a correct reading of the text being studied. Not every rabbi was com­ petent to make such corrections, and one of the great scholars, Jacob b. Meir (*Rabbenu Tam”), became in­ censed more than once with rabbis who presumed to make corrections that in fact were in error (he wrote that some rabbis should be prohibited from teaching in a yeshivah altogether). Students themselves often wrote booklets of corrected texts, with notes from their teacher’s lectures. The ideal was for a student to continue his stud­ ies, advancing to ever higher levels, in a yeshivah with more reputable and reliable teachers. The realities of life, of course, often precluded this. In the early me­ dieval period, the economy of the Jewish communi­ ties was largely agricultural, and even in later cen­ turies this was only gradually replaced by crafts and small businesses. In any case, boys were often needed by their families to work. There is simply insufficient evidence on which to base any conclusions about the percentage of boys who actually were able to pursue such advanced talmudic studies. Nevertheless, some form of study was expected of a Jew throughout his life. On the other hand, the devotion of Jews to study earned the grudging praise of a student of Peter Abelard (twelfth century), who contrasted Christians who educated their sons, if at all, only for their own profit, so that one son would go into the Church and leave more for the others to inherit; but the Jews “out of zeal for God and love of the [divine] law put as many sons as they have to letters, that each may un­ derstand God’s law. . . . A Jew, however poor, if he had ten sons would put them all to letters, not for gain, as the Christians do, but for the understanding of God’s law; and not only his sons, but [also] his daughters” (Smalley 1970, 78). The somewhat overly enthusiastic inclusion of “daughters” will be consid­ ered below.

Education, Jewish

Learning should be geared to the level of the stu­ dent. As the “pietists” of Germany (see HASIDISM, G e r ­ m a n y ) expressed it, if one could not learn the Talmud, then the Mishnah; if not that, then the Bible; and if not even that, he should write or buy books and loan them to others to learn (Sefer hasiydiym, No. 745). The same source ordained certain rules that, if actually followed, indicated remarkably advanced pedagogical notions; for instance, if a teacher discovers that some of his pupils are brighter or more capable than others he should tell the parents and see that another teacher is hired to teach them, even if this diminishes his own in­ come (No. 823). If a teacher sees that a student suc­ ceeds in learning the Bible but not the Talmud he should not compel him to learn the Talmud (No. 824). A revealing story is related which shows what must in­ deed have been a common problem in many lands and many times. In a small village there were only a few boys who learned together and at the time of prayers they all recited the blessings and did not engage in idle conversation in the synagogue, but some parents de­ cided to send their sons to study with scholars in a large city. They were warned of the possible consequences, and indeed those students picked up the bad habits of students in the city, conversing at the time of blessings and “praises which are called Psalms” (slm”s; German, Psalmes) and prayers, nor did they heed their fathers’ re­ proofs. The moral of the story is that at times it is better to learn in a small village in which proper behavior is instilled than in a large city, no matter how great the teachers may be (No. 1484); note also the interesting translation there of the common Hebrew term shevaA^with German Psalmes. It was permitted to teach young children for a salary, but not older students. MAIMONIDES wrote that if the custom of the land was to pay teachers, they should be paid, but only to teach Bible; teachers of the Talmud were forbidden to take pay (M.T., M ada: “Talmud Torah” 1.7); elsewhere he expressed great displeasure at scholars (“great men”) who al­ lowed themselves to take pay for teaching the Talmud (commentary on Mishnah Nedarim 4.3). A way of getting around this, found in talmudic sources, was for the teacher to be compensated for time lost from his own studies while he was teaching (No. 1496, and in other sources. There are also various responsa from German (and later, Spanish) rabbis about payment of teachers, and whether a teacher who refrains from

teaching for certain periods of time is still to be paid (see, e.g., the various collections of the responsa of M e i r b. B a r u k h of Rothenburg). From some of these, it is evident that teachers could be hired by in­ dividual fathers to teach their son(s) privately, as well as by several jointly to teach their sons together; also that a teacher could be hired to teach a particular “book” (talmudic tractate, presumably). It is notewor­ thy that nothing is found in these sources about a community school, one in which a teacher is hired tem­ porarily or permanently by the community at large and paid from community funds; nor is there evi­ dence of any special school buildings. Of course, the yeshivot for advanced students, often headed by renowned rabbis, were a different matter; even so, it is not clear how these rabbis were paid or by whom. Class sizes were controlled, in theory, by law: one teacher was allowed to teach no more than twentyfive students (Maimonides, M.T., M ada(: *Talmud Torah”2.5), and a later French source prescribed ten as the maximum. Maimonides also ruled, following the Talmud, that every place was required to have teachers for children; but in practice this seems not to have been followed, and often individual fathers hired teachers for their own children. A teacher was allowed to beat the students, but not severely, and only a small strap could be used (ibid.) Teachers were probably poorly paid and seem not to have been highly respected, and thus the qualifica­ tions of some may have been less than adequate. There appears to have been no systematic way of de­ termining such qualifications, nor any standards for who could be a teacher. From a rare community ordinance that has sur­ vived, it is learned that boys studied Bible until the age of thirteen, then Mishnah and Talmud until sev­ enteen. Younger boys were taught in classes of not more than ten students, and the older boys were taught in the bet midrash qafan, attached to the syna­ gogue; after the age of seventeen they studied for a minimum of seven years in the bet midrash gadol, also attached to the synagogue. Only the orders of Mo ‘ed, Nashim, Neziqin and Qadshim were studied. As for the larger and more famous yeshivot, which attracted students from different locales to study with great scholars, the students who came to learn were housed in private houses, each in his own room, or in the upper attics (see Tosafot, ‘E ruvin 72a: “ve-m odiyn). 231

Education, Jewish

Whereas a certain amount of coercion and corpo­ ral punishment was allowed in the education of young pupils, who also had to accustom themselves to long days beginning early in the morning and run­ ning into the evening, six days a week, the older pupils were to be treated with care and consideration. There was a well-known rule that a student does not learn except what his heart desires (Maimonides said that the teacher must therefore teach what the stu­ dents ask to learn). Judah b. Samuel he-Hasiyd of Germany (thirteenth century) wrote that if you wish to know what a student is truly interested in, place several books before him, and those that the student reads most indicate what his interests are. He also taught that if a student hears his teacher explain something and he disagrees or questions what was said, if he knows the teacher will rejoice to have the error pointed out or to be questioned, he may ask or debate, but if not he must not embarrass the teacher publicly. Other sources express similar ideas. “Rashf and other great scholars are known to have argued with their teachers, sometimes quite strongly. In Italy approximately the same customs applied with regard to the age at which learning began, bringing the child to the synagogue, and other cus­ toms; indeed, Italy seems to have been the origin of most of these customs, which were later imitated in France and Germany. Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud were the major emphases of learning, with little or no attention paid to Hebrew grammar (the lack of knowledge of Hebrew continued to be the subject of complaint by Italian scholars through the thirteenth century). Translations of the Bible into Italian be­ came necessary, therefore, not only for the use of women but of men as well. Whereas Hebrew was ne­ glected, except by certain outstanding scholars, profi­ ciency in Italian was demanded. Rabbis preached ser­ mons in flawless and cultivated Italian, and many Christians, including clergy and monks, came to hear famous Jewish preachers. In contrast to the FrancoGerman communities, Jews in Italy were interested in secular studies, including philosophy and medi­ cine. Older students tended to devote themselves to these studies to the neglect or complete abandon­ ment of talmudic study. In medieval central and eastern European coun­ tries, the standards for education were quite different and the quality much worse. Eli‘ezer of Bohemia 232

(early fourteenth century) wrote that in Russia, Poland, and Hungary there were hardly any qualified teachers, and any man who could teach something was hired, often as “rabbi,” cantor, and teacher com­ bined. In spite of the great demand for teachers such as these, they were very poorly paid, and were it not for gifts given to them at Purim, Simhat Torah, and weddings, they could not make a living (Assaf, Toldot 1.5). " Education o f Girls

Women (and girls) were exempt from learning Torah, since the basic biblical commandment states “teach them to your sons,” and not daughters (see “Rashf on Eruvin 27a). Nevertheless, in many places at least the prayers in Hebrew were taught, presumably with some understanding of the meaning, if not learning the exact translation. In many places girls, in fact, had their own school (also in the synagogue). Some women became talmudic scholars and even mastered the intricacies of Jewish law. Thus, Miriam, the daughter of “Rashf and Hannah, the daughter of *Rabbenu Tam” (grandson of “R ashf), and Bilath, the sister of Isaac b. Menahem, all taught Jewish law to women. It is reported that the daughter of the gaon Samuel b. All knew the Bible and Talmud well. According to the German authority MORDECAI B. HlLLEL many (or all?) of the women wore $i$it (ritual fringes), which requires a certain knowledge of rele­ vant laws. A rabbi in Vienna mentioned the custom of his wife in some of his legal decisions, and the daughters of a rabbi of Orleans were included in the grace after meals just as men. There were women cantors (for women, in their separate section of the synagogue), such as Oraniah of W O R M S (d. 1275), and another in Nuremberg, and possibly elsewhere. Most interesting is Miriam, daughter of Rabbi Solomon of Speyer, who actually taught Talmud to men in the yeshivah. However, it appears this was not a unique case, for there is a manuscript illumina­ tion from Germany that clearly shows women study­ ing together with, and apparently also teaching, men. These were, nevertheless, exceptional cases. It is clear, for instance from one of the responsa of “Rabbenu Tam., ” that a majority of the women did not understand Hebrew at all; he decided that they fulfill their obligation of prayer by hearing prayers re­

Education, Jewish

cited, even though they did not understand the prayers (Sefer ha-yashar, No. 350). This is also con­ firmed by the frequent references to reading the Bible, or the Megiyllah (Book of Esther) on Purim, in the vernacular for the sake of women. This much was also the case in Christian Spain, where reading of the Megiyllah in the vernacular to women was a common practice. M uslim Lands Education in Muslim countries, where the majority of Jews lived in the medieval period, included not only Hebrew, Bible, and Talmud but also the whole range of secular learning and even religious subjects (the Quran, at least) studied by Muslim pupils. Jew­ ish children learned either in a school attached to, or part of, the synagogue or in a private school (Ar. kuttab), which was often the house or rented room of a teacher. Parents paid tuition, which was a major ex­ pense, and the community paid for the education of orphans and poor children. With regard to customs previously mentioned as to the beginning of biblical instruction, age of instruction, and so on, these gen­ erally applied also in Jewish communities in Muslim countries. Private letters from the Cairo GENIZAH show that most common people in EGYPT and N o r t h A f r i c a had their sons educated at least until the age of thirteen, and Arabic as well as Hebrew reading and writing ability was a standard part of that education. One father wrote to his wife: “We are not honored by the peoples [Gentiles] except by rea­ son of knowledge and what has been established in our memories from childhood . . . except for knowl­ edge, a man is not worth a penny, even if he comes from a distinguished family or from heads of the academies . . . let no one belittle the merit of the teacher for he works very hard” (Goitein 1962, 35). One letter was an “excuse,” asking the teacher to ex­ cuse a boy’s lateness for lessons every day, owing to his learning Arabic before going to his lessons (p. 37). Hebrew writing was also an important part of the educational process, and in fact students wrote “collections” (malpberot) containing the weekly bibli­ cal readings that they learned, rather than learning from complete texts of the Bible. Children were taught first the “alef-b eif and then reading and writ­ ing combinations of letters with vowels. One docu­

ment has a writing game for children in which the letters were given different colors and the teacher wrote the outlines of the letters that the child was to fill in with the correct color (the first coloring book in history?). Another had drawings of snakes with an­ imal heads, the Star of David, and other symbols. Later, students in yeshivot also wrote summaries of what they studied and novellae of their own, just as was the custom in the French and German yeshivot. Mathematics was learned often even before the student began lessons in writing. Of course, this study was in Arabic, since the first compositions on mathematics and astronomy in Hebrew were those of Abr a h a m b. FIa y y a (ca. 1065-ca. 1136) in northern Spain. As noted elsewhere here in articles dealing with Muslim communities (and see especially LAN­ GUAGES USED BY J e w s ) , Jews in these countries mas­ tered Arabic very soon after the Muslim conquests; in many cases they knew Arabic better than the indige­ nous converts to Islam. Jewish boys were allowed to study Arabic, and in many cases even Qur’an, to­ gether with Muslim boys (in many Muslim cities the school was attached to the mosque, just as the Jewish school was to the synagogue; but in other places in­ struction was in the home of a teacher or even in the marketplace or street). Curiosity about the great body of scientific and philosophical knowledge avail­ able in the Muslim world soon led to a desire among Jews to acquire this knowledge. To that end, Jewish boys also studied, again together with Muslims, the secular sciences. These included mathematics (alge­ bra and geometry, Euclidean and non-Euclidean, trigonometry, and later, rudimentary calculus), physics, optics, philosophy (ethics, theories of the soul, meta­ physics; primarily Aristotelian philosophy and then increasingly the works of the great Muslim philoso­ phers), music (theory), astronomy, and medicine. Following in the footsteps of Muslim philosophers, Jewish writers in the Muslim world, from Mai­ monides to Ibn Kaspi in later medieval Spain, wrote on the “classification of sciences,” in reality an out­ line of the education curriculum here described. These secular subjects, many of which today would be considered “advanced” study (if learned at all), were mastered by the age of eighteen or even ear­ lier. The young pupil would learn each subject from a scholar who was a specialist in that area, and this usu­ ally necessitated travel to distant cities and even to

233

Education, Jewish

other lands to learn with the greatest authorities. Maimonides himself, we know, as a youth learned as­ tronomy with students of the greatest astronomer in Muslim Spain, Ibn Aflali of Seville. The student would receive a kind of diploma at the conclusion of his studies with each scholar, listing the books he had mastered and attesting to his proficiency. Just as in other lands, Jewish students, of course, were expected to learn the Bible, but also midrash and the Talmud, the growing literature of responsa of the geonim (written originally in Arabic and only gradually translated into Hebrew), and such legal compendia as the great work of Isaac al-FasI. With the revival, or more correctly the invention, of He­ brew grammar in the tenth century and later, first in Fez in North Africa and then definitively in Muslim Spain, students also applied themselves diligently to mastery of grammar and proper Hebrew composi­ tion. At least in Muslim Spain, but probably also in Egypt and Yemen (where Hebrew poetry was highly regarded), young boys also were required to be expert in Hebrew as well as Arabic poetry. Indeed, we have HEBREW POETRY composed by poets in adolescence, including JUDAH HA-LEVY, Ib n GABIROL, and others. There is really no information on the education of Jewish girls in Muslim lands, although it is known that Muslim girls often received formal education, and some became important poets. There are extant only some Arabic poetry by Jewish women in Mus­ lim Spain, and mention of the names of a few others in Arabic sources. Legend ascribes a Hebrew poem to the daughter of Judah ha-Levy, but this is likely a myth. We know of no Jewish women who were scholars in Muslim or Christian Spain, such as the few mentioned in Germany and elsewhere. Women did, however, play an active role in hiring teachers for their sons and even in endowing schools, particularly in Spain. Older boys usually went on to study the Talmud in established yeshivot, just as in European countries. The most famous, of course, were the great acade­ mies in “Babylon” (Iraq), where the Talmud itself had been composed, and which continued under the leadership of the GEONIM until the end of the eleventh century. Other famous schools included those of Qayrawan in North Africa, another later at Fez, and FUSTAT and ALEXANDRIA in Egypt. Gotein has mentioned the frequent travel by scholars from 234

one to the other of such yeshivot, and even from country to country (1967, 1: 52—53). We find French rabbis in yeshivot in Muslim lands, as well as such famous scholars as Masliah b. Elijah of Sicily in Egypt and Baghdad. Indeed, the yeshivah of Qayrawan was established in the tenth century by a scholar from Italy. In al-Andalus in Spain, the yeshivot first at Lucena and then Cordoba and then Granada won international renown. Later in Chris­ tian Spain, of course, there were numerous outstand­ ing yeshivot headed by famous scholars. Spain a n d Provence

Elementary education continued in Provence and in Spain much the same as in Germany and France, with the exception of far more emphasis on secular studies. Following the reconquest of Muslim cities in the thirteenth century this knowledge continued in places like Toledo, where Arabic scientific works were translated into Spanish by Jews, and Jewish scientists wrote original treatises in Spanish. In Provence, too, there was considerable interest in studying Hebrew translations of Arabic works, or of works written in Arabic by Jewish authors, and the learning of mathe­ matics, science, and medicine. However, as time went on there was an increasing concentration on talmudic study alone. By the early fifteenth century Isaac Nathan, author of the first biblical concor­ dance, wrote that in Provence the study of the Bible was completely neglected, and that as a student he himself had known of the Bible only those passages quoted in the Talmud or the code of Maimonides. Christian Spain also saw a gradual decline in secu­ lar learning and knowledge among Jews. Over a pe­ riod of time, interest in science, although not medi­ cine, declined. Philosophical speculation continued, but often without the adequate preparation in sci­ ence demanded for such study. As far as we know, formal Jewish education was confined to the tradi­ tional study of the Bible, Talmud, and Jewish law. Nevertheless, the sources indicate continued empha­ sis also on proper knowledge of Hebrew grammar. The increasing conversion to Christianity by Jews in Spain in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries also led to a decline not only in secular but even tradi­ tional knowledge and study. NORMAN ROTH

Egypt BIBLIOGRAPHY

Assaf, Simha, ed. Meqorot le-toldot ha-hiynukh (Tel Aviv, 1936-1947), 4 vols. in 2. Blumenfield, Samuel M. Master o f Troyes. A Study o f RashU the Educator (New York, 1946). Goitein, Shlomo D. A Mediterranean Society (Berke­ ley, 1967). ---------. Sidrey ha-hiynukh biy-mey ha-geoniym (Jerusalem, 1962). Giidemann, Michael. Das jiidische Unterrichtswessen wahrend der spanisch-arabischen Periode (Vienna, 1873). Giidemann, Moritz. ha-Torah ve-ha-hayyiym be-ar$ot ha-ma ‘a rav biy-mey ha-beinayim (Warsaw, 1896— 1899), Vols. 1 and 2. Judah b. Samuel, he-hasiyd. Sefer hasiydiym, ed. J. Wistinezki (Berlin, 1893). Kanarfogel, Ephraim. Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages (Detroit, 1991).

E gypt

Egypt was a peripheral area of Jewish life in late an­ tiquity as far as the mainstream of Judaism was con­ cerned. The Egyptian diaspora in Hellenistic times is renowned for Philo in the first century, but apart from his Alexandria, where there was a large Jewish population in Roman times and apparently as late as the seventh century, the country as a whole was not a very important hub of Jewish life. Babylonia and Palestine were the main spiritual centers. Things changed as a result of the Muslim con­ quest of Egypt at the beginning of the Middle Ages. Byzantine rule was replaced by Muslim, and Egypt became part of an empire soon extending from Per­ sia, Central Asia, and part of India to the end of North Africa and to Spain. Military action attending the subjugation of Egypt must have disrupted Jewish life as it did that of the general populace, mostly Coptic Christians. But the Jews in the Byzantine Empire (see B y z a n t iu m ) had undergone a period of religious persecution just prior to the Muslim con­ quest, so the change of masters in Egypt in the long run meant an improvement in their situation. We know virtually nothing about Jewish life in Egypt during the first three centuries of Islamic rule. Jews would have been assigned the status of dhimmis,

or “protected people,” by virtue of the fact that they were a “people of the book” [those who adhered to the revealed scriptures; Jews, Christians, and later Zoroastrians—ed.]. They would have paid an annual poll tax in return for this protection, and been sub­ ject to the other restrictions of the dhimma system (see ISLAM a n d t h e J e w s ) . There was already a poll tax under Byzantine rule, so this imposition did not constitute an alteration in status. Some light begins to be shed on Jewish life in Egypt in the late ninth century. Isaac Israeli, a physi­ cian, was born there in 850; he later immigrated to Tunisia, where he became a court physician and wrote works of Jewish Neoplatonic philosophy. S a ‘a d y a h ben Joseph was born in Egypt in 882, in the area called Fayyum in Upper Egypt. He later left Egypt for Palestine and finally Babylonia, where he ac­ quired additional training and became a great intel­ lectual and spiritual leader as gaon of the Babylonian yeshivah. But he and his older contemporary, Isaac Israeli, certainly acquired their basic learning in the Jewish community of their native Egypt, which by then had experienced growth. This was the result of the migration of Jews from Palestine and from Iraq, mainly merchants, many of whom possessed rabbinic learning. Seemingly as a heritage from the Byzantine pe­ riod, Jews in Egypt maintained especially close ties with the yeshivah of Jerusalem. The Palestinian Jews followed customs of their homeland differing in many respects from those followed by the Jews of Babylonia, and they formed congregations of their own in the bigger cities. The synagogue of the Pales­ tinians in the capital of FUSTAT was the main congre­ gation there. It may have existed before Islam. When Babylonian immigrants arrived, they formed separate congregations. Despite controversy on this point, S. D. Goitein s theory that it was new immigrants from Babylonia who purchased a church from the Coptic community for that purpose at the end of the ninth century makes sense. QARAITES, also newcomers from the eastern Islamic world, established yet a third house of prayer in the capital. With the Fatimid conquest of Egypt in 969, Egyptian Jewry becomes much more visible, not only because the Cairo GENIZAH documents become abundant as of this period, but also because the Fatimids elevated the importance of the country. Shi’ite 235

Egypt

rivals of the Sunni Abbasids, the Fatimids (whose first power base had been in North Africa) made Egypt, with a newly constructed governmental capi­ tal called Cairo, the center of an empire stretching at its peak from North Africa and Siciliy to Palestine and to the Yemen. Overtly challenging Abbasid im­ perial hegemony, the Fatimid rulers called themselves caliphs. A Jewish convert to Islam, Yaqub Ibn Killis, himself an immigrant originally from Babylonia, built the Fatimid administrative and fiscal system and became the first vizier. Ruling over a majority of subjects who were Sun­ nis like the Abbasids, the Fatimids were especially “liberal” in their treatment of Jews and Christians, drawing many high-ranking courtiers from nonMuslim ranks. Among Jews, notable were the Tustari brothers under Caliph al-Mustansir in the 1040s. They were actually Qaraites, but nonetheless influen­ tial leaders in the Jewish community as a whole. The major anti-dhimmi persecution of the Fatimid period took place under the enigmatic, if not mad, Caliph al-y akim during the first two decades of the eleventh century. Apparently it affected only the Christians at first, for a Genizah source (from the beginning of 1012) shows the Jewish community being protected by the caliph. But the oppressive acts were harsh, and quite out of line with Fatimid policy during most of the two centuries of their rule in Egypt [see also CLOTHING]. They included the destruction of Chris­ tian and Jewish houses of worship and forced conver­ sions to Islam, documented in Muslim chronicles and confirmed by a Genizah letter from around this time and by other Genizah documents. The damage done was repudiated in part by al-Hakim himself near the end of his reign and then by his son and suc­ cessor, who, among other things, permitted Jewish and Christian converts to Islam to be restored to the religions of their birth. The Fatimids recognized the head, or gaon, of the yeshivah of Palestine as head of the Jews in the Fa­ timid Empire, granting him a letter of appointment confirming his religious and administrative authority over the Rabbanite Jews (not the Qaraites). His func­ tions included the prerogative to appoint judges and other officials in local Jewish communities in Pales­ tine and in Egypt. By Fatimid times, however, the Babylonian yeshivot had gained precedence over the Palestinian institution. The presence in Egypt, along­ 236

side Palestinian Jews, of many Iraqi Jews and others who recognized the spiritual preeminence of the Baby­ lonia geonim (such as the Egyptian-born Saadyah) cre­ ated tension. Egyptian Jewry was frequently caught between allegiances. Circumstances in the second century of Fatimid rule, from the 1060s on, engendered a major change. The Fatimids lost Palestine-Syria to the Seljuk Turks in the 1070s. The yeshivah of Jerusalem moved north, first to Tyre, then to Damascus, distancing itself from Egypt and ultimately situating itself beyond the bor­ ders of the Fatimid Empire. Internal strife had already weakened the yeshivah and loosened its ties with the Egyptian community. At the end of the tenth and be­ ginning of the eleventh century, bolstered by the pres­ ence in Fustat of two Babylonian-educated eminent scholars, Shemaryah b. Elhanan and his son Elhanan, an attempt to establish a local house of advanced tal­ mudic learning and associated religious leadership, potentially supplanting the sovereignty of Jerusalem, had signaled the desire for independence. This paral­ leled similar developments in Muslim Spain and North Africa. Then, in the final third of the eleventh century, developments in Fatimid administration, in­ cluding a new policy toward Coptic [Christian] lead­ ership that involved transferring the patriarchate from Alexandria to the capital, as well as other circum­ stances within the Jewish community, finally resulted in the establishment of an independent “head of the Jews” (Ar. ra’is al-yahud) in Cairo-Fustat. This official gained recognition from the Fatimid government and inherited the prerogatives formerly conferred by the Cairene caliph upon the head of the Palestinian yeshivah. This office, usually with the title of nagid (the Hebrew title that, from the beginning of the thir­ teenth century, became coterminous with the posi­ tion), lasted until the beginning of Ottoman rule in the early sixteenth century. The character of the local Jewish community in Egypt is well delineated by the Cairo Genizah docu­ ments from the Fatimid and Ayyubi periods (969­ 1250). In the period of Palestinian dominance, the local leader usually bore the title haver, namely, “member” of the Jerusalem yeshivah. Gradually, after the rise of the office of head of the Jews, the Arabic title muqaddam (“one put at the head”) came into general use in place of haver. The muqaddam received his appointment both from the head of the Jews and

Egypt

from the government. Some questions about the evo­ lution of this local office still remain unanswered, however. Individuals called muqaddam were some­ times not identical with the community leader at all. The flexible term had been in use also in the earlier period, for instance, to designate cantors, who con­ ducted the synagogue service. Judges, appointed by the head of the Jerusalem yeshivah then later by the head of the Jews, took charge of the administration of law by Jewish courts. Nevertheless, Jews frequently repaired to Muslim reli­ gious courts, a practice to which Jewish law objected but which Jewish authorities learned to tolerate. A board of “elders” assisted the local administrator and the local judge in their tasks; for instance, filling out the membership of the religious court (which needed three judges), issuing and receiving letters of communal interest, signing contracts, promulgating statutes, and supervising the social services of the community (in which case they usually carried the Hebrew title parnas). Communal services were well organized. Contributions in cash or in kind from in­ dividuals, pledged either in public or private, and rents from buildings owned by the community (often acquired in the form of a pious trust, qodesh in Hebrew, similar to the Muslim w aqf) provided the main source of revenue. Purposes for which the in­ come was used included maintenance of communal buildings, payment of communal employees (can­ tors, teachers of the poor, synagogue caretakers, etc.) and support for the needy. These received loaves of bread, wheat itself, or items of clothing, the types of in-kind donations from contributors alluded to above. Cash gifts were also provided, for instance to­ ward the payment of the annual poll tax, which for the poor constituted a burden. Needy travelers and captive Jews presented for ransom by pirate-captors also benefited from community philanthropy. In their economic activities the Jews of Egypt, as represented in the Genizah documents, were em­ blematic of society as a whole: highly diversified in crafts and commerce and often extremely successful as merchants. In the Fatimid and Ayyubid periods, for instance, Jews participated actively in the India trade via the Red Sea and Yemen. The Fatimids nur­ tured this route, which challenged the older artery through the Persian Gulf and cut into Abbasid eco­ nomic well-being. The Jewish business letters from

the Cairo Genizah document the trans-Egyptian India trade better than any other extant source. The economic strength of Egypt is one of the chief draws that brought the family of MAIMONIDES, the most famous figure of medieval Jewish civiliza­ tion in Egypt, to that country, around 1165. In the second half of the twelfth century, Egypt was not only prosperous, but also the most secure place for Jews in the Islamic Mediterranean. Al-Andalus (southern Spain) and North Africa were occupied by the fanatic and persecuting ALMOHADS; al-Andalus was also faced with the increasingly threatening prog­ ress of Christendom in reconquering the Iberian Peninsula; the Latin crusaders occupied Palestine; and Jews in Yemen experienced oppression from a Shi’ite regime. The wealth of information about Jewish economic life in Egypt, about its community, the Jewish family, and other aspects of everyday life in the Fatimid and Ayyubid periods cannot be adequately summarized here. S. D. Goitens Mediterranean Society (1967— 1993) though relevant to a much broader area than Egypt, offers a wonderful, richly detailed picture of these and other aspects of Jewish Egypt during these centuries. Jewish life in Egypt began to decline in the late Middle Ages, as of the thirteenth century, though Maimonides seems to have sensed a general malaise in Jewish life in Egypt and elsewhere in the Islamic world already in the twelfth century. The Mamluk sultanate of Egypt (Syria also formed part of their empire), which began in 1250 and lasted until the Ottoman conquest in 1517, was a military one. Pre­ ferring centralized control over trade, it did not foster the laissez-faire economic policy of the Fatimids that underlay the prosperity of Jewish merchants in Fa­ timid and Ayyubid times. Other economic factors be­ yond Mamluk control also adversely affected Egypt­ ian economic life. These included the naval power of the Italian trading cities and the monopolization of control of the spice trade with India by a power guild called the Karimis. Later on, in the fifteenth century, this trade became a Mamluk royal monopoly. Jews, who had thrived from the Mediterranean and India trades before the Mamluk period, experienced seri­ ously diminished economic well-being. Concern about threats from European Christen­ dom, from the Mongols, and from Monophysite 237

Egypt

(Coptic) Nubia and Abyssinia led the Mamluks to enforce with vigor the anti-dhimmi code of the socalled “Pact of ‘Umar,” in contrast with its light­ handed application in Egypt under the Fatimids and for the most part also under the Ayyubids. The gen­ eral demographic decline, and especially the devasta­ tion caused by the B l a c k D e a t h (1347-1349), also sapped Jewish vitality. Notably, however, the Black Death in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East did not engender anti-Jewish persecution, as it did in much of Europe. The Jews in Egypt had never competed culturally with the centers in Babylonia, Spain, and North Africa, even though Egyptian Jewry had its immi­ grant scholars and local poets. The most illustrious immigrant was Maimonides, who arrived in Egypt as Jewish cultural achievement in the Islamic world was entering its twilight. Some of his descendants contin­ ued the tradition of rabbinic learning and writing brought to Egypt by their ancestor. In Jewish religious thought, however, the progeny of the philosophical Maimonides, beginning with his son Abraham (d. 1237), devoted themselves to a more mystical ap­ proach, very much akin to Islamic Sufism. Descendants of Maimonides held the office of head of the Jews (the nagidate) until nearly the end of the fourteenth century. The institution itself was forced by declining conditions during the late Mid­ dle Ages to adopt a more centralized, autocratic pos­ ture, encouraged, it seems, by the example if not the policy of the Mamluks. At times the office was even used by its holders as a vehicle for corruption, yet an­ other sign of the difficult later medieval history of Egyptian Jewry. MARK R. COHEN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cohen, Mark R. Jewish Self-Government in M edieval Egypt: The Origins o f the Office o f Head o f the Jews, ca. 1065—1126(Princeton, 1980). ---------. “Jews in the Mamluk Environment: The Crisis of 1442 (A Geniza Study),” Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental and African Studies 47 (1984): 425-428. Gil, Moshe. Documents o f the Jewish Pious Founda­ tions from the Cairo Geniza (Leiden, 1976). Goitein, S[helomo]. D. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities o f the Arab World as Portrayed 238

in the Documents o f the Cairo Geniza (Berkeley, 1967-1993; six volumes). Golb, Norman. “Aspects of the Historical Background of Jewish Life in Medieval Egypt,” in Alexander Altmann, ed. Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 1-18. Mann, Jacob. The Jews in Egypt and Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs (Oxford, 1920-22; photo reprint New York, 1970; two vols. in one, with preface and readers Guide by S. D. Goitein). Strauss (Ashtor), Eli. Toldot ha-yehudim be-mirayim ve-suriah taat shilon ha-mamlukim (Jerusalem, 1944-70), three vols.

Eldad ha-Daniy (the Danite)

One of the strangest, and most romantic, episodes in medieval Jewish history was the arrival of a wanderer in Qayrawan, in NORTH AFRICA, in the late ninth century. He called himself Eldad, and claimed to be from the lost tribe of Dan, and that three of the other presumably lost tribes, Naftali, Gad, and Asher, also were to be found beyond the (biblical) river Pishon in the land of Havilah, a land of gold (cf. Gen. 2.11). Scholars have endeavored in vain to identify this re­ gion; perhaps Pishon is equivalent to the Nile (so, ac­ cording to the Midrash and to the Arabic translation of S a 'a d y a h Ga o n ), but clearly he did not intend Egypt. Some have suggested Kush, or Abyssinia. Ac­ cording to Eldad, his fellow tribesmen lived a no­ madic existence and were fierce warriors, having only the Bible as their religious guide and oral traditions transmitted from Joshua. Eldad spoke a biblical He­ brew, but many of the words he used were incompre­ hensible to the Jews who heard his tales. It is point­ less to add to the speculation about the real origin of Eldad. Graetz suggested that he was a QARAITE, a theory that does not recommend itself; others thought he was from Abyssinia or the Land of Israel (unlikely); and Dunlop even proposed that he was a Khazar, also unlikely. Especially appealing to his listeners was his story of the magic river Sambation, which tossed up sand and stones six days of the week but on the Sabbath was calm (the river itself already is mentioned by Josephus, Pliny, and in the Talmud). Beyond this river were supposedly the Levites, descendants of Moses, in magnificent homes and engaged in study

Eldad ha-Daniy (the Danite)

of the Torah. These stories no doubt influenced later stories concerning the legendary Sambation, men­ tioned also by BENJAMIN OF T u d e l a , Kalonymos b. Kalonymos, Abraham ABULAFIA, ‘Ovadyah Bertinoro (letter to his brother), and in an anonymous (thirteenth-century?) Spanish manuscript derived from Arabic sources, and also by the great Muslim historian and scholar Ibn Khaldun. His claims for the origin of his own people do not coincide with biblical history, however, since he said that his tribe had fled the Land of Israel after the death of Solomon because they refused to join in the rebellion of northern Israel. They then established their own kingdom, to which after the fall of Samaria the other three tribes also were drawn. A long de­ scription of his journeys throughout the world to lo­ cate these other tribes included sailing on the Indian Ocean and being captured by African cannibals, fol­ lowed by a miraculous rescue at the hands of an in­ vading army and his final redemption by a compan­ ion. He reached the Persian Gulf, where he claimed descendants of the tribes of Reuben, Isaachar, and Zebulun resided, while the remaining tribes, Simon, Manasseh, and Ephraim, were in the mountains of Arabia or Khazaria. While most of this is pure legend, it is obvious that he had traveled at least to Egypt and “Babylon” (Iraq). Rabinowitz has even argued that Eldad reached China, but this is questionable. Appar­ ently from Qayrawan he went to Spain, for at the end of his famous letter to the king of the Khazars, Hasdai Ibn Shaprut mentions that in the time of his “fathers” a Jew who claimed to be from the tribe of Dan had appeared there and spoke entirely in biblical Hebrew (actually, Eldad would have arrived only a few years before IJasdai was born, at the earliest). There may be some truth in his account of Kush, possible Jewish ancestors of the Falashas. Most schol­ ars have dismissed the rest of the story as entirely leg­ endary, but this may be going too far. The accounts need still a careful and thorough examination at the hands of scholars, not only Jewish but those familiar with the life and culture of the countries where he claims to have journeyed. Disturbed and curious about certain elements of Eldad’s tales and reports of religious customs of the tribes that were at variance with rabbinical law, the scholars of Qayrawan consulted Semah Gaon of Sura (“Babylon”). The gaon replied that there was no rea­

son to doubt Eldad’s claims about the differences in practices of the “lost” tribes, and referred to the wellknown differences between Jews in the Land of Israel and those in “Babylon.” Not everyone was gullible enough to believe all of the tales of Eldad. Abraham Ibn ‘E z r a , the renowned biblical commentator, scien­ tist, and philosopher, wrote that one should not believe stories such as “the chronicle of Moses” or the tales of Eldad (long recension of commentary on Ex. 2 .2 2 ) . Apparently Eldad actually had (or later attributed to him) a book of certain laws that he claimed were from the observances of the “lost tribes.” In the fif­ teenth century Abraham Zacut refers to the laws of slaughter according to the tribes that Eldad brought, and which are mentioned in the Sefer ha-mi$vot (not Maimonides, perhaps Moses of Coucy?) and the work of MORDECAI B. HlLLEL, but that a certain gaon (the name has been obliterated) replied concerning the differences in his laws and those observed among rabbinical Jews (Yuhasiyn ha-shalem, f. 207b). Nothing further is heard of Eldad, and it is not known when or where he died. The popularity of his tales is evidenced not only by the many printed edi­ tions (beginning with Mantua, 1480), but also the numerous manuscripts. There were numerous addi­ tions and changes made to the text, so that it is diffi­ cult to establish the “original” text, in spite of the ef­ forts made by Epstein (1891) and Muller (1892). NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham Epstein, ed. Sefer Eldad ha-Daniy (Pressburg, 1891); revised in K itvey. . . Epstein, ed. A. M. Habermann (Jerusalem, 1949-50) I, 1-211, 375-90. Dunlop, D. M. The History o f the Jewish Khazars (Princeton, 1954) Muller, D. H. “Die Rezensionen und Versionen des Eldad ha-Dani,” Denkschrifien der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften-philosophisch-historische Klasse 41 (1892): 1-80 (texts, with introduction). Rabinowitz, L. “Eldad ha-Dani and China,” J.Q.R. (n.s.) 36 (1945): 231-38. Rapoport, Solomon, introduction to Solomon Ibn Farhun, Maberet (Pressburg, 1844; photo rpt. Je­ rusalem, 1970), pp. x-xi (on Eldad and sages of Babylon).

239

Eldad ha-Daniy (the Danite)

Scholessinger, M. The Ritual o f Eldad Ha-Dani Re­ constructed and Edited from Manuscripts and a Ge­ nizah Fragment (Leipzig, 1901).

Emicho and the Massacre of Jews

Both Christian and Jewish sources for the assaults on Rhineland Jewry by German crusading bands during the spring months of 1096 single out Count Emicho of Leiningen as the prime culprit in these massacres. The more extensive Jewish sources describe Count Emicho in the following terms: “He was our chief persecutor. He had no mercy on the elderly, on young men and young women, on infants and suck­ lings, on the ill. He made the people of the Lord like dust to be trampled under foot.” The eyewitness Christian chroniclers of the First Crusade (see CRUSADES), who were attached to one or another of the crusading armies, tell us nothing of the German crusaders like Count Emicho. The only major Christian chronicler who devotes serious atten­ tion to Count Emicho was Albert of Aix. Albert dis­ misses Count Emicho and his followers, who after all contributed nothing to the success of the First Cru­ sade, having met their destruction at the hands of the Christian militia of Hungary. According to Albert, the failures of Count Emicho and his band could be traced to three critical sins: excessive fornication, out­ rageous credulity (Albert suggests that this band claimed divine inspiration for a goose and a goat and made these animals their guides for the crusading journey), and the unwarranted slaughter of Jews. The Hebrew First Crusade narratives highlight Count Emicho more fully. They make clear that the initial assaults on Rhineland Jewry, in Speyer and W O R M S, were undertaken by a loose confederation of crusaders and burghers; the Speyer attack resulted in only eleven casualties, but the attack on Worms cost some eight hundred Jewish lives. Count Emicho en­ ters the picture with the organized military assault on the Jewish community of Mainz. The Jews sought safety through the assistance of the local archbishop, who closed the gates to the city in the face of Emicho and his followers and sequestered the Jews in his for­ tified palace. When the army of Count Emicho en­ camped outside the walled city, the Jews attempted the kind of negotiation that had worked with other

240

crusading forces; with Count Emicho, however, these negotiating efforts failed. Subsequently, the town gates were opened by sympathetic burghers. The troops of Emicho besieged the Jews gathered in the archbishops palace, broke into it, and slaughtered all those Jews whom they found there. They eventually rooted out all Jewish refugees in the town and wiped out Mainz Jewry in its entirety. It seems likely that the troops of Count Emicho were similarly responsible for the destruction of Cologne Jewry. There the Jews were sequestered by the archbishop of Cologne in a set of rural redoubts. Once again, however, the followers of Count Emicho were determined to destroy totally Cologne Jewry and in fact more or less did so. Both Christian and Jewish chroniclers were fully aware of the ignominious end of the German crusad­ ing band organized around Count Emicho. For the Christian writers, this constituted a problem, and the shortcomings that led to this defeat had to be identi­ fied. For the Jewish chroniclers, the destruction of Emicho s army was more readily understandable: it represented obvious divine intervention in retaliation for the army’s massacre of the Jews. ROBERT CHAZAN

England

Nothing substantial is known about the early me­ dieval settlement of Jews in England, aside from the assumption that some were brought from Normandy with William the Conqueror (1066-1087). There is a report, no doubt apocryphal, that William II (1087-1100) told some Jews that if they would de­ bate with some clergy and win, he would himself be­ come a Jew. An actual debate, although fairly friendly in tone, took place at this time between a Jew and Gilbert Crispin. When some soldiers or knights on their way to the CRUSADE in 1096 attacked Jews at Rouen (France), forcibly baptizing some and killing others, William, who was ruler of Normandy as well as England, ordered that Jews who had been baptized against their will be allowed to return to the Jewish fold. (The Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV, fol­ lowed in making the same provision after the attacks in Germany. Roth, 1964, like most Jewish historians, ignored this important act of William.)

England

Henry I (1100-1135) issued a charter of protec­ tion for the Jews of England, allowing them freedom of movement throughout the kingdom, relief from ordinary tolls, jurisdiction of the royal judges, guar­ antee of fair trials, and other rights. This important document, although lost, became the basis for future charters of protection. A “street of the Jews” is men­ tioned in London around 1128, and the first records of Jews in the Exchequer date also from the reign of Henry I, the year 1130. Jewish MONEYLENDERS began also to appear at this time, a role that Jews were to play throughout the remainder of their pres­ ence in England. When the Jews of London were ac­ cused of having killed a sick Christian, they were fined the huge sum of two thousand pounds (accord­ ing to Roth 1964, 9 n. 1, this was close to one-tenth the entire royal income). This also canceled all debts to the Jews from the crown. In addition to London, there was also a small Jewish population in Oxford. During the civil war between Stephen (1135-1154) and his mother, Matilda, in 1141 when the city was occupied by her troops, she imposed a heavy tax on the Jews. When Stephen recaptured the city he tripled the amount of the tax, as a punishment for the Jews because they had paid Matildas levy. There was also a small Jewish community in Norwich, and it was there in 1144 that the first ritual murder accusation occurred; the dead body of a young boy was found, and the Jews were accused (see R i t u a l MURDER for further de­ tails). Henry II (1154—1189) renewed the charter of pro­ tection for the Jews, notably allowing them to exer­ cise their own jurisdiction except in offenses against public order. Jewish moneylending grew increasingly important at this time. In addition to London, Lin­ coln and York were important centers of Jews, and in these towns wealthy Jews built stone houses as secu­ rity for keeping their documents (stone houses being otherwise rather rare at the time). The expulsion of Jews from the French royal domain (Ile-de-France) in 1182 appears to have brought a new influx of immi­ grants to England, where Norman French continued to be the official language. Other visiting scholars ar­ rived from time to time, for example the renowned Bible commentator and scientist Abraham I b n ‘E z r a in 1158. A large number of Jews from Germany also

settled in England. Frederick I (Barbarossa) sent an embassy to protest this, and some Jews were forced to return to Germany; those remaining were fined. Jewish Finances

Jews were useful to the crown not only for taxes but, even more, for loans of substantial sums. One of the chief Jewish moneylenders was Aaron of Lincoln, who made loans to the king on the security of local taxes. He also lent money to other important Chris­ tians and acquired assets all over England, maintain­ ing agents to assist him in several countries. Nine Cistercian abbeys, as well as the cathedrals of Lincoln and Peterborough, were built with loans from him (apparently there were no rabbis important or power­ ful enough to challenge the appropriateness of such loans). When Aaron died in 1186 he was, says Roth (1964, 15), “probably the wealthiest person in Eng­ land” in liquid assets. The king, otherwise apparently scrupulous about protecting the legal rights of Jews, nevertheless declared all of Aarons assets forfeit to the crown when he died. His bullion and treasure were sent to France to aid in the war against Philip Augustus, but the ship was lost in the crossing. The loss was equivalent to three-fourths of the royal in­ come for a year. A separate branch of the Exchequer was established to attempt to recover all the debts outstanding to the estate of Aaron; though the efforts continued for many years, the crown managed to col­ lect only about half of all the debts. In 1188 the king imposed a property tax on every­ one in England to finance his planned crusade, but the Jews were particularly singled out, having to pay one-fourth of the value of their property instead of the one-tenth charged to Christians. Attacks a n d Persecutions

The coronation of Richard I, “Lion-Heart” (1189-1199) resulted in tragedy for the Jews, who, along with Gentile women, were forbidden to attend the festivities. Nevertheless, a delegation of wealthy Jews bearing gifts arrived, and when they were forcibly driven away a riot ensued among the people; several Jews were beaten and trampled to death. In London there were rumors that the king had ordered the killing of Jews. Many Jews sought protection in the stone houses, but a fire was started on one of the

241

England

Caricature of English Jews from 1233. Haggadah manuscript. Passover. Public Record Office London, Great Britain. Copyright © Giraudon/Art Resource, NY.

roofs, and soon all the houses were burning. Some Jews found safety in the Tower of London or in the homes of friendly neighbors, but many died. Little was done to punish the perpetrators, although letters were sent to other towns that the Jews were not to be molested. However, when Richard and his knights set out at once on a crusade, worse attacks against the Jews took place in Norfolk and in Norwich, where Jews at least found refuge in a royal castle. The attacks spread also to other localities. The worst was the massacre of Jews at York, where local barons were heavily in debt to Jews and took advantage of the widespread attacks to rid themselves of their debts and their creditors. The townspeople joined in the attack on Jews, and although many took refuge in the local castle, several were killed in their homes. The frightened refugees in the castle refused to allow the warden to enter, and he summoned troops. Fearing the worst, the aged Rabbi Yom Tov of Joigny (a scholar and composer of reli­ gious poetry) urged his fellow Jews to martyr them­ selves, which they did. The few who had not killed themselves were the next morning deceived into be­ lieving they would be saved if they came out and were baptized, but they were instead slaughtered. (Ephraim of Bonn’s later account of the self-sacrifice of the Jews at York is translated in Roth 1964, 272, note [a] to chapter 2. According to this, Rabbi Yom Tov did most of the killing.) Efforts were made to punish some of the perpetrators, but most of the barons fled. Some few people were caught and fined, and so also in Lincoln. Meanwhile, Richard was cap­ tured by the duke of Austria on his return from the crusade, and as part of the huge ransom demanded for him the Jews of England were heavily taxed. 242

Concerned for the attacks on the Jews, but even more for the revenue lost to the crown, the king or­ dered a thorough investigation, and the famous Ex­ chequer of the Jews was established to protect Jewish debts and royal revenues collected on them (see M o n e y l e n d i n g ). In connection with this, the office of Presbyter Judaeorum was created; this was not a re­ ligious position (“chief rabbi”), but rather an official to oversee Jewish affairs. The most famous in a long succession of these officials was Aaron of York, ap­ pointed in 1236. Richard’s brother John (1199-1216) began his reign, typically of new rulers, by renewing the char­ ters of rights for the Jews and generally exercising a favorable policy. However, the Jews were taxed for the issuance of such charters, and this was the begin­ ning of a continuous series of special imposts. The cost of the war against the French was in part paid by exempting those who fought from their debts to Jews. John’s increasingly harsh policy in imposing ex­ actions upon the Jews also increased anti-Jewish feel­ ing in the kingdom. In 1210 the ultimate outrage oc­ curred when the king ordered the arrest of all Jews of property while their documents were investigated. Accusations of withholding money from the crown, true or false, led to the confiscation of their property and a general tax on Jews of a huge amount. Poor Jews who could not pay even the minimal levy im­ posed were forced to leave the country, and thus only propertied and wealthy Jews remained in the king­ dom. During the following years, many more Jews left England, including apparently some rabbis who went to PALESTINE (the myth of three hundred rabbis from France and England [Roth 1964, 35] was long ago shown to be a great exaggeration; nor did the few

England

rabbis from England go at the same time as those from France). Civil war in 1215 led to new attacks upon the Jews in London, with houses being demol­ ished. Only the kings death in 1216 perhaps saved the Jews from further attacks. Church Pressure

Under Henry III (1216-1272) the situation im­ proved slightly. However, the archbishop of Canter­ bury, Stephen Langton, had been one of the impor­ tant leaders at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, and England became the first country to enforce the clauses of the canons of that council with respect to Jews, such as the wearing of the BADGE and the obli­ gation to pay church tithes. Increasingly harsh re­ strictions, particularly on moneylending, were im­ posed by bishops, but when an effort was made to bring all Jewish economic affairs under the jurisdic­ tion of church courts, the civil authorities objected to this interference. Further restrictions were neverthe­ less imposed by church councils, and the archbishop of Canterbury threatened with excommunication any Christian who engaged in familiar relations with Jews or sold them provisions, which would have meant the end of the Jewish community. However, the civil authorities again intervened and prohibited the order from being enforced. Proselytizing began on a systematic basis, and in 1232 a Domus Conversorum, or house for converts, was established outside of London. The immense expenses of the crown were fi­ nanced, as usual, by heavy taxation of the Jews and remission of interest on debts to Jews in order to cover the expenses of the king’s foreign campaigns. Increasing hostility to the Jews, including renewed attacks, led the Jewish community of London to take refuge in the Tower during the marriage of the king to Eleanor of Provence in 1236. Church councils continued the restrictions on Jews’ employment of Christians, and Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lin­ coln, again tried to prevent friendly contacts between Christians and Jews. In 1239, the royal council demanded a third of all Jewish movable property, including unredeemed loans (Stacey 1985, 179). When the Jews could not pay their heavy tax burden in 1240 and protested to the king, many were imprisoned in the Tower and their property seized. Even larger taxes were de­ manded of the Jews in subsequent years. The highly

overworked expression of a “sponge squeezed dry for taxes,” which never applied to the Jews of Spain, most certainly correctly applies to the treatment of Jews in the latter part of the reign of Henry III of England. Although some of the recorded figures have been questioned, there is no longer any doubt about the 20,000 marks imposed in the Worcester tax as­ sessment of 1241-1242, or the fact that it was promptly paid in full (Stacey 1985, 176-77, and see his criticism of inaccuracies in other records in the notes there). The Jews of York, London, and Oxford paid the largest share of the assessment, with the ex­ tremely wealthy Aaron of York, Leo of York, and David of Oxford contributing the most. An even larger tallage, 60,000 marks, was to be paid between 1244 and 1250. With both Leo of York and David of Oxford dead by 1244, an even greater burden fell upon Aaron of York, who by 1255 was apparently re­ duced to poverty (or so he claimed, although there were still outstanding debts due him; see Stacey 1985, 204). These excessive tax assessments finally destroyed the economic foundation of the Jewish community and thus its value to the crown. The groundwork had been prepared, perhaps unwittingly, for the final scene. Expulsion

Edward I (1272-1307) was responsible for the final death blow to Jewish moneylending, the Statutum de Judaismo (on the term, see M o n e y l e n d i n g ) of 1275, by which Jews were forbidden to lend money on in­ terest. Anyone who made a contract of debt involving interest would be subject to punishment. However, in order to forestall the possibility of Jews leaving the realm they were allowed, for the first time, to be mer­ chants and artisans, and to lease farmlands for not longer than ten years. But Jews were also required to live only in towns under royal control, and the obliga­ tory badge was required for every Jew over the age of six. Jews twelve years of age and older were required to pay a special threepence tax at Easter. A number of Jews converted, while others attempted to make a liv­ ing under the new laws. In 1278 all the Jews were once again arrested and their homes searched, on charges of “money clipping”: cutting down the edges of coins and melting the clippings into bullion. Many of the arrested Jews were hung. 243

England

Religious factors played an important role in the growing atmosphere of hostility. Ritual murder charges continued, and a wealthy Jew of Northamp­ ton was burned on charges of blasphemy, resulting in a warning on pain of death to Jews not to “offend” Christianity. Thus, it is not entirely correct to say that the decision to expel the Jews was primarily an economic one. When Edward returned from Europe in the summer of 1279 he had to face the failure of his Jewish policy, and the resulting dilemma of what to do with “his” Jews. Legend has it (ABRAVANEL, the “source,” is hardly to be trusted, having eschatological purposes) that the edict of expulsion was issued on the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av in 1290, the date of a fast commemorating the destruc­ tion of the two temples of Jerusalem. The Jews were given until the first of November (All Saints Day, perhaps deliberately) to leave the country. In his De ju re naturali et gentium (Opera omnia., 1726, Vol. 1, tom. 1, 214-15), John Selden, the brilliant seventeenth-century scholar, cites the claim of Gedalyah Ibn Yahya, Shalshelet ha-qabbalah, that the Jews were given the opportunity to convert but refused, which Selden notes is taken from the anti-Jewish polemic Fortalitium fid ei of Alonso del Espina (so instead of “Bartholomaeus de Spina” or “Guilielmus Totanus” as Selden thought). Selden notes that not only is that account incorrect, but the date of the expulsion (5020 =1260) given both by Gedalyah and Ibn Verga, Shevet Yehudah, is incorrect, probably owing to a copyist’s error in changing the Hebrew letter nun (50=[12]90) to khaf (20). Roths extensive note (1964, 275-76) is based entirely on Alonso del Espina’s account (indirectly; he never cites it), obvi­ ously taken from Selden (cf. p. 276), although he does not cite that. All of the deeds of outstanding debts of the Jews, along with their real estate, including cemeteries and synagogues, were seized by the crown. (This was in sharp contrast to the expulsion from Spain in 1492, when Jews were allowed to sell their property and collect debts, even after they had left the country.) Little is known about the destination of England’s Jews; most probably they went to France, for the most part, although some undoubtedly went to Ger­ many or Provence. We know of no English Jews who settled in Spain at this time.

244

Rabbinic Scholarship

The cultural and literary productivity of the Jews of England was not high. Some few religious poems were written and some lost legal works. The oftdiscussed Sefer ha-shoham, a grammatical treatise by Moses b. Isaac ha-Nessiah, is more a curiosity than a work of great importance. The most important schol­ ars were those who contributed to the Tosafoty the growing additional commentaries on the Talmud. These included Moses of London and his sons Elijah (Eliyahu Menatem) of London and Berakhyah of Niqola (Lincoln); see Roth, 127-28, and in more de­ tail Urbach 1968, 401-02, and literature cited there, to which should be added Marmorstein’s 1931 article. The important manuscript of MORDECAI B. HlLLEL, described in David Sassoon, Ohel David (1932), No. 534, pp. 172-93, was offered for sale by Sotheby in 1983, with an additional important description of the manuscript containing information on English rabbis that escaped Sassoon’s notice. The above-named scholars are extensively quoted in the manuscript, and even Sacks, the editor of Elijah of London, over­ looked this manuscript. Other English rabbinical au­ thorities are cited: Benjamin of Cambridge, Elijah of Warwick, Meir, and Isaac b. Peres of Northampton (Sotheby Parke Bernet.) Highly Important fudaica: Printed Books and Manuscripts [New York, 1983] I, No. 198; see last page of the description of the manu­ script: the manuscript sold for $209,000, undoubt­ edly to a private collector. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dobson, R[ichard] B[arrie]. The Jews o f M edieval York and the Massacre o f March 1190 (York, 1974, Borthwick Papers, No. 45). Marmorstein, A. “New Material for the Literary His­ tory of the English Jews before the Expulsion,” (Jewish Historical Society of England) Transac­ tions U (1931): 103-15. Mundill, Robin. England’s Jewish solution: experiment and expulsion, 1262—1290 (Cambridge; New York, 1998); too late to be used for this article). Roth, Cecil. A History o f the Jews in England (Oxford, 1964), third ed. ---------. The Jews o f M edieval Oxford (Oxford, 1951).

Expulsion, France

Stacey, Robert C. “Royal Taxation and the Social Structure of Medieval Anglo-Jewry: The Tallages of 1239-1242,” H.U.C.A. 56 (1985): 175-209.

Excommunication by Christian Authority In the papal bull Post miserabilem of 1198, a bull dealing with the plight of crusaders being exploited by Jewish “usurers,” Innocent III ordered Christians to avoid contacts with the usurers on pain of excom­ munication, and he warned Christian authorities who turned a blind eye to the situation that they too would be subject to ecclesiastical censure. In 1215 Post miserabilem was reissued at the Fourth Lateran Council, which had been called in part to organize a crusade. In the 1230s, the bull became part of the standard collection of canon law texts, and it would be reissued at other times as well. Because the Latin wording of the bull is highly for­ mulaic, a perverse reading of the text makes it appear as if the pope was authorizing Christian excommuni­ cation of Jews. In an atmosphere in which churchmen were trying to work out canonically proper ways of coercing Jews without violating the jurisdiction of lay authorities, such a perverse reading of Post miserabilem was more likely. It would be a way of encour­ aging lay authorities to bring before the bishop Jews who were deemed to have acted contrary to the inter­ ests of the church; and it would directly forbid Jews from having any relations with Christians until they made their peace with the offended churchmen. The parallel with Christian excommunicates was obvious, for it was up to the secular arm, on the petition of the bishop, to bring contumacious Christian excommu­ nicates before ecclesiastical justice. Consequently a number of prelates such as the archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, in 1222, and one of his successors, Boniface of Savoy, in 1261, read Post miserabilem as license to excommunicate Jews in the way described. As early as 1259 this read­ ing is also attested in the archdiocese of Mainz; and later in the century a small number of prelates in England and on the Continent not only invoked the principle but tried not very successfully to get secular governments to join with them in enforcing it. Nonetheless, leading canon lawyers were dismayed at

these efforts. Though not opposed to the idea of de­ veloping a process whereby direct coercive powers over Jews might be secured by churchmen, they protested using the language of excommunication, on the ground that it was impossible to withdraw communion, that is, the sacrament of the Eucharist, from a non-Christian who had never enjoyed it any­ way. As a result of their vitriolic attack, the use of the language of excommunication of the Jews, exceptions notwithstanding, seems to have become increasingly rare by the end of the thirteenth century. The desire to devise a process to put pressure on Jews to conform to the behavior desired by church­ men continued. This explains the occasional relapses to the language of excommunication in later cen­ turies. The more common tendency, however, seems to have been to drop the key words “the communion of” (or similar words) from phrases like “to separate from the communion of the faithful in Christ.” Jews could be ordered to have no commercial or social ties with Christians; they would not be told to cease hav­ ing communion, with its sacramental overtones, with them. Functionally the processes were the same; but words mattered in the Middle Ages as much as they do now, and words that evoked the sanctifying grace of the Catholic Church had to be used very carefully indeed, as every good canonist was willing to remind every careless bishop. WILLIAM CHESTER JORDAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jordan, William C. “Christian Excommunication of the Jews in the Middle Ages: A Restatement of the Issu es” Jewish History 1 (1986): 31-38. Shatzmiller, Joseph. “Christian ‘Excommunication of the Jews: Some Further Clarifications,” in Shlomo Simonsohn Jubilee Volume: Studies on the History o f the Jews in the Middle Ages and Renais­ sance Period (Tel Aviv, 1993), 245-55.

Expulsion, France

Exemplary for its contribution to the biblical and tal­ mudic patrimony of the Jewish people, with the com­ mentaries of “R a s h i ” and the authors of the Tosafot, medieval French Jewish communities also suffered a great number of expulsions. French Jewry represents

245

Expulsion, France

the model of an intense intellectual activity combined with an endemic precariousness. These expulsions will be presented here in their chronological order, their consequences, and their problematic nature. H istory

One needs to distinguish partial expulsions of a town or a region, such as that of the royal domain (1182), and the global expulsions from the realm, such as those of 1306 and 1394. Further, a distinction must be made between expulsions that had no effect, ex­ pulsions inscribed in a royal act, whether motivated or not, and unwritten expulsions that nevertheless were effectively executed. The first expulsion, re­ corded by various authors, was in Gaul and was decreed by Dagobert I owing to a prophecy about the domination of circumcised nations (629). The chroniclers Raul Glaber and Ademar de Chabannes later mention a persecution combined with the threat of expulsion, pronounced by Robert the Pious following the rumored destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem by the Egyptian caliph al-Hakim (1069), allegedly at the instigation of the Jews. The Jewish condition was on the whole stable in France under the early Capetians. P h ilip II Augustus (1180-1223), influenced by an accusation of RITUAL MURDER against the Jews, ordered the arrest of all of them in the royal domain (1180), finally confiscating all their goods and expelling them (1182). Most of the Jews went to the neighboring county of Cham­ pagne, from which they were eventually recalled by the king (1198). During the thirteenth century there were various local expulsions: Brettany (1240), the major centers of Poitou (1249), Gascony—at the order of Edward I of England (1288), Anjou and Maine (1289), the county of Nevers (1294), and the town of Niort (ca. 1296). [LOUIS IX was even worse in his Jewish policy, and in 1250-1251 he also decided to expel all the Jews from France (Ordonnances des rois de France [Paris, 1723] I, 85; J. D. Manis, ed., Sacrorum conciliorum [Florence, Venice, 1758-59] XXII, 882; Solomon Ibn Verga, Shevef Yehudah, No. 32, and cf. p. 115 of ed. Wiener [Hannover, 1924]; not in Baron or in Jordan—ed.] The great expulsion from the kingdom, which then included the Ile-de-France, Poitou, Anjou, Cham­ 246

pagne, Normandy, and Languedoc, came with secret oral instructions by PHILIP IV (1285-1314) to arrest all the Jews of the realm, confiscate their goods, and expel them (1306). Neither the Hebrew sources (Estoriy ha-Farhiy, Kaftor ve-feratp; Menahem b. Zerah, $edah la-derekh; Yedidyah ha-Peniyniy, Behiynat ‘o lam; Aaron b. Jacob ha-Kohen of Narbonne; Abba Mari Moses b. Joseph ha-Yarhiy, Minhat qenaot; Levi b. Gerson [Gersonides] in his commentary to Lev. 26.38) nor the Latin sources provide a motive for the expulsion. The explication of Salo Baron of the emer­ gence of a “national sentiment” appears anachronis­ tic. The theory of a royal desire to satisfy a public opinion hostile to the Jews (Chazan, 1973) clashes with the negative reactions to that same opinion found in the Chronique rimee of Geoffrey of Paris. Schwarzfuchs (1967) sees the expulsion in connec­ tion with a revaluation of currency anticipated by the king. The confiscated property of the Jews would furnish the king with the liquidity necessary to sus­ tain a strong currency. Sophia Menache sees the transformation of [money from the Jews] into a regu­ lar impost as the counterpart of an expulsion that ex­ hausted a regular source of royal revenue. In fact, the partial expulsions, and above all the crisis of the thir­ teenth century, finally had greatly reduced the capac­ ity of the Jews to contribute to the royal revenue. Only their expulsion gave the king an opportunity to confiscate and liquidate to his profit their private and communal property, and specifically their syna­ gogues and cemeteries. The long and complicated liquidations by the royal administration, described by Jordan (1989, pp. 201-13), justify this under­ standing of the events. The king later recalled certain Jews who were allowed to resume their residence for his profit, but he then expelled them once more (1311). Louis X (1314-1316) recalled the Jews to France for a period of a dozen years, for various reasons and the common demand of the people [who needed the Jews as moneylenders], in 1315. Charles IV (1322-1328) then expelled them again (1322) [this alleged expulsion is, however, doubtful; see Browns article in Bibliography—ed.]. The Jews did not re­ turn again to the realm until an ordinance of John II (1350—1364) granted them a permit for twenty years in 1360. (The sequence of expulsions and recalls is very confused in the Hebrew and Latin sources, until

Expulsion, France

it was straightened out by Isidore Loeb in 1887.) Charles V (1364-1380) added another six years to their stay in 1364; he decreed an expulsion (1366— 1368), but without effect, and finally granted them another period of ten years in 1374. The regent Louis of Anjou added five years to this in 1380. Each of these ordinances required a payment on the part of the Jews to the royal treasury, a sum of 3,000 gold francs in 1374, for example. The final expulsion of Jews from the realm was decreed by Charles VI in 1394. This last expulsion was different from the pre­ vious ones; on the one hand, it was the object of a royal document indicating motifs, unspecified, and on the other, the goods of the Jews were not confis­ cated, and they were guaranteed safe conduct from the realm. It therefore constitutes an enigma for the historian: are we dealing, according to Blumenkranz, with a simple refusal to prolong their stay? Did the affair of the conversion of Denis Machaut arouse opinion against the Jews? Was it the result of a long investigation by the officials resulting in the conclu­ sion that the Jews were not able to pay what was ex­ pected of them and therefore should be expelled (cer­ tain Jews, detained after 1394, paid a large ransom for their liberty; R. Kohn, 1988)? Provence was not part of the French realm. It in­ cluded important communities that received a por­ tion of the exiles of 1394. After the death of Charles III of Maine in 1481, the French kings Louis XI (1461-1483) and Charles VIII (1483-1498) inher­ ited his domains and united them with the kingdom. Consequences

The exiles from France did not constitute a geo­ graphical or social group comparable to that of the exiles from Spain in 1492, despite their demographic importance; between 100,000 and 150,000 people lived in France at the time of the “great expulsion” (Jordan, p. 202). The Jews who originated from France in later years sometimes preserved a surname derived from that of a town such as Carcassonne, Lattes, Millau, or Narbonne, or in general $arfatiy (“French”). The primary reason was geographic: the exiles went to regions close to their home, FrancheComte, Bourgogne, Dauphine, the French papal states, the principality of Orange, Provence, Navarre, and even Savoy and Italy. The second reason is chro­

nological: there were several successive waves of exile between 1306 and 1394, the trace of which was lost in memory. Officially, France remains without legal Jewish settlement. Problematic

A characteristic phenomenon, the expulsion of the Jews of France inserts itself into a continuum marked by Roman law, which established the existence of the Jews in Gaul. The Augustinian doctrine concerning Jews, a people that is witness to the Christian faith, invited conversion and at the same time permitted them to be tolerated in a Christian land. Both were supported at the same time by the Church, which contributed nevertheless to the legal decline of the Jews consequent with the weakening of Roman law and the ascension of feudalism. The Jews “belonged” to counts, lords, and kings, who disposed of them at will. With Philip Augustus in 1182, events preceded and engendered a new law by which the king deprived the Jews of their property for his profit and banished them from the realm. In the thirteenth century, the notion of the servitude of Jews, invoked by Louis IX, justified the free disposition of them by the kings. Did the Church then renounce the Augustinian doc­ trine? The papacy attempted to place the Jews apart in society, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) instituted the wearing of a distinctive sign by the Jews, the B a d g e . Church legal authorities, notably Thomas AQUINAS, in his reply to the duchess of Bra­ bant, and Oldrade de Ponte recognized the legal right of princes to confiscate the goods of Jews and to expel them. When this right was secured, was the ex­ pulsion of Jews integrated in the long process of the unification of the realm and the emergence of a na­ tional sentiment? Was it, on the contrary, the result of more precise causes, always connected with eco­ nomic profit? For that reason the expulsion by Philip IV without record in an ordinance and without af­ firming a motive constitutes a paradigm. The expul­ sion of 1394 prefigured a legal type of expulsion based upon a royal decree, invoking certain motives and in principle refusing to rob the expelled. It prefig­ ured the absolute model of medieval expulsion, that decreed by Fernando and Isabel of Spain in 1492, which led also to a final expulsion of Jews from all of France by Louis XII in 1501. GERARD NAHON

247

Expulsion, France

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[Brown, Elizabeth A. R. “Philip V, Charles IV, and the Jews of France: The Alleged Expulsion of 1322,” Speculum 66 (1991): 294-328]. Chazan, Robert. M edieval Jewry in Northern France. A Political and Social History (Baltimore, 1973). Iancu-Agou, Daniele. Les juifs en Provence (1475—1501), de Vinsertion a Vexpulsion (Mar­ seille, 1981). Jordan, William Chester. The French Monarchy and the Jews from Philip Augustus to the Last Capetians (Philadelphia, 1989). Kohn, Roger. Lesjuifs de la France du nord dans la seconde moitie du XlVe siecle (Louvain, 1989). [“L’expulsion des juifs de France en 1394, les chemins de l’exil et les refugies,” Archives juives 28 (1995): 76-84]. " Loeb, Isidore. “Les expulsions des juifs de France au XIVe siecle,” Jubelschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage des Prof. Dr. H. Graetz (Breslau, 1887), pp. 39-56. Menache, Sophia. “The King, the Church and the Jews: Some considerations on the Expulsion from England and France,” Journal o f M edieval History 13 (1987): 223-36. Nahon, Gerard. “Condition fiscale et economique des juifs,” in Bernhard Blumenkranz, ed., Judaisme en Languedoc au XLIIe siecle et au debut du XlVe siecle (Toulouse, 1977); and in Cahiers de Fanjeaux 12 (1977): 51-84. Schwarzfuchs, Simon. “The Expulsion of the Jews from France (1306),” The Seventy-Fifth Anniver­ sary Volume o f the Jewish Quarterly Review (Phila­ delphia, 1967), pp. 482-89.

Expulsion, Spain Jews lived in SPAIN for more than twelve hundred years, and throughout most of this long history, par­ ticularly under Christian rule, they had enjoyed gen­ erally harmonious relations and prosperity. Early in the fifteenth century there were signs of changing at­ titudes, both in C a s t i l e and A r a g On - C a t a l o n i a ; however, in the latter half of the century conditions appeared to have returned to normal. Nothing in the reign of Isabel and FERNANDO indicated any hostility whatever to Jews, with the exception of an attempt, not altogether successful, to institute separate Jewish quarters in the major cities. 248

The main problem was not with the Jews but rather the conversos, Jews who had converted to Christianity. As described in that article, growing hostility on the part of a minority of “old Christians” to this “new Christian” class led to the demand for the establishment of an inquisition, first in Castile and then throughout Spain. The animosity toward the conversos was expressed in terms of racial anti­ Semitism: it was their “Jewish blood” that corrupted them, and through them threatened corruption of “old Christians.” The twofold plan of the Inquisition was the extermination of the conversos and the re­ moval from a “purified” Christian Spain of the Jews who were said to be the ultimate source of the “Ju­ daizing” corruption of the conversos. The Inquisitor General, Tomas de Torquemada, was the prime insti­ gator of this plan. Repeated charges were laid before the king and queen that the Jews, by their “conversa­ tion” (social contact), were corrupting both “new” and “old” Christians. An initial expulsion of the Jews from ANDALUCIA (the southern part of Spain) was launched by the In­ quisition in 1483. Whereas all Jews were apparently expelled from the region of Seville, the expulsion was less successful in Cordoba and elsewhere. The “devoted Inquisitors” then turned their atten­ tion to Aragon and presented various charges against the Jews to Fernando, acting in his independent ca­ pacity as king there. In i486 came the order for the expulsion of the Jews of Zaragoza. Even though in the years following, Jews were allowed to return, this double blow at the major Jewish population centers of Castile and Aragon was a sign of the impending tragedy. Nevertheless, extant records prove that the king and queen had absolutely no intention of expelling the Jews from all of Spain, and continued to appoint Jews to government posts and as tax officials. Ordi­ nary Christians maintained their usual good relations with Jews, engaging in business transactions, buying and selling property, and in no way giving any indi­ cation of any problems. In addition to the propaganda of the Inquisition, and particularly Torquemada, the conquest of the Muslim kingdom of Granada played a part in the de­ cision to expel the Jews. This successful campaign against the enemy “infidel” reinforced the notion— in which the conversos played a significant role—of a pure “Christian” nation headed by the perfect model

Expulsions, Other Lands

of “Christian” rulers (although Isabel and Fernando were not to receive the title of Catholic Monarchs for some years to come, the concept was already at work). To achieve this, Jews had to be removed from the land, a fate that later would befall the meanwhile converted Muslims. At the end of March in 1492 the degree of expul­ sion was proclaimed in Granada, and copies sent throughout the kingdom. The Jews were given until the end of July to leave. Later myth claimed that the date of the actual expulsion was the ninth of the He­ brew month of Av, traditionally the date of the de­ struction of the first and second Temples. Another factor in the decision to expel the Jews from Spain may have been the earlier expulsions in other lands, such as northern Italy, Mainz and Trent, and Kiev (1482-1483). Another myth of later invention has Isaac A b r a VANEL and other supposed Jewish leaders heroically intervening with the king and queen in a vain at­ tempt to prevent the decree, for which there is ab­ solutely no evidence (on the contrary, Abravanel by his own later admission did nothing and was chiefly concerned with his own reputation and riches). In fact, the Jewish community was virtually devoid of leadership, with the exception a few rabbinical schol­ ars, and these had neither the foresight nor the influ­ ence to affect any change in the situation. Finally, another myth is that Jews were not per­ mitted to sell their property or take goods with them. In fact, specific orders were issued allowing both, and the Jews were taken under royal protection and guards provided to make sure they were in no way molested. Long after the expulsion the monarchs were arranging that debts due to Jews be paid, either to the original debtor or his heirs. Several Jews chose baptism rather than face the rigors of exile to an unknown country, and some of the Jews who left later returned to Spain and were baptized. Jews left by ship from the ports of the former Muslim kingdom of Granada, from VALENCIA, and from Catalonia. Jews from Aragon went chiefly to nearby Navarre (not then part of the Spanish king­ dom), and those from most of Castile walked across the border to Portugal, first having paid “entrance fees” for the privilege. Within a few years (1497) they were expelled from that country, but most then chose baptism.

In SICILY, part of the Spanish kingdom, the expul­ sion was delayed until January 12. Many Jews then went to the kingdom of Naples, but the majority set sail for the Ottoman Empire. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Motis Dolader, Miguel Angel. La expulsion de los judios del reino de Aragon (Zaragoza, 1990), 2 vols. Roth, Norman. Conversos., Inquisition., and the Expul­ sion o f the Jews from Spain (Madison, 1995; paper ed. 2002).

Expulsions, Other Lands (see also EXPULSION, FRANCE; EXPULSION, SPAIN)

During the Middle Ages, Jews were frequently ex­ pelled from various towns and cities and from entire countries. In some cases the expulsion was tempo­ rary, and Jews were recalled, and in others the expul­ sion was permanent. Jews were temporarily expelled from Mainz (Ger­ many) in 1012, ironically the very city where in the attacks of 1096 (see CRUSADES) the archbishop pro­ tected the Jews. Some writers have connected the ex­ pulsion with the conversion of a priest there to Ju­ daism, but this is not likely the cause; others have connected it with the rumor of the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem by the Egyptian caliph al-Hakim, which is even more un­ likely. In fact, it may have been related to Pope Leo VII’s letter to the archbishop (937-938) in response to his query as to whether it is better to convert the Jews or expel them, to which the pope replied that he should never cease preaching to the Jews, but if this failed then he could expel them (the archbishop was overlord of the city). In this case, however, it was not the archbishop but the emperor (Henry II) who or­ dered the expulsion, which nevertheless was re­ scinded the following year (Baron IV, 66, and cf. p. 6; Baron there, see n. 86, claimed that he originated the theory that it may have been connected with the rumored destruction of the Jerusalem church, but in fact the great Jewish historian Simon Dubnov al­ ready suggested this). Two years earlier, in Limoges (France), Bishop Alduin had also ordered the Jews to convert or leave the city, and this indeed seems to have been connected with the rumor of what the mad Egyptian caliph supposedly had done (in reality, 249

Expulsions, Other Lands

although he destroyed churches and synagogues in Egypt and Palestine, as a devout Muslim he would not, of course, have dared to destroy the church where Jesus was supposedly buried). The various expulsions from France and Provence are dealt with separately (EXPULSION— F r a n c e ). Mention should be made here of Jordan’s correct statement that Louis of France, ruler of Navarre and son and heir of Philip “the Fair,” did not expel the Jews from that kingdom, and indeed welcomed those expelled from France (pp. 232-33). He also remarks on the acceptance of the expelled Jews into the king­ dom of ARAGON-CATALONIA, although Castile is not mentioned. There is, however, no evidence that those Jews “came in droves” (p. 234); on the contrary, the sources indicate a small influx. The statement, on the authority of Blumenkranz, that “sixty new families” in BARCELONA was anywhere from one-sixth to onethird of the Jewish population (p. 236) is absurd. A larger number went to Perpignan, but the expelled Jews were refused entry into the (Spanish) counties of Cerdagne and Rousillon in Provence. For the ex­ pulsion from England (1290), see ENGLAND. The fourteenth century saw an increase of expul­ sions, particularly in GERMANY (see also Parkes, pp. 110, 208-9, 337). To the list of communities there should be added Strasbourg in 1388, when the mag­ istrates expelled the small Jewish community. Even the tiny Jewish community of Luxembourg was ex­ pelled in 1391. Louis “the Great” of Hungary in 1360 expelled all the Jews after he had failed to con­ vert them, but four years later changed his mind and recalled them (Baron X, 19, 25). Jews were expelled from Rome in 1321 (Abraham Usque, the notori­ ously confused sixteenth-century Marrano chroni­ cler, corrupted the account and blamed the pope, who in fact was friendly to the Jews, and his sister; in all probability, it was King Robert of Naples, who was a senator of Rome, and his wife). In fact, the Jews sent a delegation to the pope, then in Avignon, to request protection (Cecil Roth in M. D. Cassuto et al., eds., Sefer Assaf [Jerusalem, 1953], p. 444 ff.). However, it was the fifteenth century that saw the largest number of expulsions. In Switzerland, where Jews had already been expelled from Lucerne in

250

1384, expulsions occurred in Berne (1408 and 1427), Fribourg (1428), Zurich (1436), Schaffhausen (1472-1475), and Geneva (1490). Even Poland, which had a tolerant policy toward Jews, saw the ex­ pulsion of Jews from Warsaw in 1483, as a result of the preaching campaigns of the fanatical DOMINICAN John (Johannes; Giovanni) da Capistrano. However, the Jews were recalled again three years later. The ex­ pulsion of the Jews from Lithuania in 1495 may have been influenced, at least partially, by the expulsion from Spain, which created an impression all over the world. In Piedmont in Italy, the duke expelled the Jews in 1452, recalled them almost at once, and ex­ pelled them again in 1454. The Jews of Vienna, and most of Austria, were expelled in 1453 and 1455. In the same period, Jews were expelled from the Bo­ hemian cities of Olmiitz, Briinn, Breslau, and some other towns. We have the testimony of Isaac ABRA­ VANEL that Jews were also expelled from Lombardy (probably specifically Trent), Tuscany, Provence, Sicily, and Sardinia. Ibn Verga also reported that in 1490 there was an expulsion from Savoy, Piedmont, Lombardy, Sicily, Florence, and Russia. Abravanel also mentioned Russia, which may refer to expulsion from Kiev in 1482-1483 and finally from all Lithua­ nia in 1495 (Roth, Conversos, p. 294 and notes). It is known that there were expulsions from some north­ ern Italian communities between 1463 and 1473, but an expulsion from Florence is not otherwise known; it is possible that this should be Provence (the spelling of the Hebrew names is very close; see Gross, Gallia judaica, p. 437 on this). NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History o f the Jews (New York, Philadelphia, 1965), vols. 4, 9, 10. Jordan, William Chester. The French Monarchy and the Jews (Philadelphia, 1989). Parkes, James. The Jew in the M edieval Community (New York, 1976). Roth, Norman. Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expul­ sion o f the Jews from Spain (Madison, 1995; paper ed., 2002).

F Fernando and Isabel Isabel of Castile, sister of the indecisive and possibly degenerate Enrique IV, was secretly proclaimed queen by rebellious nobles and clerics in 1468, but she refused to use the title while her brother still lived. Upon his death (1474) she officially became ruler of CASTILE. Prior to this, in 1469, she had al­ most secretly married Fernando of Aragon, son of Juan II of ARAGON-CATALONIA. Some important conversos, and possibly even Abraham Seneor, a Jew who in 1492 also converted, were involved in the arrangements of this marriage. Fernando ruled jointly with Isabel over Castile, and upon the death of his father (1479) he became king also of AragonCatalonia. The two kingdoms were now united under both rulers. Unfortunately, much careless and even biased “scholarship” has reinforced the modern popular view of Fernando and Isabel as the worst possible tyrants (one or the other is often singled out for par­ ticular blame; usually the “fanatic” or “bigoted” queen), bent on the destruction of the Jews, which plan they finally accomplished with the EXPULSION of the Jews in 1492. One recent writer has even stated, quite unhistorically, that the very title “Catholic Monarchs” showed their hatred of Jews. This follows the all-too-common Jewish belief that everything Catholic is evil, but also ignores the fact that the title Rey Catholicus was first conferred upon Fernando alone in 1496 by Pope Alexander VI, some years after the Expulsion, and had nothing to do with the Jews. It was not until 1500 or later that both Fernando and Isabel were called “Catholic Monarchs.” Baer and

other Jewish historians have heaped all kinds of in­ vective on the rulers. In fact, the sources and the historical record, both with regard to their attitude toward and treatment of Jews and the facts of the Expulsion itself, do not con­ firm this picture. Isabel, particularly, was highly praised by contemporaries (including conversos and Jews) for her character, wit, learning, and—above all—sense of justice. Fernando, in fact a very insecure man in constant need of reassurance as to his wife’s love and support, was also nevertheless respected. The only aspect of “fanaticism” relates not at all to Is­ abel but rather to Fernando and his severe enforce­ ment of the Inquisition against all opposition in his particular capacity as king of Aragon-Catalonia. This, however, had nothing to do with Jews. Fernando was, in fact, of Jewish descent himself. (The story of this is a complicated one that I have de­ tailed elsewhere.) Although this cannot be claimed to have affected his treatment of Jews in any way, it somewhat mitigates the usual portrayal of this king. In fact, the Jews of both kingdoms actually vener­ ated the rulers, and everywhere they went they were received with joyous celebrations and demonstra­ tions by the Jewish communities. In BARCELONA they were given an elaborate series of gifts. All was not sweetness and light, however, for at the Cortes (parliament) of Madrigal in 1476 certain old restrictive measures against Jews were reenacted. Some of these, as usual, had to do with the rights of Jews to loan money on interest. However, when local officials in some communities tried to interpret these to prohibit Jews from claiming interest at all, the 251

I

Fernando and Isabel

monarchs quickly intervened to inform them that this was not the law. In other documents, the point was made that the Jews, individually and collectively, were under royal protection. Indeed, Jewish individ­ uals and communities complained constantly to the monarchs. Though Jews in medieval Spain always had had, and unhesitatingly used, the right of direct appeal to the rulers, the nature of the complaints in the reign of Fernando and Isabel leaves little doubt that resentment of Jews was growing among certain elements in the cities. In 1480, at the Cortes of Toledo, the rulers ordered that Jews and Muslims (historians almost never note that Muslims were usually included in all laws deal­ ing with Jews) must henceforth live in separate quar­ ters of towns and cities, apart from Christians. These were not “ghettos,” as in postmedieval Europe, but the law certainly imposed a hardship on Jews in some communities where there was scarcely space in the newly assigned Jewish quarter to comfortably con­ tain the Jews. In some instances they were unable to sell property in the “Christian quarter” at fair value, and the rulers intervened to guarantee such prices. Increasing conversion of Jews to Christianity, which had begun in significant numbers in the four­ teenth century, continued to deplete the population and undermine the morale of those who remained as Jews. There was also growing hostility between the conversos and the Jews, and continued hostility on the part of “old Christians” toward the conversos. The es­ tablishment of the Inquisition in Castile (1480), prompted by false accusations of “Judaizing” against the conversos, further increased the tensions. Al­ though Jews were never subject to the Inquisition (except in rare special circumstances), they willingly gave false testimony against the hated conversos. As the forces behind the Inquisition sought for a ratio­ nale to justify their extreme actions, an anti-Semitic racial theory of limpieza de sangre (purity of blood) was created. According to this, Jewish “race” and “blood” corrupted the converts even down to the fourth generation of intermarriage with “old Chris­ tians” (anyway prohibited, but consistency never was the hallmark of anti-Semites). It was to be a short step from this position to advocating the equally false claim that Jews were “corrupting” conversos, and Christians generally, by their association with them. In fact, these views were advanced and maintained 252

by a tiny minority of the population of fifteenthcentury Spain, namely, Tomas de Torquemada and his henchman who controlled the ever more power­ ful bureaucracy of the Inquisition. The king and queen, of course, had many con­ cerns in addition to the “Jewish problem” to occupy them. These included repeated rebellions of some of their own nobles early in their reign, a war with Por­ tugal, and preparations for the war against Muslim Granada (a campaign especially urged by the many converso officials, intellectuals, and poets of the reign). It can be demonstrated conclusively, in fact, that they had little knowledge of the daily workings of the Inquisition or the machinations of its officials (indeed, Isabel was criticized by her own converso sec­ retary for her lack of control over the Inquisition). They nevertheless maintained correct, perhaps even cordial, relations with the Jews of the kingdom and continued to protect their individual and collective rights literally to the very day of the Expulsion. The order for the expulsion of the Jews was, it is true, proclaimed by the monarchs (31 March 1492) in Granada (and the Jews given until the end of July to leave); but the plan to expel the Jews was not at all theirs, but rather that of the Inquisition, and specifi­ cally Tomas de Torquemada. Jewish leadership was weak and demoralized, and in fact almost entirely lacking. Neither Isaac ABRA­ VANEL, that highly romanticized figure, nor anyone else did anything to halt the plan; nor could they have, for it was done in great secrecy and advocated to the monarchs precisely when they had just com­ pleted the conquest of Muslim Granada and were in a place where Jewish officials could not easily have reached them. Other myths about the Expulsion include the no­ tion that Jews were given the options of conversion or expulsion or death. Nothing whatsoever substanti­ ates such an idea. Some Jews did, in fact, convert rather than face the perils of uncertain travel, but there was little expectation that many would do so. Exceptions were the so-called Jewish leaders, Rabbi Abraham Seneor and Rabbi Meir Melamed\ who chose conversion rather than give up their lucrative posts and many financial holdings. The king and queen were their sponsors at their baptism. The Jews were given every opportunity, including extensions of time where necessary, to settle their

Folklore

Roth, Norman. Conversosy Inquisition and the Expul­ sion o f the Jews from Spain (Madison, 1995; paper ed., 2002). Suarez Fernandez, Luis. Doeumentos acerea de la ex­ pulsion de los judios (Valladolid, 1964).

Folklore

Marcuello, Pedro. Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella the Catholic: Devocionario de la Reina Juana la Loca. Spanish, mid-fifteenth century. Copyright © Giraudon/Art Re­ source, NY.

affairs and sell their property (again, at guaranteed fair market value). They were furnished complete military protection during their journeys overland to ports of embarkation, or to the border with Portugal. Abra­ vanel himself stayed in Spain for a period to settle his affairs and those of members of his family. Even after the Jews departed the kingdom they were permitted to collect outstanding debts and other business expenses. Nevertheless, 1492 brought a sad climax to cen­ turies of Jewish culture and prosperity in a land that had been home to a unique interrelationship of Jews, Muslims, and Christians. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mods Dolader, Miguel Angel. La expulsion de los judios del reino de Aragon (Zaragoza, 1990), 2 vols.

The common definition of folklore perceives it as in­ cluding popular creations passing from generation to generation by means of oral tradition, in writing or imitation. The boundaries of folklore include popu­ lar literature and music, customs, popular beliefs, and rituals. Some definitions go further to include also the ethnographic field: folk art and material cul­ ture. This threefold division corresponds to the methodological requirements of definition, but in the reality of the field of folklore these things are con­ nected one with the other. Thus, behind every cus­ tom stands popular belief that justifies the existence of the custom, and these two are generally associated with a story. Not infrequently we find a visual expression— in dance, clothing, or an object. Every folkloristic ex­ pression (legend, myth, fable, poem, proverb, dance, rhyme) is created by an individual but becomes part of the common folklore only when it is accepted by soci­ ety; it emanates from the collective cultural tradition and returns to it after receiving the personal impres­ sion of the creator. Thus, every folkloristic creation is found in perpetual tension between the personal and the collective, the permanent and the temporary, the local and the universal. The permanent elements in folklore are those that tend to pass into the collec­ tive social tradition. They include similar structures, motifs, and themes in different cultures. The variable elements include the individual creation and the reshaping of the permanent structure, whereas the unique and local elements are expressed in adjusting the folkloristic creation to the cultural-situational con­ nection in which it functions (the cultural sphere, lo­ cation, period, situation, ethnic group). Our question in this article is, what characterizes medieval Jewish folklore? In what is it similar or dif­ ferent from other periods in the Jewish tradition, and to what degree was it influenced by the cultural mi­ lieu in which it operates? The most significant historical event at the begin­ ning of the medieval period was the beginning of the 253

Folklore

Muslim conquests in the sixth century, which di­ vided the Jewish world into two cultural and reli­ gious spheres: Islam and Christianity, East and West. Folklore elements that existed in the generations prior to the medieval period (which found expression also in canonistic writings, such as the Bible, Tal­ mud, and midrash) continued to exist in the Jewish tradition shared by all the Jewish communities in the Middle Ages. At the same time, a new folklore was formed under the influence of the medieval culturallinguistic milieu. Because folklore does not require uniformity as does halakhah, it is actually able to ex­ press more easily the influences of different milieus. The cultural split in the medieval Jewish world re­ sulted in the creation of folklore in different lan­ guages, mostly because the majority of the folklore was expressed in speech. During the course of the whole period, Hebrew was the language of writing but not of speech. In Muslim lands Arabic was spo­ ken, in Christian Europe the local languages were used. At the close of the medieval period two inde­ pendent Jewish languages developed, Yiddish and “Ladino” [actually, spoken Spanish, but written in Hebrew characters—ed.]. Popular folkloristic cre­ ations were made mostly in these languages. Parallel with this, popular literary folklore developed in at least three languages: Hebrew, the Jewish vernacular, and the local vernacular language. Thus, the AlefBeit de-Ben Sira was written in Hebrew, Hiybbur yafeh miyn ha-yeshuah in Arabic, and Maaseh-bukh in Yid­ dish, and various collections of tales in Ladino. Here also occurred a literary process of transference of Jew­ ish expression from one language to another, for ex­ ample, adaptation of Hebrew stories to Yiddish and Ladino. A typical example is Maaseh be-Yiyrushalmiy; one of the popular medieval stories that appears in three languages: Hebrew, Yiddish, and Ladino. We are not able today to conduct fieldwork in me­ dieval folklore. The modern researcher is confronted with a written corpus of popular stories, songs, and descriptions of the preservation of customs and pop­ ular rituals (such as the ritual to dispel an “evil eye”). However, undoubtedly popular stories were told orally in the Middle Ages, as also today, and we have evidence that demonstrates narrative circum­ stances, for example, the connecting of stories with sermons in the synagogues and schools, oral narra­ tion of family traditions (Megiyllat A!?ima‘a$), the tes­ 254

timony of travelers and emissaries who heard sto­ ries (e.g., the testimony of BENJAMIN OF TUDELA, Menahem Ben-Peres ha-Hevroniy. ELDAD HA-DANIY, Petahyah of Regensburg), and descriptions of the language of popular beliefs and signs of foretelling the future, interpretation of dreams, and contact with the dead in Sefer hasiydiym. The most remarkable popular literary phenome­ non in the Middle Ages is the formation of collec­ tions of tales. Popular tales told orally were trans­ ferred to writing in a literary context, but in a moral understanding. The three most characteristic exam­ ples are Alfabeita de-Ben Sira, in which proverbs ap­ pear alphabetically and each proverb is associated with a story; Midrash \eseret ha-diybburot, in which each commandment is illustrated by several stories; and Hiybbur yafeh miyn ha-yeshu ‘ah, in which the au­ thor, Nissim [Ibn Shahin] of Qayrawan, explains the collection as stories of accepting fate to comfort mourners. This new medieval trend suits the ten­ dency of separation of subjects that occurred under the influence of Arabic culture. Talmudic literature, which stood at the center of the previous period, is a “holistic” creation that in­ cludes in one collection all the elements of Jewish culture of the period (biblical exegesis, medicine, law, astronomy, folklore). Already in the period of the geonim, in the eighth and ninth centuries there evolved a tendency of the creation of special separate compositions of law, grammar, and philosophy. So also were created the first compositions about the history of Hebrew literature [apparently an allusion to the Iggeret of Sherira Gaon, which describes the history of the Mishnah and Talmud; there was no “Hebrew literature” yet—ed.]. It was easier to take popular stories that were circulating orally and trans­ fer them to writing than to create a written literature from scratch. This phenomenon would not have been able to exist were it not for the existence of col­ lections of stories in Arabic that served as a model for imitation, for example Kallla wa-Dimma, the proverbs of Sindibar, “Thousand and One Nights,” and so on. The cultural environment influenced Jewish tra­ dition not only in imitating literary models but also in the stories themselves, which underwent a process of adaptation from the surrounding culture to the Jewish culture and language [Hebrew]. Thus, for ex­

Folklore

ample, Hebrew interpretations of the legends of King Arthur were very familiar [in the later medieval pe­ riod], as also the romance of Alexander the Great, and Amadis de Gaula (the Spanish Jewish romance, a version of the Christian Spanish novel), which sur­ vive in Ladino to the present. The central Jewish trend is the retelling of bodies of stories from earlier periods: the biblical story, apocryphal stories, and rabbinical tales: Maaseh Avraham, Midrash ve-yisau, Aggadat ha-nefiylliym, Divrey ha-yamiym shel Mosheh rabbeinu, Petiyrat Aharon, Sefer Yehudiyt, Ma ‘aseh Tuvyah, Sippurey ‘eseret harugey ha-malkhut, ha-Em ve-shiyv‘a t baneyah, and other stories of personalities from the period of the Talmud and midrash that be­ came very popular in medieval tales, such as Rabbis Aqiva, Eliezer ben Durdiyah, Joshua b. Levy, Habina ben-Dosa, and Rabbi Meir. The legends of the rabbis were not only a rich source for the retelling of popular stories, but also led to the creation of new traditions, the essence of which was in medieval folklore traditions and motifs (including realistic details in the description of liter­ ary heroes as medieval armored knights). The popular story in the Middle Ages found its place also in the three main mediating streams: Ger­ man pietist [see liASIDISM — G e r m a n y ], QABBALAH, and PHILOSOPHY. In this connection, the popular story served as a medium for the transmission of di­ dactic and theological tradition. In the philosophical stream, folk stories appear (essentially the genre of the proverb) in ethical books intended for the masses, from the conception that the story has an inferior status and is suited to the perception of the simple person for whom more ab­ stract philosophical contemplation is difficult. Thus proverbs appear in the Hovot ha-levavot of Bahya b. Asher and in the Miyvhar ha-peniyniym of Solomon Ib n G a b i r

o l

.

The second stream in medieval ethical literature, that of the ethical writings of the German pietists (see I7LASIDISM), constituted one of the richest and most spectacular sources of stories. These are popular stories retold in order to illustrate the moral and the­ ological conception unique to the pietists of Ger­ many, for example, future repentance, confessions, self-castigation, and asceticism. The substantial uti­ lization of folklore (stories, beliefs, magic, and demonology) by the German pietists has a theological

justification: the true goodness of God is revealed in miraculous deeds in this world, in things that are su­ pernatural. Therefore, the pietist made an effort to bring any story or report of an exceptional incident, including from the surrounding culture of Christian Germany. Beginning with the end of the twelfth century and especially in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, there developed the story inlaid with the literature of the qabbalah, stories formed around the central fig­ ures of the qabbalah such as Rabbi Simon bar Yohai and his group in the Zohar or the Qannah family in Sefer ha-qannah ve-ha-peliyah. Here the story has the function of creating heroic sacred biography of new heroes, and from the perspective of genre the qabbal­ istic literature added the myth. The historical events that shaped the Jewish world in the Middle Ages—the Muslim conquests and the Crusades—were expressed in a popular narrative genre called aggadah, legend, which is a story related to an historical event and believed by the target group to actually have happened. Thus developed the genre of historic aggadah as a part of Hebrew histori­ ography and the historic collective memory. Sefer Yosiyppon (see JOSEPHUS), Sefer ha-yashar, Megiyllat Ahimaa$ (see CHRONICLES), Shevef Yehudah of ibn Verga, legends of the founding of cities such as the “four captives” and stories connected with messianic expectations and the end of the world, or about men who saw themselves as the messiah or bringers of the end: David Reuveniy, Bustenai, Solomon Molkho, and the story of Joseph della Reina [some of these are postmedieval—ed.]. Here the story functions as pro­ paganda designed to encourage belief in the person and the greatness of his deeds and miracles. Popular beliefs and customs concentrated princi­ pally around the transitions of the life cycle and of the year: birth, coming of age, marriage, death; tran­ sition from day to night, the beginning of the month, a new year, and the seasons of the year. Each such shift stirred human fears and concerns, and therefore every transitional cycle gave rise to beliefs connected with the supernatural—evil spirits, demons, the “evil eye,” and so on. Every belief gives birth to customs that come to admonish the individual and protect him (a system of signs in nature, or revela­ tions in dreams) and arrays of protective measures (rituals to disperse the effects of the “evil eye,” talis­ 255

Folklore

mans and the development of popular magic medi­ cine). Folklore material of this kind is found in the majority of medieval stories and not only in specific stories connected with magic and demonology. We may mention as an example the legend of Liyliyt (“Lilith”), queen of the demons, alluded to in midrashic literature as the first Eve, but which re­ ceived its first independent and masked form in me­ dieval literature (Alfa-beita de-Ben Sira, Zohar; and Mishley ShelomoH). These incidents find expression in other areas of folklore, for example, dance and music and special clothing which accompany every such incident in the human life cycle or holiday observance. Popular visual crafts were expressed in literary col­ lections, Passover Haggadah, talismans, ornaments, and sacred utensils for the house or synagogue. The folklore tradition from the period of the tal­ mudic sages was molded anew in the Middle Ages because it was necessary to respond and to adapt it­ self to medieval actuality, to new historical incidents, to cultural influences of the new milieu, and to de­ velopments of Jewish adaptation of currents of new theological concepts. Together with this, medieval folklore preserved previous manifestations, models, themes, and various motifs. The tension between old and new, between the internal-Jewish to the external-Jewish (non-Jewish), between different Jewish groups, between different social levels and different emphases of norms and val­ ues, created a unique medieval folklore that found expression in different folkloristic categories: litera­ ture, crafts, popular beliefs, and customs. TAMAR ALEXANDER

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander-Frizer, T. The Pious Sinner—Ethics and Aesthetics in the M edieval Hasidic Narrative (Tubingen, 1991). Barkai, R. Maddd, magiyyah ve-miytologiah bi-mey ha-beinayim (Jerusalem, 1987). Dan, Joseph. ha-Siyppur ha-’ivriy bi-mey ha-beinayim (Jerusalem, 1974). Gaster, Moses. Studies and Texts in Folklore—Magic, M edieval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samar­ itan Archaeology (London, 1928). ---------. The Exempla o f the Rabbis (New York, 1968).

256

Noy, Dov. “Folklor-hagderah ve-tiylium,” in T. Alexander, ed., Ad ‘e$em ha-yom ha-zeh (Ramat Gan, 1993), pp. 27-39. Noy, Dov, and Frank Talmage, eds. Studies in Jewish Folklore (Cambridge, Mass., 1980). Schwarzbaum, H. Studies in Jewish and World Folk­ lore (Berlin, 1968).

Food Use by Jews, Laws Relating to

Food—its nature, preparation, and customs—is ob­ viously an important part of any culture. In medieval Jewish culture, in particular, it played an important role because of so-called dietary laws (kashrut; actu­ ally far more complicated than the popular term in­ dicates) and the special requirements of Sabbaths and holidays. We would like to know much more than is possible, given the state of the sources available, about what was eaten, how it was prepared, and so on. There are, nevertheless, some interesting bits of information. It is impossible here to go into all the complex de­ tails of the legal requirements concerning kashrut. In general, the term kasher (commonly, under Yiddish influence, “kosher”) means neither “clean” nor “pure,” as it has been popularly defined. Rather, it means “proper, fit” and is never used in the Bible with regard to food. The restrictions, both biblical and rabbinical, apply to three basic areas: meat, fowl, and fish; dairy products; and foods that are neither, which are commonly known as pareve (a word of un­ certain origin, first used in medieval Germany). Bib­ lical restrictions with regard to the kind of meat that could be consumed are rather simple and briefly stated; it was rabbinical interpretation (the Talmud) that created the increasingly complex system of re­ strictions and prescriptions. Essentially, only animals that have cloven hooves and that ruminate (chew their cud) may be eaten. There are, in addition, a whole series of laws concerning fowl and fish that determine whether they may be consumed. The method of slaughter, both for animals and for fowl, is another complex category of law. Basically, the ani­ mal must be killed with a sharp knife specially used for this purpose, in such a manner that it dies almost instantly, and the blood then drained at once from

Food Use by Jews, Laws Relating to

the carcass. In practice, these laws became so compli­ cated that only specially trained and highly skilled slaughterers (shohiym) were allowed to do this, and then with a rabbi knowledgeable about the laws, or a specially trained “inspector,” standing by. An interesting issue was whether a Jew was per­ mitted to slaughter meat for Muslims (in general, slaughtering meat for Gentiles is permitted; see the Mishnah in fju llin 38b). In thirteenth-century Spain, a rabbi of Toledo asked the great authority Ibn ADRET about this. According to Muslim custom, all slaughtering must be done facing the east (the qibbla:), and the Toledo rabbi was angry about this, considering it “idolatry”; he ruled a Jew should not be allowed to slaughter for Muslims. Ibn Adret was inclined to agree, but finally stated that it is not idol­ atrous, and especially when the intent is not that of the Jewish slaughterer but of the Muslim owner of the animal. The entire issue is rather peculiar, for MAIMONIDES had clearly ruled that Muslims are not idolaters. Muslim market regulations, on the other hand, sometimes prohibited Muslims from tending the ani­ mal of a Jew or Christian (so in Seville in the twelfth century). A poem against Jews in Granada in the eleventh century also refers to Jews slaughtering their animals in Muslim marketplaces, “while you [Muslims] eat their non-kasher [Ar. leftovers.” Simon Duran, who fled to North Africa to escape at­ tacks on Jews in Spain in the summer of 1391, was asked about Jews slaughtering sacrificial sheep for Muslims, and even eating these with them (on the holiday of ‘I d al-adha), and he replied that since Muslims are not idolaters it is generally permitted to slaughter meat for them, but if the sacrifice is in memory of Ishmael (according to Muslim belief that he, not Isaac, was offered for sacrifice by Abraham), then it is like slaughtering a sacrifice outside the Temple, for which the penalty is death. In any event, he concluded, it is forbidden to eat with them on a holiday (Roth, Visigoths, pp. 115, 130, 182). This last remark is peculiar, for if they are not idolaters, there is no such prohibition. In addition to laws concerning the slaughter and preparation of meat, rabbinical law restricted the mixing of meat and dairy products. This, of course, was not observed by Muslims, and in fact the fre­

quent mixing of meat with dairy products in Muslim cooking would have made it generally impossible to eat with them anyway. The suspicion of Gentiles, originating in talmudic prohibitions against contact with true idolaters, led to restrictions that in the medieval world were a con­ siderable hardship. These included a prohibition on drinking wine even touched, much less made, by a Gentile. Maimonides, basing himself on custom he had seen and heard among rabbis in Spain, permitted this with regard to Muslims, but few authorities agreed with him. This meant that Jews had to make their own wine. (The real prohibition, since rabbis in Europe did not consider Christians to be idolaters, was a fear of loose behavior that might lead to mar­ riage with Gentiles.) Very strict interpretation of similar laws meant that butter or cheese or even bread made by Gentiles could not be used. With regard to butter, there was already a difference in practice between the Jews of Palestine and those of Babylon, with the latter finally observing the prohibition, although formerly they had also permitted it ( Teshuvot ha-geoniym, ed. S. Assaf [Jerusalem, 1942], pp. 92-93, citing parallels in European rabbinical sources). These laws were less strictly observed in Muslim countries, but were rigidly followed in Christian Europe. Once again, there was no choice except for Jews to own their own cows, or to “stand by” while Gentiles milked the cows. Further problems arose with slaves in the house, and under what conditions they were allowed to prepare food (according to Jewish law, slaves were not to be kept beyond a certain period without free­ ing and converting them, but this law was not gener­ ally observed in Spain). We also hear of slaves in France and Germany as late as the twelfth century; these could not have been Muslims and must have been “pagans”: non-Christian Scandinavians. M uslim Lands

In Muslim lands, including Spain and continuing after the Reconquest by the Christians, there was, of course, a much greater variety of food available than in northern Europe, including virtually every fruit and vegetable (except such things as tomatoes) known in the modern world. Indeed, many words for common fruits and foods in English derive from Ara­

257

Food Use by Jews, Laws Relating to

bic (orange, sugar, apricot, sherbet; cinnamon, on the other hand, is from Hebrew). Dates were very important, not only in Egypt but everywhere in the Muslim world, and th^re were numerous varieties. Many Arabic recipes use dates. Figs apparently came mostly from Lebanon, Syria, and Tunisia, although they were also grown in al-Andalus (Spain). To the surprise no doubt of modern readers, bananas were quite plentiful (they were not known in Europe until modern times). Melons of various kinds were also popular (Goitein, p. 121, relates an amusing invita­ tion by a woman to her nephew to visit her and promising that he would have plenty of watermelon to eat). Peaches, prunes, and nuts of all kinds were also common. Again, these were grown not only in Palestine, Syria, and Iran, but also in Spain. Citrus fruit included oranges, lemons, and citrons (the He­ brew etrog used in a ceremony on Sukkot), but so far I have seen no reference to grapefruit. As Goitein mentioned, grafting of different species was already widely practiced (this could cause some problems in Jewish law). In al-Andalus, experts in horticulture could also grow flowers of different colors or even of variegated colored petals on the same bush. Olives were, of course, a staple. It has been claimed, perhaps correctly, that Jews introduced olives into Spain. Contrary to Goitein (p. 122), and so many unin­ formed writers, Muslims in the early medieval period were not prohibited from drinking wine, which in­ deed was very widely used. Jews also participated in wine-drinking parties with Muslims, and this also caused some problems according to Jewish law. As everywhere, the fundamental staple was wheat, stored in each house but ground at community mills. Those who could afford it were also able to buy flour of different grades in public shops. Because of the ever-present danger of fires, baking was rarely done in private homes (so also in Europe), but rather at community bakeries. Cakes were also purchased in the market, and different kinds of pastries were pop­ ular. In Muslim Spain, homes were built around a se­ ries of courtyards, the number depending on the wealth of the owner, and the kitchen was almost al­ ways in an outside building far from the center of liv­ ing, not only because of the danger of fire but also because of excessive heat in the summer. Judging from the sources, slaves most often did the actual cooking, but Jewish law required that the fire be ig­ 258

nited by a Jew, who must also stand over the slave while the cooking was done. Maimonides was asked about the Jews of Alexan­ dria, who did not bake bread on holidays in the ovens of Muslims but rather in their own homes. Several of them had come to Cairo (Fustat) and found that the custom was to use the ovens of the Muslims. Now some Muslims were coming to sell them fruit or other food on Jewish holidays, saying that it is not prohibited to Jews to do business except on the Sabbath, not on holidays. The reason for their misconception about this was that they see Jews bak­ ing on holidays (preparation of food is permitted, but not buying or selling). Maimonides was asked whether baking in public should be prohibited be­ cause of this, but he curtly dismissed the question, saying that the joy of the holiday should not be inter­ fered with because of such “remote” considerations. In another responsum, he mentions that “it happens every day” in Spain and North Africa that Jewish travelers cook in the public inns (fanadiq) and Mus­ lims cause distress to them by sometimes placing pro­ hibited food in the pots (Moses b. Maimon, Qove$ teshuvot ve-iggerot\, I4d, No. 64 and f. 15a, No. 73 Teshuvoty ed. Freimann, Nos. 73 and 92). Not all food was prepared at home, however, and often prepared food was bought in the market and brought home to eat. Famous from references in lit­ erary as well as legal sources was harisa, a medieval “hamburger” prepared from ground meat and wheat and fried in fat or oil. Condiments as well, such as vegetable appetizers, flavored vinegar sauces, or fla­ vored (rose or citrus were popular) waters, were also purchased in the market. Sausages of various kinds were also common, surviving perhaps today in the wide variety found in Spain. The Cairo GENIZAH records many of these foods, and mentions a popular pancake made from unleavened dough, honey, and almonds, with even a Jewish scholar making his liv­ ing preparing these. Incredibly, what is found in Ara­ bic stories is not a legend: ice and snow were actually brought from the mountains of Palestine and Syria to Egypt and kept in underground caves for use in the summer (in literature, we hear of camel loads of such ice arriving, say, at Baghdad so melted that only a rel­ atively small quantity survived). Abraham Ibn ‘Ez r a , the most important biblical commentator and also a philosopher and scientist,

Food Use by Jews, Laws Relating to

wrote that all illnesses are a result of the wrong kind of food entering the body or of changes in the air we breathe (commentary on Ex. 23.25). He elsewhere discussed Arabic rice, which originated in India and is very fine, not round, sweeter than wheat and often cooked in milk (commentary on Daniel 1.15). He also was a doctor, and wrote a “medical poem” of great importance, in which he associated various kinds of foods with the months of the year in which they should be eaten: leeks and sharp foods in Tishrey; in Marljeshvan one should drink must (new wine) in the morning or a honeyed alcoholic drink, and eat onions and garlic; in Kislev one should prefer chicken and sheep to beef or goat; Tevet, rich foods, and also vegetables, but never carobs (on carobs, see Goitein, p. 121); Shevat, spinach, radishes, peppers, garlic, and fish; Adar, do not eat beets or green vegetables, but celery seed should be “tasted” with spiced wine; Nisan, grilled meat; lyyar, refrain from eating any heads, also cold things; Sivan, avoid hot foods; Tammuz, avoid spicy foods, eat cold foods and boiled dates, and drink barley beer; Av, refrain from garlic, radishes, and onions, but essence (or juice) of celery should be drunk; Eluly refrain from apples (or, proba­ bly, melons as in the variant texts, since apples were not eaten in Muslim Spain), but spicy food, onions, and garlic should be eaten (see Itzhaki in Bibliogra­ phy, pp. 20-27, critical edition of the poem with notes). As a doctor, Maimonides was very concerned about diet as a part of health. Some of his remarks are of particular interest. He warns against bread made from whole wheat flour or flour not finely ground, and enriched with leaven and salt. However, mediumsifted flour, so as not to lose all the bran, and then “half ground,” is all right. He also warns against noo­ dles and spaghetti (Ar. ipiya, vermicelli; Spanish fideos, “thin noodles,” comes from Ar. fidaush, vermi­ celli). Vegetables and herbs mentioned by Mai­ monides include leeks, beets, asparagus, fennel, pars­ ley, mint, pennyroyal, summer savory, watercress, radish, lettuce, pumpkin (Coloquinte), Swedish turnip (Brassica napus), cauliflower, eggplant, regular turnip, and cucumber (listed as a fruit!). Actual fruit that he mentions include apricot, watermelon, peach, mul­ berries, dates, grapes, figs, apple, quince, raisins, and of course various kinds of citrus fruit ( Treatise on Asthma, ch. 3). As for meat, sheep should be not more

than two years old before slaughter, and fowl is better than beef. Small white-flesh fish in moderation are all right. Milk, if it can be tolerated, is all right, but not cheese. Wine is very beneficial, but adolescents should not drink it at all because it corrupts their bodies and souls (Regimen o f Health, p. 29). Special recipes, most of which are delicious, are given by him in ch. 4, including mutton grilled and served with a raisin-almond sauce, chicken dryroasted with fennel, and common “with us in Spain,” a kind of mustard mayonnaise prepared from strong ground mustard, vinegar, and olive oil. Bits of bread were dipped in the sauce. Maimonides reports that he ate only one meal a day, and sometimes supplemented this with chicken soup or five or six egg yolks with cane sugar or salt (i.e., Spanish yemas, a popular candy today), or a drink of honey, vinegar, lemon, and water (Ar. sakanjabln; oxymel); or in winter a few glasses of wine, in order not to go to bed hungry (end of ch. 6). Northern Europe

Solomon b. Isaac (“R ashT ), who was a famous rabbi in Troyes, France, in the second half of the eleventh century, left several important observations about food in his various commentaries. Small fish were coated in flour, sometimes with an egg added, and fried. Salted fish, which were soft, were eaten raw, dipped in hot water (apparently herring). Roasted meat, cooked in its own fat with onions, or spiced meat that was hung to dry are mentioned, as are also stuffed lamb or chicken. The head and feet of cows were pickled in vinegar. Raw vegetables were sea­ soned with wine, or vinegar made from unripened grapes, which also was a condiment for meat. Salt, which was a very expensive commodity in Christian Europe (often a royal monopoly) was either mined from the ground or washed ashore from the sea. Anise was used as a sweetener, but not eaten. Most interesting of all, perhaps, is a reference to a kind of small pea used as a dessert; these were so bitter that they had to be boiled seven separate times before they could be eaten. Grain mixed with oil, water, salt, and honey also constituted a dessert (olive oil, of course, was known in France and Italy, but in Germany would have been imported and probably costly). Wine was the most popular drink, and the custom of placing pieces of ice or even hailstones in the wine to 259

Food Use by Jews, Laws Relating to

keep it cool is mentioned (one hopes that this was for white wine only). Barley beer, mentioned also in Ibn ‘Ezras poem, was popular. Bread was baked in community bakeries, as in Muslim lands, and was in round, flat loaves, some­ times smeared with grape juice (while this sounds pe­ culiar, at least it was better than the practice in some Muslim lands where the baker spit water from his mouth over the bread). Unique, perhaps, to France were cookies in the shape of birds or trees, richly spiced and containing nuts or almonds. There are few references to dairy products, other than a description of the making of cream cheese from buttermilk (Shereshevsky, pp. 227-30). In a re­ sponsum, it is mentioned that he forbade his sons and members of his household to fry the heart or liver of an animal together with the meat, because of the excess blood. Nor did he permit someone to eat milk or cheese on the same table where he was eating meat ( Teshuvot hokhmey $arfat ve-Lotir, ed. Joel Muller [Vienne, 1881], No. 78). Elsewhere it is reported: “Several times I saw that the Rabbi [ “Rashi when they brought to the table some new meat dish or spiced meat or eggs fried with honey, would take it and pronounce the blessing be­ fore he would break bread and pronounce the bless­ ing [over it]. He would say to me, ‘This is more pre­ cious in my sight than the bread, and it is easier for me to bless it and praise my Maker with what I love\” On Sabbaths, he ruled that it is not allowed to order a slave to cut vegetables to eat after the Sab­ bath, since the slave must also rest on the Sabbath. He permitted throwing peels and bones into the water or ocean on the Sabbath, even from a boat (Sefer pardes ha-gadol [Jerusalem, s.a.; photo rpt. of 1870 ed.], pp. 40, 42, 43). Meat was also dipped in a mixture of wine and salt, called salse, and in such case the wine did not require a blessing (Siyddur Rashi, ed. S. Buber [Berlin, 1911], p. 58, No. 118). Jacob ha-Levy Mollin (ca. 1365-1427) wrote that saffron in which liquid (wine, etc.) was placed before the Sabbath may be mixed on the Sabbath, and men­ tioned also the practice of adding vinegar to m-u-r— y-y-s that has become completely dry; a gloss explains this as salse (Sefer Mahariy"l, p. 208, No. 14). Salted meat is also mentioned (whether it should be allowed on Passover; ibid., p. 128, No. 5). Fruit that is known not to be growing at the time, for example all fruit in 260

the winter, may be accepted from the hands of a Gentile on the Sabbath (ibid., p. 219, No. 31; it would be intriguing to know how fruit was kept in the winter; presumably pickled). There are also ques­ tions concerning the preparation of cheese and Gen­ tiles on the Sabbath (loc. cit., No. 32 and see the crit­ ical apparatus). The rabbi also distributed this cake to his students and members of the household on Purim (ibid., p. 433, second paragraph). Sabbath a n d H oliday Foods

Special foods were prepared to honor the Sabbaths and Jewish holidays. Some things were specified by law, such as the requirement of two loaves for each Sabbath meal, the sanctification over wine for both Sabbaths and holidays, and so on. Others were de­ pendent on local customs. Since rabbinical law also required eating a warm noonday meal on Sabbaths (this was directed against the QARAITES, who be­ lieved that no fire could be used, not just kindled, on the Sabbath), Jews developed ingenious ways in which to prepare hot food before the Sabbath and keep it warm until noon of the Sabbath, since actual cooking was forbidden. There were different names, and content, for these dishes in northern and eastern Europe and in Spain. Certain foods not permitted on Passover could be “sold” to a Gentile by a legal fic­ tion, or actually given to a Gentile, until after the holiday. In Germany “the drink called biyr [beer] ” is mentioned as an example, and also honey cakes called lebkuehen (Sefer Mahan ",I, p. 12, No. 5, end). I s a a c , b . S h e s h e t was asked about fideos (vermicelli, thin noodles; mentioned above by Maimonides) that were inadvertently kept during Passover (Sheelot uteshuvot, No. 3). “Cholent” or “A dafina”

There were various customs regarding food in Ger­ many, some of which changed from one city to an­ other. Fairly universal was the famous dish eaten at the main noon meal on Sabbaths, still called cholent, which apparently derives from the French word chaud, in spite of various fanciful etymologies that have been suggested (Abraham Berliner, Hayey hayehudiym be-Ashkenaz bi-mey ha-beinayim [Warsaw, 1900; photo rpt. 1969], p. 35; see there for other kinds of food eaten at the “third meal” on Sabbaths). Unfortunately, there is apparently no description

Food Use by Jews, Laws Relating to

of this special Sabbath dish. In later times, chiefly in eastern Europe, it consisted of potatoes, onions, and meat (for those who could afford it; otherwise chicken would be used), often with beans added. The mixture was cooked very slowly over low heat, then sealed in an oven until Saturday noon. Essentially the same ingredients have survived to the present, with some variations (the use of prunes, for instance). In Spain, the Jews of Huesca asked Isaac b. Sheshet whether it is permitted to eat fondas of meat baked by Christians in their ovens, noting that Ibn Adret had once said that it is forbidden unless the Jews do a considerable portion of the actual cooking, and Isaac agreed with this (Isaac b. Sheshet, Sheelot u-teshuvoty No. 514). The word fonda is also found in a Spanish source (Juan Ruiz, Libro de buen amor.; stanza 650, which Cejador in his edition incorrectly explained as a jar or container of water!). In fact, it refers exclusively to the Jewish dish cooked before the Sabbath and kept warm to eat at the noon meal, ex­ actly like the cholent among Ashkenazic Jews. Ibn Adret also cited Isaac ha-Sardiy concerning fondas made of fish and meal ( Torat ha-bay it III, f. 95b, end; cf. there f. 93b on the first question). The term is also found in Castilian Jewish sources (Todros b. Joseph Abulafia, cited in Judah b. Asher, Zikharon Yehudah, No. 91). The term fonda may be related to French panade, a kind of bread soup or pudding. When made from fish, the fonda is also described as con­ taining meal. It is also similar to the term aldafina, or adafina., which is also used to describe the food kept warm for the Sabbath noonday meal, and is probably derived from Arabic dafina., meaning “covered, hid­ den.” It is, in fact, this term (adafina) that is most often found in fifteenth-century sources, and of course among Sefardic Jews after the Expulsion to the present. This term appears in numerous fifteenthcentury Inquisition processes against conversos, in satirical poetry by converso poets, and elsewhere (see Roth, index s.v, adafina., where, incidentally, p. 91 should be 81). From the records of one trial we have the description of the exact ingredients: garbanzos, avas (?), fat meat, and if in season eggplants, and maidenhair ferns, caraway seed, cumin, peppers, and onions. Holidays also required, by law or custom, special food. Passover is the most obvious, where the entire house had to be cleansed of all frames (leavening, or

anything that is leavened). Special unleavened bread (ma$$ah) was baked, sometimes in the home but again, usually in community ovens and always by men who knew the applicable laws. Other special food that had to be served included haroset, a dish to symbolize mortar used in making bricks by the He­ brew slaves in Egypt. The ingredients in that dish varied widely, as they still do, but usually included wine, nuts, spices, and some kind of fruit. A fresh spring vegetable (kharpas) is also required, and whereas today this is commonly parsley, in the me­ dieval period it was usually celery, as we have seen (whether this was true also in Spain is impossible to determine). Any kind of meat except roast lamb (because of the similarity to the paschal sacrifice) could be eaten. Bitter herbs, usually horseradish, were also easily ob­ tainable. Four cups of wine had to be drunk during the recitation of the Haggadah (booklet telling the story of the exodus from Egypt, with other rabbini­ cal material, prayers, etc.). In northern Spain, white wine was considered more precious and of better quality than red, and in some manuscript illumina­ tions of the seder; white wine can clearly be seen in the crystal bottle or in glasses on the table. Whether or not special foods (usually fried in oil to commemorate the “miracle” of the oil that burned in the Temple candelabrum for eight days) were eaten on the minor holiday of Hanukkah is un­ known, and the same for other holidays such as Shavuot or Purim. The reason for this lack of infor­ mation is that unless something became a legal prob­ lem it simply is not mentioned in the sources, chiefly rabbinical. We have no diaries or even important lit­ erary sources from the Jews of England, France, Ger­ many, or other countries aside from Spain. Even the famous diary of Gliickel of Hameln (1646-1724), al­ though written by a wife and mother, makes no men­ tion whatever of food. In any case, it would be dan­ gerous to draw conclusions from a later period as to what customs were in the Middle Ages. Travel accounts, such as those of BENJAMIN OF TUDELA or Pethyah of Regensburg and others, also fail to provide information about food eaten in dif­ ferent Jewish communities. The single exception is the Italian rabbi ‘Ovadyah da Bertinoro, who in 1487 went to Palestine. He describes a Sabbath meal in Alexandria, which he says was typical of all Mus­ 261

Food Use by Jews, Laws Relating to

lim countries. Everyone sat on a carpet, with a boy pouring wine, and all kinds of seasonal fruit were placed on a cloth on the carpet. They all ate the fruit, accompanied by plenty of wine. Following the fruit, fresh ginger, dates, raisins, almonds, and other con­ fectionaries were served, along with raisin wine and other kinds of wine. What is missing here, of course, is the rest of the meal; surely they also ate meat and vegetables, but there is no description of that. The rabbi was very impressed by the large quantities of wine consumed. Christian Spain

Joseph Ibn Zabara of Barcelona (twelfth century) was a doctor who also wrote a literary work (maqamah, rhymed-prose novella), Sefer shaashuiym (Book of delights). In this, we find some references to food and advice on eating; he mentions, for example, a fa­ tigued traveler who did not wish to eat much imme­ diately upon arriving at his destination, and gives the sayings of Diogenes and Hippocrates that warn against improper eating or too much eating, which causes illness (see also Maimonides as cited above). He says that food should be chosen for its beneficial qualities rather than delicacy of taste. There is the well-known saying, attributed here to Plato, “eat to live, and not live to eat.” Amusing is the saying at­ tributed to Hippocrates about eating meat: “and do not make your stomachs burial places for animals.” Even foods that are generally healthy, such as lettuce, have also bad qualities (dulls the eyesight and in­ creases foot pain). He has nothing good to say about wine, either (unlike Maimonides), for it blinds the eyes, blackens the teeth, causes forgetfulness, dulls the intellect, and “reveals the secrets of friends and raises dissension between brothers.” The “antagonist” in his story, however, countered all of this by saying that wine brings forth joy, aids digestion, strengthens a weak heart, and quiets pain. Of course, all of chap­ ter 8, where most of these discussions take place, is satirical, with the end result that the antagonist has prepared a complete roasted sheep for his “guest,” but then refuses to allow him to eat any of it. Never­ theless, many of the sayings and statements about food and drink are real enough. Menaljem ha-Meiri (d. 1310) of Perpignan, one of the great talmudic commentators, recorded several quarrels that he and other Provencal sages had with 262

some Spanish Jews who settled there concerning dif­ ferences in customs and practices. One of these con­ cerned their custom to eat cheese after fowl without waiting for any period (rabbinical law required wait­ ing five or six hours after eating meat before eating any dairy product, and that law was also extended by some rabbis to include fowl). In discussing this, Menahem mentions that “Rabbeinu Tam’ (Jacob b. Meir, grandson of “Rashf) did not wait to eat cheese even after meat, nor after cheese to eat meat (he cites the customs also of other rabbis). He also mentions that Jewish women in Provence were careful not to eat broad beans or lentils without inspecting them, but that they were not that careful in their inspection. Dry lentils could easily be in­ spected by soaking them in water (worms, if any, would rise to the top), and there is less reason to worry about fresh lentils or about beans, where this is not a common problem. The Spanish students com­ plained about this leniency, and Menahem sharply rebuked them, “Leave our daughters alone, for our women are the daughters of teachers [scholars]” (Magen avot, ff. 46—48, 55). Responsa and legal sources contain many refer­ ences to food. A Jew came from Majorca to an un­ named community in Aragon-Catalonia with salted lamb for sale. This is described as very thin meat, from lambs about eight days old. Meat from older lambs was also salted and sold, but at a lower price than that of younger lambs. This was eaten only by Jews, but it is stated that in Castile the Christians did eat salted meat of young goats. Salting, of course, was necessary to preserve meat when it could not be pur­ chased fresh. Jewish slaughterers bought their ani­ mals from Gentile herdsmen (Christians or Mus­ lims), sometimes leaving the slaughtered carcasses with them before the rabbis had a chance to inspect them. Ibn Adret ruled that this should not be done. Elsewhere he stated that in a city where the slaugh­ terers are Jews and the majority of the butchers sell only ritually slaughtered meat, but some Gentiles sell meat not slaughtered by Jews, it is permissible to de­ pend on all meat sold there by Jews as being kasher. He strenuously objected to what “Rabbi Dan” (Dan Ashkenazi, undoubtedly) had said in Zaragoza, that it is permissible to use meat slaughtered by a Chris­ tian if there are Jewish observers, which is complete nonsense and something a child would know how to

Food Use by Jews, Laws Relating to

answer: “it is forbidden to hear such things, much less say them and write them in a book in ink.” His objection was not that such slaughter is permissible (it is), but rather that the rabbi had said that the Christian must know the Jewish laws of slaughter, to which Ibn Adret replied that the Jews watching the procedure must know the laws, and that is all that is required (Sheelot u-teshuvot I, No. 529, and cf. Nos. 530 and 761 [end] ). Aristocrats, of course, whether Christian or Jew­ ish, lived quite differently from ordinary people. There were many Jewish aristocrats in Spain, and some were high-ranking government officials. One of these was Jahuda de Cavalleria, an official of Jaime I of Aragon-Catalonia. The king granted him many favors, including (1264) the privilege of having a hunter—Christian, Jew, or Muslim—to provide him and his family with turtledoves, partridges, quail, and other small game, not to exceed thirty per day. We have other evidence of Jews hunting in medieval Spain, in spite of some problems that were raised about this in Jewish law. More strictly observant Jews were aware that this was not a recognized form of slaughter according to Jewish law; for example, some Jews in Huesca asked Ibn Adret if it was allowed to eat pigeons brought as a gift by a Gentile, since the pigeons were raised domestically and not hunted (Sheelot u-teshuvotW , No. 47). In one of the collections of poems by a fifteenthcentury converso poet, we find mentioned a number of foods commonly eaten by Jews, including beets, hung (or dried) beef, pancakes, fritters of flour and eggs fried in oil, bread fried in oil, eggplants, and small balls of forced meat (meatballs, in other words). The use of eggplants was so common among Jews (as were artichokes among Italian Jews) that a preference for eggplants was enough to serve as an ac­ cusation that a convert was really a Jew. Christian Restrictions on Jewish Food

Church authorities repeatedly tried to prevent cordial relations between Christians and Jews, including eat­ ing together. It is instructive that most of these restric­ tions and complaints had to do with Spain, including Provence. Numerous local church councils tried to prevent Jews from selling meat to Christians or using Christian butcher shops (see numerous examples in Grayzel, p. 72, n. 139, and p. 316 ff., etc.). This was

not only an attempt to discourage relations between Christians and Jews; it also arose from suspicions about Jewish slaughtering laws, which prevented the use of the hindquarters of meat, which were routinely sold to non-Jews. Several of the ecclesiastical com­ plaints focus on the fact that Jews sell to Christians something that they themselves will not eat. In Spain, civil law also sometimes prohibited Jews from selling meat to Christians, or a Christian butcher selling such meat (thus the fuero of Madrid, 1202), and Jaime I in 1268 issued a privilege to Jews allowing them to sell all foods to Christians except for meat slaughtered by them in accord with Jewish law. Eventually this was ignored, or changed, since in fact Jews did have tables in the street used for the sale of meat and did sell meat to Christians. Very interest­ ing were the laws of Seville in 1340, which not only allowed but required Jews to sell to Christians any wine not used for their own consumption, and al­ lowed Christians to make wine for Jews “according to the custom of those who make Jewish wine [vino judiego]” that the Jew have a key to the storehouse (which certainly was not in accord with Jewish law). Jews were allowed to sell trefe (so, in Spanish; Heb. treifah, unfit) meat to non-Jews. In 1326, with the consent of the Jews of VALENCIA, Jaime II allowed a table in the market for the sale of meat by Jews. There were several other such laws (see also the inter­ esting discussion in Tury ” Yoreh d e ‘a h” 39, end, and the commentary “Beit Yosef”). Tarrega had at one time a law prohibiting Jews from “presuming to touch” bread or other food (for sale in the market), which law was revoked by Pedro IV in 1347. However, the hatred of Jews behind these ideas goes back to early medieval Christian clerics. St. Hi­ lary of Poitiers refused to eat with Jews or even return their greeting. A sermon attributed to St. Cesarius of Arles also inveighed against the practice of eating with Jews, and Agobard objected to Christian servants of Jews drinking their wine. On the other hand, the Visigothic king Erwig prohibited Jews from refusing to eat with Christians. Canon law (the Decretum) also attempted to prevent Christians from eating with Jews. Ramon de Penafort (see CANON LAW, SPANISH LAW), in his own work of canon law, wrote that Chris­ tians must not eat with Jews nor receive them as guests at a meal, adding that Jews through “contempt of our food” impugn the Christian faith. In 1436, the 263

Food Use by Jews, Laws Relating to

legal clerk of the archbishop of Toledo sent a letter protesting this. The archbishop himself had ordered at the synod of Alcala various restrictions on such re­ lations. Very interesting is his statement that Chris­ tians “eat and drink with these Jews continually.” Ap­ parently in spite of the greatest effort, Church officials never succeeded entirely in preventing the cama­ raderie that comes from sharing food. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gotein, S[hlomo] D[ov]. A Mediterranean Society (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1967), Vol. 1. Ibn Zabara, Joseph. Sefer sha'ashuiym, ed. Israel Davidson (New York, 1914), with Eng. intro.; The Book o f Delight, tr. Moses Hadas (New York, 1932), poor tr. Jacob b. Moses ha-Levy Mollin. Sefer Mahari"l minhagiym, critical ed. Shlomo Spitzer (Jerusalem, 1989). Menahem b. Solomon ha-Meiri. Sefer magen avot (London, 1909; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1978). Moses b. Maimon (Maimonides). Treatise on Asthma, tr. Suessman Muntner (Philadelphia, 1963). --------- . Two Treatises on the Regimen o f Health, tr. A. Bar-Sela, H. E. Hoff, and Elias Faris (Philadel­ phia, 1964). Roth, Norman. Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expul­ sion o f the Jews from Spain (Madison, 1995; paper ed., 2002). Shereshevsky, Esra. Rashi: The Man and His World (New York, 1982). Yiztaqi, Mascha. “Didactic tendencies in the secular poetry of Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra” (Heb.), in Levin, Is­ rael, ed., Mehqariym be-ye$iyrato shel Avraham Ibn 'Ezra (= Teudah 8 [1992] ): 1-27.

Frankfort Lying at the intersection of important land routes and waterways, Frankfurt has been a significant city for trade and one of the most important palatinates in Germany since the age of Charlemagne. Medieval Frankfurt hosted numerous imperial diets, and after 1147 the city was the site of the royal election. The first mention of Frankfurt’s Jewish popula­ tion was made in a privilege decreed in 1074 by Em­ peror Henry IV. He proclaimed that “Jews and other 264

merchants from Worms” were released from the obli­ gation to pay taxes levied in many places, including Frankfurt, as reward for their services rendered in time of great need. Although this reference to Jewish life and trade was interpolated somewhat later, it re­ flects the reality of the city. Since the twelfth century, Frankfurt has been an important trading place, and beginning in 1330 two large trading fairs have taken place there each year. However, Jews settled in the city in the High Middle Ages with some hesitation. In 1252, Rabbi Eliezer b. Nathan of Mainz cited Frankfurt as an example of a city with no organized Jewish congregation, though Jews had the right to re­ quire a pittance tax from fellow Jews traveling through the city. He speaks of countless Jews who visited the market and found lodging with non-Jews. Even at the beginning of the thirteenth century, there was no large congregation, as evidenced by the fact that Rabbi Eli eser b. Joel ha-Levy from Cologne had to help in freeing Jews who had been jailed in Frank­ furt. He was unable to make the required record of the proceedings because there was no Jewish book­ keeping in the city. A list of tax schedules for cities and Jewish com­ munities dates from the year 1241. The four cities of Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Wetzlar, and Friedberg paid a total of 740 (Cologne) marks, and the Jews of this area paid 150 marks. Of this total, the largest portion was paid by the Jews of Frankfurt. A comparison with the sums paid by other congregations suggests that the Jews of Frankfurt enjoyed relatively strong eco­ nomic life in the city. During these years the Frank­ furt congregation numbered more than two hundred, with three rabbis, one synagogue, and two schools. These estimated figures come from reports of the ca­ tastrophe that destroyed the congregation in 1241. The M assacre o f 1241 The first massacre of Jews took place on May 24, 1241, during the widespread persecutions that oc­ curred in Germany between the First Crusade in the eleventh century and the waves of Jewish expulsions at the end of the thirteenth century. According to a comprehensive report in the annals of the DOMINI­ CANS of Erfurt, a bloody conflict was ignited in Frankfurt between Christians and Jews when relatives and friends of a young Jew tried to prevent his being baptized. In two days of fighting, 180 Jews, as well as

Frankfurt

some Christians, died by the sword or in fires. These fires, it is said, were started by the Jews themselves. Half the city went up in flames. Both Hebrew lamen­ tation songs and the chronicle of Nuremberg known as the Memorbuch confirm the number of dead. The chronicle mentions forty-nine men and forty-two women by name, five sons and eight daughters of adult age, and fifty-six children. Of the surviving Jews, twenty-four chose baptism over death, includ­ ing the leader of the congregation, the episcopus, who was probably a rabbi. Records from this period men­ tion a much-debated legal problem involving a young Jewish woman who was baptized and later reverted to Judaism; in the meantime her Jewish fiance in Wurzburg became engaged to another woman. The context for the massacres of Jews may have been the fury that consumed Jews and Christians alike. In 1240 the fifth century of the Jewish calendar came to an end, and the Jews were seized by mes­ sianic expectations. Then in 1241 news of invasions by Mongols (Tatars) in eastern Europe spread the fear of imminent death among Christians. Rumors spread that made Jews appear suspect, and hysteria seized the Christian population. Jews reportedly be­ lieved that the Tatar invasions signaled the return of the ten lost tribes of Israel and that soon they would be free from Christian oppression and become rulers of the world. Christians came to believe that the Jews nurtured a secret allegiance with the Mongol in­ vaders and that they were smuggling weapons to the Tatars in wine barrels. The events were in part encouraged by the long absence of the emperor, who was considered a friend of the Jews and who had a bitter dispute with the pope. Later, FREDERICK II ordered an investigation into the destruction of the Jews, whom he called his loyal servants. The investigation was concluded in 1246 by his son Conrad IV, and with the blessing of the citizens of Frankfurt it proclaimed that the citi­ zens of Frankfurt had killed the Jews more out of carelessness and accident than by intention. The Expansion o f Frankfurt

In the thirteenth century, Frankfurt grew into an im­ perial city. After 1220 the mayor assumed the posi­ tion of Burgvogt, or castle steward, and directed the court council as its chairman. In 1266 the council of city patricians met for the first time; in 1276 the im­

perial palace was transferred from the city; in 1297 the city charter was written; beginning in 1311, two mayors were elected from the council to run the city. After the massacre of the Jews, the city removed the Jewish cemetery east of the cathedral. Further expul­ sions of Jews in Koblenz and Sinzig demanded that Archbishop Werner of Mainz institute a three-year peace with regional counts and lords as well as the cities of the region. Accordingly, “unrestrained per­ sons in cities who, without respect for kingdom and against the will of God, incite unrest against the Jews, insult or sometimes cruelly murder them,” would be charged with breaking the peace. During this period, a Jewish congregation began forming again in Frankfurt; the first organization of Jews convened no later than 1288. They were repre­ sented by a rabbi (magister Iudeorum) and a director. The Jews lived on both sides of two streets, the Fahrgasse and the Saalgasse, in the northern area of Bruckenkopf near the church of St. Bartholomaeus, which later became a cathedral. A synagogue and a schoolhouse, as well as entertainment and dance houses, were located across from the parish priests residence. There was a Jewish bath nearby, and a new cemetery was placed at the eastern end of the city walls. The areas of Frankfurt important to Jewish life show that Jews and Christians did not live in strictly separated parts of the city. Like Jewish populations of any city, the entire congregation paid the Jewish tax. A number of fami­ lies were in service not to the king but to other lords, and so were free from the royal tax and could leave the city without royal permission. The Jews of Rodelheim also paid no taxes, could do business in Frank­ furt, and were subject only to the city court. Jews earned their living almost exclusively through moneylending. A security deposit served as insurance on a loan, and occasionally borrowers pledged land or other possessions. Debtors came from all strata of Christian and Jewish society. Other professions ex­ cluded from Jewish taxes included doctors, bakers, butchers, carpenters, and certified teachers, as well as rabbis and cantors. Doctors educated students, and some rabbis directed schools in which the majority of pupils were foreign. After Jews were repeatedly convicted of commit­ ting R i t u a l m u r d e r , Rabbi M e i r b . B a r u c h of Rothenburg led Jews to the Holy Land from Mainz, 265

Frankfurt

Oppenheim, W O R M S, Speyer, and the region around Frankfurt. However, the Jews of Frankfurt did not accompany them. In 1287 the alleged ritual murder of the “good Werner” caused waves of Jewish expul­ sions from the Moselle region and from the central and near Rhine regions. This led the Jewish congre­ gation of Frankfurt to ask for a copy of the bull of protection renewed by Pope Gregory X. This copy was witnessed by Emperor Rudolf of Habsburg and the city council of Frankfurt. In 1291, shortly after his coronation, Adolf of Nassau attempted to collect part of the coronation costs from the Jews, but the mayor of Frankfurt prevented him from doing so. The mayor placed the interests of the city and its protected citizens, the Jews, above those of the ab­ solute rule of the king. After Rabbi Meir died in prison in 1293, King Adolf of Nassau refused to allow the repatriation of the body. Only in 1307, under Albert I, did Alexan­ der Siisskind ben Salomo Wimpfen from Frankfurt manage to retrieve the body by exchanging it for a significant sum of money. He then received permis­ sion to be buried next to Rabbi Meir in the Jewish cemetery of Worms. After 1311, Frankfurt bestowed on Jews the same rights as those enjoyed by Christian citizens. In 1331 Emperor Louis the Bavarian (Louis IV, 1314-1347) asked the city of Frankfurt to issue a letter of protection to the Jews. When the Jews of Frankfurt felt threatened by the “Armleder” uprising in Franken, the city requested protection from the emperor, who then expressly demanded that the most powerful nobles in the region, Count Ulrich II of Hanau and Count von Eppstein, keep anyone in­ tending to attack Jews away from Frankfurt. He also ordered Archbishop Henry III of Mainz to develop with the Frankfurt city council a way of protecting the Jews. Jews were also subjected to the overreaching de­ mands of the church, and the city and emperor even­ tually intervened to protect them. In 1312, Pope Clement V required the Jews to pay the tenth that Christians who owned houses and land paid toward the building of Bartholomaeus cathedral. If they re­ fused, he threatened what was called indirect excom­ munication, a decree that forbade Christians from doing business with Jews under penalty of EXCOM­ MUNICATION. In 1320 the church found the Jew Salman von Bruchselden of Frankfurt guilty of de­ 266

manding interest at a rate higher than that permitted by canon law. In 1337 Louis the Bavarian declared that the city courts alone were responsible for trials against Jews and forbade the church from trying Jews before a religious court. In 1340 Archbishop Henry III of Mainz ordered the cantor of St. Bartholomaeus church not to use excommunication as a threat in a trial concerning loans and debts and required the church to transfer jurisdiction to a municipal court. In time, the amount of tax collected from Jews climbed higher and higher. By the end of the thir­ teenth century, the Jewish tax had risen to 623 marks. In addition to the imperial tax, the “Jewish tenth” was required by the archbishop of Mainz. Whenever the emperor stayed in the city, and under Louis the Bavarian this was almost every year, the Jews had to supply his office with parchment, his entourage with bedding, and his cooks with kitchenware. By 1316, their rising debt had forced the Jews to open lending banks within the buildings shared by the congrega­ tion. In 1331 Louis concluded an agreement under which the Jews made partial payment on ten years of future taxes. Both Jews and Christians, and even the clergy, had to contribute funds to the building of a city wall in 1333. Then in 1336 Louis added a further payment to benefit Ulrich II of Hanau, and in 1341 came the guldene Pfennig, or golden penny, a tax paid by each Jew residing in the kingdom. When fourteen Jewish families then left Frankfurt, the emperor took their possessions and sold their houses to the city. Later, the majority of those who had fled returned, and the city and the Jews agreed to a settlement. The transfer of the throne to Charles IV of Lux­ embourg (1346-1378) occurred during a period of near civil war. Two catastrophic developments at­ tended this transfer of power: the outbreak of plague and the sudden spread of suspicions about Jews, who were accused of conspiring against Christians and of poisoning their wells. After the death of the rival Gunther von Schwarzburg, Frankfurt sided with Charles IV. There had been relatively little social un­ rest in the city, and while rumors of massacres of Jews outside Frankfurt streamed into the city, the city council took measures to protect its Jewish commu­ nity. In December 1348 the Jews paid an additional 400 pounds to strengthen the city defenses, and in June 1349 the city reinforced the wall along the Jew­ ish streets and cemetery. But by the spring, political

Frankfurt

conflict and anti-Jewish sentiment had reached the nearby mountain villages. When a throng of flagellators came through the area, one fell sick after drink­ ing water from a well. The town officials interrogated three Jews. One confessed to poisoning the well; the other two men were burned to death. Then in June 1349 Charles IV came to Frankfurt, where he required the payment of 15,200 pounds to cover the enormous expense that a war and a corona­ tion ceremony had cost the kingdom. He ordered the money taken from all—from the Jews, their prop­ erty, favors, and services to the nobility, including the income of the archbishop and Lord von Eppstein. Only the municipal court of Frankfurt, not a foreign court, could sanction such measures. At the same time that he demanded the money, the emperor par­ doned the city—in advance—of all responsibility for the possible destruction of the Jews, which, it was said, God would not wish Das got nich emuelle”). He then permitted the city, in such a case, to supply the total tax demanded by appropriating what re­ mained after the murder and expulsion of the Jews. He promised to secure the permission of the regional prince for this action. Charles IV also ordered the imperial governor ofWetterau, the counts of Hanau, and other princes and lords to protect the citizens and Jews of Frankfurt. The situation in the region began to intensify. Christians, it seems, learned the contents of a letter written from Schlettstadt (Elasass) on June 30 that painted a vivid picture of the alleged crimes commit­ ted by Jews as well as their confessions. A mob of flagellators forced its way into the city from the west and initiated the massacre. The council fruitlessly sought to restrain the agitated mob with armed guards. Reports of this second massacre of Jews, writ­ ten at a later date, try to clear the Frankfurt citizens of responsibility. According to these records, guards successfully protected the Jews until the Jews al­ legedly began burning the St. Bartholomaeus church. A number of Jews escaped the massacre, in part by submitting to baptism. Later evidence confirms that some baptized Jews survived, along with some rela­ tives of those killed in the massacre. After the massacre the city sealed off the Jewish quarter and sent an ambassador to the king. As the declaration issued shortly before the massacre had re­ quested, the city handed over the remaining prop­

erty. By August the king had given away a Jewish house in Frankfurt to the countess Irmengard of Nas­ sau, though the city was not made aware of this. In 1354, Charles IV officially sanctioned the seizure of property as payment of outstanding taxes. The city also acquired the letters of debt for loans owed to the Jews, which the city could execute when the date of payment came due. In 1351 St. Bartholomaeus church began using the grounds of the Jewish ceme­ tery. The city also appropriated the Jewish cemetery over time and used the gravestones to build, among other things, the altar to Charlemagne. Jewish Life ajier the Massacre o f 1349

Jews first appeared again in Frankfurt after 1358, though only as visitors to the city marketplace. As Frankfurt deliberated whether to permit Jews to re­ side in the city, Charles IV gave the city a privilege in July 1360 that allowed it to accept Jews. The Jewish taxes to be collected would finance the repairing of bridges and satisfy the monetary claims made by neighboring counts; the city and kingdom would evenly divide the rest. With this agreement, the em­ peror granted the city the complete right to give Jews the protection of law and order, but he retained the right to rescind this privilege with two months’ no­ tice. Such conditions, however, were not enough to encourage Jewish resettlement. The number of Jews immigrating to Frankfurt rose only after 1363, when the renewed formula of the proclamation granted a six-year residence period to Jews and guaranteed that any notice of nonrenewal would have to come one year in advance. The city took measures to ensure that all rights were extended to Jews. It concluded an agreement with Archbishop Gerlach of Mainz in 1358. The city paid 7,500 florins to offset the amount of the yearly Jewish tax that no longer would go to the archbishop. In 1372 the city paid 6,000 florins for half of the im­ perial tax that it had not yet delivered. In 1390 King Wenceslas confirmed the transfer to the city of all the deposits belonging to the Jews of Frankfurt. The archbishop of Mainz still administered a yearly tax on certain Jews and received payment from the con­ gregation for the letters of protection he issued on their behalf. The kingdom continued to demand payment of the golden-penny tax on each Jew and imposed some unusual, temporary taxes. 267

Frankfurt

In 1390 Emperor Wenceslas ordered all debts owed to Jews to be repaid, and the city administered the decree. After he concluded a similar agreement with debtors of nobility in 1391, the Jews had to for­ ward all letters of debt and deposit to a city commis­ sion that verified the outstanding contracts. The city courts were asked to resolve disputed cases. Another commission verified the debts of citizens and farm­ ers. Debts of fewer than 10 florins required repayment, and debts above this amount were usually reduced. In addition to the debtors themselves, the city council and the emperor benefited from this agreement. In 1391 King Wenceslas granted the Jews of Frankfurt and other German cities a very attractive and permanent privilege. Later letters of protection from Kings Rupert, Sigmund, Frederick III, and Maximilian were based on this privilege. In 1423 the city refused to pay an extraordinary high tax, and Emperor Sigmund (1410-1437) instituted an act that nullified the royal decree protecting the Jews of Frankfurt. The Jews left the city for one year until the council could persuade the emperor to rescind the tax and revoke the act. At the same time, Sigmund is­ sued the municipal Jewish ordinance—the residency laws—that legally secured the relationship of the city to its resident Jewish population. These residency laws affirmed the right to reside in the city and the original proclamation of protection, as well as the re­ quirement to pay taxes for this right. In addition to defining the privilege of residency, the residency laws defined broader rights and obligations of the Jews. The original proclamation of protection was repeat­ edly restricted over time, however, and to restore it the Jews had to pay an additional tax every few years. Thus it was modified and restored again and again. In 1364 there were sixteen tax-paying Jewish households, and in 1365 there were twenty-two. Until 1503 this figure never rose above twenty-eight, and during this time there were significant swings in the number of Jews in the city, ranging from 110 to 200 people. In a city with a total stable population of nine thousand to ten thousand, Jews made up only 1 to 2 percent. From 1349 to 1462 Jews lived in the same Bruckenkopf quarter of the city, though it had been reduced in size over time by some of the prop­ erty seizures. The Jewish quarter was never closed off from the rest of the city, and Christians who were

268

manual laborers and even patricians lived in it. After 1380 Jews began settling in other parts of the city. Jews restored the buildings used by their congre­ gation, and next to the synagogue and hospice they constructed a residence for poor Jews and students. Jews visited Christian bathhouses in Sachsenhausen and again used the cemetery east of the city wall. As they had done earlier, they made their living primar­ ily by lending money in transactions based on letters of debt, securities, and deposits. The amount loaned generally ranged from 25 to 100 pounds, and letters of debt rarely rose over one thousand pounds. Most profits were collected from customers not residing in the city. Occasionally Jews came together to form a company of moneylenders. They also sold many dif­ ferent kinds of deposits. After 1474 they could en­ gage in wholesale trade, primarily in wine, spices, silk, tin, brass, and jewelry. In the late Middle Ages the number of Jewish doctors in Frankfurt grew, and there is even a record of two female eye doctors. Like other citizens, the Jews were divided into troops to patrol the city at night. They were also en­ listed to do mining and to perform military service in defense of the city, though at the end of the fifteenth century the city accepted a payment to waive Jews from military service. One must distinguish among the Jewish population those who had the right to res­ idency—in general those who owned homes—and the countless Jews who were not licensed residents. Members of the first group were rich, and each had written confirmation of his right of residency. Mem­ bers of the second group were from the middle classes and had only collective permission to enter the city. In 1500 the wealth of seventeen Jewish resi­ dents was as follows: five between 225 and 500 florins, six between 500 and 1,000 florins, five be­ tween 1,000 and 2,600 florins, and one with 5,400 florins. At the head of the Frankfurt congregation were three directors elected from among the Jews with res­ idency privileges. Important decisions were made at congregation gatherings. There were many rabbis in the congregation, one of whom was elected head rabbi of the community. A cantor, a Schulklopfer, or shammash, who witnessed the exchange of vows and the swearing of oaths, and headmaster of the school also served the congregation. The Jewish court con-

Frankfurt

vened under the direction of the head rabbi, and the other three leaders were also present. Court decisions were valid only for disputes between Jews. The proto­ cols of the Christian authorities limited the courts activities. Trials required the permission of the city head and later the mayor, and appeals to the city council were accepted. The decisive court authority of the Jews was the city council and imperial court under the direction of the mayor. The council attempted to prevent sum­ monses and lawsuits from appearing before the castle court of Rottweil, the clerical court of the archbishop of Mainz, and what amounted to a kangaroo court in Westphalia. In disputes between Jews and Christians, reputable Christian and Jewish witnesses were re­ quired. Occasionally Jews appeared in court as wit­ nesses against Christians. The city council sought within its powers to protect Jews, provided legal aid against the claims of former lords, and supported Jews in cases against their debtors and against feuds with foreign lords. It also prosecuted those who abused and insulted Jews and intervened against Christians who refused to deliver goods and services. Jews paid for special protection of the Jewish quarter in times of greater danger, such as large gatherings in the market, the elections of kings, visitations by no­ bility, performances of passion plays, and Christian holidays, especially Easter week. Jewish festivals also required extra protection. In the fifteenth century, passion plays stirred emo­ tions against Jews with anti-Semitic depictions, espe­ cially that of 1493. Sometime after 1475 a strongly disparaging image of Jews, depicting the murder of the two-year-old Simon of Trent and the so-called Judensau, or Jewish swine, was erected on the bridge tower. It hung there until the eighteenth century. In the second half of the fifteenth century, regulations that restricted Jewish life and commerce increased. Jews were no longer permitted to loan money on Sundays, on holidays, or at night. Ordinances from 1460 and 1474 required Jews to wear a BADGE when outside the Jewish quarter. The area near the parish church, which Frederick III (1440-1493) continually faulted, was becoming a nuisance, and the city could no longer protect and guard the Jews, because they did not live in a strictly defined neighborhood and were spreading

out through the city. In 1460 the council ordered all the Jews of Frankfurt to relocate to the newer district by the steps of the city wall. This created an enclosed ghetto with three gates, which were closed and guarded at night. The city built the housing, which remained its property. In 1496 there were fifteen houses; the free space between them was used as a meeting area, a garden, and stables. On the east side were the synagogue, miqveh (ritual bath), dance hall, hospital, pub, community center, and house for the schoolmaster. Often three generations of a family lived in one house, and at times two families lived in a house, as well as servants and maids. However, at this time Christians and Jews enjoyed a close relationship. Christians housed Jews, lodged in the ghetto, met to dance and entertain and bathe. Sexual relationships also occurred, but they were punished by deportation. Christians consulted Jew­ ish doctors, and Jews used Christian services and charities. In the fifteenth century the demand to deport the Jews was nevertheless strong. The city, however, feared the high taxes the king would impose to grant permission for deportation. Thus, aside from Worms, Frankfurt was the only larger city in Ger­ many where Jews lived in close confines that became increasingly and intolerably crowded. Except for the short expulsion during the rebellion of 1614-1616, Jews lived in the ghetto, which was never enlarged, from 1460 until Jewish emancipation opened the gates. FRIEDRICH LOTTER [TRANSLATED BY EDITORIAL

st a f f

]

b ib l io g r a ph y

(added by editor) Dietz, Alexander. The Jewish Community o f Frankfurt. A Genealogical Study (1349-1849) (Camelford, Cornwall, England, 1988); limited edition. Freimann, A., and F. Kracauer. Frankfort (Philadel­ phia, 1929). Graetz, Michael. Vom M ittelalter in die Neuzeit : jiidische Staadtebilder: Frankfurt, Prag, Amsterdam (Heidelberg, 1999). Kracauer, Isidor. Aus der inneren Geschichte der Juden Frankfurts im XIV. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt a. M. 1914).

269

Frankfurt

---------. Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt am Main von 1150—1400 (Frankfurt, 1914). --------- . Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt am Maim (1150—1824) (Frankfurt, 1925), 2 vols. Wamers, Egon. Die Judengasse in Frankfurt am Main: Ergebnisse der archaologischen Untersuchungen am Borneplatz (Stuttgart, 2000).

Frederick II Hohenstaufen (1194-1250)

One of the most interesting, and most influential, medieval rulers was Frederick II Hohenstaufen (the family name of the German dynasty that ruled as Holy Roman Emperors from the eleventh to the middle of the thirteenth centuries). Frederick II (1194—1250) was outstanding for his favorable treat­ ment of Jews, and he was unique in this respect in medieval Europe (outside of Spain). Though his grandfather Frederick I Barbarosa (1152-1190) had a record of generally favorable treatment of Jews and was highly praised by them, his father, Henry VI (1190-1197), did little of note to promote Jews or Jewish culture. An ambitious and perhaps even ruth­ less king interested in consolidating and expanding his power, Henry VTs main achievement was taking control of SICILY from a rival Norman would-be king, Tancred. Henry was crowned king of Sicily in 1194, and was married to Constance of Sicily, who gave birth to their only child, Frederick, at Jesi in that same year. Henry is famous for having held Richard I of England (captured by the duke of Austria on his return from the crusade) for an enormous ransom. Henry’s attempt to unite Sicily and Germany and crown his infant son, elected “king of the Romans” (traditional preliminary title to becoming Holy Roman Emperor) in 1196, as his successor led to op­ position from German barons and from the pope, and his death in 1197 plunged Germany into civil war. Rival factions, each with its own candidate for king, fought each other and the emperor. When Frederick was seven years old, a group of knights from one of the opposing factions broke into his cas­ tle in Palermo in the middle of the night and sur­ rounded the child “king” in his bed with drawn swords. Showing amazing composure, young Freder­ ick challenged the intruders long enough to make his escape through a window. His famous ride through 270

the mountainous region of Apulia, long blond hair flowing behind him, earned him the title puer Apuliae (“boy of Apulia”) and inspired the legend of him as a second Alexander the Great. His tutor (guardian), Innocent III, was less im­ pressed. Outraged that the boy had not sought his aid, he supported Otto of Brunswick and in 1209 crowned him as emperor. The next year, however, the pope renounced his support of Otto in response to the boy’s victories in Germany (in fact, most towns surrendered without a battle and gladly proclaimed him king). The reconciliation did not last long, for the young Frederick crowned himself (and in Ger­ many, not Rome) as Holy Roman Emperor in 1215. He was immediately excommunicated by the pope, beginning a series of reconciliations and excommuni­ cations. His legend meanwhile was growing apace. Beautiful, learned, gracious, and athletic, he was hailed as a reincarnation of Alexander (some even went so far as to say of Christ), and a new title given to him: Stupor mundi (“wonder of the world”), which in many ways he certainly was. When Frederick escaped the castle in Palermo, he had wandered the streets, hiding with different fami­ lies, including Muslims and Jews. He learned not only patience and tolerance, but also Arabic and He­ brew, managing eventually to master several lan­ guages. No other medieval king had as close personal contact, and during such formative years, with both these minority groups. This single factor, insuffi­ ciently stressed by his biographers (and in general ig­ nored by Jewish historians), certainly shaped his Jew­ ish policy in subsequent years. It is also of interest to note that after he had become emperor, his favorite cities of residence in Germany were W O RM S and Speyer, important centers of Jewish population. Frederick maintained cordial relations with Mus­ lims throughout the world. He was, in fact, a close friend of the sultan al-Kamil of Egypt, and when in 1229 he finally decided to lead a crusade, something that he had vowed at his self-coronation, chiefly to appease the pope, he simply wrote his friend that he was coming. It was a bloodless crusade, and the sul­ tan granted Frederick’s wish to visit Jerusalem, where he actually entered the mosque of ‘Umar (prohibited to all but devout Muslims) and stayed at the home of the local qadi (judge). This did nothing to endear him with church leaders, least of all the pope, and he

Frederick II Hohenstaufen

remained excommunicated. While it is certainly not true that Frederick “meekly followed the Church” (Baron, IX, 142)—he never did anything “meekly” in his life—he was eager to restore relations with the pope in order to establish his “model state” in Sicily. It is probably because of this that he gave in to the demands of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), and in 1221, several years after the canons were decreed, ordered that Jews of Sicily should wear distinguish­ ing clothing and grow their beards. This was not in accord with his general attitude, and it is in fact un­ likely that the decree was ever enforced. By 1231, Sicily was unified under the direct con­ trol of Frederick, and his remarkable system of ad­ ministration and justice (including a model court, over which he himself presided) was instituted. Fred­ erick, a scholar and jurist of no small accomplish­ ment, enlisted the outstanding legal scholar Piero della Vigna, his High Court justice and official spokesman, to write the famous “Constitution of Melfi” (Liber Augustalis), one of the most progressive and democratic law codes of all time, certainly with­ out compare in medieval legislation. This work, sig­ nificantly, ignored the prohibition on Jewish “usury” of IV Lateran, noting that “it cannot be maintained that usury is illicit for them. The divine law does not prohibit it,” but limiting the rate of interest to the usual 10 percent per annum (Liber Augustalis, pp. 12-13). Furthermore, the so-called obstacles im­ posed by Frederick against Jews buying new land in Sicily (Grayzel, p. 38 n. 17) must be understood as an effort to maintain Jews in the more necessary po­ sition of control of the state monopolies of silk weav­ ing and dyeing, and moneylending. Jews and Mus­ lims (of whom there were still many in Sicily) were given the right to defend themselves in court, and to bring legal action, and the right of direct appeal to the crown in cases of attack against them or their property. “We do not desire them to be harassed in their innocence because they are Jews or Saracens” (I. 18). Jews were also protected under the law of resti­ tution for concealed crime (i.e., the standard me­ dieval law that all inhabitants of an area where a crime was committed and the perpetrator was un­ known had to make restitution; under this law, Jews were exempt). “We cannot at all allow Jews and Sara­ cens to be defrauded of the power of our protection because a difference of religion renders them hateful

and deprives them of all other help” (I. 27, p. 29; cf. Baron IX, 142). This law also contained the typical wergeld provi­ sion that if a Christian is murdered secretly, and the murderer not found, the residents must pay a fine. If the victim was a Jew or a Saracen, “against whom we believe that the persecution of the Christians is too great at present,” the payment of the fine went to the treasury (as also did the general wergeld fine) (I. 28, p. 30). The fact that the fine for the murder of a Jew or Muslim was half that for the murder of a Christian simply reflects standard medieval German law, and was not in any sense discriminatory; what is impor­ tant here is the remarkable statement about persecu­ tion (on the general subject of wergeld see Grayzel, p. 54 n. 66 and Baron XI, 24—28, neither of whom mentions this source). The extent to which lack of a clear knowledge and understanding of Fredericks personality and policies can lead to error in viewing his relationship with Jews is reflected in such statements as the surmise that he developed “Jewish serfdom in Sicily into the exclu­ sive Royal Chamber-Serfdom” (Berthold Altmann, “Studies in Medieval German Jewish History,” PAA.J.R. 10 [1940]: 75). There is no evidence that any “Jewish serfdom” existed in Sicily or that the (also misunderstood) concept of “chamber serfdom” began there. The entire subject of servi eamerae, socalled chamber serfdom, in the Middle Ages de­ mands a fresh treatment, distorted as it has been by scholars whose memories of Nazi Germany were still fresh. Baron also followed Altmann’s views, based on a document to which he constantly referred (IX, 143, and in various articles), which he claimed was the “first occurrence” of the term, yet admitting that the date of the document cannot be precisely ascer­ tained. It is at best conjectural to talk about a term being “transplanted” from Sicily when the only evi­ dence is a document of uncertain date (cf. also ibid., p. 311 n. 9). Nevertheless, at least in this context, Baron correctly stated that “there is nothing of antiJewish animus” in the term. This is, in fact, correct whenever the term appears in medieval legislation, and it is precisely this that needs study and rethinking. The famous Fulda BLOOD LIBEL case in Germany in 1236, the first such accusation of Jews using human blood for ritualistic purposes, could not have come at a worst time for the emperor. The rebellion 271

Frederick II Hohenstaufen

led by his son Henry had been halted by the mere ap­ pearance of the great king (Fulda played a significant role in that rebellion). Henry, arrested and moved from one prison to another, finally either committed suicide or was murdered in 1242. Frederick had also just concluded a marriage with Isabelle, the sister of Henry III of England, and was trying to restore order in Germany. Numerous RITUAL MURDER charges, similar to the blood libel case in that Jews were falsely accused of murdering Christian children, had re­ sulted in the torture and killing of Jews in England, France, and Germany. Determined once and for all to put an end to such scandals, Frederick shrewdly convened an international conference of scholars, in­ cluding Jewish converts to Christianity, to decide the issue. They concluded that any such actions by Jews were impossible because they were totally opposed by Jewish law. Frederick used this opportunity to renew the priv­ ileges granted to the Jews of Worms, expanding them to include all the Jews of the empire. In this famous “Golden Bull” of 1236, we find for the first time the words quod universi Alemannie servi camere nostre that have caused so much discussion. It should be noted that the phrase does not, in fact, mention Jews at all, except by implication. In all of the scholarly discussion, the main point has been overlooked; namely, that the document speaks in a most favor­ able manner about the Jews and extends to them im­ perial protection, as well as complete exoneration from blood libel or ritual murder charges (text in Monumenta Germaniae historicae [Hannover, 1896], Constitutiones II, 274—76). Fredericks supposed charter granted to Vienna in 1237 is, in fact, a forgery, and was known to be so long before Baron wrote about it (Baron IX, 144-49, etc.). One non-Jewish scholar, in criticizing the views of Guido Kisch on the issue of “chamber serfdom” (al­ though attributing to Kisch things that he did not say), noted that this was not Frederick’s personal in­ vention but the “legal culmination of the profess of Jewry-law since the time of Henry IV” (Dolan, p. 173). However, his further claim that Frederick was “the first Christian prince to define succinctly the legal status of the Jews” (p. 174) must be treated with reservation. In what sense is the vague terminology used in his privileges to be seen as a “definition” of Jewish status? Had that been his intention, his legal 272

genius was fully capable of more precise definition. Frederick had more important things to occupy his attention, such as the rebellion of his son, which forced him to renounce direct control over most of the towns and all of the barons in the country. His policy at the time was well described as “gathering scattered rights and privileges into one charter which formed a code of justice for the town” (Kantorowicz, p. 95), and it was exactly this that he did with respect to the Jews. Frederick, who had an intense dislike for Germany, then created a subordinate government under Archbishop Engelbert of Cologne and returned to his beloved Sicily. It is, on the contrary, to the laws of the “Constitution of Melfi” that we must look to understand Frederick’s “Jewish policy.” As noted previously, Frederick was a learned, one may even say brilliant, scholar. He succeeded in an astonishing manner at whatever he undertook, such as his thorough study of the anatomy of birds, which resulted in his book on falconry, elaborately illus­ trated by him in a scientific manner unequaled until modern times (published in a modern edition). In 1224 he founded the University of Naples, the first established by royal charter of a definite date. He was fluent in Arabic, and was constantly accompanied by Muslims (of course, this also aroused popular super­ stition and animosity in Germany, as did the retinue of exotic animals that traveled with him, including the first elephant seen in Europe). He established a li­ brary of Arabic, and perhaps Hebrew, manuscripts at the University of Naples, and exchanged correspon­ dence with Muslim mathematicians in Egypt and other lands (e.g., Sarton, p. 600). Some of this, which has survived and has been published and studied, consists of complicated mathematical problems posed by Frederick, a few of which could not be solved. Also among his correspondents was Ibn Sab‘ln, an important Spanish $ufi (mystic) who replied to equally complex philosophical questions sent to him by Frederick (Sarton, p. 598). Frederick was also largely responsible for the development of literary Italian, since poetry and literature began at his court (as Sarton stated, it did not fully develop there, but the stimulus for it came from him; see Sarton, pp. 575-77). He also brought numerous scholars, philosophers, and scientists from other lands to his court in Sicily. Among these was the renowned Michael Scot, who

French Law, Jews in

had already worked on translations together with Jewish scholars in Toledo. Jewish scholars also were at the court of Frederick, including an unnamed “Jew­ ish philosopher” with whom Judah b. Solomon haKohen (Ibn Mosca) of Toledo (see SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS) was in correspondence. It could be this philosopher who, perhaps assisted by Michael Scot, made a translation of Maimonides’ “Guide” (on this, and Scots other translations, including some contact with Jewish and Muslim “experi­ menters” in alchemy, see Sarton, p. 580). Jacob Ana­ toli, a Jewish scholar and defender of Maimonides who spent time in Sicily and was very close to Michael Scot, wrote about a discussion that took place with Frederick concerning the analysis of a midrashic statement in the “Guide” (II. 26) about “snow” under the Throne of God, which Mai­ monides interpreted allegorically as “terrestrial mat­ ter.” Anatoli says that Frederick explained Mai­ monides as meaning that snow was a symbol for prime matter, since it is white, which receives the form of all colors; so prime matter receives all forms. Michael Scot, however, said that it is an allusion to the “ninth sphere,” which is pure and clear (Anatoli, Malmad ha-talmiydiym [Lyck, 1866], f. 53b; Moses b. Solomon of Salerno, who wrote the first commen­ tary on the “Guide” shortly after Anatoli’s death, ap­ parently, also discussed this issue, see Sara HellerWilensky on Ibn Latif’s Shaar ha-shamaiym in TarbizH [1963]: 279 and 298). Fredericks son and heir, Manfred (ca. 1232—1266), continued his fathers intellectual interests. At his re­ quest, the pseudo-Aristotelian “Book of the Apple” (Sefer ha-tapua) was translated from Arabic into He­ brew by Abraham b. yasdai of Barcelona (d. 1240); thus, Abraham must have been in Sicily for a time (Sarton, pp. 855-56; there is, however a possibility that this translation was done under the direction of Frederick, not Manfred). NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History o f the Jews (New York, Philadelphia, 1957). Dolan, John P. “A Note on Emperor Frederick II and Jewish Tolerance,” Jewish Social Studies 22 (1960): 165-74.

Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the Xlllth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). Huillard-Breholles, J. L. A. Historia diplomatica Frederici secundi (Paris, 1852), 7 vols. Kantorowicz, Ernst. Frederick the Second (London, 1931). L iber Augustalis, or C onstitutions o f M elfi, tr. James M. Powell (Syracuse, N.Y., 1971); Latin text in Huillard=Breholles IV (1), 1-178. Sarton, George. Introduction to the History o f Science (Baltimore, 1931) Vol. 2, part 2.

French Law, Jews in

The status and rights of Jews in France differed ac­ cording to the lordship under which they lived. If in the distant past the crown claimed a monopoly of ju­ risdiction over Jews, by the twelfth century it had come to recognize, as with many other aspects of au­ thority, that fifty or more barons also possessed such jurisdiction. Nonetheless, because the vast majority of Jews (perhaps 70 percent) still fell under the direct control of the crown in the period before the expul­ sion of 1306 and because there were great similarities between royal and baronial policies (when the sources permit the latter to be known), a description of the Jews’ status and rights is relatively simple. The earliest evidence—before the 1190s—suggests to most scholars that Jews fell within the vague cate­ gory of aliens (peregrini) familiar from Roman law; a minority view argues that they were regarded as per­ manent residents under special license and protection (tuitio). In either case, Jews were free with respect to one another but were permitted to dwell in their lord­ ship of residence exclusively at the pleasure of the lord. In 1198 a corollary to this principle was enunci­ ated in the first nonretention treaty between the crown and a baron. Although jurisdiction over Jews could be alienated by one lord to another just as most other seigneurial rights, Jews themselves lost whatever power they claimed to have to independently transfer their allegiance from one lord to another. If they nonetheless tried to do so by moving into a new lord­ ship, the treaty required the baron who received them not to retain them. The rapid proliferation of these treatises after 1198 and a royal edict, the Ordinance of Melun of 1230, established the principle firmly in law. 273

French Law, Jews in

In accordance with CANON LAW, the right of the Jews to follow their religion and the inviolability of their holy places (SYNAGOGUES and cemeteries) were, if not always enforced, at least recognized in secular law. Nevertheless, royal and baronial policies favored legal limits on Jews’ religious activities: the loudness of chanting in the synagogues was regulated; repairs to old synagogues, the building of new ones, and the establishment of new cemeteries were forbidden; and after 1240 possession of the Talmud was proscribed. This last regulation arose in part out of the belief that the Talmud cast slurs on Jesus and the Virgin Mary. Outside of matters of religious worship, secular law was somewhat more complicated. Until 1182 Jews were not prohibited by law from practicing most occupations, and much social contact was toler­ ated, if not encouraged. Legislation and social pres­ sure, however, increasingly reduced the repertory of permitted occupations; and in the royal domain forms of segregation—such as the ban on Jews from Christian taverns and markets, which supplemented traditional bans on Jews going to Christian prosti­ tutes and employing Christian domestic servants and wet nurses—were enacted into law in the first half of the thirteenth century. MONEYLENDING also emerged as the principal occupation among Jews of the royal domain from the early thirteenth century. At first the crown issued decrees that merely regu­ lated the business of moneylending. The regulations, particularly about pawnbroking and interest rates, varied after 1198 and until Philip Augustus’s death in 1223, but the government provided offices for the sealing of bonds and offered legal recourse to Jewish moneylenders for the collection of debts. These con­ cessions were important in part because they pro­ vided the crown with information for assessing Jews who, like serfs, were taxable exclusively at the will of their lord. Indeed, some legal texts assert that a Jew, like a serf, has nothing that is not his lord’s—money or chattels. Lords routinely acted on this principle through captiones or “takings” of the property and bonds of Jews. In 1223, however, and despite the loss of informa­ tion that it would entail, the government of Louis VIII retreated from its involvement in supporting the business of moneylending, although it did not ban “usury,” which it would come to define in law in 1230 as any interest whatsoever. The crown also con­ 274

tinued to decree captiones of Jewish loans. This sug­ gests that despite all the evidence of intensifying con­ cern with segregation and the dubious legal status of moneylending, the government could not afford to forgo the profits from taxation of the Jews’ traffic in loans. As late as 1235 the crown was still merely ex­ pressing a wish that Jews abandon usury and service their own (but not Christian) communities in socalled honest trades. In 1253 the wish became an order (repeated in December 1254). Those Jews who refused to live honestly without recourse to usury, blasphemy, sor­ cery, or the like were to leave the domain. It is impor­ tant to note, however, that it was sometimes difficult to get this order enforced in the royal domain, where corrupt officials might turn a blind eye to lawbreaking. Moreover, many other lordships, especially in the south, accepted exiled moneylenders. They al­ lowed the exiles and their own Jews to engage in credit transactions of every sort, and they tolerated their presence in other occupations, recognized their titles to land, and refused to be as restrictive about social contact in general. But even in these lordships political and social pressures combined to gradually constrict the parameters of Jewish economic life. Both royal and baronial law recognized that in civil disputes between Jews, Jewish courts would ex­ ercise jurisdiction. For adjudication of felonies and civil cases in which a Jew and a Christian were in conflict, the appropriate forum was a Christian one. There might be disputes as to which Christian court had jurisdiction, but these would be resolved accord­ ing to the same principles as they were resolved when serfs or vassals of different lords were in conflict. In any case, the procedures used in the courts were very similar to those that would have been used among Christian litigants, except that oaths were sworn dif­ ferently (Jews swore on the Torah, Christians on the Gospels) and Jewish testimony unsupported by Christian could not convict a Christian. A few modifications in royal law occurred in the last third of the thirteenth century. Legislation in 1269 prescribed the wearing of a distinctive BADGE by Jews; it was reissued frequently. Regulations re­ stricting residence in villages were issued in 1276, 1283, and 1291. Other enactments reacted to new and old fears about Jewish behavior; desecrating the host, for example (see HOST DESECRATION), became

Fustat (Egypt)

a crime in secular law (1299) by an edict in which the crown issued more traditional warnings against the Jews circumcising simpleminded Christians, suc­ coring heretics, and possessing the Talmud. By and large, however, not much was added either in sub­ stantive or procedural aspects to the law. Two rela­ tively brief experiments (1288-1292 and 1293-ca. 1304) in setting up a distinct judicature for disputes, especially those concerned with the collection of taxes from Jewish communities by Jewish agents on the crown’s behalf, were carried out in certain south­ ern districts where Jewish population was concen­ trated. Not much is known about how the experi­ mental courts worked. A real rupture came in 1306 with the EXPULSION of all Jews from the domain and the other lordships held by the crown. When Jews were allowed in 1315 to take up residence again for twelve years, the tradi­ tional legal system was merely put back in place, with one major modification: moneylending at regulated interest was permitted even in the royal domain. Re­ settlement, however, was short lived. Because of pop­ ular violence most Jews had abandoned the kingdom by 1322, though it may be that permission to reside was not formally withdrawn until 1327 as originally intended. A small resettlement occurred again in 1359, with this cycle repeating itself. The decree of expulsion of 1394 ended the medieval phase of Jew­ ish settlement in France. Technically that decree had the force of law until the French Revolution except in areas attached to the kingdom after its promulgation. WILLIAM CHESTER JORDAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jordan, William C. The French Monarchy and the Jews from Philip Augustus to the Last Capetians (Philadelphia, 1989). ---------. “Jews, regalian rights, and the constitution in medieval France,” AJSReview23 (1998): 1-16.

Fustat (Egypt) (see also Egypt; Synagogue) Jews dwelled in Fustat, founded as a camp of the conquering Muslim army in 641, as soon as it be­ came a new administrative center of Egypt. They set­ tled the central zone, in the ancient Roman fortress of Babilon, which the Muslims called Qa$r al-sham' (“castle of wax”) or Qa$r al-Rum (“castle of the Ro­

mans”) and the Jews called Qa$r Edom, names that preserved the history of the ancient fortress. Of the first three hundred years of Jewish resi­ dence in Fustat we have virtually no information. Presumably there was an immigration of Jews from other Egyptian cities, especially ALEXANDRIA. There was also an increasing immigration of Jews from PALESTINE, Iraq, and other lands. Since the central el­ ement of the Jewish settlement in Fustat was Egypt­ ian, it was characterized by dependence on the Jewish center in Palestine. In 882, in the time of Ahmad Ibn Tulun (868-884), the Jews of Fustat acquired a church from the Coptic patriarch and converted it into a synagogue named in honor of the biblical scribe Ezra, which from then on was the main syna­ gogue of Fustat, the center of the Jerusalem (Palestin­ ian) Jews. In this synagogue was found the famous GENIZAH, from which we have the majority of our sources and information on the history of the Jews of Egypt and Palestine from the end of the tenth cen­ tury onward. The Muslim conquest, which brought the Jews under one government (previously they had been under the government of two hostile kingdoms, Persia and B y z a n t iu m ) , opened for them new horizons in all respects. Internally, it brought about renewed connec­ tions with the historic centers of Babylon and Palestine; externally, it gave them access to international trade. With the Fatimid conquest in 969, the Jews of Egypt achieved economic, social, and political pros­ perity without precedent. The Fatimids, a Shi’ite Isma‘i ll minority governing a population of Sunnite Muslims, Coptic Christians, and Jews, preferred to utilize the services of the “protected minorities” (dhimmis)—Jews and Christians—rather than those of their avowed enemies the Sunnites. Thus the Egyptian Jews attained high levels in the Fatimid government, and also held a significant position in the Egyptian economy, especially in commerce. With the exception of the period of the caliph al-Hakim amr Allah (996-1021), the Jews enjoyed the charac­ teristic tolerance of the Fatimid caliphs. Al-Hakim, a fanatical adherent of the Isma^li messianic doctrine and possibly also mentally ill, issued decrees against the Jews and Christians and destroyed synagogues and churches [see also CLOTHING]. There are also in­ dications of the burning of Torah scrolls. These things are mentioned in the letter of Elhanan b. She275

Fustat (Egypt)

mariah, head of the community of Fustat, in 1014. Possibly there was also a substantial conversion of Jews to Islam. In 1020, the year before his assassina­ tion, al-yakim annulled his decrees and permitted the rebuilding of synagogues and churches. Jews never again saw this kind of persecution in the Fatimid kingdom. From the mid-tenth century two large congrega­ tions were found in Fustat, the “Jerusalem” (Palestin­ ian) and “Babylonian” (Iraqi). The waves of immi­ gration from Iraq at the beginning of the century and later increased the Babylonian community, which in its earlier stage had merely been attached to that of the “Jerusalem” congregation. This process is charac­ terized by the fact that the “Jerusalem” synagogue was called after a time the “great synagogue,” to dis­ tinguish it from the “small synagogue” of the Iraqi Jews. The Jerusalem congregation saw itself as subject to the authority of the gaon of Palestine, designated by the Fatimid caliph as head of all the “Rabbanite” Jews (i.e., those who adhered to talmudic tradition) in the kingdom. Thus, the gaon involved himself in all the affairs of the community, and he appointed (with the agreement of his representatives in the community) officials such as judges, hazzaniym (can­ tors, or readers of Torah in the synagogues), ritual slaughterers of meat, and charity fund overseers. He also appointed the haver-—the judge who headed the Jewish court {beit diyri) of the community and was, in fact, the chief authority in the community. He was ordained by the Palestinian yeshivah and was the rep­ resentative of the gaon in Fustat, also being responsi­ ble for the collection of taxes and the donations for the yeshivah; and because he maintained connections with the Fatimid court and with Jewish courtiers, he endeavored in times of distress to aid the yeshivah or the Jews in Palestine. The most important of the haverim was Ephraim b. Shemariah, who headed the “Jerusalem” community for approximately fifty years (1010-1055). Dozens of letters to him, from him, or relating to him that are found in the Genizah shed light on the nature of a typical haver. The “Babylonian” congregation was subject to the yeshivot of Babylon (Iraq) and sent its questions to the GEONIM there. At the head of this congregation was the alluf{or equivalent titles of rosh kallah, rosh seder), ordained by the Babylonian yeshivot of Sura or Pumpedita. However, the congregation was also subject to the Palestinian authority by virtue of its 276

being in the Fatimid kingdom. This resulted in many confrontations between the two congregations, and especially their leaders (for example, between Abra­ ham b. Sahlan and his son Sahlan, heads of the “Baby­ lonian” congregation [1026-1046], and Ephraim b. Shemaryah). Particularly, their arguments had to do with the supervision of the institutions of the com­ munity, such as the beit diyn (court) or the slaughter of meat; in reality these reflected a struggle for con­ trol of the community, with each side receiving the support of the yeshivot that appointed them. This was a part of the larger struggle for control over the Jewish diaspora between the authorities of Palestine and Babylon. Since the community of Fustat was the largest, wealthiest, and most important in the dias­ pora dependent on these yeshivot (Spain was already independent of their control), the struggle between Babylonian and Palestinian authorities focused on this community. An additional important group in Fustat was that of the Jews of the Maghrib (North Africa and alAndalus), who arrived in the wake of the Fatimid conquest. The majority were wealthy merchants and men of influence who maintained communal and family ties with the Maghrib, Palestine, and also Babylon. The two congregations, Palestinian and Babylonian, were determined that the M aghribi]ews join them. They joined one or the other, depending on social factors. There was also a QARAITE community, immi­ grants from Persia and Iraq as well as Palestine. Un­ like Palestine, where there were quarrels between the “Rabbanite” Jews and Qaraites, in Egypt the two groups maintained cordial and cooperative relations. The majority of the Qaraites were wealthy mer­ chants, and also obtained positions in the govern­ ment; the “Rabbanites” often needed their help and influence at court. The Muslims distinguished be­ tween the two groups, but in the eyes of the govern­ ment they were all Jews, as were also the Samaritans. Therefore, one Jewish official was appointed by the government to deal with all of them, the rais alyahud (whose full title was “head of the Jews, Rab­ banites, Qaraites, and Samaritans”). In Hebrew this office was called by the title of nagid. It is possible that there is evidence of the appoint­ ment of the rais al-yahud by the Fatimids already at the beginning of their rule, in that three of the most important Qaraites of the first half of the eleventh

Fustat (Egypt)

century, the Tustari brothers, Abraham and Hesed— who were courtiers and important financiers (10361049)—and David ha-Levy b. Isaac, who inherited their position when y esed was executed, received let­ ters of appointment as rats al-yahud over the three communities. In the structure of this hierarchy the to a s al'yahud appointed the gaon to be the authority over the “Rabbanites,” the nasi over the Qaraites, and the “high priest” over the Samaritans. Other exam­ ples o f possible holders of the position of nagid, ac­ cording to this theory, were Musa b. Eliezer (or Elazar?), physician to the court of the caliph “alMansur (al-Mu£izz, the conqueror of Egypt) and alAzlz, his son, between the years 949 and 966. Possibly also Musas son Isaac held the position. This theory still requires decisive proof. In any case, it is worth noting that at the end of the tenth and beginning of the eleventh centuries two men stood out as heads of the community, Shemariah b. Elhanan (970-1011) and his son Elhanan (1011—1026), who established an array of connections with the yeshivot both of Baby­ lon and of Palestine, and possibly founded a center of learning in Fustat, which did not outlast their deaths. Shemariah, the more important of the two, even was appointed by the yeshivah of Palestine to be the head of the beit diyn of the yeshivah. Both were outstanding scholars who left their stamp on the Jewish cultural life of the period. There are those who maintain they even received recognition from the Fatimid caliphs, but this is uncertain. According to BENJAMIN OF TUDELA, who visited Fustat in the early twelfth century, the Jewish popu­ lation was between two thousand and seven thou­ sand (depending on the variant readings in the text). The community of Fustat exercised a significant in­ fluence on all aspects of social life in the Jewish world at the time. With this, all during the period of the existence of the two historic centers of Jewish life, Palestine and Babylon, Fustat produced hardly any exceptional individuals, other than Shemariah and his son. Even S a X d y a h Ga on (882-942), who was born in Egypt and received his first intellectual training there, had to go to Babylon (922) in order to further develop his abilities. Fustat did not evolve an important cultural creativity, nor can any influ­ ence on its surroundings be recognized; as was the case, for instance, with Qayrawan (in North Africa) at this time. This is understandable when we take into account the traditional subordination of Fustat

to the center of Palestine, first of all, and secondarily to the Babylonian center. This removed all creativity or desire for it, because in the traditional view the highest level of spiritual-cultural attainment was reached by the geonim. This situation began to change with the decline of the historic centers, from the beginning of the eleventh century. In the twelfth century cultural development reached its peak with M a i m o n i d e s , who came to Fustat in 1165. In 1171, with the establishment of the Ayyubl government, orthodox Islam was again the dominant religion in Egypt. However, even though the days of the Shi’ite Fatimids had departed, the economic and cultural flourishing of the Jews of Fustat continued in the reign of Salah al-Dln (“Saladin” as he is commonly known, 1170-1193) and his heirs. Nevertheless, the important center of Jewish life became Cairo, al­ ready at the end of the Fatimid dynasty. The Jewish world now changed, and Egypt, where the nagidim appointed by the Ayyubl rulers lived, became the Jewish center, and the Jews of Palestine were now subject to the center of FustatIn 1250, with the ascendancy of the Mamluks, the situation of the Jews in Fustat worsened. The Mam­ luks were the most fanatical orthodox Muslims and strictly enforced the laws of separation. At times they even imposed upon the Jews particular strictures. In 1290 the Mamluk sultan ordered that no nonMuslim officials could operate in Fustat. Disturbances occasionally erupted in the Muslim quarter against the Christians and Jews, a thing practically unknown under earlier governments. In 1301 a major distur­ bance broke out, synagogues were closed, and the Jews were forced to wear distinguishing badges (see B a d g e ). In 1354 even Jewish officials who had con­ verted were removed from their posts. Also from an economic point of view the Jews suffered from the Mamluk monopolies. Nevertheless, Jewish auton­ omy was maintained completely, and the office of the nagid reached its peak of power in Egypt and Pales­ tine. After Abraham (1212-1237), son of Moses b. Maimon (Maimonides), served as head of the Jews, his son David (1237-1300) held the post. In his days a great dispute arose between the Jews of Europe and those of the East over the issue of reliance upon Mai­ monides and his writings. David, who fought on be­ half of his grandfather, was compelled to go to Pales­ tine and was removed from the office of nagid as a result of the controversy and slander against him. At 277

Fustat (Egypt)

the end of his days he returned to Fustat and re­ sumed his post, and his son Abraham (1291-1313) succeeded him. In the last half of the thirteenth cen­ tury further cultural developments took place in Fus­ tat. Tanhum b. Joseph ha-Yerushalmiy wrote an im­ portant philosophical commentary on the Bible. His son Joseph was a poet. According to the Jewish traveler Meshullam da Voltera, who visitied Cairo in 1481, there were 850 Jewish families, of which 150 were Qaraites and 50 Samaritans. ‘Ovadyah of Bertinoro, who visited in 1488, found 700 families. It appears that the govern­ ment in the time of the “Circassian” Mamluks was not favorable to the Jews of Fustat and that commu­ nity declined. At the end of the fifteenth century, with the arrival of some of the exiles from Spain, there was a renewed flourishing of the Jewish com­ munities of Egypt. These Sefardic Jews organized their own communities and established courts and charitable institutions. The central Jewish organiza­ tion, with the office of the nagid, maintained its strength. ELINOAR BAREKET [TRANSLATED BY NORMAN ROTH]

278

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashtor (Strauss), Eliyahu. Toldot ha-yehudim beMi$rayim u-ve-Suriah tahat shilton ha-Mamlukim (Jerusalem, 1944), Vol. 1. ---------. “Qavim le-dimutah shel ha-qehillah hayehudit be-Misrayim bi-mey ha-beinayim,” $iyyon (Zion) 30 (1965): 61-78, 128-57. Bareket, Elinoar. Manhigey ha-yehudim be-Fustdt bem afcit ha-rishonah shel ha-meah ha-ahat- ‘esreh (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University, 1987). ---------. “Mosah ve-lievrah be-qehillah ha-yehudit be-Fustat be-meah ha-ahat esreh,” Peamim 34 (1988): 3-28. Cohen, Mark R. Jewish Self-Government in Medieval Egypt (Princeton, 1980). Gil, Moshe. ha-Tustarim, ha-mishpahah ve-ha-kat (Tel Aviv, 1981). ----- — . Ere$ Yisrael be-tequfah ha-Muslamit ha-rishonah (634—1099) (Tel Aviv, 1983); 3 vols. Goitein, S[hlomo] D. A Mediterranean Society (Berkeley, 1967-93), 6 vols. Mann, Jacob. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs (photo rpt. ed. in one vol., New York, 1970).

G Genizah “Genizah” in Hebrew (the word is of Persian origin) means burial place, or hiding place. In the Talmud we read (Megillah 26b): “Rabba said, a scroll of the Torah that has become worn out should be buried next to a sage.” Medieval Jews (and modern tradi­ tional Jews) considered it a taboo to destroy any sa­ cred writing in the Hebrew script. Hence they accu­ mulated such fragments until they could be given a proper burial. This represented an elaboration and extension of the original dictum, which limited the practice to no longer usable pages of biblical text. The most famous “genizah” is the Cairo Genizah. Its origins are still somewhat obscure, but its notori­ ety stems from four factors: its location, its age, the quantity of its papers, and the nature of its contents. First, the main portion of the Cairo Genizah was dis­ covered in a large chamber behind a wall inside a me­ dieval synagogue in Old Cairo (FUSTAT), rather than in a cemetery. (Additional fragments of the same type were unearthed early in the twentieth century in a Jewish section of the Basatin Cemetery south of Fus­ tat.) Second, the find contained fragments of writing composed or at least copied as long ago as a thousand years, still readable thanks to the absence of molding moisture in the arid Egyptian climate. Third, the quantity of discrete pages of writing numbered well over 200,000. And fourth, this genizah contained, in addition to sacred texts (biblical, liturgical, halakhic, midrashic, mystical, etc.) also a fair quantity (perhaps 15,000) of documents from everyday life: letters, lists, court documents dealing with mundane mat­ ters, business accounts, and more. For reasons still

not clear, most of the medieval documents date from the Fatimid and Ayyubid periods, that is, between the late tenth and mid-thirteenth centuries. There is a small quantity from the Mamluk era (1250-1517) and considerably more from the following centuries. The Genizah SYNAGOGUE went by many names in the past. Today it is known as the Ben Ezra syna­ gogue. In the Middle Ages it served as the place of prayer and communal gatherings for the Jews of Palestinian origin; another house of worship, no longer in existence, belonged to the Babylonian Jews, and a third to the QARAITES. The site of the Ben Ezra synagogue, near medieval Coptic churches, is regu­ larly visited by tourists to the Old City; it has bene­ fited from architectural restoration during the 1980s and early 1990s. As far as we know, the first person to gain knowl­ edge of the existence of the Cairo Genizah was the nineteenth-century Jerusalem writer and traveler Jacob Saphir. His written account of his visit seems to indicate that the entrance then (1864) was on the roof, hence invisible to anyone unaware of its exis­ tence. Saphir was guided to the genizah by the care­ taker of the synagogue, who provided a ladder for the purpose. However, since the opening was covered at the time with debris from a collapsed roof, its ancient manuscript contents, buried under surface layers of printed and relatively recent fragments, could not be reached by Saphir. In 1888 and then again in 1896 Elkan Nathan Adler, a wealthy British Jewish lawyer and book col­ lector, visited the synagogue. In 1888 he was told that there were no important ancient Hebrew writ­ 279

Genizah

ings to be bought in Cairo, that the only genizah in use was in the Basatin cemetery, where a batch of old books had recently been buried, and that the local Jews had plans to renovate the synagogue (which on his visit he heard called “the synagogue of Elijah” or “the syna­ gogue of the Palestinians”). When he returned to Egypt at the beginning of 1896, the job of restoration had been completed. It was during those renovations (be­ tween 1890 and 1892), we assume, that the genizah chamber had been uncovered. What happened to its contents during the restoration of the building is not certain. But by 1896, Adler could describe the genizah room, with its “opening on the wall,” as it appears today. It is likely that the window access inside the premises was added during the restoration. Fragments originating in the genizah began circu­ lating in the early 1890s. Adlers visit in 1896 yielded for him, courtesy of the local chief rabbi, a large sack­ ful of medieval manuscripts, today in the collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary Library in New York. The more famous “discoverer” of the genizah was the rabbinic scholar Solomon Schechter of Cam­ bridge University, who came to appreciate the value of the genizah manuscripts thanks to the acquisition in Cairo by two Scottish sisters of pages that turned out to belong to the lost Hebrew original of the apoc­ ryphal book Ben Sirah (Ben Sirah; Ecclesiasticus). Schechter s epoch-making journey to Cairo at the end of 1896 and the beginning of 1897 resulted in what a final count has been found to number 140,000 fragments. They have been housed since 1897 in Cambridge University Library. The idea of a permanent genizah inside a syna­ gogue, as opposed to underground in a cemetery, has posed something of a mystery. One skeptical scholar, Nehemiah Allony, argued vigorously in numerous arti­ cles that the genizah chamber described by Saphir was simply a box on the roof and that the bulk of the man­ uscripts acquired by Schechter and others must have originated from genizot (plural of genizah) buried be­ neath the earth in the conventional way. Goitein hy­ pothesized that the idea of the genizah room originated in the eleventh century as a substitute for cemeterybound genizah corteges, following a mob attack on a Jewish funeral procession at the end of the year 1011. Our understanding of the phenomenon of the Ben Ezra synagogues genizah chamber has been im­

280

proved by recent research. An ethnographic study by Cohen and Stillman of genizah practices in the twen­ tieth century, based on information gathered from Jews who immigrated to Israel from various Muslim countries, reveals that, in addition to the customary burial in a cemetery many communities maintained a permanent repository inside a synagogue, which was sealed when filled. Joseph Sadan, writing about the custom of “genizah” among Muslims, has added important comparative insight. In Islam, the concern was mainly with the disposal of worn-out copies or fragments of the Qur’an. Various procedures were discussed, including burial in the ground (preferably in an impermeable pit) , which was recommended as the best solution, and also (this was a minority view) laying aside in a well-protected, inaccessible room. Such “storerooms,” reminiscent of the synagogue Ge­ nizah in Cairo, were situated in mosques in Damas­ cus, Qayrawan (Tunisia), and Sanna (Yemen). Today the contents of the Cairo Genizah are spread among libraries in Philadelphia, New York, Cam­ bridge, Oxford, Manchester, London, Paris, Budapest, St. Petersburg, Jerusalem, and a few other cities. Among them are manuscript pages from every kind of Jewish book imaginable, as well as leaves from Muslim works. This has created new avenues of research and broadened others. What has been learned about Jew­ ish literature of the Islamic Middle Ages, as well as what Jews read and studied of pre-Islamic Jewish writ­ ings, is inestimable. Particularly revolutionary has been the light shed on the everyday economic, social, communal, family, material life and mentality of Jews living in what S. D. Goitein termed the “Mediter­ ranean Society” of the medieval Muslim world. The “Synagogue of the Palestinians” was the place where the communal religious court (beit diyri) met, which explains the abundance of court records discarded in the genizah. In general, the chamber served as reposi­ tory for at least the majority (“Rabbanite”) Jews of the city. Moreover, since Fustat was a crossroads for Jews from as far west as Spain and as far east as India (and even from Latin and Greek Christendom), and be­ cause these people corresponded actively with friends and family in all those places, the documentary mater­ ial reflects much more than life in Egypt. In the 1980s, excavations in the Basatin cemetery (the Mosseri enclosure) uncovered additional genizah

Geonim

papers in roofed enclosures beneath the sand (seem­ ingly similar to the impermeable pits described in sources on the Muslim practice as discussed by Sadan). Recently, the Egyptian scholars charged with overseeing this find published a catalog recounting its discovery and briefly describing documents deemed to be important. Most of the items un­ earthed so far and described date from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but the variety of texts is ut­ terly representative of the rich mixture of literary communal, and personal writings stemming from the original treasure trove. The “New Genizah” demonstrates that the community continued to ob­ serve the custom down to the most recent times. How far back in time the Basatin Genizah was in use is a question that remains open. MARK R. COHEN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cohen, Mark R., and Yedida K. Stillman, “The Cairo Geniza and the Custom of Geniza among Oriental Jewry: An Historical and Ethnographic Study” (Heb.), P e‘a mim 24 (1985): 3-35 (with relevant bibliography). Goitein, S[hlomo] D. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities o f the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents o f the Cairo Geniza (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1967-1993), 6 vols., espe­ cially I: 1—28. Hopkins, Simon. “The Discovery of the Cairo Geniza,” Bibliophilia Africana (Cape Town) 4 (1981): 137-78. [Reif, Stefan. Published Material from the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge, 1989)]. Sada, Joseph. “Genizah and Genizah-Like Practices in Islamic and Jewish Traditions,” Bibliotheca Ori­ e n t a lis t (1986): 36-58. [Teudah (Tel Aviv University) 1 (1980) = Friedman, Mordechai, ed. Hiqqrey geniyzat Qahiyr\.

Geonim (see also North Africa, Palestine, Sa‘adyah, Science)

This article deals exclusively with the geonim of Babylon (Iraq) and PALESTINE during the “classical”

geonic period, although the title continued to be ap­ plied in these regions and elsewhere to denote an outstanding talmudic scholar, not necessarily the holder of any official position. The title gaon is thought to be an abbreviation of the expression rosh yeshivatgeon Ya'aqov (“head of the academy which is the pride of Jacob”; see, e.g., Ps. 47.5), and was ap­ plied in strict usage exclusively to the heads of a few leading academies (yeshivot) in Babylon and Pales­ tine, which exerted considerable influence over Jew­ ish communities in outlying areas as well. The classical geonic period may be considered to have lasted approximately from the middle of the sixth century to the middle of the eleventh century, although no precise dates can be established and some authorities (following Abraham Ibn Daud in his Sefer ha-qabbalah [see CHRONICLES]) place the beginning of the period as late as 789. Here, as else­ where with respect to this period, contemporary sources are to be preferred over later medieval writ­ ings, which frequently display a very faulty knowl­ edge of institutions and events of the geonic era. The most important source for the chronology of the pe­ riod, including its beginnings in the mid-sixth cen­ tury, is the so-called Iggeret (“epistle”) of Sherira Gaon (d. 1006), who wrote in 986 in response to a number of questions addressed to him by Jacob b. Nissim Ibn Shahin and other scholars of the commu­ nity of Qayrawan [see NORTH AFRICA], with regard to the evolution of talmudic literature and the his­ tory of rabbinic tradition. The last section of Sheriras epistle presents lists of the geonim of Babylon up to the time of writing, with occasional asides on signifi­ cant events that occurred during their reigns. These lists clearly depend on records maintained in circles closely associated with the geonic academies, and de­ spite occasional errors, correlate well with informa­ tion obtained from other contemporary sources and provide a relatively solid framework within which in­ formation from other sources may be organized. Another primary source that deserves special men­ tion is the description by an otherwise unknown “Rabbi Natan the Babylonian” of the workings of the geonic academies and some other Babylonian institu­ tions. This brief work was originally written in Ara­ bic, about the middle of the tenth century; only part of the original text is preserved, but there is a com­

281

Geonim

plete Hebrew translation [see CHRONICLES]. Al­ though it is not certain that the author was actually of Babylonian extraction, it seems clear that he vis­ ited one of the geonic academies and witnessed some of the events and proceedings that he describes. Aside from these two sources, most of our infor­ mation concerning events and institutions of the geonic period must be culled from testimonia, often tangential, scattered throughout the vast literature of the period, the main outlines of which will be sketched below. Fragments of various writings pre­ served in the Cairo GENIZAH, especially of geonic responsa and epistles, are particularly important as historical sources, as later copyists and authors fre­ quently eliminated historically specific references and contented themselves with preserving the gist of the legal or exegetical content of the geonic sources they used. It should be borne in mind that our picture of the period is an imperfect mosaic, and many features are attested only at isolated time periods. In addition, we know almost nothing of the period preceding the mid-eighth century, when the center of the Muslim world moved from Syria (Damascus) to Iraq with the rise of the Abbasid dynasty. Nevertheless, the gener­ ally conservative nature of the leading institutions makes it not unreasonable to extrapolate from those points that are attested, in our attempts to present a picture of the geonic era. The two central academies of Babylon [Sura and Pumbedita] saw themselves as direct continuations of leading institutions from talmudic times and stressed this continuity in various ways; this is particularly noticeable in the Iggeret of Sherira. (The geonim also laid stress on lines of tradition connecting their acad­ emies with even earlier institutions and attempted to borrow from their prestige, for example, by describ­ ing the scholars of the academies as being in place of the members of the ancient Sanhedrin.) It seems clear, however, that the academies of the geonic pe­ riod were more stable and formally constituted insti­ tutions than any that existed in the talmudic period; among their more striking features is the rise of an oligarchy of prominent families that provide numer­ ous geonim over the course o f generations, although the only gaon to have succeeded his father immedi­ ately in this position was Hai (or Hayyey, 939?— 1038), the son of Sherira, at the very end of the pe­ riod, and this was clearly an exceptional case. Each of 282

the academies was also known by the name of a sec­ ond, nearby town: the academy of Sura was also asso­ ciated with Mata Mehasia, and that of Pumbedita with Nehardea. The academies retained their tradi­ tional names even though in the course of time (about the turn of the tenth century) both moved to the capital city of Baghdad. Each of the academies had as its head a gaon, also known as reish metiyvta (Aramaic, “head of the acad­ emy”). His deputy was the av beit diyn (“head of the court”) or dayyan diy bava (Aramaic, “judge at the gate”), whose title apparently indicates that he sat at the head of a court separate from the one presided over by the gaon. Next in rank were officials known in Hebrew as allufiym (“chiefs”) and in Aramaic as reish kallah (“heads of rows”); according to the de­ scription of Rabbi Natan the Babylonian there were seven of these, each responsible in some undefined way for a row of ten senior scholars, with the total membership of seventy corresponding to that of the Sanhedrin. The title of a llu f or reish kallah was also granted as an honorary one to outstanding scholars or supporters of the geonic academies who lived in other countries. The permanent staff of the academies also included a scribe who handled its offi­ cial correspondence, tannaiym who recited tannaitic [mishnaic] sources, and amoraiym who apparently had similar responsibilities with respect to talmudic texts. It appears that all these functionaries received stipends from the academy’s funds and were expected to be in attendance throughout the year. Many oth­ ers attended twice yearly kallah sessions, which took place in the fall (Elul) and spring (.Adar), at which the gaon (and perhaps other leading scholars) con­ ducted public classes and examinations. Those who came only for these sessions included both auditors and regular students, who were required to study a prescribed talmudic tractate during the five months between public sessions and were entitled to receive a stipend if they performed satisfactorily at the kallah examinations. The gaon, assisted by his senior colleagues, ful­ filled a variety of responsibilities. His primary role, at least in terms of the historical roots of his office, was as the academic head of an institution of rabbinic learning. Some notion of the gaons academic activi­ ties may be obtained from the account of Rabbi Natan the Babylonian, supplemented by occasional

Geonim

asides in other sources; but our understanding of the ways in which students were instructed is quite lim­ ited. One point that should be stressed is the central role of a multilayered oral tradition: the talmudic text itself was treated primarily as oral literature, and oral versions of the text were considered the most au­ thoritative ones, although written copies were some­ times consulted as well. Academic circles also pre­ served and transmitted a corpus of extratalmudic traditions, including exegetical and legal ones. Some of these traditions were memorized in a fixed word­ ing and considered highly authoritative; examples are found in the literature of the period and attested es­ pecially in geonic responsa, but the scope of this phe­ nomenon is a matter of speculation. In addition to his teaching responsibilities, the gaon was the head of a court, which considered both cases brought before it in person and questions submitted in writing. It seems likely that those who lived relatively near the geonic academies would have been able to submit their queries in person, and these may have been ever more numerous than those submitted in writing; but because of the nature of the literary sources available to us, those questions submitted in writing are much better documented, as we shall see below. The writing of responsa maintained an important connection between the geonic academies and a widespread Jewish diaspora, but there were addi­ tional ties of another sort with more restricted terri­ tories in and near Babylon itself. Certain of these ter­ ritories were divided into three spheres of hegemony known as reshuyot, of which two were subject to the academies of Sura and Pumbedita and one to the Ex­ ilarch, the political head of Babylonian Jewry. The Jewish population of each reshut was subject to the central authority to which it “belonged,” primarily in two respects: this authority appointed judges to serve in the local communities and collected taxes from the Jewish population, which served to pay the salaries of these judges and to support the activities of the cen­ tral institution. Much more limited information is available with respect to the geonate of Palestine, which may be said to have combined the functions of the Babylonian geonate and the exilarchate. The Palestinian gaon was recognized, by the Jews themselves and by the Mus­ lim authorities, as the leader of the Jewish communi­ ties in Palestine, Egypt, and Syria, and most of the

writings that are indisputably those of the Palestinian geonim are concerned with communal matters and internal politics. Only a modest quantity of halakhic [legal] material produced in Palestine during the geonic period has survived, and little of this can be assigned unequivocally to the geonim, although it seems reasonable to conjecture that most of it derived from circles associated with their academies. The vice principal of the Palestinian academy, like his Baby­ lonian counterparts, was known as the av beit diyn, while other leading members of the academy were designated as “the third,” “the fourth,” and so on. The title haver (“colleague”) corresponded to the Babylonian allufas an honorary title bestowed on in­ dividuals outside the academy. One of the outstanding features of the geonic pe­ riod was the ongoing competition between the Baby­ lonian and Palestinian centers for influence over the rest of the Jewish world [see PALESTINE]. The last great battle in this conflict was fought over the establish­ ment of the Jewish calendar in the years 920-922, and ended in victory for the Babylonian authorities, despite the fact that this area had been for centuries the special preserve of Palestinian experts. There are clear indications that Babylonian superiority in tal­ mudic learning was recognized even in Palestine, and led to a dilution of the pristine Palestinian tradition. At the same time, Palestinian influence made itself felt in Babylon and elsewhere in areas such as biblical exegesis and religious poetry (piyyuf.), so that it would be more accurate to describe the outcome of the geonic period as an enduring synthesis rather than a clear-cut victory for one side or the other. [In addition to the responsa, various other impor­ tant letters, treatises, and other materials were com­ posed. One of these was by Pirkoi (or Parkoi) b. Baboi, a student of Yehudai Gaon of Sura, who wrote to the Jews of North Africa warning them against the practices of Palestine (see PALESTINE article). Many fragments were assembled by Ginzberg, Ginzey Sheehter, Vol. 2, but he erred in his statements about the author and the destination of the work. A very important legal compilation, Sefer basar \al gabbey gehaliym, by Biybay Gaon (written in the 780s) has only partially survived. Most important was the Siddur (prayerbook) of Amram Gaon (ca. 858-ca. 871). This was written in response to a request from Spain about the proper order and content of prayers, the 283

Geonim

laws concerning them, and so on. Although the in­ troduction is in the first person, it was in fact at least partly composed by his students. Many of the laws are taken from various responsa of Amram (some at­ tributed to Natronai are in fact by Amram). Appar­ ently neither Sherira nor Hai was familiar with the Siddur; and knew of his decisions only from citations in questions to them, which were sometimes errone­ ously attributed to Semah Gaon (ca. 872-890) of Pumbedita. This work had great influence in Spain, but also in later medieval European legal collections. One of the most important, and influential, of the geonim was the previously mentioned Hai b. Sherira, who was an extremely prolific writer. Fragments of a commentary on the tractate Berakhot survive, a legal work on oaths, the first legal compilation on laws of commerce, some other short legal compilations, and numerous responsa. Questions came to him from Yemen, Ethiopia (“land of the Cushites”), Germany, France, and simply “the East,” which may mean Jew­ ish communities in the former Persian Empire, and also from Turkey and India. There are many mystical statements in his responsa, but several of these may be forgeries by later mystics (see QABBALAH) and qab­ balistic editors. This is also true with respect to cita­ tions of the “Jerusalem,” or Palestinian, Talmud, some of which are forgeries, also in other geonic re­ sponsa (it is not true, however, that the geonim never cited the Palestinian Talmud, as has been alleged by nineteenth-century scholars; on the contrary, they cited it and accepted its authority). Moses de Leon himself, author of the Zohar, may have been respon­ sible for some of the forgeries, particularly in the lan­ guage of Hai that he “cites.” So also the qabbalistic commentary attributed to Hai on the mystical “di­ vine Name” of forty-two letters is not by him but by Moses b. Solomon of Burgos. The Sefer halomoty or Pitaron faalomot (Interpretation of dreams), often at­ tributed to Hai, is actually an abridgement of a work of that title by Solomon Almoliy (Constantinople, fifteenth-sixteenth century), but in the second part of that work the author does mention “chapters” (she'ariyni) on the interpretation of dreams that Hai wrote; nevertheless, some scholars have considered that a forgery (see A. Griinbaum, in Areshet 2 [1959]: 180ff., who also discusses Samuel b. H^ofnis com­ ments on dreams and concludes that these were con­ fused with his father-in-law, Hai). His very impor­ 284

tant collection of poems (his own), published under the title Shiyrei musar haskel in numerous editions, has also sometimes been questioned, but without rea­ son (references to his poems in works by Spanish Jews substantiate their authenticity). His commen­ tary on the Bible (lost) is cited by Ibn ‘Ezra, “ RASHI,” David Qimhi, and others. Some important responsa and letters of Hai have been translated in Franz Kobler, Letters o f Jews Through the Ages (London, 1952) I, 122-29; the article of Kaufmann to which he refers, p. 122, is “Ein Responsum des Gaons Hai uber Gottes Vorherwissen,” Z.D.M. G. 49: 74ff., with a German version of the responsum). Hai was held in great esteem by later scholars, particularly in Spain. N a h m a n id e s wrote of him that he was “equal to the majority of the Sanhedrin.”—ed.] A considerable part of what is conventionally de­ scribed as geonic literature was actually produced not by geonim but by their contemporaries. This is true, in particular, of the three outstanding works pro­ duced in the eighth and ninth centuries: the Sheiltot, the Halakhot pesuqot, and the Halakhot gedolot. The first of these is a collection of approximately 180 homilies constructed according to the weekly por­ tions of the Torah, with additions for festivals and special occasions. This collection is associated with Rabbi Aha of Shabha, a leading sage of the mid­ eighth century who is reported to have left Babylon for Palestine, but it is unclear whether his role was that of author or editor, or perhaps a combination of the two. The homilies included in this work essen­ tially present talmudic materials in a form intended for popular consumption; they contain little original halakhic content but serve as important witnesses to the text of the Talmud at this early period. The other two works mentioned are compilations covering a broad range of legal topics in a mixture of abridged talmudic selections and paraphrases. Although Halakhotpesuqot is attributed to Yehudai b. Nahman (d. 761), the first of the better-known geonim, or to his disciples, there is reason to doubt this attribution; it seems that the work was unknown in Babylon until the mid-ninth century, although it contains primarily Babylonian materials. Halakhot gedolot was compiled about the middle of the ninth century by Rabbi Simon Qayyara, about whom very little is known. This work is much more extensive than Halakhot p e­ suqot and incorporates verbatim large sections both of

Geonim

that book and of the Sheiltot, as well as an impressive array of other sources, several of them Palestinian. The characteristic form of geonic literary activity was the writing of responsa, answers to written ques­ tions sent to the geonic academies from numerous Jewish communities. It was primarily by means of these questions (often accompanied by contributions to the academies) and their answers that the Baby­ lonian center exerted a profound influence over much of the contemporary Jewish world, well be­ yond the boundaries of the reshuyot. The Jewish com­ munities of North Africa and SPAIN figure most prominently in this connection, but some responsa were sent to Italy, France, and perhaps other lands as well; it should be borne in mind that those responsa whose destinations are known are in the minority. The questions were read out before a gathering of the senior scholars of the academy, who discussed them together with the gaon, who then dictated the an­ swers to be recorded by the academy’s scribe. The ac­ tual extent to which scholars other than the gaon shaped the content of the responsa is unclear, and they were (and are) commonly spoken of as written by the gaon. There are, however, indications (such as the consistent use of the first-person plural) that the writing of the responsa was considered to be a shared responsibility, and the gaon would delay sending his answers, if necessary, until his colleagues could be consulted. Questions were generally sent to the academies in batches, as the opportunity arose to send them with merchant caravans and the like; such a bundle could include dozens of questions on unrelated topics. Sometimes, especially in the Genizah, such bundles of responsa have been preserved largely intact, but most preserved geonic responsa were detached from their original contexts in the course of the Middle Ages by scholars who were interested only in selected responsa or who found it more convenient to be able to consult collections of responsa arranged by topic rather than by the external circumstances of their composition. As a result of this process, information concerning the identity of the questioners and re­ spondents, as well as of other details that seemed unimportant to later generations, was frequently lost, even when the gist of a given responsum was pre­ served. We now possess approximately 5,000 to 10,000 responsa, probably much less than half of the

total number produced by the geonic academies, and most of these are anonymous. There are about twenty [printed] collections devoted primarily or ex­ clusively to geonic responsa, and numerous others are preserved in citations [or even in the entire text; e.g., in the responsa of IBN A d r e t ] in later rabbinic literature. The outstanding turning point in the history of geonic intellectual life was the tenure of S a ‘a d y a h (Seadyah) b. Joseph (882-942) as gaon of Sura (from 928). In contrast to other geonim., he was an outsider, raised in the Fayyum district of EGYPT, who had spent years studying in Palestine before settling in Babylon. In addition to his outstanding gifts and extremely forceful character, he brought to the Baby­ lonian academic circles a number of areas of study and types of activity that had previously lain outside their purview and that can be explained to a large extent as a result of the Egyptian-Palestinian milieu in which his personality was shaped. In addition, there are indications that Babylonian Jewish circles outside the geonic academies were increasingly ex­ posed to other cultural influences, especially from their Muslim and Christian neighbors, but it was Saadyah who gave these broader cultural concerns legitimacy within the geonic academies; several of the new paths he blazed were followed and further devel­ oped by one or another of his successors [for further details, see the article on SA CADYAH—ed.] The com­ mentary on the Pentateuch that he began was fol­ lowed and completed by his rival Aaron Sarjado (d. 960) and by Samuel b. Hofni, gaon of Sura (d. 1013); among the three of them they commented on the entire Pentateuch. [The common assumption that the geonic period ended with the death of Hai is, of course, incorrect. Following the “classical” period discussed in this arti­ cle, scholars who held the title of reish metiyvta, in fact, gaon, of Baghdad are known to us from both Hebrew and Arabic sources. The twelfth-century traveler BENJAMIN OF TUDELA gives the names of the gaon, Samuel b. All—of whom much is known, thanks to the researches of Assaf and others—and of the heads of the ten colleges associated with the yeshivah. From two Muslim chronicles, in particular, we learn of the appointment of Daniyal b. ATazar b. Hibat Allah in 1209; he is the Daniel b. Elazar known from Jewish sources (Fischel published a 285

Geonim

translation of the text of his appointment, pp. 128-29). He replaced the deceased ATazar b. Hilal b. Fahd. Four other names of geonim are mentioned, ending with ‘Ell (so, not ‘All) b. Zakhariyya, ap­ pointed in 1250. Not all of these were apparently worthy; people gathered in the street to stone Daniyal b. Shamu’ll b. Abi’l-Rabl‘, appointed in 1247, but the government intervened to save him. Some of these, and others, are mentioned in the poems of Elazar b. Yaaqov ha-Bavliy (“the Babylon­ ian”), which were utilized by Poznanski and have since been published.—ed.] The geonic period was the last time before the twentieth century that the center of gravity of the Jewish world was unquestionably located in the Mid­ dle East, and the remainder of the Jewish world ac­ knowledged the superiority of the ancient centers of Palestine and Babylon and willingly accepted their authority It was this period that produced a classical synthesis of Palestinian and Babylonian traditions, to be inherited and modified by the local schools, tradi­ tions, and customs of widespread Jewish communi­ ties. Perhaps most significantly, it was the geonic period that established the Talmud (especially the Babylonian Talmud) as the arbiter of correct Jewish practice, and placed the study and application of the Talmud at the center of the Jewish cultural and intel­ lectual agenda for succeeding ages. ROBERT BRODY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramson, Shraga. be-Merkaziym u-vi-tefu$ot bi-tequfat ha-geoniym (Jerusalem, 1965). ---------. ‘I nyanot be-sifrut ha-geoniym (Jerusalem, 1974). Assaf, Simha. Tequfat ha-geoniym ve-sifrutah (Je­ rusalem, 1955). Brody, Robert. The Geonim o f Babylonia and the Shaping o f M edieval Jewish Culture (New Haven, London, 1998), with extensive bibliography. Danzig, N. Mavo le-sefer halakhot pesuqot ‘im tashlum halakhot pesuqot (New York, Jerusalem, 1993). [Fischel, Walter. Jews in the Economic and Political Life o f M edieval Islam (New York, 1969 revised ed.)]. Gil, Moshe. “The Babylonian Yeshivot and the Maghrib in the Early Middle Ages,” P.A.A.J.R. 57 (1990-91): 69-120.

286

------ -—. Be-malkhut Yishma ‘e l bi-tequfat ha-geoniym: mehqariym u-ketaviym min ha-geniyzah (Tel Aviv, 1997), 4 vols. [Ginzberg, Louis, ed. Ginzey Shechter (New York, 1928), 3 vols.]. Groner, Tsvi. The Legal Methodology o f Hai Gaon (Chico, Calif., 1985). Mann, Jacob. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs (Oxford, 1920—22, 2 vols.; photo rpt. New York, 1970 in one vol., with intro, by S. D. Goitein). [Poznanski, S. Babylonische Gaonim im nachgaondischen Zeitalter (Berlin, 1914).] Sklare, David. Samuel b. Hofni Gaon and His Cul­ tural World: Texts and Studies (Leiden, 1996). Sherira Gaon. Iggeret, ed. B. M. Lewin (Haifa, 1921) [there is a Latin translation, based on an earlier edition, of course, by J. Wallenstein, Scherirae epistola (Vratislav, 1861)].

German Law, Jews in

The Jews of Germany, as elsewhere, governed their internal communities and their own personal lives in accord with talmudic law and the enactment of spe­ cific ordinances (taqqanot). The Christian secular and ecclesiastical authorities settled the conditions of mutual relations by setting rules that constitute what is known as the “Jewry law,” lex Iudeorum. Stow (see Bibliography; cf. also Dasberg) main­ tains that there existed a “watershed” between the legal position of the Jews under the Carolingians and under Henry IV (1056-1106), insofar as “the Jews’ constitutional status of Roman citizenship . . . was exchanged for the status of personal dependence” (pp. 98-110). Indeed, the eleventh century signified a thoroughgoing change for the Jews, but their con­ ditions of life were altered much more by economic developments than the events of the First Crusade (see CRUSADES). Even though in Carolingian times Roman law remained valid within the scope of the Breviarium Alarici in southern France, in northern France it was long since superseded by the Frankish law, including the royal capitularies and charters, which contained also Jewry law. Thus, Charles the Bald, king of the West Franconian region (840-877), did not accept the Jewry decrees of the synod of

German Law, Jews in

Meaux/Paris in 844-845, which were based mainly on Roman law. The first great watershed of Jewry policy and the legal status of the Jews in western and northern Europe, therefore, should be located between the Merovingian and Carolingian reigns of the eighth century, when Roman law began to be substituted by the rules of the capitularies and charters. Further­ more, it is not plausible to locate another break in 1234-1236, as Kisch did; for when FREDERICK II (supposedly) introduced the notion of “chamber serf­ dom,” he did not thereby limit the Jews’ freedom. Thus, even though the development of written law, law practices, and “Jewry” policy were subject to change during all these periods, we cannot discern any significant change in the Jews’ legal condition prior to the reign of Rudolf of Habsburg (1273— 1291) (see G e r m a n y article). Archbishop Frederick of Mainz (937-953) was the first to raise the question of Jewry law, as he in­ tended to baptize the Jews and was uncertain about using force if he was unable to persuade them. At his request a certain priest, Gerhard, supplied a canoni­ cal extract about the legal position of the Jews (Lotter, 1975). The sources strictly prohibited forced conversion. In any case, the Jews were under the king’s personal protection. In 965 Bishop Rather of Verone complained that a cleric hurting a Jew had to pay a triple fine, but a Jew hurting a Christian was not fined at all. From this we may conclude that at that time the Jews were protected according to Frankish law, like followers of the king, by a triple wergild (compensation for a homicide). An important aspect of “Jewry law” was the pro­ tection offered Jews by the privileges of overlords of various cities. In 1084, when Bishop Rudiger-Huozman established a new Jewish community in his town of Speyer, he gave the Jews a charter containing several Carolingian rules. He declared his intent “to settle Jews for augmenting a thousandfold the honor of our town,” and to give them “the most favorable privileges they would enjoy anywhere in Germany.” They were granted permanent residence, a graveyard for a fixed annual rent, free trade and money chang­ ing, their own jurisdiction under the parnas (archisynagogus), and the rights to appeal to the bishop or his chamberlain, to employ Christian wet nurses and

day laborers, and to sell nonkosher meat to Chris­ tians. The Jews were obligated, however, to help build, guard, and defend with their servants an as­ signed part of the town wall. In 1090, shortly before his death, the bishop intervened with Henry IV on behalf of three leaders of the Jewish community of Speyer. They requested that the emperor take them and all those whom they represented under his pro­ tection, and they submitted to him the formula of a privilege. The document that thereupon was granted also defined the relations between the Jews and the bishop. Some months later, again at the re­ quest of the bishop of Worms on behalf of the Jews there, the king granted a similar privilege. There were, however, some differences. Whereas in Speyer the bishop was confirmed as the overlord of the Jews, in Worms this was the emperor himself. Accordingly, the Worms charter fixed the relations between “Holy Roman Emperors” (German kings) and the Jews, thereby laying the general foundations for secular German Jewry law in the Middle Ages (Lotter, Scope, 1989). The legal regulations of this privilege may be classed in five categories: I. Protection of life and limb. II. Protection of possessions and commerce. III. Protection of religion and legal status. IV. Ser­ vants and slaves. V. Procedural law. Most of the rules, in terms of contents and partly even in wording, originated in Carolingian privileges of Louis the Pious (814-840): I. 4: the king takes and holds the Jews under his protection. 5: ecclesias­ tical and secular officeholders must not judge them; only the one whom they themselves chose and the emperor set over them. II. 6ff.: no one shall take from them their inheritance or goods, exact tools or taxes, demand horses or transport services, or impede them in their business; they may travel and trade freely. IV. 11: they may employ Christian servants ex­ cept on Sundays and festivals. 13: no man shall divert the Jews’ pagan slaves from their service by baptizing them. V. 19: Christians and Jews shall prove their cases against each other both with Christian and with Jewish witnesses. 20: no one shall force a Jew to judg­ ment by ordeal. 21: if Jews are accused of a serious crime, they may have recourse to the king. 22: he who kills a Jew shall pay a fine of twelve pounds of gold. Some other regulations appear for the first

287

German Law, Jews in

time: Jews are free to sell wine and medicine; no one shall baptize or carry off a Jew’s children; a Jew who wants to be baptized has to wait three days, to prove that he wants this freely; both Jews and Christians shall prove their cases at court by their own public oaths (thus, Jews were not required to swear on the Christian Bible); if anyone who kills or wounds a Jew and is unable to pay the fine, he shall have his eyes put out and hands cut off; cases between Jews shall be judged only by their peers [partial translation of the text of the privilege in Chazan, pp. 60-62; com­ plete text in Aronius, pp. 74-77—ed.]. Some new rules reflect not only the king’s preferential treatment of the Jews, but obviously originate in Jewish law and custom: III. 18: Jews who convert must abandon their inheritance or property; II. 10: Jews who unwit­ tingly bought a stolen item are allowed to claim its price when it is found and reclaimed by the original owner. Roman law had actually prohibited Jewish parents from disinheriting their converted offspring. Responsa (teshuvot) by rabbis of the eleventh century attest the validity of the Jewish practice (Lotter, 1989; p. 40 ff.). The second rule all the more exem­ plifies Jewish custom. It cannot be deduced from any Teutonic law, as Kisch presumed, but finds its equiv­ alent only in the mishnah (B.Q. 10.3; cf. Lotter, 1989, p. 42ffi; Lotter, 1990). [Kisch, 1948, however, did not make any such claim, only that it originated in these privileges, after which he discussed its appli­ cation in later medieval “Jewry law” codes; pp. 210-17, and see especially n. 13, pp. 469-70.—ed.]. Above all, this law was meant to prevent any impedi­ ment to market traffic. Corresponding to its Hebraic designation as taqqanat ha-shuq, it therefore should be named “market protection statute” (Marktschutzrecht), not Hehlerrecht (“law of concealment”), a no­ tion introduced by German anti-Semites and used up to this day. The first protest against this new law came from Peter the Venerable (1094-1156), abbot of Cluny (France). This “diabolic law” issued by Christian kings from of old, he claimed, allowed Jews to refuse to return stolen goods, even if these were sa­ cred church property. Whereas Christians were pun­ ished by hanging when stolen items were found with them, Jews were not obligated even to denounce the thief [text and translation in Kisch, 1948, p. 470]. (The possibility that a similar law was issued by French kings is supported by a letter of Pope Inno­ 288

cent III to King P h i l i p II in 1205; among other com­ plaints about Jews he stated that one would never get back stolen property if it was found with Jews, “for they abuse the patience of the king”; i.e., his privi­ lege.) As later medieval German law books, from the Saehsenspiegel on, testify, the market protection of Jewish pawnbroking was later modified mostly by the demand to prove the acquisition bona fid e [“in good faith”; i.e., that the Jew had not known the ob­ ject was stolen]. But it was valid on the whole until the end of the Middle Ages, as we will see later. In 1406 it was even received in papal mandates. The charter of Henry IV for the Jews of Worms was confirmed by Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (1152—1190), with a vague expansion of its validity to Jews elsewhere (et ceteris sodalibus suis). In 1236, however, Frederick II expanded it explicitly to all the Jews of the empire, whom he regarded as his “cham­ ber serfs” (servi camerae nostrae), by which he never meant to alter the former status of the Jews; by as­ serting that harming a Jew means assaulting the king’s property and protege he only intended to bet­ ter protect them. The question arises whether other Jews who did not have personal charters had to travel without pro­ tection before Frederick II’s privileges. Certainly not. On the other hand, in 1096 during the First Crusade the charters for the Jews of W O RM S and Speyer had proved to be ineffective in protecting them. There­ fore, in 1103, after the catastrophe, Henry IV in­ cluded Jews with clerics, women, and merchants in the Land Peace [this was a law, much repeated and also in other countries, that sought to guarantee pro­ tection from attack, at first to certain valued classes and ultimately to all, at least on certain days of the week; the Jews were included not because they were “weak,” as has been claimed by some, but because of their special status—ed.]. Another problem was forced conversion. Canon law prohibited forced conversion in the first instance, but also insisted that once converted there was no possibility for return of the convert to his former sta­ tus, even if converted by force. Henry IV, in the wake of the crusade, when many Jews had been baptized by force, not only permitted their return to Judaism, but decreed, in order to stop forced baptisms, that Jews who willingly sought baptism must wait three days in order to avoid pressure or injustice. This

German Law, Jews in

seems a trifle compared to the forty days or even eight months prescribed for catechumens in the canonical collections, but perhaps the shorter period was more efficient in preventing forced conversions. Another controversial article of Henry’s charter was the rule that Jews had to relinquish their rights to in­ heritance in case of baptism. Since Jews paid collec­ tive taxes as a community, the sovereign took care that the communal property was not reduced by con­ versions, and this was the purpose of the rule (it should be added, however, that this rule also had its precedent in Jewish law, as one of the means to dis­ suade apostates). Of course, it became the object of many ecclesiastical protests, and there are indeed many indications that Jews had to fear extreme poverty after conversion. Judah of Cologne deposited books and money with a Christian family before converting and taking the name Hermann of Scheda. In 1137, the son of a Jewish moneylender in Regens­ burg, having seen other converts reduced to mendi­ cancy, prepared for his conversion by stealing a con­ siderable amount of gold and silver and depositing it with the archdeacon for his own later use. In about 1161 a Jewish woman, upon becoming a Christian through marriage in Cologne, voluntarily renounced her inheritance for herself and her offspring in order to avoid serious conflicts with her Jewish relatives. (The controversial privilege allegedly granted by Frederick II to Austria in 1238, considered by experts to be a forgery, was nevertheless the basis for a new privilege by Duke Frederick II of Austria in 1244.) At first sight, the dukes charter with its 31 rules deals with the same topics as the imperial privileges of Germany: protection of life and property, commerce, religion and customs, legal procedures and the oath. Remarkable, however, is the subject of pawnbroking, not even touched upon in German imperial charters. It is covered in no fewer than 11 of the articles in the Austrian charter. Some important rules are omitted: that a Jew must wait for three days after a decision to convert; that a Jew must abandon the right of inheri­ tance in case of conversion; and also the prohibition against baptizing a Jewish child. For centuries this charter was to have the utmost importance for Jewish policy not only of the later Habsburg territories but also for the eastern kingdoms. In the thirteenth cen­ tury it served as the pattern for the charters of King Bela of Hungary, Premsyl Ottokar II of Bohemia,

Duke Boleslaw Pius of Greater Poland; Rudolf of Habsburg for the Jews of Vienna in 1277; Duke Boiko I of Silesia; Duke Henry III of Glogau; and in the fourteenth century in Poland and Lithuania. The tendency to accommodate the Jews’ charters to economic developments and to pay special atten­ tion to the problems of pawnbroking becomes even more visible in another charter of 1265, also issued by a territorial prince, Henry the Illustrious, mar­ grave of Meissen and the Eastern Lands. Astonish­ ingly, this charter follows no known schedule; its for­ mulation seems completely new, even though some rules are known from previous privileges. It com­ prises sixteen articles concerning only two main sub­ jects: legal procedures and pawnbroking. M edieval Law Books

The “Jewry law” of the later Middle Ages is intro­ duced by Eike of Repgow (ca. 1180-1233). As we have mentioned, a customary law had developed, be­ side the official charters. It was applied everywhere in cases concerning Jews when no adequate written law was present. Generally, customary law was regarded as very old. It included rules of Carolingian capitu­ laries, the imperial charters, and the Land-Peace laws, but accommodated itself better to the demands of the times. When in 1225-1230 Eike composed the Sachsenspiegel (“Saxons’ mirror,” henceforth SaSp), a collec­ tion of east Saxon common laws, in its Landrecht (“land’s law”; LR), he also inserted customary Jewish law: LR 111,7,1 (116): a Jew must not be a guarantor for a Christian if he is not ready to answer like a Christian (in court procedures); 111,7,2 f.: if a Jew slays a Christian he is to be sentenced as a Christian would be; if a Christian slays a Jew he is sentenced for violating the king’s peace (Eike did not know the actual origin of the king’s peace law, but following an old legend he ascribed it to the Roman Emperor Ves­ pasian, who granted a special peace to the Jews after Josephus allegedly cured his son of the gout); 111,7,4: Eike resumed the market protection of Henry IV’s charter, but added some restrictions that make it closer to Frankish law; 11,66,1 (107): repetition of the imperial Land-Peace that clerics, women, and Jews should always enjoy peace concerning their per­ sons and property; 111,2 (112), Eike inferred, how­ ever, that those who claimed the right of enjoying the 289

German Law, Jews in

king’s peace also must not bear arms. The impor­ tance of SaSp cannot be overestimated. Even though it was created as a private work, it was soon handled as a law book and accepted all over a region extend­ ing from the Rhine to the Dnieper. It was developed further and, even after its final formulation in 1270, was used also in modified versions. More than 460 manuscripts are preserved, which were used as pat­ terns for many other lawbooks to the end of the Mid­ dle Ages. It became the main source for “Jewry law” in actual practice. Another major law book was produced by the Franciscans (see DOMINICANS AND FRANCISCANS) in Augsburg in 1275-1276. This was the Schwab enspiegel (“Swabians’ mirror” = SwSp). This became the major code of law for southern Germany, equal in im­ portance to the Sachsenspiegel for northern and eastern Germany. The SwSp was based in part on the SaSp, but also on canon law. Therefore, it became more in­ structive than descriptive and also more remote from legal practice. That is also true for the “Jewry law” within its land’s law (Landrecht; ed. Grosse, 1964). Seventeen articles of that LR deal with Jews, a much greater number than in SaSp. Some of these were also more restrictive; thus, a Jew or heathen or heretic may not be a judge or solicitor (not found in other law books). Jews not wearing their special hats [see CLOTHING] , or carrying weapons or frequenting inns or brothels are to be sentenced like Gentiles. Ch. 260 is a modified version of a rule in SaSp: a Jew in busi­ ness may be a guarantor according to Christian law, if he did not reserve to himself Jewish law. He must prove his case by three Christian witnesses, but can be convicted only if there is a Jewish witness. The au­ thors felt compelled, however, to justify this apparent favor by applying again the Josephus legend men­ tioned above. Homicide law also was changed; if a Christian slays a Jew he shall be judged as if he had slain a Christian. Also new is the reintroduction of “ordeal,” if in a legal case the Christian chooses to fight the Jew [to “prove” his innocence] the Jew must fight him [note that this law did not provide, as had been the case in some earlier laws, for the use of a substitute “champion.”—ed.\. Finally, it acknowl­ edges two Jewish OATH formulas. The longer one is more familiar but very ill famed: the Jew has to stand on a pig’s skin, his right hand on the Torah, and swear by a very long list of biblical, including New 290

Testament, self-damnations. The longer version does not demand the sow’s skin, shortens the self-damna­ tions, and lacks the New Testament parts. In pawnbroking the SwSp supports the debtor; for instance, the very first article concerning Jews (ch. 81) forbids pawning to a Jew a pledge obtained from someone without that person’s consent. Coins with­ drawn from circulation (and thus, apparently, useless to the Jew) may be used to redeem pledges from Jews for up to four weeks after they have been withdrawn. Market protection law also is changed (ch. 261), after yet again introducing the old Josephus legend as the reason for such protection in the first place. Now, if a Jew buys a stolen item he should be answerable just as a Christian would, and if he takes it in pledge for a loan, he should deliver it to the original owner on demand with no compensation. Unfortunately, the author concludes, the Jews had “purchased” a better law than this, granted them unlawfully by the kings; therefore, the conditions of taking pledge stolen items remained as in the SaSp, but neverthe­ less without the right to compensation. If the Jew ac­ cepted stolen church property, however, and is un­ able to produce a guarantor to prove his innocence of the fact that it was stolen, he is to be hanged like a thief. The last group of articles, ch. 262, is taken from canon law, and deals with conversion, that Jews should not appear in public during Easter, that they must wear the Jewish hat, and so on. Also, contrary to previous imperial law, a baptized Jew is to be al­ lowed to inherit. In addition, there were countless local law books, usually named after the towns where they were ap­ plicable; some, however, won more than local or even regional significance [see excerpts of these in Kisch, Jew ry Law]. These approximate real life and legal practice more than the imperial charters. As Kisch has said, the law books are “the literary work of indi­ vidual men who were experienced in the legal field, they are private compilations of customary law” (Kisch, 1948, p. 30). One of the most important was the Magdeburg, or Saxon, Weichbildrecht (municipal law) and the law of the Magdeburg Schoffenstuhl (ju­ rors’ chair; court), which were applied widely in east­ ern Germany and eastern Europe in general. In the late Middle Ages the jurors’ chair exercised great au­ thority as the Oberhof(superior court), and was con­ sulted by many towns and produced countless legal

German Law, Jews in

decisions that entered into collections of private re­ ceivers and towns. These collections are of ines­ timable value as source material, still edited only par­ tially, which may bring us closer to the practice of law in that time. Included also are many inquiries of Jews from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, which were answered always with phrases as respect­ ful as those from Christians. A competitor of the Magdeburg law was the Meissener Rechtsbuch, written sometime between 1357 and 1387, perhaps in Zwickau. This is also the law book with the greatest number of Jewry rules (book 3, ch. 17, contains solely “Jewry law” \joddenrechi[ in 48 arti­ cles; with nine more dispersed among books 3-6). Al­ though there are some positive references to Jews, new is that dealing with ritual murder: if Jews take away the child of a Christian in order to use its blood, the Jew in whose house the dead child will be found must be punished with loss of life, house, and property. This is similar to a law that provided the death penalty also for the kidnaping of a Jewish child [note, however, the as­ sumption that ritual murder was a reality]. The rule, nevertheless, seems aimed at confining spontaneous persecutions rather than encouraging them, accord­ ing to some opinion (Magin). Another unique rule (111,17,45) obligates Christian neighbors to stop at­ tacks made on Jews or Jewish houses, and levies a fine for those who cannot prove their innocence in this by oath. Ecclesiastical law also played an influential part: Jews must remain in their houses while the host is in procession in the street; they shall wear their hats also outside the synagogue (where apparently Jews felt they might be safe in removing them); they shall not testify against Christians (which contradicts, nevertheless, other laws in the book); and they must take the Jewish oath. Nevertheless, the regulations and the attitude in general are much more favorable to the Jews and much less influenced by canon law than the SwSp. From the fourteenth century on new forms of ju­ ristic collections were created, the so-called Remissoria. They remodeled the legal material of various law books and ordered it in alphabetical form. Under the rubric “Jew” the Remissoria often present a compre­ hensive survey, but the rules are usually condensed. Change in Legal Status under New Rulers

The legal status of the Jews deteriorated significantly under the reign of Rudolf of Habsburg (1273—

1291). He did not confirm the privileges of his pre­ decessors, but instead confirmed (1275) two papal bulls of Gregory X that now became the official “Jewry law.” Together with the emergence of the law books, this marked a new watershed in the develop­ ment of “Jewry law”; but even though this charter does not correspond to the rules of previous privi­ leges, it did not completely neglect a certain protec­ tion of the Jews. The first papal bull (1274) was actu­ ally the customary renewal of the Sicut Iudaeis bull [see CANON LAW]. Following in the footsteps of his predecessors the pope offered his protection to the Jews. The second bull was also a reissue of the bull Lacrymabilem Iudaeorum enacted by Innocent IV (1247). This was addressed to the German bishops as a response to the increasing number of B l o o d LI­ BELS. Therefore, it sought to prohibit princes, ecclesi­ astical and lay, from plotting against Jews in order to deprive them of their property. To these papal bulls Rudolf added only one rule from the old imperial charter: Jews shall not be sentenced without legiti­ mate testimony by Jewish as well as Christian wit­ nesses. But in subsequent years he imposed new re­ strictions on Jews [see also G e r m a n y ] , and canceled the old privilege allowing Jews to travel and settle freely throughout the empire and stated that Jews were now to be regarded as slaves in the sense of Roman law. They had become the property of the king in body and possessions. This was confirmed by later rulers, Louis the Bavarian (1314-1347) in 1343 and Charles IV (1346-1378) in 1347. Also, from now on the main interest of the emperor in the Jews was not protection but exploitation. As prior to the thirteenth century the kings of England and France had done, so now also the German sovereigns con­ trived countless strategies to squeeze money from the Jews, for example, by augmenting the taxes and du­ ties, allocation takes, or the rights on Jews to them­ selves, or by liquidating the Jews’ debts (see BLACK D e a t h ). At the same time the ability of the emperors to protect the Jews markedly changed. Charles IV, in his “Golden Bull” of 1356, formally transferred the royal right on the Jews (Judenregal) to the electors [who chose the ruler]. Nevertheless, the emperors never neglected the connection of the Jews with the imperial chamber or renounced it. Thus, King Sigmund (1410-1437) issued a new charter in 1415 again claiming his supremacy over the Jews as 291

German Law, Jews in

his chamber serfs. In this charter he provided that no taxes other than the annual Jewry tax would be col­ lected from them, that he would not cancel debts due to them, that they should not have to pay more tolls than Christians did, that no one may take Jews as hostages, that Jews expelled from towns should be re­ ceived back, and that Jewish children should not be kidnaped or baptized. The emperor also appointed a special judge to take care of their protection and ju­ risdiction. In spite of the provisions of the charter, he demanded a new tax of a tenth of all movable prop­ erty of each Jew. The plan for a special judge did not succeed, nor did the new tax regulations, and the charter after all did not find much resonance in re­ gional and local “Jewry law.” In fact, by now imperial “Jewry law” lost almost all practical meaning. When Jews needed to have recourse to a court, it was only before territorial or local judges, who applied cus­ tomary law or, when using written law, that of the law books. Summary

As we have seen, the themes of “Jewry law” in the law books were many. We can relate all the rules to four main themes: I. Social status o f the Jews. Protection of life, property, and religious customs; Jewish serfdom; Christian servants and nurses; regulations concern­ ing clothing; consultations with Jewish physicians. II. Contacts and relations between Jews and Christians. Forced conversion of Jews and apostasy; kidnap and baptism of Jewish children; expropriation and disin­ heritance of Jewish converts; sexual relations between Jews and Christians. III. Procedural law and actions o f Jews against Christians. Jews as judges and interces­ sors; testimony of Jews against Christians; the Jewish oath. IV. Jewish commerce. Trade and pawnbroking; practice of usury; sale of medicine, wine, and meat to Christians; the market protection statute. Naturally, the above-mentioned themes differ considerably in their importance and in the fre­ quency of their appearance; but their appearance, as well as the absence of certain topics, allows remark­ able conclusions. Thus, the serfdom of the Jews is sel­ dom dealt with, and even sources influenced by canon law mention only the secular serfdom and not the theological aspects. Christian servants were usu­ ally prohibited only from dwelling in the houses of 292

Jews, not from serving Jews. The rules on clothing are not very often cited, much less the prohibition against using Jewish physicians [there were, in fact, fewer Jewish physicians in Germany than in Spain or France]. The validity of forced conversion and disin­ heritance of converts is dealt with almost exclusively in books influenced by canon law. The kidnap and forced conversion of Jewish children is not often dealt with, either. However, procedural law and Jew­ ish commerce were treated mainly and extensively by secular authors. Actions, testimony, and oath of Jews, like market protection and, to an even greater extent, pawnbroking and usury, were often dealt with in the regulations. Only in a few books influenced by canon law were Jews prohibited from acting as judges or in­ tercessors. The right of Jews to bring an action against Christians was accepted by most of the secu­ lar authors at least with respect to pawnbroking mat­ ters. The right to testify against Christians was more often restricted by clerical and by some secular au­ thors; others, however, put Christians and Jews on an equal basis in this respect. Special oaths for Jews were prescribed in almost all of the law books (but not in the SaSp). No topic was more criticized than the market protection statute. The Vienna Stadtrechtsbuch (about 1278-1296) states that “the damned Jews possess much better rights against the Christians than the Christians against the Jews . . . a Christian must return stolen pledges without recompensa­ tion . . . but when a stolen object is in the hands of a Jew (the Christian owner) must give the Jew what he may claim by his oath.” The law books repeatedly tried to modify the original rule. After limiting mar­ ket protection to pawnbroking, further limitations were introduced concerning the pledging of sacred property, livestock, and even bloody and wet cloth­ ing. Nevertheless, the preferential treatment of Jews with respect to stolen items surely increased the ha­ tred against Jews. The tendency to assign the Jews a minor legal and social position and to bar them outright from certain ways of living manifested itself mainly in those law­ books influenced by canon law, most clearly in the SwSp. The Meissen law book represents the opposite position; besides fewer restrictions it contains a great many regulations protecting Jewish life and body, the economic base and Jewish rights within the judicial system.

Germany

On the whole, the chronological progression of the law books from SaSp to SwSp to MR and others does not imply a constant deterioration of the legal status of the Jews in the late Middle Ages. In most of the law books the regulations were dominated by positive descriptions of the position of the Jews. We may even venture to say that those law books, taken on their own and in general, warranted the Jews se­ cure life and fruitful economic activity. Therefore, it is not correct to maintain that the Jews were not protected in the Christian world around them. We must conclude that the causes for the economic decline of the Jews and the unques­ tionable threat to their existence in the late Middle Ages cannot be found in the development of secular and ecclesiastical “Jewry law,” but in other areas. There were factors that temporarily suspended the validity of the regulations. These factors are probably to be found in the popular mentality and emotion. The change of mental and social attitudes and behav­ ior patterns toward the Jews surely had much more weight than the order of law. On the other hand, we have seen that there were also elements of favorable “Jewry law” in the eco­ nomic area that influenced this change of attitudes. Jews as the proteges of the overlords were regarded as the weakest part of the ruling system and, therefore, often attracted social protest and rebellion. So, in this indirect way, “Jewry law” may be said to have had a negative bearing also on the conditions of Jewish life. FRIEDRICH LOTTER

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chazan, Robert. Churchy State, and Jew in the Middle Ages (New York, 1980). Dasberg, Lena. Untersuchungen uber die Entwertung des Judenstatus im 11. Jahrhundert (The Hague, 1965). Gilchrist, John. “The Canonistic Treatment of Jews in the Latin West in the 11th and 12th Cen­ turies,” Zeitschrift fu r Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt. 75 (1989): 70-106. Kisch, Guido. Forschungen zur Rechts- und Sozialgeschichte der Juden in Deutschland wahrend des Mittelalters. Ausgewahlte Schriften I (Sigmaringen, 1978). --------- . “The ‘Jewish Law of Concealment5,” Historia Judaica 1 (1939): 1-30.

---------. The Jews in M edieval Germany. A Study o f Their Legal and Social Status (Chicago, 1948; rpt. with new introduction and corrections and addi­ tions, New York, 1970). ---------. Jew ry Law in M edieval Germany (N.Y., 1949). Lotter, Friedrich. “The Scope and Effectiveness of Imperial Jewry Law in the High Middle Ages,” Jewish History 4 (Haifa, 1989): 31-58. ---------. “Talmudisches Recht in den Judenprivilegien Heinrichs IV?” Archiv fu r Kulturgeschichte 72 (1990): 23-61. Magin, Christine. “ £Wan die verfluchten Juden vil pezzer recht habent’: der Status der Juden in spatmittelalterlichen Rechtsbuchern” (Dissertation, Philosophy, University of Gottinger, 1995). Stow, Kenneth R. Alienated Minority. The Jews o f M edieval Latin Europe (Cambridge, Mass.; Lon­ don, 1992).

Germany (see also Art, Badge, Education, Rabbis, Synagogues) Jews had lived in the Rhineland since Roman times. Besides archaeological findings in several towns, two imperial decrees from 321 and 331 C.E. testify to a Jewish community organization, with rabbis, chair­ men, councilors, synagogue officials, and even Jews as members of the municipal council (decuriones) at Cologne. There is no certainty, however, that Jews survived there throughout the Merovingian period. Jews are found as residents in the capital of the Car­ olingian Empire, Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle), first in 820. At that time Jewish merchants crossed Germany on the trade routes leading to the Slavonic East and the Muslim regions of Central Asia and the Near East, supplying the Frankish West with luxury arti­ cles like spices, drugs, furs, and slaves. Emperor Louis the Pious (814-840) supported Jewish trade with very favorable privileges. These, which the Jews had petitioned for, granted them not only free trade, safety of life and limb, and undis­ turbed practice of their religion, but also protection against undue charges and tax burdens, and even protection against the compulsory baptism of their slaves. In his fierce protest against these privileges, Agobard, the archbishop of Lyons, revealed the good relations that Jews had with the Carolingian court. 293

Germany

Indeed, a deacon of that court, Bodo, who converted to Judaism in 839 and took the name Elazar, went to Muslim Spain and henceforth fiercely attacked Christianity. Nevertheless, Emperor Louis clung to his Jewish enactments, which later became the foun­ dation of a family of German imperial privileges that remained in force until the thirteenth century. In the eastern Frankish-German Empire, Jews were first mentioned at the synod of Erfurt in 932, where petitions from the Byzantine Empire (see BYZANTIUM) and Venice urged in vain that King Henry I and the German episcopate stop the Jewish trade either by expelling all the Jews or baptizing them. But in 937 Archbishop Frederick of Mainz (937-953) asked a certain priest named Gerhard whether it might be possible to convert the Jews by force. Gerhard composed a canonical reply, based mainly on Roman law, and emphasized that conver­ sion should be accomplished only by way of preach­ ing and friendly persuasion. Nevertheless, Frederick later informed Pope Leo VII of his desire to convert the pagans and the Jews, and again asked him about the possibility of baptizing them by force. Though the pope decidedly refused, he agreed that they could be expelled if preaching failed to convince them. However, neither the popes suggestion nor Roman law affected the Jews’ position in Germany. Bishop Rather of Verone in 965 observed that the Jews were being protected by the kings. He bitterly blamed Emperor Otto for his law punishing any in­ jury done to a Jew with a triple fine, that is, the spe­ cial wergild reserved for the king’s followers. More­ over, there is no indication that the Ottones did not follow the Jewish policy of the Carolingians. The number of Jews increased continuously by immigration from Italy and France. Among others, also the ancestor of the famous German branch of the renowned Kalonymides wandered from Lucca in Italy to Mainz, probably under Conrad I (911-918). Presumably also from Italy came Judah b. Meir gaon, named Leon (tin) , and from Le Mans in France came Abun ben Joseph the Great; both were famous rabbis of the Mainz yeshivah in the tenth century. In the course of that century Jews settled in the most im­ portant towns on the Moselle, Rhine, and Danube Rivers: in Metz, perhaps also Trier, Mainz, W O R M S, COLOGNE, and Regensburg. On the Elbe-Saale fron­ tier: Magdeburg, Merseburg, and presumably also in 294

Halle; and even in the Bohemian capital of Prague. The frequent use of the phrase “the Jews and other merchants” in texts of that time highlights the im­ portance of Jewish trade for the development of com­ merce and the economy in Germany then. The good relations between the Jews and the imperial court are also suggested by the story of the Jew Kalonymos, who rode to Italy with the courtiers of Otto II (973-983). At the turn of the millennium, the Mainz yeshivah reached a first climax under “Rabbenu” Gershom b. J u da h (“M eor ha-golah”). In the time of Gershom the Jewish self-government of the kehillah (community) was emerging. From this period also began the autonomy of French and German Jews who now became independent of reliance on the geonim of Babylon. There was, however, no uni­ form leadership for all of the imperial Jews; only sometimes the prestige of a famous sage would secure his authority as the great rabbi of a generation, as was the case with “RASHI” (Solomon b. Isaac, 1040-1105) or with M e ir b. Ba r uk h of Rothenburg (ca. 1215-1293).

In the course of the eleventh century the Jewish part of the population rose to about 15 to 20 percent in some of the episcopal towns on the Rhine. Under Henry II the Jews’ relation to the court temporarily became strained. Sometime between 1005 and 1014, when the chaplain of Duke Conrad, Wezelin, aposta­ tized to Judaism and began to criticize Christianity, the king charged a court chaplain, Henry, to write a treatise against Wezelin’s “blasphemous calumnies.” In this treatise we find all the stereotypes of antiJewish doctrine displayed already in the adversus Iudaeos literature of the early Church Fathers. In 1009, King Henry complained about Margrave Guncelin, who repeatedly sold the bondsmen of his adversaries to the Jews. Moreover, when news arrived about Caliph al-Hakim of Egypt supposedly having or­ dered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sep­ ulcher in Jerusalem, animosity increased also against the Jews, who were falsely accused of having con­ spired with the Muslims. Whatever may have been the motive, in 1012 Henry is said to have exiled all the Jews of Mainz who refused baptism. Some of them converted to Christianity, but shortly afterward the decree was canceled, and most of the baptized re­ turned to Judaism.

Germany

Repeatedly, Jews bewailed the decease of local bishops and town lords (Metz, 1004; Magdeburg, 1012; Mainz, 1051; Cologne, 1075). This fact shows the generally good relations that obtained between the Jews and the episcopate. In 1084 Bishop Riidiger-Huozman settled Jews in Speyer in order to “aug­ ment a thousandfold the honor of the town,” and gave them “the most favorable privileges they would enjoy in any town of the German reign” (see GERMAN LAW). Before he died, in 1090, he intervened on be­ half of the aldermen of the Jewish community, who asked Henry IV to take the Jews of Speyer under his protection. Henry thereupon granted a privilege to the Jews of Speyer, and shortly afterward also to those of Worms. There was only one restriction, namely, the prohibition on buying Christian slaves. It was also forbidden for Christians to free pagan slaves owned by Jews by baptizing them. Jews who con­ verted to Christianity had to relinquish their inheri­ tance (or property), which was consistent with Jewish law and probably resulted from requests of the Jewish community. If a stolen item that a Jew had unknow­ ingly sold was reclaimed by its owner, the Jew could claim repayment of the amount he originally paid for it. Regulations like these contradicted, in some cases, C a n o n LAW. But whenever popular movements arose or social tensions erupted, the legal security of the Jews and their protection by the king or the local town overlords were challenged and overruled. The Crusades

The proclamation of the First Crusade (1065) caused mobs of low-class people to attack Jews in the Rhineland, on their way to join the crusading armies. When these mobs announced their intention either to baptize or to kill the Jews, townspeople often joined them; but the bishops and many of the Jews’ Chris­ tian neighbors endeavored to protect them. When in May the mobs attacked the Jews of Speyer, the result­ ing riot claimed eleven victims. Nevertheless, Bishop John intervened with his troops, taking the Jews under his protection and punishing some of the at­ tackers by cutting off their hands. In Worms the citi­ zens at first promised to help the Jews, and some of them were able to take refuge in the bishop’s court. But other citizens accused the Jews of having boiled a corpse in order to poison the wells and kill the Chris­ tians, the first time the well-poisoning libel was

raised against Jews. The mob first slew Jews in their houses, except those few who asked to be baptized. A week later both “crusaders” and citizens attacked even the bishop’s palace. When the Jews had aban­ doned hope, some of them reportedly killed their wives and children and then themselves to sanctify the name of God rather than be baptized by force. After the calamities of the attacks on various Jewish communities was over, and many had been baptized by force or had chosen baptism, they were permitted to return to Judaism. In order better to safeguard the Jews in the future, Henry IV included them, together with other specially protected persons (clergy, monks, merchants, and women) in the imperial land peace of Mainz in 1103, an action repeated by some of his successors. Indeed, for about half a century we do not hear of any attacks on Jews. During this time, however, the development of a municipal self-gov­ ernment and of merchants and artisans guilds that admitted only Christians, Jews were gradually com­ pelled to abandon trade in favor of local retail busi­ ness or money changing and lending (see MONEYLENDING). With these activities the Jews again exercised a very important function within the devel­ opment of medieval urban economy, but this con­ tributed also to the growth of a new antipathy and hatred against them. The next crisis came with the Second Crusade in 1146; but although the king, Conrad III, the first ruler of the new Staufen dynasty, had a weak posi­ tion, this time the system of protection worked bet­ ter. As soon as news arrived of massacres of some Jews in towns of northern France, the German Jews were placed in safety in nearby castles by the bishops and the king. The Cistercian abbot B e r n a r d OF CLAIR­ VAUX, who was preaching the crusade in western Eu­ rope, strictly prohibited doing any harm to the Jews; but another Cistercian, Radulf, stirred up the popu­ lace in Rhenish towns. Archbishop Henry of Mainz requested Bernard to intervene, and in doing so the latter faced a fanatical mob and openly condemned the activities of the monk and ordered him to return to his monastery. Therefore, in the Rhineland only a few Jews who had dared to leave the protection of the walls were murdered by the mob. At Wurzburg, however, a riot broke out when crusaders passed through the town. A corpse cut to pieces was found, and the Jews were accused of the murder. The cru­ 295

Germany

saders and the mob fell upon the Jews and killed about 22 persons. Some saved themselves by bap­ tism, others were again sheltered by Christian neigh­ bors and later lodged by the bishop in a nearby castle. The pilgrims began to worship the dead man as a martyr and victim of the “unbelievers,” and when the bishop did not concur with them they attacked him and the clerics, who were barely able to escape with their lives. The climax of German imperial power, during the long reign of Frederick I, surnamed Barbarossa, stabi­ lized Jewish status. In 1157 he confirmed Henry’s aforementioned privileges to the Jews of Worms and made them applicable virtually to all Jews of the Holy Roman Empire, which he repeated in a charter of 1182 for the Jews of Regensburg (see GERMAN LAW). Indeed, when in 1187, after the capture of Jerusalem by “Saladin” (the Muslim ruler of Egypt-Syria), uprisings against the Jews were again expected but Barbarossa se­ verely prohibited monks and priests from preaching against the Jews and protected them by all means pos­ sible. Until the end of the century there are only a few incidents recorded in the Hebrew chronicle. In 1179, when Jews were charged with the murder of a Chris­ tian girl near Boppard and were drowned by boatmen, Barbarossa seems to have regarded the Jews as guilty and fined some neighboring Jewish communities 500 marks and the archbishop of Cologne added a further fine. Similar incidents occurred in other years. In 1195 a new crusade was proclaimed by the next ruler, Henry VI, and the discovery of a murdered Christian woman in Speyer again ignited anti-Jewish feelings and attacks. The rabbi and eight other Jews were killed, and the synagogue and the Jewish quar­ ter of the town were burned. A week later, the rabbi in Boppard and seven members of the community were murdered. This time the emperor ordered his brother Otto, the count of Burgundy, to take action. Otto destroyed some villages near Speyer, forcing the citizens into submission. In Boppard he ordered that the attackers be caught and that their eyes be gouged out. Finally, the emperor ordered the citizens of both towns to compensate the Jews and repair the damage. Relative Stability an d New Violence

The favorable conditions of German Jews in the first half of the thirteenth century is shown by a mandate of Pope Gregory IX to the German bishops. In it, he 296

bitterly complains that the Jews were ungrateful and insolent enough even to hold Christian servants and wet nurses in their houses, and contrary to canon law they held public office over Christians and did not wear distinctive clothing (see B a d g e ). Jews also dared to dispute with Christians about matters of faith; and, indeed, Christians even voluntarily followed Jewish rites, underwent circumcision, and adopted other Jewish customs. The pope closed his complaint with an energetic appeal to all prelates to curb these excesses by all means. In 1221 Christians, perhaps crusaders, initiated a riot against the Jews in Efurt and killed twenty-six of them. A Hebrew penitential poem mentioning a false charge about Jews who murdered a man and drank his blood may be an allu­ sion to the R i t u a l m u r d e r libel now beginning to spread in Germany. Indeed, when we hear that Jews were charged with murder at several places in 1235, we feel obliged to combine this fact with a current appeal for a crusade by Pope Gregory IX in Novem­ ber of 1234. In January of that year, when the corpse of a boy was found in Franconia, the Jews of the two nearby towns were accused, and eight of the most distinguished among them were tortured and exe­ cuted. Here for the first time in Germany trial and torture were taken to “reveal” the guilt of the Jews. All of this was only a prelude to the famous ritual murder case at Fulda. F r e d e r i c k II confirmed the privileges for all the Jews in Germany and tried to render those privileges more effective in repeating the sentence of a personal charter of 1234 that all Jews of his territories were special “servants” of his chamber (servi camere nostre). This definition, which corresponds to terms formerly used by the popes and other kings, was not intended to imply social degradation but rather to serve for better protection of the Jews as personal proteges of the emperor. The Jews also had to pay a tax to the emperor, together with the cities of the empire. A list of taxes preserved from the year 1241 reveals that taxes paid by Jews formed a considerable part of the emperor’s revenues. For example, the cities of Basle, Haguenau, and Strasbourg each paid 200 marks, while the Jews of Basle paid 40, those of Haguenau 15, and those of Strasbourg 200, as much as the city itself. The sources suggest a continued sense of confi­ dence on the part of the Jews until the last third of

Germany

the thirteenth century. The notable Rabbi Meir b. Barukh of Rothenburg characterized the Jews as free people: “The Jews are not subjugated to their over­ lords as the gentiles are . . . their status in this land is that of a free landowner who lost his land but not his personal freedom.” An astonishing assimilation to behavior patterns of the Christian environment was exemplified by Siisskind of Trimberg, a Jewish minstrel of the thir­ teenth century. Six of his poems are preserved, deal­ ing with the teaching of virtue, praise of the Creator, the transitory nature of life, death, the injustice of the world, and the needs of the poet. He defends usury as a consequence of the conditions of life, and at last confesses that he would live again as an old Jew. Though both Jewish and German writers have doubted his Jewish identity, they cannot prevail against the many indications of it, and certainly they have the burden of proof that there are any Christian references in his poems. [Contemporary drawings of him show him draped in an ermine cloak, but also wearing the typical “Jews’ hat”; see the article CLOTH­ ING, which in general has information on the dress of German Jews.—ed.] About 1241, when the fifth millennium was com­ ing to its end, new messianic expectations may have been stirred up by news of the invasion of the Mon­ gols, who were said to be the offspring of the “lost tribes” of Israel. It may be that this contributed to the Jewish protest in Frankfurt when a young man wanted to be baptized and was hindered by other Jews. Christians intervened and a struggle broke out, during which some Christians and about 180 Jews were killed, while 24 were baptized by force. During the event, the Jews set fire to their own houses, and nearly half the town burned. There was afterward an investigation as to the causes and the people respon­ sible for the events, but five years later the emperor exonerated the citizens of Frankfurt, saying they had acted more by accident and from negligence than in­ tentionally. Only a year later, according to the Nuremberg Book of Memory [a Hebrew record of calamities involving Jews], there were massacres in Meiningen (Thuringia), Kitzingen (Franconia), and Ortenberg (Upper Hessia or Baden). Because some of the victims were tortured and broken on the wheel, we must draw the conclusion that there were also trials with corresponding charges, probably

B l o o d LIBELS. In 1244, when a little Christian girl was drowned in Valreas (Dauphine, at the time still part of the empire), the Jews were accused of murder­ ing her, and three confessed under torture. Most of the Jews of the town were executed and their children baptized. After such events, German Jews appealed to Pope Innocent IV to protect them against similar accusa­ tions. Indeed, those events had highlighted the de­ cline of secular power during the last years of the Staufen overlordship. Now the pope was able to step into the breach and claim for himself the exclusive right of protecting the Jews. Therefore, the pope is­ sued a new bull (1247) to the German bishops and denounced the ecclesiastical and secular authorities for inventing defamations against the Jews. These in­ cluded imputing to them a habit of eating the hearts of Christian boys on their festivals, and charging Jews with murder anytime a corpse was found. Against all justice and without any indictment or confession, the Jews were subjected to numerous penalties, incarceration, torture, and death. In a con­ firmation of the Sicut ludeis bull, guaranteeing the preservation of the Jewish status quo, Innocent ex­ pressly prohibited accusations and persecutions of this kind under false pretexts; but all these efforts seem to have been in vain. Insecurity grew even more after Frederick II died in his native Sicily, and intensified two years later when his son, Conrad IV, also died. Now, during the “interregnum,” the right of protecting the Jews grad­ ually became a matter of dispute among king, princes, bishops, and municipal councils. In 1254, when the cities of Mainz, Worms, Speyer, Stras­ bourg, and Basle united with the bishops of their dioceses and with numerous counts and overlords in a common land peace treaty for ten years, they in­ cluded also the Jews. At that time the Jews in most of these towns were still obliged to participate in de­ fending the walls. By the 1260s the sources suggest a growing hatred of the Jews because of pawnbrok­ ing and usury. In some territories the position of the Jews changed visibly for the worse. The Jews of Hildesheim were the first to be expelled from their homes in 1258. In 1261 Archbishop Robert of Magdeburg, imitating the policy of the rulers in skimming off Jewish money, extorted from them a ransom of 10,000 marks. In 1262 Duke Henry III of

297

Germany

Brabant ordered in his will that all Jews be driven out if they were unwilling to give up usury. The Book of Memory mentions persecutions in 1264 in Arnstadt (Thuringia) and in 1265 both in Koblenz and Sinzig, with many Jewish victims. In Sinzig a proselyte named Abraham had not only preached the Jewish faith openly to Christians but had entered a church and damaged a statue either of a saint or of Christ. In any case, these events show that fanaticism on both sides was increasing. Abraham was executed after re­ fusing to return to the Christian faith, and on the first day of May 1265 all the local Jews were burned in the synagogue. In 1267 a new blood libel resulted in persecution in Pforzheim, and some Jews were tor­ tured and killed. In that same year, ecclesiastical syn­ ods of the province of Salzburg in Vienna and of Gnesen (Gniezno) in Breslau under the presidency of the papal legate Guido emphatically stressed some old restrictive regulations against the Jews, in part de­ creed by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. These included a prohibition on Christians’ dining or danc­ ing with Jews and buying meat from them, and dic­ tated that Jews must always wear the special hat pre­ scribed for them, and pay tithes to the Church. Jews were not to visit baths or inns owned by Christians, employ Christian servants in their homes, hold pub­ lic offices, dispute with simple Christians about reli­ gion or attempt to entice them to the Jewish faith, or treat sick Christians. The bishops were required to punish by excommunication any princes or officials who would not enforce these decisions. Nevertheless, in 1273 the bishop of Olomoc (Moravia), in a secret message to the pope, still complained about the con­ tradiction between the theological theory of serfdom of the Jews and their actual freedom. He found that the conduct of the Jews was not at all compatible with the requirements of the canon law regulations. Thirteenth- Century Deterioration

The decisive change in status, which had been emerging for some time, came after thirty years of the “interregnum,” with the election finally of a new king, Rudolf of Habsburg (1273-1291). In 1275 he granted new privileges to the Jews, but did not rein­ state the old imperial charters of earlier rulers; in­ stead, he confirmed the bulls of Innocent IV. Hence, he changed the protection system by replacing impe­ rial with Church law. He accepted the idea of Jewish 298

“chamber serfdom” but connected it with the con­ cept as envisioned by the Church. During the first decade of his reign he also en­ deavored to recover Jewish taxes, which in the mean­ time had been usurped by princes, local lords, and town councils. This could hardly improve the rela­ tions of the Jews either with the king or with local authorities. Nevertheless, the king did try to protect the Jews. When some Jews were murdered in Lorch, he intervened and summoned the culprits before his court. As they refused to come, Rudolf handed them over to the authority of the archbishop of Mainz. The impression was created, however, that the king did not have sufficient strength or authority to pro­ tect the Jews. In 1281 the synagogue in Mainz was plundered and a rabbi killed. Two years later, shortly before Easter, a missing boy was found dead, and the Jews were again accused of murder. The archbishop opened an inquiry, but the burghers refused to turn over the accused Jews. A mob attacked the Jews of the city on the day after Easter and killed ten of them. Most of the Jews were, however, saved by the aldermen, and the archbishop later succeeded in punishing the perpetrators. Nevertheless, nearby towns saw similar attacks on the Jews, and some were killed and others baptized. This suggests the ten­ dency of persecutions spreading from town to town like a conflagration. In 1285 a new incident occurred in Munich, following a ritual murder libel. When the Jews refused baptism the mob fell upon them and killed between 132 and 180 by burning them in the synagogue. A year later the Jews of Mainz were again charged with murdering a child and imprisoning a Christian family. When the city council again refused to support the archbishop’s inquiry, the king inter­ vened, but without success. The rapidly deteriorating situation persuaded the famous Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, together with numerous Jewish families from Mainz, Worms, Speyer, Oppenheim, and the Wetterau, to leave Ger­ many and seek safety elsewhere, perhaps in the Land of Israel. The rabbi was captured, however, in Trient in June of 1286, and Rudolf enacted a new law that the Jews were not allowed to leave their homes with­ out the permission of their overlords; for as “serfs” of his chamber, they belonged, with all their posses­ sions, to the king or their overlords. Thus ended the

Germany

freedom of the Jews of which Rabbi Meir had boasted, and indeed he himself was kept in prison until he died in 1293 because he would not allow the Jews of Germany to pay the king the exorbitant sum demanded for his release. A new blood libel charge, this time combined with the accusation of reenacting the Crucifixion (see details in the BLOOD LIBEL article), resulted in mob attacks on Jews in the summer of 1287, in spite of appeals by the king and the archbishop. These oc­ curred in the towns between Cologne and Mainz, and continued throughout the year down the Rhine River via Koblenz and Andernach as far as the region west of Cologne. In the end, massacres continued over two years in close to twenty towns and claimed more than five hundred victims. Fourteenth-Century Massacres an d Pogroms

Following the “Rindfleisch massacres” of 1298 [see Lotter in Bibliography, and HOST DESECRATION] the new ruler, Albert I, stabilized the situation and, at an imperial diet in Nuremberg in November of 1298, renewed the protection that kings and emperors had granted the Jews previously. But, in continuation of his predecessors policy, he developed a system that made the Jews the most useful pecuniary resource of the empire. By way of money orders of parts or the whole of the Jews’ taxes for a town, by assignment of the Jews’ rights, or by pledging part of their taxes or duties, he now had a new source by which to satisfy the most urgent needs of the treasury. For the first time, even liabilities for debts of murdered Jews were transferred, and interest due on such debts was can­ celed. Henry VII (1308-1313) in general continued this policy. He also ordered the cancellation of all debts and interest owed to Jews by a nobleman, Con­ rad of Weinsberg. This was a new step, whereby even the right to dispose freely of the Jews’ financial re­ sources was taken over by the king. The succession to the throne in 1314 was obstructed by a double elec­ tion of Louis the Bavarian (Louis IV) and the Habs­ burg Frederick “the Beautiful,” which provoked a long quarrel for title to the crown. After Louis had enforced his recognition in 1225, his reign was soon burdened with the permanent struggle against the popes and papal influence. Using every means and possibility to weaken the financial basis of the em­ peror’s power, the popes tried to extend the compe­

tence of ecclesiastical courts over debt claims. Papal policy now took seriously the prohibition on interest and extended it also to the Jews. Therefore, in 1319-1320 papal delegates and ecclesiastical courts in German cities ordered Jews to answer before them and demanded that interest be refunded. When the Jews refused to recognize the authority of these courts, the town councils were told to banish the Jews or face interdict. In August of 1322 Pope John XXII ordered the bishops and prelates, King Louis, and all the secular lords of Germany to force the Jews to refund the interest they had taken on loans to the Order of the Hospitalers of St. John. Louis the Bavarian, however, ordered the burghers of the cities concerned not to follow the citations of ecclesiastical courts in nonecclesiastical affairs. When in 1323 the Curia in Avignon (Provence) deliberated about the excommunication of Louis, one of the main causes was the charge that the king had prevented Jews from being punished for their extortion of inter­ est from Christians. In 1330, for example, Louis or­ dered all the officials of the empire to protect the Jews of Strasbourg and to assist them in recovering their bonded claims on debts, both the capital and the in­ terest. The king applied, however, all the strategies of his predecessors to use Jewish money for winning or rewarding adherents. He used cancellation of debts as a punishment when Jews sided with those who were not in his favor. The numerous cessions of Jewish taxes to his adherents, nevertheless, mostly were temporary. The hatred against Jews increasingly combined with social protest, and in 1336 a new spark un­ chained a conflagration that was to last throughout southern Germany for the next three years. The up­ rising was initiated by an impoverished knight, Arnold from the village of Uissigheim near Wurzburg, who had been exiled in 1333 by the count of Wertheim because of “violation of safe-conduct”— highway robbery. He was involved with other noble­ men in a lawsuit against some Jews in Rothenburg because of debts. When on this occasion the host was carried along the street, he allegedly heard some Jews denigrating the sacrament. Arnold thereupon vowed to kill all the Jews and gathered a band of peasants as well as some knights who recognized him as their “king.” Because he wore the long leather arm guards of the poor knights, instead of iron gauntlets and arm braces, he was also called “A rm led erThus, the 299

Germany

first stages of the uprising are called the “Armleder persecutions.” At the end of July in 1336 he killed Jews in some little towns in southwestern Franconia. The sources reveal that the rebellion was also directed against the upper strata of society and especially the clergy. He was supported mainly by the lower classes and peasants. In some towns the burghers withstood his attack, and an army was finally able to defeat him. He was captured and sentenced to death. The Jews, nevertheless, were accused of having bribed the bishop and overlord Gottfried to raise an army to kill “Armleder.” Arnold therefore was venerated as a saint and interred solemnly in a splendid tomb in the church of Uissigheim. His execution, the representa­ tion of which is still preserved on his tomb slab, was interpreted in folklore as insidious murder by the Jews. Accordingly, as the chronicler John of Win­ terthur relates, the brother of the “murdered” knight vowed to take revenge on the Jews. In June 1337, re­ bellion broke out again with renewed strength, and persecutions of the Jews spread throughout the re­ gion and even the Wetterau and Middle Rhine area and menaced also greater cities such as Frankfurt, Mainz, and Trier. The cities of Koblenz and Limburg were urged, by neighboring lords and knights, to kill their Jews, as had been done in some nearby towns. King Louis incessantly ordered the protection of the Jews and the suppression of the rebellion, as he had in the previous year. At the same time he tried to di­ minish the rebellion by forcing the Jews of various towns to hand over their securities for loans. More­ over, he also used cancellation of Jewish debts in order to make his adherents take action against the insurgents. In this way, indeed, he seems to have been able to suppress the turmoil in those regions, at least. In January 1338, however, the uprising suddenly erupted among peasants and artisans in Lower Al­ sace. Two persons came forth as leader, and again they were called “king” and “Armleder”: Zimberlin, an innkeeper, and EMICHO, perhaps a nobleman. They pretended to avenge Christ’s crucifixion, and therefore placed a cross and flag in front of their army. The Colmar chronicle, however, says that the peasants rose in order to get back their pledges with­ out paying their debts or interest. Some towns were overrun, and a great many Jews took refuge in Col­ mar. When the mob besieged that town a controversy 300

arose: the artisans were ready to identify with the slayers and expel the Jews, but the patricians of the town were determined to defend them, and since they alone made up the council their view prevailed. Louis did not give in, either. In February the im­ perial and Austrian high bailiffs, the bishops of Basle and Strasbourg, and some lords and imperial towns entered into a land peace in order to stop all sedition, robbery, and ravage. In March the king himself ar­ rived with his retinue in Colmar. Some days later the imperial court passed sentence that every person con­ victed of having done harm to body or property of the Jews should be fined; but after the king left Col­ mar the persecutors again attacked. New land peace agreements among the same parties were enacted be­ cause of the riots, and it was decided to help one an­ other and not to receive those who were exiled from their towns because of attacking the Jews. The rebels eventually were defeated and dispersed. In 1338 the spark of the persecutions spread further, to Bavaria, Bohemia, Austria, Styria, and Carinthia. In the same year King Louis and the bish­ ops and princes were occupied with settling the rela­ tions between the empire and the papacy, and in July the Kurverein (electors union) at Rense declared the independence of the election of the German emperor from papal approval. It may be that those very prob­ lems prevented the emperor from intervening in the affairs of southern Germany at the time. Indeed, the persecution of Jews there took on another character. We can make out two nuclei, one at Easter in Pulkau (Lower Austria) and the second in September in Deggendorf (Bavaria). As before in Korneuburg, now also in Pulkau a host desecration was manufactured, and people attacked the Jews, killed them, and plun­ dered their possessions. This again grew into a wide­ spread persecution that seized a great many towns in Lower Austria, then Bohemia and Moravia. Al­ though the fraudulent nature of the original accusa­ tion was eventually proved, the rumor of miracles gave rise to a veneration that has lasted to the present day Also in Wolfsberg in Carinthia the Jews were slain in connection with a host desecration libel, and a pilgrimage chapel of the “Holy Blood” was built, but at least in this case the cult has not been pre­ served in modern times. In Deggendorf the council, ducal judge, and per­ haps some other lords plotted to kill the Jews, un­

Germany

doubtedly in order to get rid of debts due them. Later, when the Jews had been burned within their houses, a host desecration was invented in correspon­ dence with the well-known legend. This time the veneration resulted in the construction of a magnifi­ cent church and another pilgrimage center, which brought much wealth to the citizens until this cen­ tury. Shortly after the persecution, Duke Henry III in a charter pardoned the citizens’ annihilation of the Jews; moreover, he let them take the Jews’ property. Meanwhile, the persecution spread to all of Lower Bavaria and afflicted more than twenty towns. A chronicle relates that the duke did not consent to this at first, but afterward ordered the burning of the Jews of his capital city, Landshut. We do not know exactly how many victims the widespread persecutions of the years 1336-1338 claimed; but, presumably, their number exceeded that of all the victims of 1298. Obviously in 1338, after his efforts in Franconia and Alsace, King Louis was no more able to intervene either in Bavaria or Austria. This was also because of insurmountable fi­ nancial problems. His hopes to obtain money by an alliance with the king of England were disappointed, and therefore in 1342 he decided to come to terms with the Jews so that he should receive from every Jew over the age of twelve with property worth more than 20 florins a poll tax of 1 florin, the so-called golden penny. In return for that, he promised to bet­ ter protect the Jews in the future. This, however, soon proved to be an idle promise. A decade later, the massacres of 1336-1338 were far outdone by those that occurred when Germany was hit with the catastrophic plague known as the B l a c k D e a t h . Again, a king’s attentions were drawn elsewhere, to the detriment of the Jews; the begin­ ning of the reign of Louis’s successor, Charles IV (1346-1378), was overshadowed by a quarrel over the throne that did not end until 1349. The legend that arose during the plague of Jews conspiring to poison the wells in order to kill Christians, more than the plague itself, was the cause of the wave of massacres of Jews, which in the last months of 1348 began to move north from the West Alpine region to the shores of the Baltic Sea. Charles was fighting for his right to the throne, and the most available resource he had was the Jews and their taxes. He thus used the whole arsenal of

means that his predecessor had developed to win and reward adherents, but he also added some new mea­ sures. He sold amnesties for murderers of the Jews, disposed of the dead Jews’ last remaining assets, and even of their houses and assets in anticipation that they would be killed. During the first years of his reign, from 1348 to 1350, the Jews were killed in most of the German towns; only in the region of his direct rule, in Bohemia, and in the Habsburg terri­ tory of Austria were most of the Jews spared. Among the great imperial cities, only Regensburg again pro­ tected the Jews successfully As in the former persecutions, conflicts among competing authorities, the emperor, secular and ec­ clesiastical lords, and city councils influenced the events, as did social tensions within the towns. Since the lower strata often appeared as a menace to the pa­ trician councils, and so also a potential for political change, sometimes the leading classes found no other solution than to allow them to kill the Jews. Thus, we can distinguish several types of persecution: spon­ taneous assaults; plots to overthrow the town gov­ ernment through attacking Jews; a formal legal proceeding with criminal procedure, sentences, and execution; and finally, even direct orders of territorial princes to kill the Jews. As already acknowledged by some contemporaries, “it was the money which killed the Jews”; the monetary obligations to the Jews were the cause of their annihilation. The massacres of the Black Death and the follow­ ing years mark the end of a half-century of waves of bloody persecutions in Germany, which altered the relations between Jews and Christians fundamen­ tally Nearly all the great old communities with their self-confident Jewry were annihilated. A part of the surviving Jews emigrated, many of them to eastern Europe where Polish kings and dukes offered them favorable conditions (see the article POLAND). The remaining Jews, however, were scattered all over the land, some settling in small towns, others in villages, still others trying to return to larger cities. The gen­ eral protection had undergone a long process of frag­ mentation and commercialization, which would de­ termine the future fate of the Jews as well. After the Black Death most of the towns decided not to accommodate Jews anymore, and some of them attempted to replace the Jews by Christian Lombards and Caorsins as moneylenders. The eco­ 301

Germany

nomic development of German towns was not yet advanced to the extent that they could dispense with the Jews, however. Therefore, they were received back in nearly all larger towns until the end of the fourteenth century. The conditions of resumption, however, had changed fundamentally. The towns usually no longer received Jews on collective condi­ tions, but instead entered with them into individual agreements; protective letters were issued only to sin­ gle persons or little groups. Such regulations, how­ ever, differed considerably according to local tradi­ tions and to the specific interests of the towns or the overlords. In spite of local agreements, the personal aspects of the Jews’ rights remained in the hands of the emperor. To be sure, in 1356, Emperor Charles IV, in his fa­ mous “Golden Bull,” officially ceded the electors among other royal rights in chapter nine also the rights on all mines and the Jews. The Jews’ regal\ or royal rights, now appeared to be no more than a right on revenues, similar to that on mines. Nevertheless, the emperor did not give up the concept of chamber serfdom. Even where the Jews were dependent on a town council or a territorial prince, the emperors fur­ ther on adhered to the “golden penny” that had been introduced by King Louis in 1342. Even though a successful levy depended on the good will of the towns and the lords, it nevertheless resulted in consid­ erable amounts. This, certainly, encouraged the em­ peror’s will to support the Jews in cases of danger. The Final Century o f Persecution

In the fifteenth century the emperors again strove to counteract territorialization of the Jews and to intro­ duce special taxes. During the Council of Constance, Emperor Sigmund (1410-1437) imposed on the Jews a common “council tax.” Not satisfied with its suc­ cess, he tried to introduce an even higher tax in 1415, the “tenth penny”—the tenth of all movables of the Jews—but this did not work out either. In 1433, fi­ nally, he succeeded in establishing a new tax, the “coronation tax,” which was adopted by his succes­ sors. In order to deal with the Jews for tax purposes some emperors tried to establish a new central author­ ity for them, the Jewish Hochmeister (grand master). In 1407 King Rupert of the Palatinate (1400-1410) was the first to appoint an imperial grand master, Rabbi Israel of Rothenburg. He was to receive the 302

right over all Jews of summoning, fining, and banish­ ing them. But the project could not be realized, for it was not agreed upon with the Jewish communities. Moreover, there existed already Jewish superior mas­ ters elected by the communities, who were not willing to submit to the grand master imposed on them by the king; they even anathematized him. In 1415 Sigmund treated the problem together with a new Jewry charter. In thirteen items he con­ firmed for the Jews the following rights: nobody should exact from them taxes other than the annual ones; nobody should decree cancellation of debts; nobody should demand from them higher tolls than from the Christians; nobody should imprison them or extort money from them; the conditions of the pledge should not be changed; the Jews who were ex­ pelled should be recalled by the princes and towns; no forced conversions of children should be allowed; and, finally, the “tenth penny” was confirmed, and a superior tax collector was to be appointed by the emperor. Indeed, from the time of Rupert there had existed a tax collector. Now, in 1426 Emperor Sigmund also appointed three grand masters and imperial rabbis, Jacob ha-Levi of Mainz (the Maharil), Nathan of Eger, and Jochanan of Cambrai. In 1432, however, Nathan immigrated to the Land of Israel. In the end, Sigmund’s arrangement failed because it had been motivated mainly by financial needs, so that neither king nor princes nor towns cared to support it. In 1487 the Habsburg Emperor Frederick III (1440­ 1493) also attempted to appoint a grand master, Levi of Volkermarkt, but he was not successful either. Nevertheless, even in this last period of the Mid­ dle Ages, after the widespread persecutions in Ger­ many, Jewish life regained some stability. Even now there emerged some famous learned rabbis. Rabbi Meir ha-Levi (ca. 1325-1406), son of a martyr, was rabbi, judge, and leader of yeshivot in Worms, Er­ furt, and Vienna. He promoted the institution of or­ dination of rabbis, which later would determine the nature of the professional rabbinate in Germany. His student was Jacob b. Moses ha-Levi Molin (Maharil), 1375-1427, who was rabbi in Mainz and a renowned scholar. After the expulsion of the Austrian Jews (1420-1421), he again made Mainz the center of Jewish erudition. He was acknowledged as the leading rabbi of Germany by both the Jews and the

Germany

emperor. Moses Minz (ca. 1420-after 1474) engaged in enactment of community ordinances on the basis of older regulations in the communities of Mainz and Bamberg. At the end of his life he immigrated to Posen (Poznan). Israel b. Petahyah Isserlein (13901460), born in Regensburg, later lived in Marburg (Maribor, Styria; today Slovenia). He continued, in a way, the tradition of the Hasidei Ashkenaz (see HASIDISM -G ERM ANY). There are also indications of strong Christian-Jewish relations. A Hebrew manu­ script of 1382 from the Genizah contains German poems, partly with biblical themes, a lions fable, and an otherwise unknown part of the German epic tale of Kudrun. This proves not only the existence of Jew­ ish poetry written in the German language, but also the Jewish predilection for German heroic poetry. In the meantime, ecclesiastical powers again tried to gain a foothold in Germany. After the schism, when the Avignonese papal exile was definitely ended by the Council of Constance (1414-1418), the new pope, Martin V (1417-1431), renewed the papal protection of the Jews and confirmed previous papal bulls. In 1421 he even reconfirmed the imperial rule that no Jewish child under the age of twelve should be forced to undergo baptism (canon law, indeed, prohibited any forced baptism). The bulls were pub­ lished in close cooperation with Emperor Sigmund, who even sanctioned the bull of 1418 and ordered his officials to follow it. However, in 1434, the Council of Basle decreed that all Jews should be forced to hear Christian sermons annually. In 1451 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) was autho­ rized by Pope Nicholas V to travel through Germany as papal legate. He proclaimed a new decree to the clergy underlining that canon law, like the interdic­ tion on taking interest, should be enforced upon the Jews by indirect EXCOMMUNICATION. The Jews, however, appealed to Emperor Frederick III, who in­ tervened on their behalf. At last, the pope had to annul the decree of his legate in 1452. Nevertheless, during the second half of the fif­ teenth century, some “famous” preachers emerged who distinguished themselves by preaching before the Jews and against them. The D OMINICAN Petrus Nigri from Bohemia even preached in Hebrew in some larger cities of southern Germany. In the Lower Rhine region Victor of Carben (1422-1515), a for­ mer rabbi who converted and became a priest,

preached to the Jews. A religious DISPUTATION presided over by him near Cologne in 1480 resulted in the expulsion of the Jews from most of the sur­ rounding towns. Even more radical than Nigri and Victor were the Franciscans (see DOMINICANS AND F r a n c i s c a n s ) John Capistrano (1386-1456) and Bernhardin of Feltre (1439-1494). By preaching against the Jews they succeeded in inciting people to new persecutions based on the old lies of ritual mur­ ders and host desecrations. Expulsions

The activities of the wandering preachers and the new spread of blood libels and local persecutions undoubt­ edly contributed to the increasing number of expul­ sions from towns and whole territories in fifteenthcentury Germany. The growing prosperity of the towns at first, as well as their economic decline after the middle of the century, may also have produced the conviction that the Jews were no longer indis­ pensable. Basle was the first large city to expel its Jews in 1397. Cologne and Freiburg followed in 14241425, then Augsburg in 1439, Breslau in 1455, Mainz in 1473, Bamberg in 1478, and Ulm and Nuremberg in 1499. Regensburg was the last large city to expel the Jews, in 1519; the very city that had sheltered its Jews better than any other through all the bloody per­ secutions from 1298 through 1336-1338 to 13481350 now had no Jews. The only cities left with large Jewish communities, which let the Jews dwell within their walls, were Frankfurt and Worms [which in the postmedieval era would both establish ghettos]. The expulsions from the cities were followed by territorial expulsions. From 1442 to 1450 the Bavar­ ian princes expelled their Jews; in the 1470s there followed the archbishopric of Mainz, and the bisho­ prics of Bamberg and Passau; from 1490 on the duchies of Styria, Carinthia, Krain, and Mecklen­ burg, the Margraviate of Brandenburg, and the arch­ bishoprics of Salzburg and Magdeburg. However, unlike England or France [or Spain], not all Jews had to leave, for there were exceptions. In many cases the Jews were allowed to settle nearby. Thus, the Jews of Cologne settled in Deutz beyond the Rhine, the Jews of Nuremberg in Fiirth, and in both new locales the Jews retained the right to pursue their business as they had previously. 303

Germany

In summing up the history of Jews in medieval Germany, we ought to take into consideration several factors. First of all, it becomes obvious that Jewish history in Europe and its individual countries cannot be understood but as a component of general Euro­ pean history, and especially also as a component of the history of European mentality. This implies also that European history and the development of Euro­ pean mentality as such cannot be explored without taking into consideration the Jewish element—a fact that non-Jewish historians have never appreciated ad­ equately. In spite of oppression and suffering, the Jews of Germany were able to make remarkable progress in spiritual life. Also, we may assume that this very ex­ perience of suffering for centuries has contributed in the end to the upholding of their national conscious­ ness as a people. FRIEDRICH LOTTER

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[Altmann, Berhold. Studies in M edieval German Jew ­ ish History (New York, 1940); reprints from American Academy for Jewish Research. Proceed­ ings 10 (1940).] Aronius, Julius, ed. Regesten zur Geschichte der Juden in frdnkischen und deutschen Reich bis zum Jahre 1273 (Berlin, 1902). Battenberg, Friedrich. “Des Kaisers Kammerknechte. Gedanken zur rechtlich-sozialen Situation der Juden in Spatmittelalter und friiher Neuzeit,” Historische Zeitschrift245 (1987): 545-600. [Berliner, Abraham. Hayey ha-yehudim be-Ashkenaz (Warsaw, 1900; photo rpt. Tel Aviv, 1969) limited ed.; tr. from Aus dem Leben der Juden im Mittelalter:] Bork, Ruth. “Zur Politik der Zentralgewalt gegeniiber den Juden im Kampf Ludwigs des Bay­ ern um das Reichsrecht und Karls IV. um die Durchsetzung seines Konigtums bis 1349,” in Evamaria Engel. Karl IV. Politik und Ideologic im 14. Jahrhundert (Weimar, 1982), pp. 30-73. [Chazan, Robert. “A Twelfth-Century Communal History of Spires Jewry,” Revue des etudes juives 128 (1969): 253-57.] [Dinari, Yedidya Alter. IJokmei Ashkenaz be-shelhey yemei-ha-beinayim. (Jerusalem, 1984).] Kisch, Guido. The Jews in M edieval Germany. A Study o f Their Legal and Social Status. (Chicago, 1948; 304

rpt. New York, 1970 with new introduction, cor­ rections). Lotter, Friedrich. “Die Judenverfolgung des ‘Konig Rintfleisch’ in Franken um 1298,” Zeitschrijt fu r historische Forschung 15 (1988): 385-422. ---------. “Imperial versus Ecclesiastical Jewry Law in the High Middle Ages,” Proceedings of the 11th World Congress of Jewish Studies, Div. B, Vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 53-60. ---------. “The Jew as an Outcast in Late Thirteenth Century Dominican Popular Tales: Rudolf of Schlettstadt’s Historiae memorabilies,” Proceedings of the 11th World Congress of Jewish Studies, Div. B, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 61-68. ---------. “Hostienfrevelvorwurf und Blutwunderfalschung bei den Judenverfolgungen von 1298 und 1336-1338,” in Fdlschungen im Mittelalter V Fingierte Briefe, Fromigkeit und Fdlschung. . . (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Vol. 33, V [Hannover, 1998]), pp. 533-83. [Rothschild, Leopold. Die Juden-gemeinden zu Mainz, Speyer und Worms von 1349—1438 (Mar­ burg, 1904).]

Gershom b. Judah

Gershom b. Judah, better known as Rabbenu (“our rabbi”) Gershom, M eor ha-golah (“the light of the exile”), is generally recognized as the founding father of rabbinic studies in northern Europe. [In his re­ sponsum dealing with the first ordinance, “Rashf made the statement that Gershom “enlightened the eyes of the exile, and all of us live by his words; and all the children of the exile of Germany and Rome [.Kiyttiym.; cf. “R ashf on Isa. 23.1] are the students of his students” ( Teshuvot hokhmey $arfat ve-Lotir, Vi­ enna, 1881; No. 21)—ed.]. He was born ca. 960, probably in Metz (Germany), but spent most of his active life in Mainz, which was then the most impor­ tant Jewish community of the Rhineland. His great­ ness was acknowledged at an early stage, and many students, including the future teachers of “Rashi,” gathered around him and spread his teachings. Thus, Mainz soon became the center of Jewish learning. It is not very clear where he himself had studied, but it would seem that he was near scholars who originated in Italy. There is very little information about his life. He is reported to have died in 1028.

Gerundi, Jonah b. Abraham

His activities were numerous. His teaching of the Talmud resulted in talmudic commentary, inasmuch as his students very probably summarized his teach­ ings in their notes. Some of these commentaries have been published in modern times under his name, but it is very doubtful that they originated from him in their present form. Successive generations of students very probably completed, amplified, and occasionally summarized his commentary, while applying their own additions, but it can be admitted that this com­ mentary, probably called the Mainz commentary, ul­ timately was the pathfinder of European talmudic commentaries, later superseded by that of “Rashi.” Gershom was also active as a liturgical poet; ten of his seliyhot (penitential poems) have been preserved [legend has it that his son and possibly his wife were forcibly baptized—ed.]. However, his reputation today rests more on his public activities than his teachings. His name is connected with a number of bans or taqqanot (ordinances) that exerted enormous influ­ ence on the evolution of European Jewry. Most im­ portant are those dealing with family life. These in­ clude the interdiction of polygamy, and against divorce without consent of the wife. These decisions were intended to bar other possibilities [without seeming to create new law, not found in the Talmud]. It has been remarked that during the following gen­ erations these decrees were not attributed to him but were designated as community ordinances. Some have deduced from this that he was not their author, but that his name was connected with them later in order to enhance their authority. Such an explanation does not seem necessary; the fact that such measures required the decision of a community does not pre­ clude the fact that Gershom suggested the ordinances and was active in having them accepted. There is therefore no reason to deny him his part in their au­ thorship. It should nevertheless be kept in mind that these ordinances were not accepted right away in all communities; the Spanish communities, for exam­ ple, did not recognize them. It also took some time until they were generally enacted in northern Eu­ rope. Their acceptance was facilitated by the Chris­ tian doctrine on monogamy. It would also seem that very soon the rather extreme nature of these ordi­ nances was recognized—that they did not take into account some unusual situations that made divorce

very difficult, such as mental illness, or disappearance of the wife—and therefore sometimes these ordi­ nances were deferred. Many other ordinances have been attributed to Gershom. The only one that can be so attributed with certainty—it is already quoted in his name by “Rashi”—is the one that forbids re­ minding an apostate who has made penance and re­ turned to Judaism of his former condition. The ordi­ nance forbidding the reading of a letter sent to someone else without his permission is much later and cannot be attributed to Gershom. SIMON SCHWARZFUCHS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

En$iqlopediah talmudit (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1987), Vol. 21, 378-454, 757-70. Germania Judaica (Tubingen, 1963), Vol. 2, 189-91. Grossman, Abraham. Hokhmei Ashkenaz ha-rishonim (Jerusalem, 1981).

Gerundi, Jonah b. Abraham Jonah “Gerundi” was born apparently in Gerona in Catalonia, but he lived also in Montpellier, Paris, BARCELONA, and Toledo, where he died in 1263. He was a rabbinical scholar and author of ethical works. In Hebrew sources he is often called ha-R"I, not to be confused with Isaac b. Samuel of Dampierre, one of the French Tosafists. Joshua Ibn Shuavb frequently cited Jonah simply as he-hasiyd (“the pious one”) in his supercommentary on NAHMANIDES on the Torah, erroneously attributed to Meir Ibn Sahulah, and he is also called he-hasiyd in later commentaries, such as the one on Avot. He is therefore also not to be con­ fused with Isaac b. Todros, a student of Nahmanides, similarly called he-hasiyd; nor is he to be confused with his cousin Jonah b. Joseph “Gerundi,” also a rabbi and a relative of Nahmanides who may be cited sometimes in the latter s writings instead of the more famous Jonah b. Abraham. Jonah’s son-in-law was Samuel des (dez) Maestre, one of Nahmanides’ sons. Another term applied to him was ha-qodesh, “the holy,” an appellation that careless scholars have claimed was only used for martyrs; since Jonah was hardly a martyr, this should disprove that hypothesis (in fact, the term was applied also to others who were not martyrs). 305

Gerundi, Jonah b. Abraham

Teachers

Jonahs student Solomon Ibn Adret mentions (com­ mentary on Nedarim 56b) that Jonahs teacher was Solomon b. Abraham (of Montpellier; originally of Barcelona), who may have been a student of the aforementioned Isaac b. Samuel of Dampierre and was an important scholar. It has been claimed that Jonah was also a student of Isaac b. Abraham of Dampierre (Urbach [see Bibliography], p. 472; how­ ever, the Tosafot on Shabbat 39b that he cites there proves no such thing; it merely quotes a “R’ Jonah,” who may not even be Jonah Gerundi). It has also been erroneously said that Jonah was a student of Nahmanides, but see the seventeenth-century chron­ icler David Conforte, Qore ha-dorot f. 19a-b on this (the responsum he refers to is in Ibn Adret, Sheelot ha-meyufrasot; cf. Chavel’s edition of Nahmanides, Kitvey I, 38 Iff., and of his Responsa, p. 158 ff.). Ac­ cording to Ibn §addiq, a fifteenth-century Spanish chronicler, Meir ha-Kohen of Narbonne was also one of Jonahs teachers, but this cannot be confirmed from any other source. Two important sources appear to state that either or both Moses b. Sheneur and Samuel b. Sheneur of Evreux were Jonahs teachers (Conforte, f. 19b; cf. Gross—see Bibliography—pp. 39-40 on them [Gross apparently did not see Con­ forte at all], and Nahmanides as cited by Urbach, bottom of p. 395 and top of p. 396). It also appears that in France he studied with Yehiel of Paris, or at least met him; this was most certainly before 1240, when the Talmud was burned there and Yehiel was involved in that controversy (see Urbach, ibid., p. 372; see TALMUD, CONDEMNATION OF). It appears from Nahmanides5statement that Samuel and Moses taught in Paris with Yetiiel, not as Urbach claimed that they lived all the time in Evreux. (Samuel of Evreux is cited by Ibn Adret, Responsa III. 345, and Moses [correct R"Mbr'Mosheh to simply Mosheh] by him on Nedarim 56a.) Students

One of Jonahs outstanding students was Solomon b. All of Soria, who wrote talmudic commentaries in ac­ cord with what he heard from Jonah; he died 1263—1264, the same year as Jonah, according to Ibn §addiq. That chronicler also claimed that “RABAD’ was a student ofJonah and that he died in Barcelona in 1300. This cannot possibly refer to Abraham b. Isaac of 306

Narbonne, but possibly he found that an Abraham b. Isaac was a student of Jonah, mistaking him for RABAD of Narbonne. Possibly it was Abraham b. Isaac of Carcassonne, but this needs verification. Meir b. Joseph Ibn Abl Sarwl was the author of a commentary on A. Z. (published as by “students” of Jonah). Joseph DSANTIS (de Santos?) of Acre was appar­ ently a student of Jonah; cf. Ibn Adret, Responsa, I, No. 360: “I heard from . . . ” (Nos. 346-60 are to him). Hillel of Verona was Jonahs student for three years (he was later the author of a philosophical work and played a minor role in the “Maimonidean con­ troversy”). Jonah himself was involved in the burning of Maimonides' “Guide” at Montpellier, ca. 1232, before he became a rabbi in Spain. There are extant anonymous works by some of Jonah’s students. The commentary on Isaac al-FasI on the Talmud, attributed to Jonah, is actually by his students, as is the attributed commentary on the tractate of Berakhot. Surprisingly little is known of his life and career. Jonah’s modern biographer made the incredible charge (p. 19) that he was of “impure” descent be­ cause his great-grandfather had a concubine by whom all his children were born, his wife being bar­ ren, and that because of the decree of Rabbenu G e r SHOM B. JUDAH against bigamy Jonah was “obvi­ ously” of impure descent. In the first place, the decrees of Gershom were not accepted in most parts of Spain, and in the second place not only was having a concubine perfectly permissible according to most authorities, it had nothing to do with marriage and could hardly be classed as “bigamy.” (Not only Shrock, but scholars such as Neuman and Goitein have been confused about the actual laws and prac­ tices regarding concubines.) The impurity with which Jonah was indeed tainted was not due to this but rather to his descent from a bastard (according to those who made the charge), since all of his great-grandfather’s children had been by his concubine and not his wife (while having a concubine was legal, any children were ille­ gitimate). This scandalous charge was already raised against him by certain Jews in Beziers, and Nah­ manides replied very sharply to disprove their slander. In light of the charges against Jonah, it is particu­ larly significant that he wrote to his relative Nah-

Gerundi, Jonah b. Abraham

manides requesting his opinion about the permissi­ bility of concubines. He replied with surprise that he did not understand Jonahs uncertainty, for surely they are permitted since a concubine is restricted to only one man (thus, is not a prostitute). King David had concubines, is his somewhat surprising conclu­ sion, “and we do not find mentioned in scripture or the Talmud any difference between a king and an or­ dinary man” in this regard. He added that even Mai­ monides did not intend to prohibit concubines or to make any distinction between kings and ordinary men (this, of course, is incorrect, and it appears that he did not have the correct text of Maimonides, as Joseph Caro suggested in his commentary \Mishneh Torah, “Nashiym”: “Ishut”\. 4]. Abraham b. David in his strictures there expressed an opinion exactly like that of Nahmanides, and see also the commentary there of Vidal de Tolosa, “Magiyd mishneh”). Finally, he referred Jonah to his strictures on the “Book of commandments” of Maimonides, which he told him he could find in the possession of Meir (Ibn Susan), the almoxarife (of Toledo; Chavel wrongly identified Meir as “Meir Maliah”; i.e., £ag de la Maleha, the al­ moxarife of Alfonso X). Nevertheless, he concluded, “you in your place [Toledo] warn them against con­ cubines; for if they knew the permissibility of it they would commit harlotry,” rather a self-contradictory statement after he had argued that concubines are not “harlots.” Unlike many of the other famous rabbis of Spain, particularly Aragon-Catalonia, Jonah played appar­ ently no role at all in the government or as a coun­ selor to kings. Indeed, in his commentary on A votl. 3 (“be cautious with the government”) he wrote that one should be remote from rulers, “for they do not show favor to a man except for their own needs” and are only friendly when it benefits them; nevertheless, he concludes that the text cannot be speaking derogatorily about kings, for the whole world exists only by their acts and no one is able to be as true and honest as a king, who fears no man. (Nahmanides and Ibn Adret, among others, were frequent coun­ selors to the king and often at his court.) In spite of this rather reluctant praise of kings, Jonah’s own lack of involvement with the govern­ ment (obvious from the fact that there is no mention of him in any contemporary documents), as well as his extreme piety, which was too rigid for the tastes of

Spanish Jews, probably explains why he exerted very little influence on subsequent generations. Baer, in­ deed, claimed that he initiated “social reforms,” cit­ ing only some generalizations from his ethical writ­ ings, which only by a stretch of imagination can be applied to actual conditions in Spain. Religious writ­ ers were constantly decrying alleged abuses and lack of observance, and such statements must not be taken too literally. The most extreme, perhaps, was the categorical assertion by Ibn Adret that “the ma­ jority of the world now is not observant [beney Torah\,” which does not mean they were not learned, but that they did not keep the commandments (Re­ sponsa IV. 315). Nevertheless, we do have some con­ temporary evidence of lack of observance by some Jews, although this cannot be generalized into overall gross neglect. Works

Jonah’s most important work is Shaarey teshuvah (“Gates of repentance”), which has seen numerous editions and translations (chiefly Yiddish, but also English; 1971 “corrected” version). Other ethical treatises: Iggeret ha-teshuvah, Sefer ha-yiyrah, and Yesod ha-teshuvah. He also wrote Sha \arey ‘avodah, on prayer, and an important commentary on Avot (“Ethics of the Fathers,” often printed with the text and separately), a commentary on Proverbs, and ser­ mons (published 1980; the commentary on the Torah attributed to him in that edition is probably spurious; see Saperstein in Bibliography. The “com­ mentary” published together with that of Menahem b. Solomon ha-Meiri [1957] was actually collected from his other writings by the editor). Extant talmu­ dic commentaries are on the Sanhedrin and Baba Batra only. Very important is the ethical treatise called Sefer hayashar (often confused with two other works by that name, particularly one by “Rabbenu Tam” son-in-law of “RASHI”), which has been attributed to Jonah (by Shrock, but unknown to him already long before by Jacob Toledano, in ha-$ofeh 11 [1927]: 239). NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gross, Henri. Gallia Judaica (Paris, 1897; photo rpt. Amsterdam, 1969), pp. 39-40, 129, 326, 422-23. 307

Gerundi, Jonah b. Abraham

Moses b. Nahman. Teshuvot, ed. Charles Chavel (Jerusalem, 1975), p. 158ff. Saperstein, Marc. Jewish Preaching 1200—1800. (New Haven, 1989), pp. 124-26. Shrock, A. T. Rabbi Jonah ben Abraham o f Gerona (London, 1948); with caution!

308

Ta-Shma, I. “Rabbi Jonah Gerondi: a German pietist in Spain,” IJaim Beinart Jubilee volume (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 165—95Urbach, Ephraim. Ba \aley Tosafot (Jerusalem, 1968); as cited here.

H Hasidism—Germany “Ashkenazi Hasidism” is the traditional appellation, adopted also by modern scholarship, for the groups of esoteric theologians, mystics, and teachers of ethics who flourished in medieval Germany, mainly in the Rhineland, between the middle of the twelfth century and the end of the thirteenth. This collective designation does not indicate uniformity of thought and religious attitudes; contemporary scholarship has proved that this term is applied to several circles of writers who differed considerably from each other, and that meaningful differences existed within par­ ticular groups and schools. It is evident today that this period in the history of Ashkenazi Jewry was one of the most creative and dynamic, even though it developed under the heavy shadow of the recurring persecutions of the Crusaders and repeated destruc­ tions of communities and cultural centers. The ethical concepts and norms developed in this period were dominant in Ashkenazi thought for centuries, and the theologies and mystical speculations that emerged there were integrated into the kabbalah, which re­ placed them in the end of the thirteenth century. Ashkenazi liasidism should therefore be regarded as a general designation of the phenomenon of Jewish communities in a tormented period asserting them­ selves and producing vibrant schools of innovative, vigorous religious speculation, redesigning the mean­ ing of Jewish spirituality, ritual, and social behavior. H istorical Overview

The central school of Ashkenazi Hasidism, the best known and most influential, centered on a group of leaders from the Kalonymos family, which was

the most prominent family in the Rhineland in the twelfth century, claiming to have its origins in the Kalonymos family in Italy, part of which was moved, so tradition claimed, by “King Karl” from Italy to Mainz in the beginning of the ninth century. The “founding father” of this school was Rabbi Samuel ben Kalonymos (died ca. 1180), who is persistently called “the pious, the saint, the prophet,” a most un­ usual series of titles, unparalleled in this period. He wrote several treatises in the fields of ethics, exegesis, and halakhah, but did not leave an exceptional liter­ ary legacy. The dominant figure in this school was his son, Judah, known as Rabbi Judah the Pious (died in Regensburg, 1217), who was regarded as a great teacher, leader, mystic, and magician by subsequent generations. Rabbi Judah was the author of Sefer Hasidim (The book of the pious), the main ethical work to emerge from Ashkenazi Jewry in the Middle Ages (the most important version of which is extant in one manuscript, Parma H 3280; a short version printed in Bologna 1538), and several esoteric theologicalmystical works (most of them in Oxford, Bodleian Library 1566-1567). Rabbi Judah’s close relative and disciple, Rabbi Eleazar ben Judah ben Kalonymos of Worms (died ca. 1230) was the main writer of this school. He is known as the “Roqeah,” a gematria ref­ erence to his name and the title of his work, which includes detailed ethical introductory chapters (fol­ lowing the example of the Sefer ha-mada‘ of M A I­ MONIDES, but very different in its contents). He wrote many esoteric treatises, including a compre­ hensive commentary on the prayers, the earliest in our possession (in three different versions, ms. Paris 772, ms. Vienna 108, ms. Oxford Bodl. 1204, parts 309

Hasidism—Germany

in several other mss., recently published in a tradi­ tional edition by M. Hirschler). This work includes references to various events in his life, including the massacre of his family, and the history of the period, as well as a genealogy of the tradition of his family from its origins in Italy to his own time. The main collection of his theological works is the Sodei Razaya (Secrets of secrets), also a gematria of his name, which includes five works: The Secret o f Cre­ ation, The Secret o f the Chariot, The Book o f the Holy Name, The Wisdom o f the Soul, and a commentary on the Sefer ye^irah, the ancient Book o f Creation (parts were printed, but the whole collection is extant in British Library ms. 737 and Munich 81, and many others). He wrote, in 1217, an introductory work to the study of esoteric wisdom, The Book o f Wisdom (mss. Oxford, Bodl. 1566, 1567, 1568, 1812, printed in a traditional edition in Rabbi Eleazars Commentary on the Torah, Jerusalem 1978), which includes a description of the esoteric methodology of hermeneutical analysis that was dominant in this school. This school developed a unique tradition con­ cerning the history of its esoteric knowledge, describ­ ing it as an ancient one originating in the schools of the GEONIM in Babylonia. It was transmitted to Eu­ ropean esoterics, according to them, by a miraculous figure—Aharon b. Samuel of Baghdad, who came to Italy from Babylonia probably in the eighth century, performed many miracles, and taught magical and mystical secrets, which the Kalonymos family brought with it from Italy to the Rhineland. The fig­ ure of Rabbi Aharon is described in detail in the Chronicle ofAhima ‘az, an Italian novel of the eleventh century. Rabbi Eleazar had several disciples who continued to develop the teachings of his school after 1230. Among them: Rabbi Isaac of Vienna, the author of the legal work Or Zarua, and especially Rabbi Abra­ ham b. Azriel of Bohemia, the author of the encyclo­ pedic commentary on the piyyut (published in four volumes from Vatican ms. 301 by E. E. Urbach, Jerusalem 1939-1964). Other writers of this school include a radical mystic, Rabbi Nehemiah b. Sol­ omon, known to us from several quotations only; Rabbi Samuel ben Kalonymos; Rabbi Judah the Pious s son, Rabbi Moshe Zaltman, who wrote a bib­ lical commentary based on conversations with his fa­ 310

ther (ms. Ginzberg 82 and others, in different ver­ sions; a censored edition published by A. Lange, Jerusalem 1976), and his grandson, Rabbi Moshe, the author of a commentary on the Shiur qomah at the end of the thirteenth century. While the Kalonymide school is the central one, there were several other groups that developed their own theologies independently of that school. The most important among them are: • The anonymous author of the Sefer ha-hayyim, written around 1200 and deeply influenced by the teachings of Abraham Ibn ‘E z r a . It is found in several manuscripts (British Library 756, Munich 209, and many others), and it constitutes one of the earliest attempts to pres­ ent, in Hebrew, a comprehensive system of theology and ethics. It presents unique con­ cepts of divine providence, a combination of theology and astronomy, a detailed psychol­ ogy, and a comprehensive explanation of the nature of evil. • Another important treatise is the Sefer hanavon, a commentary on the Shema'prayer and the Shiur qomah (Ms. Angelica 46, Berlin-Tiibingen 239; printed by J. Dan in KovetzAlYad 16, Vol. 1, Jerusalem 1966), which is an independent investigation by an Ashkenazi scholar of the unity of God. • The most important spiritual phenomenon in the Ashkenazi realm at this period besides the Kalonymos family is the circle of anonymous esoterics and mystics known as the Unique Cherub circle. We have from this group nearly a dozen treatises, representing probably four generations of writers, between the end of the twelfth century and the middle of the thir­ teenth. These mystics developed a peculiar tra­ dition, claiming that the origin of the esoteric knowledge is a baraita, attributed to Joseph ben Uzziel, the grandson of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), who was, according to this tradition, the son of the prophet Jeremiah. This text survived in several manuscripts (Oxford Bodl. 2525, Paris 770, Parma 1138), to which two layers of commentaries were added. It is based on the Seferye$irah, and indeed the whole corpus of

Hasidism—Germany

writings from this circle can be regarded as a se­ ries of commentaries on this ancient work. Another important work of this circle is the commentary on the Sefer ye$irah that is known as the Pseudo-Saadyah, an abbreviation of which was printed in the traditional editions of the work and the full text is found in many manuscripts (e.g., Munich 40). The one known author of this circle was rabbi Elhanan ben Yaqar, who lived and wrote in northern France and England in the first half of the thirteenth century. Three treatises of his survived (ms. Fulda 4, Paris 815, 770, and two mss. in the JThS, New York, 838), two of them commentaries on the Sefer ye$irah (one of which was published by G. Vajda, in Kovetz Al Yad 16, 1966), and one, Sod ha-Sodot (Secret of secrets), a theological investigation, mainly concerning the structure of the divine world and the human soul, also based on the Sefer ye$irah. It is not known why these mystics selected the Jeremiah-Ben Sira-Joseph ben Uzziel geneal­ ogy for the pseudepigraphic source of their tradition. The legend describing the strange circumstances in which Ben Sira was born to Jeremiahs daughter (thus being both the son and the grandson of the prophet) are described in a fictional work known as the Alphabet o f Ben Sira, originating probably from ninthcentury Babylonia. The author of that work of fiction also attributed to Ben Sira a son, Uzziel, and a grandson, Joseph, who are pre­ sented as exegetes of ben Sira’s epigrams. This work is in no way pietistic—it is vulgar, erotic, and in several cases heretical, denying redemp­ tion and afterlife, and presenting a fiercely satirical attitude toward the Bible and the Tal­ mud. It is very strange that the cast of charac­ ters of this anarchistic fictional work were the source of tradition for Ashkenazi esoterics and mystics several centuries later. It is evident, however, that the writers of this circle expressed by their choice of sources a de­ sire to return to direct biblical tradition, rather than a talmudic-geonic one, as did the schol­ ars from the Kalonymos school. In this and several other subjects, they expressed a more

radical and innovative religious attitude than other Ashkenazi Hasidic circles. In many re­ spects, this circle represents a central European parallel to the southern European circle of mystics known as the ‘I yyun circle, which de­ veloped an intense Neoplatonic mysticism at the end of the twelfth century and the begin­ ning of the thirteenth, based on the Sefer ye$irah, their treatises described as ancient Hekhalot traditions. Both these schools dem­ onstrate that in this period, which corresponds to the time in which the qabbalistic book Bahir was written, and in which the early cir­ cles of the qabbalists in Provence took shape, there were intense mystical tendencies in vari­ ous places in the Jewish communities in Christian Europe. Despite their independence from each other and their divergence in ideas and terminology, they all expressed a desire to reinterpret old sources in a new, mystical, and mythological way, and to create pseudepi­ graphic legends behind which they could hide their contemporary identity. The new ideas and attitudes of Ashkenazi Ha­ sidism were many, and they cover the whole spectrum of Jewish culture. Their innovations and impact on Jewish culture can, however, be summarized within four main subjects, in which the transformation they presented were most radical and their impact greatest. These are the methodology of hermeneutics, the di­ vine pleroma, the concept of prayer and the develop­ ment of mystical prayer, and a new spiritualistic attitude toward Jewish ethics and ritual. These four subjects will be described here briefly. Hermeneutic Methodology

Rabbi Eleazar of Worms presented in his Sefer hahokhmah, written in 1217 after the death of his teacher, Rabbi Judah the Pious, a list of seventy-three “gates of wisdom” (the number is based on the nu­ merical value of the word hokhmah), each of which constitutes one method for the exegesis of biblical verses. Later in this work he presented a detailed ex­ ample of how these methods should be employed in interpreting one verse—the first verse of Genesis— by many of them. Thus we have a clear example of this school’s hermeneutical concepts. 311

Hasidism—Germany

These methods are essentially midrashic, and ex­ amples for them can be found in ancient literature. To some extent this list follows traditional lists of “the ways by which the Torah is to be interpreted.” There is no ancient example, however, of such a de­ tailed and comprehensive presentation of the midrashic concept of language and hermeneutics. The theologi­ cal basis of this methodology is the deep belief that language is of divine origin, that it is essentially an expression of divine wisdom, and that its use by human beings as a means of communication is a sec­ ondary, unimportant role. Language existed before the world was created, and creation itself is the result of divine speech. This concept demands that lan­ guage had an infinity of meanings, because divine wisdom is infinite and can never be exhausted by human comprehension. The divine source also in­ dicates that the exegete cannot distinguish between “important” and “not important” aspects of lan­ guage, like saying that literal meaning is important while the shape of the letters or the vocalization marks is secondary. The biblical verse includes a full semiotic expression of divine wisdom in all aspects of its presentation, and divine meaning is hidden in every aspect of linguistic expression: visual, auditory, numerical, and semantic. The Torah existed before the creation of the world, so its structure, form, and meaning are independent of human needs and limi­ tations. No interpretation can therefore exclude any other, and every possible meaning found in it can co­ exist with a multiplicity of other explanations. The meeting between the exegete and the verse is the meeting between a human mind and a divine one; human beings may discover more and more layers of meaning, but they can never exhaust them and can­ not designate one kind of interpretation as inferior or superior to any other. The divine text is a picture of letters, marks, adornments, and so on, as well as a combination of sounds, hidden numerical layer, as well as many semantic messages, all of which have equal value and standing. Hermeneutics means, therefore, the infinite effort to discover more and more aspects of divine wisdom hidden in all the semiotic aspects of the verse. The ancient concept of the midrash has been de­ veloped in this system of “gates of wisdom” into a comprehensive concept of language and hermeneu­ tics, representing the full utilization of the divine 312

message to man incorporated in the Bible in its infi­ nite aspects and forms. The concept of the inex­ haustibility of the meaning of divine language has been formalized and adopted as the basic approach to the hermeneutical treatment of ancient texts. It was used not only in the interpretation of the Bible, but also in the exegesis of the prayers, and the Ashkenazi Hasidim were described by contemporary and subse­ quent generations as those who “counted the words and letters,” recognizing the importance of this as­ pect of their teachings. The D ivine Pleroma

It is probable that the Ashkenazi hasidim were the earliest scholars in the Middle Ages to develop a Jew­ ish concept of the divine world as including several powers, which together constitute the divine unity. Qabbalists and other mystics developed similar con­ cepts of a pleroma a generation or two later. The fact that this revolutionary mythologization of the Jewish depiction of the Godhead was presented indepen­ dently, and almost concurrently, by several schools and groups in Christian Europe in the High Middle Ages proves that this was an essential transformation within Jewish culture that did not rely on one tradi­ tion or one source, but expressed tendencies and needs inherent in the spiritual climate of the times. The key term in the Ashkenazi Hasidic concept of the pleroma is the divine glory, the kavod, which was identified, or at least closely associated, with the con­ cept of the shekhinah. This term is closely integrated with the problem of divine revelation and the expla­ nation of the anthropomorphic verses in the Bible. The goal was to clarify the relationship between a transcendent, infinite God and the revealed one, which is described as having human appearance and limited dimensions. One of the sources of this con­ cept was the statement by Sa Xdyah Ga o n identify­ ing the kavod and the shekhinah as the supreme angel created in order to be revealed to the prophets. This idea denied the divine character of the prophetic vi­ sion, and during the subsequent centuries the kavod assumed more and more divine characteristics. In the writings of Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra, which were known to Rabbi Judah the Pious (who wrote a commentary on Ibn ‘Ezra on this subject), the first step toward seeing the kavod-shekhinah as an emanated divine en­

Hasidism— Germany

tity was made; in Rabbi Judahs interpretation, as well as in the writings of the Unique Cherub circle, this idea took definite shape, and the concept of a di­ vine world in which there is a succession of emanated powers was accepted as definite. In the Kalonymide school, the emphasis was on the “two faces” of the kavod>one turned toward the Godhead, from which it is emanated, and one toward the creation, which is the subject of revelation and prophetic vision. These two “faces” were separated in the Unique Cherub treatises into two separate entities, the kavod itself, hidden from all creatures, and the revealed power sitting on the “throne of glory,” which is the Unique Cherub, which is revealed to the prophets and has anthropomorphic dimensions. The writers of this school emphasized that the Cherub emanated from the kavod\ whereas everything else was created. In these treatises the shekhinah is also separated to some extent from the kavod and is regarded as the di­ vine inspiration surrounding the kavod and the Cherub. Both schools use the tetragrammaton as the specific name of the kavod\ and both identify the Shiur qomah figure as an emanated entity. The implications of this concept of the divine pleroma spread to various other theological subjects. The concept of divine immanence, for instance, was divided by the Ashkenazi Hasidim into two aspects. The immanence of the supreme Godhead penetrates everything but is neutral in character; it is found everywhere in the same way and therefore has no par­ ticular significance. The immanence of the kavod is a selective one present only in holy places and among pious people; it performs the miracles (the fixed, uni­ versal natural laws being the domain of the supreme Godhead, the Creator), and it is revealed to the prophets and mystics. A decision had to be made concerning the intention in prayer, toward which part of the divine pleroma it should be aimed (see below). The divine names were divided among the various powers, and several other aspects of Jewish tradition had to be reinterpreted in the light of this new concept of the divine realm, including the pro­ cess of creation, the structure of the divine chariot, and the various powers in the celestial realms. Ashke­ nazi Hasidic esoteric literature is dedicated to a very large extent to the exegetical effort, directed by the methodologies of the seventy-three gates of wisdom, to harmonize this concept with the traditional texts.

Unlike the qabbalists, the Ashkenazi Hasidim limited their speculations to the answer of specific theological questions: What did the prophets see, in whose image was man created, who is responsible for miracles, to whom should prayer be directed? They did not develop the full scope of mythological as­ pects inherent in the concept of a pleroma as did the qabbalists, like attributing feminine characteristics to the shekhinah and thus introducing erotic symbolism into the divine world, or the viewing of the pleroma as a dynamic realm in which the various powers, each having its own personality and unique qualities, changing and adapting to situations, sometimes di­ rected by the theurgic acts of man. But despite the se­ vere restrictions of the mythological creative aspects in the Ashkenazi Hasidic concepts of the pleroma, its revolutionary meaning should not be minimized. At the same time that MAIMONIDES was writing his antianthropomorphic masterpiece (“Guide of the Per­ plexed”), schools of Jewish esoterics and mystics were formulating concepts that integrated anthropomor­ phism more deeply into the essential Jewish concept of God than ever before. Prayer

The concept of prayer is the meeting point between abstract theology and religious practice, translating into ritualistic expression conclusions that formulate the relationship between man and God. For the ra­ tional philosophers, this was one of the subjects in which their concept of God was almost irreconcilable with tradition, for religious prayer postulates a re­ sponsive, flexible God, whereas they insisted on the infinite, perfect, and unchangeable nature of God. The result was a reluctance to discuss the subject in detail, and the diminution of the centrality of prayer as a vehicle for the expression of proximity between man and God. By the introduction of the concept of a divine pleroma the various schools of the Ashkenazi Hiasidim were able to overcome this difficulty; indeed, the formulation of a pleromatic concept of the divine world was influenced to a very large extent by the needs of the theory of prayer. The divine glory, which was understood by Sa adyah to be just a supreme but created angel, became in Ashkenazi Hasidism the main target of prayers. As an emanated power, it was 313

Hasidism—Germany

conceived as that divine aspect which changes ac­ cording to the needs of divine providence, and as flexible in its nature so that it could listen and re­ spond to the prayers of the people. Thus, the Ashke­ nazi Hasidic pleroma gave the answer to a profound religious problem that was not solved by rationalistic philosophy. The qabbalah developed in the same di­ rection, and one of the first ideas it presented in the traditions emerging from its Provence school was the distribution of the various prayers among the powers constituting the pleroma. This development was motivated mainly by theo­ logical considerations: the mystical attitude toward prayers, especially in the Kalonymos school, originat­ ing from another context, a manifestly linguistic one. Rabbi Judah the Pious was the author of the first commentary on the prayers in the history of Jewish culture; his work is lost, but many quotations sur­ vived (mainly in a treatise titled “The Secrets of the Prayers,” a brief anthology selected from Rabbi Judahs work), and they give a clear notion of the na­ ture of this work and the purpose of its composition. Rabbi Judah was enraged by the fact that there are minor differences in language in the text of the prayers used in France and England, compared to the one that he held to be the correct, traditional version. Such differences existed between the Palestinian and the Babylonian versions, and Judaism usually ac­ cepted (and does so today) the fact that diverse com­ munities have such differences. Rabbi Judah ex­ pressed, in the most forceful way, the view that even the most minute change, of one word or even one letter, destroys the whole structure and meaning of the prayers; he used very strong terms when admon­ ishing the “people of France and the Islands,” accus­ ing them of “causing exile forever” because of these changes. According to Rabbi Judah, the text of the prayers is not that of communicative language conveying meaning. It is an intricate structure of numerical har­ mony, based on the number of words, letters, holy names, and numerical value of words and phrases, which corresponds to similar harmonious hidden structures within scriptures and within the universe in general. Rabbi Judah transformed the midrashic concept of the “gates of wisdom” into a mystical con­ cept, expressing a mystical harmony binding together the manifestations of God within creation and 314

within divine language. The prayers’ text is one ex­ pression of intrinsic divine harmony, which is ex­ pressed in other aspects of divine revelation, in lan­ guage, and in action. The full meaning of this hidden harmony cannot be understood by human beings, and therefore any change destroys it and makes the prayer futile. Rabbi Judah adhered to the traditional view that the prayers were formulated by the sages of the Second Temple period, but he saw them as in­ spired by God and reflecting the intrinsic harmony in all creation. Only the correct text, which Rabbi Judah believed was the one he had received from his forefathers, can express this mystical structure. Rabbi Judah’s criticism of the text of the prayers practiced by other Jewish communities was not ac­ cepted by most of his followers. Rabbi Eleazar’s Com­ mentary on the Prayers, many sections of which were based on Rabbi Judah’s work, did not repeat the teacher’s admonitions against the French and English customs. It seems that Rabbi Judah was almost alone (together with the author of the Secrets o f the Prayers) in the development of this mystical attitude toward the text of the prayers. Rabbi Eleazar transformed the mystical drive of his teacher into an esoteric theology, declining to follow the more profound spiritual im­ plications of Rabbi Judah’s radical concepts. The rela­ tionship between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eleazar is an example of the relationship between a radical mystic as teacher and an esoteric theologian as a dis­ ciple. Rabbi Judah, however, contributed to medieval Judaism the first expression of a comprehensive mys­ tical conception of the text of the Jewish prayers, soon to be followed by the qabbalists, who developed the concept of mystical prayer in several new direc­ tions. Pietistic Ethics

Ashkenazi Hasidic ethics, presented mainly in Rabbi Judah the Pious’s Sefer Hasidim, is a phenomenon no less radical in its innovative creativity than the con­ cepts of the divine pleroma and the mystical prayers. The Ashkenazi Hasidic concept of ethical behavior expressed an achievement of total spiritualization of the nature of Jewish worship and social behavior, without weakening the adherence to the practical and physical aspects of Jewish observance. It suc­ ceeded in presenting a vehemently orthodox way of life motivated by new, even revolutionary attitudes.

Hasidism— Germany

The specific historical circumstances of life in central Europe at the time of the recurring persecutions by the Crusaders did not seem to directly affect the theology of these schools; they were dominant in shaping Ashkenazi Hasidic ethics, which should be regarded as a direct response to the historical chal­ lenges. Ashkenazi Hasidic ethics should be regarded as a detailed program intended to educate potential martyrs, to prepare each individual for the fate of sac­ rificing his life and the lives of his wife and children for the sake of God. It is likely that the first sections of the Sefer Hasidim (Parma ms. version) were written by Rabbi Samuel the Pious. If so, the most innovative princi­ ples were set by him. He did not quote any source, any legendary or factual line of transmission of his teachings, and neither did Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eleazar, who followed him (though in divergent di­ rections). It is as if these authors assumed that their statements expressed obvious, universal truth that did not have to be proven or traditionally estab­ lished. Some biblical verses and midrashic quotations are used as illustrations, but the new concepts are presented unapologetically. This is in contrast to the presentation of their theological and mystical views, which are consistently accompanied by proof of their traditionality. The main idea, expressed forcefully and clearly by Rabbi Samuel, followed by Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eleazar, is that there is no intrinsic religious value to any of the commandments; the religious meaning of every ritualistic or ethical deed is decided by the amount of spiritual effort needed to overcome the obstacles to achieve its performance. “One com­ mandment which the evil inclination tries to pre­ vent one from doing is more meaningful than a hun­ dred which are not faced with such an objection.” Therefore, “the evil inclination is beneficial to man” because without overcoming it no religious value will be achieved. The commandments and the ethical precepts are obstacles devised by God to test a human being, to determine whether he is ready to overcome his human desires and inclinations for the sake of obeying and worshiping God. The recurring definition of devotion and “fear of God” is “where there is a difficulty,” that is, where human nature has to be overcome, having the example of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac as a model.

Needless to say, in such a structure the “sanctifica­ tion of God” is the ultimate religious achievement, expressing the complete overcoming of all human in­ clinations and desires for the sake of God. This prin­ ciple should direct man’s behavior in every detail. When choosing a talmudic tractate to study, one should not choose the socially accepted beneficial ones but the more unpleasant ones, dealing with death and mourning. No pleasure can be derived from the performance of God’s commandments; they are all directed to test human endurance and de­ votion. This is an intensely heteronomous concept of religion, in complete contrast to the dominant atti­ tude among rationalists, who presented autonomous systems of ethics in which religious demands serve the apparent or hidden needs of the individual and of society, and bring true happiness to those who con­ form to them. The Sefer Hasidim maintains that hap­ piness and reward are to be achieved only after death, in the heavenly abode of the souls of the righteous in front of the throne of glory; this world is intended only for the divine tests, which necessarily demand human suffering. This is why Ashkenazi Hasidic literature includes the concept of self-mortification within the frame­ work of repentance. If performance of a command­ ment entails suffering, then the performance of a sin includes pleasure; repentance, therefore, has to re­ store the balance. One should inflict upon oneself suffering in the amount of pleasure that he derived from the performance of the sin. This suffering is sometimes depicted in very graphic terms, like im­ mersing oneself in a hole in a frozen river in the win­ ter, or sitting naked near a beehive in the summer, but usually the emphasis is on fasting. The repen­ tance manuals written by the Ashkenazi Hasidim in­ clude detailed lists of the numbers of fasting days for every sin. This concept was integrated in a comprehensive theology, using it to explain the creation and its pur­ pose. God had no need for the world; he created it solely for his righteous servants. Such righteous peo­ ple cannot prove themselves unless they are tested by the most severe difficulties. Therefore, the ideal world is one in which the “evil inclination” is com­ pletely dominant. God tried to create such a world but failed, because there were no righteous people who could overcome this extreme difficulty and sus315

Hasidism—Germany

tain its existence. This is the way Rabbi Eleazar ex­ plained the Genesis Rabba passage describing God “creating worlds and destroying them.” Finally, God decided to include the “good inclination” in the cre­ ation, and righteousness became possible, though somewhat diminished by its reliance on divinely en­ dowed assistance. A perfect world, according to this, is one that is completely evil. Righteousness means the overcoming of the very nature of the world cre­ ated by God, obeying his true purpose, while the cos­ mic laws of nature, society, and man are in direct conflict with it, created to obstruct rather to assist the achievement of righteousness. The divine decree that determines human activity is also such a test; the righteous should overcome even God’s decrees and express their devotion to his true wishes. This system of ethics was formulated in the works of Rabbi Samuel and Rabbi Eleazar of Worms, as one directing the individual toward the pietistic way of behavior, preparing him for the ultimate “sanctifica­ tion of God.” Rabbi Judah added to this a social di­ mension central to the teachings of the Sefer Hasidim: the organization of peitists in communities separate from Jewish society, sects of Hasidim led by ethical directors. Dozens of sections describing the norms of such sects are included in the Sefer Hasidim, expressing Rabbi Judah’s radical approach and declaring all other Jews as wicked and evildoers. This is presented in the book as historical reality. We do not have, however, any reference, positive or nega­ tive, to the existence of such a meaningful social and religious schism in thirteenth-century Judaism in Ashkenaz. No other Ashkenazi Hasidic writer refers to it in any way, and no contemporary historical or halakhic work includes even one sentence that can serve as proof that this idea ever took shape in histor­ ical reality. It seems that there is no way to escape the conclusion that this aspect of the Sefer Hasidim re­ flects Rabbi Judah’s plans, dreams, and desires rather than actual facts, and that his closest disciples did not accept it, and developed their ethical teachings in an individualistic direction rather than a social-sectarian one. Rabbi Judah was almost alone in his ethical rad­ icalism, as he was in his mystical conception of the prayers. In its more moderate form, as directive to the in­ dividual in his search for ethical and religious perfec­ tion, this system of ethics had a major impact not 316

only on Ashkenazi Jewry in the Middle Ages; it was integrated into the mystical system of ethics devel­ oped by qabbalists in the center of Safed in the six­ teenth century, and from there spread throughout the Jewish world. JOSEPH DAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY Sefer Hasidim, the Text

Parma Manuscript: Das Bueh der Frommen, nach der Rezension in Cod. de Rossi No. 1133 (now H 3280), zum ersten Male herausgegeben und mit Anmerkungen versehen von Jehuda Wistinetzki (1896). Zweite Auflage, mit Einleitung und Registern von Rabbiner Dr. J. Freimann in Posen; M.A. Wahrmann Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1924. The Parma Manuscript H 3280, a facsim ile edition, introduction by I. Marcus, Jerusalem: Shazar In­ stitute, 1985. In French: Jehudah ben Chemouel le Hassid: Sefer Hassidim, le guide des hassidim traduit de l’hebreu et presente par le Rabbin Edouard Gourevitch, Preface de Josy Eisenberg, les editionas du Cerf, Paris, 1988. Studies on Sefer Hasidim and Ashkenazi Hasidic Ethics

Alexander-Frizer, T. The Pious Sinner: Ethics and Aes­ thetics in the M edieval Hasidic Narrative (Tubin­ gen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]), 1991, detailed bibliography, pp. 160-69. Baer, Yitzhak. “The Social and Religious Meaning of the Sefer Hasidim,” in J. Dan, ed., Binah: Studies in Jewish History (New York: Praeger, 1989). Cronbach, A. “Social Thinking in the Sefer Hasidim Hebrew Union College Annual 22 (1949): 1-149. Dan, J. “Rabbi Judah the Pious and Caesarius of Heisterbach: Common Motifs in Their Stories,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22, Jerusalem 1971, pp. 18-27. ---------. Jewish Mysticism and Jewish Ethics (Seattle and London: Washington University Press, 1987), chapter 3. ---------. “A Note on the History of teshuvah in the Teachings of the Ashkenazi Hasidim,” in The World o f Rav Kooks Thought, ed. B. Ish-Shalom

Hebrew Grammar

and S. Rosenberg (New York: AviHai, 1991) pp. 271-82. Marcus, Ivan G. Piety and Society, the Jewish Pietists o f M edieval Germany (Leiden: Brill, 1981). --------- . “The Recensions and Structure of Sefer Ha­ sidim,” American Academy for Jewish Research Proceedings45 (1978): 131—53Ashkenazi Hasidic Esoteric and Mystical Teachings

Dan, J. “Das Entestehen der Judischen Mystic im mittelalterische Deautschland,” in Judentum im deutschen Sprachraum, ed. K. E. Groozinger (Frank­ furt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1991), pp. 127—712. ---------. “The Ashkenazi Hasidic Gates of Wisdom,” Homage a Geroge Vajda (Louvain, 1980), pp. 183-89. Scholem, Gershom. Major Trends in Jewish Mysti­ cism., 3rd ed. (New York: 1954), pp. 80-120.

Hebrew Grammar

The decline of the use of Hebrew as a spoken lan­ guage, evident already in the Hellenistic period (al­ though it never disappeared; see HEBREW LANGUAGE), was followed in the early Muslim period (seventh to ninth centuries C.E.) by the replacement of written Hebrew with Arabic, all of which resulted in almost total ignorance of Hebrew grammar. Aside from some QARAITE writers (see below), almost no effort at reconstruction of Hebrew grammar took place prior to the mid-tenth century, with the exception of some grammatical concepts in early works such as the mystical Sefer ye$iyrah. Most important, this work contains the first recorded mention of the so-called “double letters” BGDKFT, which have both soft and hard pronunciations. Sometimes the letter R was added to this list, and the resultant number of seven letters was given a mystical interpretation by JUDAH B. BARZILAY as representing the seven things created before the world. Later, the Zohar would expand the mystical interpretation of Hebrew letters. The Masoretes (see article B i b l e ) of Palestine con­ centrated on attempts to correct and control the bib­ lical texts, producing such works as Kitdb al-mu$awwitdt (Book of vowels) by the famous Moses b. Asher (ninth century), the first known work written in Judeo-Arabic (Arabic written in Hebrew charac­ ters). Hebrew translations or synopses of this book

were made in Italy in 1145, and elsewhere, under the title Ta ‘a mey ha-miqra. The GEONIM of “Babylon” (Iraq) made some sig­

nificant contributions, particularly in the commen­ tary on the mishnaic order Tehorot, which is an im­ portant example of comparative linguistic study (Kutscher [see Bibliography] claimed that such study was invented by later medieval Jews). Dictionaries

$emah Gaon composed a work known in Hebrew as Arukh, apparently a dictionary, but it has not sur­ vived. Sa Xd y a h G aoiJs work Egron (Heb. title) there­ fore is the earliest extant example of a dictionary, a rhyming dictionary for the use of liturgical poets (see H e br ew LANGUAGE). Following this he also wrote a Judeo-Arabic treatise on the correct usage of the He­ brew language, as well as some other related works. In the early eleventh century, Hai (Haya) Gaon, the last of the major geonim , also wrote a Judeo-Arabic dictionary of Hebrew, Kitdb al-hdwl , which has not survived but is cited by Joseph IBN ‘AKNIN and by Tanhum b. Joseph ha-Yerushalmiy in his Judeo-Arabic dictionary of words in the Mishnah and in M ai­ monides’ Mishneh Torah). Other such dictionaries in­ clude the Egron of Solomon b. Natan al-SijilmasT; David al-Fasl’s biblical dictionary, Kitdb jd m l‘al-alfaz (published); a “Seder a lef-beif by Meir, brother of Ger shom b . J u dah (“Me or ha-golah ”) of Germany, which is lost; Natan b. Yehiel of Rome’s famous Arukh (published); Menahem b. Saruq of Cordoba’s Malpberet (the latter two works were of great help to “R a sh ? [Solomon b. Isaac] in his commentaries); a multilingual dictionary of drugs by Moses b. Maimon (Maimonides); and Solomon Ibn Farliun’s Mahberet. All of these have been published in more or less critical editions. From a later period there is the Sefer ha-galuiy of Joseph Qimhi and the biblical dictionary of David Qimhi, Sefer ha-shorashiym. In the fourteenth century a certain Solomon b. Samuel (Iran?) composed a Judeo-Arabic dictionary, and in the twelfth century in Gabes, North Africa, Samuel b. Jacob Ibn Jama£wrote additions to the Arukh of Natan of Rome (Abraham Ibn ‘E z r a dedicated his Hayy ben Maqiys to Ibn Jama’ and also wrote poems to him). But without doubt the most famous, and still very useful, dictionary is that of Jonah Ibn Janah, written in Judeo-Arabic and translated into Hebrew

317

Hebrew Grammar

by Judah Ibn Tibbon with the title Sefer hashorashiym. It will be discussed more in detail below. Qaraites a n d Hebrew Grammar

A lively debate ensued in the nineteenth century be­ tween scholars who maintained that the heretical QARAITE sect began the study of Hebrew grammar (Munk, Geiger, Pinsker) and those who maintained that the honor belonged to Saadyah (Rapoport, Steinschneider, Bacher), who was perhaps the Qaraites5 most bitter opponent. This is not an issue that can be resolved definitively, inasmuch as it is clear that several early works have been lost. The bal­ ance of evidence is in favor of the geonim in general, and not just Saadyah. Nevertheless, the Qaraites, with their obvious emphasis on the centrality of the Bible, contributed significantly both to the develop­ ment of Hebrew grammar and to biblical interpreta­ tion. Indeed, it was no coincidence that exegesis of the Bible unquestionably began with them, and that this fueled interest in understanding Hebrew grammar. Important Qaraite lexicographers include the aforementioned David b. Abraham al-FasI (appar­ ently a Qaraite, who went from Fez to Palestine and may have joined the sect there), Abu Sa'ld (Levi) b. Yafet (not “Yefet55) ha-Levy, and All b. Sulayman. Important grammarians include Abu5l-Faraj Harun Ibn al-Faraj, whose work was influential and used by “Rabbanite55 (traditional) Jews and commentators; Sahl b. Masliah ha-Kohen; and even in the thirteenth century Aaron b. Joseph. Nor should we overlook some early Qaraite scholars who, although not gram­ marians, wrote in Hebrew (Benjamin Nahawandl, Niss [so] b. Noah) and thereby advanced the develop­ ment of the language. Comparative Linguistic Study

Although scholars like Kutscher and his disciples in Israel have been perhaps too enthusiastic in their esti­ mation of the role of Jewish grammarians as the “founders55 of the science of comparative linguistics (which is, after all, a modern creation), without ques­ tion such works as the aforementioned commentary of the geonim on Tehorot (although overlooked by Kutscher), and even more significantly the famous Risdalah (Epistle) of Judah Ibn Quraysh to the Jews of Fez (early tenth century), represent the first at­ 318

tempts at some comparative approach to languages. However, there was some opposition, on religious grounds, to the very idea of comparison of Hebrew even with Aramaic, much less Arabic. Thus, it has been observed, Ibn Quraysh ostensibly composed his treatise (a lengthy work, hardly a mere letter) in order to persuade his compatriots not to neglect the study of the Aramaic translation of the Bible (which he claimed, wrongly, was not studied by Jews in alAndalus, southern Muslim Spain). In fact, however, the real purpose of the book is to argue that biblical words can sometimes be correctly understood by re­ course to what today are called cognitive languages, Aramaic and Arabic. His book was known to Hebrew grammarians in the next generation and later throughout Muslim Spain (which included not only al-Andalus but im­ portant regions of northern Spain), but the debate over the propriety of comparing the “holy language55 with Arabic, especially, continued for a time. Dunash Ibn Tamlm of NORTH AFRICA (who, as we shall see, was the real author of the strictures against Saadyah) was opposed to such comparison, as were the stu­ dents of Menahem b. Saruq in al-Andalus. In fact, this alone should have served to convince scholars that it was Ibn Tamlm and not Dunash Ibn Labrat who wrote the critique of Saadyah, for Ibn Labrat was one of those who favored the comparison of He­ brew with Arabic. That Ibn Labrat was not author of the strictures against Saadyah was suggested by N . Porges and long ago conclusively demonstrated by Ashtor. Ashtor was correct that the work against Saadyah was composed by two authors, or at least has been interpolated by one who quotes from Ibn Labrat, but that the latter was not the author. To Ashtors arguments could be added others, such as the aforementioned fact of the authors opposition to the use of Arabic, whereas Ibn Labrat approved of it; and also the various references in the writings of Ibn ‘Ezra, which, if read correctly, indicate that the “Adonim ha-Levy55 to whom he ascribes the work against Saadyah was certainly not Ibn LabratOther Spanish Hebrew grammarians who will­ ingly employed Arabic to elucidate Hebrew words included Ibn Baron, Ibn Bilam (so, not “Balam55), and, finally, Ibn Janah. It is true that this great au­ thority stated that such comparisons should be made only when it was otherwise not possible to explain a

Hebrew Grammar

word from the Bible itself; however, he adds that he does not hesitate to bring “testimony” from Arabic, unlike some of the generation who refrain from this because of their “weak opinion.” With the authority of Ibn Janah, considered the greatest of the grammar­ ians, the matter was settled. After this, the influence of Arabic upon Hebrew usage increases, and biblical commentators such as Ibn ‘Ezra and others do not refrain from such comparisons. The Great Debate: Menahem an d Ibn Labrat

Menahem b. Saruq was secretary to the important Jewish official Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, a minister of the tenth-century caliph of Cordoba ‘Abd al-Rahman III. It was Menahem who composed the famous He­ brew letter for Hasdai to the king of the Khazars. He also appears to have been the first “grammarian,” ac­ tually a lexicographer, in al-Andalus. His previously mentioned dictionary, Mahberet (“composition”; a term he created, undoubtedly influenced by Ar. habar, “to get to know, to inform,” cf. tahbir), was an attempt to explain biblical words. It was later to serve as an important source for “Rashi,” the FrancoGerman commentator, who erroneously assumed that Menahem utilized Arabic to clarify the meaning of words. Unfortunately, Menahem had no clue as to the (triliteral) root structure of Hebrew (and of all Semitic languages). David al-FasI had been the first to attempt to unravel the complexity of this struc­ ture, and had built a system of one to five root letters. Saadyah had done even worse, assuming but a single root letter for all words. Menahem may have utilized al-FasI, or independently have arrived at his own sys­ tem, but he also concluded that Hebrew roots may be from one to five letters. Finally, the aforemen­ tioned Dunash Ibn Tamlm (North Africa) discov­ ered the true triliteral root foundation of Hebrew, and after him (independently) Judah Ibn Hayyuj made the same discovery (this information is re­ ported by Ibn ‘Ezra but has been generally ignored by scholars). Menahems work was not just a dictionary; rather, it encompassed certain grammatical concepts and rules of his own invention, most of which are com­ pletely incorrect. At this time Dunash Ibn Labrat had come from Fez to Cordoba, where he engaged in un­ seemly polemic with Menahem, the details of which need not be considered here. He also disputed him in

the area of lexicography and grammar, and although he followed Menahem in assuming roots of one to at least four letters, he strongly disagreed with other of his grammatical notions. The result was a short trea­ tise against Menahem that he, like the other Dunash (Ibn Tamlm) who attacked Saadyah, titled Teshuvot (Responses). Menahem apparently did not reply to Ibn Labrat s “responses,” but his students did. These included Yehudah b. David (whom some identify as Judah Hayyuj, but this remains to be proven), Isaac Ibn Cabron (or Capron), and Isaac Ibn Chicatilla (so is the correct spelling of this name, not Ghikatillah). One single disciple of Ibn Labrat, Yehudi Ibn Sheshet, took up the defense of his master (even though the published editions have the title Teshuvot talmidey—plural—Dunash). We are indebted to Spanish scholars, such as Carlos del Valle Rodriguez and Angel Saenz-Badillos, and others, for studies, translations, and (Ibn Labrat) critical editions of these texts. Jacob b. Meir (“Rabbenu Tarn ’), grandson of “Rashi” even entered the lists and wrote strictures against Ibn Labrat. Aside from the historically inter­ esting evidence that the quarrel was known as far away as France, these are today a mere curiosity. The Second Debate

Judah Hayyuj (who may or may not have been the student of Menahem) was probably born in Fez, but he lived in Cordoba. His main contributions were the “discovery” of the triliteral root system (although, as mentioned, Ibn Tamim had already discovered the system, his work was lost until Ibn ‘Ezra found a manuscript of it in Egypt), and the concept of weak versus regular verbs. For this he earned the title of “chief of the grammarians,” a considerable exaggera­ tion, but there is no denying the importance of his work. The works of Hayyuj were in Judeo-Arabic, but soon were translated into Hebrew both by Moses Ibn Chicatilla (an important Bible commentator) and by Ibn ‘Ezra (recently, in a brilliant study, Abramson has demonstrated that the Proven9 al grammarian and biblical commentator David Qimhi utilized both of these translations for his own work). It was yet another scholar born in Cordoba, Abu’l-Walld (Jonah) Ibn Janah (first half of the tenth century) who became the foremost Hebrew gram­ marian (I do not qualify this by saying “of the me­ dieval period”). He engaged in harsh controversy 319

Hebrew Grammar

with Hayyuj, possibly after leaving Cordoba for Zaragoza (he appears also to have studied in Lerida, also a Muslim city in Aragon), and composed a trea­ tise to correct the errors or omissions in Hayyuj s work. As a result, his opponents in Zaragoza wrote a “vindication” of Hayyuj, and this controversy in­ volved the renowned scholar, poet, and prime min­ ister of the kingdom of Granada, Samuel Ibn N a g h r i l l a h , who himself wrote a reply to Ibn Janah, which resulted in a counterattack. All of these (Judeo-Arabic, it should be noted) treatises and polemics advanced the development of Hebrew grammar. However, the most important work of Ibn Janah was yet to come. This was the great Kitdb al-tanqih, divided into two separate works: Kitdb al-lumd (translated into Hebrew as Sefer ha-riyqmah) and Kitdb al-u$ul (translated as Sefer ha-shorashiym), a dictionary. There are editions of most of the Judeo-Arabic treatises and of the He­ brew translations of the two major works (only). The two-volume edition of the grammar in Hebrew translation (with notes and indices) requires a good deal of patience to use owing to the complex and not always helpful indices, but repays the effort. The Shorashiym, of course, is easier to use, and both works are indispensable for research on biblical and me­ dieval texts (although, in fact, they are never utilized by biblical scholars today, who continue to make in­ credible errors as a result). Relation o f Hebrew Grammar to Poetry

Dunash Ibn Labrat was also the first to write secular Hebrew poetry. In spite of this, no attempt so far has been made to analyze that poetry in relation to gram­ matical theory; however, there has been a careful study of his introductory poems in his Teshuvot, or refutation of Menahem b. Saruq. Saenz-Badillos (“Linguistical components”) discovered considerable innovation in verb forms, with some twenty-one ex­ amples of verbs used in forms (binyaniym) not found in the Bible. The poetry both of Ibn Cabron and of Isaac Ibn Chicatilla, as well as that of Ibn Naghrillah, needs analysis from a grammatical perspective. It is obvious that developments in the study of Hebrew grammar stimulated, and one may even say made possible, the creation of secular POETRY, HEBREW in Spain. Evidence of constant interaction between 320

poets and grammarians can be found in several state­ ments in the works of Ibn Janah. He himself wrote poems in his youth, and he cites some of them in his works. He studied with the poet Isaac Ibn Mar Saul, as well as with Ibn Chicatilla. The poet Levi Ibn al-Tabban (Zaragoza, eleventh century) is another example, for he wrote an apparently lost work on grammar (Judeo-Arabic, although cited as Sefer hamafteah by Ibn ‘Ezra), and was a teacher of Isaac Ibn Baron, another important grammarian. MOSES IBN ‘E z r a ( h ), one of the most important Hebrew poets, sent poems of praise to Ibn Baron upon reading his grammatical treatise, and has much of importance on grammar in his own book on poetics. Solomon I b n G a b i r o l composed a lengthy grammatical poem, ‘Anaq, of which unfortunately only a portion has sur­ vived (one hundred verses, a quarter of the total). Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra, perhaps the most versatile of all medieval Jewish scholars, wrote both poetry and grammatical works. Other Spanish Hebrew Grammarians

Abu Ibrahim (Isaac) Ibn Baron (early twelfth cen­ tury) wrote a work on the agreement between He­ brew and Arabic, and in fact deserves consideration as the first true comparative linguist. His work was highly praised in poems by Ibn Gabirol and Moses Ibn ‘Ezra(h) and is quoted frequently in the latter s work on poetics by Ibn ‘Ezra(h). Ibn Baron cites a lost work by Moses Ibn Chicatilla on the formation of masculine and feminine nouns, and also an un­ known grammatical treatise by his teacher Levi Ibn al-Tabban (perhaps the same as the Mafteah men­ tioned by Ibn ‘Ezra in the introduction to his Moznayirri). Another work cited by Ibn Baron is a lost treatise by Judah Ibn Bilam, a renowned biblical commentator. Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra, although born and educated in Spain, spent most of his life in other lands, includ­ ing Italy, France, and even England. In these coun­ tries he discovered the almost complete ignorance of Hebrew grammar that prevailed even in Provence, where Jewish scholars maintained constant contact with those of al-Andalus. It was primarily, although not exclusively, for the Jews of European lands that he composed his various grammatical works. As Kutscher correctly remarked, although there were al­ ready Hebrew translations of the works of Ibn Janah

Hebrew Grammar

and others, these were in the cumbersome style of the Ibn Tibbon family of translators, for the most part. Ibn ‘Ezras writings had the merit of being in simple Hebrew and readily understandable (this is less true of his biblical commentaries). Though his grammati­ cal writings lack originality, they achieved their pur­ pose at least for Provence, which in the following pe­ riod was to produce some famous grammarians of its own (although of Spanish origin): Joseph Qimhi and his sons, David and Moses. Joseph made the important discovery (in his Sefer zikharon) of the division of vowels into five long and five short, a discovery that achieved universal accep­ tance. His other work, Sefer ha-giluiy, was a defense of Ibn Labrat against the strictures of “Rabbenu Tam” His son David, also an important biblical commentator (incidentally, he most certainly did know Arabic), composed a Hebrew grammar, Mikhlol, which soon displaced in popularity the Hebrew translation (although not the value) of Ibn Janah’s work. This is the only Hebrew grammatical work that has received an English translation. However, his Hebrew dictionary, Sefer ha-shorashiym, by no means supplants Ibn Janah s earlier one by the same name, which remains superior in all respects. Moses, his brother, made perhaps the most signif­ icant contribution of the family, the development of the concept of the seven binyaniym, or verbal con­ structs, in his work Mehalekh sheviley ha-da at. Ear­ lier grammarians knew of only six (although they did not specify the number, this is obvious from their naming them; Ibn ‘Ezra was the first to actually men­ tion the number six). Later Gram m atical Work

The problematic grammatical work Petah divaray, possibly written in Spain in the thirteenth century, has been attributed to Ibn ‘Ezra and others. Frag­ ments have been found of a Judeo-Arabic grammati­ cal work by Jacob b. Elazar of Toledo, Kitdb al-kdmil (edited by Allony). A more important work, Sekhel tov by Moses of Posquieres, sometimes is confused with a book of the same title by Moses Qimhi. In the fifteenth century there appeared an impor­ tant work by former apostate Profiat Duran, Ma'aseh efod, in Spain, and that of his student Joseph b. Judah b. Isaac Zarch (so the name should be spelled), who in 1413 went to Florence and there wrote (1429)

Rav po‘aliym, which was only partially published. In Aragon-Catalonia the last important medieval poet, Solomon de Piera, wrote his dictionary of words with double meanings (published, Mashkiyot kesef[Am­ sterdam, 1765]). In England the only true work on grammar pro­ duced was the Sefer ha-shorashiym of Moses b. Isaac b. ha-nessiyah (various fanciful suggestions have been set forth as to the meaning of that appellative, such as “countess,” no less!) in the thirteenth century. He al­ ready clearly had access to the works of Hayyuj, Ibn Janah, Joseph Qimhi, and Ibn Farliun (see below on him). Furthermore, he cites Menahem, Dunash, Ibn Naghrillah, and Ibn ‘Ezra (but not in the part of the work so far published). All of this raises considerable doubt as to whether he was educated in England at all, to which must be added the fact that he uses French terms to explain certain Hebrew words and quotes French proverbs. The complete publication of the text is very much a desideratum, as would be then a careful scholarly study (there are three separate partial editions, with an important English introduc­ tion by Cecil Roth [London, 1947]). Solomon Ibn Farhun (not “Parhon,” etc.) was born in Calatayud, Spain, but lived in Salerno in southern Italy, then under Norman occupation. He was not literally a “student” of either Ibn ‘Ezra or of his son-in-law JUDAH HA-LEVY, but refers to both as his “teachers” out of respect. His ‘Arukh is essentially a dictionary, not without some value, but is of inter­ est primarily for some historical information that it contains on other grammarians. He composed it, he says, because of the general lack of knowledge of He­ brew among the Jews of Sicily. Conclusions

A thorough history of medieval Hebrew grammar, if it is ever done, must include investigation of such things as biblical commentary. Particularly impor­ tant in this respect are the profound commentaries of Ibn ‘Ezra, in which grammatical discussions fre­ quently appear (see, e.g., almost the entire ninth chapter of his commentary on Ecclesiastes). Of less significance, but nevertheless important, would be a study of the influence and use of medieval grammar on poetical or literary compositions. We may conclude by observing that without doubt no other example is to be found in history of 321

Hebrew Grammar

so significant an accomplishment as the complete resurrection of the Hebrew language from the obliv­ ion into which it had fallen. It is a great misfortune that, in spite of the recognition by sixteenth- and sev­ enteenth-century Christian Hebraists of the impor­ tance of medieval Hebrew grammarians, modern biblical grammatical scholarship and lexicography has been based entirely on nineteenth-century Chris­ tian models derived from Latin and even German grammar, to the almost total neglect of medieval sources. This, in turn, has had unfortunate and seri­ ous implications for modern Hebrew. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(The many editions of sources are not listed here) Abramson, Shragai. Mi-piy baaley leshonot (Jerusalem, 1988); reprint of brilliant studies, with some new additions. Ashtor (Strauss), Eliyahu. Qorot ha-yehudim be-Sefarad ha-muslamit (Jerusalem, 1986), Vol. 1 (the English translation is so abridged as to be of no use). Coffin, Edna Amir. “Ibn Janah’s Kitdb al-Luma: An Integration of Medieval Grammatical Ap­ proaches,” Louis L. Orlin, ed., Michigan Studies in Honor o f George Cameron (Ann Arbor, 1976), pp. 65-79 (a brilliant and unfortunately neglected article). Kutscher, Yehezkiel (Eduard). Toldot mehqar haleshon ha- ‘i vrit !a l reqa ‘h a-bilshanut ha-kelallit (Jerusalem, 1970), part 1 (very general, but of some interest). ---------. A History o f the Hebrew Language (Leiden, 1982); to be used with caution; oversimplified and full of errors. Prijs, Leon. Die grammatikalische Terminologie des Abraham Ibn Esra (Basle, 1950); important study, broader than the title implies. Saenz-Badillos, Angel. “Linguistical Components in Dunas Ben Labrats Tesubot,” Eighth World Con­ gress o f Jewish Studies, Proceedings (Jerusalem, 1982), Vol. 4, pp. 1-5. ---------. A History o f the Hebrew Language (Cam­ bridge, 1993; translated from the Spanish); much better than Kutscher, but far from complete; inad­ equate on the medieval period.

322

Valle Rodriguez, Carlos del. La escuela hebrea de Cor­ doba (Madrid, 1981); important study, with translations of some source texts. ---------. Die grammatikalische Terminologie der fru ehen hebraeischen Grammatikern (Madrid, 1982); extremely useful tool. Yellin, David. Toldot hitpathut ha-diqduq ha-ivriy (Jerusalem, 1945).

Hebrew Language

The Hebrew language has a long and complicated history. Not only did the language change in biblical times from its original alphabet to the “Assyrian” one learned during the period of the First Exile— a change that resulted in some errors of transcription in books rewritten in the new alphabet, particularly the Prophets—but it ceased to be used as the normal spoken language by most, if not all, the Jews of Palestine and the Diaspora. Aramaic and Greek sup­ planted Hebrew, in spite of the apparent determined effort of some (perhaps the “pietists” of Jerusalem, es­ sentially responsible for the Hebrew anti-Hellenistic propaganda writings, such as Proverbs and Ben Sirah, and such “Hellenized” books as Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes) to combat the demise of Hebrew. Until the destruction of the Second Temple (69 C.E.) and the resultant dispersion of most of the remaining Jewish population of Palestine, therefore, Hebrew re­ mained at best a “learned” language, used primarily for religious purposes. In the Diaspora, Aramaic and Greek continued to be the languages used for both speaking and writing. Although the Talmud betrays an ignorance of the meaning of some Hebrew words found in the Bible, Hebrew continued its exalted po­ sition as the “holy language” used for Bible study (if not reading, which in the synagogues was primarily in Greek), prayers, and some religious poetry. Inter­ estingly, there is ample evidence that Hebrew was more often used in the farthest reaches of the Dias­ pora, Italy, and early Jewish settlements in Germany, than in Palestine, or what the Jews still called “Baby­ lon” (the Persian Empire). With the Muslim conquest of Palestine and the Persian Empire (seventh century), Arabic became the lingua franca for conversation and writing (see LAN­ GUAGES USED BY JEWS). The necessity of translating

Hebrew Language

even the Torah, let alone the rest of the Bible, into Arabic demonstrates the extent to which Hebrew had fallen into neglect at least by the ninth century if not earlier. However, Hebrew never entirely disappeared as a spoken language, as evidenced in the Egron of S a ‘a d y a h Gaon (tenth century) and other sources. Indeed, when Saadyah there complains that because Aramaic and Arabic have become predominant the correct usage ($ahoi) of Hebrew has been forgotten, he does not mean that the language itself has been forgotten , but only its eloquence of style. Egron, or Kitdb u$ul al-sh‘i r aWibram (Book of the roots of Hebrew poetry), to use its correct Arabic title, was a rhyming dictionary for the use of religious poet­ ical composition, was at first written (902) entirely in Hebrew, and then a recension was made in Arabic in Hebrew letters. Thus, it may have been the first book written in Hebrew in the medieval period (a fact over­ looked by its editor, Allony). Furthermore, it is an al­ phabetical dictionary, long before Christian writers in Europe used alphabetical divisions (although the an­ cient Greeks had used acrostics in poetry, just as found in Hebrew in the Psalms; the Muslims used alphabeti­ cal division prior to the medieval Jews). Saadyah also wrote a work on the Hebrew lan­ guage also in Arabic, Fa$ih lughn al- ibrdnl (Correct­ ness of the Hebrew language), and used some gram­ matical interpretations in his biblical commentaries (also in Arabic) as well as in his commentary on the mystical work Sefer ye$irah (a Hebrew work, possibly of the fourth or fifth century C.E.), and in some of his own piyyutim (religious poetry in Hebrew) found in his Siddur (prayer book). In these are some innova­ tion of Hebrew words that have survived to the mod­ ern period. In addition, there is his well-known ex­ planation of ninety unique biblical words (a work first published in 1887 and reedited in 1931, and with various additions published separately). As Chomsky has demonstrated, the liturgical poets of the late talmudic and early medieval period them­ selves contributed to the creation of new words, al­ though their knowledge of grammar was so poor that numerous errors make it difficult at times to under­ stand their poems. In fact, there has been very little serious grammatical analysis of this kind of Hebrew. The developments in Hebrew grammar in the me­ dieval period are dealt with in a separate article on

t h a t t o p ic (s e e HEBREW GRAMMAR); h e r e w e a r e c o n ­ c e r n e d w it h t h e

use o f H e b r e w .

Spoken Hebrew

There is as yet insufficient evidence to draw any con­ clusion as to the nature of spoken Hebrew, when it was thus used, aside from later medieval Spain. Cer­ tainly when Jews from different countries, who did not speak Arabic, dealt with each other they had to communicate in Hebrew as the only common lan­ guage. Nor has there yet been sufficient research on the use of Hebrew as a written language or—in spite of Halkin’s often cited but inadequate article—on medieval Jewish attitudes toward Hebrew. Lacking serious philological and historical research, we must fall back on subjective analysis. With respect to the written Hebrew texts of medieval Christian Europe, they appear to demonstrate a heavy dependence upon biblical Hebrew, but more on what has (some­ what improperly) been termed “rabbinic Hebrew”— that is, Hebrew as used in the Babylonian Talmud (that of the so-called Jerusalem, or Palestinian, Tal­ mud has scarcely been examined). This influence is perhaps less marked in the few examples of early (tenth century) medieval Hebrew texts from Italy than elsewhere. Certainly in France and Germany, throughout the medieval period, Hebrew is markedly “rabbinic” rather than biblical in style, showing little innovation and with a considerable admixture of tal­ mudic Aramaic. It is also characterized by a disregard for proper Hebrew grammatical usage. In fact, it is rare indeed to encounter any “pure” Hebrew text emanating from those lands. It is in­ structive, for example, to note the strictures of “Rabbenu Tam” (Jacob b. Meir) on the grammatical work of Dunash Ibn Labrat (Spain), which were written largely in this Aramaic-Hebrew mix, al­ though dealing with a pure Hebrew work on Hebrew grammar. The learned rabbi was wrong about most of his criticism and apparently learned nothing about Hebrew style from the work he criticized. Jacobs father-in-law, “RASHI,” utilized the dictio­ nary of Menahem b. Saruq, also of Spain and a con­ temporary and opponent of Dunash, and although that work was in fact completely erroneous with re­ spect to the rules of Hebrew grammar, it did enable “R ashf to understand difficult biblical words. His

323

Hebrew Language

commentaries on most of the books of the Bible and tractates of the Babylonian Talmud introduced some new Hebrew words, which have survived in many cases in modern Hebrew. He and his sons-in-law and disciples also established talmudic academies (yeshivot), and their fame attracted students from distant lands. It is evident, therefore, that instruction in at least some of these schools must have been in Hebrew, given that no common language existed among these students. The same is true for the schools of Spain, as in the case of the yeshivah of ASHER B. YEHIEL of Toledo (as observed in the article “Languages”). It might be instructive to investigate, as has not yet been done, the extant writings of these students both of the Franco-German and the Toledo academies from a philological perspective. Solomon Ibn Farhun (so, not “Pardon,” etc.), a twelfth-century author born in Calatayud (Spain) but who lived in Salerno, where he wrote his gram­ matical work, apologizes in the colophon for the er­ rors in Hebrew style in that work (which in fact are copious), explaining that “the people of our place [he means Muslim Spain in general, and not Salerno, then under Norman domination] are not accus­ tomed to speak in the holy language very much, be­ cause all the places of the Muslim lands have one lan­ guage [Arabic] and all travelers who come to them know their language; therefore, they did not need to use the holy language to become accustomed to it. But [in] every land of Edom [Christian lands] their languages are different from each other, and when travelers come to them they do not recognize their words [and] they must speak to them in the holy lan­ guage; therefore, they are more accustomed to it.” If he is correct in saying that in Muslim lands, includ­ ing Spain, Hebrew was not very much spoken, this would probably apply to Calatayud, his native town, which, although under Muslim control was not in alAndalus—where, we know, knowledge of Hebrew was excellent. Important also is his observation that accustomed speaking of Hebrew leads to proper style in writing. Of course, his theory that because travel­ ers between different Christian countries had to speak Hebrew in order to communicate and they therefore necessarily knew Hebrew better than those in Muslim lands is faulty logic and incorrect; based on the kind of Hebrew we find in extant writings from European countries it is obvious that they 324

would have spoken a broken and archaic Hebrew at best. Moses Ibn Chicatilla of Cordoba, a full century before Ibn Farhun, wrote that French Jews living in Catalonia regularly spoke Hebrew. We have at least one interesting example of ex­ changes between Jews in Christian countries and those in Muslim Spain. In the tenth century Hasdai Ibn Shaprut was a high-ranking minister (a kind of minister of state) for Abd al-Rahman III, the caliph of Cordoba. He received embassies both from Otto III of Germany in 953, conversing in Hebrew with two Jewish interpreters who accompanied the delega­ tion. Of course, Jewish travelers from Muslim and Christian Spain who journeyed to European as well as Muslim lands also must have used Hebrew to con­ verse with those whose local language they did not understand. Hebrew Written Works

In the period of the Ge ONIMin Babylon (Iraq) almost all writing was done in Arabic, at first in Arabic script and later in Hebrew script. Even the responsa of the rabbis themselves were thus written, aside from some rare writings directed to Jews in northern Christian Spain, such as the famous Iggeret (Epistle) of Sherira Gaon or the Siddur (prayer book) of Amram Gaon. None of these writings has been studied from a lin­ guistic point of view. In al-Andalus the rise of scientific research on He­ brew grammar, coinciding with the development of proper biblical commentary (see B i b l e COMMEN­ TARIES), led to the emergence of POETRY, HEBREW and literary prose in the tenth century. This was, as mentioned elsewhere (see LANGUAGES), all part of an effort to prove that Hebrew was not a moribund lan­ guage and that it equaled, if not surpassed, Arabic in “perfection” of style. Within a few years of the earli­ est work on Hebrew grammar (ironically still written in Arabic) and the first poetry, we see Hebrew being taught to children and used in personal communica­ tions as well as official texts. (Ashtor s conclusion that the “majority” of the Jews of Spain did not know He­ brew is based on a famous poem by Ibn G a b i r o l , but he misinterpreted that poem, written in anger and directed solely against the Jews of Zaragoza and only the most ignorant of those.) Moses I b n £E z r a (h ), one of the major poets and author of the only medieval work on Hebrew poetics

Hebrew Language

(again, in Arabic, however), also wrote a philosophi­ cal treatise, most of which is no longer extant. In the introduction he speaks of a “gathering” of men knowledgeable in literature who discussed the use of proper Hebrew, each speaking “according to his memory and understanding.” The discussion prompted the head of the assembly to ask Moses to compose a book on the topic for the use of scholars of the Bible. We know that he did write such a book, but it is unfortunately lost. There is much to be said about his attitude toward and use of Hebrew, but this is not the place. In fact, the development of Hebrew not only in Muslim but in Christian Spain reached the highest level. Even in communal ordinances and ordinary correspondence there is an eloquence of style, replete with biblical allusions or quotations from poetry, which is without equal in Hebrew even in the revival of the Haskallah (Hebrew “enlightenment” of the nineteenth century). Only perhaps in far-off Yemen, where the poetry of Ibn Gabirol and JUDAH HA-LEVY was so popular that it was circulated within weeks of its composition in Spain, could a similar example be found. (As in other cases mentioned here, the investi­ gation of Hebrew in medieval Yemen is virtually nonexistent.) Book lists of the libraries of Jews in medieval Christian Spain provide another clue to the wide­ spread study of Hebrew, including frequent examples of Hebrew grammatical texts. In the late medieval period there may have been something of a decline, following the mass conver­ sion of Jews that took place after 1391 and continued throughout the fifteenth century. In Profiat Durans grammatical work Met asehefod (1408) there is an in­ teresting discussion of the use (and neglect) of He­ brew. He adds that this neglect of proper study has caused “destruction” and “disasters” to come upon the Jews, because their ignorance of Hebrew has caused them to misinterpret the Bible. However ex­ aggerated this claim, it serves as a reminder of the probable deterioration of individual study of He­ brew. Even then, however, Hebrew poetry was still being written, at least in Aragon-Catalonia, as well as some few literary works. Early scientific writing among the Jews in Spain, unlike other Muslim lands, was first in Spanish, as noted elsewhere (see SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS).

However, already in the early twelfth century in Cat­ alonia, A b r a h a m b a r yA Y Y A wrote mathematical and scientific treatises in Hebrew, and the technical terminology that he invented remains for the most part that which is used in contemporary Hebrew. Following his example, almost all such work by me­ dieval Jews, whether in Spain proper or in Provence, Italy, or elsewhere, was in Hebrew. Philosophical writing by Jews in Spain was in Arabic in the Muslim period. The TRANSLATION ac­ tivity of Jews for the needs of their brethren in non-Arabic-speaking Catalonia and Provence, with the translation of major Greek and Muslim philo­ sophical as well as scientific and medical texts into Hebrew, created both the vocabulary and the style for an ever-increasing body of such work originally written in Hebrew. With respect to MEDICINE there is certainly a significant development, merely from the viewpoint of Hebrew style, from such early (Ital­ ian Jewish) writers as Assaf or Shabbetai Donnolo to the later medieval Hebrew medical works of Spain. From the early medieval period (Muslim Spain, and soon imitated in North Africa and Egypt) a unique cursive script developed, the so-called Span­ ish rabbinic script. This was followed later in Ger­ many, France, and other European countries with a different script, referred to as “Rashi script.” The former has been entirely forgotten, but the Rashi script is still used for the printing of commentaries, responsa, and similar documents. MAIMONIDES ex­ plained in a responsum that Jews always had been careful to use different scripts for secular writings and “holy” writings, “and because of this the [Jews] of Andalus changed their writing so that it would be permissible to write secular things” in Hebrew. IBN ADRET in the fourteenth century wrote a responsum on why it is necessary to use an underline (sharfuf, inscribed with an instrument before the words are written) when writing biblical verses even in private social letters, just as in a scroll of the Torah. M aim onides, A ttitu de tow ard Hebrew

Maimonides wrote very little in Hebrew, a few let­ ters, aside from his important code of Jewish law, Mishneh Torah (Repetition of the Torah), in fourteen volumes. In his introduction he states that he wrote this work in Hebrew so that it could be read and un­ derstood by all Jews in all lands (a futile expectation, 325

Hebrew Language

as some in Muslim countries were soon asking for an Arabic translation!). Indeed, it is written generally in a language so clear and simple that anyone with a basic knowledge of Hebrew could understand it. It should be noted that Maimonides, born and edu­ cated in Cordoba, relied heavily upon the grammati­ cal works of Ibn Janah (see HEBREW GRAMMAR). In the introduction to his Sefer ha-misvot (Book of com­ mandments), written in Arabic, Maimonides noted that he decided against writing his code of Jewish law in biblical Hebrew because it was inadequate for the discussion of all the topics necessary to be dealt with in current law. Instead he wrote in the style of the Mishnah (this statement has, indeed, led to some confusion, but it must be recalled that mishnaic He­ brew for medieval authors included what is now called “rabbinic” Hebrew; i.e., including the Talmud and even posttalmudic Hebrew; cf., e.g., Ibn Janah, Shorashiym, s.v. “ (e $em). In a responsum to students of Rabbi Ephraim of Tyre he remarked that he regret­ ted having composed the book of commandments in Arabic and hoped to translate it into Hebrew (a hope not realized). With regard to spoken language, Maimonides was very strict. Thus, he stated that when muwashshahdt (strophic poems, usually of love) are recited, some think that it is prohibited only if the poem is in Ara­ bic (thus, easily understood), but permitted if it is in Hebrew; to which he responded that it should be 326

even more objectionable in Hebrew “because of the sanctity of the language, since it is not desirable to utilize it [Hebrew] except for lofty matters.” Else­ where he wrote that Hebrew is called the “holy” lan­ guage because there are no terms in Hebrew to desig­ nate sexual organs or acts (only euphemisms are used). Yet while his opposition to poetry in general is well known, he himself did not refrain from some­ times citing poets and even writing some poems him­ self (albeit only of the “permitted” kind). He did not apparently appreciate the fact that were it not due largely to the Hebrew poets and their contribution to the understanding and development of the Hebrew language, few even in his native Spain would have been able to read his Hebrew composition. Pronunciation o f Hebrew

Scholars usually make the assertion, which has be­ come part of common folklore, that already in the medieval period there was a distinction between He­ brew pronunciation in Spain (“Sefardic”) and France and Germany (“Ashkenazic”), a distinction that survived until the modern settlement of the Land of Israel, at which time a decision was made to standardize Hebrew in the so-called “Sefardic” pronunciation (a good summary of this traditional view is in Kutscher, p. 152 ff). Aside from the fact that such writers do not apparently realize that it was

Hebrew Language

the fifteenth-century Christian Hebraist Johannes Reuchlin who was responsible for the revival of the “Sefardic” pronunciation, long before Eliezer BenYehudah, who is credited with it, this simplistic view ignores the historical realities of Hebrew pro­ nunciation. In fact, there is as yet insufficient research to per­ mit definite conclusions, but from a variety of sources it is obvious that so-called “Sefardic” pronun­ ciation was prevalent also in medieval France, Ger­ many, England, and elsewhere, whereas “Ashkenazic” pronunciation certainly existed, and was possibly predominant, among the Jews of Aragon-Catalonia, at least. (For the Jews of medieval Spain there is so far one excellent study, which nevertheless neglected nu­ merous Spanish as well as Hebrew sources; see Garbell in the Bibliography). The essential differences in what obviously has been incorrectly identified as unique to either Spanish or Ashkenazic Jews include the distinction between the taz/with a daghesh (‘V” in both cases) or without (“th” in allegedly Ashkenazic pronunciation), as well as more subtle differences in vowel pronunciation (incidentally, from one pub­ lished source, Qunfres be-safat ‘ivriy, it is obvious that later Ashkenazim in Bohemia, Poland, Galicia, and some other areas followed the “Sefardic” custom in this also). It is, for example, “well-known” that the “Sefardim” confused the qame$ qafan with ho lorn, yet from the medieval German Sefer hasiydiym (pp. 84-85) it is clear that the Ashkenazim also made the same “confusion”; the reason for which, incidentally, is that the ancient Palestinian masorah (see B i b l e ) had one sign for both vocalizations. Ibn Janah noted that “people of this land” (al-Andalus) erred in this in the word mashkhu (Ezek. 32.30) because they considered it a verb in past tense rather than imperative; from which it would appear that generally the learned, at least, were careful otherwise to distinguish these vocalizations. From the transliteration of Hebrew words, sometimes entire texts, in Spanish in medieval sources it is obvious that elements of what is wrongly called “Ashkenazic” pronunciation existed, at least by the thirteenth century. Zimmels has remarked on the fact that numerous Hebrew sources that we would expect to call atten­ tion to any medieval differences in pronunciation, particularly when these would have legal implica­ tions, are silent on the subject. To these we must add,

for example, Abraham IBN £EZRA, who traveled from Muslim Spain to Italy, France, England, and else­ where. He instructed students in those lands in, among other things, Hebrew grammar, and wrote various works on the subject, yet makes no mention of any such distinctions in pronunciation. The same is true of the aforementioned Ibn Farhun and of vari­ ous German and French scholars who traveled to or remained in Spain. Important sources also are the glosses of “foreign” words in various Hebrew texts, not only the famous French glosses in “R ashf’s work but also Arabic, Provencal, Castilian, Catalan, Latin (and Bohemian in the work of Isaac b. Moses “Or zarua ”) found in medieval writing. Only serious research, involving the cooperative efforts of linguistic specialists in the various languages, can shed light on the true nature of medieval Hebrew pronunciation. In addition to the question of pronunciation, al­ most no attention has been paid to spelling and other orthographic variations. There is some evidence for the interchange of final letters of certain Hebrew words in Spanish texts (a) and French (h), abba and abbah, for example. It may tentatively be suggested that such changes reflect a similar distinction in Ara­ maic between Palestinian and Babylonian usage, where in the former the letter h was used to indicate final qame$ gadol in nouns, and as is well known, Palestinian customs influenced early French Jewish communities whereas Babylonian customs prevailed in Spain (cf. on this particular case Louis Ginzberg, Ginzey Shekhter [New York, 1929] II, 294). Similarly, the letters s (samekh) and / were often interchange­ able, and in Spain the letter sin was also interchange­ able with the others. Only a careful analysis of manu­ scripts (or critical editions where such minutiae are recorded, which is rare indeed) can provide us with a fuller picture of such orthographic variations in me­ dieval Hebrew. Som e Early Works in H ebrew Italy: Seferyossifon (953; Sicily) Sefer Assafha-rofe (tenth century) Sabbetai Donnolo, commentary on Seferye$irah Megiyllat Ahima a$ (1054) 327

Hebrew Language

“Babylonia” (Iraq): Siddur Rav ‘Amram Gaon (ninth century) Iggeret Sherira Gaon (tenth century) Some poetry, especially that of Hai (Hayye) Gaon (eleventh century) Palestine: Fragments of grammatical works Some midrashim Some piyyufiym (religious poetry) North Africa: Hananel b. Hushiel (eleventh century), commen­ taries on Bible, Talmud (mostly lost) Byzantine Empire: Midrash rabbah (Gen. to Num.), fifth through eleventh centuries Eikhah rabbatai (midrash on Lamentations; fifth or sixth century) Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana (midrash; seventh cen­ tury?) Pesiqta rabbatai (ninth century?) Spain: Hebrew poetry, secular and religious (tenth cen­ tury to fifteenth century) Chronicle of Ibn Daud (Sefer ha-qabbalah) Scientific and mathematical treatises (Abraham b. Hayya and others) To date there has been little or no philological re­ search on these works, nor of most Hebrew poetry and piyyutiym of the medieval period. This has led scholars, for example, to the erroneous assumption, often repeated, that the Hebrew poets of Spain slav­ ishly imitated the Bible and made no original contri­ butions to Hebrew lexicography. This is far from the truth, and in fact careful analyses of the innovation of words by two poets (Ibn NAGHRILLAH and I b n £E z r a [ h ] ) demonstrate how incorrect this is. The poets played a major role not only in creating new words but in the application of grammar, as was rec­

328

ognized by such outstanding grammarians as Ibn Janah. Finally, mention should be made of the learning of Hebrew from Jews by Christians in the medieval period (this is somewhat distinct from the topic of Christian Hebraists as such, for at least some of them studied the language on their own). As early as 1000 in Paris ordinary Christians were studying at least the Psalms with Jews, and certainly learned some He­ brew thereby. More significant, numerous Christian Scholastics and biblical scholars learned Hebrew di­ rectly from Jews and discussed biblical interpretation with them. Particularly important in this regard was the famous school of St. Victor (Hugh and Andrew and their disciples), again at Paris (twelfth century). There were others in later periods, in Germany and England as well as France. No doubt the various Christian scholars who worked with Jewish transla­ tors of Hebrew and Arabic texts also acquired at least a minimal knowledge of Hebrew. Only in the Re­ naissance in Italy, however, with the rise of Christian interest in qabbalah, do we find Christians receiving intensive instruction (years at a time, as was required) in Hebrew from Jewish teachers. One medieval king, at least, had a thorough knowledge of Hebrew, as he did of Arabic. This was FREDERICK II Hohenstaufen, the Holy Roman Em­ peror. He lived as a child in Jewish and Muslim homes in Palermo after he escaped the plot to kill him so that he would not become emperor, and he had at his court in Sicily prominent Jewish scholars. To the amazement of one of these, during a conversa­ tion on resurrection Frederick quoted from memory Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah on the subject. This king also posed a series of complex mathematical questions in Arabic to Muslim scholars in Egypt. The famous scholar ISAAC B. SHESHET (fourteenth century) in Spain once addressed a decision in He­ brew to the Christian baile (judicial officer) of Montalban. Christians in Spain employed numerous He­ brew words that entered into ordinary Spanish usage, and some have remained to the present time. Some Christians knew Hebrew, and from the fourteenth century, Hebrew was studied in some Dominican monasteries and schools, and was taught in universi­ ties. There were even some instances of Christians who wrote Hebrew poetry, including one well-

Herem Ha-yiyshuv (Ban on Settlement)

known Spanish poet of the fifteenth century (Roth, “Lengua hebrea”). One of the most remarkable accomplishments of the Jews in the medieval period was the resurrection of the Hebrew language, saving it from oblivion and indeed giving it new life that found expression in an unparalleled blossoming of cultural achievements, in biblical analysis, poetry, literature, and scientific and philosophical writing. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashtor, Eliyahu. The Jews o f Moslem Spain (Philadel­ phia, 1973-84), Vol. 3, 100 (cf. p. 282 n. 347). Chomsky, William. “The Growth of Hebrew During the Middle Ages,” The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume o f the Jewish Quarterly Review (Philadel­ phia, 1967), pp. 121-36. Garbell, Irene. “The Pronounciation [sic\ of Hebrew in Medieval Spain,” Homenaje a Millds Vallicrosa (Barcelona, 1954), Vol. 1, 647-96. Halkin, Abraham S. “The Medieval Jewish Attitude toward Hebrew,” Alexander Altmann, ed., Bibli­ cal and Other Studies (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), pp. 233-48. ' Kutscher, Eduard Y. A History o f the Hebrew Lan­ guage {Leiden, 1982). Roth, Norman. “Jewish Reactions to the Arabiyya and the Renaissance of Hebrew in Spain ” Journal o f Semitic Studies 28 (1983): 63-84. ---------. Maimonides. Essays and Texts (Madison, 1985), pp. 54-55, 109-22. --------- . “La lengua hebrea entre los cristianos espanoles medievales,” Revista de filologta espanola 71 (1991): 138-43. Saadyah b. Joseph Gaon. Sefer ha-egron, ed. Nehemiah Allony (Jerusalem, 1969). Smalley, Beryl. The Study o f the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, 1964). Zimmels, H. J. Ashkenazim and Sephardim (London, 1958). J

Herem Ha-yiyshuv (Ban on Settlement)

[“Herem ha-yiyshuv ” or ban on settlement, originated in a deliberate misinterpretation by German rabbis of

a commentary attributed to Rabbenu GERSHOM b . JUDAH (on B.B. 21b), that Jews may be excluded from a town unless they pay taxes to the same overlord that the inhabitants of the town are required to pay. As early as 1130, the rabbis of Paris appealed to those of Rome for the correct interpretation of this decree, but the Roman sages refused to intervene.—ed.] This was a ban applying (also) to a new settler who had settled in a Jewish community without hav­ ing received the agreement of the previous settlers. The authorization to settle in a given community was called hezqat ha-yiyshuv and constituted a part of the holders estate. It was therefore inherited by his suc­ cessor, and could eventually be alienated by some other agreed-upon and community-approved way. It has been argued that the herem ha-yiyshuv was part of an economic policy, the aim of which was to protect settled businessmen from competition by a newcomer. Such an explanation would then be based on talmudic law requiring the allowing of commer­ cial competition. It has been remarked that this view could not be maintained, as every member of the set­ tled community, even idle or unemployed, who held no commercial interest whatever, could invoke the herem ha-yiyshuv against a newcomer, and that the use of a ban to implement a talmudic law was aber­ rant. The herem ha-yiyshuv must then be looked upon as a medieval innovation that was intended to protect the position of the first settlers who had ob­ tained, owing to their efforts and probably after pay­ ment, the right of residence from the local ruler or town council. It was quite widespread in parts of Eu­ rope during the Middle Ages and survived in some places until the eighteenth century. By that time it was occasionally confused with the ‘iyroniyt, the right of residence granted by Christian overlords. The origin of the herem ha-yiyshuv was very soon forgotten, which explains the introduction of an eco­ nomic explanation to justify it. The growth of the communities, which could not identify any longer with the original settlers, also contributed to its weakening. The increasing interference of the Chris­ tian authorities in internal Jewish affairs—they were intent on controlling the Jewish population and on selling settling rights—also contributed to the weak­ ening and eventual disappearance of this medieval institution.

329

Herem Ha-yiyshuv (Ban on Settlement)

[In medieval Spain the herem ha-yiyshuv in this second sense of seeking permission from the original settlers in order to live in a community never existed. A s for the original meaning of requiring new settlers to pay taxes to the same overlord, Spanish rabbinical authorities were very lenient in their interpretation; cf., e.g., Ibn Megash on B.B. 21b, end; MAIMONIDES, M.T.y “Shekheniym? 6. 8-12 and the commentaries there. Ibn A d r e t and later authorities did usually re­ quire that one who owned a business in one town but lived elsewhere had to pay taxes on his business with the community in which it was based.—ed.] SIMON SCHWARZFUCHS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rabinowitz, Louis. The Herem Hayiyshuv (London, 1945). Schwarzfuchs, Simon. “The evolution of the herem ha-yiyshuv: a re-evaluation” (in Hebrew), in Shlomo Simonsohn jubilee volume (Tel Aviv, 1993), pp. 105-17 (Heb. section). [Responsum of rabbis of Rome to those of Paris, ed. S. D. Luzzatto, Beit o$ar 1 (Lvov [Lemberg], 1881), pp. 104-08, with Luzzatto’s notes, pp. 109-12].

Heretic, Jew as

Christian theology considers Jews and heretics as two distinct categories. Heretics are former Christians who have strayed from the orthodox path; hence, they are traitors. Jews, however, have never accepted the Christian faith, and their belief is therefore defined as “perfidy” rather than heresy. The distinction is also of practical significance; though the Church hunted down heretics with considerable ferocity and denied their very right to exist, Jewish existence in the Chris­ tian world was tolerated. Christian theology even as­ signed the Jews a role in the plan of divine salvation. Both Roman and CANON LAW made a distinction be­ tween heretics and Jews, thereby influencing local laws that inherited the same categorization. However, despite the theoretical distinction, the dividing line between the two categories was not always well de­ fined in reality, with adverse results for the Jews. U n t il t h e b e g i n n in g o f t h e f if t h c e n t u r y , in t h e B y z a n t in e E m p ir e (s e e BYZANTIUM) t h e r e w e r e d if ­

330

ferent laws for Jews and heretics; however, most of the legislation enacted from 408 to 545 treated them together, evidence of a major shift in the attitude to­ ward Jews—once a religio licita (“legal religion”), they became a group subject to restrictions similar to those imposed on heretics and pagans. Justinian’s Codex subjected Jews to legal restrictions much the same as those in effect for heretics, pagans, and Samaritans: they were barred from public office and forbidden to testify against Christians in legal pro­ ceedings involving a Christian litigant, except in cases involving wills or contracts (heretics were for­ bidden to testify in any case). Thus, although the Jews’ lot was somewhat more favorable than that of heretics and pagans, the similarity of language and conjoint treatment of the three groups made distinc­ tions difficult. Jews, like heretics, were branded as a “sect”—a once neutral term that took on a negative meaning. They were forbidden to convert slaves to Judaism and even to build new synagogues. In the Middle Ages, too, Jews and heretics were seen as two distinct groups, as indicated, for example, by the fact that they were discussed separately in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Though the Church urged the secular authorities to act against heretics, the only action expected against Jews was to prevent overly close relations between them and Christians. Nevertheless, in medieval Europe, too, Jews, like heretics, were forbidden by canon law from holding public office or testifying against Christians [al­ though secular authorities often ignored such laws]. Moreover, in medieval canon law the two groups are frequently mentioned together, and it is also stated that not only all pagans, but also all the Jews, heretics, and schismatics are destined for the “ever­ lasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels” (Mt. 25.41). From the very first centuries of the Christian era, however, despite the legal and theological distinction between Jews and heretics, the two groups were not infrequently lumped together, whether in ecclesiasti­ cal literature or popular conception, and Jews were suspected of cooperating with heretical movements and stimulating them. As early as the Christological disputes, each side tended to accuse the other of “Jewishness.” Heretics such as the Nestorians were suspected of being Judaizers (Christians who ob­ served certain Jewish practices or held to certain Jew-

Heretic, Jew as

ish beliefs) and were even vilified as “Jews”; but, on the other hand, the Monophysites also condemned the Chalcedonians as being “Jews.” This was, then, most probably merely a term of abuse with no real content. Accusations of Jewish influence were also made against heretical movements in the Middle Ages, and some scholars have in fact argued that such influence indeed existed, mainly among the Waldenses and the Passagii—but this argument lacks adequate proof. Likewise, despite the long tradition of identifica­ tion of heretics as Jews or Judaizers, and despite the fact that the centers of heresy in Provence were also flourishing Jewish centers, it is difficult to demon­ strate any Jewish influence on the Cathars. It is true that certain churchmen, such as Lucas of Tuy in Spain and Bernard Gui in France, tried to prove such accusations for propaganda purposes, but it is clear that the significance attributed by the early Inquisi­ tion to contacts between heretical movements and Jews was baseless. In addition, although it has been argued that the Cathars were influenced by QabBALAH, particularly by the Sefer ha-bahiyr, it is diffi­ cult to determine whether the similarities were due to an actual exchange of ideas between the two groups or to reliance on the same sources. In general, the ar­ gument is without sound basis [see also ALBIGEN­ SIANS].

The Inquisition was established in the thirteenth century to combat heresy. The Jews, therefore, were not subject to its investigations. Nevertheless, re­ lapsed converts to Christianity were seen as heretics and thus subject to judgment by the Inquisition. Jews who helped relapsed converts, or who helped Christians who wished to become Jews, could also be punished. It was, indeed, the Inquisitions actions against the conversos (see CONVERSION BY J e w s ) in Spain that earned it its notoriety in Jewish history (although many have falsely believed that it acted against Jews). Needless to say, Christians who con­ verted to Judaism were accused of heresy and burned at the stake—the punishment specified for heretics from the thirteenth century on. Communities that aided such individuals were severely punished. Pope Clement IV in his bull Turbato corde (1267) appealed to the D o m i n i c a n s a n d F r a n c i s c a n s to initiate an inquiry concerning Jews who tried to persuade Christians to convert. Other thirteenth-century

popes repeated this demand. Sexual relations be­ tween Jews and Christians were considered heresy (on the part of the Christian), and those involved were liable to be burned at the stake. Similar punish­ ment was meted out to Jews who were baptized and reverted to Judaism. Some inquisitors tried to broaden the Church’s au­ thority in matters pertaining to the Jews. They held that Jews who desecrated the sacraments should be punished as heretics and that the Church was entitled to interfere in Jewish affairs when Jews were suspected of deviating from their own teachings; that is, they wanted to define heresy in Jewish terms. In the D IS ­ PUTATION of Paris (1240) the Talmud itself was, in a manner of speaking, accused of heresy—of being a heretical work vis-a-vis the Hebrew Bible, and of al­ legedly containing “blasphemies” against Christian beliefs. The result was the condemnation of cartloads of Talmud manuscripts to the flames. Christian at­ tacks on the Talmud, on the grounds that it was a de­ viation from Jewish sources and a secret repository of blasphemies against Christianity, persisted from the thirteenth century on for hundreds of years. Usury, too, was defined as a sort of heresy, and Christian usurers were accused of Judaizing. The fact that cer­ tain heretical sects were engaged in MONEYLENDING only reinforced the comparison with the Jews. As a generalization, one might say that, beginning in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Christian Eu­ rope subjected Jews and heretics to a process of mar­ ginalization, exclusion, and, finally, persecution. The need to consolidate Christian society involved social classification and the use of the same kind of rhetoric against any group of “others” that might be envisaged as contaminating or harming the body social. Both groups were required to wear distinctive identifying C l o t h i n g as protection for the “true believers.” After the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the for­ mulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation, heretics, and later also Jews, were accused of H O ST DESECRATION. Moreover, Jews and heretics were ac­ cused of sorcery and of using human blood for ritual­ istic purposes. Generalizing, one might say that com­ parisons of Jews to heretics (e.g., in sermons of Dominican and Franciscan preachers in the thir­ teenth century and later) brought about a deteriora­ tion in the Jews’ condition. ORA LIMOR

331

Heretic, Jew as

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History o f the Jews (New York, Philadelphia, 1967), Vol. 13. Cohen, Jeremy. The Friars and the Jews: The Evolu­ tion o f M edieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, 1982). ---------. Living Letters o f the Law: Ideas o f the Jew in M edieval Christianity (Berkeley, 1999). Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the XLLIth Century (rev. ed., New York, 1966). --------- . The Church and the Jews in the XLLLth Cen­ tury; Vol. 2: 1254-1314, ed. Kenneth R. Stow (New York, 1989). Linder, Amnon. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legisla­ tion (Detroit, 1987). ---------, ed. The Jews in the Legal Sources o f the Early Middle Ages (Jerusalem, 1997). Newman, Louis I. Jewish Influence on Christian Re­ form Movements (New York, 1926). [Roth, Norman. “Jews and Albigensians in the Mid­ dle Ages: Lucas of Tuy on Heretics in Leon,” SefaradAl (1981): 71-93]. Simonsohn, Shlomo. The Apostolic See and the Jews, Vols. 1-7 (Toronto, 1988-91). Trachtenberg, Joshua. The Devil and the Jews (New Haven, 1943).

Host Desecration One of the popular medieval superstitious accusa­ tions against Jews (see, e.g., BADGE, RITUAL MURDER) was that they stole wafers (called “hosts” because they were believed to be transformed into the body of Christ during Mass) and performed various horrible acts upon them. It appears that this may have origi­ nated no earlier than the tenth century, in a story by Gezo ofTortona, according to which a Jew attended Mass, took the wafer on his tongue and then put it in his pocket, whereupon he had horrible pains and was unable to open his mouth. The wafer “miraculously” was hanging from his lips and could not be removed until the priest took it from him. As usual in such stories, he and other Jews with him converted (Parkes, p. 32). In 1213 Innocent III wrote to the archbishop of Sens about the story he had heard of a Christian woman living in a Jewish house who “by Jewish se­ ductions . . . was estranged” from the Catholic faith.

332

She supposedly said that ordinary bread is as effica­ cious as the host, and to prove her point went to Mass and hid a host in her mouth, took it home and gave it to the Jewish man in whose house she was staying. He put it in a box in which were seven coins (accidentally placing it there, because someone was knocking at the door). When the visitor left, the Jew looked in the empty box where he thought he had hidden the wafer, and when it was not there he looked in the box of coins, but it was filled not with coins but with wafers. Naturally, everyone converted (Grayzel, pp. 137-39; the pope may have expressed some incredulity when he instructed the archbishop: “After you have found out more of the truth about the above-mentioned miracle, faithfully write of it to us”). The doctrine of transubstantiation, however (according to which the wafer actually becomes the “body of Christ” and the wine the “blood of Christ”), was not proclaimed as dogma until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). It is thus only from the thirteenth century on that this legend, and the accusation associated with it, developed. Typically, whether in literature or in actual accusa­ tions, one or more Jews supposedly took a wafer, ei­ ther by surreptitiously attending Mass or by theft or by bribing a Christian to steal it, and it is then muti­ lated by stamping on it, piercing it with a knife, or cutting it up or burning it. Blood “miraculously” flows from the wafer, or a voice cries out, and the Jew is apprehended, charged, and tortured to death (Trachtenberg, p. I l l , and extensive literature cited in the note there). The first actual accusation of host desecration was in 1243 at Belitz, near Berlin, as a result of which all the Jews of the city were burned to death. M e i r B. B a r u k h of Rothenburg (1215-1293) wrote a lamen­ tation about a host desecration incident in Germany (possibly in the town of Siebenbrunn), of an un­ known date but apparently after 1235. It appears that the synagogue and Torah scrolls were burned and many Jews killed, and others exiled (Haber­ mann, pp. 180—83; in fact we have only Habermanns interpretation that this even refers to a host desecration at all). According to Trachtenberg (p. 114), there were numerous other cases in Germany, but he provided no details. In Paris in 1290 a Jew was accused, and supposedly admitted his guilt, saying

Host Desecration

that he had wanted to show how silly the Christian belief in transubstantiation was. Philip the Fair of France played on the popular superstition when he ordered (1299) officials to turn over to the Inquisi­ tion any Jew accused of handling a host, along with other crimes mentioned (Parkes, p. 140; see the im­ portant analysis by Jordan, pp. 191-94). Remark­ ably, there seem to have been no cases in England. In Bavaria in 1298 accusations of host desecration served as an excuse for the widespread massacre of Jews, the so-called Rindfleisch massacres, named after the obscure leader who stirred up the masses. Jews in numerous communities, including Rothen­ burg, were killed; those of Wurzburg and Nuremberg also suffered. One of the victims of the massacres was the famous rabbi MORDECAIB. HlLLEL. The mob then advanced into Austria, raising new rumors of host desecration by Jews, and many communities were at­ tacked. In some cases, a host was deliberately planted near or in the house of a Jew, resulting in the death of the Jew and his kin; this happened in Austria in 1305 or 1306 and in 1338 (see Trachtenberg, p. 117). In Brussels (1370), Jews were burned because of the host accusation, an event that ever after was cele­ brated as the “holy sacrament of the miracle” in a chapel built on the site of the former synagogue (Baron X, 19). In Prague in 1389, some Jews appar­ ently attacked a monk carrying a host, and when re­ buked they said to him, “You have the Lord in your hands, let him save you.” For this, many Jews (three thousand is obviously a great exaggeration) lost their lives. In 1453, Jews of Breslau “confessed” under tor­ ture to such a crime. The trial was presided over by the notorious Jew baiter John Capistrano, a Domini­ can friar (see DOMINICANS AND FRANCISCANS). Forty Jews were burned, one rabbi hanged himself, and the children of the executed Jews were baptized (Flan­ nery, p. 115; Trachtenberg, p. 114). The charges soon spread to nearby communities. Cases occurred even in generally tolerant Spain. Thus, in Huesca (Aragon) in 1377 some Jews were accused, and by the time their innocence was finally established, they had already been burned alive. The king, Pedro IV, ordered his son to protect the Jewish community there from destruction, noting that “many times” such charges arose from hatred or mal­ ice and proved to be untrue. Yet he forgot his own

wise counsel when in Lerida (Catalonia) in 1383 two Jews were accused of buying some hosts from a church. They were arrested, but several Jews appealed to the king, assuring him of the innocence of the Jews. The king immediately wrote to his nephew, the count of Urgel, urging him to proceed with great discretion and diligence. Nevertheless, the affair dragged on for years, and in 1386 the king wrote to all the Jewish communities informing them of the “horrible crimes” of which certain individuals were accused and the enormous expenses incurred by the Jews of Lerida and their attorney, a Jew from Ma­ jorca, because of this. The king requested that all the Jewish communities pay these expenses. Other attacks on Jews occurred in Poznan (Poland) in 1399 (the first such accusation in that country), and in Deggendorf (Bavaria), where in 1337 Jews were attacked, their homes burned, and the pieces of the allegedly “miraculous” host that bled were placed in the church with a German inscription that remained to modern times. Host desecration charges continued into the fif­ teenth century. One of the most notorious cases was in Passau, Bavaria, in 1478. A Christian thief con­ fessed, under torture, to having stolen wafers from a church for some Jews. These Jews were arrested and tortured, and confessed to having sent some of the wafers to Prague, Salzburg, and Neustadt, and that when they stabbed the wafers various miraculous fig­ ures appeared. Ten Jews were executed, including four who converted and were thus “mercifully” be­ headed. The others were burned. The other Jews of Passau, about forty, converted. The synagogue was, as usual in such cases, destroyed, and a church built in its place to commemorate the “miracle.” In 1480 woodcut pictures depicting the incident were sold to visitors to the church (text of the event in Marcus, pp. 155-58). NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History o f the Jews (New York, Philadelphia, 1957). Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish o f the Jews (New York, 1965).

Host Desecration

Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the Xlllth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). Habermann, Abraham M., ed. Sefer gezeirot Ashkenaz ve-$arfat (Jerusalem, 1945). Jordan, William Chester. The French Monarchy and the Jews (Philadelphia, 1989).

334

Marcus, Jacob R., ed. The Jew in the M edieval World (New York, 1975, Meridian Books edition). Parkes, James. The Jew in the M edieval Community (New York, 1976). Trachtenberg, Joshua. The Devil and the Jew (New York, 1943).

I Ibn Adret, Solomon b. Abraham Solomon Ibn Adret (born ca. 1233; died probably in 1310) lived all of his life in Barcelona. The family name has caused much confusion, being incorrectly spelled as “Adret” (without the Ibn), “Adreth,” and “Aderet.” Some have claimed that the name derives from a village name in Spain; however, there is no such village. Most probably it is a variant spelling of Heb. aderet (the basic meaning of the word is “coat” or garment, but medieval commentators explain it as “glory”). Adret was a family name common in Cat­ alonia, and it is always so spelled in Romance or Latin sources; when he signed his full name in He­ brew it was always “Ibn” or “b.” Adret. He was called by the Hebrew acronym RaSHB'A (ifobbi 5/?elomoh ben Alret) in Jewish sources in his own lifetime, and at least in the fifteenth century also in a Chris­ tian source. Ibn Adret was, without doubt, the greatest rab­ binical authority of the Middle Ages, not only in Spain but throughout the world (one might except MAIMONIDES, of course, but he was not a rabbi). He dominated all areas of traditional Jewish learning, in­ cluding talmudic commentary, legal interpretation, and responsa, and although he never wrote a Bible commentary as such, his masterful biblical interpre­ tation is found throughout his responsa. His author­ ity extended to France and Germany, of course, but also beyond into Bohemia and other lands, and to Egypt, North Africa, and Palestine. Instructive, for example, is the statement by the renowned sage Eliezer de Chinon (France) in a legal question he posed to Ibn Adret, that God had established Ibn

Adret in Barcelona as the “head of the exile,” a guide and comfort after the death of Peres b. Elijah of Corbeil (Responsa III. 7). As was the case with many great medieval Jewish sages, absurd legends devel­ oped over a period of time. One of these legends was that Anacletus II, the so-called Jewish pope (his greatgrandfather was Jewish) was the son of Ibn Adret. Nothing is known about his ancestors or immedi­ ate family. His father is mentioned by him only once: Responsa I. 548, the famous incident of the “prophet of Avila” (1295); from other sources we know that he died in 1265. His father is known to have engaged in making loans to Christians, as did Solomon and his brother Isaac, lending substantial sums of money. Isaac, who died sometime before 1278, had two sons, Adret and Solomon. Ibn Adrets teachers were Jonah b. Abraham G e r u n d i and Moses b. Nahman (N a h m a n i d e s ) , both of whom he cites frequently in his writings, and also Isaac b. Abraham of Narbonne (who was not Ibn Adrets brother, as some have written). In one of his responsa he mentions an incident (“there was child­ ishness in me”) when he disagreed with something that Nahmanides was teaching them, and he “judged before” his teacher; that is, he presented his own in­ terpretation (Responsa I 503). In another place he states that he merely “judged” a certain matter before his teacher; apparently there was no disagreement (Responsa IV. 57). Isaac b. Abraham is also fre­ quently cited in Ibn Adret s responsa (note especially IV. 129, where he mentions an opinion that he had written to him many years before), and in the extant responsa of Nahmanides there are two addressed to 335

Ibn Adret, Solomon b. Abraham

Isaac, and he is mentioned in another. Isaac appar­ ently later lived in Barcelona, where Ibn Adret men­ tions him as a judge in a particular case (Responsa I. 1011), unless a word is missing there after “in the city” and another city was named in the original manuscript. Students Ibn Adret headed a yeshivah in BARCELONA. Only in one responsum (II. 314, end) does he mention the yeshivah; writing to a rabbi in Toledo who apparently was a former student of his, he said, “and you already know that we agreed about this in the beit midrash” referring to certain details of writing documents. He had many students, only a few of whom are known to us. His most famous students were Bahya b. Asher of Zaragoza, author of an important biblical com­ mentary and other works, and Yom Tov Ishblll (al­ though Aaron b. Joseph ha-Levy was his main teacher). The commentary on Sukkah attributed to Ibn Adret is said to be actually by students of Ishblll, but if so they are apparently a verbatim transcription; see 9b, “in the name of our great teacher [Nah­ manides], from the mouth of his student [read talmido, of course] my teacher”—Ibn Adret (and on 54b, and so elsewhere). Other students included Abraham b. Moses b. (Ibn) Ismael, or Ismall (a common Jewish name in Catalonia); responsa of his are found in Judah b. Asher of Toledo, Zikharon Yehudah; in the work of Yeruham b. Meshullam, Abraham’s student; and in the responsa of Moses Ibn Alashqar. Another very important student was Joseph b. Solomon Ibn Yaliya, who composed a poetic eulogy on his teacher when he died (according to his descendant Gedalyah, not always to be trusted, Joseph had a yeshivah in Castile that burned in an accidental fire; the eulogy has been published also in other places). Nevertheless, Joseph is known to have lived in Huesca in the 1300s; al­ though from the poems of Todros A b u l a f i a it is possible that he later lived in Castile. He is cited in the responsa of ISAAC B. SHESHET (No. 345), and Gedalyah mentioned that he had written a legal com­ pendium of part of the Talmud. Meir Ibn Sahulah (fl. ca. 1280-1330, Guadala­ jara; brother of the novella author Isaac), and Joshua Ibn Shuavb (correct spelling) were also among Ibn Adret’s renowned students. Ibn Sahulah may have 336

been the author of a qabbalistic work titled Or haganuz. Ibn Shu avb definitely was the author of a supercommentary on Nahmanides on the Torah, wrongly attributed to Ibn Sahulah, in which he fre­ quently cites his teacher; he also cites Ibn Adret in his more famous collection of sermons. Shem Tov b. Abraham Ibn Gaon, author of the well-known Migdal \oz (commentary on Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah), cites his teacher Ibn Adret in several places, although his main teacher may have been Isaac b. Todros the Pious. Other students were Jonah de Piera, Hayyim (b. Samuel) b. David of Tudela, Solomon b. Joseph Ibn Amiel, Samson b. Meir, and Astruc Crescas, all of whom distinguished themselves as scholars. In addi­ tion, there are many anonymous works from which we learn that Ibn Adret had been the authors’ teacher. There has also been much confusion about those who were not his students, including David haKohen. Perles’s claim that Abraham Zacut called Solomon Ibn Tuart a student of Ibn Adret is incor­ rect; rather, Zacut said (f. 224a) he was a student of A s h e r b . Y e h i e l . However, Ibn §addiq (p. 9 7 ) , who was Zacut’s source generally, said Abraham b. Solomon Ibn Tuart was a student of Ibn Adret and author of Huqqot ha-dayyaniym. Since Zacut attrib­ uted that work to “Solomon,” it seems he made a double error: no Solomon was a student of Asher, nor was he the author; rather, Abraham Ibn Tuart wrote that work (1330). Compounding error upon error, the seventeenth-century chronicler David Conforte wrote (f. 25b): “Solomon Ibn Tuart, stu­ dent of Ibn Adret”! This has confused bibliographers ever since. C om m unity A ctivities a n d L eadership One of the most interesting cases with which Ibn Adret had to deal concerned a Jewish informer (malshin, which entered into Spanish as malsiri), who ap­ parently caused such danger for the entire Jewish community that an assembly of representatives of the communities of Catalonia, Aragon, and Valencia met to deal with him. Joseph and Moses Ravaya (Abravalla), important Jewish officials of the govern­ ment, told the king, Pedro III, about the matter and stated that the informer should be sentenced to death (Jews were allowed to impose death penalties in Spain). There was a trial before the king, which was

Ibn Adret, Solomon b. Abraham

unusual in such cases and shows the importance of the case. Finally, it was agreed to refer the matter to Rabbi Jonah b. Joseph of Gerona, cousin (not nephew) of Jonah b. Abraham Gerundi, one of Ibn Adret s teachers. Ibn Adret was asked to serve as a judge, but agreed only to act as arbitrator. After more than a year of debate, with the king threatening to imprison both Rabbi Jonah and Ibn Adret if they did not reach a decision, the kings judge took over the case again but died before his sentence against the in­ former could be carried out. The king ordered one of his officials to execute the informer. Ibn Adret ad­ dressed a letter about this to the leading rabbis of Eu­ rope, citing all the talmudic sources supporting the killing of an informer, noting that “so is done con­ stantly in Castile, and they were accustomed to do this before the greatest sages who were there; and so in the kingdom of Aragon, and also in the generation before us and in this generation in Catalonia.” Rabbi M eir o f Rothenburg, the greatest authority of Germany, replied, completely agreeing with Ibn Adrets decision. The informer in this case was proba­ bly Vidal, or Vidalon, de Porta, and it would seem therefore to be the case referred to in the letters of Pedro III (1279) addressed to Ibn Adret and Rabbi Jonah. Vidal was the son of Astrug (Bonastrug) de Porta, whom Baer erroneously identified as Moses b. Nahman (!) in the Barcelona Disputation (see DISPU­ TATIONS).

Shortly after this, Ibn Adret was asked to inter­ vene in a major dispute in Zaragoza involving the ap­ portionment of taxes and certain wealthy individuals who sought to bribe government officials to restore the original procedure of allotting the tax payments. In his reply to one of the questions sent to him (III. 402), Ibn Adret said that great care must be used in threatening to impose oaths and the like on those who claimed they incurred expenses in dealing with the government on such matters, for the Jews need men who will work and represent them in the palace of the king, “and if they have to swear on every penny they spend they may refuse to serve” in this capacity. Abba Mari b. Moses of Lunel, one of the major figures in the controversy over philosophy and alle­ gorical speculation (see below), wrote a letter to Ibn Adret concerning the Jews expelled from France in 1306, among whom he himself was one. The ques­ tion concerned the necessity of writing new marriage

contracts for their wives, since the originals had been lost as a result of the expulsion. Ibn Adret replied that they must do so, and “especially since these doc­ uments were lost [as a result of actions] by the king and ministers and it is impossible to save them from their hands.” Referring to Abba Maris statement that some of the exiles had gone to Perpignan, certain of the protection of the king of Majorca (later Jaime III), who controlled that city, to save the exiles, he answered, “Not only these who are under the rule of the king of France, but also those who are under the rule of the king of Majorca who hope yet that he may restore to them all that is theirs” must write new mar­ riage contracts. “And I remember when the commu­ nity of Gerona left their city when the king of France besieged it [1285] and the city was ready [to be taken; the word in the text is corrupt], those who ar­ rived here [Barcelona] renewed the marriage con­ tracts of their wives. ” Unlike his teacher Nahmanides, Ibn Adret was never personally involved in disputations or POLEMICS against Christianity. However, he was once shown, or told about, a treatise by the Muslim the­ ologian Ibn Hazm (Cordoba, eleventh century), at­ tacking Jewish beliefs and interpretations. To this he replied in an independent treatise (not, as has been said, a part of his commentary on talmudic aggadoi), which also contained a rebuttal of the polemics of a contemporary Christian scholar, quite probably Ramon Marti (Catalan; author of the polemic Pugio fidei). P hilosophy C ontroversy The “Maimonidean controversy,” which began dur­ ing the lifetime of Maimonides concerning his inter­ pretation of certain laws, developed in Spain shortly after his death when Meir ABULAFIA, a young scholar of Toledo, wrote a series of letters attacking Mai­ monides’ clear denial of resurrection. When he failed to gain any support in Provence he turned to France, where the Jewish authorities were neither versed in nor sympathetic to “secular” knowledge. The contro­ versy settled down for a while, but by 1230 or earlier it was stirred up again, this time in Montpellier. Sev­ eral important scholars joined the opposition, in­ cluding Jonah b. Abraham Gerundi, who went to France to encourage the imposition of a ban on the 337

Ibn Adret, Solomon b. Abraham

study of Maimonides’ “Guide of the Perplexed.” Nahmanides, a harsh critic of Maimonides but who nevertheless viewed him with respect, refrained from joining in the propaganda of the antagonists. Some of the Jewish leaders in the kingdom did not heed his plea for calm and reason on both sides; in Zaragoza in 1232 there was issued a counterban against the op­ ponents of Maimonides. This led to further opposi­ tion, and that year (apparently) in Montpellier the “Guide,” and perhaps also the “Book of knowledge,” or introductory book to Maimonides’ code of law, were burned. The controversy continued to the end of the century, involving Jewish leaders in Spain (Castile as well as Aragon-Catalonia), Provence, and the Land of Israel. (It has frequently been claimed that church authorities were at least partly responsi­ ble for the attack, in spite of the fact that a letter pub­ lished in the last century by Harkavy, and since ig­ nored, proves that the bishop of Paris had defended the “Guide,” in a decree posted in the synagogues.) A new phase in the argument began sometime around 1306, when Abba Mari of Lunel, who had moved to Montpellier and later to Arles, wrote to Ibn Adret to inform him of the allegorical interpretations circulating in Provence of Abraham and Sarah as “form” and “matter.” This aroused Ibn Adrets fury (although it is curious that he himself had compared Jacob and Rachel to the sun and moon; Responsa I. 60) and soon led him to a violent attack against philosophers in general, who “blow the trumpet” and overnight the religious covenant is abandoned. The name of Spain is “blackened” by them, he wrote, and even the people of Provence have become corrupted and are spreading the danger. After much controversy and exchange of letters, it was finally decided by the Barcelona leaders, with Ibn Adret at their head, to seek the agreement of the Provencal communities in imposing a ban on the study of philosophy. One of his students was Samson b. Meir (Samson was an extremely unusual name in Spain; undoubt­ edly he was of French descent, although born in Toledo). In a letter he wrote to Abba Mari in Mont­ pellier in connection with the controversy over the study of philosophy, Samson said that he had gath­ ered all the correspondence between his teacher Ibn Adret and Abba Mari and all the letters from other communities of Provence to his teacher about this and made of them a compilation (codex). Further­ 338

more, he had gone to his place of birth, Toledo, and to other communities to arouse them to join in the ban against those who taught or professed the ex­ treme allegorical views to which Ibn Adret and some of the Provence scholars objected. He adds, “and be­ cause our rabbi [Ibn Adret] raised me like a father from the day I came to this land [Catalonia] and learned from him, he said to me that I should be a sheliah mi$vah [agent doing a good deed, or com­ mandment] in this thing,” just as he had been when he was sent to Castile and Navarre and other com­ munities to raise money on behalf of the nagid'D avid, grandson of Maimonides (some 5,000 novenos [so the corrupted text should be read; this undoubtedly would be the maravedis novenos, coined by Alfonso X] were raised for him). The “secular” scholars of Provence did not sit idly by while the threat of the ban was gaining support. Members of the renowned Ibn Tibbon family and others reacted vigorously to what they perceived to be an attack not only on the teaching of philosophy, which it was, but also on the writings and even the reputation of Maimonides, Samuel Ibn Tibbon, and others, which it was not. In fact, Ibn Adret himself had at least an acquaintance with philosophy, and he had great respect for Maimonides and for the Ibn Tibbon family. Finally, in 1305, with the support of many of the Provencal communities, a ban was en­ acted against anyone studying Greek (not Jewish) philosophical or scientific writings until the age of twenty-five (in contrast to the age of forty that Ibn Adret originally wished). The Barcelona ban added only that the study of medical texts was exempted. Not to be outdone, some of the scholars of Montpel­ lier who supported secular study imposed their own ban against the prohibition of such study. Ibn Adret succeeded in disparaging that ban, on legal and ideo­ logical grounds. The final stage in the struggle came in the form of a lengthy reply, a treatise really, by Yeda yah Bedersi to Ibn Adret in which he defended not only philosophy but secular knowledge in gen­ eral (this brilliant “vindication” is also important for the cultural history of the Jews in Provence). Unfor­ tunately we do not possess a reply from Ibn Adret, but it would have been irrelevant as far as the out­ come of the struggle since the bans by both the Barcelona and the Provencal communities had tem­ porarily achieved victory. Yet within a generation or

Ibn Adret, Solomon b. Abraham

less, the ban had largely been forgotten and the study of philosophy and science continued as before. How­ ever, there can be little doubt that the antiphilosophical attitude of the adherents of QABBALAH was influ­ enced by this controversy. M ysticism a n d Qabbalah Ibn Adret, who constantly acknowledges his indebt­ edness to Maimonides, was in fact strongly influ­ enced by philosophy. Thus, in his commentary on aggadot of the Talmud (p. 28) he matter-of-factly states that the angels are “separate intellects”; his teacher Nahmanides had already said the same (com­ mentary on Ex. 20.3). This is in spite of the fact that elsewhere in the book he admittedly polemicizes against philosophy. (See as examples of his philo­ sophical responsa: I. 9, 408, 409, 413-16; IV. 234.) He was, however, equally influenced by qabbalah. Sometimes he borrowed whole sections from the qabbalist Azriel of Gerona. In fact, the very order of Ibn Adrets commentary is based on that of Azriel: he uses the same order of tractates and chooses al­ most the same pages to comment upon, except that Azriels commentary concludes with Haggigah and Ibn Adrets with Hullin. This does not mean, however, that Ibn Adret was in any sense a qabbalist, although it is clear that he was strongly influenced by qabbalistic notions. He was hardly the founder, or head, of any “qabbalistic school,” as Scholem and his followers have claimed, although a few of his students later wrote qabbalistic works. (As an example of the confusion, there was no work “Zeror [$eror] ha-Hayyim” by one Hayyim b. Samuel of Lerida, one of this “school” according to Scholem, who described the work as a “Kabbalistic exposition of halakhic matters.” There are, in fact, two works by this title, one of which is a brief frag­ ment of a qabbalistic work that has nothing to do with “halakhic matters,” and probably was written centuries later. The other, indeed on Jewish law, was by Ibn Adrets student I^ayyim b. Samuel b. David of Tudela, not Lerida, and has nothing to do with qab­ balah) In his famous responsum (I. 548) concerning the so-called prophet of Avila, Ibn Adret says there are all kinds of people who claim to know about things that never were and never existed, and one such was the contemptible and evil Abraham, who made himself a

prophet and messiah, misleading many Jews until he (Ibn Adret) “shut the gate before him” through his many writings and the writings of others of the com­ munity (Barcelona). This peculiar individual was Abraham Abulafia (b. 1240), a cousin of the wellknown Meir A b u l a f i a of Toledo. Born in Zaragoza, he spent his youth in Tudela. When he was eighteen his father, who had been his teacher, died, and two years later he set out for the East in search of the leg­ endary Sambation River, from which futile quest he went to Greece and then Italy. Around 1270 he re­ turned to Spain, leaving again for Italy in 1274. His particular form of qabbalah was heavily depen­ dent on peculiar interpretations of the Bible, arguing among other things that the letters of the text could be rearranged in any order one chose so that they would “reveal” hidden meanings. In 1280 he went to Rome to speak with the pope (whether his intention was, as sometimes claimed, to “convert” the pope is un­ known; in any case the pope gave orders that if he at­ tempted to speak on Jewish matters he was to be ar­ rested and burned at the stake, but “miraculously” he was saved from the decree). Clearly he made claims that he was a prophet, perhaps the messiah, according to Ibn Adrets statement. Unfortunately we do not have any of the “writings” by Ibn Adret or others against Abraham, but the latter’s rebuttal, contained in a letter to a certain Judah Salmon (or Salamon), has been published. From this it would appear that per­ haps at least part of Ibn Adrets attack on him was connected with the controversy over Maimonidean philosophy. Ahituv b. Isaac of Palermo, one of the translators of Maimonides’ treatise on logic, also joined in the fight against Abulafia and corresponded with Ibn Adret (he has escaped the notice of the ex­ perts on qabbalah, and his own philosophical treatise has been noted only by non-Jewish authors). Works 1. Commentaries on the Talmud. Most, if not all, were written while Nahmanides was still living, thus, before 1270. It is curious that Ibn Adret rarely, if ever, mentions anything that he heard from Nah­ manides directly, even in the novellae written while he was still alive; rather, it is always from what he read in his teacher’s own novellae. At times he was not reluctant to disagree with what Nahmanides had written. While he always cites Nahmanides by name, 339

Ibn Adret, Solomon b. Abraham

times in his responsa. Again, it is interesting that it his citations of his other teacher, Jonah b. Abraham was widely known in his own lifetime, as was the Gerundi, are usually simply “my teacher and rabbi, greatly abridged version that he wrote, Torat ha-bayit of blessed memory”; only sometimes does he add the ha-qiy$$ur (see Responsa I. 272). name. He frequently cites Maimonides, very rarely The book had been circulating for some time; the disagreeing with him. Very important are his careful author brags that it was known “beyond the seas; efforts to discover accurate manuscript texts of the North and West,” when Aaron b. Joseph ha-Levy, Talmud, making numerous corrections in the stan­ who also had been a student of Nahmanides, wrote dard text (a particularly interesting example is on Bedeq ha-bayit, a sharp critique of the work. He was Shabbat 30b, citing an ancient book corrected in the an important scholar, who lived in Zaragoza and died academies of the G eo n im ). in 1293, according to Abraham Zacut. He was one of From his own references to his talmudic commen­ the teachers of Yom Tov Ishblll. Aaron pretended, taries, we know that his responsa were (most, any­ for whatever reason, that he did not know who had way) written after the commentaries; more interest­ written the Torat ha-bayit, but he repeatedly dis­ ing, perhaps, is the fact that some communities agreed with the author. Ibn Adret felt that he had already had copies of his commentaries and sent no choice but to respond, also in thinly disguised questions to him about what he had written (e.g., “anonymity” (using such expressions as “the author from Lerida, IV. 114). Not all of the talmudic com­ said . . . ,” etc.), with the title Mishmeret ha-bayit mentaries he wrote are extant; thus, for example, he (which also immediately circulated in Spain and refers to his commentary on Baba Batra (Responsa V. Provence; Responsa I. 261). Here he dropped his 72), of which only some citations survived in the usual humility and attacked Aaron in the harshest shiyfah miqube$et of Besalel Ashkenazi. and most abusive language; at one point saying that Not all of the commentaries attributed to Ibn one of his “difficulties” (challenges to him) should be Adret are actually by him; that on Ketuvot, for exam­ told to asses and is fit only for children; and with re­ ple, is mostly (but not all) by Nahmanides. gard to a challenge on a matter relating to medicine In addition to his regular commentaries, he also he says that he is more expert than Aaron, for he wrote a commentary on the aggadot (homiletic mate­ knows that he does not know, whereas his opponent rial) of the Talmud. This work, which has been pub­ does not know that he does not know, applying a say­ lished, was cited by his student Bahya (on Num. ing that he attributes to Aristotle. The saying, cor­ 21.34) while Ibn Adret was still alive. 2. Torat ha-bayit. This legal compilation in rupt in the text, should read: “I only have that I know that I do not know,” and in fact is from the three parts deals with laws of slaughter and examina­ anonymous collection of proverbs called Mishley tion of meat, “libatious” wine (i.e., wine touched by hakhamiym. Gentiles and thus forbidden for Jewish consump­ 3. A ‘ vodat ha-qodesh. A separate book, but sort tion), and laws concerning women. He wrote this of a supplement to Torat ha-bayit, this work deals rather lengthy and at times complex work for Jews with the laws of enclosures, private and public do­ eager to know the fundamental laws of permitted mains with regard to holidays and the Sabbath, and and prohibited things, particularly the young men preparation of food on holidays. It is possible that and especially those who lived scattered in villages Ibn Adret’s nemesis, Aaron b. Joseph ha-Levy, was (as, in fact, Jews in Spain were). He presented it as a deceased already when this book was written; in any “prepared table,” a term that no doubt influenced Joseph Caro in the sixteenth century as the title for case, there are no strictures from him on it. This work is cited once in his responsa (IV. 68). his definitive code of laws. Here, in contrast to his talmudic commentaries, he cites not only French but 4. Responsa. Ibn Adret answered questions, legal or on matters of interpretation of biblical or even German authorities, as well as such Spanish scholars as Judah b. Barzilay of Barcelona, notably rabbinical texts, from all over the world. Not all of absent in those commentaries. It was composed late these have survived. Hayyim b. Moses Ibn Habib, in his life, prior to 1293 or 1300 (year of Aaron b. one of Spanish exiles (after 1492) in Fez, collected Joseph ha-Levys death). He cited the work a few more than 3,000 responsa of Ibn Adret in a work 340

Ibn ‘Aknin, Joseph b. Judah

that he titled Sefer ha-battiym, which was seen by Hayyim Azulay. His famous relative, Jacob Ibn Habib, already cited the first (Rome) printed edition of Ibn Adret’s responsa, as did Meir of Padua some­ what later. Aaron ha-Kohen of Lunel cites an unpub­ lished responsum by Ibn Adret in which he men­ tioned having seen the manuscript of the Mishneh Torah in Maimonides’ own handwriting. He was also the first medieval authority to cite Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah (Responsa I. 330 and 390); indeed, he was responsible for arranging the translation of that commentary from Judeo-Arabic into Hebrew. Abraham Berliner also claimed that Ibn Adret was the first to cite Natan of Rome’s dictionary {‘Arukh)', though it is true that he cited it, not only in his novellae on the Talmud but also in his responsa (unknown to Berliner), in fact his teacher Nah­ manides was the first to cite that work. It appears that he had copies of his collected re­ sponsa sent to various communities, or else they re­ quested them; this is mentioned in his replies, “if you search in my responsa which you have there in your city you will find this explained” (so, for example to Lerida, IV. 61; Calatayud, IV. 114). Although they were written over a period of years, it is clear that most date from the latter part of his life, and after his other works that are frequently cited there. There are some errors in the printed editions, owing either to copyists or to modern editors who were unfa­ miliar with certain words or read them incorrectly, and there are many Spanish (Castilian and Catalan) words and expressions, some of which have also been incor­ rectly transcribed. This makes the task of producing a truly critical edition of the responsa very difficult be­ cause a knowledge of these languages, historical events, and place names (also sometimes corrupt) is essential. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baer, Yitzhak. The Jews in Christian Spain (Philadel­ phia, 1966), Vol. 1 (index); more detail in the Heb. original or the Spanish translation. Perles, Jfoseph]. R. Salomo b. Abraham b. Adereth. Sein Leben und seine Schriften (Breslau, 1863); im­ portant study. Roth, Norman. “Forgery and Abrogation of the Torah: A Theme in Muslim and Christian

Polemic in Spain,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 44 (1987): 203-36. Sarachek, Joseph. Faith and Reason. The Conflict Over the Rationalism o f Maimonides (New York, 1935; photo rpt. 1970).

Ibn ‘Aknin, Joseph b. Judah

One of the most famous works in Jewish history, known throughout the world and available in trans­ lations in many languages, is the “Guide of the Per­ plexed” (.Moreh nevukhiym is the title of its Hebrew translation) by Moses b. Maimon (M AIM O N ID ES). He wrote this book in the first instance for a former student, who was “perplexed” by various expressions in the Bible and rabbinical teachings. For centuries the full name of that student was unknown, until in 1842 a French Jewish scholar, Salomon Munk (who also did an important French translation of the “Guide,” with valuable notes), wrote an article (see Bibliography) in which he identified that student as Joseph b. Judah Ibn Shim‘on. Munk’s position was sustained by A. Neubauer (M.G.W.J. [1870]: 348ff.), and in 1873 the distinguished scholar Michael Giidemann (see Bibliography) had correctly identi­ fied Ibn Aknin as the author of Tlhb al-nujus (p. 34 of the German text, last line). Incredibly, Joseph Sambari, an otherwise often ill-informed chronicler (he wrote in 1672), already knew the correct name of Maimonides’ student, “Joseph b. Judah b. Shimon ha-Maaraviy ( =of the West, the Maghrib or North Africa); see the excerpt published by Neubauer (Me­ diaeval Jewish Chronicles, Oxford, 1887,1, 122). Unfortunately, the objection of the young Moritz Steinschneider, later a remarkable scholar, misled the majority of scholars in the nineteenth century and many in the twentieth century to identify Joseph b. Judah Ibn Aknin as Maimonides’ student. This was a name known to scholars as the author of various works, available at the time only in manuscript, and the identification was universally accepted. In fact, however, the identification is false; it is now known beyond question that the student for whom Mai­ monides wrote was Joseph b. Judah Ibn Shimon and not Ibn Aknin; yet many scholars continued to write erroneously that it was Ibn Aknin (e.g., Vajda, Baron, Schirmann, Twersky, and others). In Stein-

Ibn ‘Aknin, Joseph b. Judah

schneider’s article on the commentary on the Torah by Ibn Bilam (he-Halu$ 2 [1853]), he mentions (pp. 60-61) his discovery of the manuscript of Tibb alnufus and that he told Leopold Dukes that he no longer doubted that it was the work of Ibn ‘Aknin (whom he still confused as the student of Mai­ monides). Later, in his invaluable, and still authoritative, study of Die arabische Literatur der Juden (Frankfurt am Main, 1902, p. 228), Steinschneider changed his opinion and gave the name of Maimonides’ stu­ dent as Joseph b. Judah b. Isaac (or Joseph) b. Jacob ha-dayyan al-Barceloni [!] “b. Simon,” and in Arabic Abu’l-Hajjaj Yusuf b. Yahya Ibn “Sham un” (Shimcun) al-Sabtl ( =of Ceuta), thus hopelessly con­ fusing Ibn Aknin (of Barcelona) with Ibn Shimon, or Shim‘un in Arabic (of Ceuta). Steinschneider had already made the same error in his article in Ersch and Gruber’s AllgemeineEncyclopaedie (1885) II, 45-58 (reprinted in his Gesammelte Schriften). When Wilhelm Z. Bacher, a brilliant scholar of the history of Hebrew grammar and early medieval biblical exegesis, edited the commentary on the ethi­ cal Mishnah Pirqey Avot (“Ethics of the Fathers,” as it is commonly known) of Ibn Aknin, he then followed Steinschneider in compounding error upon error and assigning all the works written by Ibn Aknin to the “important pupil” for whom Maimonides wrote the “Guide” (p. viii of his introduction), even though the Tibb al-nufus is mentioned in that work, and Steinschneider and Giidemann had already correctly identified that as the work of Ibn Aknin. Possibly be­ cause of this confusion, he further made the incorrect statement that most of the commentary is taken from Avot de-Rav Natan and from the commentary of Maimonides on Avot; in fact, the author disagrees with Maimonides, whom he cites, many times (see especially pp. 96, 119-21, and see pp. ix and x of Bacher’s introduction where he himself recognized this). In spite of the fact that on the title page of the book, Sefer musar peirush mishnat Avot, he gave the name of the author simply as “Joseph ben Judah,” Bacher left no room for doubt about his identifica­ tion when he wrote (p. ix) that the author was called “Alsabtiy” (sic) by the name of his birthplace (!) Ceuta, “and he was further known by his appellative Ibn Aqnin (written also Ibn Aknin).”

342

All of this is, of course, wrong, including the claim that there are two ways of spelling the name Ibn Aknin (attested in sources and the only correct spelling; most American libraries continue to spell it “Ibn Aqnin”). Bacher then attributed all the works by Ibn Aknin to this author from Ceuta, the student of Maimonides. Astonishing is the fact that Bacher noted that “the author himself mentions his full [!] name at the beginning of the book” (p. viii; see p. 1 of the text). In fact, the author there said that his name was Joseph b. Judah b. Jacob ha-Sefardiy (“the Spaniard”). Bacher also stated that to this title in other works is added the appellative al-Barjilum (“of Barcelona”). The appellative al-Barjilum was used by numerous scholars who lived in Barcelona (see, e.g., Halberstam’s introduction to his edition of Judah b. Barzilay’s commentary on Seferye$iyrah [Berlin, 1885], p. xvii, to which list add a Benjamin al-Barjilum, cited by Joseph Ibn Nahmias of Toledo in his com­ mentary on Jeremiah; Abraham b. Judah b. Hasdai al-Barjilum, father of the philosopher Hasdai Crescas, also cited by Ibn Nahmias, in his commentary on Avot; and, of course, Ibn Aknin, strangely over­ looked by Halberstam; nor was Judah b. Barzilay a student of Isaac b. Reuben as Halberstam indicated that “some say”). It should also be noted that Isaac b. Reuben, whose commentary on Avot is mentioned by Ibn Aknin (see Bacher’s introduction, p. xvi), was born in Barcelona but lived in Denia, in Muslim Spain. It is not unlikely, therefore, that Ibn Aknin saw his commentary before he himself left Seville and went to live in Barcelona. It was not until 1946 that an outstanding scholar and expert Arabist in Israel (then Palestine), David H. (Zvi) Baneth, corrected the error, in his edition of letters to and from Maimonides (Iggerot, Jerusalem, 1946, p. 1) and wrote that Joseph b. Judah Ibn Shimon was the student for whom Maimonides wrote the “Guide.” In spite of his reputation and the importance of that publication of letters that either had not before been published or had been in cor­ rupt editions, his statement was ignored. In 1964 Baneth wrote an article, unfortunately published in a somewhat obscure journal (see Bibliography), in which he acknowledged that, in fact, Munk had al­ ready discovered that Maimonides’ student was not Ibn Aknin but Ibn Shimon. In that article, Baneth

Ibn ‘Aknin, Joseph b. Judah

mustered more than sufficient evidence to prove that this was so. But if scholars could not be bothered to read his article in this journal, there is hardly any ex­ cuse for having overlooked his more important ear­ lier article on the philosophical work of Ibn Shimon published already in Tarbiz in 1958 (see Bibliogra­ phy). There he wrote specifically that Ibn Shimon was the student for whom Maimonides wrote the “Guide,” and gave essentially the same background for the error. This was not some unknown scholar, nor was this an obscure publication; it was a widely recognized authority, writing on a subject that should have been of interest to every Jewish scholar, in a journal read by (one hopes) every Jewish scholar, and yet it was again ignored. (Libraries, for example, con­ tinue to catalog Ibn Shimon’s philosophical treatise under the name of “Ibn Aqnin”.) Julius Guttmann, an important historian of Jewish philosophy, also was confused when he wrote that Mai­ monides “younger contemporary” Ibn Aknin was born in Spain “and settled afterwards in Morocco, where he may have made the acquaintance of Mai­ monides” (Philosophies o f Judaism, 1964, p. 188; trans­ lated, with many errors, from the German edition of 1933). As we shall see, Ibn Aknin never left Spain, much less for Morocco, which at that time was the cap­ ital of the ALMOHADS from whom he fled (Mai­ monides had briefly gone to Fez, which at that time had no persecution of Jews). At least Guttmann was one of the very few writers who recognized that Ibn Shimon, and not Ibn Aknin, was Maimonides’ stu­ dent (p. 190; yet in the note there, the uninformed translator, obviously not Guttmann himself, made the incorrect remark that Baneth “has recently contested this identification”! In the following note, the transla­ tor erroneously added the name “Joseph ibn Aknin” as the author of Ibn Shim’on’s philosophical treatise (p. 435, notes 151, 152). This has only added to the con­ fusion of modern writers who do not consult the earlier works. Schirmann, in his anthology of Hebrew poetry from Spain, edited several chapters of al-Iiarizi’s Tahkemoniy, including the reference to Joseph Ibn Shimon (ha-Shiyrah ha-‘ivriyt bi-Sfarad u-viProvans [Tel Aviv, 1956] II, 142, “corrected” this to Ibn Aknin (n. 225), adding the usual confusion about his being from Ceuta. In the text itself, al-yarizi specifically says

“Yosef bar-Yehudah bar-Shimon,” that is, Ibn Shimon. Further, he praised not only his poetry but also his “charming mat?beret,” meaning maqamah (rhymed prose story; see LITERATURE and see below on Ibn Shim on), as Schirmann correctly pointed out (n. 226). What is important here, however, and confirms unquestionably the identification of Ibn Shimon, is that Maimonides, in his dedicatory letter to his pupil “Joseph, son of Judah” at the opening of the “Guide,” wrote that he had come not from “the country farthest away,” as Pines translated, but “the farthest city” (balad, which can mean both “country” and “city,” but in this case the latter, since of course it refers to Ceuta). He then mentions the letters and maqdmat (see the Arabic text) that Joseph had sent him from Alexandria. All of this should have alerted scholars to the actual identity of Maimonides’ pupil, but it did not. In 1964, Halkin published his edition and transla­ tion (Hebrew) of the important commentary of Ibn Aknin on Song of Songs, and correctly remarked that he is not to be confused with the student of Mai­ monides. However, he incorrectly concluded that Ibn Aknin was born in Barcelona and that “after he left his birthplace, he dwelled in Fez in North Africa” (p. 11 of the introduction). In a note, Halkin actually cited Baneth’s introduction to Maimonides’ letters, and he also cited Steinschneider in support of his idea that Ibn Aknin went to Fez. Steinschneider had cited an anonymous manuscript of questionable reli­ ability and authority, and quite apart from that, the writer of the manuscript was more likely referring to Maimonides, not Ibn Aknin. Halkin also cited a statement from the commentary itself as evidence of this. There, Ibn Aknin said that he wrote some verse “at the time when the luminary of the age” (Mai­ monides) “departed” (p. 430 of text, lines 19-20; p. 431 of translation). This does not, of course, mean that Ibn Aknin was in Fez, but rather that he wrote those verses when Maimonides left Spain. We shall return to the relationship between Ibn Aknin and Maimonides. Yishaq Shilat, editor of a critical edi­ tion of Maimonides’ letters in 1987 (although se­ verely criticized by Blau, there is much value in this edition, especially the introductions and notes to the letters), still maintained that Ibn Aknin was “one of the scholars of Fez in Morocco, who merited meeting Maimonides there” (I, 25).

Ibn ‘Aknin, Joseph b. Judah

Let it be clear, once and for all, that Ibn ‘Aknin was never in Fez and that he never met Maimonides. It is also unlikely that ‘Ibn Shimon, the real student of Maimonides, was ever in Fez. Astonishingly, Isadore Twersky, in an article on the Mishneh Torah (in Alexander Altmann, ed., Jew ­ ish M edieval and Renaissance Studies [Cambridge, Mass., 1967]), wrote about the first letter that “Joseph ben Judah (Ibn Aknin)” sent to Mai­ monides, and cited Baneth’s edition as his source! (Baneth, as noted, clearly said that the letter was from Ibn Shimon, not Ibn ‘Aknin. But Twersky thought that there were two people named Ibn ‘Aknin, one the student of Maimonides, and the other a contemporary “also named Joseph Ibn Aknin”! Without dealing with other serious errors in the article, attention should be called to another ref­ erence to Maimonides’ letter to “Ibn Aknin” when it should be Ibn Shimon (p. 113 and again on p. 115). In his Introduction to the Code o f Maimonides (Mish­ neh Torah), published in 1980, he generally seems to have realized his mistake, and there referred through­ out to Maimonides’ pupil simply as “Joseph ben Judah,” without a family name. However, he made the error of ascribing the Sefer [ha\-musar of Ibn ‘Aknin to “Joseph ben Judah,” Maimonides’ pupil (p. 210 n. 53; yet on p. 5 n. 6, he correctly attributed that work to Ibn ‘Aknin). He then inexplicably men­ tioned one of Maimonides’ letters to “Ibn Aknin” (p. 495, and yet again on p. 499), as if any such letters ever existed! If such an acclaimed scholar could make mistakes like this, it is little wonder that there has been general confusion as to the identity of Mai­ monides’ pupil and of Ibn ‘Aknin. Joseph Ibn Shim ‘on, P u pil o f M aimonides

Very little is known of the life of Joseph Ibn Shimon. He was born in Morocco, apparently Ceuta, and learned from Muslim teachers, which was not un­ usual at the time (see EDUCATION). As far as is known, he was never in Fez. When the ALMOHADS came to power, he fled to Alexandria, where he sent letters and maqamat (see above) to Maimonides, and then went to Fustat, the suburb of Cairo where Jews lived, to study with him. Around 1185 he settled in Aleppo as a businessman and court physician. Judah

344

al-FIarizi, the author and poet from Spain, who also translated Maimonides’ “Guide” into Hebrew (al­ though not as popular as Ibn Tibbon’s translation), saw Ibn Shimon in Aleppo in 1217—1218, and praised him highly in his Tahkemoniy (Gate 46. 20-21 and 23). An important source is the wazir Ibn al-Qiftl, who reported about Ibn Shimon that “he traveled with his possessions and arrived in Egypt and met Moses b. Maimon, rats a lyah u d [“head of the Jews”] in Egypt (Tarikh al-hukamd, ed. J. Lippert [Leipzig, 1903], p. 392, lines 20-21). We know that Ibn Shimon studied philosophy, and possibly also science, with Maimonides. Further details are ob­ scure. Ibn al-Qiftl adds that Maimonides asked Ibn Shimon to correct Ibn Aflah of Seville’s work on as­ tronomy, which he had brought with him from Ceuta, and together they produced a corrected copy of this important work (we know otherwise nothing about this; Maimonides had studied with students of Ibn Aflah in Spain). Ibn Shimon, who as noted was a court physician (to the amir in Baghdad, and also to the son of Saladin), may be identical with “Joseph al-nasiy” of Aleppo, who translated various medical works. He was the author of at least one (Arabic) medical treatise, unpublished, and of a commentary on the “Aphorisms” of Hippocrates, and of a philosophical work, which survived only in Hebrew translation and that with many errors and lacunae (it was edited with an English translation, Treatise as to Necessary Exis­ tencey by Judah Magnes (Berlin, 1904); naturally he attributed it to Ibn ‘Aknin; see Baneth’s article, with important corrections). Whether or not he converted to Islam (Baneth thought that the introductory praise of all the prophets, a typical Muslim expression, indi­ cated this, but Jews also used pious Muslim formulas in their writing), perhaps before he fled to Egypt or perhaps even later in Aleppo, as has been suggested, is not known for certain. (More about Ibn Shimon can be found in Sefer ha-yovel. . . B. M. Lewin, 1939, pp. 27-41; Sefer ha-yovel. . . [Louis] Ginzberg, pp. 164-70, and the aforementioned articles by Baneth).

—

Ibn ‘A knin Biographical Details To begin with, Ibn ‘Aknin was not born in Barcelona, nor does he ever say that he was. In the long form of

Ibn ‘Aknin, Joseph b. Judah

his name, Joseph, b. Judah, b. Joseph b. Jacob hadayyan, it is his great-grandfather Jacob who is desig­ nated as al-Barjilum, “of Barcelona,” not Joseph him­ self (Bacher, op. cit., p. viii n. 2, erroneously stated that Ibn ‘Aknin added the term Sefardiy, “Spaniard,” in the introduction to his Tibb al-nufus, but that also applied not to him but to his great-grandfather). In fact, Ibn ‘Aknin lived in Seville in Muslim Spain (alAndalus). This we learn from Bahya b. Asher Ibn Hallawa of Zaragoza, who in his commentary on the Torah (1291) explained a passage according to the explanation of “a philosopher, who is a sage of our Torah who was in Seville” in his commentary on Song of Songs; because Ibn ‘Aknin s work was written “in a foreign language” (Arabic), Bahya translated the passage into Hebrew (Rabbeinu Bahya biyur ‘a l haTorah, ed. Charles Chavel [Jerusalem, 1982] I, 282, Gen. 32.30; in n. 42 there Chavel refers to his intro­ duction, but in fact he said nothing there about this). The passage he cites is in fact from Ibn ‘Aknin s com­ mentary on Song of Songs, pp. 130-31, line 23 ff. By the time Baya wrote this, of course, Ibn ‘Aknin had long been dead. From his other writings, we know that he fled al-Andalus sometime after the Almohads invaded, since he was still there when Maimonides and his family left Cordoba. There is no point in going over all the details of his attitude to the Almo­ hads and their persecution of the Jews, about which I have written in detail (Roth, p. 122 ff.). It is impor­ tant to note here that in chapter 6 of the still unpub­ lished Tibb al-nufus, written in 1190 or shortly thereafter, he disagreed with Maimonides about the nature of the persecution by the Almohads, contend­ ing that it was religious persecution (shemad), and that, contrary to Maimonides, Jews were therefore required to sanctify Gods name by martyrdom. Those who remained, among whom he apparently included himself (before he fled), are to be consid­ ered as “desecrators of the Name in public, by com­ pulsion and not willfully.” It is probable that he tem­ porarily appeared to have accepted Islam in order to avoid death. When he was able, he left for Barcelona in Christian Spain, where he wrote his commentaries on Avot and Song of Songs, both of which allude to the Almohad persecution (see Roth, p. 124). It seems highly likely that he was a physician, at least while he was in al-Andalus but probably also in

Barcelona, not only because of his profound work Tibb al-nujus, but also his well-informed physiologi­ cal-medical remarks in Sefer musar, p. 169. His Writings

Perhaps his first work (at least he mentions it first) was Tibb al-nufus (Remedy of the souls; usually tibb means “medicine,” but this is more psychological and ethical. The plural form “souls” is important; thus Halkin’s translation refuat ha-nefesh, p. 143, is incor­ rect. Both Bacher and Assaf—see below—translated the title correctly). It is a tragedy that this work, ex­ tant in manuscript, has not yet been edited, much less translated, except for one chapter dealing with education and “classification of the sciences” that was edited by Giidemann and summarized by him in German. An extremely abridged Hebrew translation (by S. Eppenstein) is found also in Simha Assaf, ed., Meqorot le-toldot ha-hiynukh be-Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1931), 2, 36—40 (so abridged as to give little idea of the brilliance of the original). Much of the section there translated derives from al-Ghazall, Mizan al‘amal, of which there is also a Hebrew translation by Abraham b. I^asdai (see excerpt in Assaf, p. 40 ff.; it is curious that Abraham knew nothing of this earlier translation). According to what Ibn ‘Aknin wrote in his commentary on Song of Songs (pp. 142-43, lines 4-5), this work also contains commentary on various verses of the Bible. He cited it in other works (e.g., commentary on Avot, p. 58, and frequently in the commentary on Song of Songs). He wrote a major work, apparently, called Huqiym ve-mishpafiym (Laws and judgments), cited in his commentary on Avot, p. 19 (line 25), and also in his commentary on Song of Songs (pp. 142-43, line 7), where he also mentions that it dealt with metaphysi­ cal or mystical issues. From the title, one would as­ sume it was a legal (halakhic) work, but this may not be correct. In fact, from his extremely interesting dis­ cussion of what one must know about secular learn­ ing in general (Sefer musar, p. 82), where he says of this that it is froq ve-mishpat to know this, it is obvi­ ous that he used the term in general for “moral obli­ gation” or the like. Curiously, for one so rational in his general ap­ proach (insistence on knowledge of sciences, geome­ try, physics) and devotion to philosophy, Ibn Aknin

345

Ibn ‘Aknin, Joseph b. Judah

had also a mystical bent, as is clear in his insistence that the “angel” that God promised to send as a guide (Ex. 23.20) is Gabriel, a name that is a compound of “strength” and “God” (pp. 102, 103), and in various passages of his commentary on Song of Songs (e.g., pp. 12-13, where he explains that the “Active Intel­ lect” is Gabriel; see the index there for other ex­ amples). Nothing of this is found in Maimonides, of course (though he did compare the “separate intel­ lects” allegorically to angels), and in fact Ibn Aknin here (p. 103) contradicts what Maimonides said. His source for this idea seems to be JUDAH HA-LEVY, who wrote of the revelation at Mount Sinai that “prophecy did not (as philosophers assume) burst forth in a pure soul, [and] become united with the Active Intellect (also termed Holy Spirit or Gabriel),” but rather was direct communication with God (Kuzari I. 87; tr. Hartwig Hirschfeld [London, 1905], p. 61). The next book Ibn Aknin mentions is Sefer hamusar (so, in Hebrew in the Arabic text, and not Sefer musar as Bacher published the title, a peculiar error for a grammarian). Obviously he wrote this work in Hebrew since he does not provide an Arabic name for it, and he wrote it after moving to Barcelona. This commentary on Avot is much longer than Maimonides’ commentary, and it includes many extraneous comments, including interpreta­ tions of biblical passages. Both Ibn Aknin and Mai­ monides were concerned about the growing influ­ ence of the heretical QARAITE sect in al-Andalus, and this is reflected in the similarity of their comments on I. 3 (although, to strengthen his point probably, Ibn Aknin there, p. 8, does cite the text of the mish­ nah from Avot de-R’Natan [cf. ed. Finkelstein (nusah a), p. 43]). His comments on I. 6 are partly derived from Maimonides, but whereas Ibn Aknin cites “Greek sages”(the text is corrupt) that your compan­ ion is like you, Maimonides cites Aristotle that one who [truly] loves you is a second soul for you. The “poet” whom Ibn Aknin quotes is Judah ha-Levy; the rest of the commentary there is also similar to Mai­ monides, but misses the point he made (at the end, p. 12, he wrote that all this is the “essence” of what Maimonides said, but in fact he virtually rewrote it). Note that he wrote this commentary when Mai­ monides was still alive (he uses the term of blessing for one still living); thus, line 21, which mentions 346

Maimonides with the blessing for the dead, must have been added in a later recension of the text. On I. 17 he quotes Maimonides’ commentary, but again in a slightly abbreviated and variant form (p. 22). On IV. 22 (p. 130ff.) he cites the “intellect of the genera­ tion” (Maimonides, again with the blessing for one still alive), and the citation in fact is from his Shemoneh peraqiym, chapter 6. In spite of his deep re­ spect for Maimonides, he was not above disagreeing with him, sometimes sharply (cf., e.g., pp. 12, 20, 96, 119-21, and see p. ix of Bacher’s introduction). There are many profound comments, or more properly discourses, in the work, such as his discus­ sion of providence (pp. 62-71; on p. 71 the “essence” of the explanation of Maimonides cited is, in fact, from the “Guide”). In the bibliography (p. 203) of Maimonidean Criticism, Daniel Silver lists “Ibn Aknin—Perush al Pirke Abot, edited by David Kaufmann and anno­ tated by Menahem Enten. Budapest, 1909.” No such title exists, and Kaufmann died several years before that date. The explanation can be found in the intro­ duction to Sefer musar: Bacher wrote that the manu­ script had belonged to Kaufmann, who did nothing with it, and Bacher’s pupil Enten wrote a book in Hungarian about the manuscript, which is the myste­ rious book referred to by Silver. Ibn Aknln’s commentary on Song of Songs was also written, or at least begun, before his commentary on Avot, since he mentions it in the latter. As with many medieval writers, he may have made different recensions of the work, because in the commentary on Song of Songs (p. 143) he refers to Sefer ha-musar. He employed a twofold approach in his commentary, philosophical and allegorical. His discussion of allegory is very important. (Albatin, literally “hidden,” which Halkin translated as torat ha-sod or secret teaching, actually refers to alle­ gory.) A Muslim sect of allegorizers were known as Bafiniyya, and it is this to which Ibn Aknin refers, line 17—indeed, he uses the very term—and not “ba‘a ley ha-nistar as Halkin translated (which im­ plies “mystics” or the like). On p. 145, he explains the difference between his approach and that of Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah (the “Guide” is not mentioned there), which is a topic that needs further investigation in general. It is interesting to note that although he apparently fol­

Ibn ‘Aknin, Joseph b. Judah

lowed Judah ha-Levy (although negatively, of course: that is, he took what ha-Levy dismissed as the view of philosophers) with regard to Gabriel being the Active Intellect, he disagreed with him, without naming him, with regard to Gods “repentance” after trying Israel and exiling them (p. 261; cf. Kuzari II. 24, tr. Hirschfeld, p. 100). Of interest also is his remark about having learned something from “the great and perfect sage Rabbi Joseph b. Isaac Shdm f (Sham is Is­ rael in Arabic), who is also mentioned by Judah haLevy (Divan II, 29.21). Joseph had written a com­ mentary on the Bible, a copy of which was given to Ibn Aknin by Rabbi Khaluf b. Abraham Ibn Zandun (?), otherwise unknown. Finally, it should be noted that the quotation from al-Farabl (“Abu Nasr”) on p. 443 is, in fact, a paraphrase of his “Falsafat Aflatun” (Muhsin Mahdi, ed. and tr., Alfarabis Philosophy o f Plato and Aristotle [Ithaca, 1967], and was also para­ phrased by Ibn Falquerah in Reishiyt frokhmah, pt. II, p. 76, in language very similar to that in Ibn Aknin). Ibn Aknin is likely the author also of a treatise on poetic meter, edited by J. Kobak in Ginzey nistarot 3 (1872): 185-200. Works by him that apparently are no longer extant are the aforementioned Huqiym vemishpatiym and ‘Iqqarey datey ha-Torah (Exposition of the roots of the law [or “religion,” depending on the exact reading of the Arabic title]). Very suspect, and almost certainly not his, is a work titled Mavo le-Talm u d(Introduction to the Talmud), published in Bres­ lau in 1871 (reprinted, Jerusalem, 1967). This should be carefully examined as to style, etc. to determine who the author may be. Ibn Aknin apparently makes no reference to the work anywhere in his writings. Poetry

Ibn Aknin was also a poet, which was not unusual for Jews of al-Andalus at the time. He cites some lines of his poems in his writings, particularly the commentary on Song of Songs (e.g., pp. 261, 431). Jacob Toledano published a poem (“Samiyd asher yesar aley ezroac”), which he claimed was in praise of Maimonides “by his student” Ibn Aknin, making the usual error, but the poem may, in fact, be by Ibn Aknin (although to make matters worse, Ibn Shimon also wrote poems). The great authority on Hebrew poetry Hayyim Schirmann has complained of numerous errors in the text, which require that the manuscript be examined afresh and a new edition

made (he offered some tentative corrections, in his bibliography of works on poetry in Kiryat sefer 36 [1960-61]: 386, No. 1096). Schirmann there said that in light of Maimonides’ total denigration of po­ etry, the description of a dancing girl at the begin­ ning would be very strange in a poem honoring Mai­ monides. However, this is not necessarily so, for some revision yet needs to be done in the general un­ derstanding of Maimonides’ attitude to poetry. In fact, Ibn Aknin also expressed a negative attitude to­ ward poetry in Tibb an-nufus (ed. Giidemann, p. 10). It seems that theory was one thing but practice another. Schirmann also noted that what Toledano had said was a “reply” by Maimonides is actually a poem by Judah ha-Levy (Toledano’s publication of the two poems is in his 0$ar genaziym [Jerusalem, 1960], pp. 28-31). Joseph Mann, Jews in E gypt!, 234-35 n. 3, men­ tioned a poem attributed to Judah ha-Levy, which he thought could be by Moses ha-Levy (whom he wrongly identified as a gaon in Damascus), but noted that elsewhere it is attributed to Ibn Aknin and in honor of Maimonides. Twersky, in his previously cited article, claimed that the first letter of Ibn Shim on (wrongly identified by him as Ibn Aknin) to Maimonides somehow “with greater certitude” proves that the attribution of the poem to Ibn Aknin is incorrect (p. 96 n. 3)—the logic, if any, is not apparent. W hat Remains to Be Done

First, there is a great need for an accurate edition of Ibn Shimon’s philosophical treatise. Second, and even more important, the Tibb al-nujus of Ibn Aknin must be edited and, I hope, translated. Fi­ nally, a search should be made for manuscripts of any other works of his, and if any should be found, they should also be edited; this includes also a search for poems that may be by him (a clue to which may be the citations, even of only a couple of lines, in his other writings). Finally, scholars should once and for all cease confusing the two Josephs. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY Works by Ibn Aknin

Joseph b. Judah Ibn Aknin. Hitgallut ha-sodot ve-hofa ‘a t he-meorot [Inkishaf al-asrdr wa-zuhur

Ibn ‘Aknin, Joseph b. Judah

al-anwdr\, ed. Abraham S. Halkin (Jerusalem, 1964); commentary on Song of Songs Joseph b. Judah (Ibn Aknin). Sefer musar peirush mishnat Avot, ed. Benjamim Zev (William Z.) Bacher (Berlin, 1910; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1967) Other Sources

Baneth, D[avid] Z[vi]. “Philological notes on the metaphysical treatise of Joseph Ibn Shimon” (in Hebrew), Sefer ha-yovel likvod Gershom Scholem (Jerusalem, 1958 =Tarbiz27, reprinted as separate volume), pp. 108-22 ---------. “Yosef Ibn Shimon ha-talmiyd he-hashuv shel ha-Rambam ve-Yosef Ibn Aknin,” Otsar yehudei Sefarad7 (1964): 11-20 Giidemann, Michael, ed. and tr. Das jiidische Unterrichtswesen wahred der spanisch-arabischen Periode (Vienna, 1873) Moses b. Maimon. Masekhet Avot (commentary), ed. (Ar.) Ezekiel Baneth (Berlin, 1905 =Lehranstalt fur die Wissenschaft des Judenthums in Berlin, Dreiundzwanzister Bericht); ch. 1, ed. with Heb. tr. in Jubelschrift zum siebzigsten Gebursttag des Dr. IsraelHildesheimer (Berlin, 1890), pp. 57—76. ---------. Iggerot, ed. D. Z. Baneth (Jerusalem, 1946). Munk, S. “Notice sur Joseph ben Iehouda,” Journal asiatique, ser. 3, t. 14 (1842): 5-70. Roth, Norman. Jews, Visigoths, and Muslims in Me­ dieval Spain {Leiden, 1994).

Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham (see also Bible Commentaries, Jewish; Poetry, Hebrew)

Born in Tudela (Navarre), then a Muslim city in Spain, ca. 1092, Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra stands out as one of the most important scholars and prolific writers of medieval Jewish culture. Yet surprisingly, very little is known of his actual life, and many details are yet the subject of debate. His son Isaac married the daughter of J u d a h h a -L e v y , who was also born in Tudela but lived in Toledo and then Granada (according to Zacut, Yafaasiyn, Abraham and Judah were cousins, their mothers being sisters; but the reliability of this is questionable). Ibn ‘Ezra also lived in Toledo for a time. (N. Ben-Menahem suggested that Ibn ‘Ezra had five sons, based on his commentary [“long recen­ sion”] on Ex. 2.2, where he says that births occur nine months after conception “and five times I also 348

have tried this.” But this hardly proves that he had five sons, in the first place, and in the second place he may merely have meant that five times he made such calculations for other people, not necessarily him­ self). If he had any other children, there surely would be a trace of them in historical documents. It was not the ALMOHAD persecution, as some­ times stated, but rather that of the ALMORAVIDS that prompted both Ibn ‘Ezra and Judah ha-Levy to leave Spain. In the introductory poem to his commentary on Lamentations, Ibn ‘Ezra refers to this, also men­ tioning that “these my books” were a comfort to him, leading him to compose commentaries on the Bible, but that he had to leave those books with friends while he went on his journeys abroad (this passage has also been totally misunderstood). He left Spain in 1140 (or perhaps 1139), at the same time that his son Isaac accompanied Judah ha-Levy on what was to be a journey to the Land of Israel; however, they stayed for some time in Egypt, and ha-Levy died when his ship sunk on the way to his planned desti­ nation. Isaac went by himself to Baghdad, and it has been conjectured, probably falsely, that he there con­ verted to Islam. In any case, his teacher there, Netanel (Abu’l-Barakat) b. All Ibn Malka, physician to the ‘Abbasid caliph and a philosopher and scientist, did convert, as for certain did Isaacs fellow student Sama ual Ibn ‘Abbas in 1163. In fact, it is unclear why Ibn ‘Ezra chose to leave Spain. At the same time, or somewhat earlier, the renowned poet MOSES IBN ‘E z r a (h ), had fled Granada to live in Estella, a Christian city in Navarre. Why didn’t Abraham do the same, or for that matter, go to any other Christian city in Spain? In any case, he did go to North Africa, where the same Almoravid regime that he feared in Spain was in control. However, he does not appear to have stayed there long, and soon was in Rome, where he encountered much opposition to his ideas, and he complained bitterly about the lack of knowledge of Hebrew and secular sciences among the Jews there. Nevertheless, he managed to instruct some disciples, who went on to establish the study of H e b r e w GRAM­ MAR in Rome. There he also wrote commentaries at least on some of the megiyllot (“scrolls”; e.g., Lamen­ tations, Esther, Ruth). By 1145 he was in Lucca (Italy), where he composed many of his biblical com­ mentaries and other works. The following year found

Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham

him in Mantua, then in Verona. Finally he left Italy and went to Narbonne and Beziers, in Provence. With the exception of one work, Sefer ha-mispar (Verona, 1146), all of his mathematical and astro­ nomical works apparently were written in Beziers. In 1153 he was either in Rodez, or possibly Dreux, in France. In France he completed his (“short”) com­ mentary on Exodus. In England he also had students and wrote the work now known as Yesod mora ve-sod ha-Torah m London (apparently the actual title of the book was intended to be Sefer mi$vot [Book of com­ mandments]), and also the Iggeret Shabbat (Letter of the Sabbath), defending the traditional determina­ tion of the day from sunset to sunset against some who argued for a different interpretation. The legend that he died in England is completely false; in fact, he returned to France from England. In France he had established a friendship with Jacob b. Meir (“Rabbenu Tam'), with whom he exchanged some poetic epigrams, and also with his grandfather “RASHI.” The Tosafot (commentaries by students of “Rabbenu Tam”) mention Ibn ‘Ezra with great re­ spect; e.g., on Rosh hashanah 13a; Qiddushin 37b). There is a possibility that Ibn ‘Ezra also went to the Land of Israel at some point, perhaps after his re­ turn to France from England (cf. his commentary to Gen. 2.11 and Joseph b. Elazar’s supercommentary, $afnatpa‘n eah, there; and on Lev. 1.11). Some think that he also went to India, because of his frequent references to that country and its customs; however, this seems unlikely, and more probable that he knew of these customs from his extensive reading. India was a popular subject in Muslim and Jewish writing at the time (also, Jewish merchants traveled fre­ quently to India). One medieval writer, Joseph Ezobi, reported that in India Ibn ‘Ezra lived only on unleavened bread, which is of course ridiculous in any event. This belongs to the many legends that grew up around Ibn ‘Ezra after his death and in the following centuries, down to the modern period. In the fifteenth century the Spanish astronomer and chronicler Abraham Zacut reported an eyewitness ac­ count that Ibn ‘Ezras grave was to be found in Israel ( Yuhasiyn, f. 228a, and cf. f. 218a), but according to an earlier chronicler (Joseph Ibn Saddiq of Arevalo, Qiy$$ur zekher $addiyq, p. 94) he died in Calahorra in Spain in 1165 (nevertheless, the correct date of his death was 23 January 1167). That chronicler also

wrote that Ibn ‘Ezras ancestors had lived in Granada, which, though possible, may reflect a confusion with the poet Moses Ibn ‘Ezra(h); incidentally, the erroneous notion that the two were related originates with Abraham Gabison (sixteenth cent.), ‘Omer ha-shikhhah, and was repeated by David Yellin, Torat ha-shiyrah ha-Sefardiyt (Jerusalem, 1940), p. 115, and sometimes still by those who did not see Brody’s notes and corrections there (p. 347). The “family names” are also spelled differently in Hebrew. Mention has been made of the disciples of Ibn ‘Ezra. He had numerous students in all of the coun­ tries where he stayed, some important and some less so, and wrote many of his works for particular stu­ dents, to whom he dedicated the book with an intro­ ductory poem. One of his students was Meir ofTrinquentaille (France), whose son Natan was to become one of the teachers of NAHMANIDES. Meir was also a student of Abraham b. David of Posquieres and of “Rabbenu T a m and he is mentioned by M A I­ MONIDES (in his letter to Ibn Tibbon on the transla­ tion of the “Guide”; see Shailat’s edition of the letters of Maimonides [Jerusalem, 1988] II, 530) as having visited him in Egypt. Maimonides there also men­ tions that Meir had learned with Ibn ‘Ezra, and this is the only authentic mention of him by Mai­ monides, in spite of the fact that he may have been influenced by his views (the “will” or ethical treat­ ment of Maimonides is at least partially a forgery, and for that matter Rapoport and Kaufmann argued that at least the reference to Ibn ‘Ezra in the letter to Ibn Tibbon is also a forgery; the information on Meir was repeated by Judah al-Harizi in the thirteenth century). Though we know nothing of his financial situation (in some of his poems he complains, apparently, of poverty), it is probable that he supported himself through teaching. He was also educated in medicine, as were most boys in Muslim Spain, and at times prac­ ticed as a doctor, as did his son-in-law Judah ha-Levy, but this was not the “profession” of either of them. B iblical Commentaries

Ibn ‘Ezra composed commentaries on all of the books of the Bible, and in some cases in more than one recension. However, several of these (most no­ tably Ezekiel, Jeremiah) are now lost and known to have existed only from his and others’ references or 349

Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham

citations. The “long recension” on Exodus was writ­ ten by him (contrary to earlier opinion), but copied by his student Joseph of Moudeville (or Morville). Apparently the commentary on the “minor” prophets (France, 1157) was the work of his students. The commentary on Proverbs, attributed to him but said actually to be by Moses Qimhi is still problematic, and the question of authorship needs to be resolved on the basis of comparison of still unedited manu­ scripts. (The commentaries on ‘Ezrah and Nehemiah in standard Hebrew bibles are also by Moses Qimhi.) Indeed, so-called critical editions of his commen­ taries have still ignored important manuscripts, par­ ticularly in Spain. The commentaries, especially on the Torah, often contain lengthy digressions, which may more prop­ erly be termed independent essays; for example, Gen. 1.1 (and more fully in another recension) contains a sophisticated grammatical and scientific exposition, not without important philosophical ideas (which appear to have undergone revision in his later writ­ ings). Other such essays are on the name of God (Ex. 3.15), on the Jewish calendar, on different versions of the Decalogue, on cosmological notions, and so on. These have rarely, if ever, been considered in discus­ sions of his scientific thought. Of great interest is the lengthy discussion on the five “ways,” or classifica­ tions, of exegetical approaches to the Bible (introduc­ tion to Genesis). Although Ibn ‘Ezra was strongly influenced by sci­ entific ideas and Aristotelian rationalism (as much, or more, than Neoplatonism), he was by no means “heretical” in his views, as Spinoza—relying, of course, on Latin epitomes of his work—was later to argue. Like Maimonides, he stood for tradition and insisted on absolute loyalty in conforming to the ob­ servance of commandments and adherence to rab­ binical requirements. However, as an exegete he was capable of healthy skepticism about such tradition (see, e.g., his Sefer $ahot, on Esther 8.17, and several places in his commentaries), and a critical approach to the text. He was apparently dubious about the tra­ ditional attributions of the Aramaic translations, and so did not call them by the names of their reputed authors (Onkelos, Jonathan, etc.). In spite of his harsh criticisms of those whose interpretations he considered to be in error, he cited approvingly the commentaries even of QARAITE scholars, especially 350

Yafet (so, not “Yefet” b. All), thus saving these impor­ tant works perhaps from oblivion. He was severe, although exhibiting an admirable wit, in his criticisms of “ RA SH f and other commen­ tators with whom he disagreed, particularly S a ‘a d y a h Ga o n . Indeed, in one of his astronomical treatises he went so far as to say that not only should one dis­ agree with the G e o n im and even the Talmud itself if an interpretation does not stand up to reason, but “also the prophets, also the writings’ [Hagiographa], also the Torah.” This, however, was with regard only to concepts and their understanding; he was gener­ ally not in favor of the alteration or emendation of scriptural text, no matter how difficult. Nevertheless, in a famous comment he was able to hint at “the twelve”—twelve passages in the Torah that cannot have been written by Moses, or even in his time: “and let he who understands, understand,” he concludes (the introductory words, at least, of these passages are cited or at least alluded to in his commentary). The supercommentaries on Ibn ‘Ezra have them­ selves been the subject of various articles. More were written on his commentary (on the Torah, only) than on the commentary of any other medieval exegete. They are, of course, of varying degrees of significance (a nearly complete list of these is to be found in Friedlander, Ibn Ezra Literature; some have since been published). Editions

The first edition of his commentary on the Torah was published in Naples (1488), and repeatedly since then, with a “critical” edition by A. Weiser (Jerusalem, 1976). Weiser s edition has sometimes been maligned, but in general it is accurate and the notes are helpful. An English translation (of ques­ tionable accuracy) of Genesis and Leviticus has ap­ peared (1980; 1986), based on the standard (noncritical) text. A critical edition of the commentary on Gen. 1 was published by L. Prijs, Abraham Ibn Esras Kommentar zu Genesis Kapite11 (Wiesbaden, 1973), followed by his edition of the commentary on the first three chapters (London, 1989). The first edition of the complete (extant) com­ mentaries on the Bible was published with the text in Venice (1524-1525) and repeatedly after that. A fac­

Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham

simile edition of a Vatican manuscript of the com­ mentary on the “minor” prophets, edited by Etan Levine, was published in Jerusalem (1976); the text, however, is usually inferior to the standard published version, and the facsimile is very hard to read because of the poor quality of the printing (in any case, as noted above, the commentary was written by his stu­ dents). Currently, an edition is being prepared by Uriel Simon (Ramat-Gan, 1989-). A critical edition of the important commentary on Isaiah, with English translation (generally reliable) by M. Friedlander, was published in 1873 and reprinted (New York, 1964). An English translation of the commentary on Ruth is to be found in Derek Beattie, Jewish Exegesis o f the Book o f Ruth (Sheffield, England, 1977). A very important Spanish transla­ tion of the commentary on Amos (interspersed with “R a s h i David Qimhi, and Caspi) was done by the late lamented scholar Gregorio Ruiz Gonzalez (Comentarios hebreos medievales al libro de Amos, Madrid, 1987). No one has yet produced a critical edition of the important commentaries on the “scrolls” or on Daniel or the Psalms. Hebrew Grammar

Ibn ‘Ezra early established himself (probably while still in Spain) as an expert grammarian, by the trans­ lation (from Judeo-Arabic) of the important gram­ matical treatises of Judah Hayyuj. This was followed in Rome by his important work Moznayim (pub­ lished Venice, 1546, afterward published as Meozney lashon ha-qodesh), and several works in Lucca (Safah berurah; Sefat yeter, a defense of Saadyah against the strictures of Dunash Ibn Tamim [see HEBREW GRAM­ MAR]; and the lost Sefer ha-yesod), and in Mantua the very important §al?ot (also of significance for poetry; see the critical edition by Carlos del Valle Rodriguez, Salamanca, 1977). A spurious work, erroneously at­ tributed to him, is the Petah devaray. (The correct­ ness of the title of Sefat yeter has been questioned, but incorrectly; the edition by M. Letteris [Pressburg, 1838] is not of this work but rather another gram­ matical work, similar to the Safah berurah; the actual text was edited by G. Lippmann [Frankfurt am Main, 1843].) In addition to his books on grammar and the use of language, his biblical commentaries also often contain grammatical observations of im­ portance. While his contribution to the field of He­

brew grammar was by no means equal to that in bib­ lical exegesis or science, it did influence later gram­ marians and is not without value even for the mod­ ern scholar. Astronomy a n d Science

Ibn ‘Ezras insistence on the value of philosophical and scientific knowledge (he was improperly under­ stood by Friedlander to have neglected such value, when in fact what he said was that geographical or other insights into biblical texts do not aid in the re­ alization of the commandments, not that they do not help in understanding the texts) was no mere postur­ ing, for like most of the Jews of Muslim Spain in his time he had a through education in those areas. Even more prolific than his biblical commentaries were his many works on mathematics, astronomy, and related subjects. In his chief mathematical work, Sefer ha-mispar (Book of the number), dealing with numerical the­ ory, he discussed in detail the decimal system of the “Indians” (in fact, Babylonian and Indian), which appears to have been introduced to Christian Europe through this book (the numbers are written left to right, and not from right to left, as is usual in He­ brew sources; this, of course, was necessary in ex­ plaining the use of the decimal). Most certainly he is to be credited with the introduction of the actual zero (written as “0” rather than a dot as in Arabic mathematical works), described as a “wheel” (circle), “and in the vernacular ‘cipher’”—which is not me­ dieval Latin, as a recent scholar believes, but rather of Arabic origin. The zero is found, to be sure, in a Mozarabic (Christian Arabic) manuscript of a work by Isidore of Seville (ninth century), but this hardly can be said to have “introduced” the use of the zero to Europe since the work could only have been read by those who knew Arabic. Ibn ‘Ezra’s work, in Latin translation, influenced the famous treatise of Leonardo Fibonacci of Pisa, the Liber Abaci (1202), particularly on the decimal system. Ibn ‘Ezra also appears to have used the Arabic tarqin, a line in calculus signifying “nothing,” intro­ duced by al-Khwarizml. In spite of the fact that in representing the decimal system the numbers were written from left to right, in these and all his other calculations he used solely the traditional system of Hebrew letters to represent numbers. It is, inciden­

Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham

tally, incorrect, as Singer stated, that Abraham Ibn Daud in his translation of al-Khwarizml introduced to Europe the “Arabic” (actually Indian) numerals, which, although in use in northern Christian Spain at least in the tenth century, remained unknown to, or at least were not used by, Jewish scholars. Less important, although interesting from a meta­ physical viewpoint, is his Sefer ha-efrad (Book of the one, or primary number). However, in one of his major astronomical treatises, Sefer ha-iybbur (on in­ tercalation), far more sophisticated algebraic and other calculations are to be found (indeed, there are some important algebraic innovations there). In his discussion of time, though following the traditional rabbinical division of the hour not into units of 60 but rather 1,080 “parts,” he nevertheless explains the sexagesimal system, which he attributes to the “as­ trologers” (by whom he probably meant, correctly, the Babylonians). This system was devised, he says, because one unit of 60 can easily be divided into K, K, lA, and so on (a much simpler and more correct expla­ nation than that found in authorities such as Neugebauer). His calculations for the length of the year, and other things, both in this and other of his astro­ nomical works, are also quite sophisticated. Inciden­ tally, since as has been mentioned he used only He­ brew letters to represent numerals, it was not possible (or convenient) to write fractions, and his use of terms for designating fractions was derived from the innovation in Hebrew made by A b r a h a m B. H a y y a . A small theoretical treatise on numerical theory titled Sefer ha-a$amim was originally written by Ibn ‘Ezra in Arabic (the only known work by him in that lan­ guage), probably in Spain, and given that he there mentions his Torah commentaries, it would appear that he did return to Spain toward the end of his life (where, as noted above, he probably died). Probably his most important astronomical work, certainly the most famous, is the one on intercalation (Sefer, or Seder, or Sod, ha- ‘iybbur). This was written in Verona in 1144, and appears to be the only such work he wrote in Italy. The text as we have it (there were apparently two versions of the work, as often was the case with his biblical commentaries) is either incomplete or was never finished, for there is no chapter three to which frequent reference is made, and which was to have been the most important part of the book. Here, too, he exhibits considerable 352

mathematical as well as astronomical sophistication; for example, he gives a more exact reckoning of the excess of the solar over the lunar year than found in the Gregorian calendar. Astronomy in the Middle Ages can scarcely be dis­ tinguished from astrology, for although Arabic and Jewish sources indeed exhibit considerable knowl­ edge of astronomy, there was also a nearly universal belief in astral determinism and the general validity of astrology (see SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS for fur­ ther details). Thus, it is incorrect for modern scholars to differentiate “astronomical” from “astrological” writings, for they are both. An example is Ibn ‘Ezras Reshiyt hokhmah (Beginning of wisdom), written in Beziers (Provence) in 1158, which has received a modern edition of an Old French translation in 1273 and of the Hebrew text. The Hebrew text has also been republished with the critical edition of Ibn ‘Ezras Sefer ha-te‘a miym (1973). Several other works have been published either in the original Hebrew or in a medieval Latin translation, such as De nativitatibus (Sefer ha-moladot, on the appearance of the new moon), published in Venice in 1485 and almost im­ mediately condemned by the faculty of theology at the University of Paris (see Thorndike III, 278; but apparently he did not know of this edition of the Latin translation). A Latin translation (1281) of Sefer ha-‘olam (the Hebrew text has been published) ap­ pears in Marshall Clagett, Nicole Oresme and the Me­ dieval Geometrical Qualities and Motions (1968). A practical work on the astrolabe (in Hebrew) has also been published. Unlike most medieval Jews, Ibn ‘Ezra appears to have been fluent in Latin (perhaps this was necessary in his travels in various Christian nations, for in what other language could he have spoken to Christian scholars?). He was, in any case, certainly the author of a treatise in Latin published by Millas, and of a similar but truly major work—almost entirely ig­ nored by Jewish scholars—published by Millas under the title El libro de los fundamentos de las tablas astronomicas (1947). Here, for example, he reveals an even more thorough knowledge of the problem of the extent of the solar over the lunar year. He goes into the various theories of Greek, Indian, Persian, and Muslim astronomers, and he arrives at a calcula­ tion for the year 1147 that was off by only 8 seconds. Following a similar review of Indian and Muslim the­

Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham

orists, numerous errors in Ptolemy’s system are cor­ rected. Nevertheless, he still adheres to the basic Ptolemaic system in which the sun revolves around the earth (like all Muslim and Jewish students of as­ tronomy, he of course knew that the earth was round, but with the exception of some Muslim scien­ tists who did believe in a heliocentric system, it was generally agreed that the sun revolved around the earth). Another interesting work that sheds light on the origins of the development of astronomical and mathematical science among the Muslims is the in­ troduction to his translation of Ibn al-Muthanna’s commentary on the astronomical tables of alKhwarizml (published, with translation, under that title by Goldstein, 1967). Other published transla­ tions of his include one of the Jewish astronomer (who he believed was Indian!) MAS HA’ALLAH on eclipses, and of notes on the astronomical tables of al-Birunl. Ibn ‘Ezra’s influence was lasting among Jewish scholars, and also among such Christians as John (Danko) of Saxony; Ferminus de Bellavalle; Geoffrey of Meaux (all fourteenth century); and possibly the aforementioned Nicolas Oresme. Already in the thir­ teenth century Henri Bates translated his Sefer ha\olam into Latin (published, 1507), and other trans­ lations have already been noted. Charles V of France had some of Ibn ‘Ezra’s works translated into French. Important Latin and Spanish translations of his sci­ entific works remain yet in manuscripts. Miscellaneous a n d Spurious Works

Theological treatises include Sefer ha-Shem, the aforementioned Yesod mora ve-sod ha-Torah, and the Sefer ha-‘a$amiym (also mentioned above). These rel­ atively minor works have received exhaustive schol­ arly study in the last century but fail to attract much current interest. The philosophical work “ Arugat ha-lpokhmah vepardes ha-meziymah has been attributed to Ibn ‘Ezra by Samuel Zarza in his important supercommentary on Ibn ‘Ezra on the Torah (beginning of Genesis), but it in fact is the first chapter of She‘a r hashamayim, by Isaac Ibn Latif. Ibn ‘Ezra is said to have written a commentary (lost) on the mystical Sefer ye$iyrah, cited by Zarza, and at least the first chapter of it was seen by Abraham ABULAFIA (see Jellinek,

Beit midrash III, 42; Abulafia’s commentary can be found in Sefer ha-peliyah, ff. 50-56). Nevertheless, this is suspicious and may have been confused with a commentary by ‘Ezra of Gerona on that work. Ibn ‘Ezra did not write a work called “Sod temunot h a -o tio tmentioned by bibliographers, which in fact is the Sefer ha-temunahy an anonymous qabbalistic work. Recently, it has been argued that a strange book, partly magic and partly medical folklore, is actually by Ibn ‘Ezra. Although, as noted, he was trained in medicine, it is highly unlikely that so rational a thinker would have written such a book as this (Sefer ha-nisyonot; The Book o f M edical Experiences, ed. and tr. [English] J. O. Leibowitz and S. Marcus [Jerusalem, 1984]). Poetry a n d Literature

Ibn ‘Ezra was also a major Hebrew poet, judging from the few surviving secular poems and many reli­ gious poems that have survived. It is almost certain that most of these were written in Spain. To this early work may be added the short poetical introductions to his various biblical commentaries, dedications to his other works, and so on that were written outside of Spain. Some of his secular poetry also exhibits the wit that shines through in his biblical commentaries from time to time. Indeed, more than any other poet he seems to have used humor in his poetry. In addi­ tion to the aforementioned poems lamenting his poor fortunes, including one on his tattered coat, he also wrote about being disturbed by flies. Among his secular poems are also love poems, particularly con­ cerning the beautiful boy ($eviy, “gazelle”—see PO ­ ETRY, H e b r e w ). A very important historical poem is his lament on the Almohad persecutions in Spain and North Africa, which must therefore have been written after 1145, while he was in Italy, or perhaps even much later, after his return to Spain (see Roth, Jews, p. 125ff. for a translation of this poem). Of particular interest also is his Hayy Ibn Meqiys, really a philosophical work in literary guise (in the format and style of the maqqamah, or rhymed prose novella), imitative, in some respects, of “Avicenna” (Ibn Slna), Hay Ibn Yaqzan (so, not “ Yaqizdn ), but also with striking parallels to Dante’s Divine Comedy (which, in turn, influenced Immanuel of Rome and other Italian Hebrew authors). The work has recently 353

Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham

appeared in a critical edition (see Bibliography). It is interesting, given the author’s own continual travels, that the work is written in the form of a fictional travel account, but as a metaphor for the souls intel­ lectual and spiritual quest. The work also bears com­ parison with that of his near contemporary (d. 1185), the Spanish Muslim philosopher Ibn Tufayl, also titled Hay Ibn Yaqzan. Abraham Ibn cEzra, fictionalized in Browning’s romantic poetic tribute, and the subject of popular legend even in the medieval period, deserves a place of honor not only in Jewish but in world culture. In recent years there have been commemorative vol­ umes, one in Spain (Abraham Ibn Ezra y su tiempo [Madrid, 1990]) and one in Israel ( Teudah 8 [1992], Tel Aviv University) that, with a couple of excep­ tions, contained papers of little value and with incredible errors. (One learned article in the latter collection deals with “Ibn ‘Ezra’s” poem “Ben adamati’—the only problem being that the poem was written by Judah ha-Levy!) We would do this great polyhistor greater honor by completing critical editions of all his work (not excepting some of those that allegedly have already been done), and making available in a collected volume reprints of the truly important articles on his life and work by researchers of the past. It might also not be too much to hope that further translations of his work in modern lan­ guages could be undertaken. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY Works by Ibn ‘Ezra

Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham. Hayy ben Meqi$, critical ed. by Israel Levin (Tel Aviv, 1983), with a Hebrew translation of Ibn Slna, Hay Ibn Yaqzan; there is also a Spanish translation of Ibn ‘Ezra’s work by Carlos del Valle in Cuadernos salmantinos de filosofia (Salamanca) 4 (1977): 99-126. ---------. Peirushey ha-Torah, ed. A. Weiser (Jerusalem, 1976), 3 vols. --------- . Reshit frokhmah: The Beginning o f Wisdom, Vol. 1: medieval French translation, ed. Raphael Levy; Vol. 2: Hebrew text, ed. Francisco Cantera Burgos (Baltimore, London, 1939); there is also a modern French translation, Le livre des fondaments astrologiques. . ., by Jacques Helbronn (Paris, 1977). 354

Works on Ibn ‘Ezra

Bacher, W. Z. Abraham Ibn Esrds Einleitungzu seinen Pentateuchkommentar (Strassburg, 1894). Ben-Menahem, Naftali. Inyaney Ibn Ezra (Jerusalem, 1978). Friedlander, Michael. Ibn Ezra Literature. Essays on the Writings o f Abraham Ibn Ezra (London, 1877; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1964). ---------. “Ibn ‘Ezra in England,” Jewish Historical Society of England. Transactions 2 (1894—95): 47-75 (very important article, with text of Iggeret ha-Shabbai). Lipshitz, Abraham (Abe). Pirqey ‘iyyun be-mishnat Rabbi [sic] Avraham Ibn Ezra (Jerusalem, 1982). Levin, Israel. Avraham Ibn Ezra (Tel Aviv, 1980). Prijs, Leo. Die grammatikalische Terminologie des Abraham ibn Esras (Basel, 1950). Rosin, David. “Die Religionsphilosophie Abraham Ibn Esra’s,” M.G.W.J. 42 (1898): 17-33, 58-73, 108-15, 154-61, 200-214, 241-52, 305-15, 345-62, 394-407, 444-57, 481-505; 43 (1899): 22-31, 75-91, 125-33, 168-84, 231-40 (this ex­ tremely important article contains material also on his scientific writing). Roth, Norman. Jews, Visigoths &Muslims in Medieval Spain (Leiden, 1994), pp. 125 ff., 176, 207, 224. Thorndike, Lynn. A History o f Magic and Experimen­ tal Science (New York, 1953), Vol. III.

Ibn ‘Ezra(h), Moses

One of the most important Hebrew poets of me­ dieval Spain, Moses Ibn ‘Ezra(h) (he himself wrote his name with the final -h), was born in Granada, ca. 1055 and died ca. 1135-40. Very little information can be gained on his early life, except that he may have studied in Cordoba, and certainly studied Ara­ bic grammar, poetry, and other sources (as did most Jews who lived in Muslim Spain) as well as Jewish texts, biblical and talmudic. He was a student of the renowned Isaac Ibn Ghiyath, a rabbi and poet, either in Lucena or in Cordoba. He had three brothers, Isaac, Joseph, and Judah, all of whom “betrayed” him, he felt, when they left Granada (apparently as a result of the ALMORAVID invasion and rule in alAndalus). Isaac was the eldest and the head of the family, and he went to Toledo, where he was known as an astronomer (his son Judah became almoxarife,

Ibn Gabirol, Solomon

an administrative official, of Alfonso VII). Moses, who remained for some time in Granada, married and had a son, Jacob, whose early death resulted in a series of moving short poems written by his father. These are among a number of eulogies he wrote, on the death of famous scholars and also on the deaths of his brothers. The renowned poet JUDAH HA-LEVY was a friend of Isaac and of Moses, and he also wrote a eulogy on the death of Isaac, as well as exchanging poem s with Moses. Indeed, the young poet came from Tudela (then a Muslim city) to study with Moses and spent some time with him as his protege. Moses finally left Granada, fleeing to the city of Estella in Navarre. Why he decided to go to this town, certainly not an important center of Jewish culture, is unclear. In any case, he complained bit­ terly in his poems about living among so uncouth and ignorant a people. He was a master both of “religious” and “secular” poetry (it is untrue, as has been claimed, that he wrote only religious poetry after he fled Granada). As usual with the medieval poets, his secular compositions, fa­ mous at the time, were totally forgotten in later cen­ turies and were not recovered until the nineteenth century. They are, however, perhaps the crowning achievement of secular Hebrew poetry, although ex­ tremely difficult. While he added nothing new to the motifs already used by earlier poets, his finest work is marked by a beauty of style and intensity of emotion rarely equaled. His poetry is also important as an historical source, revealing the names of many Jewish scholars and officials of the time. N o less significant is the light shed on the interpretation of obscure and diffi­ cult words in the Bible. In fact, it is possible that he (like I b n N a g h r i l l a h and I b n G a b i r o l before him, and his contemporaries Judah ha-Levy and Abraham Ibn £Ezra) composed a commentary at least on parts of the Bible. He was the author also of other works, including a still-unpublished work on metaphors and rhetoric, and apparently he wrote or began a history of the life of Moses (also still unedited), as well as a sort of com­ pendium of philosophical teachings (published in ex­ cerpts from a medieval Hebrew translation, “ ‘Arugat ha-bosem ). This strange work is a medley of Neoplatonic, Aristotelian, and Muslim quotations, and the parts that have survived contain nothing original

or of particular importance; in spite of that, these few pages have received more scholarly attention than al­ most any other aspect of his work. By far his most important and original work, however, is his great treatise on poetics and rhetoric, Kitdb al-muhadara wa’l-mudkahara., written, like his other prose works, in Judeo-Arabic. This book is of great importance not only as the sole medieval work on poetics to emanate from Spain (where secular He­ brew poetry was born), but for its historical informa­ tion and study of Arabic as well as Hebrew rhetorical and poetic sources. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works by Ibn ‘Ezra

Selected Poems, ed. Heinrich Brody, tr. Solomon Solis-Cohen (Philadelphia, 1945). Antologia poetica, tr. Rosa Castillo (Madrid, 1993). Kitdb al-muhddara wal-mudakara, ed. (Ar. script), tr. (Spanish) Montserrat Abumalham Mas (Madrid, 1985-86), 2 vols. Works about Ibn ‘Ezra

Dfez Macho, Alejandro. Mose Ibn ‘Ezra como p o eta y preceptista (Madrid-Barcelona, 1953). Roth, Norman. “Seeing the Bible Through a Poet’s Eyes: Some Difficult Biblical Words Interpreted By Moses Ibn ‘Ezra,” Hebrew Studies 23 (1982): 111-14 (for English translations of some poems, see Bibliography to “Poetry, Hebrew,” s.v. Roth).

Ibn Gabirol, Solomon

Solomon Ibn Gabirol, an important philosopher and poet, was born in 1021 or 1022 in Malaga in south­ ern Spain (al-Andalus; ANDALUCIA). His father ap­ parently fled Cordoba during the Berber uprising, or civil war, of 1013. While still young, after the death of his parents, he went to Zaragoza (in Aragon, but at that time a Muslim city). There he began to write po­ etry and some of his other works. In Zaragoza, he met the great Hebrew grammarian Ibn Janah (see H e b r e w GRAMMAR). Ibn Janah wrote a poem in honor of the young poet, and Ibn Gabirol replied in an Aramaic poem (No. 84 of Jarden’s edition; the 355

Ibn Gabirol, Solomon

heading does not say that he wrote two Aramaic poems to Ibn Janah, as Jarden thought; only that he wrote two poems). He found a patron in the person of Yequtiel b. Ishaq Ibn (Abl) liassan “al-Mutawakkil” Ibn Cabron, a Jewish minister in the service of the ruler of Zaragoza, al-Mundhlr b. Yahya. Ibn Gabirol com­ posed several poems in honor of his patron and three eulogies on him when he was executed during the uprising of Abd-Allah ibn Hakam against the ruler in 1039. All of these poems were written when Ibn Gabirol was between the ages of seventeen and nine­ teen. Schirmann, p. 245, raised the objection that Yequtiel was killed in Nissan (March-April), before the assassination of al-Mundhlr in August of the same year; thus he doubted that Yequtiel’s death had anything to do with the rebellion. However, the logic is faulty, since Yequtiel, and other government minis­ ters presumably, could have been executed first, while the ruler was held in prison for some months. Schirmann erred in stating that Yequtiel is also men­ tioned (twice) in M o s e s I b n ‘E z r a (h ) (Kitdb almuhadara; at the time Schirmann wrote his article, the text was not yet edited), which merely quotes from Ibn Gabirols poems; however, it is possible that Yequtiel is mentioned in a poem of Ibn Khalfun cited there (p. 269). Schirmann (p. 254) published a piyyut for Yom Kippur by Yequtiel. At this time, possibly after Yequtiel’s death, Ibn Gabirols work drew criticism from certain members of the community (he wrote a lengthy poem of sharp rebuke against the Jews of Zaragoza, whom he judged to be incapable of understanding his poetry). The abuse apparently concerned not only his poetry but some of his philosophical ideas; in his Improve­ ment o f the Moral Qualities, he asked God to put an end to the opposition of those who debate with him in ignorance (p. 42 of translation). At the close of his preface to the same treatise, he displays his own hu­ mility (the correct translation should be: “the great fruit which I have plucked from wisdom is my knowledge that I am not wise; I make no pretension thereof to give counsel to my contemporaries, for I know their contrast to my wickedness,” p. 51), and notes that “we live at the present time amid evil and distress, an uninterrupted succession of troubles and disquieting circumstances,” referring probably to the uprising in Zaragoza. 356

These things, especially the quarrels, led the young poet to leave the city, intending to go to the Land of Israel; however, he only got as far as VALEN­ CIA, where he suffered a prolonged illness. His repu­ tation as a poet, and perhaps already as a scholar, had reached Samuel Ibn N aghrillah, the Jewish prime minister and commander-in-chief of the Muslim kingdom of Granada, and himself a great poet and scholar. Ibn Gabirol received financial and moral support from Ibn Naghrillah, to whom he had dedi­ cated a poem when he was only sixteen years old. However, animosity soon developed between them (Ibn Gabirol may have offended his new patron in a poem). Eventually, the young poet wrote some rather grudging poems of apology. (The nineteenth-century Jewish scholar Abraham Geiger argued that the rela­ tionship between Ibn Janah and Ibn Gabirol was strained because of an argument between the former and Ibn Naghrillah: but although that quarrel was real enough, there is little reason to accept Geigers position, rightly criticized by Schirmann.) Zvi Hirsh Edelmann, also in the nineteenth century, cited the statement by the fifteenth-century Jewish chronicler Saadyah Ibn Danan (Granada; later North Africa) that Ibn Gabirol was a student of Nissim Ibn Shanin in Granada; however, Hirschberg, the editor of Nis­ sim s Hibbur yafeh mi-ha-yeshu ‘ah, expressed doubt about this (p. 32). We have no indication from any other source that Ibn Gabirol was ever in Granada, and surely IBN ‘Ezra(h), for example, would have mentioned this. Of Ibn Gabirols philosophical works, only two have survived (see below). He died in Lucena, according to Moses Ibn ‘Ezra(h) (Kitab, pp. 68/69— 70/71), apparently as a result of illness, at a young age—thirty, according to Ibn £Ezra(h), which would be in 1051 or 1052; or in 450 A.H. (1056-57), ac­ cording to the contemporary Muslim author Ibn §a‘id al-AndalusI. (It should be noted that the poem uModeh aniy m a‘aseh beney ‘o lam ” erroneously in­ cluded in the original edition of Ibn Gabirols Divan III, book 6, p. 18, No. 23, is in fact by Judah alHarizi; thus, it is no proof that Ibn Gabirol lived to an advanced age, as claimed by Aryeh Mur, Shelomoh Ibn Gabirol\ ha-ish ve-shiyrato [Tel Aviv, s.a.; 1957?].) Some scholars have nevertheless questioned the age at which he is said to have died; apparently it is diffi­ cult to believe that he could have written as many

Ibn Gabirol, Solomon

works as claimed in such a short life. Nevertheless, both authorities, Ibn §aid and Ibn £Ezra(h), are usu­ ally reliable. Bargebuhr (see Bibliography) dated Ibn Gabirols death at 1070, but Ibn §a‘id himself died that year, and Ibn Gabirol was certainly dead before that (again, two poems mentioned by Bargebuhr that refer to the years 1068 and 1069 are not, in fact, by Ibn Gabirol; similarly, the poem translated by Millas, p. 45 [see Bibliography], on the death of Ibn Naghrlllah [1056], is also not by Ibn Gabirol but rather by Ibn Khalfun). As usual with famous figures, absurd legends grew up around Ibn Gabirol, such as that his death was at the hand of a Muslim and that a tree grew from his grave (reported by the sixteenth-century chronicler Gedaylah Ibn Yahya and others). Scholars have cre­ ated other legends; for instance, in an otherwise use­ ful book on Ibn Gabirol, the nineteenth-century scholar Senior Sachs claimed that the “King Solomon” (or Sulaiman al-yahudt) mentioned in the writings of Abu Aflah of Syracuse (not to be confused with the astronomer Ibn Aflah of Seville) was Ibn Gabirol, explaining the confusion of “king” (melekh in the Hebrew translation of Abu Aflah) with the Arabic appellation “of Malaga” (which nevertheless is alMdlaqi, and thus impossible to confuse). Some of the “sayings” of “King Solomon” have been published in various Hebrew journals, and were mentioned al­ ready by Profiat Duran (Maaseh efod, pp. 185-87). Sachs theory, with all its details, was even repeated by Israel Davidson in his introduction to the translation of some of Ibn Gabirols poetry (see Bibliography), p. xxx, and at length by Loewe, pp. 24-25. However, the King Solomon of Abu Aflah is obviously not Ibn Gabirol, but a mythical figure associated with magic (e.g., the “seal of Solomon”) and alchemy. Steinschneider (Hebraeische Ubersetzungen, p. 850) already refuted Sachs; according to which also Klausner’s in­ troduction to Ibn Gabirol, Meqor Ipayyim, p. 16, must also be corrected. (The Sefer ha-tamar of Abu Aflah, which is the “Em ha-melekh” referred to by Profiat Duran, was edited by G. Scholem in Kiryat sefer 3 [1926-27]: 186-235). His Name

His Hebrew name was Solomon b. Judah, and in Arabic Abu Ayyub Sulaiman b. Yahya. To medieval Christian scholars he was known as Avicebron,

Avigebrol, or even Albenzubrun. The family name is Ibn Gabirol (probably correctly “Jabirol”) and not, as some Israeli scholars think, “Ibn Gevirol.” The name clearly is not Hebrew, but derived from Arabic. Bargebuhr, p. 51, believed that it was merely a form derived from “Gabriel,” and this is a possibility (from Ar. jib ril in Andalusian usage), for in fact in Moses Ibn ‘Ezra(h), Kitdb, the name is spelled Gabriel in the text (although Halkin’s translation peculiarly changed it to Gabirol throughout; see pp. 174, 230, 236, 240, 248, 260, 264, 274, 276). Another possi­ bility is that it is derived from Ar. jabir; “bone setter; healer or doctor”) with the common Spanish diminu­ tive ending -ol. A contemporary Muslim writer, Ibn §a id al-AndalusI, spelled his name Ibn Jablrwal (or possibly Jabirol). Mention should be made of the name Jabariel used by Jews in Maqueda (near Toledo) in the fifteenth century. He signed some of his poems as “Shelomoh ha-qatan,” possibly to distin­ guish himself from a grandfather who may have been named Solomon. Philosophy

Ibn Gabirol was the first philosopher of Spain, Mus­ lim or Jewish, whose work has survived. His magnum opus was, of course, the famous work known to me­ dieval Christian Scholastics as Fons vitae (Fountain of life). It was translated into Latin in the twelfth cen­ tury by the Jewish apostate Juan Ibn Daud (not, as some incredibly have thought, Abraham Ibn Daud) and the Christian Domingo Gundisalvo in Toledo (see T r a n s l a t i o n ) . It should be mentioned that there is an important twelfth-century Toledo manu­ script of the work that has been ignored aside from being noted by J. M. Millas Vallicrosa, Las traducciones orientales en los manuscritos de la Biblioteca Catedralde Toledo (Madrid, 1942), p. 79. The Arabic original ( Yanbu al-hayah, or, more probably, hayai) is lost. In its Hebrew version, it is known as Meqor hayyim. The title derives from Plotinus (EnneadYI. 9; the soul as the source of life), which was known to Ibn Gabirol, of course, as pseudo-Aristotle’s “Theol­ ogy”(see on this Guttmann’s important observations, pp. 423—24 n. 65; see Bibliography). It was long as­ sumed, and is still often erroneously claimed, that the work and identity of its author were entirely un­ known to medieval Jews, and that it survived only in the Latin translation (and was assumed to have been 357

Ibn Gabirol, Solomon

by a Christian Arab author). This is not true, how­ ever, for in addition to the abridged Hebrew transla­ tion by Shem Tov Ibn Falquerah, published by Munk, it was well known to earlier medieval Jewish writers that Ibn Gabirol was the author of the work. It was severely criticized by Abraham Ibn Daud (died after 1160), Emunah ha-ramah I. 2 (for other cita­ tions of the work, see Jarden’s introduction to his edition of Shiyrey ha-hol, pp. 10-11). Moses Ibn cEzra(h) cited it, although not by name, in his philo­ sophical work Arugat ha-bosem (not to be confused as did, e.g., Loewe, p. 172 n 2, with a work of the same name by Abraham b. Azariah; Pines, whose ar­ ticle he cited did not make that error). Ibn Falquerah also quoted some passages from it in his commentary on Maimonides, Moreh ha-Moreh (see Munk, p. 274). The fifteenth-century Spanish Jewish scholar and translator cEli (or All) Habillo mentioned Ibn Gabirol as the author of the Fons vitae. As the only truly significant Jewish Neoplatonic treatise, the work is of some importance. Nevertheless, its impact on subsequent Jewish thought was extremely in­ significant, perhaps in part because it lacked any ref­ erence to the Bible or to traditional Jewish religious beliefs. There is no room here for a detailed analysis of his thought, but a few important points may be mentioned. The primary purpose of the work is to examine the nature of existing things. It has traditionally been argued that it is a “metaphysical” system, and yet as Cantarino (see Bibliography) has demonstrated in a brilliant article, it is not really that because “it does not deal with the basic metaphysical question, what does exist?” Rather, it is concerned with the inductive method by which we understand the nature of given existent things. In this sense, it is more ontology than metaphysics. Nor is it entirely accurate to classify Ibn Gabirol as a Neoplatonist, since there is a good deal of Aristotelianism involved in his arguments. Indeed, Aris­ totle had said that the nous examines particulars and “induces” generalities from them, which is precisely the method employed by Ibn Gabirol. Other scholars have debated the question, and some have focused perhaps too much on emanation in Ibn Gabirols thought (see the criticism by Millas Vallicrosa, and Vajda’s correct emphasis on the duality of primal matter and divine will; “Introduction a la pensee 358

juive du moyen age,” Etudes de la philosophie medievale 35 [1947]: 82). The dualism of form and matter underlies all ex­ isting things. There is a “ladder,” or chain, of this combination from the lowest to the highest levels of existence, even to the “celestial” level of incorporeal intelligible substances. Form and matter may be dis­ tinguished in thought, but not in existence—in real­ ity, they are combined. In fact, matter does not have real existence until it is combined with form. Greatly important is the place of divine will in this system. Some have seen this as the foundation of his “emanationist” position, while others (again, Vajda particu­ larly) have emphasized more the “creationist” aspect— that form comes into being as a result of the divine will in a purely voluntary manner, but matter is cre­ ated of necessity. In truth, Ibn Gabirol was, as Millas correctly said, a “creationist” and not merely an “emanationist.” He assumes as a given the basic theologi­ cal principles of the existence of God and of God as Creator. The chief aim or purpose of man is to know God. Gods “creatures” are similar to the Creator only in that they share his desire; just as he desires to “influence” (emanate), so they desire to be influ­ enced. The process of emanation is through a series of worlds, the higher and stronger influencing the lower. Through the w ill found in all levels, wisdom is also found. However, as Cantarino has correctly pointed out, there is also a corresponding ascending “desire,” or intuitive knowledge of God, which is the result of “human ascent to the Divine itself.” This, of course, is also the theme of many of Ibn Gabirols poems. Ibn Gabirols thought is, indeed, permeated by what Cantarino termed “Light metaphysics.” The light in matter itself emanates from the light that is the divine will. In one aspect, this divine will is iden­ tical with the “essence” of God, and thus infinite; but from the aspect of the “emanation” of the cosmos it is finite and an intermediary between God and his cre­ ation. The “primal matter” was known to God before it came into being; God’s self-knowledge necessitates the knowledge of the emanation through will and the absolute knowledge of the matter that is the result. Ibn Gabirols work influenced some of the Christian Scholastics of the Middle Ages, including William of Auvergne, St. Bonaventure, and Duns Scotus, but was firmly rejected by Thomas Aquinas.

Ibn Gabirol, Solomon

Sources

Much remains to be done in understanding both the concepts and the possible sources of influence in this work. Not only have the Aristotelian elements been neglected as a result of the too easy classification of Ibn Gabirol as a Neoplatonist, so also have Muslim and other sources. Attention has also been called to Abraham Ibn ‘Ezras citation (Gen. 28.12) of the lost biblical commentary of Ibn Gabirol and his allegorization of Jacobs ladder as the “supernal soul” and of the angels ascending and descending it as “thoughts of wisdom,” or similar to the intuitive knowledge or desire discussed in Fons vitae; and it has been sug­ gested that this “supernal soul” signifies the rational soul, whereas the “universal soul” is related to Arabic al-nafs al-k uliyatreated by the famous Muslim phi­ losopher al-BatalyawsI (see Alexander Altmann, “The Ladder of Ascension,” in Studies in Mysticism and Re­ ligion presented to Gershom G. Scholem [Jerusalem, 1967], p. 13). Even if that philosopher lived in the second half of the eleventh century, and not the tenth as Kaufmann originally thought, it is by no means clear that there can be “no question” of any influence on Ibn Gabirol, as Louis Jacobs wrote in his intro­ duction to the reprint of Kaufmann. In addition, there is a need to examine the writings of the mysti­ cal “Ikhwan al-safa,” used also by al-BatalyawsT, as an important source. Very important, and also subse­ quently ignored by most scholars, is Kaufmanns dis­ cussion of the influence of “Pseudo-Empedocles” on Ibn Gabirol, and his publication of the text of a He­ brew translation that he attributed to Ibn Falquerah (who did the Hebrew translation of Fons vitae). The only scholar to have significantly dealt with this since its publication is Miguel Asm Palacios (Obras escogidas [Madrid, 1948] I, 152 ff.). Of considerable importance also is the microcosm theory in Ibn Gabirol, which, although the earliest medieval Jewish example and earlier than any signifi­ cant Christian one, has received little comment. The body and its form correspond to matter and form, the human soul is equated with the divine will, and human intelligence with the “primal essence.” The soul is dispersed (or diffused) throughout the parts of the body and directs it just as the supernal wisdom and will are dispersed throughout and direct every­ thing that exists. As with many of his philosophical concepts, this is to be found not only in his major

work but also in other writings, including his poetry. Once again, it is clearly to the fully developed notion of the microcosm in the “Ikhwan al-safa‘” that we must look for the source of Ibn Gabirols ideas. Ethics

Just as Ibn Gabirol was the first Jewish philosopher of Spain, so he was the first anywhere to compose a systematic ethical treatise, based on rational ideas and human characteristics. This was his Kitdb isldlp al- ‘akhlaq, or Tiyqqun miyddot ha-nefesh in Hebrew translation (by Judah Ibn Tibbon in 1167) and Im­ provem ent o f the Moral Qualities in its English transla­ tion by Wise (see Bibliography). This is the only work for which we have a date: 1045, apparently (see Steinschneider, Hebraeische Ubersetzungen, p. 381 n. 94; and the translation of the work by Lomba Funetes [see Bibliography], p. 59, n. 21, for the correct date). In this work are none of the peculiarities of the Fons vitae; indeed, it is replete with quotations from the Bible, references to earlier Jewish sources, and so on. Nonetheless, it is not a work of religious ethics, such as that later written by Bahya Ibn Paqudah (see PHILOSOPHY). It deals entirely with human nature, with no reference to divine obligations. Again, we find the microcosm theory (p. 4 of text; p. 32 of Wises translation): man is created with four “elements” (tempers), corresponding to the four nat­ ural elements of air, fire, earth, and water (the Arabic term used, al- (dlam al-$aglr [“the little world”] origi­ nates apparently with the QARAITE exegete Yafet b. All [comm, on Gen. 1.26; cf. Munk, Melanges, p. 475, n. 2]; but in specific detail of the number four and the elements it is derived again from the “Ikhwan al-safa ”). Kaufmann wrote an entire book on the concept of the “outer” and “inner” senses that originates with Ibn Gabirol here (Die Sinne; see Bib­ liography). In general, Ibn Gabirol here treats of qualities, or characteristics, of human nature, interspersed with sayings from various sources. For example, on “ap­ prehension” (III. 2) he says that this usually comes when “wishes fail of realization,” and the soul almost dies from grief. He advises, “If it be impossible for a man to have what he desires, he must desire what he has.” Misfortunes are natural, and to wish that noth­ ing bad should happen “is like wishing not to exist.” Part IV. 1 recommends the abandoning of extremes 359

Ibn Gabirol, Solomon

and following “the right mean,” an Aristotelian prin­ ciple made famous in Maimonides’ doctrine of the “golden mean.” (In spite of some attempts to find similarities to Ibn Gabirol in Maimonides’ thought, it is extremely doubtful that he knew of Ibn Gabirols philosophical writings.) Influences

It is interesting to note that he cited Aristotle four times, Plato not at all (but Socrates five times), and anonymous Arabic poets several times. However, the place of importance goes to his citations of “the book” of Hefes al-Qufi (six times), who is also men­ tioned by Moses Ibn ‘Ezra(h), Kitdb, p. 42 (text; line 94), p. 43 (translation), who quotes his “poem” on, or perhaps poetic translation of, Psalms. Scholars have long debated the identity of this person, with some saying he was a Muslim and others a Christian (the name al-Qufi means “the Goth,” and refers par­ ticularly to the VISIGOTHS of Spain). However, Stein­ schneider, followed by Poznanski (see his “Anshei Qairawan,” in David von Gunzberg and Isaac Markon, eds., Festschrift zu ehren Dr. A. Harkavy [St. Petersburg, 1908], p. 190) believed it quite likely that he was a Jew, and the latter even advanced the suggestion that he may be IJefes b. Yasliah (JJefes alQupfs full name was I^efes b. Barr, which in Arabic means “pious, righteous,” etc.), a suggestion worthy of consideration. The name al-Qufi almost certainly indicates his Spanish origin, however, and it may be that he descended from one of the forcibly baptized Jews of Visigothic Spain. If we accept the alternative, that he was a Muslim or Christian, he would be the only non-Jewish author cited by name by Ibn cEzra(h), which makes Poznanski’s suggestion all the more plausible (in addition to, apparently, a book of proverbs and his composition on the Psalms, he also translated Genesis into Arabic). Some have suggested that Shabbetai Donnolo (tenth century, Italy) was the source for Ibn Gabirols microcosm idea, but that in turn was derived from Isaac Israeli; nevertheless, the “influence,” if any, is confined to the very com­ mon notion of the four elements of nature. There is some indication that Ibn Gabirol wrote the work in haste, and by his own admission it is in­ complete. It was criticized, although only by allusion, by some later writers, but actually seems to have had

360

little influence (Davidson’s statement, p. 5, that be­ cause he did not “meddle” with religious ethics, the work “must have created a considerable stir among the religious thinkers of his time” is not supported by any evidence; on the contrary, it seems largely to have been ignored). Only D a v i d Q i h m i can be shown to have borrowed from it in a few instances in his bibli­ cal commentary (in his introduction to the transla­ tion of Ibn Gabirols religious poetry, p. xxvii, David­ son wrote that Qimhi borrowed from the ethical treatise in only two places in his commentary on Psalms, but he overlooked the commentaries on other biblical books). Proverbs

In addition to his two philosophical works, Ibn Gabirol composed a small collection of proverbs, arranged according to topics, Mivhar ha-peniyniym (“Choice of pearls,” in its Hebrew translation by Ibn Tibbon). The original Arabic text was long thought lost, except for two folios found by N. Sokolov in 1929, but recently much of it has been discovered in the GENIZAH. Some (Steinschneider, Habermann in the notes to his edition, pp. 69-70) have questioned the attribution of the work to Ibn Gabirol. It is true that in the numerous citations of the book by later authorities (more than five hundred; see Ashkenazi in Bibliography) the author is never mentioned, but this is probably due to the obscurity that surrounded Ibn Gabirol in general, aside from his poetry and the citations of him by Ibn ‘Ezra. In addition to the later citations that Ashkenazi investigated, it should be mentioned that the work was also used by Jahuda Bonsenyor (d. 1331), Llibre deparaules e dits de savis efilosofos (see LITERATURE, NON-HEBREW). The strongest praise of this little collection was ex­ pressed by David Gonzalo Maeso, who compared it to the maxims of Ptahhotep, the biblical Proverbs, the “Sentences” of Publilio Siro, and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, “but the work of Ibn Gabirol has in addition the merit, over all these, of constituting a synthesis of all this wisdom: biblical and Arabic, Greek and Latin” (“El malaqueno $elomoh Ibn Gabirol, poeta y estilista arabe,” Miscelanea de estudios drabes y hebraicos 18-19 [1969-70]: 173). A few examples must suffice to give something of the nature of the work:

Ibn Gabirol, Solomon It is not proper to be embarrassed to ask when you do not know, in order to know; and do not be embar­ rassed, when asked something you do not know, to say ‘I do not know.’ And know that the advantage of the intellect over faith is as the advantage of the head over the body. There are four kinds of men: he who knows and knows that he knows is wise, ask from him. He who knows and does not know that he knows, remind him and help [or arouse] him so that he not forget. He who does not know and knows that he does not know, teach him. He who does not know and shows off that he does know is a fool, avoid him. Words that come from the heart enter the heart, but the word which [merely] goes out of the mouth does not pass the ear. The eye of a needle is not too narrow for two lovers, but the width of the world is not sufficient for two enemies.

Poetry

Whereas Ibn Gabirol as a philosopher was largely forgotten in subsequent years, and only the little col­ lection of proverbs survived (although apparently anonymously), his fame as a poet is without ques­ tion. Far from criticizing him, as some have said, his near contemporary Moses Ibn £Ezra(h) expressed his admiration of his poetry and quoted from it more than from any other poet in his work on poetics (Kitdb). In his own lifetime his poetry was already circulating in Egypt and far-off Yemen, and not alone his “religious” but also his “secular” poetry (on the often pointless nature of this distinction, see Roth in Bibliography). As might be expected, his “secular” poetry also, from his first poems at age sixteen, are re­ plete with philosophical ideas and the constant con­ flict between the desire for wisdom and the “passion­ ate” desires of worldly pleasures. Mystical overtones are also to be found in many of his poems. Of unique importance is his “ ‘Anaq,” a grammati­ cal poem, because it is the only such effort to explain grammatical concepts in poetic form (see Bibliogra­ phy for editions and translation). He was only nine­ teen years of age when he wrote this poem (line 17 of Jarden’s ed.).

His most famous poem was his philosophicalmystical-astrological masterpiece Keter malkhut, not “Royal Crown” as often translated but “Crown of Kingship,” the reference being to the highest “sphere” in the hierarchy of the Sefirot or ten “spheres” emanated from God, a doctrine found al­ ready in the mystical Sefer ye$iyrah and the Shiyur qomah, but which derives ultimately from Plotinus and goes back in some respects to Plato and Aristotle (Scholem has denied that the Hebrew term sefirot is related to the Greek word, but this is demonstrably false and based on his overreliance on the medieval Sefer bahiyr). It should be mentioned, as Scholem did not, that these ideas are also found in the mysticism of the Muslim sage al-Ghazall. Ibn Gabirol was not, of course, a “qabbalist,” since QABBALAH was a much later development, but there is no doubt as to his connection with mystical ideas here. The poem con­ sists of forty stanzas (inaccurately termed “centos” by Loewe) that evolve progressively from praise of God’s actions and essence (essential “oneness,” etc.) to an ever more complex “theology.” Interestingly, stanza 9 begins with the very term used for the title of his philosophical magnum opus in Hebrew translation: “You are wise—and wisdom, the source of life, from You flows” (or emanates). Here also is found the em­ anated “will” familiar from Fons vitae. His cos­ mogony and physics are informed by traditional, and in some instances already outmoded, views; in the same stanza, for example, he writes, “to draw the sub­ stance [matter] of existence from nothing, like the drawing of light from the eye,” which refers to earlier Greek theories (not only Empedocles) of light ema­ nating from the eye and illuminating objects, thus causing them to be seen. The highest sphere is the tenth, the sphere of in­ tellect, from which human souls and the “ministering angels” are created (stanzas 24, 25), but beyond this sphere even is the Throne of Glory and the “world to come” in which are the souls of the saints (stanzas 26-27). The poem ends with a sublime confession of mans frailty and evil nature, containing such bril­ liant verses as: “He comes [is born] and knows not why, rejoices and knows not in what, lives and knows not how long” (stanza 37, verse 524 in Zangwill; 420 in Schirmann); no translation can convey the terse­

361

Ibn Gabirol, Solomon

ness of the internal rhyme in the Hebrew: “ba ve-lo’ yed a ‘ lamah, ve-yiysmah ve-lo yeda bammah, ve-yehiy ve-lo yed a ‘ kammah.” The most sublime is yet to come, however, for having shown how mans life is wasted in vanity, and asking where can he find time for repentance before his death, the poet turns (stanza 38) to God himself and proclaims: “And if You seek out my transgressions, I shall flee from You to Yourself and conceal myself from Your anger in Your shadow.” Certainly, as commentators have ob­ served, there are similar ideas in Muslim and other Jewish sources, but none express it so poetically and with every word pregnant with biblical and talmudic allusion. Indeed, the poem ought to end with this stanza; unfortunately, it does not, and the subsequent ones are anticlimactic and lack the majesty and power of such words as these. The poem has been published numerous times, also in prayer books for the eve of Yom Kippur in the Sefardic rite, and in various anthologies of poetry. It is most conveniently found in Selected Religious Poems and in Schirmann (I, 257 ff., with extremely important notes). English translations include the generally splendid one of Zangwill, the important one of Lewis (because of the notes), and the peculiar and inaccurate one by Loewe; a fairly good Spanish translation may be found in Millas (more recent ones are of little value). None of the German translations is adequate; the worst, perhaps, is that of Bargebuhr. The French translation of Paul Vuillaud (Paris, 1953) is also problematic, and there are numerous errors in the introduction. There is a generally good Italian translation, although unfortunately an attempt was made to render it in rhyme, La corona regale by Ser­ gio J. Sierra (Florence, 1990). The poem has also been translated into Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-Persian, and Dutch. Judah Ratzabi has done an important study of comparisons of the poem with Arabic litera­ ture (in Biqqoret ve-parshanut 2—3 [1972]:47—60). Not as important as Keter malkhut, but neverthe­ less very popular in the medieval period and beyond, was his poetical composition Azharot on the 613 commandments (first printed at Constantinople in 1515, with a commentary by Simon b. §emah Duran, and frequently thereafter). Ibn Gabirol composed also a number of piyyutiym, actually intended for use in synagogue services, but “religious” themes run throughout his poetry, 362

and thus the distinction between “religious” and “sec­ ular” is hard to make. However, it is his “secular” po­ etry that stands out as truly remarkable. Whereas Ibn Gabirol was the first in philosophy and in ethics in medieval Spain, he of course was not the first poet. Nevertheless, his poetry showed a sophistication and originality both in style and in themes that was not found in other early poets, aside from Ibn Naghril­ lah. (Details may be found in the article on POETRY, He

br e w

).

Lost a n d Pseudepigraphic Works

Ibn Gabirol apparently wrote a work on angels (as “separate intellects”), referred to by the sixteenthcentury writer Moses Almosnino, that no longer ex­ ists. Similarly, he mentions a book on “the source of beneficence [or possibly even “overflow”] and being” (Fons vitae V. 40). Erroneously attributed to Ibn Gabirol is the short treatise on the soul, “Hemdah genuzah,” or “Ma’a mar ‘a l ha-nefesh,” edited by Zvi Hirsch Edelmann, s.t. IJemdah genuzah (Konigsberg, 1856; photo rpt. Tel Aviv, 1971), pp. 1-3, which is actually by a Christian writer (cf. Munk, pp. 172-73; the work contains certain “Arabisms,” however, and it is therefore doubtful that it is a translation from a Latin original. Possibly it was written by a Christian Arab). NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY Works by Ibn Gabirol

Fons vitae, ed. Clemens Baumker (Munster, 1895). Fuente de la vida (with Lat. text) ed. and tr. (Sp.) Federico de Castro y Fernandez (Madrid, s.a. [1901-3]), 2 vols.; revised by Carlos del Valle Rodriguez, with his intro. (Barcelona, 1987); 1 vol. (the Sp. tr. only). Abridged Heb. tr. of Ibn Falquerah in Munk, Sa­ lomon. Melanges de philosophie ju ive et arabe (Paris, 1859; photo rpt. 1955); Heb. appendix. (Note: this is the mysterious edition “by S. Moloch, Paris, 1857,” listed in the bibliography of Guttmann, Philosophies o f Judaism., p. 403; the fault, of course, of the English translator.) Meqor hayyiym, Heb. translation by Jacob Blaustein from the Latin (Jerusalem, 1926); with text of Ibn Falquerah, intro, and biog. of Ibn Gabirol by Joseph Klausner.

Ibn Naghrillah, Samuel

The Fountain o f Life (Book III), tr. Harry E. Wedeck (New York, 1962; London, 1963). Livre de la source de vie. Fons vitae, tr. Jacques Schlanger (Paris, 1970); fairly reliable translation (there are other French and Spanish translations). Mivhar ha-peniyniym (1st ed., Soncino, 1484), with anonymous commentary by a French Jew (four­ teenth-century); numerous subsequent eds. Im­ portant is the ed. from a manuscript by H. [Zvi] Filipowski [London, 1851], with English tr.; and ed. A. M. Habermann (Tel Aviv, 1947; photo rpt. 1960-61). Selection de perlas, tr. D. Gonzalo Maeso (Barcelona, 1977). Tiqqun middot ha-nefesh (numerous eds. of the Heb. tr. by Ibn Tibbon); Arabic text, peculiarly in Ara­ bic script instead of Hebrew: The Improvement o f the Moral Qualities, ed. and tr. Stephen S. Wise (New York, 1901; photo rpt. 1966); good but with some serious errors of translation; some er­ rors in the text. I. Goldziher gave some important corrections to the text in Zeitschrijt fu r hebraeische Bibliographic 6 (1902): 140 ff. La correction de los caracteres, tr. Joaquin Lomba Funetes (Zaragoza, 1990); somewhat of an improve­ ment over Wise’s translation, but unfortunately he did not make use of Goldziher’s corrections or, ap­ parently, the Hebrew manuscript (1267) Escorial G-IV-4. His introduction is important. Selected Religious Poems, ed. I. Davidson and tr. I. Zangwill (Philadelphia, 1923; photo rpt. New York, 1973; Philadelphia, 1973 [paper]). The Kingly Crown, tr. Bernard Lewis (London, 1961). Shirei ha-qodesh, ed. D. Jarden (Jerusalem, 1971-72; rpt., corrected ed., s.a. [1976-77] ), 2 vols. Shirei ha-hol, ed. D. Jarden (Tel Aviv, 1975); 2 vols. (with complete notes). Shirei ha-hol, ed. Hayyim Brody, Hayyim Schirmann (Jerusalem, 1975); i.e., Brody ed. corrected and with additions from mss. ‘Anaq (grammatical poem), critical ed. Jarden, Shirei ha-hol I, 375-83; additions from new Genizah fragments, ed. A. Saenz-Badillos, “El Anaq, poema lingiustica de Selomoh Ibn Gabirol,” Miscelanea de estudios drabes y hebraicos 29 (1980): 10-11, with tr. of entire poem, pp. 15-22 (gener­ ally reliable tr.).

Works on Ibn Gabirol

Ashkenazi, Shemuel. “Mivhar ha-peninim in later medieval Hebrew literature” (Heb.), in S. Assaf et al., eds., Minhah le-Yehudah Zlotnik (Tel Aviv, 1950), pp. 105-28. Bargebuhr, F. P. Salomo Ibn Gabirol Ostwestliches Dichtertum (Wiesbaden, 1976). Bertola, Ermenegildo. Salomon ibn Gabirol (Avicebron); vita, op ere e pensiero (Padua, 1953). Cantarino, Vincent. “Ibn Gabirols Metaphysic of Light,” Studia Islamica26 (1967): 49-71. Guttmann, Julius. Philosophies o f Judaism (New York, 1964). Kaufmann, David. Die Spuren al-Batlajusis (Bu­ dapest, 1880) and Studien iiber Salomon Ibn Gabirol (1899) and Die Sinne (1884); photo rpt. in one volume, Gregg International Publishers, 1972; with intro, by Louis Jacobs. Loewe, Raphael. Ibn Gabirol (New York, 1989). Millas Vallicrosa, J. M. Selomo Ibn Gabirol como poeta y filosofo (Madrid-Barcelona, 1945; photo rpt. Granada, 1993; with intro, by Maria J. Cano). Munk, Salomon. Melanges de philosophie ju iv e et arabe(Paris, 1859; photo rpt. 1955). Parnes, Abraham. Mi-bein le-m a‘arakhot (Tel Aviv, 1950); particularly p. 70 ff. Roth, Norman. “‘Sacred’ and ‘Secular’ in the Poetry of Ibn Gabirol,” Hebrew Studies 20-21 (1979— 80): 75-79. Schirmann, Hayyim. “Le-freqer hayyav shel Shelomoh Ibn Gabirol,” Kenesset 10 (1946): 244-57.

Ibn Naghrillah, Samuel (993-1056)

Abu Ibrahim Isma‘ll b. Yusuf Ibn Ghazzal, according to §a‘id al-AndalusI, or “Samuel the son of Elkana,” according to another source, known in Jewish history as Samuel ha-nagiyd (“prince,” or leader), achieved a remarkable career even for a Jew of Muslim Spain (the correct spelling of his family name, Ibn Naghril­ lah, is established elsewhere [Roth, p. 89]; since then another source has been found). He rose to become prime minister of the kingdom of Granada and its commander in chief, established himself as an au­ thority in Jewish law, science, and biblical exegesis, and was one of the foremost Hebrew poets. He grew up in Cordoba, where his father apparently was in 363

Ibn Naghrillah, Samuel

commerce. While in Cordoba, he met the young Muslim aristocrat and scholar Ibn yazm, who later was to write a sharp polemic against him. It is possi­ ble that Samuel fled the city during the Berber upris­ ing of 1013 or after the city was conquered by All b. Hammud in 1016. Whatever the case, he soon came to the attention of the secretary of the prime minister of Granada, then a separate Muslim kingdom (taifa:), and when that secretary became ill, Ibn Naghrillah took the position. Stories of his alleged imprison­ ment are false (see Roth, 90-91). He became both prime minister and secretary of state under the ruler Badls. However, and in spite of the fact that other Jews held the position of prime minister in other Muslim kingdoms, the ruler of neighboring Almeria piously objected to the appointment of a Jew to this post and used this as a pretext for declaring war on Granada. To his consternation, Samuel was honored by being appointed also commander-in-chief of the army of Granada. This scholarly Jew, who doubtless wanted nothing more than to spend a quiet life at home, led his troops in battle against the various ene­ mies of Granada, including Christian mercenary sol­ diers, for nineteen years (1038-56), without losing a single battle. In spite of the loyal support of the Mus­ lim ruler of Granada, there is little doubt that had he, in fact, lost a battle he would have soon been re­ moved from office. The enemy forces against which he fought were substantial, with a major victory in 1039 against the combined armies of Seville and Carmona in which the son of the king of Seville was killed. Samuel wrote poems about most of his battles, understand­ ably expressing pride in his victories but also not for­ getting to give praise to God for his support. At the time of these early battles he had only one son, Yusuf, to whom he sometimes sent poems from the field (his name is written as “Yehosef” in Hebrew, but invariably Yusuf in the Arabic headings to poems and in all Arabic sources). One of the most touching of these was after the victory of the battle of Lorca in 1042, “Send a dove proclaiming” (see translation in Roth, p. 94). His biggest military challenge was the kingdom of Seville, against whom he fought from 1039 to 1056, finally defeating the enemy in a deci­ sive battle, the horrors of which he gave a realistic ac­ count in another poem. In addition to the ferocity of the battles and the constant danger to his life, an­ 364

other hardship was being away from home and his family, particularly on Sabbaths and holidays (see ex­ cerpt from his poem about the battle, and also his poem to Yusuf about the hardship of being separated from him on Sabbaths and festivals, Roth, p. 95). In 1049 his wife bore him another son, Elyasaf, while Samuel was fighting yet another battle. Both his sons received excellent educations, as was customary, including the mastery of Arabic. Yusuf edited his fathers poems, adding Arabic headings to them, and Elyasaf already was editing his father s rhymed proverbs (Ben Mishley) at the age of six, certainly under the supervision of his father. Samuel also had a daugh­ ter, of whom nothing more is known; the suggestion (Bellamy in Journal o f the American Oriental Society 103 [ 1983] :423—24) that she was the author of Arabic verse found in an Andalusian collection is absurd be­ cause she died long before those verses were written. In spite of the fact that he fought against and de­ feated some of the most powerful Muslim rulers, he received great praise from several Muslim scholars and poets, unequaled by any other Jew (examples in Roth, pp. 96-98). Some of this testimony provides us with extremely important information not found in Jewish sources; for example, his great proficiency in Arabic as well as Hebrew writing and his outstand­ ing skills in science, particularly astronomy (indeed, this may be guessed at from a poem in which he ac­ curately predicted two eclipses), as well as some phi­ losophy, at least logic. In spite of his reputation as a scholar also of Jewish subjects, and fame as a po­ litical and military leader, there is in fact relatively lit­ tle mention of him in Jewish sources. Moses IBN E z r a ( h ) praised him effusively, acknowledging his superiority in poetic style and innovation. After Ibn Naghrillah s death, he says, opponents began to at­ tack his work “like cats jumping on a pillow,” but none of this detracted from his reputation in poetry or in legal or grammatical writings, “or the greatness of his political service in matters of state and affairs of war.” Yet Abraham Ibn Daud, the first Jewish chronicler in Spain, failed to mention Ibn Naghrlllah’s position in the government or his military ca­ reer, referring only to his poetry. Possibly the animos­ ity aroused in the debate over grammar (see below) cast a shadow over his fame in later years, in spite of what Ibn Ezra(h) had written (there is, incidentally, no evidence that Ibn Daud knew of that work).

Ibn Naghrillah, Samuel

The aforementioned Muslim scholar Ibn Hazm, who had known Ibn Naghrillah in Cordoba, had since become a devout theologian and antagonistic toward Judaism. In his famous encyclopedic work on the history and beliefs of different religions, Kitdb alfa$l f i ’l -milal wa’l ahwa (“Book of distinction [thus I understand the title] concerning the religious com­ munities and sects”), he already mentions debates and discussions he had with Samuel in Cordoba. Later, he says, he learned that Samuel had written a book attacking the Qur’an (highly unlikely, in any event) and he had tried but failed to find a copy of it. He nevertheless wrote a “refutation” of Ibn Naghrlllah, based on this alleged criticism, which he claims to have known from an earlier refutation by an un­ named Muslim writer. The epilogue to Ibn liazm’s epistle contains material already found in his earlier work, but with additional attacks on specific midrashiym and talmudic statements (see Roth, pp. 100-101 for discussion and sources). If Ibn Naghril­ lah wrote a reply to this attack, no record of it has re­ mained. Modern scholars have made numerous erro­ neous statements about this entire issue, such as the claim that Ibn Hazm wrote that “prominent Jews” of the first century had “recognized the truth” of the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus; whereas he in fact only wrote that Josephus, whom he had read, knew of John the Baptist (Ibn Hazm makes no men­ tion of Jesus at all). Ibn Hazm, of course, could have read the Arabic epitome of Josephus (see the article “Yosippon”); earlier claims had been made that Ibn Naghrillah himself prepared such an epitome, but there is no evidence to support this. Far more serious was the debate over HEBREW GRAMMAR. Abu Walld (Jonah) Ibn Janah, one of the greatest grammarians, was then living in Zaragoza. Apparently angered by his criticism of Judah Hayyuj, Ibn Naghrillah joined in the attacks on Ibn Janah, and the latter replied in a book from which we learn that the debate focused on the technicalities of verb forms. The young poet and philosopher Solomon I b n GABIROL, who also lived at the time in Zaragoza, left that city as a result of verbal attacks against him and had meanwhile become friendly with Ibn Naghrillah (it is unlikely that he was ever in Granada or actually met the older poet, but they did exchange poetry). Suddenly, however, there was a break in their friendship, and it has been surmised that this was be­

cause of the grammar controversy, although there is no evidence to sustain such a theory. Ibn Naghrillah was very aware of his important position not only in the government but as head of the Jewish community, at least in Granada. He did everything possible to enhance and spread his reputa­ tion not only in Spain but throughout the Mediter­ ranean Jewish world. He supported scholars and stu­ dents and made his large library available to them. He also sent money for the support of the yeshivot of the GEONIM in “Babylon” (Iraq); because of this, he was granted by them the honorary title of rosh haSeder. His financial support was sought, and no doubt obtained, also by the Palestinian congregation of FUSTAT. He also became friends with one of the greatest talmudic scholars of his day, Nissim Gaon (Nissim b. Jacob Ibn Shahln of Qayrawan; the title gaon was honorary). Samuel wrote at least three poems in praise of Nissim, and Nissim’s daughter eventually married Yusuf, Samuel’s eldest son. As noted elsewhere (see Ibn G a b i r o l ), there is no rea­ son to accept the later report that when Nissim came to Granada to attend the wedding, he established a yeshivah there and that Ibn Gabirol studied with him. Ibn Naghrillah himself headed a yeshivah in Granada, and his son Yusuf succeeded him in that position, as he did as prime minister. Samuel Ibn Naghrillah was widely respected as a talmudic scholar and authority in Jewish law. He composed a work on law, Hilkhata gibrata, of which only fragments have been recovered (ed. Mordecai Margalioth, as Hilkhot ha-nagid [Jerusalem, 1962]). He was not, however, the author of the Mavo letalmud (Introduction to the Talmud), often attrib­ uted to him (see, e.g., the article on Samuel b. Hofni in Encyclopedia Judaica; it is nevertheless true that Samuel b. liofni was also not the probable author of that work). There were several scholars in that period of time whose first name was Samuel, some of whom were also known as “Samuel ha-nagiyd” which re­ sulted in confusion. Nevertheless, it appears that he did write a commentary on the Talmud, for it is cited by early authorities, unless, again, this is a confusion with one of the other “Samuels.” He is cited repeat­ edly by numerous authorities, including even NAH­ MANIDES (commentary on Ketuvot, erroneously at­ tributed to IBN A d r e t , on f. 20a, 27a, 32a), and he apparently also wrote a (lost) commentary on the 365

Ibn Naghrillah, Samuel

Bible, which had a great influence on Abraham I b n ‘E z r a and others (David Qimhi also cited him on Ps. 109.10). Ibn Naghrillah died, as he had predicted, peace­ fully at home in his own bed in 1056. Yusuf assumed his fathers post but never possessed his fathers tact or generosity, and he used tax money to construct his own palace (the original Alhambra, begun already in Ibn Naghrillah s lifetime). This and other alleged abuses led to a revolt, which soon spread to a mas­ sacre of most of the Jewish community in the city of Granada, and he was assassinated in 1066 (see for de­ tails Roth, pp. 103-10). As a poet, Ibn Naghrillah was virtually unequaled and certainly unexcelled, both in the quantity and the quality of his work. His poetic compositions fill three large volumes: Ben Tehiylliym (or simply Divan), containing his secular and battle poems, also some “religious” verse; Ben Mishley, rhymed proverbs; and Ben Qohelet, somewhat pessimistic and didactic verse. Each of these has a title that relates it to a bibli­ cal book: Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, not co­ incidentally books that were traditionally ascribed to David, the heroic poet-king of the Jewish people, to whom Samuel compared himself. His style is remark­ able for its beauty and ease of comprehension, in contrast to the far more complex and at times ob­ scure style of Ibn Gabirol. He was the first Hebrew poet to successfully adapt all of the Arabic meters, and he added several more. He also was innovative in language, creating a number of new words that even­ tually entered permanently into Hebrew. He wrote on every conceivable theme: battle, friendship, wine, love (poems about both women and boys), his sons, science, and more. He wrote panegyric in praise of friends or famous scholars and satire (including amusing criticism of incompetent rabbis) in addition to his poetry and scholarly prose. Unlike Ibn Gabirols small prose book of proverbs (Mivhar ha-peniyniym; see article on Ibn Gabirol), which is almost entirely derived from Arabic proverbs, Ibn Naghrillahs Ben Mishley contains much that is original. Though highly valued by his contemporaries, his poetry, for reasons that are not clear, failed to achieve the wide recognition in other lands (Egypt, Palestine, even Yemen) that made Ibn Gabirol and J u d a h HA-L e v y famous in their own lifetimes. Something of the same thing was to befall the secular poetry of Moses 366

I b n £E z r a ( h ), but at least some of his liturgical po­ etry kept his name alive over the centuries. It was not until the nineteenth century, through the labors of the indefatigable Abraham Harkavy, that his poetry and some details of his life began to come to light. The publication, however flawed, of the complete edition of his Divan by David Sassoon in 1934 opened the way for appreciation of his poetry. That publication was replaced by complete editions of all his poetic compositions by A. M. Habermann and S. Abramson (1944-1953), and finally by the critical editions of the late Dov Jarden (see Bibliography). NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY Works by Ibn Naghrillah

Ben Tehiylliym, ed. Dov Jarden. (Jerusalem, 1966); critical ed. with notes. Ben Mishley, ed. Dov Jarden (Jerusalem, 1983). Ben Qohelet, ed. Dov Jarden (Jerusalem, 1992). Poemas desde el campo de batalla, tr. (Sp.), with Heb. text, A. Saenz-Badillos and Judit Targarona Borras (Cordoba, 1988). Battle poems only; generally good translation. Other (English) translations of his poetry are not reliable. Works about Ibn Naghrillah

Roth, Norman. Jews, Visigoths, and Muslims in Medieval Spain (Leiden, 1994); see index. ---------. “Satire and Debate in Two Famous Me­ dieval Poems from al-Andalus: Love of Boys vs. Girls, the Pen and Other Themes,” The Maghreb Review A (1979): 105-13 (discussion and transla­ tions of exchange of poems between Yusuf Ibn Hasdai and Ibn Naghrillah). Saenz- Badillos, A., and J. Targarona Borras. “Jewish Tradition in Arabic Form in the War Poetry of Shemuel Ha-Nagid,” in Yedida K. Stillman and Norman A. Stillman, eds., From Iberia to Dias­ pora. Studies in Sephardic History and Culture (Lei­ den, 1999), pp. 264-81.

Isaac b. Sheshet

Isaac b. (“son of”) Sheshet, known also by his He­ brew acronym “RIVaSH” was born in 1326 in Barcelona and died in 1408. He was one of the fore­ most rabbinical authorities of his time, whose re-

Isaac b. Sheshet

sponsa are an important source for Jewish law and an invaluable source for Jewish and non-Jewish history of Spain in the fourteenth century. Contemporary scholars, such as Simon b. §emah Duran, and later ones alike praised the greatness of his learning. Joseph Caro (so, not “Karo”; his name is found in Spanish sources) wrote that his own teacher, Jacob Beirav (or Bei Rav), attached more weight to the de­ cisions of Isaac than to those of all other rabbis (see Hershman, p. 4), and Caro himself drew from Isaacs responsa extensively in his legal codes. In addition to his responsa, Isaac apparently wrote novellae (hid-dushim) on some talmudic tractates, cited by a later authority (one manuscript, on Ketuvoty is extant; that on Berakhot has been published), and eight known poems, mostly religious (piyyufim), one of which has never been published (Hershman, p. 5 n. 11; see the important eulogy edited by Dov Jarden in Sefunot 8 [1964]: 260-63). Nothing is known about his early years and very little about his family. There is no basis whatever to Hershman’s claim (and nothing in Baer, whom he cites, supports this) that he was descended from “the famous prince \nasiy] Sheshet,” nor is what he wrote about the name Barfat or Perfet as a “surname” cor­ rect (p. 9). “Perfet” is simply a variant of Profiat, fairly common in Catalonia, and has nothing to do with his alleged ancestor Sheshet having been a “prefect or baile of the Count of Barcelona” (p. 10). On the other hand, the form “Barfat” is, in fact, attested in the very responsa that Hershman cited as argument that this was not a name used by Isaac (Nos. 387, 390). His teachers were Hasdai b. Judah Crescas, grandfather of the renowned philosopher Hasdai Crescas, Peres b. Isaac ha-Kohen (died ca. 1369 in Barcelona; not to be confused, as he fre­ quently is, with the French scholar Peres b. Elijah of Corbeil), and Nissim b. Reuben. It is possible that Rabbi liasdai Crescas and the Isaac Perfect, who was a secretary (adelantado) of the Jewish community of Barcelona in 1326, were Isaac b. Sheshet s grandfa­ thers. Abraham Zacut made an incredible error in his chronicle ( Yuhasin, f. 225a) in saying that the philos­ opher Crescas was Isaac b. Sheshets teacher; they were contemporaries and friends. Isaac had a son, Astruc (En is simply a Catalan title of respect, equiva­ lent to Castilian “don”) and two or possibly three daughters. The name of only one of his sons-in-law is

known for certain: Isaac Bonafos b. Shealtiel, who also was a student of Peres b. Isaac ha-Kohen. He lived in Falset, where he was later a physician, and after Isaacs death he moved in 1412 to Cervera and continued his medical practice; some responsa attrib­ uted to him are in the (basically forged) Sheelot uteshuvot ha-RIV”aSh ha-hadashot. In Barcelona he did not hold the position of rabbi, probably in deference to his own teachers who were still alive, but he was head of a yeshivah. Hershman (p. 14) was surprised that only twenty-three of his re­ sponsa were written in Barcelona, but this conclusion is based on the mention of the name in the heading, or text, of a responsum; it is entirely possible that other responsa were written in Barcelona without mention of the city. While in Barcelona, he and five other scholars were arrested, including his brother Judah (don Crescas) Nissim b. Reuben, and the phi­ losopher Hasdai Crescas (Hershman, pp. 15, 233, 243ff.). Baer (II, 38-39) related this arrest to an alle­ gation that hosts stolen by a Christian from a church were sold to Jews, and that the king ordered the ar­ rest of all the Jews in the kingdom. Both this and the date suggested by Baer, 1367-1368, are completely incorrect (as is his entire version of that incident, contradicted by the sources he cites). Both Atlas, a nineteenth-century scholar whose work was known to Baer, and Hershman already had correctly stated that the arrest of the rabbis was in 1370 or 1371. From Isaac’s own statements about the incident, it is obvious that it had to do with Jewish informers, and that the imprisonment lasted not for three days (as in the case of the host accusation) but for at least five months. It is impossible to know what the exact na­ ture of the charges were, which appear to have been particularly directed at Nissim b. Reuben, but that the case involved Jewish informers is quite obvious (see Roth for a complete analysis of the event and the background). Possibly because of this, Isaac decided to leave Barcelona, and in 1372 or 1373 he became rabbi of Zaragoza, where he also headed a yeshivah. In Zaragoza he encountered fierce reaction to his strict interpretations of Jewish law and customs, and the controversies over his ideas nearly compelled him to leave the community, but appeals of those who supported him persuaded him to stay. During this period there were four deaths in his family, including 367

Isaac b. Sheshet

his brother and his mother (Hershman, p. 24). Isaac became involved in a dispute with an important Jewish aristocrat there in 1385, and he was again arrested. Soon afterward he decided to abandon Zaragoza, and he took a position as rabbi of VALEN­ CIA. There he was consulted about a controversy in­ volving Yohanan b. Matityahu, chief rabbi of France (see also TALMUD, CONDEMNATION o f ). Isaac sup­ ported Yohanan in the debate in an important responsum that outlines what his father, Rabbi Matityahu, had done in his position as chief rabbi, and all the benefits the French Jews had enjoyed be­ cause of this (No. 270; see Hershman, p. 203 ff. on the controversy). During this period Isaacs son died, leaving a young child whom Isaac took it upon him­ self to rear and educate. However, the events of the summer of 1391 brought an even greater calamity. Taking advantage of the death of Juan I and the fact that his successor, Enrique III (not “VH” as in Hershman, p. 30), was a child, a fanatical archdeacon of Seville, Ferrant Martinez, stirred up mobs of lower-class people to at­ tack Jewish synagogues, first in Seville and then in surrounding communities. The riots spread to the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia, including Valencia. Many Jews were killed, but even more (thousands) converted, some by force but mostly of their own will or out of fear of what might happen to them. Isaac himself, accused of a crime for which he was sen­ tenced to death, was baptized instead, certainly under duress and probable threat of what could hap­ pen to his family (Riera, “Toldot”; although he drew some unfounded conclusions there, both as to the ac­ tions of Prince Martin and the crimes of which Isaac was accused—only one crime is mentioned in the source). Somehow Isaac managed to escape, however, and fled to North Africa, as did many Jews from Va­ lencia and Majorca at that time. There he resumed his activities as a rabbi, and indeed wrote many of his most important responsa. He died there in 1408, greatly respected both in North Africa and in Spain (see Hershman s discussion of the tomb of Isaac and its fate, p. 236ffi; reference should have been made to the poem Isaac wrote to Rabbi Shalom b. Abba Mari Ibn Kaspi, in the edition cited by Hershman, p. 15, No. 1; thus it need not have been the sixteenthcentury poet Abba Mari Ibn Kaspi who was author of the inscription on Isaacs tomb). 368

There are many important legal and also philo­ sophical and other matters discussed in Isaacs re­ sponsa. Most of these have to do specifically with the history and situation of the Jews in Spain, and there­ fore cannot be discussed in detail here. It is perhaps of interest to note that he knew Spanish (Castilian) and sometimes also translated words into Catalan or Arabic. The latter language he may have learned while in Zaragoza, where many Jews knew and used Arabic, and it was certainly necessary for him in Va­ lencia. In one responsum to a rabbi in Teruel (Cat­ alonia), he castigates that rabbi and the community for not hiring a scribe who knew Arabic correctly, since a certain Arabic document they sent to Isaac was so full of mistakes that neither he nor the “ex­ perts” in Arabic to whom he showed it could under­ stand the text (No. 452). Some notion of the esteem in which he was held may be gathered from the fact that he addressed responsa to numerous communi­ ties, large and small, in the kingdom of AragonCatalonia, but also some to Navarre and Castile. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works by Isaac b. Sheshet

Commentary on Berakhot in Sefer liqutei rishoniym . . . Berakhot (s.l. [Jerusalem?], 1978). (poetry, with Simon Duran) ed. I Morali (?) in Qove$ ‘a l-yad3 (1896): 1-48. She’e lot u-teshuvot (Vilna, 1878; with notes; photo rpt. Jerusalem, s.a. [1967] and New York, 1976). A so-called critical edition was printed in Jerusalem in 1993 (2 vols.), but without a thorough knowl­ edge of the languages used and of the historical background, a truly critical edition is not possible. Works on Isaac b. Shehset

Baer, Yitzhak. A History o f the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1956), 2 vols. Hershman, Abraham M. Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet Perfe t and His Times (New York, 1943; Heb. tr. Jerusalem, 1956, to be used with caution); benefi­ cial, particularly for dating of the responsa (gener­ ally reliable), although there are numerous errors, some serious, in the rest of the book. Riera, Jaume. “Le-toldot ha-RIVaSH be-gezeirot 151 [1391],” translated by Frank Talmage, in Sefunot 17(1983): 11-18.

Ishblll, Yom Tov

Roth, Norman. “The Arrest of the Catalan Rabbis: An Unexplained Incident in Jewish History,” Se­ farad 47 (1987): 163-72.

Ishblll, Yom Tov Yom Tov b. Abraham Ishblll (the correct form of his name, meaning “of Seville”) was one of the most im­ portant scholars of medieval Spain, a legal authority and commentator on the Talmud. The year of his birth is unknown (Kafih has sug­ gested ca. 1260, because his chief teacher, Aaron b. Joseph ha-Levy, died in 1293 according to some sources, and he was still alive when Ishblll wrote many of his responsa. However, the date of Aarons death is itself doubtful). The date of his death is also unknown; certainly after 1314 (responsum No. 159 refers to an incident in that year), and Kafih was of the opinion that it was even after 1328; again, with inadequate reasoning. He was a student both of the renowned Solomon Ib n A d ret and of his erstwhile colleague and critic Aaron ha-Levy of Barcelona (whenever he mentions simply his “teacher,” he means the latter). His name, abbreviated in Hebrew as “RITVA” (Rabbi Yom Tov b. Abraham), has caused much con­ fusion among bibliographers, who have repeatedly cited a mysterious commentary of his on Mai­ monides5Mishneh Torah. In fact, that is the commen­ tary (“M igdal \oz) by Shem Tov (not Yom Tov) b. Abraham Ibn Gaon, the mistake being due to a mis­ print in the 1524 Venice edition. Although the family name indicates an ultimate ori­ gin from Seville in Andalucia, Ishblll lived most of his life in Zaragoza in Aragon. He was already in Aragon when the Castilian Jewish poet Todros ABULAFIA vis­ ited there, ca. 1283, and wrote a poem to him. Yet he may have spent some time studying in France, for he refers to the customs of Germany and France in his commentaries. His father-in-law was Simuel (Samuel) Famos of the tiny town of Serrion, near Teruel. In 1321 a Christian was accused of poisoning wells with pow­ ders that, under torture, he said he had obtained from Samuel Famos, a “fortune-teller,” and another Jew. They were arrested and tortured, but admitted nothing (the local authorities tried to protect them, however). Samuel was put to death before the Chris­

tian confessed to having lied. The local baile (admin­ istrator) of Teruel took possession of Samuels goods until justice could be administered, and some of these were given to Ishblll. Interesting information concerning Ishblll also emerges from other Spanish documents. Some indi­ cate, incidentally, that he was not totally well re­ garded by the most prominent Jews of Zaragoza (not an uncommon phenomenon, especially in that quar­ relsome community). Even in legal matters, where his authority was highly regarded, there were sometimes implied slights, as when a certain rabbi of Barcelona wrote to him that it is known that “the majority of the scholars of this land” (Catalonia) had received instruction from “one shepherd” (NAHMANIDES). Ishblll replied, though recognizing Nahmanides5 prominence, that “since I know that I am not among [those taught by Nahmanides], I speak to you as one defending the honor of my rabbis” (Ibn Adret and Aaron ha-Levy). Since, in fact, both of these had been students of Nahmanides, Ishblll constantly refers to him as “our great rabbi” (although, as Nahmanides himself proudly proclaimed, he was never a “rabbi”). Never­ theless, Ishblll wrote an entire book, Sefer ha-zikaron (published), as a defense of MAIMONIDES against the strictures of Nahmanides. This was a courageous act in a kingdom (A r a g On -CATALONIA) whose Jews so staunchly sided with Nahmanides and his school. It is, furthermore, not improbable that the “Rabbi Meir” to whom he constantly refers in his com­ mentaries, including the expressions “my teacher R’ Meir” and “my teacher /^z-raz'ha-Lavy,” is Meir A b u ­ lafia of Toledo (d. 1244). Since by 1280 Ishblll was already established as a “scholar and sage” in Zaragoza, and since, as we have noted, Todros Abulafia visited him there, it is quite likely that at some period in his youth he studied also with Meir Abulafia. His extant responsa are of interest, and some of them provide historical material and insights into the period. So, too, do comments found in some of his commentaries, such as his statement that although Muslims believe in the unity of God and do not wor­ ship idols at all (so far, in conformity with the view of Maimonides), Islam is nevertheless “complete idola­ try” according to the law, with regard to a Jew who accepts that faith; that is, one must die rather than do 369

Ishblll, Yom Tov

so. That, of course, was completely contrary to what Maimonides had written. All of this is of more than passing interest considering that Zaragoza had a sig­ nificant Muslim population in Ishblll s time. Thanks to the efforts of the Judah L. Maimon Institute and a large staff of scholars in Jerusalem, a complete critical edition of Ishblll s talmudic com­ mentaries has been published. In addition to the Sefer ha-zikaron, his laws on blessings and various re­ sponsa were edited by Moses Blau (New York, 1956), and a complete edition of his responsa was edited by Joseph Kafih (Jerusalem, 1959; rpt. 1978). Ishbllls attitude toward conversos, the increasing number of Jews converting to Christianity, demonstrates what was later to become the rule: they are not considered to have the status of Jews, even if repentant. He also wrote treatises on the laws of holidays and Passover, and a commentary on the Passover Hag­ gadah, all now available in critical editions. The Sefer ha-zikaron also, in the earlier edition of Kalman Kahane (Jeruaslem, 1956), was reprinted with revisions from manuscripts in 1983. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kafih, Joseph. Introduction (Heb.) to his ed. of Ishblll, Sheelot u-teshuvot (Jzmsdzm, 1959; rpt. 1978). Roth, Norman. “Jewish Conversos in Medieval Spain. Some Misconceptions and New Informa­ tion,” in William D. Phillips and Carla Rahn Phillips, eds., M arginated Groups in Spanish and Portuguese History (Minneapolis, 1989), p. 23 ff. ---------. Conversos, Inquisition and Expulsion o f the Jews from Spain (Madison, 1995).

Islam and Jews

(This essay spotlights the “classical period” of Jewish life under Islam in the Middle Ages, from the rise of Islam in the seventh century to approximately the end of the twelfth. During this era, the Jews enjoyed substantial security, punctuated by infrequent aber­ rations of persecution, with far less violence than that experienced by their brethren living in Christendom. Against this background, the Jews of Islam realized a remarkable cultural florescence.) Religiously, Jews were categorized by Islam as “in­ fidels” (Arabic: kujfaf). However, like Christians, 370

they qualified as “people of the book,” possessors of a prior revelation from God that was written down. People of the book acquired a tolerated status, that of “protected people” (ahl al-dhimma, or dhimmis), who were permitted to live among Muslims, undisturbed, and to observe their faith without interference. In re­ turn, they had to remit an annual tribute—a poll tax (Arabic: jizyd)—and comply with other restrictions, some of which evolved over time during the first cen­ tury or so of Islamic dominion. These limited the public exhibition of their religious rites and symbols (for instance, prohibition of construction of new houses of worship and repair to old ones; enticing Muslims to their religion). Other rules prescribed or proscribed special dress and other outward signs dis­ tinguishing the dhimmis from Muslims (Arabic hon­ orific names, for instance, were disallowed, as were the carrying of weapons and riding animals of pres­ tige, like horses). They were prohibited from serving in positions of authority in Islamic administration. And in general they had to confirm the superiority of Islam by assuming a low profile. The term most regularly used for this was saghar; meaning “humiliation,” and, indeed, historically, the purpose of the laws was to keep Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and other dhimmis humble. Most of the restrictions appear in the so-called Pact of ‘Umar. There was no special code, however, for the Jews per se in Islam: the dhimma “system,” part of the holy law of Islam (the shariat), applied equally to all nonMuslim “people of the book.” As such, the discrimi­ nation that existed was somewhat diffused among several infidel groups and hence not perceived as being pointedly anti-Jewish. This “pluralism,” char­ acteristic of Islamic society as a whole, helped protect the Jews and their counterparts in the infidel cate­ gory from the baneful effects of singular “otherness” that underlay the Jewish position in Christendom. Moreover, in actual practice during this era, the dhimma restrictions were commonly observed in the breach. Jews—and more so the far more numer­ ous Christians—regularly evaded the sartorial con­ straints, constructed new houses of worship, and, most conspicuously, abounded in the Muslim bu­ reaucracy. Documents from daily life in the Cairo GENIZAH testify to this evasion. So do frequent com­ plaints in Muslim sources that dhimmis had over­ stepped the boundaries imposed upon them by the

Islam and Jews

holy law—whence the restrictions would be enforced with sudden vigor, thus being perceived by the dhimmis as persecution. Unlike the Christian West (particularly, north­ western Europe), where the Jews’ concentration in professions associated with disreputable profit seek­ ing underscored their outsider status, the Islamic world encouraged profit seeking and the mercantile life, and Jews were well integrated into the economic life of society at large. Jewish merchants in the Mus­ lim world were representatives of their economic profession rather than of their religion. Their eco­ nomic role imparted to them more status and a higher degree of embeddedness in society at large than in the West. One finds evidence of this, for instance, in the Abbasid empire at the beginning of the tenth cen­ tury. A consortium of Jewish merchant-bankers be­ came attached to the caliphal court at Baghdad as a provider of loans and other BANKING and mercantile services. But, contrary to an outdated view, these Jewish merchant-bankers did not pioneer their voca­ tion nor did they constitute Jewish dominance in these related specialties. On the one hand, Muslims engaged in the very same economic activities. On the other, Jews exhibited substantial economic differenti­ ation. The genizah documents show that Jews made a living from industrial crafts, like metalwork and pro­ duction of cheese, raised crops on land they owned, were physicians, served in the bureaucracy, and more. They formed partnerships for profit in trade and in crafts with other Jews and with Muslims. Thus diver­ sified, and benefiting from the guild-free Islamic marketplace, the Jews appeared very much like their Muslim neighbors, and this militated against the so­ cial abuse that Jews in Christian lands had to endure in part on account of their identification with a lim­ ited and problematic set of occupations. The situation of the Jews in medieval Islam as re­ flected in the sources from that time resonates with the findings of several anthropologists who have ob­ served the nondiscriminatory interaction between Jews and Muslims in the traditional Arab market­ place in our own era. In fact, actual social interaction in the medieval period between Jews and Muslims, even beyond the economic realm, exhibits signs of decent human relations, despite the fact that Jews (and Christians) occupied the lowest rank in the hi­

erarchy of the social order and always ran the risk of incurring the wrath of strict religious scholars and/or the populace when they pursued behavior that con­ travened the code of differentiation and discrimina­ tion. It should be added that Jews shared with Mus­ lims the desire for separation and distinctive religious identity. Egalitarian assimilation was neither a possi­ bility nor a desired goal. But it seems that so long as both parties recognized the hierarchical gap between them (even if the lowly Jews were frequently capable of crossing barriers between them and their Muslim superiors), and so long as general economic and so­ cial conditions in the Muslim world maintained a certain level of prosperity and freedom from external threat, Jews and their neighbors got along tolerably well, and both the incidence and the fear of persecu­ tion were minimal. During these centuries, many changes took place in Jewish institutional life. One of these has to do with the status of talmudic law. In late antiquity, rabbinic Judaism was already fully formed around the Talmud. There were, however, two Talmuds, the Palestinian (or Jerusalem) Talmud and the Babylon­ ian one. Moreover, different customs prevailed in PALESTINE and in Babylon (Iraq). In part, the separa­ tion resulted from the fact that Babylonian Jews and Palestinian Jews lived in different empires—the east­ ern Roman (also called Byzantine) Empire and the Zoroastrian Sasanian Empire of Persia. The Muslims put an end to this cleavage by unit­ ing the former Byzantine and Sasanian empires under their rule through conquest. With the shift of the Is­ lamic capital and center of gravity from Damascus to Baghdad in the middle of the eighth century, the yeshivah of Babylon gained new prominence, as did the Babylonian exilarch (Hebrew: rosh golah). Soon, the Babylonian scholars overshadowed those of Pales­ tine; efforts were extended to disqualify some Pales­ tinian customs; and the authority of the Babylonian Talmud among world Jewry eclipsed that of the one written in Palestine. The Babylonian G e o n i m , as the heads of the yeshivot called themselves, trained judges, who went off with their diplomas to serve in Jewish communities of the Islamic world to the east and west (as far west as Muslim Spain). They spread Babylonian understanding of Jewish law through re­ sponsa and other halakhic writings. Among many other things, they wrote the first Jewish “prayer 371

Islam and Jews

books”—initially in the form of simple responsa to questions concerning the liturgy, later as full manuals, like Sa‘a d yah Ga o n ’s (d. 942) Siddur. Geonic persistence in imposing its version of rab­ binic law resulted in the emergence in the early Islamic period of an anti-Talmud sect called the QARAITES. Perhaps influenced by the parallel example of Shi’ite opposition to dominant Sunni Islam, and possibly re­ covering ancient Jewish traditions of rejection of the authority of the Oral Law (for instance, that of the Sadducees), the Qaraites, though a minority, pre­ sented a stiff challenge to normative Judaism and its spokesmen and even stimulated some of the intellec­ tual creativity that will be described further on. The Babylonian geonim succeeded in imposing their will on the Jewish people, but they also engi­ neered their own dispensability. Waves of “Babylon­ ian” Jews—from Iraq and Persia—migrated in the early Islamic centuries from the center of the Ab­ basid Empire to the Mediterranean lands, the new frontier, rich in economic opportunity, and also the site of burgeoning quasi-independent and sometimes fully independent provinces. New Jewish centers arose. A t first these new communities were depen­ dent upon the Iraqi geonim for guidance, and they also rendered financial support to the yeshivot. (The Palestinian yeshivah did not disappear. In fact, it continued to vie for the allegiance of Jews, and had some notable success in EGYPT.) But eventually, schol­ ars trained in Babylon or by disciples of the Babylon­ ian halakhic tradition, with the aid of responsa, handbooks of Jewish law, and commentaries on the Mishnah and Talmud “published” by the geonim , could begin to fulfill the spiritual functions formerly dominated by the geonim themselves. This happened, sequentially, in Spain, NORTH A f r ic a , and in Egypt, during the tenth and eleventh centuries. In Spain, an independent Jewish center emerged in the ninth century, around the same time that the Islamic province itself broke away from Baghdad’s hegemony to become the thriving and intellectually vibrant Umayyad caliphate, with its capital in Cor­ doba. A Jewish yeshivah, many illustrious rabbis, and a courtier class (from among the rabbis themselves) with close ties to the government formed the back­ bone of a self-sufficient Jewish community no longer subordinate to the Babylonian geonim. The Jewry of Muslim Spain flourished during this period, which 372

nineteenth-century European Jewish scholars looked back upon as a golden age of political and cultural distinction (with short-term setbacks), until the Berber ALMOHAD conquest and persecutions of the 1140s. In that decade, many thousands of Jews were killed or forced to convert to Islam; others fled to safer Islamic lands or to the steadily advancing Chris­ tian sector of Spain or to southern France. North Africa, notably Fez in Morocco and Qayrawan in what is modern Tunisia, developed cre­ ative centers of Jewish learning. Qayrawan, in par­ ticular, flourished. It was a bustling node in the Mediterranean trade, and the Jews among the mer­ chant community there imparted to the community the material well-being to support institutions of learning that, by the beginning of the eleventh cen­ tury, rivaled those of the geonim. The Tunisian center ended its heyday in the middle of that century owing to the destruction of Qayrawan by Berber tribesmen sent on an expedition from Egypt by the Fatimids to punish the rebellious vassal province of the Zirids. Egyptian Jewry was geographically closer to the pre-Islamic centers of Jewish leadership in Palestine and in Babylon than Spain or North Africa. For this and other reasons, the process of breaking away in Egypt was delayed until the latter part of the eleventh century. The geonim observed the emergence of self­ sufficient communities in the distant provinces with some dismay and strove to retain their relationship with them. Nominal deference to the geonim on the part of the provincial Jewish elites, and geonic awards of lofty Hebrew titles to Jewish magnates in Spain, North Africa, and Egypt, continued, but geonic complaints about delinquency in maintaining finan­ cial support at its former level signal the weakening of ties. Jewish culture underwent major transformations as a result of contact with Arab-Muslim civilization. For instance, in addition to the internal motives to unify Jewish law that animated the geonim and laid the foundation for a standardized Judaism from Persia to Spain, external influences played a prominent role. Muslim jurists, many of the most important working in Iraq, set an example by their own vigorous under­ taking to collect and codify Islamic law. But this was but one of the numerous instances in which IslamicArabic culture had a fructifying effect on the Jews.

Islam and Jews

At the base came the extraordinary linguistic transformation. Jews in the Fertile Crescent had spoken Aramaic for centuries, using H e b r e w and Hebrew-Aramaic as their literary languages. By the tenth century, Arabic had superseded both of these as the unified spoken and written tongue of the Jews. This contrasts revealingly with Europe. There, Jews adopted local dialects (French, German, etc.) for speaking purposes. But they did not use Latin, the language of most written culture, for literary pur­ poses. Rather, they continued to employ rabbinic Hebrew for their writings. Jews in the East were less uncomfortable with Islam as a religion, and anti-Jewish polemics in Ara­ bic were far less prevalent and less inimical than Latin polemics against the Jews and Judaism. More­ over, Arabic represented the means of acquiring secu­ lar culture ( M e d i c i n e , S c i e n c e a n d M a t h e m a t i c s , historiography, belles lettres, secular POETRY, etc.), to which Jews were powerfully attracted. One should add that Arabic is so close to Hebrew linguistically that its adoption for everyday as well as formal liter­ ary purposes must have seemed relatively effortless. Sa adyah Gaoris writings set the new standard in the use of Arabic for literary purposes. His halakhic works are in Arabic, and he was (apparently) the first to translate the Hebrew Bible into Arabic—clearly to take the place of the ancient Aramaic translation called Targum that hailed from the time when that language formed the Jewish vernacular. Jews mostly wrote Arabic in Hebrew characters, which they apparently found easier than Arabic script and perhaps more “Jewish,” in that it allowed them readily to punctuate their writing with Hebrew words, phrases, or classical Jewish citations, as was so common and often necessary. But Jewish comfort with the Arabic language stretched to a certain liberty with the religious vocabulary of Islam. Such a prominent paragon of rabbinic leadership as Sa adyah, for instance, could refer unself-consciously to the Torah as sharia (the Islamic term for the holy law), to the Jerusalem-oriented direction of prayer as qibla (Muslims use this word for Mecca), and to the Jewish hazzan as imam. Proficient knowledge of Arabic eased Jewish ac­ cess to the innumerable volumes of Hellenistic writ­ ings that were being translated into Arabic during the Abbasid period, thanks to the efforts of Oriental

Christians. It similarly made it possible for the Jewish intelligentsia to become part of the multidenominational cultural elite of the Arab world. Jewish intel­ lectuals frequented the courts of Muslim rulers, forming a veritable Jewish courtier class, best known in Muslim Spain but also existing elsewhere. Jews sat alongside Muslims and Christians in erudite “ses­ sions” (called majlists), where matters of the intellect, including religion, were discussed and debated in a fairly impartial manner. This social and cultural integration left its mark in numerous ways. One was the restudy of the B i b l e and its elevation to a distinguished position in the Jewish curriculum, after having been long pushed into the background by the study of Jewish law. Jews observed the reverence that Muslims lavished on the Qur’an and the Arabic language in which it was written. With so many foreigners in their empire (Greeks, Syrians, Persians, Spaniards, Berbers, Jews, etc.) coming over to their parlance, Arab scholars in­ vestigated and described the grammar of the Arabic language. This included, for the first time, creating vowel signs for the—like Hebrew—consonantal, nonvocalic Arabic script. A primary reason for this was to ensure the proper pronunciation of the Qur’an. Jews followed suit, though it is likely that Qaraite emphasis on the centrality of the Bible formed an­ other stimulus to this emulation. In the early Islamic period, Jews in both Babylon and Palestine worked toward establishing vowel signs and other notations to guide the proper recitation of the Torah. Our Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible is the product of this enterprise (it represents the system developed in Tiberias, Palestine). Hebrew grammarians, imitating their Arab counter­ parts, delved into the structure of the classical Hebrew language. How many letters constituted the root of a Hebrew word: five, four, three, fewer? Debates among Hebrew philologists lent spice to the project, which eventually determined the linguistic makeup of the biblical language as it has been ever since understood. Emulation of Arabic poetry produced intriguing results. Jews living in the Arabic-speaking world were enormously impressed by the poetry of the Arabs and self-consciously contrasted it with their own liturgi­ cal verse. The latter expressed only religious senti­ ments, its thematics drew heavily on talmudic and 373

Islam and Jews

midrashic concepts and words, and its locus of per­ formance was restricted to the synagogue. Its most conspicuous poetic convention was a rhyme syllable at the ends of lines. Arabic poetry adhered closely to its classical language and had both meter and rhyme. Its themes of love, wine, women, war, friendship, and parting gave expression to values of secular Arabic leisure life, set in a garden rather than in a mosque, and went hand in hand with the courtier society that Jews had come to admire and wished to reproduce among themselves. Rather than adopting Arabic for this purpose, however, the Jewish poets chose to write in Hebrew. But, still emulating the Arabs, they wrote solely in classical Hebrew, the language of the Bible, eschewing the postbiblical language and tal­ mudic allusions of pre-Islamic Jewish religious verse. Inventively, they figured out how to adapt Arabic quantitative (syllabic) meter to Hebrew, to clothe genres of Arabic poems in Hebrew garb, and to de­ scribe in biblical vocabulary (with some neologisms borrowed from Arabic) the secular themes that had captivated their imagination. They also wrote religious poetry according to Arabic conventions, adding some new theological concepts current in the Muslim milieu. Since Philo of Alexandria in the first century, PHI­ LOSOPHY and Judaism had not had contact with one another. But Muslim civilization gave new promi­ nence to the scientific and philosophical-rationalist legacy of Hellenism. This is not the place to dwell in detail on this important chapter in medieval Jewish civilization, nor to review the contributions of such great names of Jewish religious philosophy who wrote in Arabic as Isaac Israeli, Saadyah Gaon, Abra­ ham Ibn Daud, MAIMONIDES, and JUDAH HA-LEVY, to name just a few. Suffice it to say that, in the Is­ lamic world, Jewish religious thinking underwent a major revolution, grappling with the question of how to understand Bible and rabbinic literature in the light of rationalistic challenges about the nature of God, the origins of the world, theodicy, and other questions fundamental to monotheistic faiths. This article has highlighted the classical period of Jewish life under Islam. In the later Islamic Middle Ages, from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries on, society at large experienced stress, and, proportion­ ately, so did the Jews. External threats from Christian Europe (the CRUSADES, the Christian Reconquest in 374

Spain) and from Central Asia (the Mongols), a loss of commercial precedence to non-Muslims in both the Mediterranean and the India trades, and the rise of military regimes like the Mamluks of Egypt (who also controlled Palestine and Syria), contributed to the decline. Jews felt the effects. Their economic prosperity waned. Muslim authorities, jittery about possible collusion between their external enemies and dhimmis, increasingly enforced the restrictive laws of the Pact of ‘Umar. The bent for philosophy in Islam, which the Jews had shared, receded. In its place, ascetic, mystical Sufism, formerly cultivated mainly by individuals, came to the fore as a commu­ nal movement, and Jews, too, became attracted to both the theosophical and experiential components of this religious trend. Worthy of note, though, in their economic and political decline and in their at­ traction to Sufism in the late Islamic Middle Ages, Jews exhibited the same kind of embeddedness in majority culture that had characterized their relation­ ship to the Islamic world during the classical period. The most difficult places for Jews in the late Mid­ dle Ages were two: Iran, where the establishment of Shiism as the “state religion” in the sixteenth century brought the harsher attitude toward non-Muslims of this form of Islam to bear heavily on Jews and other dhimmis; and North Africa, where, as the only dhim­ mis on the scene since the Almohad persecutions had subsided (Jews had returned to Judaism, but Chris­ tian converts had not returned to Christianity), they absorbed singularly the brunt of Muslim contempt. MARK R. COHEN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History o f the Jews (New York and Philadelphia, 1952-1983), especially Vols. 3, 6-8, 17-18. Cohen, Mark R. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton, 1994). Fischel, Walter. Jews in the Economic and Political Life o f Mediaeval Islam (1937; reprint New York, 1969). Goitein, S. D. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities o f the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents o f the Cairo Geniza,, 6 vols. (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1967-1993). Lewis, Bernard. The Jews o f Islam (Princeton, 1984). Stillman, Norman. The Jews o f Arab Lands: A History and Source Book (Philadelphia, 1979).

J Jaime I Jaime I (so he spelled his name; not “Jaume”), king of A r a g On -C atal onia (1213-1276), was one of the most important rulers in medieval Spain and one of the most powerful of all medieval kings. His long and prosperous reign consolidated finally all of the vast territory of the kingdom, and did so with little of the Catalan resistance that marred the reigns of many of his successors. Although earlier counts of Barcelona, and then kings of the unified kingdom, already had cordial relations with Jews in both lands, there is no doubt that Jews achieved the status in the reign of Jaime until they were to maintain essentially without change until the fifteenth century. Not all was peace and harmony, however. Jaime had spent the early years of his reign strongly influ­ enced by Church counselors and advisors, and these influences never entirely disappeared. This was, after all, the era of the ALBIGENSIAN and other heresies, and the increasing power of the DOMINICANS AND FRANCISCANS brought to the fore men who viewed the Jews as actual and potential enemies whose “corrupting influence” on Christians ought to be checked. These included Ramon de Penafort, Guillermo de Cabanellas (bishop of Gerona), and es­ pecially Vidal de Canellas (bishop of Huesca and protege of Ramon). The latter, particularly, was re­ sponsible, together with Ramon, for the most “antiJewish” laws found in medieval Spain: the Fueros de Aragoriy the revisions and additions to the Costums of Tortosa, the Vidal Mayor, and finally the Furs of Va­ lencia (see SPANISH l a w ). All of these were composed under the patronage, and with the approval, of

Jaime. Yet in his daily personal relations with Jews, whether as individuals or entire communities, the king showed himself always to be scrupulously fair and even friendly. It has sometimes been suggested that the king, in­ deed, was dependent upon the Jews for their taxes, but the amount and percentage of the total tax con­ tribution of the Jews has often been greatly exagger­ ated. Indeed, the frequent exemptions from taxes granted by the king to individual Jews and often to entire communities belie this theory. One of the important contributions of Jaime, at the very beginning of his reign (1214 at the Corts of Lerida), and repeated frequently thereafter, was also the influence of the Church: the imposition of the first “peace laws” in the kingdom. Jews and Muslims were specifically included in these laws, along with Christians, and they and all their possessions were granted the security of the king s peace. That not all was totally harmonious between the Jews and the many Muslims who lived in the kingdom is demon­ strated by the ruling of the church Council of Tarra­ gona (1233) that Jews and Muslims are prohibited from killing each other. The following year a council in the same city attempted (unsuccessfully) to order everyone, including Jews and Muslims, to give up their swords altogether. Laws were also enacted against usury by Jews, re­ stricting the rate of interest that could be charged. Again, Church officials played the major role in this campaign, primarily, once again, the bishop of Gerona. A lengthy diatribe against Jewish “usury” ap­ pears in the Fueros of Aragon (1241). This law, at 375

Jaime I

least, was effective and remained in force throughout the medieval period. Other laws hostile to Jews included prohibitions against Jews’ having Christian women as servants, having sexual relations with Christians, or converting to Islam (conversely Muslims were barred from con­ verting to Judaism). One new law abolished the long-established right of Jews to demand two Jewish witnesses in all cases involving Jews and Christians (from 1236 on, and 1262—if not earlier—in VALEN­ CIA, one Jewish and one Christian witness were re­ quired). The latter law, however, was only sporadi­ cally enforced and did not generally survive the reign of Jaime. Jaime utilized the services of numerous Jewish of­ ficials, physicians, and interpreters of Arabic texts. One of the first of these was Isaac Benvenist, also the king’s personal physician, who earlier in the reign of Pedro II had concluded a peace treaty with the Mus­ lims. It was during the reign of Jaime that the large number of Jewish bailes (administrative officials of a city or territory) begin to appear, and entire dynasties of such Jewish officials soon emerged. The most im­ portant of these was certainly the de la Cavalleria dy­ nasty, and a related family, the Benvenist (in Castille, Benveniste), both of which held prominent positions until the eve of the expulsion. The king, constantly in need of money, often borrowed large quantities from some of these Jewish officials. Unable or un­ willing to repay the debts, he granted the officials in­ comes from taxes and sometimes mortgaged castles to them throughout his kingdom. By then Jews had owned or maintained castles in Barcelona for two centuries, and Jaime had already granted the castle of Montblanch to the Jews there in 1268 during the war with the count of Foix. Indeed, at the very onset of his reign the treasurer of all of Aragon was a Jew (Bondia). So also was the treasurer of the city of Zaragoza, and many Jewish families (such as the Portellas and Alcostantinis) ad­ ministered large areas of territory. However, Jahuda de Cavalleria was without doubt the most important, being responsible for the administration of taxes throughout the entire kingdom and numerous other duties. He acquired not only enormous wealth but also power and special privileges for his family for generations to come.

376

Whereas Jews in Spain, including Aragon-Catalo­ nia, were almost universally exempted from the canon of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which required Jews to wear distinctive CLOTHING (pecu­ liarly, this was almost everywhere interpreted to mean the Ba d g e ), Jews in Barcelona were required to wear a sort of round cloak. Jaime ordered exemptions from this for some of his Jewish officials, and for any Jews of Barcelona who accompanied the court on its frequent travels. Jews served as administrators not only for the king, but for various local overlords. An important example was Abraham Maimon, baile of the Tem­ plars and of the all-powerful Guillem de Moncada, master of the order and overlord of Tortosa. Jahuda Bonsenyor (d. 1331) is the well-known author of the Dichos y sentencias, a collection of proverbs composed for the Catalan king. His father, Astrug, was the Arabic interpreter for the king, a po­ sition that Jahuda inherited upon Astrug’s death. The most serious problems for the Jews in the reign of Jaime resulted from the apostate Jew Nicolas Donin in France, Pope Gregory IX’s condemnation of the TALMUD in 1239, and another French Jewish apostate, Paul Christiani, who in 1241 and again in 1263 engaged in the first disputations ever held with Jews in Spain, both in Barcelona. The first disputa­ tion was serious enough, but the second, involving the renowned Moses b. Nahman (NAHMANIDES), could have proved to be disastrous. In that year the king, acting on the advice of Ramon de Penafort and the testimony of the apostate Paul, ordered that the Jews of the kingdom must remove all “blasphemies” against Christianity from all of their books. The fol­ lowing year, in clarification of the decree, the king al­ lowed the Jews one month in which to defend their books against such charges before a tribunal, which included Ramon de Penafort and the notorious antiJewish polemicist Ramon Marti. In 1267 Clement IV again demanded that Jaime order that all Jewish books, particularly the Talmud, be investigated by the archbishop of Tarragona. However, the Jews meanwhile succeeded in convincing the king that he had been duped by the friars and other enemies of the Jews, and that their books contained no such blasphemies. In November of 1268 the king, thor­ oughly disgusted, issued a blanket privilege for all the

Josephus (Medieval Version)

Jews of the kingdom. He assured them “in perpetu­ ity” that they would never again have to respond to charges by anyone that their books contain state­ ments against Christianity. They were granted com­ plete freedom to buy and sell with Christians, and were specifically protected from compulsory sermons by the friars and granted the right to possess syna­ gogues and to “decently furnish” them. It was during this period (from 1263) that we find the famous scholar Solomon Ibn A d r e t of Zaragoza, a student of NAHMANIDES and now head of the entire Jewish community of the kingdom, increasingly ac­ tive in roles assigned to him by the king, along with other scholars. In Valencia, in spite of the negative anti-Jewish re­ strictions of the Furs, in practice Jaime dealt quite fairly with the Jews there and encouraged others to settle. He extended numerous privileges both to individ­ ual Jews and to entire communities; in fact, we hear of no single incident of abuse or hostility toward Valencian Jews on the part of the king. In one area, however, that of MEDICINE, Jaime’s record was not so admirable. In spite of the fact that he himself was ably served by several Jewish physi­ cians, in 1272 he issued a charter prohibiting Jews from studying medicine at the University of Mont­ pellier. Until the school of medicine was established at the University of Lerida upon its founding in 1300, Montpellier was virtually the only place where doctors could study; thus, this decree effectively pre­ vented Jews from becoming physicians. Ironically, in a codicil to his will in 1276, proba­ bly the last document from his pen, he granted en­ franchisement to his alfaqui (interpreter and proba­ bly physician) Astrug de Bonsenyor. While Jaime was generally favorably disposed to­ ward the Jews throughout his kingdom, as we have seen he at times was too easily swayed by hostile opin­ ion. Nevertheless, he set an important precedent for the status ofJews, individually and collectively, for cen­ turies to come in the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

There is no adequate study of Jaime and the Jews; useful but incomplete documentation may be found in:

Bofarull y Sans, Francisco. “Jaime I y los judios,” Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragon 1, 2 (1909-13): 819-943. Burns, Robert I. Jaume I i els Valencians del segle XIII (Valencia, 1981), ch. 4 (translation of “Jaume I and the Jews of the Kingdom of Valencia,” Con­ greso de historia de la Corona de Aragon 10 [1976]). Miret i Sans, Joaquim. Itinerari de Jaume I “el conqueridor” (Barcelona, 1918). Saldes, Antonio de, “La orden franciscana en el antiguo reino de Aragon,” Revista de estudios franciscanos2 (1908): 596-97.

Josephus (Medieval Version) The Latin work of Flavius Josephus (Joseph b. Matityahu), Jewish general in the Palestinian war against the Romans (69-70 C.E.) and prolific author of a history of that war and a general history of the Jews, as well as other works, was preserved by the Church but almost entirely unknown to the Jews in the Middle Ages. However, an historical com­ pendium based on his history of the Jews of the sec­ ond Commonwealth, or Second Temple, period, written in a pseudobiblical Hebrew style, with the title Yosiyppon (often called Josippon in English [and cataloged thus in American libraries]), achieved great popularity among medieval Jews. This work, however, was not originally known as Yosiyppon, but rather by the name Sefer Yosefben Gu­ rion (Book of Joseph ben Gurion), with the intent of connecting this work with the famous “Josephus,” whose father’s name, nevertheless, was Matityahu (Matathias) and not Gurion. The reason for this error was first explained by the nineteenth-century histo­ rian S. J. Rapoport (see Zunz, in Bibliography, p. 319 n. 137) as due to the dependence of Yosiyppon on the description of the war against Rome in the Latin work De excidio Hierosolymitano of pseudo-Hegesippus (see below on the sources of Yosiyppon), in which the historian and warrior Joseph is mentioned, without the name of his father. The name “Gorion” (or Gu­ rion) was added by the author of Yosippon from the patronymic of another Joseph, Josephus Gorionides, who was also a member of the rebellious Judean government.

377

Josephus (Medieval Version)

The Nature o f the Work

The “minimalist” content of the work (according to the ancient manuscripts; references are to Flusser’s edition; see Bibliography) may be summarized: The book begins with a table of the peoples of the world, based on Gen. 10, focusing especially on the offspring of Yafet (Japhet), who are said to be the an­ cestors of the ancient Romans. The geographicalhistorical information on their settlement in Europe fits the tenth century, and therefore this opening chapter is of great importance for establishing the date of the work. According to the account of the second chapter, the first of the kings of Rome was the biblical §efo, son of Elifaz (Gen. 36.11), nephew of Esau. After connecting other stories of the antiquity of Rome with biblical stories, Yosiyppon deals subse­ quently with the history of the Second Temple pe­ riod, commencing with the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus and Darius and ending with the destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of Masadah. In dealing with this period, relevant material is also included on the people who were involved with the Jews, such as Cyrus and his death, the war of Hannibal against Rome, and numerous details on the antiquities of Rome not contained in the first chapter. It is generally agreed that the text of Yosiyppon re­ ceived additions in the medieval period. Already in some of the manuscripts the stories of Darius were enlarged, the story of Alexander the Great (from the Alexander Romance [see LITERATURE, H e b r e w ] ) was added, and additions such as the life of Jesus and the origins of Christianity were made. In the popular printed editions, further additions to the Alexander Romance were made and a description of the corona­ tion of Vespasian was added. The Sources

Some of the sources of the work remain unknown to us. For a portion of the sources it is possible to estab­ lish a link with other similar sources; for example, the story of Sefo in chapter 2, has similarities in Arabic literature. The story of Mordecai and Esther has a connection with the text of the “Aramaic prayers” (Jellinek, Beit ha-midrash V, 5; pp. 1-8). It is also possible to trace the influence of some Latin sources: the Yosiyppon relates biblical occurrences and the Hasmonean history according to the Latin transla­ tion of the Bible, and the story of the death of Cyrus 378

according to the Latin history of Orosius. The major­ ity of the information on the history of the Second Temple period is derived from the Latin Josephus mentioned above (pseudo-Hegesippus). The author of Yosiyppon drew from the latter work in a selective manner, permitting himself to tell about John the Baptist, but refraining from translating the sections that pseudo-Hegesippus devoted to the life of Jesus. Flusser has revealed Latin collections composed of selections from Josephus-pseudo-Hegesippus very similar to what is found in the Yosiyppon. It is to be emphasized that the author of Yosiyppon did not uti­ lize the Bible or the works of Josephus in Greek, but in Latin translations. A single Greek source trans­ lated into Hebrew was added only to a portion of the early manuscripts, and this is from the Alexander Romance. The reader of the Yosiyppon is surprised that the work, and particularly its earliest texts, did not draw upon rabbinical sources. For example, the writer chose to describe the festival of Hanukkah according to the Books of Maccabees and did not mention at all the “miracle” of the cruse of oil. Nevertheless, rab­ binic tradition plays a certain influence; for example, in connection with the term bat qol (a voice from heaven), with regard to the revelation to Hyrcanus I (Talmud B. Sofa 33a; Tosefta Sofa 13.5; Yerushalmiy Sopa 24b). Value o f the Work

In the eyes of medieval Jews, the Yosiyppon was an ancient book that had been composed during the period of the Second Temple. Jewish commenta­ tors from Dunash Ibn Tamim (tenth century) to A. B. Wertheimer, who wrote the introduction to Hominer’s edition, believed in the authenticity of the book. In the latter’s introduction one may find an important list of Jewish scholars who considered it to be an ancient and reliable source; including “RASHI,” Ib n ‘Ez r a , and Na h m a n i d e s . To this list may be added David ha-nagiyd, grandson of Maimonides, who related to it as to rabbinical sources. [Most im­ portant, it served as the source for the chronicles of the twelfth-century Spanish writer Abraham Ibn Daud (see CHRONICLES), particularly his “history of Rome”; ed.] Learned medieval Christians also believed in its authenticity. In Christian Arabic circles of the East­

Josephus (Medieval Version)

ern Church, it held a quasi-canonical position, and many Coptic Christian writers also mentioned it and relied upon it. The Arabic version served as an essen­ tial source for the Second Temple period for Muslim scholars from Ibn I^azm (d. 1063) onward. The great Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) copied whole sections from the Arabic version of Yosiyppon. The authenticity of the work aroused question in the sixteenth century with the development of hu­ manistic investigation, particularly with J. Scaliger (1540-1609), who determined that the information concerning the settlement of the descendants of Yafet in the first chapter reveals a geographical situation of a later period. He also saw that the Yosiyppon utilized the Latin text of Josephus. The Jewish scholar Azariah de Rossi (d. 1577) also determined that the story of the coronation of Vespasian was a later addi­ tion. Modern investigators accepted the opinions of the Humanists, and yet in the twentieth century there were still those who thought that the work con­ tained also material from first-century sources (Zeitlin, Neuman). Current research does not sup­ port the opinion of those who seek to find early sources in the work. Today the value of the book is not that of an authentic source, but is rather viewed from a linguistic point of view and as an important medieval historical work. D ate o f Writing

It is possible to date the work in two ways, which ap­ parently are contradictory. The table of nations at the beginning of the work reveals a historical-geographi­ cal picture suited to the first half of the tenth century. Flusser (see Bibliography) even found in the middle of the Rothschild manuscript a scribal note bearing the date 885 from the destruction of the Temple, which dates the work at 953-954 C.E. In his opin­ ion, this anonymous scribe was the original author of the book. The second method of determining the date is dependent upon the mention of the work in subsequent literature. Two early references to the work are to be found. The first is by Dunash (Adonim) Ibn Tamim, in his commentary to Sefer ye$irah (the Judeo-Arabic original, found in the Cairo GENIZAH), where he mentions the Sefer Yosef ben Gorion in connection with the expression bat qol in the days of Hyrcannus I (referred to above). The pe­

riod of Dunash contradicts the date of 953 as the possible date of writing of the work, inasmuch as he lived in the first half of the tenth century. Additional early testimony is to be found from the letter men­ tioning the messenger sent to Italy (according to N. Golb, to the island of Lipara near Sicily) by Hasdai, with the request for a copy of the Sefer Yosef ben Gorion. The majority of researchers identify this Flasdai as Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, the Jewish minister of the court of Muslim Spain in the tenth century. These references point to the possibility, as does also the Arabic Book of Maccabees, that the rungs of development of the Yosiyppon are earlier than, and separate from, the date of the table of nations. There­ fore, it is apparent that the original text, which pre­ sumably did not include the strange opening chap­ ters, already included the history of the Hasmonean dynasty and the account of the great rebellion against Rome, and thus was considered an ancient source worthy of being copied and relied upon already in the first half of the tenth century. During the eleventh century the references to the Sefer Ben Gorion increased. The Arabic commentary on the Mishnah attributed to Abraham b. Natan, av beit-diyn (head of the court) of the Palestinian acad­ emy, was dependent on the Akhbar bayit sheniy (chronicle of the Second Temple period) with regard to the events of the Hasmonean period. Ibn Hazm, an important Muslim theologian and historian of re­ ligions in this same period, used the work as a source for the life of John the Baptist. The earliest reference to the table of nations, mentioned above, appears in the commentary on Gen. 10 ofYeshuah b. Yehudah, an important QARAITE teacher, which he began in Jerusalem in 1054-1055. Place o f Composition

At the beginning of investigation of the work, Scaliger suggested, according to the evidence of the table of nations, that the Yosiyppon was composed in France. Today, investigators are unanimous in the opinion that Italy is the birthplace of the book, as is evident from the Italian influence on the transcribing of Latin names, and also the evidence of a degree of knowledge of places in Italy; also the genizah letter referring to I^asdai, mentioned above, indicates Italy as the source for the copy of the work. 379

Josephus (Medieval Version)

Manuscripts a n d Editions

Sefer Yosef ben Gurion was disseminated in the Mid­ dle Ages first through manuscripts and later in print. Among the best manuscripts that have survived are Ms. Jerusalem 8 41280 (National Library), Ms. JTSL ENA 1674 (New York, Jewish Theological Semi­ nary), the illuminated Rothschild manuscript of the Israel Museum, Ms. Kaufmann of the Hungarian Academy in Budapest, and Ms. Urbinas hebr. LII of the Vatican (missing at the beginning). In addition, ancient fragments were found in the Cairo Genizah. From the original Hebrew manuscripts two medieval Arabic translations were made: one, the Arabic Book of Maccabees, containing only the central section of the Yosiyppon dealing with the history of the Has­ monean dynasty. The second, the Arabic Yosiyppon, begins and ends as does the Hebrew original, but contains fewer sources and traditions. In addition, medieval Slavic versions were made, translations from the Hebrew. With the invention of printing, the Hebrew book appeared in many editions. The first edition was published in Mantua by Abraham Conat (1476­ 1479). This edition, accompanied by a Latin transla­ tion, was again published by Sebastian Munster in Basel (1541). The Mantua edition was republished at Berditschev (1896-1913). Enlarged editions that in­ clude more literary material and traces of later He­ brew are based on the editorial work of Judah b. Leon Mosconi (b. 1328), who constructed his text from five different manuscripts. The first enlarged edition was published in Constantinople in 1510 by Tam b. David Ibn Yahya. Similar but not identical to this edition is that of Venice (1544), accompanied by a Latin translation and valuable commentary This edition served as the basis for the numerous popular editions that followed over the years. It was last pub­ lished in Jerusalem (1962). This is the best edition of the long text, since it includes also textual variants from the Mantua and Constantinople editions. The work has finally received a critical edition, based on manuscripts, by David Flusser (see Bibliography). The great interest aroused by this work is attested by the translations in various Jewish dialects (Yid­ dish, Ladino) and in European languages. An early English translation is that of Peter Morvyne (“Morwyng”), Joseph b. Gorion (A compendious and most marueilous historie. . . , London, 1567; with fre­ 380

quent reprints). A modern translation was under­ taken by three different authors: “Three Rabbinic Theses” (typescript), Hebrew Union College, New York: part 1 by L. H. Rubenstein (1965); part 2 by N. Pats (1965); part 3 by L. S. Zoll (1966). Prof. Steven Bowman of the University of Cincinnati is currently working on a scientific English translation based on the critical edition of Flusser. SHULAMIT SELA

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonfil, R. “Tra due mondi,” Italia judaica (Rome, 1983), p. 135 ff. (Hebrew text in Shalem 5 [1987]: 28ffi). Pines, S. “A Preliminary note: Additional observa­ tions concerning the Arabic translation of the book of Yosiyppon (in Hebrew), Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 6 (1986): 145 ff., 154 ff. [Sanders, A., and H. Nahmad. “A Judeo-Arabic Epit­ ome of the Yosippon,” Essays in Honor o f Solomon Freehojf(Pittsburgh, 1964), pp. 279-99]. Sela, Shulamit. “From Joseph son of Matityahu to Joseph son of Gorion” (in Hebrew), Tarbiz 64 (1994): 51-63. [Wallach, L. “Yosippon and the Alexander Ro­ mance,”/Q.& 37 (1946-47): 407-22]. Zunz, Leopold. Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden (Berlin, 1892), pp. 154-62.

Judah ha-Levy

Judah b. Samuel ha-Levy (ca. 1075-1141) was born in Tudela in Navarre, and not Toledo as was once thought (the fact that he wrote to Moses I b n ‘E z r a [h ] that he was coming from Seiyr, that is, a Christian land, whereas Tudela was then a Muslim city, does not disprove this, for he may have meant merely the Christian part of Spain generally. In any case, according also to the Leningrad manuscript of Ibn cEzra[h] s Kitdb al-muhadara he was born in Tudela (thus the text of Halkin s edition, p. 78, should be corrected). He was one of the most impor­ tant Hebrew poets of the medieval period, and some of his poetry continued to have a lasting influence for centuries to come, down to the modern era. In addition, he wrote a famous work, commonly called Kuzariy, a polemical-apologetic work on the Jewish faith.

Judah ha-Levy

Nothing is known about his family (in a letter, his father is referred to as a “rabbi” and scholar, but this was probably a mere courtesy) or his early life and ed­ ucation, although it may be assumed that he received at least the basics of a knowledge of Arabic, mathe­ matics, some science and philosophy and medicine (which he later practiced for a time), along with bib­ lical and talmudic study. One does not get the im­ pression, nevertheless, that he was an outstanding scholar, nor was Tudela a particularly famous center of Muslim learning, as it was later of Jewish learning. There is absolutely no evidence for the claim that he studied with the great scholar Isaac al-Fasi at Lucena or with his successor Joseph Ibn Megash; the fact that he composed a eulogy on the death of the former is not unusual considering that he was the greatest scholar of the age, and other poets also wrote eulogies in his honor. In his youth ha-Levy began writing Hebrew secular POETRY, and also demonstrated great knowledge of Arabic verse (later translating some into Hebrew). Knowledge of his skill seems to have reached Moses Ibn ‘Ezra(h), who lived in Granada. In any event, ha-Levy set out, not later than 1089, to see the elder poet, and sent him a letter written in verse to say he was coming. Erroneous claims have been made that he composed a poem in “imitation” of a poem by Ibn ‘Ezra(h); what in fact happened was that he suggested to friends who accompanied him on the journey that they recite some poems by heart, and he began one of Ibn ‘Ezra(h) s poems, but they were un­ able to finish it. He then completed the poem for them (that poem, “Leil mahshavot,” was inexplicably included by the editor in a recent edition of the po­ etry of Ibn Saddiq). Flattered, Ibn cEzra(h) replied with a poem urging him to hasten to him. However, Toledo and towns in the surrounding region had been captured by the Christians in 1085, and appar­ ently it was impossible for ha-Levy to proceed to Muslim Granada from there. He remained for a pe­ riod in Toledo, during which time he supported him­ self by practicing as a physician (later, in a letter to a young student who had written to him, he com­ plained that his study of medicine and “Greek wis­ dom”—science and philosophy—had caused him to neglect the study of Torah). Ultimately he was able to go to Granada, and was under the patronage of Ibn £Ezra(h), as had been I b n G a b i r o l for a time. He

also lived for a brief period in Seville, where he ap­ parently met with some opposition from Jews there, as had Ibn Gabirol in Zaragoza. Like him, ha-Levy complained about the lack of appreciation of his poetry. However, he also met there the important doctor and Jewish government official Meir Ibn Qamaniel, who later went to Fez, where he was physician to the Almoravid ruler Allb. Yusuf Ibn Tashufln (see M e d i c i n e ), and in the same poem in which he complained of the Jews of Seville he wrote praise of his friend Ibn Qamaniel (it is interesting to note that MAIMONIDES, who generally condemned Hebrew poetry, quoted a line from this poem in his letter to Samuel Ibn Tibbon (see Maimonides, Qove$ teshuvot ve-iggrotav II, 27b) and another line was quoted by the qabbalist Isaac Ibn Latif). As with other Hebrew poets of Spain, ha-Levy composed both “secular” and “religious” verse. A substantial amount of both has survived, and among the former a wide variety of motifs is represented: panegyric (in praise of friends or famous men), poems of friendship and separation from friends, on fate, on youth and age, love of boys (but rarely women), wine, didactic poetry, wedding poems, and “Zionist” poems (longing for the Land of Israel, his voyage there). In addition, he composed a number of poetic riddles. Zion Poems

While not unique, his “Zion” poems are the most fa­ mous, and one in particular has survived throughout Jewish history in every land and has been translated into numerous languages, far more than any other poem (among others, the German Jewish philoso­ pher Moses Mendelssohn made a translation, as did Franz Rosenzweig—a surprisingly poor one). It was the object of frequent imitation, whether in subject matter or merely in rhyme and meter, and even be­ came part of the synagogue liturgy in some commu­ nities. This is the famous “Zion, do you not inquire” ($iyyon ha-lo’ tishaliy). When, later in his life, he de­ termined to abandon Spain and settle in the “Holy Land,” he composed a series of poems of which this is the most famous. In it he bemoans both the fate of the “captive of exile,” himself, and the fate that has befallen Zion in the hands of infidel invaders (not, of course, the Muslims, but rather, at the time, Chris­ tian crusaders). But it must be confessed that while 381

Judah ha-Levy

the poem begins with stirring words and eloquent ex­ pression, it quickly degenerates into forced allusions to obscure biblical topics necessitated merely by meter or rhyme and ends in a rather weak manner. It contains the well-known expression “I am a lute for your songs” (aniy kiynor le-shiyrayikh), that is, the poet is a “lute” singing of the longing of the people for Zion. It has been alleged that the popular Israeli song “Jerusalem of Gold” (Yerushalayim shel zahav), made famous after the Six-Day War, “plagiarized” this line, and as a result Naomi Shamir, the unfortu­ nate composer of the song, was roundly abused in the Israeli popular press. Yet I myself long ago had pointed out the use of ha-Levy s line as a source, hardly plagiarism, for that song, and the fact is that ha-Levy himself borrowed the line from a poem of Ibn Gabirol, who in turn seems to have been influ­ enced by a similar line in a poem of Ibn Khalfun. “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” and in medieval Arabic and Hebrew poetic circles the imita­ tion or even direct use of one or more lines of poetry by another poet was not considered plagiarism (real plagiarism, the virtual or actual copying of an entire poem, was soundly condemned by several poets, in­ cluding ha-Levy himself). Almost as famous, and overall a much better poem, is his “My hearts in the East” (Libbiy bemizrah), brief enough to cite here in full (my transla­ tion): M y heart s in the East and I am at the end of the West— How can I taste what I eat and how can it be pleasing? How can I fulfill my vows and obligations while yet Zion is in the bond of Edom and I in the fetter of the Arab? It is little in my eyes to leave all the good of Spain, as It is precious in my eyes to see the dust of the ruined Temple.

The “West,” of course, is the Maghrib, Arabic North Africa and Muslim Spain, while “Edom” sym­ bolizes the Christians in medieval Hebrew (Ibn Naghrlllah, who composed some of the first “Zion­ ist” poetry, had also used “East” and “West” to contrast Spain and the Land of Israel). Ha-Levy com­ posed other poems expressing his longing, and when he finally made the decision to leave he also wrote poems about his voyage, including a storm, to Egypt. 382

Ha-Levy was married, and had at least one child, a daughter who is supposed to have also written some religious verse (extant) and was married to Isaac Ibn ‘Ezra, son of the famous scholar Abraham. Isaac ac­ companied his father-in-law, probably with his wife, on his journey to Egypt, where they arrived in Sep­ tember of 1140. They proceeded to Cairo, where haLevy parted from Isaac and returned to Alexandria, and in May of 1141 he boarded a ship bound for Palestine, which is presumed to have been lost during a storm. Other Poetry

Ha-Levy was well known for his various “Wedding poems,” written in honor of actual couples getting married,, which were apparently read at the cere­ mony. Some of these are in honor of famous young scholars. He enjoyed the typical pleasures of young men in Jewish and Muslim society at the time, wine, women (or boys), and song (see POETRY, H e b r e w ) . His best poetry is on these subjects. However, he was also capable of profound and reflective verse, such as his “Son of the earth” (Ben adamah) on the “ages of man” motif, common to classical literature, rabbinic literature, and Muslim as well as Jewish and Chris­ tian poetry of the Middle Ages (see Roth, “Ages of Man”). Also in one of the poems describing the tem­ pestuous voyage to Egypt he rebuked himself for “pursuing Youth” after the age of fifty. Yet it is hardly the case that he “repented” of his earlier poems prais­ ing the beauty of adolescent boys, a common theme in both Muslim and Hebrew poetry. On the con­ trary, his poems on that theme were particularly fa­ mous in Egypt, where his renown as a poet was per­ haps even greater than in his native land, and when he arrived at Alexandria he soon found that he was unable to depart at once for Palestine as he had planned. His friends there entreated him to stay and continue writing poetry, which he did for one year. The Cairo GENIZAH has fortunately presented us not only with much of his poetry but, perhaps more im­ portant, with various letters by and to him, particu­ larly from illustrious members of the Egyptian Jewish community. The “K uzariy”

At some time before his decision to leave Spain he composed what he himself disparagingly referred to

Judah ha-Levy

as a “little work,” but which has nonetheless become more famous than his poetry, Kitdb al-radd wdl-dalll fi-a l din al-dhalil (Book of the refutation and demon­ stration of the despised faith), or Kuzariy in its He­ brew translation. According to the author, he wrote this as a refutation of the views of the QARAITES, who were problematic also in Muslim Spain, but it ap­ pears to be more of an attack both on Jewish adher­ ents of philosophy and on Christianity It is loosely based on the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism, presented as a fictitious dialogue between the Khazar king and representatives of the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths, each of whom tries to convince him of the absolute superiority of their views and in gen­ eral of the superiority of revealed religion over philos­ ophy. The arguments against Islam are rather weak and few; of interest is his claim that Isaac and Ishmael quarreled because of the Land of Israel, as a re­ sult of which Ishmael (symbolizing the Muslims) was driven out, and even though blessed, it was only with the goods of this world, whereas the eternal “covenant” of God was with Isaac. He appears to have been more sympathetic to Christianity than to Islam, showing considerable knowledge of the theology of the In­ carnation, and so on. He repeatedly refers to the “degradation” (dhull) of the Jews, but cites Matthew 5.39-40 as proof that “other religions” (Christianity) pride themselves on such lowly and impoverished conditions. Israel and its faith is the “seed” that pro­ duced the “tree” resembling it (Christianity and Islam), and this is especially seen in the shared belief in an anticipated messiah, whom “if they acknowl­ edge him, they will become one tree, and at that time they shall honor [read: yafdul una\ the root which they despised” (see Roth, Jews, Visigoths, and Mus­ lims, pp. 214-15 and notes). In some of his piyyufiym (“religious” poetry) he polemicized against Islam, and even reported a dream in which he fore­ saw the “downfall” of the Muslim kingdom in the year 1130; like all “messianic” predictions, this was not to be realized. In many respects the most profound analysis of the work is that by Buber (see Bibliography), who observed that it focuses on right ways of living, as op­ posed to right ways of thinking, and that the central motif is the belief in the interdependence of God and the people and the Land; as the Zohar later was to ex­ press it (perhaps, indeed, influenced by this book)

“Israel and the Torah and God are one,” where by “Israel” both the people and the Land are meant. The king objects to the rabbi that if the Land of Israel is so central to the spirit of the Jewish people, he is liv­ ing in hypocrisy by not going there. To this the rabbi agrees, and at the end of the book he decides to leave to go to Jerusalem. Judah ha-Levy, of course, made the same decision. Like the rabbi of his book, the poet came to the realization that he is actively called upon to realize the longings that his words express. Enduring Fame

The contemporary fame of his poetry is shown by the fact that the Genizah preserved thousands of copies of his poems and several of the complete diyvan (poetic collection). Moses Ibn £Ezra(h) did not seem to share the high opinion of ha-Levy s poetry, and in his work on poetics mentioned only some rid­ dles ha-Levy had composed; from the latter’s own po­ etry we know that there had been a temporary falling out between the two. Judah al-Harizi (died ca. 1235), in his litany of praise of the poets, lists ha-Levy last among those he mentions, but nevertheless says of him that his poems are “sweeter than honey,” and goes on to lavish great praise on his poetry. Abraham Bedersi, writing somewhat after al-Harizi, mentions ha-Levy first in his list of great poets, and says that he prevailed over all the others. In the nineteenth century, the pioneers in the study and editing of medieval Hebrew poetry agreed with this praise; Harkavy called him the outstanding Hebrew poet of Spain, and even Brody stated categorically that haLevy was superior to all the other Spanish Hebrew poets. Heinrich Heine, the German Jewish poet who converted to Christianity, dedicated four long poems to ha-Levy in his Hebrdische Melodien, the last of which explains to Heine’s wife that the three stars of Hebrew poetry were ha-Levy, Ibn Gabirol, and Ibn £Ezra(h); he of course knew nothing of the poetry of Ibn Naghrillah. From a less romantic and more dispassionate per­ spective, we may say that ha-Levy labored the hardest on his poetry, writing and rewriting (as we may see from the Genizah examples), and that he wrote some outstanding poems but left few masterpieces. In ret­ rospect, for all his flowery praise, al-Harizi was nearer to the truth when he listed ha-Levy last among the great poets. Ha-Levy’s religious poems, piyyufiym, 383

Judah ha-Levy

were also quite popular in the medieval world. No fewer than twenty-six of his piyyufiym, about onefourth of the total, were included in the medieval French Mahzor Vitry of Simhah b. Samuel (twelfth century). As with most piyyufiym of medieval Spain (in contrast to the nearly incomprehensible examples from Germany, for instance), these poems are far simpler in style of Hebrew and vocabulary than the secular poems, and were intended to be read and un­ derstood even by those with a minimal knowledge of Hebrew. Nina Salaman’s translations, generally good, of several of ha-Levys piyyufiym (which constitute about half of the poems translated, pp. 87-147) are sufficient to acquaint the non-Hebrew reader with the style and content of these poems. Most, if not all, have both rhyme and meter (there is, incidentally, no “inconsistency” in the fact that in the Kuzariy he ap­ pears to deny the value of rhyme and meter, as Salaman claimed in her introduction, pp. xxii-xxiii; since there he was referring to the lack of rhyme and meter both in the Bible and in some, but not all, early He­ brew piyyufiym, which does not mean that he was op­ posed to this). Here, too, his fame spread far abroad. It must be acknowledged that most of his “religious” poems are, in fact, not very good, failing to come close to the majestic compositions of Ibn Gabirol or Ibn ‘Ezra(h) in this genre. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY Works by ha-Levy

Diyvan (poetry), ed. Heinrich Brody (Berlin, 1894-1930), 4 vols. (photo rpt. England, 1971). Shirey ha-qodesh, ed. Dov Jarden (Jerusalem, 1978-82), 3 vols. Selected Poems o f Jehudah Halevi, tr. Nina Salaman (Philadelphia, 1928; photo rpt. N.Y., 1973). Antologia poetica, tr. Rosa Castillo (Madrid, 1983); selections.

384

Nueva antologia poetica, tr. Rosa Castillo (Madrid, 1997); additional translations. Non nella forza ma nello spirito, tr. (of poems from Rosenzweig ed. and tr.) Gian Domenico Cova (Genoa, 1992). Letter to Moses Ibn ‘Ezra(h) in Louis Ginzberg, ed. Ginzey Schechter III, 319; rpt. with the ending of the letter ed. from ms. by Shraga Abramson in Abramson and A. Mirsky, eds., Sefer Hayyiym Schirmann, pp. 397-403; corrections and addi­ tions by Ezra Fleischer in Kiryat sefer 61 [1986— 87]: 899-900. Autograph letters, ed. S. D. Goitein, in Tarbiz 24 (1954): 134-49. Kuzariy: Judeo-Arabic text, critical ed. David Baneth and Haggai Ben-Shammai (Jerusalem, 1977); me­ dieval Heb. translation frequently published; e.g., with Lat. tr. of Johannes Buxtorf (Basel, 1660; photo rpt. Westmead, England, 1971); modern Heb. tr. by Judah Even-Shemuel (Jerusalem, 1973), important for the notes; Eng. tr. by H. Hirschfeld (London, 1905; reprint in a paper ed. N.Y., 1971, but lacking the important introduction, replaced by one of no value); for other bibliography, see Roth, Jews, Visigoths &Muslims, p. 317 n. 39. Works on ha-Levy

Buber, Martin. “The Voice of the Exile,” in his Israel and Palestine (New York, 1952), pp. 61-72; origi­ nally in Hebrew in Gilyanot 14 (82) (1943). Doron, Aviva. Yehudah ha-Levi. Repercusion de su obra (Barcelona, 1985), with prologue by Fer­ nando Diaz Esteban. Roth, Norman. “The Ages of Man in Two Medieval Hebrew Poems,” Hebrew Studies 24 (1983): 41-44. ---------. Jews, Visigoths &Muslims in M edieval Spain (Leiden, 1994); see index. Schirmann, Hayyim. “The life of Judah ha-Levy” (in Hebrew), Tarbiz 9 (1937-38): 35-54, 219-40, 284-305.

K Kings (and Queens), Jewish In the medieval sources, the term “Jewish king” ap­ plies both to a person who effectively reigned over a territorial realm and to a man called “king” as an honorary title bestowed upon members of some dis­ tinguished families even though he did not rule a land or its people. This article will explore Jewish kings in both these senses. The H imyarites an d the K hazar Kings

During the early and High Middle Ages, rumors spread in different Jewish communities about the ex­ istence of remote Jewish kingdoms. Most of these ru­ mors were based on legends, but some were extrapo­ lations from two real cases. The Yemenite kingdom of Himyar, in the south­ western edge of the Arabian peninsula, reached the peak of its power in the third century as a result of a successful series of wars against the local heathen tribes and the African realm of Ethiopia. The Him­ yarites inherited the traditions of the ancient realm of the Sabaites, which they shared with the Ethiopi­ ans. Accordingly, their rulers claimed to be descen­ dants of the Queen of Sheba (Saba) and King Solomon. The spread of Christianity from Egypt southward and the conversion of the Ethiopians to the Christian faith transformed the longtime clashes between Himyarites and Ethiopians into religious wars because the Ethiopians, backed from the fifth century by the Byzantines, led missionary campaigns into southwestern Arabia, which threatened the in­ dependence of the local kingdom. In order to cope with the challenge, the Himyarites allied with the

Persians, the enemies of the Byzantines. Moreover, some of the members of the royal family converted to Judaism and thus gained the support of the influen­ tial Jewish community of Yemen. The first member of this Jewish branch of the dy­ nasty who acceded to the Himyarite kingship was Ab Kariba (ca. 480). His main achievements lay in his restoration of the royal authority, reunification of the kingdom, and reinforcement of the Persian alliance. Hailed by the Jewish Yemenites as a descendant of King Solomon, his prestige extended beyond his kingdom, and he was considered the protector of the Middle Eastern Jewish communities even though his activity remained limited to his own realm. He was succeeded by his son, Joseph Dhu Nuwas (515-525), who continued his fathers policies. His victories over the Ethiopians (522) resulted in the reunification of all the Yemenite territories under his rule. However, he departed from his father’s tolerant attitude and persecuted the Christian Yemenites, who rebelled against his rule and sought the help of Byzantium. Emperor Julian I sent a Byzantine fleet to the Red Sea, which provided the naval support for a new Ethiopian invasion. This combined offensive resulted in the death of Joseph (525), which put an end to the Jewish Himyarite kingship. Another dynasty of Jewish kings was established in the Khazar kingdom. According to the legendary tradition, which inspired the twelfth-century treatise Kuzariy by JUDAH HA-LEVY, the Altayan royal dynasty of this huge Eurasian realm converted to Judaism after a religious dialogue among Christian, Muslim, pagan philosopher, and Jewish protagonists who had 385

Kings (and Queens), Jewish

been summoned to court by the monarch, who was searching for the “true faith.” It seems, however, that this conversion of King Bulun, in the middle of the eighth century, was intended as an independent reac­ tion to the missionary attempts of the Byzantines and the Muslim Abbasids, stressing the intermediary position of this kingdom between the Greek Ortho­ dox and the Muslim caliphate. In any case, while Bulun converted to Judaism and adopted the He­ brew name Joseph, it is not clear to what extent this conversion affected the Khazar people; it is obvious that in the late eighth and ninth centuries some of them converted to Christianity and to Islam, while others continued to observe their ancestral heathen cults. Hence, the Jewish royal dynasty adopted a pol­ icy of religious tolerance toward its subjects, whether they belonged to the Turkish and Turcoman elements of Central Asia, who were influenced by Islam, or the heterogenous elements in eastern Europe, between the Caspian Sea and the Carpats. Although they practiced traditional Judaism, the Khazar kings did not establish a Jewish school at their court. But because of the economic relations that developed between the realm and western Eu­ rope from the ninth century, the fame of this Jewish dynasty was spread among European Jewry, mainly by Jewish merchants who during their trade travels visited the court. In the second half of the tenth cen­ tury, the Jewish leader and dignitary of the caliphate of Cordoba, Hasdai Ibn Shaprut (905-965) enter­ tained a regular correspondence with the Khazar king, Joseph. He offered him his advice and, en­ chanted by the prospect of serving a Jewish king, ex­ pressed his readiness to give up his position in Spain and settle in the Khazar kingdom. For reasons that remain unknown, this idea was not implemented. Moreover, soon after Hasdai s death the kingdom of the Khazars began its decay. Before the end of the century, their kings had lost their authority over the valley of the river Dnieper, which became the main axis of the Varegians’ travels from the Baltic to Con­ stantinople. From their capital in Novgorod, the Rus family extended its rule over these territories, which became the core of their kingdom after the conver­ sion of the Russians to the Greek Orthodox faith (1025). The Russians finally managed to destroy the Khazar realm and to overthrow the Jewish dynasty (1044), which disappeared during these wars. 386

[John Alexander, czar of Bulgaria, abandoned his first wife and married a Jewess, Sara, who thus be­ came the first “Jewish queen” in the medieval era. However, shortly after her marriage, she converted to Christianity and ruled under the name of Theodora (1335-1355). John Alexander disinherited his son from the previous marriage and declared his and Theodoras son John Sisman to be his heir. When John Alexander died in 1371, this son did become ruler, but he was unable to maintain the indepen­ dence of his country and in 1376 or earlier, Bulgaria became a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. Tamar (known as Mara), the daughter of Theodora and John Alexander, married first the “despot Constan­ tin,” and after his death (1362) she became the wife of Sultan Murad I. Their son Bayazed was to conquer Bulgaria; on the legendary “Jewish Berber queen” of North Africa, the Kahina, see “North Africa.”-—ed.\ Descendants o f K ing D a v id

The recognition by respective Jewish communities of individuals or families as descendants of the dynasty of King David qualified various medieval Jewish leaders to be called “kings,” although they did not use the royal title. The most important, and genuine, branch of the Davidian dynasty was the family of the Mesopotamian Exilarchs, from the third to the thir­ teenth centuries. Although they did not pretended to be entitled “kings,” their court adopted a royal proto­ col, they received taxes, and the position was heredi­ tary. Their repeated marriages with Persian princesses strengthened their princely status, to the point that even their eventual conflicts with the “Babylonian” GEONIM, which led during the eighth to thirteenth centuries in the deposition of several exilarchs, were followed by appointments of other persons chosen from their family. From the late eighth century on, several members of the dynasty emigrated from Mesopotamia and set­ tled in western Europe, especially in Spain and Italy. They established in their new places a hereditary leadership of the respective communities, and were usually called nesiyiym, synonymous with “prince.” Among them, some assumed the secular leadership of the community and also religious functions, such as the direction of the school or the headship of the rabbinical court (beit diyri). Such a dynasty was es­ tablished in Rome; it enjoyed a very high prestige

Kings (and Queens), Jewish

and authority in western Europe, and even the most important sages used to consult with them, including “ R A S H f in the second half of the eleventh century. Among these dynasties, two in France were called “kings” by the Christians, the first in Narbonne from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries, and the sec­ ond in Rouen (Normandy) in the twelfth century. The claims of the dynasty of Narbonne were based on a legendary tradition of their descent from the House of David, through the Mesopotamian Exi­ larchs, as well as on an alleged privilege of Charle­ magne. On the other hand, the “Jewish kings” of Rouen, so called by Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny (1125-1157), are known as having been the descendants of the secular leaders of their community at the beginning of the eleventh century, whose posi­

tion was enforced both by their fortunes and by their good relations with the dukes of Normandy, later kings of England, and with the papal court in Rome. ARYEH GRABOIS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dunlop, D. M. The History o f the Jewish Khazars (New York, 1954). Grabois, Aryeh. “The nesiyiym of Narbonne: on the image and nature of Jewish leadership in southern France in the Middle Ages” (in Hebrew), M ichael 12 (1991): 43-66. Hirschberg, H. Z. Yisrael ve-Arav (Tel Aviv, 1946), pp. 75-111. [Mezan, Saul. Les ju ifs espagnols en Bulgarie [s.l.s.a. (1925)]. ' ' ° ~

387

C\ Taylor & Francis ~Taylor & Francis Group

http://tayl ora ndfra ncis.co m

L Languages, Used by Jews

As noted elsewhere, HEBREW had a shaky history among the Jews even in the late biblical and Hellenis­ tic periods, and although it remained honored as the “holy language” of the Bible and prayer, it was re­ placed in actual usage first by Aramaic, then Greek, and then Aramaic again (Greek did not disappear, however, even in Palestine under Roman occupation). The necessity for Jews in the diaspora to commu­ nicate, officially and on a common daily level, with the population and rulers of the various countries in which they found themselves meant that they had to learn the language(s) of those countries. The first areas of such settlement, which continued into the early medieval period, were Babylon, Egypt, and the lands of the Greek and Roman empires. Inscriptions and some few written sources reveal that Greek was the most common and best-known language used by the Jews, followed by an often imperfect knowledge of Latin (except for a couple of references here, knowledge of Latin relates to TRANSLATION and is discussed in that article). Reading of the scriptures, the weekly Torah portion, and reading from the prophets—all in Greek—was a widespread custom in the synagogues at least until the fifth century or later in some places, as was the deuterosin (often misunder­ stood, this was simply a term to refer to the sermons preached in the synagogue; it does not refer to midrash, nor to translations of the Bible). Only in “Babylon” (as the Jews continued to refer to what was part of the Persian Empire, and later Iraq) did Ara­ maic remain as a spoken language, or perhaps also in parts of Palestine, and even there Greek was also used.

If Jews in Italy, for example, and in NORTH AFRICA and other lands spoke in the vernacular in this early period, we have no record of it, and certainly nothing in writing has survived. The major change in the Jewish world came with the rise of Islam. Arabic

Two factors made Arabic the dominant language of Jewish culture in the early medieval period, from the seventh to at least the thirteenth centuries: the Arabic conquest of the entire former Persian Empire, stretching to northern India, followed by the con­ quests of Asia Minor, Syria, E g y p t , PALESTINE, North Africa, southern Italy, and SPAIN, and the fact that Arabic is a cognate Semitic language with some similarity to Hebrew. Whereas medieval Jewish writers themselves stressed the second of these factors, greatly exaggerat­ ing the superficial similarity of Arabic to Hebrew (those expert in both languages were referred to by Jewish, but never by Muslim, writers as “masters of the two languages”), it was actually the first factor that was responsible for the dominance of the lan­ guage. Coincidentally, the vast majority of Jews in the world lived in the Muslim lands. While Jewish scientists, physicians, and other scholars, particularly in Iraq in the seventh or eighth century, wrote many works in Arabic script, there quickly developed the custom of writing Arabic in Hebrew letters (called “Judeo-Arabic” by modern scholars; an unfortunate term, for it implies rather a distinct dialect). It is absolutely incorrect, how­ ever, that the Muslims prohibited Jews from using 389

Languages, Used by Jews

Arabic script (so Allony, intro, to S a ‘a d y a h ’s Egron [Jerusalem, 1969], p. 60). I b n ‘E z r a , for instance, claimed that SA ‘ADYAH GAONhaA originally written a work in Arabic script. Exaggerated claims have, in fact, been made for the “peculiar” or distinct nature of medieval Judeo-Arabic, claims made on the basis of very selective study of extant material that are demonstrably false. Whatever distinctions can or can­ not be made between “Literary Standard,” or classical, Arabic and so-called “Middle Arabic” (or “Early NeoArabic,” or whatever other term might be used), it is far too early to make authoritative statements as to the nature of Arabic as used by medieval Jews when such claims are based on a reading of very few sources and without adequate comparison with the extensive documentation from medieval Muslim and Mozarabic sources, for example. Claims that Muslim au­ thors, with their great veneration for ‘arabiyya (the belief in the “perfection” of Arabic as found in poetry before Islam, and especially in the Qur’an) did not “until relatively late” make any changes in the charac­ ter of the language, and that “Middle Arabic” there­ fore can only be investigated in Jewish and Christian sources, are patently false (Blau, Studies, p. 62; al­ though he later contradicted himself and acknowl­ edged that “Jews had no monopoly on the use of Mid­ dle Arabic,” p. 88). Arabic was quickly picked up and used by Jews in daily speech and in writing because it was the stan­ dard language in most places where they lived (that Hai Gaoriy ca. 1000, commented on the continued use of Aramaic in small towns serves only to empha­ size the widespread general use of Arabic, a language in which he himself wrote). Jews also used Arabic for scholarly writing, producing works on MEDICINE and S c i e n c e a n d MATHEMATICS. Jewish children were educated in Muslim (mosque) schools where such ex­ isted (they did not in al-Andalus, where instruction was with private teachers, but Jewish and Muslim boys studied together; see EDUCATION J e w i s h ) . The bright­ est continued their education, as did Muslims, with the foremost Muslim scholars in the world in a variety of disciplines (it would indeed be peculiar, given this, if Jewish writers perversely adhered to some “deviant” form of Arabic of their own choosing). However, the use of Arabic written in Hebrew let­ ters, which begins to appear in the mid-tenth cen­ tury, apparently, is a phenomenon for which no satis­ 390

factory answer has yet been given. It may be that this was originally conceived as a means of translating sa­ cred writings without “defiling” them with a foreign script, such as in the case of the famous translation of the Bible by Sa’adyah Gaon. Several such translations and then biblical commentaries began to appear, in any case, and with virtually no exceptions all Arabic writings by Jews from then on were in Hebrew rather than Arabic script. It was reported that in al-Andalus the entire Talmud was even translated thus, although no trace of that translation has survived. So-called Judeo-Arabic was also utilized for the writing of re­ sponsa (decisions and replies to legal questions). The first of the geonim to do this, apparently, was Natronai (ca. 849-857), whose authority and also whose personal contact with the Jewish communities in Spain certainly set an example that was imitated there. In fact, the earliest important Jewish rabbis in Spain, lianokh b. Moses and his son Moses, from Sicily, were the first in Spain to write responsa in Ara­ bic; the practice continued until the thirteenth cen­ tury and in some cases later (we have such responsa from rabbis in the still-Muslim kingdom of Granada in the fifteenth century). The tenth century saw a reaction in Iran against the aforementioned ‘arabiyya concept, particularly among poets who not only espoused the equal “per­ fection” of pre-Muslim Persian literature but, more important, were seeking a way to break from the con­ straints of classical Arabic verse and its themes. In medieval Muslim Spain (not only al-Andalus, of course, but also northern Spain, home to many im­ portant poets), Jews also responded to this and coun­ tered with the argument for the superiority and precedence of the Hebrew language as more ancient than Arabic and just as suited for the composition of secular poetry and other purposes (see Roth, “Jewish Reactions”). To support such claims, and to create Hebrew Poetry, it was first necessary to create a sci­ entific HEBREW GRAMMAR; ironically, this study was carried out in treatises and dictionaries written in Arabic. Indeed, even where there existed a strict tra­ dition of the use of Hebrew-Aramaic, for example in talmudic commentaries and legal writings, these were now entirely in Arabic (this is true of all the ear­ liest known works of the geonim in Iraq, scholars of North Africa, Judah b. Barzilay of Barcelona, and others). Only for poetry, both liturgical and now sec-

Languages, Used by Jews

ular, was Hebrew used. Even following the Christian Reconquest of southern Spain (concluded in the thir­ teenth century), Arabic maintained its prominence not only among Muslims but also indigenous Chris­ tians (Mozarabs) and Jews. From Toledo, especially, we have extensive Mozarabic documents written in Arabic, including a significant number by Jews in Arabic written in Hebrew letters. The renowned scholar ASHER B. YEHIEL, who came to Toledo from Germany ca. 1350, complained that all of the docu­ ments of the Jews were written in Arabic, which he said is not the language of the masses but “the true Arabic language in which books of secular knowledge were written, and Arabic proverbs and their rhetoric” (an important statement that also seriously chal­ lenges the claims of a supposed “substandard” form of Arabic employed by Jews). In northern Christian Spain, in the united king­ dom of Aragon-Catalonia, there was a curious divi­ sion between the Catalan capital, Barcelona, and Zaragoza in Aragon, both of which had been Muslim cities. In BARCELONA, at least by the early thirteenth century, Jews no longer understood Arabic; this in a city that had hosted such accomplished Arabic schol­ ars as Judah b. Barzilay and later Joseph Ibn A k n i n . Zaragoza, as well as Huesca and smaller towns in Aragon, retained a substantial Muslim population, and thus Arabic continued to remain the standard language also of Jews, and was used in keeping com­ munity records, documents of sale, and other official records. Many of the writings of important Jewish scholars from this region, such as ISAAC B. SHESHET in the fourteenth century, contain numerous Arabic phrases and sentences (which fact needs to be taken into account when producing so-called critical edi­ tions of these texts). Even in early PROVENCE, where later (twelfth cen­ tury) it became essential to have Hebrew TRANSLA­ TIONS of all important Judeo-Arabic works, knowl­ edge of Arabic was not uncommon, particularly in Narbonne (Moses “ha-darshan ; David Qimhi, whose knowledge of Arabic was hardly “second­ hand,” as has been suggested, given that his father, Joseph, came from al-Andalus; Moses Narboni; and others). It even appears probable that Natan b. Yehiel of Rome (ca. 1035-1106), author of the famous tal­ mudic dictionary Arukh, knew Arabic. The Christian conquest of southern Italy may have brought a de­

cline in the knowledge of Arabic among Jews, but even that is far from certain. Even in Mainz in early medieval GERMANY, one scholar was found who was able to translate Judeo-Arabic texts (doubtless he originated from an Arabic-speaking land). Arabic was used not only by the scholars of Baby­ lon and North Africa, but also in the Land of Israel. An important biblical commentary in Judeo-Arabic was written by Tanhum b. Joseph “Yerushalmiy” (of Jerusalem; lived in Egypt) in the thirteenth century, and the same author composed a Judeo-Arabic dic­ tionary of Maimonides’ “Guide” (published). The Jews of Egypt, of course, also spoke and wrote Ara­ bic, and the countless documents of the Cairo GE­ NIZAH attest to the important differences in style be­ tween common, daily letters and records and more formal or official writing. The investigation of these documents, from a linguistic point of view, has scarcely begun. Maimonides, of course, wrote all of his work except for the Mishneh Torah in Arabic, and yet aside from a good but somewhat superficial study of the last century there has been no serious research on his use of the language. His son Abraham contin­ ued to write in Arabic (as did his successors, of course), and Goitein has written an important intro­ duction on this in the introduction to his edition of the responsa of Abraham. The language was used, of course, in southern Italy and especially SlCILY, along with Greek (see below on that). As noted above, the first important rabbis in southern Spain were from Sicily. Long after Sicily was reconquered by the Christians, and after it became part of the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia, Judeo-Arabic continued to be used, to the end of the fifteenth century. Spanish (Romance)

Spanish (so-called Romance) was the first vernacular to emerge from Latin and become a fully developed language. The earliest record we have of this is the body of Arabic poetry produced by Muslim and Jew­ ish writers (and therefore hardly “Mozarabic,” as it has sometimes been called incorrectly) that contains final rhymed couplets (kharjas) consisting of Spanish words written either in Arabic or in Hebrew, or a mixture of both in the case of Jewish poets. These date from the late tenth or early eleventh centuries. It is true that there were certain examples of written 391

Languages, Used by Jews

Spanish also in some court documents and fueros (laws) of the eleventh century, but it is unlikely that they preceded the poetry. More significant, following the Christian reconquest, as the vast treasures of Ara­ bic scientific and philosophical work came to the at­ tention of the rulers, there was an urgency for trans­ lating these works into Spanish. The same was also true of the need for translations of the Hebrew Bible, and already from at least the twelfth century we have such translations made by Jews, both for Christian and for Jewish readers. In the thirteenth century, AL­ FONSO X of Castile, “Alfonso the Wise,” sponsored the translation and original composition of scientific works in Spanish, and this work was done by Jews of Toledo. Thus, both the first translations of the BIBLE (as is well known, of tremendous importance for the development of literature and of the language) and the first scientific writing were the products of Jews. RAMON LULL in the thirteenth century was the first Christian writer to compose scientific and philo­ sophical works in Spanish. Of course, as always, the spoken vernacular pre­ dates the written. Here, too, we have evidence from such statements as that by SOLOMON I b n GABIROL (early eleventh century), who complained that in Zaragoza, where he lived for a time, Hebrew was virtually unknown among the Jews: “Half of them speak Edomite [Romance] and half Qedarite [Ara­ bic].” As early as 1313, if not before, we have a re­ cord of a Jew writing a letter in Catalan to Jaime II. Even earlier, Kalonymos b. Kalonymos, in his Purim satire, has one of his characters advocate the reading of the Megiyllah (Book of Esther) in the vernacular (Catalan), since it is better understood than Hebrew. Much later, when ISAAC B. SHESHET became rabbi of Zaragoza (ca. 1375), he wrote to his former teacher Nissim b. Reuben Gerundi in Barcelona that for some thirty years the custom in Zaragoza had been to read the Megiyllah to the women in Spanish, from a text written in that language (Castilian, apparently, although the Aragonese dialect is possible). Isaac op­ posed the custom, as did Nissim, but others said that Nahmanides had stated that “many places” in Spain followed this custom. Numerous Castilian and Catalan words (also some Aragonese) appear in Jewish legal and other writings. Similarly, many Hebrew words (in translit­ eration) are found in medieval Christian Spanish 392

sources, and were used in common speech. In later medieval Spain several Christians knew Hebrew, and some (including one famous poet) even wrote He­ brew poetry (Roth, “Lengua hebrea”). Some unusual examples exist, certainly not wide­ spread, of knowledge of Syriac and Coptic by Jewish scholars in Spain (there are also references to both languages in medieval midrashiym; e.g., Pesiqta deRav Kahana XII. 109b, and Mekhilta, Pisqa III). Of course, Jews in medieval Egypt were frequently fa­ miliar with Coptic, at least. Fortunately this article does not need to deal with the polemics surrounding the terms Ladino and Giudezmo with regard to so-called Judeo-Spanish, because Ladino (simply medieval Castilian written in Hebrew letters) was a postmedieval development. Nevertheless, there are several examples of Spanish written in Hebrew letters in medieval sources. Some of these include interesting private letters of the fif­ teenth century, which have been published, as well as a document of the sale of houses by a Jewish surgeon in Zaragoza in 1471 and another fifteenth-century document in Catalan written in Hebrew letters. Also extant are fragments of fifteenth-century prayer books of the same kind, and a thirteenth-century manuscript (Paris B.N. 591) has the rules for prayers written in Hebrew, Arabic, and Spanish. None of this, of course, is evidence of the existence of a partic­ ular Judeo-Spanish dialect in medieval Spain; the extant documentation merely represents Spanish, Castilian, or more usually Catalan, in Hebrew letters. The same is true for Provence, where much fuss has been made over alleged Judeo-Provenial texts, which again are simply texts in the Provencal dialect written in Hebrew letters. It was as natural for Jews in Provence in the later medieval period to utilize their native language in such texts as it was for the Jews of Aragon-Catalonia; nevertheless, Hebrew con­ tinued to be the prevalent language for standard doc­ uments and letters as well as for literary texts. Greek

Greek, which had been so important and almost universal in the earlier period, was slowly but surely forgotten. The geonim , for example, did not know Greek and sometimes had to ask students from Byzantium the meaning of Greek words in the Tal­ mud. In the Byzantine Empire, of course, and in cer­

Languages, Used by Jews

tain Mediterranean islands (Crete, Candia, etc.), Greek was the common language, and this served as an important transition to Jewish scholarship in the Renaissance in Italy and elsewhere. While Greek had been known by Jews in Spain in the fourth century and later, it seems not to have survived the Muslim conquest (711). Hasdai Ibn Shaprut (tenth century) may have known some Greek, but his famous transla­ tion of the pharmaceutical dictionary of Dioscorides from that language into Arabic was done with the aid of a Byzantine monk. Except for the Byzantine Em­ pire, Italy was the only country where Jews, to some extent, knew Greek in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries. But knowledge of Greek was never perva­ sive even in southern Italy, and did not have nearly the impact on the Italian language, for example, that Arabic had on Spanish. In Sicily in the thirteenth century, if not earlier, only those Jews who originated from Greek-speaking lands knew Greek, according to Abraham ABULAFIA, who traveled there. An excep­ tion is to be found in Spain (eleventh century), if a statement in a poem of Moses IBN ‘E z r a (h ) is accu­ rate, praising a Jewish government official in Barcelona for his knowledge of Romance, Arabic, and Greek. The few borrowed Greek words in Nah­ manides’ commentaries, of course, are no more proof of his actual knowledge of Greek than they are (along with Syriac, etc.) in Maimonides’ drug dictionary. In the fifteenth century in Castile, Hayyim Ibn Musa had read the Septuagint in Greek, probably having studied it with Christian scholars. It is at this point difficult to know whether the numerous translations from Greek and Latin by conversos (Jews who con­ verted to Christianity) in the fifteenth century indi­ cate that they had knowledge of those languages be­ fore their conversion, but it is unlikely French

French was spoken by Jews not only in France but also in England. There are several “Judeo-French” (again, French written in Hebrew letters) glosses dat­ ing from the eleventh century, as well as numerous French words in the biblical and talmudic commen­ taries of “Rash” (Solomon b. Isaac). From that pe­ riod a complete Judeo-French poem also has sur­ vived. There were also numerous translations of prayers and piyyufiym (religious poems) into French, as well as Italian, German, and Catalan. It is known

that the Jews of France were fluent in the vernacular, in which students learned the translation of the Bible and of prayers, and the Haggadah was translated at the Passover seder. Much debate has focused on the reality of a JudeoFrench dialect, as a spoken vernacular distinct from standard French (the French glosses, or explanation of words, in the biblical commentaries of “Rashf were the original source for this theory). The evi­ dence is not conclusive, nor can it be, for it is virtu­ ally impossible to determine the nature of spoken Jewish dialects in the medieval period. Perceived pe­ culiarities in written documents may reflect a num­ ber of things, such as scribal error or even an imper­ fect knowledge of the “standard” language in use at the time. Extremes on the position of Judeo-French range from Blondheim, who argued for an indepen­ dent Jewish dialect in all Romance countries (and dating to Roman times, no less), to Banitt, who com­ pletely denies the existence of Judeo-French as a spo­ ken dialect; Banitt edited an important medieval Judeo-French biblical glossary. An important thirteenth-century Hebrew-French glossary has also been published (Lambert, Bibliogra­ phy). The only extant Judeo-French book, a medical manuscript of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, has received some study since Steinschneider origi­ nally called attention to it in 1894 (see RichardsonSaye in Bibliography). In addition to French itself, there are some exam­ ples of Provencal, including a few glosses in the twelfth-century ‘Iftur attributed to Isaac b. Abba Mari of Marseille, and a Judeo-Provengal version of the biblical book of Esther that was written in the fourteenth century. There are references to some piyyupiym also in Provencal, and some poems have been published, as well as fragments of a poetic his­ tory of Esther and Mordecai. German a n d Yiddish

In medieval “Germany” (the Holy Roman Empire), the development of Judeo-German is well known and has received considerable scholarly attention. Apologetic Jewish writers of the last century used to call Yiddish “jargon,” again falsely assuming a cor­ rupt nature of the dialect. In fact, it was—like other Jewish dialects-—merely medieval German preserved in Hebrew characters, with the addition of some He­

393

Languages, Used by Jews

brew words. Yiddish later became enriched by the languages of the various countries in which Jews who used it happened to live, and as such it may be char­ acterized as a distinct dialect. Roughly the same thing is true of Ladino in the early modern period. There are isolated examples (a few words) of Ger­ man written in Hebrew characters as^arly as the late eleventh century, but the first complete text (con­ taining some stories derived from midrashiym, and also the first extant example of a German story of the Hildebrand genre) dates from 1382. A woman, Litte of Regensburg, also apparently wrote a lengthy poem on David (still in manuscript). Could she be the same as “Liwa” of Regensburg, who in the fifteenth century translated the biblical book of Samuel into German? A more famous Jewish author (although some still deny that he was a Jew) who wrote German poetry was, of course, the minnesinger Siisskind von Trimberg (see POETRY IN OTHER LANGUAGES). Italian

Very little is yet known about the use of Italian among Jews. In the eleventh century Ahimaas used a few Italian words in his famous chronicle, and there are some in Natan b. Yehiel’s aforementioned He­ brew dictionary. Zedekiah b. Abraham “Anav” in his Shibaley ha-leqet (ca. 1280) refers to the Bible being translated (orally?) into Italian for women who are ignorant of Hebrew. A manuscript in Munich (still extant?) in fact contained a medieval Jewish transla­ tion of the Bible in Italian. In the twelfth century, the poet Immanuel b. Solomon of Rome, author of a Hebrew rhymed prose work that in part is a (poor) imitation of Dante, composed some Italian sonnets. His cousin, Judah Romano, who taught Hebrew to King Robert of Naples, translated many Scholastic works from Latin into Hebrew, and also composed a Hebrew-Italian vocabulary of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, which has been published. This fact hardly makes him a “philosopher,” nor could he have been a student of the Spanish rabbi Zerahyah b. Shealiel I^en (Gracian), who spent some time in Italy, as Sirat wrote (Bibliography), since that rabbi composed his commentary on Job in Rome in 1291, the year before Romano was born. A thirteenth-century “philo­ sophical” Hebrew-Italian glossary has been pub­ lished, but this is not Judeo-Italian. In the later me­

394

dieval period, at least, Jews were fluent in Italian, and rabbis often preached sermons in the vernacular. There exist also a few medieval Judeo-Italian poems, almost all in manuscript (the earliest, twelfth or thirteenth century, has been published). Until these and other writings are carefully studied it is im­ possible to make any definitive observations about the nature of Italian among medieval Jews. Other

Even more problematic are the so-called Slavic languages. Unfounded speculation about the exis­ tence of Jews in Russia and even Poland in the earli­ est medieval period has led to much confusion. The “Canaanite” language mentioned in various sources can refer to Bohemia and even Germany. The paucity of verified data on Jews in medieval eastern Europe makes it impossible to know anything for certain about the languages that they may have used. (Re­ cently, Paul Wexler has argued the fascinating theory that not only Yiddish but even modern Hebrew [!] is of Slavic origin.) Judeo-Persian (sometimes referred to as “ Taf) is the greatest surprise. In spite of the Muslim conquest of the ancient Persian Empire (or, indeed, perhaps because of it, since the Arabs returned to Arabia, leaving only small numbers behind, and the newly converted Muslims were not quick to learn Arabic), at least in the eighth century some Jews were still using Persian. From that period dates the earliest ex­ tant Judeo-Persian document (Persian in Hebrew let­ ters), which is also the earliest example of any Persian writing—not just by Jews—in the medieval period. (It is astonishing that Allony, in his aforementioned introduction to Saadyah’s Egron, p. 62, could write that there are no studies on medieval Judeo-Persian, when in fact there have been many.) The aforementioned reaction against ‘arabiyya had its beginnings among the Muslims of Persia in the tenth century, and there was an increasing use of Persian in the writing of literature, philosophical treatises, and other documents. Jews may also have participated in this nascent nationalist revival; in any event, Judeo-Persian was extensively used by the twelfth century. There are some few tombstone in­ scriptions from Afghanistan from this period, but most of what has survived has been in the form of

Languedoc

biblical translations and literary adaptations from Iran itself. In 1339 the first known Hebrew-Persian dictionary was written, by Solomon b. Samuel (there were Persian glosses in earlier writings of the geonim , but no complete dictionary). This was followed by that of Moses Shirwani in the fifteenth century. Judeo-Persian poetry began also to appear in the fourteenth century, and there were some Bible trans­ lations from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; however, most Judeo-Persian literature dates from the postmedieval period. Some poems in Judeo-Maltese (probably fifteenth century) have also been published and discussed (see Po

e t r y i n o t h e r l a n g u a g e s ).

Finally, Aramaic—the ancient Semitic language spoken and written by Jews in Palestine and Babylon already in the late biblical and throughout the Hel­ lenistic periods—was never entirely forgotten, owing to its use in the Talmud and targumiym (translations of the Bible). Therefore, Aramaic, heavily mixed with Hebrew, is to be found in many of the medieval rab­ binical responsa and novellae on the Talmud, and at least in some of the legal codifications derived there­ from. Some of the medieval midrashiym are also wholly or partly in Aramaic. The mystical Zohar composed by Moses de Leon in Spain in the thir­ teenth century is the most ambitious work written entirely in Aramaic, although often marred by pecu­ liarities and errors of grammar and vocabulary In ad­ dition to religious poems some few secular ones were also written in Aramaic, most notably by Solomon Ibn Gabirol and by Samuel Ibn Naghrillah. Aramaic influences are to found also in Yemen and in remote areas of the old Persian Empire. There has been virtu­ ally no research on medieval Aramaic. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Banitt, M. “Une langue fantome: le judeo-fran^ais,” Revue de linguistique romane 27 (1963): 245-94. Benabu, Isaac, and Joseph (G.) Sermoneta. JudeoRomance Languages (Jerusalem, 1985). Benichou, Paul. “La langue des juifs fran^ais au moyen age,” Evidences 4 (1952): 29-34. Blau, Joshua. The Emergence and Linguistic Back­ ground ofJudaeo-Arabic (Oxford, 1965).

---------. Studies in Middle Arabic and Its JudaeoArabic Variety (Jerusalem, 1988). Blondheim, David S. Les parlers judeo-romans et la Vetus Latina (Paris, 1925). Fischel, Walter. “The Contribution of the Persian Jews to Iranian Culture and Literature,” Acta Iranica 3 (1974): 299-315. Fuks, L. The Oldest Known Documents in the Yiddish Language (Leiden, 1957). Le glossaire de Belle, ed. Menahem Banitt (Jerusalem, 1972), 2 vols. (Judeo-French biblical glossary). Lambert, Mayer, and Louis Brandin. Glossaire hebreu-frangais (Paris, 1904); supplemented by Lamberts valuable Hebrew study in David von Giinzburg, ed. Festschrift Abraham Harkavy (1905; rpt. 1979), pp. 368-90. Levy, Raphael. Contribution a la lexicographic frangaise selon d ’a nciens textes d ’o rigine ju iv e (Syra­ cuse, N.Y., 1960). Richardson-Saye: Richardson, Lula McDowell, “A Linguistic Study of an Old French Medical Trea­ tise” (thesis, Johns Hopkins University, 1924); completed by Hymen Saye, same title (thesis, Johns Hopkins University, 1931); both typewritten. Roth, Norman. “Jewish Reactions to the Arabiyya and the Renaissance of Hebrew in Spain,” Journal o f Semitic Studies 28 (1983): 63-84. ---------. “La lengua hebrea entre los cristianos espanoles medievales,” Revista de filologia espanola 71 (1991): 137-43. Weinreich, Max. “Jewish Languages of Romance Stock and Their Relation to Earliest Yiddish,” Ro­ mance Philology 9 (1956): 403-28. Wexler, Paul. Three Heirs to a Judeo-Latin Legacy: Judeo-Ibero-Romance, Yiddish and Rotwelsch (Wies­ baden, 1988). ---------. The Schizoid Nature o f Modern Hebrew: A Slavic Language in Search o f a Semitic Past (Wies­ baden, 1990). Zunz, Leopold. Zur Geschichte und Literatur (Berlin, 1895; rpt. Hildesheim, 1976), p. 173 on Litte of Regensburg.

Languedoc (see also PROVENCE)

In “great medieval Jewish Provence,” or Provencia, the Hebrew name for the southern region of France,

395

Languedoc

Languedoc was a place of extraordinary distinction. Covering a territory that was both Aragonese and French, Languedoc was unique for its relatively au­ tonomous political structure. Various inscriptions verify the Jewish presence there in the High Middle Ages and further attest to the regions unusual charac­ ter. The seventh-century rock of Narbonne, known as the “oldest in France,” relates the story of a hurried burial (caused no doubt by an epidemic) of three young bodies, the children of Paragorus. The Latin inscription is mixed with words in Hebrew and in­ cludes a symbol of the menorah. A later inscription from 1214 on the synagogue of Beziers, identical to one from 1209 in the town of Olot near Gerona, recounts the temporary exile suf­ fered by the Beziers Jews during an assault by the troops of Simon de Montfort. This inscription, which suggests the close link between the Jewish population of Languedoc and those from the areas of Catalonia and the Pyrenees, is the oldest dated ves­ tige of a synagogue in the south of France. The Scholars o f Languedoc In his Travels (1160-1165), Benjamin o f T u d e la de­ scribes the well-established Jewish communities o f Languedoc, which formed a flourishing culture whose originality shone brilliantly both in its rabbinical studies and in its philosophical and scientific scholar­ ship. The record left by Benjamin is an invaluable re­ source to historians. It defines the twelfth century as an especially significant time o f rapid economic growth and social and spiritual prosperity: Narbonne, Beziers, Montpellier, Lunel, and Posquieres (part o f what is now Vauvert) were all influential centers o f Jewish studies and made Languedoc a place o f intense intellectual and spiritual exchange. Educated Jews, who were persecuted by the A lm o-

and driven out of Granada in southern Spain, took refuge in the Languedoc region and brought with them Arab scholarship from al-Andalus. They translated the Arabic learning and made it available to educated circles of southern Jews made up primar­ ily of doctors. In Narbonne the famous Qimhi family of Andalusian scholars engaged problems of philol­ ogy and biblical exegesis, a lineage embodied by the work of David, “the prince of grammarians” and au­ thor of the famous Sefer ha-shorashiym (“Book of roots,” dictionary). In Lunel, the family of Ibn TibHADS

396

bon brought to Languedoc nearly all the scientific knowledge of Arab origin. The dynasty of Tibbon (Judah, Samuel, Moses, Jacob ben Makhir, Jacob Anatoli) went on to provide the Jews of Languedoc with four generations of scholars, thinkers, and translators of Arabic. In this fertile climate the Jewish community of Languedoc was the staging area for celebrated con­ troversies concerning the thought of Maimonides. The rationalist thought of Maimonides, and with it all the profane sciences, inflamed conservative con­ cerns for the integrity of faith and Jewish tradition. In 1230 and again in 1305, Montpellier was the cen­ ter of many polemical battles (it is important to re­ member that Montpellier was ruled by kings from Aragon and Majorca from 1204 to 1345). The city’s spiritual leaders (Salomon ben Abraham, then Abba Mari de Lunel) appealed to rabbinic authorities out­ side Languedoc, and this resulted in excommunica­ tions issued by rabbis from the the north of France and then from Catalonia (Solomon Ibn Adret of Barcelona). They condemned Maimonides writings (his Guide o f the Perplexed and the Sefer ha-madda), and they judged the allegorizing tendencies of philos­ ophy from the south to be dangerous to the interpre­ tation of scripture. The Jewish community of Languedoc was the true inheritor of Maimonides’ thought, creating an origi­ nal and rich terrain, a kind of link or bridge between the conservative north of France and the rationalist tradition of southern Spain. Along with the rationalist and philosophical movement in medieval Judaism, esoteric and mystic elements also flourished. This is found, for example, in the Posquieres school of Isaac the Blind, consid­ ered the father of QABBALAH. It then continued in Catalonia with the center of qabbalistic studies that was forming at the time in Gerona. The French Persecution

The edict of expulsion issued by PHILIP IV in Sep­ tember 1306 brought all these spiritual fermenta­ tions and anxieties to a brutal end. Subjected to a double tax burden (the communal tax and the tallia judeorum ), the Jews were forced to leave, and the col­ lective Jewish communities, with their exemplary in­ ternal administration, were transplanted in a life of exile. They brought with them their community cus-

Law, Jewish

toms, which were structured by living conditions that were at times open to and at times cloistered from society, as well as their broad range of well-defined occupations such as religious leaders, legal advisors, and doctors. It was an exile painfully endured by the Jews of Languedoc, as is evident in the sorrow and bit­ terness expressed by many celebrated persons, includ­ ing Rabbi Simon ben Joseph Duran of Montpellier, Yedayah yah Peniyniy of Beziers, and Estori ha-Farhiy. By 1276, in a somber prelude of things to come, Philip IV had evicted Jews from small towns and ex­ tended these measures to the entire kingdom of France. In a single stroke, he systematically despoiled Jews of all their property. Just as in the time of the ALBIGENSIAN Crusade of 1209, when the Jews of Beziers had to flee Olot, a cen­ tury later the expelled Jews of Languedoc had no diffi­ culty integrating into the Catalonian region of Spain. They could also easily adapt to the regions of Roussil­ lon and the countship of Provence, territories they pre­ ferred because of their geographic proximity and the close spiritual and familial relations they offered. Returning to France

French monarchs again permitted the Jews to return, but only while levying heavy tax burdens on them. Louis X in 1315, and then Charles V from 1359 to 1363, consented to allowing the Jews to pay for rein­ tegrating into the kingdom on a temporary basis. This return at a price, however, would not last. The threats of the SHEPHERDS UPRISING in 1320 gave cause for only selective reintegration. A new order of expulsion was issued in 1322. Later, Charles V, son of John II (captured by the English), would contem­ plate yet another return of the Jews to France, and while stricken by difficulties abroad, he offered them a stay with a strict, though longer than before, limita­ tion of twenty years. Each time the Jews’ stay was extended, it was sub­ ject to a high tax for the right to enter the kingdom. The Jews were in fact too few to “reintegrate” into the area called $arfat (Heb. “France”), where they numbered only a few hundred. They were forced to wear the BADGE and other clothes that marked them as Jews. At the turn of the fourteenth century they were finally given the definitive order to leave in a de­ cree issued by Charles VI (called Charles the Mad) on 17 September 1394.

This decision came during a time of troubles. The revolt of the Maillotins in 1382 had been a reaction to the taxes that crystallized the economic despair in the strained life of the Jewish quarter. This and other factors, such as the madness of the king and the machinations of zealots, more likely precipitated the expulsion decree than the excuse used to justify it— the Denis Machaut affair, in which Jews from Paris were arrested for their alleged kidnaping of the con­ verted Jew Denis Machaut. The expelled Jews found refuge in Franche-Comte, Switzerland, Savoy, north­ ern Italy, and other places. Vestiges include certain rue de Juifs or Jewish streets (Beziers, Vauvert, Lodeve), the “ghetto” in Pezenas located in the medieval city, and the actual remains of synagogues and community buildings in Lunel, a treasure for archaeologists. But in pointing out the vestiges of Jewish life, one has to note the thirteenth-century miqvah (ritual bath) in Montpel­ lier, which places it among cities like Besalu and, in the north, Bischheim and Speyer, that have retained on their walls the true traces of a glorious Jewish past that provide history with some of the most distin­ guished artifacts. DANlfeLE IANCU-AGOU (TRANSLATED BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF)

Law, Jewish

The scattering of the Jews after the destruction of the Second Temple, and even before that, did not bring the abrogation of autonomy. The Jews remained as autonomous communities in the lands where they lived throughout the Middle Ages, even though they had lost political independence, and there was now no physical bond with their natural environment, the Land of Israel. The judicial and religious autonomy that was part of diaspora living allowed the Jewish courts to im­ pose sanctions on the members of the Jewish com­ munity. In this setting, the judicial autonomy could prosper because the judgments of the courts could be enforced. Sanctions included flogging, attachment of property, and imprisonment. At times, even the death penalty was allowed. This extreme sanction was meted out almost solely to informers who would endanger the entire Jewish community by their treachery. Probably the most potent of all sanctions 397

Law, Jewish

generally was the threat of excommunication. For a Jew to be divorced from the Jewish community was a type of social death that was especially effective in the closed society of medieval times. The scope of the Jewish community’s autonomy was different from place to place and generation to generation. For example, wide autonomy was given to the Jews of Spain for many years. This judicial au­ tonomy led to the further development of the crimi­ nal law, as well as public and administrative law. Besides the external force that helped keep the Jewish people and Jewish law together—that is, the central government’s granting of limited self-rule to the Jewish communities—an internal cause had an even more profound effect. This was the stringent prohibition against adjudicating in Gentile courts. This prohibition dates from the Mishnah and was codified in all the subsequent codes. So writes M A I­ MONIDES, basing himself on the Mishnah: “Whoever litigates according to Gentile law and in their courts, although their laws are the same as the laws of Israel [Jewish law], is an evildoer and is deemed to have re­ viled and blasphemed and rebelled against the Torah of Moses our teacher.” [Notwithstanding, Jews in all Muslim lands, and in Christian as well as Muslim Spain, routinely used Gentile courts, and with the sanction of the rabbis.—ed.]. To sum up, there were two basic factors of survival in Jewish law: first, the internal discipline of the tra­ ditional Jewish society, and second, the political cir­ cumstances of the corporate medieval state. Justice Agranat, former president of Israel’s Supreme Court, had the following to say in one of his leading judgments, Skornik v. Skorniky concern­ ing the nature of Jewish law: The very moment that we admit—as we are obliged to admit—the continued existence of the Jews in all gen­ erations and in all lands of their dispersion as a sepa­ rate people, we must test the nature of Jewish law by the historic relationship of the Jewish people to this law. We then conclude that the Jewish people indeed treated Jewish law, throughout their existence and their dispersion, as their special property, as part of the trea­ sure of their culture. It fo llo w s that this law served in the past as the national law of the Jews.

Although the basis of Jewish law is religious, like l a w or Muslim law, it is very different from

CANON

398

both in its historical antecedents and legal frame­ work. Jewish law has been a national law, that is, the law of a people who see themselves as members of one nation. Both canon law and Islamic law are purely religious, and not the laws of any one nation. Furthermore, in spite of the dispersion of the Jewish people throughout every country on earth, the Jew­ ish legal system remained whole and no schism oc­ curred, as was the case in Islam with the division into different religious sects, each one having its own in­ terpretation and tradition of the law, such as Shicites and Sunnis. It is true that different Jewish communi­ ties occasionally amended the law by communal en­ actments, or different customs arose in the varying communities, but all this was peripheral, and the legal system and legal tradition remained, basically, one. Of course there are some differences, for exam­ ple, between Sefardim and Ashkenazim, concerning one or another point of law. But all are part and feel part of the same legal system: Jewish law. One of the most striking aspects of the Jewish legal system is that it has developed over the ages in a manner similar to that of the common law, through cases. For the past fifteen hundred years or so, no code of law has emerged that became a canon from which no one may deviate, Maimonides’ “Code” [.Mishneh Torah] and the Shulhan arukh included. Disputes were brought before the prominent rabbis or to the rabbinical courts for judgment. There are, in print, some three hundred thousand of these judg­ ments, all of them finely reasoned. This legal treasure is the backbone of all legal development. If one wants to compare the Jewish legal system with other legal systems as to the manner of its development and the sources of its law, the English legal system would be the most appropriate. It is the case law and not statute law—as is the situation in Europe—that epit­ omizes the history of both the Jewish and the English legal systems. Perhaps the most far-reaching innovation in the Jewish legal system that can be attributed to legal de­ velopment in medieval times concerns Jewish matri­ monial law. Rabbenu GERSHOM B. JUDAH, “light of the exile” (ca. 960-1028) was the author of a number of enactments, two of which were of great import. The first prohibited polygamy, which was allowed under biblical law and was tacitly approved in talmu­ dic times and afterward [his prohibition was not ac­

Law, Jewish

cepted, however, in Spain or Muslim lands]. The sec­ ond innovation was the prohibition against divorcing one’s wife against her will. Until Gershom’s time, a man could divorce his wife without even going to court. His ban on one-sided divorce had very impor­ tant consequences, both legal and social, on the sta­ tus of women and womens rights in Jewish law. This decree recast divorce as a mutual agreement between spouses, a revolutionary development in Jewish legal thought before his time. The Jewish legal system in medieval times was on the whole influenced very little by other legal sys­ tems, but was perhaps influenced more by medieval legal and political philosophy. Different viewpoints may be adopted even if their source is outside the Jewish tradition. Mutatis mutandis, legal-political theories can be translated and become part of the Jewish legal tradition. But to incorporate legal norms that may contradict the legal system’s own norms is another matter. In such a case, we have a clash be­ tween a legal tradition that is seen as part of a divine order and a secular norm from outside the tradition. It is obvious that the victor will almost always be the norm found in the Jewish tradition. There is a well-known rule in Jewish law con­ cerning the incorporation of foreign law, DlNA DE-

MALKHUTA DINA (the law of the kingdom is law). This

rule states that in certain cases the rule of law of the country is binding and can even supersede the rule of Jewish law. The interpretation of this rule has usually been restrictive. However, it seems that in discussing the theory behind the maxim that the law of the state is law, Jewish decision-makers have been influenced by medieval legal-political theory. For example, the legal basis of the principle was explained as contrac­ tual, that is, the inhabitants have accepted the king’s laws or the king himself, similar to the medieval view of consensus fidelium. Others held that the legality of the king’s laws derives from the simple fact that the land belongs to the king, who lays down the condi­ tions of residence, and if Jews wish to dwell in his land they are obliged to obey his rules. These views of the rabbis seems to echo the writings of Guido of Ferrara (eleventh century), Martinus (ca. 1100-ca. 1166), and Bulgaris (twelfth century). Still others see the validity of custom as the basis of dina demalkhuta dina. Most of these views reflect the so­ ciopolitical outlook of the Middle Ages. Not only the theoretical basis of authority was steeped in medieval legal-political theory, but the characteristics of the law to be incorporated were also influenced by prevailing attitudes. Only by under­

Ritual, ca. 1320. Calendar beginning in 1323 with liturgical poems and rit­ ual laws. Parchment from the Rhine (German/France). Photo: J. G. Berizzi. Copyright © Reunion des Musees Nationaux/Art Resource, NY.

399

Law, Jewish

standing the European legal tradition in the Middle Ages can one explain the recurring theme of the me­ dieval rabbis that only old law was valid and new law was not to be followed [with respect to dina demalkhuta dina\. Perhaps the only branch of the law that was directly influenced by medieval law, and greatly so, was crimi­ nal law This unusual phenomenon can be explained in the following manner. Jewish criminal law ceased to develop naturally at the time of the destruction of the Temple, or even somewhat before that period. Crimi­ nal jurisdiction that some communities had in the posttalmudic period were inherently ad hoc. Accord­ ing to Jewish laws own rules, the true criminal law of the Jewish legal system could be applied only where there was a Sanhedrin in the Land of Israel. Because of this a legal lacuna developed in the realm of criminal law. Therefore, in those medieval communities that were given autonomy, or limited autonomy, in crimi­ nal matters, the time and place was ripe for adopting non-Jewish norms. The barbaric punishments that were an integral part of the medieval milieu and mind were, at times, adopted by the Jewish communities. A number of forms of punishment that are not found in classical Jewish law are part of medieval Eu­ ropean law and sometimes infiltrated the legal system of the medieval Jewish communities. These sanctions included, for example, the shaving of the head and beard, amputation of limbs and sundry mutilations, and the cutting off of the tongue for blasphemy. What led the rabbis to acquiesce and even recom­ mend [rarely] such a punishment? They did not want the Jewish leader to be criticized by the Gentile world as being less vigorous in their stamping out major crimes. They felt that they had to punish in a manner similar to what was meted out in the society of the time. For example, we know that LOUIS IX of France ordered, on many occasions, that the tongue of blas­ phemers should be cut out. These ugly mutations were ingested but not digested; they were part of the Jewish legal system for some time but were eventually spewed out. On the border between the civil and criminal law, imprisonment for debt and delayed burial of debtors—actions completely alien to classical Jewish law—crept into some Jewish communities that were influenced by the laws of Europe during certain peri­ ods. Jewish law had completely rejected imprison­ 400

ment for debt. The Bible’s attitude toward debtors is extremely humane: a creditor was not even allowed into the debtors house in order to collect his debt, but was enjoined to “stand outside.” This absolute prohibition was reiterated during talmudic times and was followed in the posttalmudic period. Mai­ monides, in his “Code of Jewish law,” specifically states, “but if the debtor is found to have no assets or only such as form part of the arrangement that is made for the debtor, then the debtor is allowed to go his way and he is not imprisoned.” This ruling pre­ vailed in most communities well into the High Mid­ dle Ages [not, however, in Spain, where imprison­ ment for debt was common.—ed.\. But in the late medieval period, mainly owing to socioeconomic reasons, imprisonment for debt crept into some Eu­ ropean Jewish communities also. Even when the Jew­ ish legal system did incorporate imprisonment for debt, the Jewish communities made sure that prison conditions were tolerable and that the incarcerated debtor was able to perform his religious obligations in a proper manner, which demanded cleanliness and humane conditions. One of the most salient features of Jewish law in the Middle Ages was the frequent use of communal legislation. The halakhah recognized the different communities’ right to legislate local rules that were binding on the members of the specific community. The rabbis developed certain safeguards concerning the lay legislative authority so that the legislation would not be in conflict with basic principles of Jew­ ish law. Although there are some antecedents in the Talmud allowing for this communal power, it was only in medieval times that communal legislation flourished. As a result, a large number of responsa of the times deal with this phenomenon. That is how the local lay legislation became an integral part of the Jewish legal system. During the Middle Ages, especially from the eleventh century, the literature of the law grew enor­ mously. In the Franco-German communities, the great commentaries and novellae were written, such as those of “RA SH f and the Tosafists. In the Spanish and North African communities, in addition to the great commentaries and novellae of the Spanish school, such as those of “N A HM ANIDES” and Solomon Ib n A d r e t , major codifications or restatements of the law were written, the greatest of them all being

c Leon

Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. In both the Ashkenazic and the Sefardic communities, the responsa literature flourished. Thousands of responsa were written in Germany by Meir of Rothenburg, and even more by Ibn Adret in Barcelona. The Jewish judicial system was so esteemed that during the Middle Ages we sometimes find that in cases between a Christian and Jew, even though Gentile courts usually had jurisdiction in such circumstances, the Christian preferred to litigate in a Jewish court. SHMUEL SHILO

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elon, Menachem. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Prin­ ciples (Philadelphia, New York, Jerusalem, 1994), 4 vols. ---------, ed. The Principles o f Jewish Law (Jerusalem, 1975). Falk, Zeev W. Jewish M atrimonial Law in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1966). Shilo, Shmuel. Dina de-malkhuta dina [Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1975). Soloveitchik, Haym. Halakhah, kalkalah ve-diymuiy a$miy (Jerusalem, 1985). Urbach, Ephraim E. Ba‘a ley tosafot (Jerusalem, 1980; fourth ed.).

Leon Leon, in the north-central part of Spain, was a direct heir of the traditions of Visigothic Spain (see VlSIGOTHS); the idea of an unbroken continuity is found in the early medieval chronicles. The Visigothic law (“Lex Gothica”) and “sacred canons” of the Toledo councils were invoked as sources for law in medieval Leon. Little is known about the early settlement of Jews in Leon, and there appears not to have been a significant number of Jews there, in contrast with other regions, perhaps because of the recollection of Visigothic persecutions of the Jews. By the end of the eleventh century, as we shall see, strong measures were taken to guarantee Jewish rights, however. The earliest reference to a Jew appears to be in 905, one Habaz (or Nabaz), “formerly a Jew, after­ wards a true Christian and a monk.” In the early eleventh century there are a few more references, some (1015) concerning the property of a Christian official in Castile that was inherited by his sons, who

were taken captive by invading Muslims. The prop­ erty finally reverted to the king, Alfonso V, who do­ nated it to another Christian. Upon that mans death, his widow began selling off the vineyards on the property to some Christians and Jews. Her sons protested this to the king, asking that the Jews be re­ moved from ownership of the vineyards. In 1047 there is a reference to a certain Christian who had “his Hebrews” (!) in his house, responsible for his merchandise. The only community for which there are significant references to Jews was Puente Castro (see below on this), and most of the references are to murders of Jews on the roads there; some of these are from Hebrew tomb inscriptions. One of the earliest general references is found in the laws of the Council of Leon in 1020, one of which stated that if a person inhabited a house or land belonging to another, he is obligated to make certain payments to the lord of the land, and if he cannot do so and chooses to sell, the property is to be assessed by two Christians and two Jews. This demonstrates that a substantial number of Jews was then in Leon, and that there was apparent equality between Jews and Christians (alternatively, it may well mean that Christian assessors alone were not to be trusted). This law was confirmed by Queen Urraca in 1109. Alfonso VI in 1091 decreed that all disputes be­ tween Christians and Jews be settled in accord with law or by equal combat, in which case if the Chris­ tian chooses a champion to represent him, the Jew must also be allowed to do so. A Christian who in­ sults, wounds, or kills a Jew is subject to investigation and trial, and if no satisfaction is obtained one of the offended Jews may fight the Christian in combat or by champions representing both parties. With regard to debts, the king decreed that the Jew could collect without an oath provided there were witnesses, but if not, the Christian could swear an oath and go free. Should he refuse to swear, the Jew could swear an oath as to how much was owed and the Christian then had to pay (the exact law in reverse applied if the Jew was the debtor to a Christian). These laws were said to be “in perpetuity,” and were signed by the king, the queen, and various bishops (Baer claimed [I, 44-45] that this “affected the Jewish position adversely” and proved that Jews were merely “regarded as royal serfs”; see his diatribe against Sanchez-Albornoz, p. 386 n. 14c, with totally false 401

Leon

claims about the “nonexistence” of Jewish merchants. Baer said virtually nothing about Jews in the king­ dom of Leon in general.) In response to “petitions,” apparently from Jews, Alfonso IX (probably; which Alfonso is not stated in the text) decreed that it was his will to receive under his protection and defense all of the Jews of the king­ dom, and ordered them protected from “contumely” and injury, that their rights against debtors be main­ tained, and that they be granted administration of justice in an equitable manner (Ordenanzas reales VIII. iii. 24; also in other collections). The fuero, or municipal law code, of Miranda de Ebro was also a model of the principal of equality for all, including Muslims and Jews. The brief reign of Queen Urraca (1109-1126) was marked by unrest and uprisings. The town of Sahagun was established in 1085 by French Cluniac monks, and soon (1111) became the scene of rebel­ lion against the nobility. A union of farmers, work­ ers, and the lower classes was organized, and “acting like wild beasts” they attacked the royal palace, houses of the nobles, and even the churches. They also killed many Jews in the city. In 1118 Alfonso VII granted special fueros to the Mozarabes (Christians living in Muslim territories), French, and Castilians of Toledo exonerating them of all blame in the attacks against the Jews there, and also exempted from punishment inhabitants of the villages of Cea, Carrion, Saldana, and Valle de Anebra, all in Leon, where as we know from other sources that many Jews were killed. This was a turbu­ lent period throughout Leon. The end of the twelfth century was marked by the struggle of important Castilian families to gain con­ trol in Leon, and as they took over strategic castles and the towns these dominated, they met with oppo­ sition from the king of Leon (Fernando II), and an uneasy truce was concluded in 1183. Five years later, Alfonso VIII of Castile concluded a firm peace with the new king of Leon, Alfonso IX, sealed by the mar­ riage of one of his daughters to the young king. However, Navarre and Aragon joined against Castile in 1190, and Alfonso IX took advantage of this by marrying the daughter of the king of Portugal, to whom he then swore fealty so that they could join in the campaign against Castile. In 1195, the Castilian king suffered defeat at the hands of the Muslims at 402

the battle of Alarcos. Further peace negotiations broke down, and in 1196 the Leonese king joined forces with Muslim armies and invaded Castile. Al­ fonso VIII now called upon the new king of Aragon, Pedro II, for aid and in turn attacked Leon. Guard­ ing the main road between the two kingdoms, not far from the capital city of Leon, was a castle called Cas­ tro de los judios, now Puente del Castro. The attack­ ing troops took the castle and destroyed it, burning also the synagogue. According to a later chronicle, all of the Jews were captured and imprisoned. Neverthe­ less, a Christian chronicle much closer in time to the event states that the Jews continued to inhabit the castle, which was not destroyed, for which they paid an annual tax to the cathedral. There were other Jew­ ish castles in the kingdom, including one in Astorga. In 1199, Alfonso IX gave his wife some thirty castles, among which was the castle of the Jews at Mayorga. Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries

Fifteenth-century Jewish chronicles report a “perse­ cution” or destruction of Jews after the death of Al­ fonso IX (1230) in the towns of Astorga, Mayorga, Ciudad Rodrigo, and some cities such as Salamanca and Zamora (one of the towns named, Granadilla, is north of Plasencia and near Ciudad Rodrigo). One name appears in the chronicle of Ibn Saddiq that is so corrupt as to be undecipherable; it has been sug­ gested that it is Ibiza, which of course is impossible (Neubauer, who confused Mayorga in Leon with Majorca). Zacut, who copied from this chronicle, preserved the correct form, however: Benavente, which is southwest of Mayorga. Baer, faithful to his usual “lachrymose conception” of Jewish history, re­ ported that “all the Jewish communities of the king­ dom were destroyed” (I, 89), which is, of course, greatly exaggerated. In fact, there appears to be no record in other sources of any such “persecution,” and the entire report is thus suspect. Some possible confirmation of this, nevertheless, may come from the tax records of 1290, which mention several com­ munities of Leon where Jews paid taxes, but notably missing are precisely the cities listed above; of course, such lists are notoriously unreliable, and in this case a total contribution of the Jews of Leon of 218,300 maravedis is mentioned but the individual amounts listed by city do not come close to that figure.

Leon

One of the most important centers of Jewish pop­ ulation was the city of Palencia, including the sur­ rounding region. At least from the twelfth century Jews lived in the section known as San Julian (ironi­ cally, named after the anti-Jewish Visigothic bishop, a descendant of Jews). A decree issued in 1178 by Al­ fonso VIII stated that the Jews were subject to the king only and exempt from any tribute or sales taxes, but they were obligated to contribute to municipal expenses and the maintenance of the walls. In the fif­ teenth century this Jewish quarter was already re­ ferred to as the juderia vieja (old Jewish quarter), in­ dicating that there must have been a new one added later. Following the plague (see B l a c k D e a t h ) in 1348, which hit the diocese of Palencia hard, there are indi­ cations of economic decline in the kingdom. Thus, in the parliament of 1349 Alfonso XI was petitioned for a moratorium of two years on all debts to Jews, the Christians pleading that they otherwise could not afford to pay their taxes. The king granted one year, as he already had done for Castile. The request was also made that Jews and Muslims be required to share in the payment of salaries of judges, to which the king replied that “it is well known” that the Jews pay separate taxes (Muslims were not mentioned) and therefore the rulers are careful “in accord with the law” not to demand of them that they do such things, and the request was denied. During the reign of Juan I we find some informa­ tion on important Jews, particularly tax officials, in Leon. One of these, apparently, was don Mose Baltax of Saldana (in the province of Palencia), who paid to Samuel ABRAVANEL, the chief tax official of the king, a large sum of money that he had borrowed from the king. In the second half of the fourteenth century we hear of some Jewish officials from Leon, such as don a ebraica nellltalia centro-settentrionale (secoliXIVeXV), ed. S. Boesch Gaiano (Rome, 1983). Pace, C. “Su la colonia ebrea di Montegiorgio,” Rivista abruzzese di scienze, lettere ed arti 17 (1902): 98-109; 18 (1903): 142-47.

580

Rossi, L. “Ebrei in Todi nel secolo XIII,” Bollettino della deputazione di storia patria p er VUmbria 67 (1970): 31-71. Simonson, Shlomo. The Apostolic See and the Jews, I (492-1404) (Toronto, 1988). Toaff, Ariel. Gli ebrei a Perugia (Perugia, 1975). ---------. “Gli ebrei romani ed il commercio del denaro nei comuni dell’Italia centrale alia fine del duecento,” Italia judaica, Atti del I congresso internazionale, Bari 18-22 maggio 1981 (Rome, 1983), pp. 183-96. ^ ---------. “Commercio del denaro ed ebrei romani a Terni (1296-1299),” Annnuario di studi ebraici 10 (1984): 247-90. ---------. II vino e la came. Una comunith ebraica nel medioevo (Bologna, 1989). ---------. The Jews in Umbria (New York, Leiden, 1993-94); 2 vols. Vogelstein, H., and P. Rieger. Geschichte der Juden in Rom (Berlin, 1895).

s Sa‘adyah Gaon Saadyah (or Seadyah) b. Joseph al-Fayyummi was born in 882 (not as earlier thought in 892) in Egypt and died on 15 May 942 (as we know from a writing of his own sons; Mann, “Fihrist”). He assumed the position of gaon, or head of the academy of Sura, in 928 (ironically, on the very date, according to the common calendar, of his death: May 15). He thus “reigned” as gaon for a period of nearly fourteen years. The gaon, however, was more than merely the head of the rabbinical academy (not really a yeshivah, although it was that, they primarily discussed and de­ termined Jewish law relating to all matters). He was the recognized legal authority or head of the entire Jewish community of the Diaspora (see GEONIM for fuller details). Saadyah was the only non-“Babylonian” to hold the office. It is not clear where he re­ ceived his education, however, and it may well have been in Babylon (Iraq). He was called rosh hamedabriym be-kol maqom (“first among speakers on all things”) by ABRAHAM Ibn ‘E z r a , his bitter oppo­ nent on many questions of interpretation. In fact, he was “first” in many areas to which he turned his at­ tention and about which he wrote. Reportedly, he was a descendant of Egyptian con­ verts to Judaism; on the other hand, he himself claimed to be of the tribe of Judah (medieval Jews often made such claims, which may be discounted), whereas Abraham Ibn Daud (twelfth-century Spain) makes him a descendant of Haninah b. Dosa, a mish­ naic teacher of the first century. This may be the most likely, since it perhaps explains the otherwise unusual name “Dosa” for one of his sons (the other,

whose existence was not even suspected until Mann published his document, was named She’eriyt). Saadyah grew up and was educated in the Egypt of the Fatimid caliphs, who first invaded in 914 but did not successfully conquer the land until three years later. The entire world with which he was familiar, including NORTH AFRICA, PALESTINE, and what the Jews still called “Babylon,” was under Muslim domi­ nance. While this was a benign rule, in the sense that Jews were generally still tolerated, to a pious Jew like Saadyah it must have seemed an oppression, particu­ larly their control of the “Holy Land.” Arabic was also the lingua franca not only of Muslims but of Jews, many of whom had virtually forgotten Hebrew. Another serious threat to Jewish “orthodoxy” and unity was the heretical QARAITE movement. In 915 Saadyah made a trip to Palestine, Baghdad, and Aleppo, and in all these places he encountered fol­ lowers of this movement. The Qaraite scholar Aaron ben Meir was head of the academy in Palestine, and in order to challenge Babylonian authority he changed the Jewish calendar so that Rosh ha-Shanah would fall on a Sabbath (in fairness to his views, he wished to reduce the number of postponed holidays, should they fall on a Sabbath, in order to more closely follow the Torah). Saadyah and the Exilarch (official “secular” head of the Jewish community in Baghdad) David b. Zakkai wrote letters of protest about this. Further polemics with the Qaraites in­ volved such questions as whether the messiah has al­ ready come, and with it the eschatological “end of time” expected by rabbinical Jews. Saadyah re­ sponded to this with the argument, based on biblical 581

Sa‘adyah Gaon

texts only (the Qaraites did not recognize the author­ ity of rabbinical teaching), that the messiah had not yet come. Against the fundamental complaint of the Qaraites that God only commanded a “written” and not an “oral” Torah (the Talmud), he demonstrated that many biblical passages dealing with important laws are so abbreviated that there must have been an oral explanation of them even from the time of Moses. He also became involved in a bitter con­ troversy with the exilarch, during which various defamatory allegations were made against him. They excommunicated each other, with the exilarch ap­ pointing a new head of the yeshivah and Sa adyah ap­ pointing a new exilarch. The feud lasted for seven years, but in this battle the wealthy and powerful Beney Nefiyrah family and other aristocrats supported Saadyah. Eventually the dispute was settled. Indeed, most of his career was spent in fighting battles of one kind or another, whether in answering Muslim polemical accusations, or (perhaps) even those of the Zoroastrians and “dualists,” who be­ lieved in two basic powers in the universe, and also in his detailed reply to the accusations of a Jewish heretic, Hiwi al-Balkhi. This individual denied every basic saying and teaching in the Torah, and while some of his arguments were quite modern in their so­ phistication, they constituted the worst kind of heresy to the medieval mind. Against other “unbe­ lievers” among his own people, as well as those whose beliefs were confused and lacked coherence, he wrote his most famous work, Emunot ve-de’o t (“Book of be­ liefs and opinions,” in the slightly inaccurate Hebrew translation of the title; see, incidentally, the impor­ tant notes by Klar on this book). It was also—per­ haps one should say particularly—directed against the new influence of Muslim and Greek philosophy upon Jews. His argument was that in addition to rea­ son there is also prophetic revelation, which is supe­ rior to reason. He appealed to this revelation as the ultimate truth, and the traditional fundamental be­ liefs in creation and in miracles and resurrection. It is not wrong to say that Saadyah was the first, and to a great extent the only, Jewish “theologian,” at least of the medieval period. This is reflected also in his other writings, particularly his prayer book, and it was this aspect of his thought, which was summarily rejected by Ibn £Ezra and then by MAIMONIDES, which sealed

582

the fate of his works and prevented them from hav­ ing any significant influence, at least in medieval Spain. His biblical translations were also in a sense commentary (as is every translation), and while they occasionally offer correct meanings of a difficult word, they also contain numerous errors which aroused the sometimes venomous criticisms of Ibn ‘Ezra. Aside from a few brief citations, these works were also unknown in Spain (it remains unclear as to where Ibn ‘Ezra saw them, perhaps in Italy). If Saadyah was not literally the “first” in every­ thing, he was surely among the first. Thus, he was very nearly the first Jewish compiler of a dictionary (actually, he was preceded in this by §emah Gaon, but his dictionary is no longer extant). Saadyahs dictionary, ha-Egron, was intended for poets as a rhyming dictionary, an alphabetical listing of the endings of words. He later revised it by adding sev­ eral grammatical rules. In later years he wrote some other, minor, lexicographical treatises. There are two separate lists by him of “unique” words (one of sev­ enty, one of ninety) in the Bible. An area in which he unquestionably was the first was liturgy, for he wrote the first siddur (prayer book). The previous work by ‘Amram Gaon, also called a siddur, dealt with the laws and the order of prayers (although for scholarly purposes, it is in fact far more important than Saadyahs prayerbook). Sa adyah was less concerned with laws than with the proper order and content of the prayers. His reasons for writing this were nearly the same as for his Emu­ not ve-de’o t, his discovery that there were “errors” in the practices he had observed on his travels; as Elbogen (see Bibliography) succinctly phrased it “the threefold sin of negligence, addition and omission,” that is, many had forgotten what prayers should be said or what they consisted of, numerous poetic in­ trusions (piyyutiym) were added at inappropriate places, and important prayers were left out altogether in some places. We again see his “fundamentalist” at­ titude at work, as when he stated that tefiyllah (“prayer”) is supplication or petition, going against the standard explanation of the rabbis that it is self­ examination. He was also unduly influenced, strangely, by Muslim customs, and throughout in his explana­ tions (in Arabic) used Muslim religious terms rather than giving a straightforward explanation of the He­

Saadyah Gaon

brew concepts. There are frequent criticisms of the ignorance of the masses about prayer. In spite of his correct criticism of the inappropriate, not to say grammatically erroneous (to the point of being in­ comprehensible), nature of piyyutiym, he himself composed several which he inserted into the prayerbook. Some of these, however, won the praise of no less an expert than Ibn ‘Ezra. The siddur, like the rest of his writings, remained largely unknown in me­ dieval Spain, in spite of the fact that it was obviously very popular in other Muslim countries, as evidenced by the large number of known manuscripts of the work. Saadyahs writings, particularly his translations of the Bible, were venerated in Yemen for centuries. It should be noted, however, that the extremely pop­ ular Arabic Taj from Yemen, purporting to be his translation of the Bible, is not, in fact, his (see on this Kahle, p. 54). Following is a listing of some of the more impor­ tant works which he is known to have written, in­ cluding many which are no longer extant: • Sefer ha-galuiy, his anti-Qaraite polemical treatise. • Parts of his commentary on Talmud or Mish­ nah. • Translations (Arabic) of various books of the Bible. He translated all of the Bible, but wrote a commentary only on Gen. 1-28 of the Torah, and on a very few other books; that on the Song of Songs is of disputed authenticity, while that on Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) is defi­ nitely not his. The commentary on Daniel (published in various editions) may not be by him but rather by a North African scholar (see S. Poznanski in ha-Goren 3 [1900]: 92-103). Translations of other biblical books are found in Derenbourg’s edition of his Ouevres (see Bibliography); many of these texts have errors in them. He wrote also a lengthy introduction to the commentary on Psalms, only parts of which have been recovered. • Book of Commandments (Sefer hami$voi). • Commentary (the first) on the mystical work Seferye$iyrah (Book of formation). • Other legal treatises, such as one on the laws of inheritance.

• Responsa, a few scattered in the various pub­ lished collections; for others see Bibliography. Works no longer extant include a very important commentary on the Mishnah and a methodological work on learning the Talmud (Darkhey ha-Talmudas it is cited in Hebrew, although probably written in Arabic), “choice of practices” (probably on the laws of the Torah, in order), commentaries on Job and Es­ ther which he is known to have written; perhaps oth­ ers also. Also, a translation (?) of Maccabees; various legal works (see Mann, p. 428), some sermons, and a treatise on the calendar. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sources

Oeuvres completes, ed. J. Derenbourg (Paris, 1892­ 1900; rpt. 1979), Vols. 1, 3, 5, 6, 9 (out of print). Emunot ve-de'ot (Heb. tr. of Judah Ibn Tibbon) (Constantinople, 1562; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1972); other important eds. include that of David Slucki, with notes (Leipzig, 1864, in Vol. 2 of his Hokhmat Yisrael). The Book o f Beliefs and Opinions, tr. Samuel Rosen­ blatt (New Haven, 1948). The Book o f Doctrines and Beliefs, abridged tr. Alexan­ der Altmann (Oxford, 1946). Commentarie sur le Sefer Yesira de Saadia, ed. and tr. Lambert (Paris, 1891); new ed. by Joseph Kafih (Jerusalem, 1972). Peirush . . . ‘a l ha-Torah, ed. (i.e., collected from his various writings) Joseph Kafih (Jerusalem, 1963; “corrected” ed. 1984). Peirushey Rav Saadyah Gaon le-Bereshiyt, ed. and tr. Moses Zucker (New York, 1984); see criticism in Kiryat sefer 61 (1986-87): 601. Peirush Ezra ve-Nehemyah, ed. and tr. (Eng.) Henry Mathews (Oxford, 1882); rare in U.S. Tafsir Yeshayahu, (tr. of Isaiah), ed. and tr. Judah Ratzaby (Kiryat Ono, 1993). Siddur (Jerusalem, 1943; numerous reprints, latest is Jerusalem, 2000); no list of abbreviations or bibli­ ography! Numerous additions have been pub­ lished, of which there is no indication in the reprints, nor were they included.

583

Sa‘adyah Gaon

Sefer ha-yerushot, Peirush Y”G middot; Teshuvot veliyqufiym (Jerusalem, 1968; photo rpt. from Oeu­ vres, t. IX; the Sefer yerushot is not “Successions,” but laws on the transfer of property in general). Teshuvot, ed. S. Wertheimer (Jerusalem, 1931). Hirschfeld, H., ed. and tr. “Saadyahs ‘Refutation of the Unfair Aggressor,” J.Q.R. 18 (o.s.) (1906): 113-19; “Saadyahs Treatise on Usury,” ibid., pp. 119-20; “Introduction to Saadyahs Translation of Jeremiah (?),” ibid., pp. 317-25 (important). Saadja al-Fajjumis arabisehe Psalmeniibersetzung und Commentar (Ps. 21-41) (Berlin, 1901); (Ps. 50­ 75) (Berlin, 1900); (Ps. 90-106) (Berlin, 1934); (Ps. 107-24) (Berlin, 1903); (Ps. 125-50) (Berlin, 1904). The Book o f Theodicy: translation and commentary on Job, ed. and tr. L. E. Goodman (New Haven, 1988); cf. R. Ecker, Die arabisehe Job Ubersetzung des Gaon Saadja (Munich, 1962). Saadids Polemics Against Hiwiw al-Balkhi, ed. I. Davidson (New York, 1915). ha-Egron, ed. Nehemiah Aloni (Jerusalem, 1969). Piyyutey . . . , ed. Yosef Tobi (Jerusalem, 1982). Studies

Elbogen, Ismar. “Saadias Siddur,” in Saadia Anniver­ sary Volume (see below), pp. 247—61. Fox, Marvin. “On the Rational Commandments in Saadias Philosophy,” World Congress o f Jewish Studies, 6, 3(1977): 33-43. Kahle, Paul. The Cairo Geniza (New York, 1959). Klar, Benjamin. Mehqariym ve-‘iyyuniym (Tel Aviv, 1954), pp. 220 ff. (notes on various works). Mann, Jacob “A Fihrist of Saadyas Works” (text by his sons), J.Q.R. (n.s.) 11 (1921): 423-28. Ratzaby, Judah. 0$ar ha-lashon ha-Araviyt be-Tafsiyr Rav Saadyah gaon (Ramat Gan, 1985); an ex­ tremely valuable dictionary, with translation and sources. Rosenthal, Judah. Hiwi al-Balkhi. A Comparative (Philadelphia, 1949). Rivkin, Ellis. “The Saadia—David ben Zakkai Con­ troversy,” in Meir Ben-Horin, et al., eds. Studies and Essays in Honor o f Abraham A. Neuman (Lei­ den, 1962), pp. 328-4223. Saadia Anniversary Volume, ed. Boaz Cohen (New York, 1943; photo rpt. 1980).

584

Saadya Studies, ed. E. I. J. Rosenthal (Manchester, England, 1943; photo rpt. New York, 1980). Zucker, Moses. Al targum RS”G le-Torah (New York, 1959).

Science and Mathematics

Jewish interest in science was both “theoretical” and “practical,” to employ the standard Greek (-Arabic) terminology. From a theoretical perspective, all knowl­ edge was viewed as of divine origin, and even prior to the teaching of MAIMONIDES and other philosophers that a knowledge of science and of the workings of the universe is necessary in order to comprehend the true nature of God, Jews must have been intrigued by physical and natural phenomena. The Bible already contains some rudimentary references to these things, and even more so the Talmud. Indeed, several sages of the talmudic era appear to have been adept in mathe­ matics and astronomy, and (to a degree) medicine. Practically, it was absolutely necessary to calculate the calendar, an elaborate combination of lunar and solar calculations, and to intercalate months and years (nec­ essary, for example, so that Passover would always fall at the proper time). In the medieval period, if not indeed before, knowledge of surveying and land parti­ tioning required proficiency in geometry, and increas­ ingly complex commercial transactions and interna­ tional trade required more sophisticated knowledge of mathematics. The creation of, or improvements made to, astronomical instruments such as the quadrant and the astrolabe also occupied the attention of Jewish sci­ entists, as did the making of various types of clocks (on a Spanish Jewish maker of astrolabes in 1316 see Colin in Hesperis 22 [1936]: 183-84). Another important aspect, TRANSLATION from Arabic, is dealt with in that article. The sciences, particularly astronomy and mathe­ matics, were to a great extent fully developed in an­ cient civilizations, and in addition to Greek knowl­ edge (made available through Syriac translation into Arabic), the medieval Muslim world had access to an enormous body of knowledge deriving also from Egypt, India, Babylonia, Persia, and other cultures; to which eventually some of the more practical knowledge, at least, of China was added. Much, in­ deed, perhaps most, of this knowledge has unfortu­

Science and Mathematics

nately been lost, and what has been preserved is chiefly through Muslim and Jewish works, only some of which were translated (often inadequately) into Latin in the medieval period and later. Nor can we depend on our present knowledge of the dates of translations as an indication of knowledge of these sources; for instance, the first known Hebrew transla­ tion of Euclid (from the Arabic) was that of Moses Ibn Tibbon in 1270, yet his geometry was known even to non-Arabic reading Jewish scholars many years earlier, and Judah b. Solomon ha-Kohen of Toledo prepared a compendium of it prior to 1247. At almost the same time Jacob b. Makhir Ibn Tibbon translated all of Euclid. Of course, geometry (Euclid­ ean and non-Euclidean) was part of the standard cur­ riculum for Jewish as well as Muslim boys in Muslim Spain (see EDUCATION). The seventh and eighth centuries saw the spread of Islam throughout the Near East and the Mediter­ ranean as far as northern India. This new civilization coincided precisely with the concentration of the largest Jewish population at the time. The relative tol­ erance expressed toward Jews by the newly converted Muslims of those lands, and the fundamental similar­ ities of Arabic and Hebrew as well as of the Jewish and Muslim ways of life, enabled Jews to partake fully in the cultural developments of the Muslim world. Certain select Hebrew texts, such as the Baraita de-malekhet ha-mishkan, which deals with measure­ ments for the biblical Tabernacle and its vessels, may date to talmudic times and are of some interest for terminology. More significant is the peculiar mystical work Sefer ye$irah (Book of the formation). The date of the work is by no means certain, but it has been suggested that it may be as early as the third to sixth centuries C.E. In any case, it is of special importance for its mathematical terminology and concepts, as well as astrological notions. It was much studied in the medieval period, and was the subject of numer­ ous commentaries (few, if any, of which have so far been investigated from a scientific point of view). The earliest commentaries were those of Shabbetai Donnolo (ninth century) of southern Italy, which contains astronomical and mathematical material of interest, and Dunash Ibn Tamim (tenth century) of North Africa. Later medieval works, such as the Baraita de-Shemuel (which contains, to be sure, seg­

ments from the talmudic era), Baraita de-mazalot, the midrashic Pirqei de-R’ ElVezer, are all examples which demonstrate some mathematical knowledge. (The theory of the early date of the Mishnat ha-middot and its supposed influence upon the famous ninth-century Muslim mathematician al-Khwdrizmi has rightly been rejected). However, there is no doubt that the primary influ­ ence upon early medieval Jewish astronomers and mathematicians was almost entirely Arabic, with some secondary Egyptian and Indian influences. The earliest information we have on these Jewish scien­ tists goes back only to the early ninth century, but there may have been earlier ones whose names are lost. The first known Jewish scientist was the famous M A S HA*ALLAH, the foremost astronomer of his pe­ riod. In the first half of the ninth century was also Sahl (Abu ‘Uthman) ibn Bishr, known also as Haya al-yahudi (“the Jew”), who served as astrologer to the governor of Khurasan and then to the vizier of Bagh­ dad. He wrote many books on astronomy, astrology, and arithmetic, all in Arabic (the titles of over twenty such works are known, and many are extant in man­ uscripts). Some of his works were translated into Latin in the medieval period, sometimes confusing him with Masha allah. He was also confused as “Zahel, Zachel, Zehel,” etc. in medieval Christian sources, and sometimes even “Algazel” (!). He was one of the nine astrologers mentioned in the work of FREDER­ ICK II, the “Holy Roman Emperor.” Some of the Latin translations of his work were published, one as early as 1493. Sanad (Abu’l-Tayyib) ibn All (d. after 864) was another important Jewish astronomer and mathe­ matician at the court of Baghdad, where he con­ structed, probably, an observatory. There is a possi­ bility that he converted to Islam. While these Jewish scientists had important Mus­ lim pupils, one of the most famous of all Sabean (fclarranian) scientists and translators, Thabit ibn Qurrah (836-901 C.E.) had a Jewish disciple, Judah b. Joseph, called Ibn Abu’l-Thina, who later lived in Egypt. A Jewish astrologer or astronomer, also apparently in the ninth century, was Ibn Slmawayh (or Shlmawayh), about whom nothing is known other than a brief reference in al-Nadlms FihrisP, according to which he wrote on astronomy and on the weather.

585

Science and Mathematics

The Geonim of Palestine and “Babylon” (Iraq) during the ninth century also had to deal with practi­ cal matters which involved astronomical and mathe­ matical calculations. Nahshon b. §adoq Gaon (Baby­ lon) was the author of a small work on the intercalation of months and years, and the more fa­ mous Sa‘a dyah (tenth century) was involved in a dis­ pute and exchange of letters with the Palestinian gaon ben Meir in 921 precisely on the question of in­ tercalation. One Joshua b. Alan (£Ilan?), date and even country unknown, was supposedly the first “Rabbanite” authority on intercalation, according to a QARAITE source (see Abraham Harkavy, Haddashim gam yeshanim [Jerusalem, 1970; rpt. from various journals], pp. 371-76); however, he is appar­ ently unknown from any other source. From the text of a letter from a Babylonia exilarch (official title of the political head of the Jewish community) in 835, it is known that, in fact, the Babylonian authorities prior to Saadyah were dependent on the calculations in Palestine for these determinations. In yet another important work by Saadyah, Kitdb al-mawdnth (Sefer ha-yerushot), on the laws of inheritance, there are a number of mathematical calculations, which, however, are mostly erroneous in the text as we have it (probably due to copyists’ errors). Steinschneider had suggested that Saadyah wrote a Hebrew work on intercalation, but this is unlikely since Abraham BAR IJLAYYA (Hiyya), who knew and cited the work of Saadyah, would not have said in his own Hebrew work on intercalation that hitherto no composition in that language existed on the subject. Furthermore, Saadyah, as with other geonim , is not known to have written anything in a language other than JudeoArabic (or Arabic, if it is correct that his commentary on the Torah was originally written in Arabic script). Muslim Spain

In Muslim Spain, Jewish culture was flourishing already in the tenth century, particularly with the support and personal interest of Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, minister of state to the caliph ‘Abd al-Rahman III, and a physician and translator of the famous phar­ maceutical work of Dioscorides. During this period lived the important astronomer yassan ha-dayan (Jewish religious judge), or yassan b. Mar Hassan,

586

known only from citations of him by Abraham bar tlayya, ABRAHAM I b n ‘E z r a , and the Spanish scien­ tist Isaac Israeli. He may also be the Allb. Mar yassan cited by the fourteenth-century commenta­ tor on Maimonides5 Mishneh Torah, ‘Ovadyah b. David (the name All for a Jew being very rare and therefore perhaps an error). Another contemporary scientist, cited also by these authorities and others, was the physician and astronomer Isaac b. Raqufiel, or Raqufel. The renowned scholar Isaac b. Barukh Ibn alBaliah in 1096 was appointed court astronomer to the Muslim ruler of the independent city-state of Seville. He also wrote a (lost) treatise on intercalation for Yusuf, the son of SAMUEL I b n NAGHRILLAH and his successor as prime minister of the Muslim king­ dom of Granada. The most interesting of all, perhaps, is Abu’l-Fadl Hasdai Ibn Hasdai, who according to the testimony of the Muslim historian Ibn $a id al-Andalusi, who knew him as a young man, was accomplished in the sci­ ences, including physics, geometry, and astronomy. He eventually became the prime minister of two suc­ cessive rulers of the Muslim kingdom of Zaragoza, converting to Islam perhaps only for appearance, and died in 1100. Another Jewish convert, this time to Christianity, was Moses ha-Sefardi, more famous by his Christain name Pedro Alfonso (PETRUS ALFONSI in Latin). His Disciplina clericalis, of course, was the most famous source of tales for all of medieval litera­ ture; however, he was also the author of important sci­ entific works after his conversion (see details in the entry on him). Petrus predicted an eclipse for 30 Oc­ tober 1091, and also for 1092; just as Samuel Ibn Naghrillah (who is said in Muslim sources to have been highly proficient in mathematics and astronomy) had correctly predicted an eclipse for 1044 (see further on the subject of eclipses below, Abraham Zacut). It is interesting to observe that the great Hebrew grammarian Ibn Janah (see HEBREW GRAMMAR) mentioned that other Jewish scholars in Spain did not believe in spontaneous generation. By contrast, most Christian medical authorities firmly adhered to the notion until 1668; as did so great a Muslim scholar as Ibn Khaldun. Essentially, the sciences studied by Jews in me­ dieval Spain included mathematics (algebra, geome­

Science and Mathematics

try, trigonometry), physics (exclusively theoretical, with almost no original contributions), geography, and particularly astronomy. Optics was another im­ portant area of study. Abraham b. Hayyas encyclope­ dia of sciences discusses it, as does Maimonides, par­ ticularly in the “Guide” (1.73; p. 210); the former relied upon Euclid and al-Farabl, but both he and Maimonides referred to the “Conic Sections” of Appolonius of Pergamus, of which there are medieval Hebrew translations. Nevertheless, we know of no original work in this area done by Jewish scientists (aside from Levi b. Gerson; see below on him), and in general little progress was made in understanding what vision actually is. Thus, Isaac Ibn Lapf, a thir­ teenth-century philosopher, replied to a question from a student that scientists disagreed about sight, one theory being that it is a sense residing in the eye which focuses on something outside and captures its image and draws it into the eye, while another theory is that the light of the sun reflected is what causes the sense of sight to be aroused and reflect what is exter­ nal. These are precisely the same two theories men­ tioned casually by Abraham b. Hayya in his work nearly two centuries earlier. More realistic, and prac­ tical, was Isaac’s response to the essence of the ques­ tion, that the color green is restful to the eye because it is a combination of light and dark tones. Abraham bar Hayya Certainly one of the most important scientists of the era, and of the entire medieval period, was the aforementioned Abraham bar Hayya (or Hiyya) of BARCELONA (ca. 1065-1136). In the first place, he played a significant role, working together with the famous Christian translator Plato of Tivoli, in trans­ lating into Latin several important Arabic treatises (as in all such cases of Jewish collaboration with Christian translators it is not to be assumed that he knew Latin; rather, the Jewish partner translated from the Arabic into Romance and the Christian re­ worked this into Latin). The most significant contri­ bution made by Abraham was the composition of a large number of scientific and mathematical treatises in Hebrew, for the use of Jews in PROVENCE (not France, as often erroneously stated), then part of the Spanish kingdom of AragOn-Catalonia. These were the first such works written in Hebrew since the

earlier midrashim or the references in the Seferye$irah previously mentioned. Unlike those, however, these compositions were of a truly scientific and exact na­ ture. This required in every case the creation ex nihilo of a mathematical and scientific vocabulary in Hebrew to represent Arabic terminology (often itself rather imprecise). Indeed, many of the terms in­ vented by Abraham have remained current in scien­ tific and mathematical Hebrew to the present (on mathematical terminology see §arfati, which is very good but by no means complete since it ignores many important sources: Judah b. Barzilay, Levi. b. Abraham b. I^ayyim, Profiat Duran, Elijah Mizralii, and others). Also of importance is the fact that he composed the first astronomical tables in Hebrew, based primarily on those of al-Battanl (ninth cen­ tury). (On Abraham and astrology, see that section below.) Ibn ‘Ezra Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra (1092-1167) was, however, the foremost scholar of mathematics and science, and re­ mained the outstanding authority until Levi b. Gerson (see below on him). Born in Tudela, then a Muslim city, he was educated in the traditional Muslim-Jewish system of the study of all the sciences as well as philos­ ophy. He moved to al-Andalus, where he remained until he was in his forties, at which time he left Spain and began a series of travels which brought him to Italy, France, England, and other lands. It was in these countries that he wrote his numerous works on mathematics and astronomy, as well as various other books and his famous biblical commentaries. He also translated some Arabic scientific works, including a treatise of Masha allah on eclipses (published). Since his purpose in writing these works was to disseminate knowledge of these sciences among Jews who were un­ familiar with Arabic and who had at best only a rudi­ mentary knowledge of these subjects, it was necessary to write in clear and simple Hebrew, not an easy task when dealing with sophisticated concepts (only one of his astrological treatises, Sefer ha-‘a$amim, was written in Judeo-Arabic and later translated into Hebrew; it therefore was probably written in Spain). Further de­ tails on Ibn ‘Ezras mathematical and astronomical treatises will be found in the entry on him.

587

Science and Mathematics

M aimonides

Moses b. Maimon (correctly Maymun), “M A I­ MONIDES ” as he became known to later Christian writers, was born in Cordoba and received his educa­ tion there and elsewhere in al-Andalus before he and his family fled the Almohad persecution and went to Fez in North Africa, then Palestine, and finally to EGYPT. In addition to the fact that the standard education of both Muslim and Jewish boys at the time included thorough study of mathematics (in­ cluding algebra, Euclidean and non-Euclidean geom­ etry, trigonometry, and rudimentary calculus) and all the sciences, we know from his own testimony that he knew the son of the Muslim mathematician and astronomer Jabir Ibn Aflah of Seville, and that he had also studied with a student of Ibn Bajja (not only a famous philosopher but also a scientist). Neverthe­ less, it appears that he did not read Ibn Aflah s book, which in fact criticizes Ptolemy and does not agree with him, as Maimonides wrongly claimed (“Guide of the Perplexed,” II.9; incidentally, Ibn Aflab’s abridgement of the Almagest of Ptolemy was later translated into Hebrew by Samuel b. Judah of Mar­ seille—not Ibn Tibbon, as sometimes stated). Mai­ monides, indeed, not only studied with a student of Ibn Bajja, he tells us that he “transcribed” (i.e., copied) a work of his in which he argued that the commonly held opinion that Venus and Mercury are above the sun is improbable; an opinion which Maimonides, nevertheless, was not willing to reject. In the “Guide,” Maimonides says that he taught the Almagest to his student for whom he wrote the “Guide,” Joseph Ibn Shim’on (and not Ibn Aknin, as some still mistakenly write). In 1158, at the age of twenty-three, Maimonides wrote a small treatise on intercalation, extant only in a Hebrew translation (Maimonides, Qove& Cartas— see Bibliography). In his commentary on Mishnah 4Arakhin 2.5 he praised a compilation on intercala­ tion which had already been composed in Spain, ap­ parently Abraham b. Hayya’s work and not that of Ibn ‘Ezra, which Maimonides probably had not seen. There are some few observations of an astronomical and mathematical nature also in his (Judeo-Arabic) commentary on the Mishnah. However, his most im­ portant work appears in his monumental fourteenvolume codification of Jewish law, Mishneh Torah, the only work which he wrote in Hebrew. There, in 588

book 3, section 8 appears “Hilkhot qiddush hahodesh” (laws of the new moon). This immensely complicated subject, dealing in fact with all of the laws concerning the Jewish calendar, intercalation, and the mathematical and astronomical calculations necessary for this, was written over a period of years, begun ca. 1166 and completed in 1178. Much of the work (chapters 6-10) is dependent upon the earlier treatise of Abraham bar liayya, while chapters 11-19 are dependent chiefly on al-Battanl. Nevertheless, the work is not without originality, as in the calculations and table (ch. 15) for finding the true position of the moon. Even more interesting is his critique (11.11; 24) of the theory of epicycles and particularly the no­ tion of eccentric circles. Maimonides has sometimes been criticized, unfairly, for his inability to rise above the accepted wisdom of the time in his understand­ ing of the universe. However, he made no claim to originality in his observations, and while he was the foremost medical authority of his day he was not an independent scientist. The intent of his work was precisely to convey the results of the best available as­ tronomical knowledge, particularly to those of the widely scattered Jewish population who were unable to read this wisdom in the original Arabic, and in any case would not have had the requisite background to understand such work. The Hebrew text of this treatise, compared to the simple and lucid style characteristic of the rest of the work, is extremely complex, and not surprisingly has given rise to numerous commentaries down to the present day. One of the most important of these is by a certain ‘Ovadyah b. David (written in 1341; he could therefore hardly have died in 1325, as Obermann stated in his introduction to the translation, Sanctification . . . [see Bibliography], p. xiv). He may possibly even have been a descendant of Mai­ monides. The English translation of Maimonides’ treatise was done by Solomon Gandz prior to 1954 and was based, incredibly, on the popular Vilna (“Romm”) edition of the nineteenth century, with some “corrections” from the Oxford manuscript (1184); rather than utilizing that and other manu­ scripts as the basis for the translation. There are some errors and ambiguities in the translation, and the chapter notes are barely adequate. The chief value of the translation lies in the fine astronomical notes in the appendix by the renowned authority Otto

Science and Mathematics

Neugebauer (who nevertheless in his general histories of science virtually ignored the Jews). There is, in fact, a real need for a complete new translation and study of this work. There are important astronomical and cosmological notions contained throughout the “Guide,” which so far have received but scant at­ tention (e.g., 1.75, with important comments on mathematics, physics, atoms, etc.). Surprisingly, little has been written on the scientific aspects of Mai­ monides5thought in general (on his views on astrol­ ogy, see below). Alfonso X an d Jewish Scientists o f Castile: Thirteenth-Fourteenth Centuries

Another remarkable ruler of the thirteenth century reigned in Castile, a relative of Frederick II and at one time his rival for the title of Holy Roman Em­ peror, ALFONSO X “the Wise”—so-called not because he possessed any particular wisdom but because of the remarkable literary and scientific activity which he sponsored. In the latter category were the transla­ tions of numerous scientific treatises from Arabic, not into Latin but Castilian, and this work was carried out almost entirely by Jews. The resultant treatises were not only the first scientific writing in Castilian, they were among the very first works of any kind written in that language. The most impor­ tant of these was the collection known as Libro del saber de astrologia (Book of knowledge of astronomy; no real distinction was made between astrology and astronomy). In fact, this is not one book but rather a collection of many books, some of which are transla­ tions from Arabic works, and several of which, in fact the majority, are original compositions written by Jewish astronomers. The most important of these astronomers was “Rabi^ag,” Rabbi Isaac, whom as I have demonstrated (Roth, “Jewish Collaborators,” p. 67) was Isaac Ibn Sid, a famous scientist of Toledo who is mentioned in Jewish sources as author of a table of lunar and solar eclipses and also of “tables of the host of the heavens” prepared for Alfonso. Ac­ cording to Abraham Zacut (himself the major as­ tronomer in fifteenth-century Spain), these tables were without equal in precision, “for Rabbi [sic] Isaac Israeli and Rabbi [sic] Levi b. Gerson [“Gersonides”] and all who came after them found in him no fault.55 These zij (Ar. “tables55) Alfonso are, of course, nothing less than the famous “Alfonsine Tables” of astronomi­

cal calculations, a major source for astronomical knowledge in the Christian West (see Sarton II, part 2, 837 and 840-41). They have at long last been published (the Venice, 1483 edition was a modifica­ tion of the original tables by the Christian as­ tronomer Jean de Linieres). Isaacs collaborator in the compilation of the Tables was Judah (Yehudah) b. Moses ha-Kohen, also one of the translators of the works in Libro del saber de astrologia. Both these and other Jewish scientists whose translations figure there translated other Arabic works as well. However, Qag (Isaac) was the author (not translator) of most of the works in that collection (see Roth, “Jewish collabora­ tors” for details). An important work by (Jag was a treatise (Spanish) on corrections in the use of the quadrant (Millas Vallicrosa, “Una nueva obra,” with text). One other Jewish figure there was also the au­ thor, not translator (as Steinschneider and Sarton thought), of the Relogio de la candela (“the candle clock”). He was Samuel ha-Levy, a member of the fa­ mous A b u l a f i a family of Toledo (in “Jewish collabo­ rators,” p. 7 0 ,1 erred about this). In the early fourteenth century we find the as­ tronomer Isaac b. Joseph Israeli of Toledo (not to be confused with the famous tenth-century physician of North Africa Isaac b. Solomon Israeli; to add to the confusion there was also another Isaac b. Solomon Israeli, probably a relative of Isaac b. Joseph, a few years later in Toledo, author of a commentary on Avot. The confusion of the astronomer with the tenth-century physician has been made, for example, in the article in Encyclopedia Judaica). The very name “Israeli” is, in fact, doubtful, and comes only from the copyist of the manuscript (in Muslim lands it was common to refer to any Jewish writer as al-Lsra’l li, “the Israelite; Jew”). He was a contemporary (not stu­ dent, as sometimes claimed) of A s h e r B. Y e h i e l , rabbi of the community of Toledo. Isaacs Sefer yesod < olam was dedicated to Asher, who “ordered” Isaac to compose the work. It consists of a section on geome­ try and trigonometry, followed by astronomy and discussions of the calendar, and concludes also with a chronicle of Jewish history. While drawing exten­ sively on Arabic and Jewish sources, the resulting work shows a considerable degree of originality, par­ ticularly on the problem of the calendar (including also Maimonides5 calculations of new moons), and contains elaborate tables. (There are two editions: 589

Science and Mathematics

Berlin, 1770 [photo reprint Jerusalem, 1970, but lacking an entire chapter], and Berlin, 1846-48, both of which are faulty. The latter edition, however, contains a German-language summary of the work, and an appendix of tables.) Isaacs son Joseph began a Judeo-Arabic abridgement of the work, of which a Hebrew translation (!) was made by the aforemen­ tioned Isaac b. Solomon Israeli of Toledo. Solomon b. Abraham Corcos of Avila wrote (1331/32) a com­ mentary (unpublished) on the Yesod ‘olam, as did Moses Ibn Crispin ha-Kohen (1376) of Cordoba (also unpublished), Elijah Mizrahi of Constantino­ ple, and several others. In spite of the importance of Israeli’s work, neither it nor the commentaries have received serious scholarly attention. In addition, he is known to have written two other astronomical trea­ tises, unpublished and unstudied. Joseph b. Joshua Ibn Vivas al-Lorqi was a student of Joseph Ashkenazi (philosopher and the probable author of a commentary on the mystical Seferye$irah, erroneously attributed to Abraham b. David of Posquieres). While he was still young, his teacher asked him to compose a work on natural sciences, and the resulting small treatise, Sefer ha-yesodot (pub­ lished in the rare journal ha-Nesher'b [1865]: 62-70) is interesting and unique, dealing with meteorologi­ cal phenomena, the appearance of the sun and moon in the morning and evening, and so on—topics not normally found in Jewish scientific treatises. His work has nevertheless been neglected by scholars, and is in fact hardly known. Al-Lorqi’s son later con­ verted; the father also corresponded with the apostate Abner of Burgos. Joseph b. Joseph Ibn Nahmias of Toledo (early fourteenth century), a student of Asher b. Yehiel and author of biblical commentaries, composed an astro­ nomical treatise in Judeo-Arabic (as with all his works) which remains in manuscript, as does also an anonymous Hebrew translation of the work. In it, he discusses the old debate of epicycles and eccentrics vs. homocentric spheres, and in general analyzed the theories of al-Bip*ujI and Maimonides. (He is not to be confused with his relative Joseph b. Abraham, who translated the “Canon” of Ibn Slna.) It is some­ what surprising that none of his otherwise important biblical commentaries (which, incidentally, contain many variant readings of the Talmud) refers in any way to scientific matters, nor is there mention of any 590

astronomers, Muslim or Jewish. Possibly the original texts had such references, which were omitted by the translators. It was Sarton (III, 1, p. 132) who noted the genius of men like Israeli and Ibn Nahmias, at a time when no scientific work was being done by Muslims in Spain, nor was he able to find a single Christian mathematician or astronomer in Spain in that period. Yet another set of astronomical tables, for the years 1320-1436, were composed by Joseph Ibn Waqar (ca. 1357), an important community leader and scholar. He also wrote in Judeo-Arabic, but with a Hebrew introduction (the manuscript [Munich Ms. Hb.230], if still extant, deserves publication). These tables were translated into Hebrew in 1395 (also unpublished). While hardly an independent scientist, Menahem b. Zerah (d. 1385) in Alcala and Toledo, devoted the fourth part of his §edah le-derekh to intercalation (de­ rived, of course, from other sources). Provence

In Provence in the thirteenth century important translation from Arabic into Hebrew continued, par­ ticularly with the renowned Ibn Tibbon family. Jacob b. Makhir Ibn Tibbon (“Profatius Judaeus-,” Profiat), ca. 1236-1307 in Marseille, was the only indepen­ dent scientist in the family. His famous Almanaeh (published only in Latin translation) was used by Dante and also by fourteenth-century Christian as­ tronomers such as the Italian Andalo di Negro (who, ca. 1323, composed “Canons,” or a commentary, on it; not to be confused with the “Canons” attributed to Jacob himself) and the historian Giovanni Villani (see Thorndike III, 197-204, and pp. 694-98). Later, the Almanaeh was used also by Copernicus and Kepler. Jacob also wrote a Hebrew treatise on the quadrant (published, 1922; but there are important variants in a Madrid manuscript); in medieval Latin translation it was known as Quadrans judaieus or Quadrans novus. The manuscript also contains his calculations for locating stars, according to the Alfonsine Tables. This important manuscript (four­ teenth century) contains also many other scientific treatises, and merits investigation. Jacob also made important translations, such as of al-Zarqalla ( Tractat de I’assafea, see Bibliography), Ibn Haytham on the form of the universe, Ibn Rushd’s (“Averroes”)

Science and Mathematics

commentary on Aristotle’s De animalibus (Latin tr. of his Hebrew tr. published 1521 and in later eds. of Ibn Rushd), Menelaos’s Sphaerica (trigonometry, etc.; probably, contrary to many authors, from the Arabic translation made by Abu Nasr Mansur), as well as a section of trigonometry in Ibn Aflat s astronomical treatise (the Latin translation of Jacob’s translation has been published). His translation of Menelaos was the source of the famous seventeenth-century work of Edmund Hailey on spherical trigonometry, which is the basis for all modern trigonometry (unfortu­ nately, Jacobs Hebrew translation is so far only partly published). Provence, indeed, witnessed a tremendous output of Hebrew translation. Aside from Ibn Tibbon, Qalonymos (properly Kalonymos) b. Qalonymos (Arles, b. 1286) was most important for scientific translation, having produced a prodigious number of translations (from Arabic) of Greek astronomers and Muslim mathematicians. His own Even bol?an (“Touchstone”), a satirical work in rhymed prose, contains attacks on scientific snobbery and astrology (see on him Sarton 111,1,429 ff.) Another renowned translator, Samuel b. Judah of Marseille (b. 1294), primarily known today for his (twice-published) commentary on Platos Republic, was also trained as a scientist and translated some impor­ tant Arabic scientific treatises, a supplement to Kalony­ mos s unfinished translation of Euclid, and a revision of the autograph manuscript of Jacob Ibn Tibbon’s trans­ lation of the work of Jabir Ibn Aflah; most of which re­ main unpublished (his translation of al-Zarqalla has been edited and translated by Millas Vallicrosa, Estudios sobre Azarquiel [Madrid-Granada, 1943-50]). Immanuel b. Jacob Bonfils (Provence and Taras­ con, ca. 1340-1365), physician, mathematician, and astronomer, was responsible for the invention of dec­ imal fractions, and developed an entirely new system of classification of numbers which became the basis for modern calculus. He also was the author of sev­ eral important works, which remain unedited, except for Shesh kanafim (“Six wings,”), written in 1365 (see the very important study by Solon, in Bibliography). A Latin translation of it was done in 1406, from which a Russian translation was made. The work in­ cludes astronomical tables, dependent also on the ta­ bles of al-Battanl but most likely via Abraham b. Hayya (since Immanuel surely did not know Arabic).

These tables were commented upon in Greek by Michael (not Georgios) Chrysococces in the Byzan­ tine Empire. Another of his still unpublished works, ‘Erekh ha-hilluf on the inequalities of the move­ ments of the sun and moon, also cites Abraham bar Hayya’s Surat ha-are$ (Form of the earth). In Perpignan (Provence), Jacob b. David Yom Tov Bonjorn, known in Hebrew as Jacob Po ‘el, composed (ca. 1361) important tables which were at once trans­ lated into Latin and also Catalan (this translation, but not the Latin, is lost; another Catalan translation of Jacob’s work exists, however, and has been de­ scribed by Millas in Sefarad 19 [1959]). He was not the son of the astronomer David b. Yom Tov Ibn Bilia who came to Spain from Portugal, as Stein­ schneider and his followers conjectured, but rather of David Bonjorn de Barrio of Provence, who was also an astronomer and was involved in a cause celebre made famous both in Catalan and Hebrew sources. The article by Millas mentioned above also describes numerous other important mathematical and astro­ nomical Hebrew manuscripts in the same collection, all of which have since been ignored by scholars. At one time there was a manuscript of tables based on those of Jacob, and others, at Munich (Ms. 261. 4 in Steinschneider’s catalog). There is a Hebrew manu­ script of Jacob’s work in the Vatican (356). Neither of these has been published or studied. Without question the most important figure in mathematics and, especially, astronomy was Levi b. Gerson (“Gersonides”), famous also as a biblical commentator and philosopher (1288-1344). Unfor­ tunately, the lengthy scientific section of his Milhamot ha-shem (Wars of the Lord), comprising 136 chapters, has never been edited. While attention had earlier been drawn to the important mathematical as­ pects of his work, it is only in recent years that, thanks to the significant research of Bernard Gold­ stein, it has become possible to appreciate his genius as a truly innovative astronomer, centuries ahead of his time. Particularly significant is his development of new lunar models, correcting the generally ac­ cepted ones of Ptolemy. He also was apparently the only one to compose in Hebrew original astronomi­ cal tables, not based on earlier Arabic models. His work influenced, to a degree, later developments among Christian as well as Jewish scientists. Among those influenced by him were Pico della Mirandola 591

Science and Mathematics

and Kepler. He was the author of many works on as­ tronomy and mathematics (in Hebrew, only his Ma ‘aseh hoshev and his brief commentary on Euclid have been edited; the latter, nonetheless, has some important concepts), and of a Hebrew commentary on Ibn Rushd (“Averroes”) on Aristotle’s De animalibus (a Latin translation of Levis commentary was published in 1521), and of a commentary on part of Ibn Rushd’s epitome of Aristotle, Parva naturalia (unpublished). His major work on trigonometry is extant only in a Latin translation made for Pope Clement VT in 1342. In it, he independently redis­ covered the sine theorem of plane triangles. A some­ times original and always profound writer on mathe­ matics as well as astronomy, his major fault, like that of contemporary Christian mathematicians, was the failure to use the innovations in numerals; not only did he rely on Hebrew letters, as did most Jewish writers, but he lacked an understanding of place val­ ues. It is interesting to observe, incidentally, his criti­ cism of those who believe that the earth revolves around the sun (in fact, an ancient theory which had generally been abandoned; obviously, some still be­ lieved it). He is also famous, of course, for one of the first new developments in scientific instruments, the socalled “Jacob Staff,” for nautical calculations (Sarton gives a good description, with a clear diagram). In general, scientific instruments continued to be those first developed by Muslims in the early medieval pe­ riod and described in Arabic and Hebrew treatises and in the Spanish-language treatises written by Jews in the aforementioned Libro del saber de astrologia and other works composed by Jewish scientists under the sponsorship of Alfonso X. Most important were the various writings of Ibn ‘Ezra on the astrolabe, quadrant, and so on that spread knowledge of these instruments and their use beyond the borders of Spain. Goldstein has demonstrated that Levi is also to be credited with the introduction of the “transver­ sal scale” on the astrolabe, which had been generally attributed to Tycho Brahe, and for the determination of finely distinguished subdivisions of a degree (Goldstein, 1977). He also was a pioneer in the use of the “camera obscura,” which he used for measure­ ment of variations in the apparent diameters of the sun and moon. He was able to distinguish clear im­ ages using a tiny aperture from blurred ones made 592

with a larger aperture. (Sarton 111,1 devoted many pages to a thorough discussion of Levi; pp. 594-607; see also Freudenthal, and see MUSIC here.) Astrology as well as astronomy and mathematics continued to hold the interest of Jewish as well as non-Jewish savants. For example, there is the astro­ logical prediction by Levi b. Gerson of the conjunc­ tion of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars in 1345, together with similar predictions by Christian astrologers, found in several Latin manuscripts, as well as in a poem by Simon de Covino in connection with the B l a c k DEATH of 1348, which many considered to be a result of that conjunction of planets. Levis predic­ tion was left unfinished at his death in 1344 and was translated from the Hebrew by his brother Solomon and an Augustinian friar, Pietro of Alexandria (who also translated the “Jacob Staff” treatise). Earlier, in 1339 or before, Levi had made a prediction for Bene­ dict XII concerning a northern-southern conflict, and in fact the campaign of Alfonso XI of Castile against Granada began in that year. In Arles in the thirteenth century Gershom b. Solomon, possibly father of the above-mentioned Levi, composed his Sefer sha‘a r ha-shamayim (translated into English, The Gate o f Heaven, by F. S. Bodenheimer [Jerusalem, 1953]; but the Hebrew editions of the work, almost unobtainable in libraries in this country, are all defective), which contains some im­ portant information, and merits, first of all, a critical edition and then careful analysis. Also in Arles in the early fourteenth century lived Kalonymos b. Kalony­ mos, who later went to Rome and then (ca. 1322) to Catalonia. In addition to his well-known Hebrew works on other subjects, he translated part of Book XIV of Euclid and numerous other Greek (through Arabic translations) and Arabic mathematical and as­ tronomical works, none of which has been edited or studied. Scientific Encyclopedias

This period also saw the production of some scien­ tific encyclopedias, chiefly by Levi b. Abraham b. Hayyim in Provence and Judah b. Solomon haKohen (Mosca) of Toledo. Levi’s work includes at least a chapter on mathematics (published), as well as several on astronomy, chiefly derived from the work of Ibn ‘Ezra. Of great interest is his discovery of heat as motion; generally thought to have been discovered

Science and Mathematics

only in the seventeenth century. Judah b. Solomons work, Midrash ha-hokhmah, was written in JudeoArabic and later translated by the author into He­ brew, but it remains unpublished except for a very rare edition (1886) of an astronomical chapter (under the title Otot ha-shamayim, sefer mishpafei hakokhavim), poorly edited. Unfortunately, only the philosophical aspects of Judahs work have received any attention. Of particular interest in the manu­ script are his excerpts of Euclid. The earliest known Hebrew translation of Euclid was by Moses Ibn Tib­ bon in 1270, yet as already noted the study of all of Euclid’s work was part of the fundamental education in Muslim Spain and the elements of geometry were at least known to non-Arabic-speaking Jewish schol­ ars for many years prior to Ibn Tibbon’s translation (unpublished), which was done at almost the same time as Judah’s excerpts. Other parts of Judah’s ency­ clopedia include extracts of Ptolemy’s Almagest and the commentary of Ibn Aflah, with the critical obser­ vations of David Ibn Nahmias, his contemporary in Toledo (this commentary remains unpublished and unstudied). Judah corresponded (at age eighteen) with Theodorus, the “philosopher” of Frederick II of Sicily, the “Holy Roman Emperor,” expressing his amaze­ ment at the ignorance of the philosopher. This seems to have impressed the tolerant Hohenstaufen em­ peror, himself an accomplished mathematician and fluent in Hebrew and Arabic, who in 1247 sum­ moned Judah to Toscana to his court. Jewish Scientists in Late M edieval Spain

In AragOn-Catalonia in the fourteenth century reigned Pedro IV, who, like Alfonso X of CASTILE, supported astronomical and other scientific research by Jews at his court and in Majorca. The famous As­ tronomical Tables of Pedro were composed by nu­ merous mathematicians and astronomers, Christians and Jews working together. Chief among the Jews was Jacob “Carsis” (Corsino, or Corsono; al-Qarsi or Qorsono in Hebrew), a Jew from Castile. He is the “Jacob Alcarsi” who is said also to have translated the Alfonsine Tables into Hebrew, but this is uncertain. He received the not insignificant sum of 270 sueldos from the royal treasury for his work for Pedro IV. He also translated an Arabic work on the astrolabe by Ibn al-Saffar (copies were at Munich, Ms. 256.1 and

261.11, with a commentary by him on that work, Ms. 289.5). The Astronomical Tables of Pedro in­ clude also the aforementioned Almanaeh of Ibn Tib­ bon and a work by him on the revolution of the earth. There were, indeed, so many scientists working for Pedro IV and his son and successor Juan I that only a brief list of their names is possible here: Isaac Nafu^i, an important astronomer who wrote a work on astrology for Juan I and who did work on clocks and astrolabes for his father Pedro (he was also ap­ pointed inspector of ritual slaughter and meat for the Jewish community of Majorca); Jucef Avinardut of Huesca, who like his grandfather became physician to Pedro IV and then to his son Juan, and also wrote a work on solar and lunar eclipses in 1378; Vidal Ephraim Bellshom of Majorca, also an expert on as­ trolabes; Crescas de Viviers of Barcelona, who was the chief astrologer of Juan I; Bellshom Ephraim Gerundi (fl. 1361-1440 in Majorca) was a mathe­ matician who helped build the ships used in trade with the Hanseatic league, and already demonstrated the area of a sphere (S=2irrh; where r = height), which was supposedly “discovered” by Meyer Hirsch only in 1807. Others were Vidal Abraham (Natzan) del Barri, Samuel Caracosa, and Isaac Torov (Taro^) of Gerona. Among the Hebrew manuscripts which were at Munich, most of which are now lost, were several of astronomical and mathematical interest, including astronomical tables calculated for Avila, and for Toledo (1433) on eclipses of 1409 and 1410. There were also some Hebrew astronomical manuscripts of Spanish origin at Berlin (see Steinschneider’s catalogs of both libraries). Even at the end of the fifteenth century in Castile, when Jewish scholarship in all areas suffered a serious decline, we find one Jewish scholar who was out­ standing as the foremost astronomer of his time. He was a student at the University of Salamanca, at a time when it was virtually unthinkable for Jews to study at this or other Christian universities (even medicine, which had been permitted them in earlier periods). Abraham Zacut (so, not Zacuto, etc.) achieved such fame as an astronomer that it has been suggested that he may even have returned to lecture at Salamanca for a time. His Almanaeh, used by Columbus to predict an eclipse (by which prediction 593

Science and Mathematics

he saved himself and his party from hostile natives), is only a part of a large astronomical work by him, still unpublished. After the Expulsion (1492), Zacut went to Portugal, where he became astronomer to the king and composed additional works. From Portugal he eventually went to North Africa and then the Ot­ toman Empire, and this period is of course beyond the scope of this encyclopedia, except that mention should be made of the considerable information of historical interest on astronomy in his Hebrew chronicle, Sefer yuhasin. Other Lands

There were, of course, no contributions to science or mathematics in Germany or even France in the me­ dieval period. The EXPULSIONS in France and the in­ creasing persecutions in Germany in the fourteenth century probably would have mitigated against secu­ lar cultural developments in any case, but in fact the almost exclusive concentration on talmudic study in these countries led to the neglect of secular studies. However, there are surprisingly few examples from other lands, such as the Byzantine Empire, Muslim lands, and even Italy. Abd al-Da’yim ibn Abd al-AzIz Ibn Muhassan alIsra’lll, a physician of the Near East (Egypt, or possi­ bly Syria), wrote in 1316 in Arabic a substantial work on physics and metaphysics, which remains unstud­ ied and unpublished (manuscript in the Bodleian li­ brary). In Salonica in 1374 Solomon b. Elijah, known as Sharbif ha-zahav, translated from Greek the Per­ sian astronomical tables composed by the renowned Byzantine astronomer Georgios Chrysococces. Mordecain Comtino (d. Constantinople, ca. 1485-90) wrote a commentary on this (all but ignored today, incidentally, is Comtino s important commentary on Maimonides, Millot ha-higgayon, published with the text by David Slucki, Sifrey hokhmat Yisrael [Leipzig, 1864]). Mordecai Finzi of Mantua (fl. 1441-73) also mentioned these tables. Finzi was an important translator of Arabic scientific works, as well as a com­ mentator. Particularly important are his translations of some of the work of Abu Kamil Ibn Shuja* (ca. 850—930) on algebra and geometry (one of these texts was utilized by Leonardo Fibonacci). Most sig­ nificant is his Hebrew commentary on Abu Kamil’s Algebra (edited with English tr. by Martin Levey 594

[Madison, 1968]). Levey thought that Finzi may have been of Spanish origin, since he used many Spanish words in his translations; more probably he was familiar with Spanish and may have known or even worked with Spanish Jewish immigrants (there are some peculiarities in Levey’s introduction, such as his failure to utilize Rosenthal’s splendid translation of the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun; the statement he quotes on p. 12, for instance, is to be found in Rosenthal III, 125-26; nor was Steinschneider, Mathematik, consulted). Elijah Mizralii of Constantinople (1455-1526), a rabbi, is of course primarily known for his biblical commentary and his legal responsa. However, he was a creative mathematician as well, and his Sefer hamispar offers significant developments beyond earlier work, such as that of Ibn ‘Ezra. A major scientific scholar at the University of Paris in the fourteenth century was one Themon Judei, who apparently came from Munster in Ger­ many. He was something of an astronomer, although his work (first published in 1480) consists primarily of commentaries. It has been conjectured that he was either a Jewish convert or the son of a Jew (L’o euvre astronomique de Themon ju ifi ed. Henri HugonnardRoche [Geneva, Paris, 1973]; the introduction is not very enlightening). Astrology a n d Alchemy

As noted previously, there was often no clear distinc­ tion between astronomy and astrology in medieval Spanish or Latin texts. Astronomy was one of the sciences, and one of the required subjects for learn­ ing by all educated young men. Astrology was not even a pseudo-science, but rather an “art” like magic. Nevertheless, it was often taken quite seriously. Masha’allah, an important early Jewish astronomer and astrologer in Baghdad, already made astrological predictions which were the subject of study for cen­ turies to come. Muslim (and later Christian) rulers often consulted astrologers about the propitious date and time for some important event (as the caliph consulted Masha’allah on the layout and building of his new capital of Baghdad). The notion of astral de­ terminism, according to which events are absolutely determined by the stars, was taken very seriously by most common people as well, in spite of the wellknown talmudic statements that Jews are not subject

Science and Mathematics

to the “fate” of the stars. Ibn A d r e t (d. 1310), the greatest rabbinical authority of his day, wrote that in­ deed “there is no stellar fate [mazzal\ for the Is­ raelites,” but that if one separates oneself from the will of God, then he is removed to “lower levels” which are under the influence of astrological signs. He also wrote in reply to a question that sometimes fate decrees evil behavior for a person, and if it is the “fate” of a particular place then he should go to an­ other; however, he cites the talmudic teaching (Shabbat 156a) “there is no fate for Israel” (the Jews), with which he concurs (his responsa, 1.19); elsewhere he discussed whether this referred to Israel in general, but not to individuals, or to both (he decided in favor of the latter, No. 148). He was also at the fore­ front of the opposition to allegory and astrological belief, associated rightly or wrongly with Mai­ monidean philosophy, ironically enough precisely in Provence. Astrology was consulted for such things as births, journeys, business affairs, and weddings. Abraham b. Hayya, the foremost scientific authority in Spain in his time, was a firm believer in this aspect of astrol­ ogy. On one occasion he was consulted about the proper hour for a wedding, according to the favor­ able position of the stars, etc., and he specified an exact time; however, at that hour it happened that a certain man died and the leaders of the community decided to bury him at once, thus delaying the wed­ ding. Abraham determined that the hour was no longer appropriate and suggested putting it off for another hour, but several people then objected and accused him of belief in “Chaldean” ways. Very upset at the insult to his reputation, he wrote a lengthy letter to the leading rabbinical authority, Judah b. Barzilay, explaining his actions and justifying his beliefs by a lengthy citation of talmudic sources. At the end of his letter he wrote that in his “youth” he had been highly honored for his astronomical and astrological knowledge, but now in his “old age” it appeared to be a scandal. Yet Abraham sharply criticized “judicial” astrology in his eschatologicalpolemical work Megillat ha-megalleh, which may have influenced Maimonides. In the polemics there against Islam, Abraham appears to have been strongly influenced by Arabic astrological predictions about the length of time for which Islam would endure.

Ibn £Ezra, for all his rationalism, was also a firm believer in astrology. Thus, in his commentary on Ex. 23.25 (profoundly important for his philosophical outlook), he wrote that every person born is under the influence of the stars at the time of his birth; and see his lengthy reply to the question asked of him by his in-law Judah ha-Levy (Ex. 20.1), where he talked inter alia of the fate (mazzal) of the nations and of Israel, and how God changed the fate of Israel to bring them out of slavery at the time of the exodus. In his commentary on Ecclesiastes 7.10 he wrote that “the constellations above are what they are; only the recipients [of their influences] are changed, each man according to his portion” (and see his introduction to Ecclesiastes). Various astrological calculations (pub­ lished) are also attributed to him. Thus, when in his commentary on Daniel 11.30 he criticized Ibn GABIROL for calculating the coming of the messiah according to the conjunction of two stars (or plan­ ets), it was not the use of astrology which bothered him but the “vain” efforts of Ibn Gabirol and others to calculate the end of days at all. Among his numer­ ous scientific works are several dealing with astrology, though it is hardly correct to say that they comprise the majority of his writing, as has been claimed. David b. Yom Tov Ibn Bilia of Portugal wrote, some­ time between 1320 and 1338, an astrological treatise based on Ibn 'Ezra’s biblical commentaries. Maimonides, in his “Letter to Yemen,” relates something he heard from his father, which occurred some fifteen or twenty years earlier (i.e., 1107 or 1112) in Cordoba. A group of astrologers, through dream interpretation, concluded that the messiah was already living in the city, a teacher named Ibn Arieh. But when he began to prophesy, the leaders of the community had him flogged in the synagogue and excommunicated because he did not prevent his followers from claiming that he was the messiah, “and [the people] were only saved from the Gentiles [Muslims] by great hardship” (see article MESSIANISM, where this is discussed). Some years after he had written that, in 1195 or 1196, he received a let­ ter about astrology from Montpellier (not Marseille, as in early editions) from several scholars, including the renowned Jonathan ha-Kohen of Lunel. Al­ though, as he says, he was very busy with attending to the needs of the Egyptian court (and not, as Marx thought, because of any lack of regard for the 595

Science and Mathematics

Provencal scholars), he replied at some length to them and expressed his strong opposition to astrol­ ogy; which nevertheless he says that he learned at the beginning of his studies, just as he had read “all” of the books written about idolatry (cf. also “Guide” III. 29; p. 518 of Pines’s translation; also commen­ tary on mishnah A.Z. 4.7; Mishneh Torah, “Aku”m 1.12; etc.). He notes that not only is this the founda­ tion of idolatry (cf. also “Guide” III. 37; p. 542 of the translation), but that the Greek philosophers also ridiculed the belief in astrology among the Chaldeans and Egyptians. Finally, he proceeds to ad­ vocate the study of true astronomy, the knowledge of which is essential, but the belief in astral determin­ ism is a complete falsehood (the text of Maimonides’ reply was edited according to some manuscripts by Marx, Studies [see Bibliography]; the text of the reply was reedited by Shailat in accord with other important manuscripts which Marx did not use. That the sages of Provence were in Montpellier and not Marseille was already pointed out by Luzzatto in the last century, and so it is also in a manuscript of the commentary of Moses Narboni on the “Guide”; mentioned by Shailat but without giving the correct source, see J. H. Schorr in Kerem hemed 8 [1854]: 58). As Sarton has observed more than once, it is diffi­ cult to find in medieval Jewish sources other exam­ ples of outright rejection of “judicial” astrology. An exception was Isaac Polgar (so, correctly) in the four­ teenth century, who wrote a work against astrology (unpublished; extant only in Spanish, it is unclear whether he wrote it in that language or if it is a trans­ lation) and an attack against astrology and magic in the third part of his polemic against the apostate Abner of Burgos. Incidentally, in that section he demonstrates his acquaintance with various astro­ nomical sources, including Ptolemy (Roth, 1992). Moses b. Naman (N a h m a n i d e s ) was also asked about the talmudic prohibition against consulting “Chaldeans” (see Pesa/pim 113b); who are astrologers according to the dictionary of Natan of Rome (see “Hebrew Grammar”), which he consulted. However, he says, astrology is not to be considered magic, which is a separate prohibition. He also cites Mai­ monides (.M.T.', “Akum” 11.9), who prohibited as­ trology as a violation of the Torah, but (not surpris­

596

ingly), he disagreed with this. The identification of astrology with “Chaldeans” was common also in Muslim and Christian sources. That identification was first made, apparently, by the Jewish Hellenistic historian Eupolemos (ca. 158 B.C.E.), cited by Euse­ bius (Praep. evangelica IX. 17.2-9). The aforementioned Joseph Ibn Nahmias of Toledo had an astrological prophecy attributed to him by Abraham b. Isaac ha-Levy, a qabbalist and one of the Spanish exiles in 1492. A peculiar incident supposedly involving a Jewish astrologer of Provence came to light when Robert Mauvoison, archbishop of Aix, was tried in 1318, and among other things it emerged that he had con­ sulted a Jewish astrologer named “Moses” who had predicted even greater offices for the archbishop, who thereupon asked how long the pope (John XXII) would live (Thorndike III, 19). Even stranger was the case of a fourteenth-century Christian al­ chemist of Paris, Nicolas Flamel, who in a dream was visited by an angel who told him of a Hebrew book, which he in fact soon bought from a bookseller, the book of “Abraham the Jew” (this has, in fact, been published and translated) which contained many mystical and alchemical drawings. On a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela he searched in vain for someone to help him decipher the book, until at last in Leon he found a converted Jew, maestro Canches (the name is suspect), who recognized the work as the “Asch Mezareph” (Esh mesarefi “Burning fire”). To shorten a long story, with the aid of his decipher­ ment Flamel returned home and was able to use his new alchemical knowledge to turn common sub­ stances into gold, becoming fabulously wealthy. There can be no doubt as to the actual existence of this book, nor as to the existence and reported wealth of Flamel; although the rest of the story is obvious fantasy (see E. J. Holmyard, Alchemy, Penguin Books, 1968, p. 239 ff. on him; there is also information on the book in other sources). Even the learned king of A r a g On - C a t a l o n i a Pedro IV is reported to have been interested in alchemy, and his Jewish physician called Menaem performed alchemy experiments in the palace. Pedro’s son and successor Juan I in 1396 granted a li­ cense to Samuel Caracosa of Perpignan to practice alchemy anywhere in the kingdom.

Science and Mathematics

In the fifteenth century in Spain we know of at least one important Jewish astrologer, Vidal Struch of Villafranca de Penades in Catalonia (in the medieval period a very important town, now a charming vil­ lage which is the center of Catalan wine production), and also the converso Francisco de Besalu, and Juan de Sant Jordi (probably, but not definitely, a con­ verso). Knowledge of mathematics and other sciences was considered an essential part of education, particularly among Jews in Muslim Spain. We learn from a pas­ sage in one commentary that even the children of Toledo played mathematical games in the streets. The religious aspect of the necessity of such knowl­ edge for a proper understanding of God and the uni­ verse, advocated by Ibn ‘Ezra, Maimonides, Bahya Ibn Paqudah, and others, no doubt stimulated fur­ ther research also among Jews in Christian Spain and Provence. Important contributions, particularly in mathematics and astronomy, were made by Jewish scholars which in many cases contributed to develop­ ments in modern science. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Freudenthal, Gad, ed. Studies on Gersonides (Leiden, 1992); focus on scientific work. Goldstein, Bernard. “Levi ben Gerson: On Instru­ mental Errors and the Transversal Scale,” Journal fo r the History o f Astronomy 8 (1977): 102-12 (contains translation of ch. 12 of Levis work; also part of ch. 7 on the “Jacob Staff”). ---------. The Astronomy o f Levi ben Gerson (1288— 1344). (New York, 1985). -------- -. “Scientific Traditions in Late Medieval Jew­ ish Communities,” Les juifs au regard de Thistoire. Melanges en Thonneur de Bernhard Blumenkranz, ed. Gilbert Dahan (Paris, 1985), pp. 235-47. Ibn Tibbon, Jacob b. Makhir (“Profeit Tibbon”). Tractat de TAssafea dAzarquiel\ critical ed. of the Heb. and Lat. translations, by J. M. Millas Valli­ crosa (Barcelona, 1933). Langermann, Y. Tzvi. The Jews and the Sciences in the Middle Ages (Aldershot, 1999). Levi b. Gerson. Astronomical Tables, translated by Bernard Goldstein ( Transactions o f the Connecticut Academy o f Arts and Sciences 45; 1974).

Marx, Alexander. “The Scientific Work of Some Outstanding Medieval Jewish Scholars,” in Israel Davidson, ed., Essays and Studies in Memory o f Linda R. Miller (New York, 1938), pp. 117-70. ---------. Studies in Jewish History and Booklore (New York, 1944), pp. 48-76 (rpt. of his “The Corre­ spondence Between the Rabbis of Southern France and Maimonides About Astrology,” He­ brew Union College Annuals (1926): 311-58, but without the text of the letters. Millas Vallicrosa, Jose Maria. Estudios sobre la historia de la ciencia espanola (Barcelona, 1949). ---------. “The Beginning of Science Among the Jews of Spain,” BINAH 3 (1994): 35-46, tr. by Nor­ man Roth, with new notes added. ---------. “Una nueva obra astronomica alfonsi: el Tratado del cuadrante ‘sennero,’” al-Andalus 21 (1956): 59-92. Moses b. Maimon (Maimonides). Iggerot, critical ed. Yisfraq Shailat (Jerusalem, 1988), vol. II. -------—. Ma’a mar ha- ’ibbur, in his Qove$ teshuvot, ed. A. Lichtenberg (Leipzig, 1859; photo rpt. Westmead, England, 1969), II, 17a-20d; Spanish tr. (important) in his Cartas. . . , tr. Carlos del Valle (Cordoba, 1989), pp. 280-303. ---------. The Code o f Maimonides, Book Three, Trea­ tise Eight. Sanctification o f the New Moon, tr. Solomon Gandz (New Haven, 1956). Roth Norman. “Jewish Collaborators in Alfonso s Sci­ entific Work,” in Robert I. Burns, ed. Emperor o f Culture (Philadelphia, 1990), pp. 59-71, 223-30. ---------. “Isaac Polgar y su libro contra un converso,” Carlos del Valle, ed., Polemica Judeo-Cristiana. Es­ tudios (Madrid, 1992), pp. 67-73. Sarfati, Gad Ben-Ami. M enuhei ha-matemapiqah . . . (Mathematical Terminology in Hebrew scientific literature of the Middle Ages) (Jerusalem, 1968). Sarton, George. Introduction to the History o f Science (Baltimore, 1931-46), vols II-III especially; in­ dices at end of each vol. Solon, P. “The Six Wings of Immanuel Bonfils,” Centaurus 15 (1970): 1—20. Steinschneider, Mortiz. Mathematik bei den Juden (Hildesheim, 1964; reprints from various issues of Bibliotheka mathematica, 1893-99). Thorndike, Lynn. A History o f M agic and Experimen­ tal Science (New York, 1934; 1953), vols. 2, 3.

597

I

Science and Mathematics

Vera, Francisco. Los judios espanoles y su contribution a las ciencias exactas (Buenos Aires, 1948); good, particularly on mathematics (with equations).

Seals, Jewish The seal as a sign of ownership or authentication, or in the case of produce or commodities even to indi­ cate origin, goes back to ancient times. Probably in biblical times, certainly in the Hellenistic period, Jews already used such seals. Bustanai, the exilarch (d. ca. 670) is said to have had a personal seal, en­ graved with a wasp (for the legend which was associ­ ated with this seal, see Friedenberg, p. 374). Nehemiah b. Kohen §edeq, one of the Ge o n im (tenth century) had a seal with his name on it (loc. cit.; the GENIZAH collection to which he refers is Shapiro, not “Chepiro”) The Spanish Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud (ca. 1110-after 1160) wrote that he had seen the seal of Hai (Hayye) Gaon (d. 1038) on doc­ uments, and that it bore the image of a lion ( Sefer haqabbalah, ed. and tr. Gerson D. Cohen [Philadel­ phia, 1967], p. 59). The report of Ben ja min o f T u d e l a that the exilarch Daniel b. Hasdai was granted a “seal of office” over the Jews by the caliph need not literally mean that he had a seal, although he may have. Rabbi Petahiah of Regensburg, another twelfth-century traveler, was given a safe-conduct document with the seal of Samuel b. Ali, gaon of Baghdad. Unfortunately, we have no other record of Jewish seals in use in Muslim lands in the early me­ dieval period. Undoubtedly such figures as Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, minister to the caliph of Cordoba in the tenth century, had such a seal, as did probably Samu el Ibn Nagh rillah , prime minister and com­ mander in chief of the kingdom of Granada in the eleventh century.

In Christian Europe, both individual Jews and Jewish communities used seals. The most well known, because most fully documented, are those of the Jews of France (see reference to studies in Friedenberg, p. 60, bibliography p. 377 ff.). The most important of all the French Jewish seals, if the attribution is correct and if it is authentic, is that of “Kalonymos b. Todros,” apparently the famous late thirteenth-century “Jewish prince” of Narbonne (in fact, merely an honorary title to indicate his position as leader of the Jewish community), a bitter oppo­ 598

nent of Maimonidean philosophy. The argument for this attribution rests almost entirely with the shield device of the seal (Friedenberg, p. 71 ff.). Other early (thirteenth and fourteenth century) French Jewish seals also show lions, usually facing to the left (ram­ pant in one example; that of Meyer b. Judah, con­ trary to Friedenberg, is not “rampant”). Before becom­ ing too excited about the alleged seal of Kalonymos, it should be noted that other medieval Jewish seals also have shields on them; for instance, several from Switzerland, which also have three Jews’ hats (see CLOTHING) joined at the peaks (pp. 156-57, also p. 158), and numerous seals from Germany (pp. 167, 185, 190, 196, 198 [including that of a woman], 199, etc.). It would indeed appear that the shield, which can scarcely be said to contain a “coat of arms,” was merely a device copied from Christian usage. There are a few seals from the Jews of En­ gland, including that of Jacob of London (who lived in Oxford), an important moneylender and property owner in that city, some of which property he sold to Walter de Merton, chancellor of Henry III, which became the basis of Merton College of Oxford Uni­ versity. The small seal, elliptical in shape, shows the figure of a lion (?) and a six-pointed star, with Jacob’s name in Latin characters (Friedenberg, pp. 45-46). Also of interest is a document of a sale of property in Nottingham (thirteenth century) attested and with the seals of Bonefay “b. Barton” and his son Yosi, the first in a Hebrew and the second a Latin seal (pp. 48-49). Significant are some seals with the so-called Star of David (see A r t ). The first of these, belonging to one Judah b. Reuben Hasdai, may be of German rather than French origin; it definitely is not “Se­ fardic” (i.e., Spanish), since Hasdai is not a surname, as Friedenberg thought (p. 66). The Hebrew letter inscribed over the figure of a lion inside the star is neither a mem nor a samekh, but rather a shiyn (in socalled Rashi script) and may stand for “Shadday” (see also p. 110). The second seal, of one Solomon b. Gedaliah, is a bit more elaborate, with a quatrefoil form around a square inscribed with the fleur-de-lys in four corners and enclosing the star. In the center is depicted an object which various scholars have inter­ preted in an unlikely fashion. It most obviously rep­ resents an altar, and may indeed be an allusion to the owner’s name (the altar of the Temple of Solomon).

Seals, Jewish

Friedenberg, p. 68, again thought it to be Spanish, both because of the name Gedaliah (as if that were impossible for a French Jew) and its “style,” but there is nothing in the style which is Spanish. On the other hand, the seal of Isaac Judah b. Judah Lobel (p. 69) is definitely from Spain and not France. The Lopiel, Abenlopiel, Lubel family of physicians was renowned both in ARAG6N-CATALONIA and Castile in the fif­ teenth century. Shemaya, or Samaya, to whom Friedenberg refers, was physician to Enrique IV of Castile ca. 1464, but even earlier was Judah Abenlop­ iel, a surgeon in Zaragoza in 1403, and also Salamon Lopiel of Calatayud, surgeon of King Juan II of Aragon-Catalonia, ca. 1458. The seal in question nev­ ertheless appears too early to have belonged to one of the members of the family in the fifteenth century. Some actual documents with Jewish seals have survived from medieval France, such as that resolving a dispute over debts (Friedenberg, pp. 90-93). Very dramatic is the alleged “seal” of two Jews of Paris on a document concerning debts (pp. 94-95), but in fact it is obvious that the seals are not those of the Jews involved, but rather probably seals made by Chris­ tian government officials on behalf of the Jews (the same is true of the document and seals on pp. 96-97; indeed, Friedenberg recognized that the seal on p. 100 is “created by Christians to ratify Jewish debts,” but why not also the earlier ones, which are more ob­ viously Christian?). As noted previously, the typical “Jews’ hat” ap­ pears on some of the seals from Germany. Notable is the seal of P-t-r (Pater? Peter is unlikely as a Jewish name) b. Moses ha-Levi, late thirteenth-early four­ teenth century, and also of his son (Gaedel Frieden­ berg, pp. 184-85 ), which show the hat with the chin strap (see CLOTHING for an explanation of this) and a bird, probably an eagle, with outstretched wings (there is an article on the former seal by Martha Keil in the German periodical Aschkenas [sic] 1 [1991]). Other personal seals of Jews of Regensburg, as well as the community seal (see below), contain a crescent moon and star (Fridenberg, pp. 198, 200). This is scarcely a Jewish symbol, much less was it “linked in the Christian mind with Judaism more than any other symbol” (p. 27). In fact, it is an old motif of Muslim, not Jewish, origin (see on this also Raphael Straus, Regensburv and Augsburg [Philadel­ phia, 1939], p. 99).

Curiously, not a few seals bear crosses on them (see Friedenberg, p. 80; however, there are more than those he mentioned there, see pp. 87, 94, 96, and 196, No. 92). Community seals, those for official documents is­ sued by a local Jewish community, include that of Regensburg (1356 and 1374), a very large seal with a beaded border which contains the Hebrew name of the community and an inner circle surrounding a crescent moon and six-pointed star (not the so-called Star of David), which as can be seen from the comparative photograph in Friedenberg (p. 193) is strikingly similar to a coin of the Roman emperor Hadrian. Friedenberg has correctly challenged the existence of the alleged “seal” of the Jewish commu­ nity of Cologne (pp. 247-49), but a further objec­ tion needs to be made: the Hebrew words katavnu ve-hatamnu in the document do not mean “we have written and sealed,” but rather “we have written and signed, t h a t is, signed, their names. From medieval Italy there is the alleged seal of the Verona commu­ nity, for which the only evidence are some drawings which depict perhaps a stylized outline of the Temple and the name of the community in very poorly writ­ ten Hebrew letters (Friedenberg, pp. 336-37). Unique is the seal of the Jewish community of Seville (possibly fourteenth century), which has a stylized engraving of a castle with three towers, the symbol of CASTILE. It is, incidentally, totally false that the Jews of Seville were “almost obliterated by the riots in 1391,” and that the seal must therefore predate that period (Friedenberg, p. 133). Friedenberg (pp. 139-40) disputes the statement of a Spanish expert on seals that a document of 1458 from the Jews of Tarrega in Catalonia contains the seal of the Jewish community. His argument that in the “neighboring” (!) state of Navarre seals were prohibited (false in it­ self, see below on Tudela) is hardly evidence that such seals were prohibited in Catalonia, and, again, his claim that the Jews of Tarrega had been “wiped out” in 1391 is not only false, but how to account for the existence of this document if they were destroyed? As noted before, women also sometimes had seals. Other examples are the seals of Disslob (?) or Dislaba (Tisslaba), daughter of Rabbi Moses, ca. 1391 (Friedenberg, p. 198), the seal of Reynette (ac­ tually perhaps her deceased husband’s seal, which she continued to use; ibid., p.224). It is, perhaps, neces­ 599

Seals, Jewish

sary to distinguish rings, even so-called signet rings, from seals. Thus, there are several inscribed rings which belonged to Jewish women in Spain, but it is not certain that all, or any, of these was a signet ring (photographs reproduced in Friedenberg, pp. 136-38; it is necessary also to consult the original sources describing these rings). Personal seals of famous Jewish scholars are also noteworthy. The earliest is that of Samson bar Sam­ son of Coucy, a talmudic and biblical commentator (twelfth century). The seal shows an animal, possibly a lion or a stag, facing right, with a circular border in which is inscribed the rabbi’s name (Friedenberg, p. 61). Now famous is the seal of Moses b. Naman (Nahmanides), which was found near Acre in Israel (after his defeat in the Barcelona Disputation, he was forced to flee to PALESTINE, where he ultimately died). This is a proper seal, not a ring, with an at­ tached handle with a hole by which it could be sus­ pended (around the neck?). A small reproduction of the face of the seal is in Friedenberg, p. 124, much better in Isaiah Shachar, Hotmo ha-ishiy shel ha-Ramban (Jerusalem, 1972), a pamphlet in Hebrew and English. Although he was not a scholar, the seal of Todros b. Samuel ha-Levy is important (Friedenberg, pp. 124-26). It has a quatrefoil border surrounding a lined square containing the name of the owner in Hebrew, with a three-towered castle (coat of arms of Castile) in the center. It has been conjectured that this seal was that of the son of Samuel ha-Levy, famed treasurer of Pedro I of Castile (hardly “Pedro IV,” as in Friedenberg), and while Baer did not say that Samuel’s “son” imitated his father’s personal seal (as Friedenberg misrepresented), he did write that there are documents which bear Samuel’s seal and Hebrew signature (without, however, giving any source for this; also not in the original Hebrew text of Baer). It is true that the Abulafia family, to which Samuel also belonged, had individuals with the names Samuel and Todros, but there is no record of a Todros b. Samuel. Considering that Samuel ha-Levy was executed by the king, it may be unlikely that his son would have dared to use such a seal, even if he had one; thus, we may never know for certain who this person was. From Germany undoubtedly the most important surviving seal is that of the famous Joseph (Josel) of Rosheim (ca. 1478-1554); however, the documents come from the sixteenth century and 600

thus are not relevant to the period covered in this en­ cyclopedia. There are several seals attributed to Jews which are not, or at least are of dubious Jewish origin. Frieden­ berg has indicated some of apparent Jewish converts to Christianity in Germany, but there are others which are suspect, at least. Almost certainly the seal of one “Solomon son of Isaac,” described by Frieden­ berg (pp. 142-43) as from southern Spain or Sicily, if authentic at all is a seal of a QARAITE. Goitein pro­ vided the information that the Arabic word (in He­ brew letters) al-muamam (so) means “turbaned,” and even more correctly H. Loewe stated that it refers to one given high rank or office, but neither of these authorities noted that it is especially a title of Qaraite teachers. Astonishing is Goitein’s conclusion, reported by Friedenberg, that the seal was that of a “Jewish physician from Sicily or Spain [who] came to London.” In fact, there is no evidence whatever that it came from Spain or Sicily (as Friedenberg finally correctly says, it could have come from any Mediter­ ranean Arab country; but it should be added that it could also be from a Qaraite in BYZANTIUM or even Palestine), nor is there any evidence as to the date of the seal. In any case, it depicts the bust of a turbaned man, and while such an engraving is not impossible for a medieval Jew, it certainly would violate the gen­ eral understanding of Jewish law about such en­ graved images (see ART); however, a Qaraite might not have such compunctions (the note on p. 143 refers to a quotation from the tosafot about the “cus­ tomary” human figures on seal rings in England, but this does not necessarily refer to Jews, and indeed al­ most certainly does not). Needless to say, the “Jewish seals” of Holland (p. 280 ff.) all belong, in fact, to Christians. There were Christians, and not only con­ verts to Christianity, in the Middle Ages who had the family name “Jew” in one form or another and often used the “Jews’ hat” as a sign on their seals or family crests (an example of the latter may be seen on p. 282; the Jude family of Christians in Cologne were not necessarily “converts”). Unusual are some seals used to protect, and attest to the “purity” of, ma$$ah for Passover. Each of the two seals so far known come from Tarragona or nearby, in Catalonia, and both have the figure of a bird and one (or two) six-pointed stars (Friedenberg, p. 134; much clearer reproduction in Gabriel Secall i

Sermons, Jewish

Giiell, Lesjueries medievals tarragonines [Vails, 1983], following p. 452, figs. 14, 15, and 16; see also Agusti Altisent, “Un segell hebraic trobat a l’Espluga de Francoli,” Scricptum populeti. Miscellania populetana [Poblet, 1966], pp. 341-42). A few other seals, belonging to Jews of medieval Navarre have since been published by Friedenberg, “Bonanza” (see Bibliography). There, on pp. 104­ 105, he discusses Jewish seals known from “literary” (i.e., historical) sources, provided to him by the present author. The first is the reference to the seal of a Jew called Samuel, who became an official of Fernando IV, who trusted him greatly. Samuel also wrote letters in the name of the young king (then only seventeen), with Samuels seal and the king’s signature (in addition to the source which I then had provided Friedenberg, there are references to this Samuel in several other sources). The second is a ref­ erence to the seal of the Jewish community of Tudela (1329); however, the translation which Friedenberg gave is incorrect. It should be “a letter [or document] sealed with the pendant seal of the aljama [commu­ nity] of the Jews of Tudela” granting them perpetual ownership of the butchery, stores, silversmith shops, and so forth. The third item refers to a document of 1279 with the seal of the famous don Yu9 ef (Joseph) Pimientella, government official of Fernando IV. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Friedenberg, Daniel M. M edieval Jewish Seals from Europe (Detroit, 1987); the definitive study, in spite of errors noted, with excellent bibliography. ---------. “A Bonanza of Spanish Jewish Pre-Expul­ sion Seals,” Journal o f Jewish Art 18 (1992): 100-108.

Sermons, Jewish (see also RABBIS)

Jewish preaching in the Middle Ages is an aspect of the cultural history of the Jewish people relatively ne­ glected by modern scholarship. Unlike the situation with medieval Christian homiletics, there is no regis­ ter of extant Jewish sermons, no critical editions of texts, few monographs on leading figures, little con­ sensus on a canon of what deserves to be studied. Even including the substantial number of sermons in manuscript, the sample base through the end of the

fifteenth century is so small that generalizations are precarious. Although preaching was a regular part of Jewish life in Islamic countries, systematic study of this has hardly begun. Manuscripts of sermons in JudeoArabic, including the earliest known collection of Jewish sermons identified by date and place of deliv­ ery (early-thirteenth-century southern Iraq), await even preliminary analysis. S. D. Goitein found evidence in the GENIZAH lit­ erature that a weekly sermon, delivered by a recog­ nized leader holding a formal position or by a visiting itinerant, was the norm in the established communi­ ties of the Middle East. Books of homiletics were available for guidance. MAIMONIDES addressed the standards for acceptable preaching in a responsum; his son Abraham held that the purpose of the sermon was to attract people to the Torah and condemn dis­ obedience of its teachings; his grandson, David, left written sermons in Judeo-Arabic, some of which have been published. In Christian Europe, indications of Jewish preach­ ing predate any record of what the preachers might have said. Agobard of Lyons, writing in 826, com­ plained that “ignorant Christians say that the Jews preach to them better than our priests do.” An inci­ dent recounted in “The Scroll of Ahima as” indicates that homilies were not uncommon in ninth-century Venosa. The title “the preacher” (ha-Darshari) appended to the names of individuals from southern and northern France suggests an ongoing homiletical tradition, al­ though the evidence for weekly preaching is consid­ erably more persuasive in southern Europe than in the north. The early medieval collections of homilet­ ical midrash contain material undoubtedly derived from actual preaching, though thoroughly recast in a collective form. The first extant books of Jewish sermons presented as the work of an individual author from Christian Europe were written in the thirteenth century. These are collections of model sermons, which may not have been delivered as written from the pulpit; they combine exegetical, ethical, and speculative materials in a recognizable homiletical form, intended to be studied by other Jews or used by other preachers. Not before the middle of the fifteenth century do we find collections of texts purporting to be records 601

Sermons, Jewish

matters of a halakhic (legal) nature, considerably more than has been preserved in extant texts. In later periods, the sermon would become an instrument for complex investigations of technical halakhic prob­ lems, enabling the preacher to demonstrate his exper­ tise, sometimes against challenges from the listeners. Particularly important in the medieval period is the role of the sermon as a vehicle for the diffusion of philosophical ideas. Bitter complaints were voiced about inappropriate allegorical exegesis that found philosophical doctrines in biblical or aggadic pas­ sages, and about excessive preoccupation with philo­ sophical problems. Extant sermon texts reveal the impact of PHILOSOPHY not only in content but in form: the use by preachers of syllogisms and disputed questions following the modes of argumentation de­ veloped in Scholastic literature. They therefore pro­ vide evidence for the popularity of philosophical ma­ terial within broad circles of Jewish society, including many who never read the more technical philosophi­ cal works. QABBALAH was a different matter. Like philosophy, it was understood to be an esoteric doctrine, but the resistance to incorporating qabbalistic teachings into public sermons appears to have been stronger than the antipathy toward philosophy. As one unknown author of a fifteenth-century set of instructions for preachers put it, some things are “correct in the way of truth [a technical term for Qabbalah], but most people cannot understand them. They should be addressed in a ser­ mon only by an expert speaking to other experts.” Nevertheless, evidence is accumulating for the occa­ sional use of Qabbalah in preaching, not only the cita­ tion of the Zohar but also mystical interpretations of biblical passages, laws, and customs. An integral component of Jewish preaching is the tokhehahy a rebuke of the congregation for ethical and religious shortcomings. This category is un­ doubtedly underrepresented in the extant texts, as preachers believed that their exegetical or philosophi­ cal insights would be of greater interest to future readers than the specific failings of their community. Where it does appear, such material raises special rhetorical challenges for the preacher. It also reflects the aspirations and ideals of the leadership class. While certain complaints are commonplace and con­ ventional, others reveal the tension points and fault lines of the society. A striking example is the sermon

of sermons delivered on unique occasions to identifi­ able congregations responding to specific circum­ stances. Even these texts were not stenographic tran­ scriptions. They are literary reworkings of oral communication, recast from the vernacular original into Hebrew so as to be intelligible to all literate Jews. Form. The form of the earlier sermons demon­ strates the continuing influence of midrashic homiletics. Like the rabbinic proem (petihta) they begin with a verse from outside the Torah (most fre­ quently from Proverbs), interpret it in various ways, and then link it to the portion from the Torah cur­ rently being read. The body of the sermon is often a homily that moves through different problems in the verses of the portion, generally lacking conceptual unity. In the fifteenth century, Spanish Jewry produced a new sermon form, obviously influenced by the the­ matic sermon of Christian Scholasticism. Here the opening verse is taken from the Torah portion itself; following the terminology of Scholastic preaching, it is called the nosey or “theme.” This is usually followed by a passage of rabbinic literature (ma’amar). A con­ ceptual problem (derusti) is introduced, and the ex­ plication of the theme and the rabbinic statement is integrated with the investigation of the conceptual problem. Many fifteenth-century sermons for impor­ tant occasions had elaborate introductions in which the preacher justified his undertaking and asked for­ mal permission (reshut) to speak. Content. The foundation of Jewish preaching was homiletical exegesis. The Jewish sermon was textually based, rooted in the fixed scriptural readings assigned by tradition for each Sabbath and holiday. Sermons therefore supplement commentaries as rich reposito­ ries of Jewish biblical exegesis, revealing the manner in which the Bible, its problematics uncovered and resolved in constant exploration, functioned in the intellectual and spiritual life of the Jewish commu­ nity. Sermons similarly contain material crucial for a history of Jewish understandings of and attitudes toward the rabbinic aggadah. They reflect an audi­ ence that expected novel interpretations of its classi­ cal texts. One of the traditional functions of the sermon was to remind the congregation of ritual obligations pertaining to the various holidays. Particularly in northern Europe, much preaching was devoted to 602 *

“Shepherds’ Uprising”

delivered by Todros A b u l a f i a as part of the reform program at Toledo in 1281. Both in their form and their content, sermons are an important component of medieval Jewish litera­ ture. The cultivation of old homiletical structures and the development of new ones show a self-conscious wrestling with the challenges of presenting ideas in an artistic form. Preachers used a wide array of para­ bles and exempla, often drawn from non-Jewish sources and creatively remolded to illustrate and con­ cretize their message. Few extant medieval sermons can be identified as responses to specific historical events. Yet, as the means through which the religious and cultural tra­ dition was mediated to masses of Jews, the sermon is an invaluable historical resource, one of the best mir­ rors not so much of the intellectual elite but of the more representative figures who taught from the pul­ pit and of the listeners whose minds and hearts they attempted to reach. MARC SAPERSTEIN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bettan, Israel. Studies in Jewish Preaching (Cincin­ nati, 1939). Dan, Joseph. Sifrut ha-musar ve-ha-derush (Jeru­ salem, 1975). Goitein, S. D. A Mediterranean Society, Vol. II: The Community (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1971). Horowitz, Carmi. The Jewish Sermon in 14th-Century Spain: The Derashot ofR. Joshua ibn Shueib (Cam­ bridge, Mass., 1989). Ruderman, David, editor, Preachers o f the Italian Ghetto (Berkeley, 1992). Saperstein, Marc. Jewish Preaching 1200—1800: An Anthology (New Haven, 1989).

“Shepherds5 Uprising”

Two popular crusader movements that took place in France in 1251 and 1320 and brought havoc and de­ struction to the Jewish communities are known as the “Shepherds’ Uprisings.” As far as can be gathered from the sources, the popular crusades had two ele­ ments: the Peoples Crusade, whose participants be­ lieved that Jerusalem had fallen to the Muslims be­ cause of the sins of the rich and powerful and that

only the poor, who are closer to the evangelical ideal of poverty (Matthew 11.25; 19.23), have hopes of recovering the Holy Sepulcher; and the persecution of the Jews, whose conversion was held to be a preliminary to the second coming of Christ. The Pastoureaux (shepherds) combined these elements, adding a third, namely, the indiscriminate killing of the clergy, whose institutions and hierarchy were identified with the men of property. The Pastoureaux first appeared in 1251, following the defeat and capture in 1250 of King LOUIS IX (1226-1270) of France by the Mameluks at Mansourah in Egypt. There was no hope of a new crusade from Europe. Henry III of England persuaded the pope to allow him to postpone any expedition, and Louis’s brothers refused to send help from France. Public opinion, which held the king in high esteem, was indignant and disillusioned, and upon news of the disaster an hysterical movement of mostly very young shepherds and laborers, who called themselves Pastoureaux, swept through the country. They were soon to be joined by criminals, and were led by a Cis­ tercian monk called “the Master of Hungary.” They received support from the citizens of Orleans and Bourges, and even roamed English-held Gascony, where they were opposed by Simon de Montfort. They held assemblies to denounce the pope and his clergy and vowed to rescue the king. At first, Louis’s mother, the Queen Regent Blanche, gave them her approval, but they became so disorderly that they had to be suppressed. The clergy and probably also the Jews were fixed upon as the main target of the Pastoureaux. The anti-Jewish sentiments of the royal family, especially of the king and his mother, were well known, and may well have contributed to the at­ tacks on the Jews. Contemporary Christian sources do not mention the killing of the Jews by the Pas­ toureaux in 1251, but later Jewish sources such as Solomon Ibn Verga’s Shevef Yehudah (early sixteenth century) as well as the selifaah (penitential poem) “ ‘Al qiddushey Benois ve- ‘a l serafat toratenu by Solomon b. Joseph probably refer to the tragic events of 1251. Among other Jewish testimonies, we have the con­ cluding section of a manuscript of Hagahot Maimoniyot (glosses on the Mishneh Torah) by Meir haKohen which contains the testimony of Rabbi Yedidyah b. Israel of Nuremberg, a disciple of Rabbi Yehiel of Paris, which reports the massacre of 139 603

“Shepherds’ Uprising”

Parisian Jews, probably by the Pastoureaux; another, later, manuscript (MS Heb. 8 1136, f. 62b, Hebrew University) reports that this massacre had taken place near Dijon. These sources may point to the sufferings of the Jewish communities of northern France at the hands of the Pastoureaux in 1251. The Shepherds5 Crusade of 1320 is better known and was more destructive; this time, its Jewish vic­ tims were the communities of southern France. In 1320 the unstable political situation in France fa­ vored disorder. Leagues of nobles demanded local rights, and the royal succession was also a trouble­ some subject. King P h i l i p V (1316-1322), in order to wheedle yet more money from the pope, made a pretense of going on a crusade. It is possible that this pretense had an effect on the populace and stirred up crusading and apocalyptic enthusiasm. Behind this destructive movement lay a social cri­ sis: the uprising of the poor against the rich and the established Church, whose institutions and hierarchy were identified with men of property once again. While it is true that contemporary sources did not understand the cause of the uprising, it was in fact a new departure; a development in the approach to the subject of poverty had taken place. There was now a tendency among the canonists to regard the poor as entitled to use force to obtain what was theirs and to reject the giving of charity as an answer to the prob­ lem of poverty. The mendicant orders of the D O ­ MINICANS and especially the FRANCISCANS put into practical effect in the Church itself the concept of the moral superiority of the poor. Moreover, the issue of the true interpretation of apostolic poverty according to St. Francis divided the Franciscan Order. The Spiritual Franciscans took an extreme position, re­ jecting the possession of all property whatever and demanding that the use of property by the friars should be extremely restricted. Pope John XII (1316-34) was very hostile to them, and between 1318 to 1322 a number of Spiritual Franciscans were condemned in southern France, where they enjoyed great popularity. LANGUEDOC, and especially the re­ gions of Toulouse and Beziers-Carcassonne, still re­ sented their annexation by the French crown, which began in 1209 with the ALBIGENSIAN Crusade and had only been completed in 1271. Although their numbers were shrinking by the beginning of the fourteenth century, heretics of all kinds, Cathars, 604

Waldensians, and their supporters, were still being brought to trial by the much-hated INQUISITION with the help of the royal administration. One can thus easily understand the warm reception accorded to the anarchic movement of the Pastoureaux in the south of France. The famines of the early fourteenth century were a direct incentive to the movement of the Pas­ toureaux. Heavy rains resulted in several years of poor harvests, as in 1305 and from 1315 to 1317, and the effects were still felt in 1318. The worst famine cov­ ered Flanders and much of northern France, and in these areas we see the formation of the first group of Pastoureaux, mostly very young villagers. They moved on to Paris, where they murdered the prevot of the Chatelet fortress, and even threatened the safety of the king himself. The penniless Pastoureaux who had initiated the movement were soon joined by criminal and semicriminal elements and thereafter the movement took on a more violent character. As they journeyed to the south, where they planned to sail to the Holy Land, they passed through the Berry region looting Jewish property in Bourges and Limo­ ges, burned down the tower at Saintes and carried on through the Perigord, and the English-held areas of France, Gascony and the Bordelais region, attacking the clergy as they advanced. The inhabitants, many of whom bore resentment against the clergy, often collaborated with the Pastoureaux. The participants in the movement may be divided into two groups, which is the only explanation for their simultaneous appearance in different places. It is possible that the main body which coalesced in northern France was subsequently joined by a num­ ber of local movements. The first group made its way down the Gers valley to Gascony, laying siege on its way to Lectoure and Auvillar. By late May-early June of 1320, they were in Auch and Pavie where they killed the Jews. They passed through Bragayrac, and advancing along the river Save reached Grenade on Thursday, 12 June 1320. Their subsequent progress is a matter of speculation. It seems that they went to Lezat, and plundered the house of the only Jew of the town and seized the bills of debts which were owed to him. They probably arrived in Mont Giscard on 15 or 16 June; there they arrested several Jews, but a local official pretending to collaborate with the Pas­ toureaux was able to lead the Jews to Pamiers where

“Shepherds’ Uprising”

they were set free. From Mont Giscard they turned toward Carcassonne. The seneschal did not want the town to share the same fate as Toulouse. He pro­ tected the Jews, and went out to confront the Pas­ toureaux and hanged those whom he caught. The second group advanced along the Garonne River from Agen toward Toulouse. There the head of the royal administration was sent out to meet them, but meanwhile the Pastoureaux were able to massacre local Jews. This official arrested many of them, but according to the testimony of the Jew Barukh whom they baptized by force and who was to be brought to trial before the Inquisition of Pamiers as a relapsed Jew, the local populace released them. The Pas­ toureaux then took vengeance on the local Jews and slaughtered one hundred fifteen of them. Those Pas­ toureaux that were not caught made their way to Rabastens and Gaillac, where they laid siege to the tower of Verdun-sur-Garonne, where many Jews from neighboring communities had taken refuge. The Jews defended themselves by throwing stones, and according to a not very reliable chronicle, even their own children were thrown on the besiegers; out of desperation, they appointed one of their number to kill the rest. Having killed some five hundred of them, this Jew, with some children he had spared, gave himself up to the Pastoureaux, asking to be bap­ tized. They killed him, however. The Pastoureaux reached Albi about 25 June, and together with the populace massacred the Jews and pillaged their prop­ erty. In the meantime, the authorities had at long last organized themselves. The Pastoureaux who did not die in the swamps outside Albi were taken by Philip of Valois over the Alps to besiege Vercelli, where they perished. Others made their way to Spain, where they also attacked Jews. Neither Spanish nor later Jewish sources are sufficiently clear, but a number of facts have emerged. On their way to Tudela the Pas­ toureaux passed through the town of Montclus where they massacred most of the Jews, who were then buried by their brethren from the neighboring com­ munities of Barbastro and Monzon. The Jews of Navarre suffered, though the Pastoureaux failed in their attack on Pamplona, where the Jews defended themselves with royal help; they also failed to take the fortress of Tudela, where the Jews had locked themselves in. The royal reaction was more energetic than in France. King Jaime II (1291-1327) sent

troops against them, and his son Alfonso ordered the hanging of forty Pastoureaux in Huesca. Another group that reached Montpellier was defeated and its leader hanged, thus bring the whole affair to an end. In France the Pastoureaux had run riot for nearly two months without anyone being able to stop them, and this was due to the inaction of King Philip V. On the other hand, Pope John XXII reacted vigorously. As early as May of 1320 he wrote to the archbishops of Toulouse, Narbonne, and Arles to act against the Pastoureaux, mentioning their attacks on ecclesiasti­ cal and Jewish property; the archbishops were to mete our appropriate ecclesiastical and secular pun­ ishments, while the officials were ordered to stop the rioters by force. At the end of June he sent similar let­ ters to the officials of Avignon and Beaucaire and to the seneschals throughout France, in which he warned the townsfolk of the danger in store for them. The pope preached a counter-crusade against the Pastoureaux. The towns, afraid of the violence, locked their gates. The Pastoureaux did not succeed in reach­ ing Avignon, though their survivors continued to run wild in the districts of Toulouse and Carcassonne, while others even went on a pilgrimage to Mont St. Michel. King CHARLES IV appointed special judges to punish the towns that had collaborated with the Pas­ toureaux, but for appropriate payment he forgave the towns of Lezat and Albi, while negotiations with offi­ cials of Bourges who had looted Jewish property dragged on until 1355. The riots of the Pastoureaux had tragic conse­ quences for the Jewish communities of southern France and for some of those in Spain. The position of the Jews as laid down by the agreement of 1315 which repealed the EXPULSION from France of 1306 was never to be restored, even though they carried on their businesses. The Pastoureaux destroyed a sub­ stantial part of the communities of southern France. According to Ibn Verga [again, a not very reliable ac­ count], some 120 Jewish communities were wiped out, doubtless an exaggerated estimate; although the destruction of sixty to eighty communities, a large enough number, may be easily counted. Some communities never recovered after the slaughter; as for example Toulouse, which subsequently fell into decline. Despite the pleas and orders of the pope, the Jews were not sufficiently protected even in the papal 605

“Shepherds’ Uprising”

Comtat-Venaissin; Jewish children were baptized in the Comtat, and the synagogue of Bedarrides was de­ stroyed. In Aragon, the Inquisition had already acted against relapsed Jews at the beginning of the four­ teenth century, but the forced conversions caused by the Pastoureaux may have spurred on its intervention. Jews who had been “converted” by the Pastoureaux in France fled to Aragon, where they returned to Ju­ daism. Aragonese Jews who had been converted tried to do likewise. Such converts found help amongst Jewish communities. Refugees from the Inquisition sometimes brought disaster to those who gave them shelter; for example, in Vails (Catalonia), where a local Jew who had sheltered a convert was hanged and his house burned. At best the king might inter­ vene on behalf of the accused, but only on payment of an enormous fine, as for example with the accusa­ tion of the Inquisition of Tarasona against a Jew of Calatayud and his daughter who had helped a re­ lapsed Jewess from France. The king also acted against an inquisitorial sentence which sought to order the destruction of the local Jewish schools in the same town because the Jews there had given shel­ ter to Jewish converts (1327). In Zaragoza a Jew was executed for helping a convert and a synagogue was destroyed by order of the Inquisition (1324-25). On the other hand, it was the king himself who issued the order that the Jewish children who had been bap­ tized at Montclus by the Pastoureaux should hence­ forth dwell in the Christian part of the town in order to prevent them from relapsing to Judaism. The movement of the Pastoureaux thus shattered the Jewish presence in southern France, and caused great harm to the Jewish communities of Aragon; al­ though not to the same extent as in France. BAT SHEVA ALBERT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albert, Bat Sheva. The Case o f Barukh, the earliest re­ port o f the trial o f a Jew by the Inquisition (1320) (Hebrew). (Ramat-Gan, 1974). David, Abraham. “Pogroms against French Jewry during the Shepherds’ Crusade of 1251” (Heb.), Tarbiz A6 (1977): 251-58. [Grayzel, Solomon. “The Confession of a Medieval Jewish Convert,” Historia Judaica 17 (1955): 89-120.] 606

Passerat, Georges. “L’emeute des Pastoureaux et le massacre de Verdun,”Juives et source ju iv e en Occitanie (1988), pp. 61—69. Rohricht, R. “Die Pastorellen,” Zeitschrijt fu r kirchenliche Geschichte 6 (1884): 290-97. Vidal, Jean-Marie. “L’emeute des Pastoureaux en 1320. Lettres du Pape Jean XXII. Deposition du juif Baruc devant l’inquisition de Pamiers,” Ex­ trait des annales de St. Louis des frangais 8°, 9° et 10° annees (Rome, 1884), pp. 121-74.

Sicily

Jews may have settled in southern Italy, including the island of Sicily, already in Roman times. Certainly by the time of the Muslim conquest (827), there was a substantial Jewish, as well as Christian, population. However, practically nothing is known about the his­ tory or life of the Jews there during the entire Mus­ lim domination. Around 1015 the elders of a Sicilian community, probably Palermo, sent a letter to the yeshivah of Palestine, promising monetary support; however, before they could collect the money, a heavy tax was imposed and many became impover­ ished and fled the land (Mann, Jews in Egypt I, 73; II, 73-74). Control over Sicily passed from Berber amirs to Fatimid caliphs in the early eleventh century. In 1035 there was a civil war, and in spite of the appeal to the Byzantine Empire for help (troops were sent), the Muslim rulers were forced to leave in 1042. Indi­ vidual city states emerged, much as in Muslim Spain at about the same time. Constant feuding among these resulted in the nominal Muslim leader appeal­ ing to the Christian Normans in 1061, and thus Sicily was brought under their control. It is known that prior to the Norman conquest, a Jewish judge (,dayyan) of Sicily, Masliah b. al-Basaq, visited Bagh­ dad, where he met Hai Gaon (Judah Ibn Aknin, Hitgallut ha-sodot ve-hofa‘a t ha-meorot [commentary on Song of Songs, ed. A. S. Halkin, Jerusalem, 1964], pp. 494/95, and see another fragment of the letter of Masliah, from which we learn that his father’s He­ brew name was Elijah, edited by B. M. Lewin, Ginzey qedem 3 [1925], pp. 67-68). Goitein (p. 52), unaware of either of these texts, repeated part of the story from the letter, which in fact was reported by MOSES I b n cE z r a ( h ) —also unknown to Goitein—

Sicily

and erroneously stated that Masliah dedicated his “biography” of the gaon to SAMUEL I b n NAGHRILLAH of Granada. In fact, the letter about the life of Hai Gaon was given to Samuel b. Hofni, who mentioned the story in his book, as stated by I b n A k n i n , and not Samuel Ibn Naghrillah. Goitein cited (p. 374, No. 22) a genizah document which is a letter from the Jewish representative of merchants in Palermo to someone in Alexandria, in which there are “various references” to Masliah; it is unfortunate that this let­ ter was not published. In 1149, a Jewish spice merchant, Abraham b. Perahyah Ibn Yiju (or Yajut), wrote to his brother Mevasser in al-Mahdiyya in North Africa to inform him of his return from India and that he had arrived in Aden safely with his “money, life and children.” He complains that he had sent a valuable shipment of spices to his brother in Cairo, but his brother had not been there to receive the shipment, which was then sent on to him at Sicily by a “faithful Jew” (text edited by Joseph Braslavsky in Zion 7 [1942]: 135-39, from a genizah fragment’ ignored by Goitien). Finally, mention may be made of a letter con­ taining a legal question from Sicily which Anatoli, a Jewish judge (dayyan) of Alexandria, sent to M A I­ MONIDES (Mann II, 326). Under Norman Rule

Mann (I, 204) no doubt correctly concluded that the Jews of Sicily must have been concerned about falling under the rule of an intolerant Christian regime, al­ though whether Moses b. Joseph ha-Sefardiy (i.e., formerly of al-Andalus), who accompanied the Mus­ lim ambassador of Sicily to the Fatimid court in Cairo, did so in order to convince Egyptian Jews to aid in getting support for the Muslim ruler of Sicily is doubtful. The Norman rulers, Robert Guiscard and his brother Roger I, divided Sicily and southern Italy between them. In 1089 Robert’s wife granted one-sixth of her revenue from the Jews of the city of Palermo to the bishop. Under Roger II (1103-54), who was supported by the antipope Anacletus II (of alleged Jewish ancestry), the Jewish communities of Sicily grew and flourished. Palermo became a major port city, and Jewish prominence in the silk industry began at this time (see COMMERCE). Goitein (p. 102) quite rightly objected to those who continue to claim

that the silk industry was brought to Sicily by the Normans, imported from BYZANTIUM. Trade be­ tween EGYPT and Sicily was constant, as evidenced by the documents of the C a i r o GENIZAH. In one year alone, probably not uncommonly, ten ships car­ rying about five hundred passengers each (not all Jews, of course), arrived at Alexandria from Palermo (ibid., p. 215). Since no other Sicilian community is apparently mentioned in the genizah documents, it may be assumed that Palermo served as the center for trade and travel between Sicily and other lands. B e n j a m i n o f T u d e l a reported that he found three hundred Jews in Calabria, two hundred in Messina, and fifteen hundred in Palermo. He gave a glowing description of the latter city. These figures, of course, as with all those he reported on his travels, are mere estimates but probably not far wrong. William I (1154-56) continued the policy of Roger II, defeating the Byzantine forces allied with Pope Adrian IV, and like Roger forcing the pope to recognize his title to Sicily, Apulia, Naples, Amalfi, and Salerno, all regions with Jewish populations. In the privilege granted by the bishop of Catania in 1168, it was specified that “Latins, Greeks, Jews and Saracens” are to be judged by their own laws. William II (1166—89), concentrating on his own expansionist plans, accepted the marriage of his heiress Constance, daughter of Roger II, with Henry VI, successor to the title of Holy Roman Emperor, in 1186. The pope re­ fused coronation to Henry, however, and he was not crowned until 1191, and king of Sicily in 1194. The bitter struggle of the German nobles against him nearly cost his young son, Frederick, his life in a castle in Palermo. He escaped in a miraculous fashion and wnt on to become the next Holy Roman Emperor and king of Sicily, the kingdom which he loved and where he spent nearly all his time. Frederick II Hohenstaufen

II, who grew up in Palermo living in hid­ ing among Muslims and Jews, was very favorably dis­ posed toward the Jews; thus, when in 1210 he do­ nated the Jews and their silk-dyeing factory to the Church “forever,” this meant only a gift of the tax revenue received from them, nor did this imply any nefarious “serf” status of the Jews (Baron IV, 22, and cf. n. 23). Also, it should be emphasized that the FREDERICK

607

Sicily

young king was not yet totally in control of Sicily, still in theory at least jointly with the pope. Only by 1231 was the kingdom unified and firmly in the hands of Frederick, and the pope was in exile from Rome. In that year Frederick issued his famous “con­ stitution,” the only truly liberal and democratic law code of the Middle Ages, and in it granted special rights to the Jews. He ignored, for example, the de­ mands of Church councils and popes about Jewish “usury” (see MONEYLENDING), although like other rulers he limited the rate of interest to ten percent per annum. Baron observed that Jews enjoyed equal­ ity as cives (not “burghers,” but in fact citizens) along with Christians (p. 23), a status already granted to the Jews of Messina by Roger II in 1129, as a reward for their aid in fighting the Muslims. In fact, the aforementioned constitution of Frederick granted both Muslims and Jews complete equality with Christians in such things as the right to defend their claims in court and to appeal directly to him. “We do not desire them to be harassed in their innocence be­ cause they are Jews or Saracens (I. 18; for other ex­ amples of such remarkable language, see the article on Frederick. Straus barely alluded to the constitu­ tion. The usually informed Dubnov is totally unreli­ able on Frederick II, particularly his policy in Sicily.) The Hohenstaufen emperor also expanded the Jewish silk industry, bringing Jews from North Africa (the island of Djerba) to Sicily and giving them land on which to cultivate henna and indigo, used in dye­ ing (Straus, pp. 8, 66-67). These Jews also imported date palms at Frederick’s request, for which they were granted a reduction in taxes. After the death of Frederick, rule nominally passed to his son Conrad IV (1250-1254), with Frederick’s bastard son Manfred appointed regent of Sicily. The powerful Innocent IV, inveterate enemy of Frederick and his sons, excommunicated Conrad and invaded southern Italy and Sicily, which was re­ gained by Manfred in 1255. He was crowned king of Sicily in 1258, but Urban IV in 1262 offered the crown of Sicily to Charles of Anjou, brother of LOUIS IX of France (perhaps the most anti-Jewish king of the entire Middle Ages). Charles defeated Manfred, who died in battle in 1266. Charles officially became king of Naples and Sicily in 1268, but he was soon to be challenged from Spain.

608

Under Spanish Rule

Pedro III (1276-85) of A r a g On -C a t a l o n i a was mar­ ried to the daughter of Manfred, the son of Frederick II, and thus claimed Sicily after Manfred’s tragic death, even though it was nominally under the con­ trol of a branch of the French royal family. In the fa­ mous battle known as the “Sicilian Vespers” (1282), the French were driven out; they later invaded Cat­ alonia (1285) but were defeated there also. However, there is virtually no information about the situation of the Jews in Sicily during this period. Under the weak rule of Alfonso III (1285-91), Sicily was given to Pedro’s second son, Alfonso’s brother Jaime. When Alfonso died, Jaime became king of Aragon-Catalonia as Jaime II (1291-1327). Under constant papal pressure and interdict, he re­ nounced his claims to Sicily in 1296, and his younger brother Fadric (Frederick II, not to be con­ fused with the previous Hohenstaufen emperor) was elected as king of Sicily. Sardinia was then conquered by the Spaniards in 1323, and added to the kingdom. In the last years of the reign of Pedro IV (1336-87), he regained control of Sicily, and his son Martin, who later succeeded him, married Maria of Sicily, thereby becoming king, in 1392. There is again very little information about Jewish life in Sicily during this entire period. We know of Jewish merchants from BARCELONA who traveled to Sicily in 1285 and in 1300, and undoubtedly also in subsequent years. Laws of Palermo, ca. 1300, im­ posed various restrictions on Jews there, showing in part their fear of commercial competition. Jews were also specifically excluded from medicine and law, but this was not followed elsewhere. Apparently in 1312, Frederick II issued an order that Jews must live sepa­ rated from Christians and outside the walls of the cities (Giovanni, p. 23; this was one of the earliest at­ tempts anywhere to create separate Jewish quarters, although not a “ghetto” strictly speaking. Nine­ teenth-century writers have referred, erroneously, to such an order by the emperor Frederick II). Later, ad­ ditional restrictions were enacted, such as a prohibi­ tion on Jews living in the same house, sitting to­ gether at table, sleeping in the same room, etc. with Christians (Giovanni, p. 27; although himself an anti-Jewish writer, his sources are trustworthy). The Jews in Sicily were required, perhaps from the time of

Sicily

Emperor Frederick II (although this is doubtful), to wear the B a d g e . In 1393, a special official, Giovanni (Juan) di Pino, a Catalan Franciscan monk, was ap­ pointed by Martin I to supervise the wearing of the Badge by Jews (ibid., p. 37). However, when he tried to order the wearing of the badge also in Catalonia, his mother, the powerful Queen Maria de Luna, is­ sued a strongly worded order prohibiting him from doing so, or molesting Jews in any way, throughout the entire kingdom; thus, also in Sicily. Already in 1329 there were attacks against the Jews in Palermo. In April of 1392 the king (Martin) issued a decree against molesting the Jews, probably in response to his mothers above order, and con­ firmed it again in August. In June of 1392 the king also issued a decree confirming Pope Clement Ills bull against compulsory baptism of Jews (Giovanni, pp. 182-85, 254). All of this, of course, was related to the attacks on Jews throughout Spain in the sum­ mer of 1391; in Sicily only the small town of Monte San Giuliano saw an attack on the Jews. Fifteenth Century

From the responsa of ISAAC B. SHESHET do we learn some trivial information, such as that a ban was passed by the Jewish community of Cagliari, ca. 1405, against anyone who played chess, and when the king came to the city during the holiday of Calenda (not the first of the month, but the first day of the year), several people were gathered playing chess in his courtyard, and one of them told him of a cer­ tain Jew who was an expert player, and the king or­ dered him to play, but he did not wish to transgress the ban (the matter turned into a complicated affair which required Isaac to render several decisions, Nos. 171—73). The question also includes the information that the “only” rabbi there was one Bongidis, or Bonjudas Bondeu (probably), a rabbi and doctor, who was “ordained” and had been appointed by the king to be in charge of all Jewish cases. The unusual state­ ment that he was “ordained” requires clarification, as this was long past the age of the GEONIM, of course. New rulers in the fifteenth century imposed a number of harsh restrictions on the Jews of Naples and Sicily. In 1427, Queen Joanna II appointed Jo­ hannes (Giovanni; John) da Capistrano, the notori­ ous FRANCISCAN “scourge of the Jews,” as Inquisitor,

specifically charged with compelling the Jews to abandon “usury” and to wear the sign Tau (a variant of the “badge”), and also to give up all privileges granted them by previous rulers. Joannas romantic liaisons and intrigues caused constant conflicts and led to another struggle for the crown, finally secured by Alfonso V, “the Magnanimous,” of A r a g 6 n CATALONIA in 1435. In 1442, Naples and Sardinia were joined with Sicily in one kingdom. In 1451, King Alfonso V confirmed a fine of 10,000 florins (a large sum) to be imposed on the Jews for “usury” and other offenses (Henry Charles Lea, A History o f the Inquisi­ tion o f the Middle Ages [N.Y., 1906] II, 284-87) . He also renewed orders about the Jews wearing of the badge and other former decrees; yet when Jews com­ plained about having to attend compulsory sermons, he rescinded that order (1453), and about the same time renewed all early privileges to the Jews giving them freedom to buy and sell, own property, maintain synagogues and schools, etc. Alfonso, truly a “magnan­ imous” and also a learned ruler, died in Naples in 1458. One curious note is that King Ferrante of Naples (1458-1494) was said to be the illegitimate son of Alfonso V by either a Jewish or a Muslim mother. If there is any truth to this rumor, and his mother had been Jewish, he would thus join the ranks of other Spanish rulers descended from Jews. Ferrante was an unscrupulous ruler, gaining his position by the sup­ port of Francesco Sforza and Cosimo de Medici. So far next to nothing is known about the situa­ tion of the Jews of Sicily under the reign of FER­ NANDO AND I s a b e l . However, in 1478 Isabel con­ firmed the (forged) privilege of Frederick II granting the Sicilian Inquisition the right to seize a third of all property of condemned heretics (this included, of course, conversos, Jewish converts), and in 1479 Fer­ nando and Isabel instructed their ambassadors to the pope to ask that Jacobo Reda, a Sicilian Franciscan, be made Inquisitor of Sicily. When the Jews were ex­ pelled from all of the kingdoms of Spain in 1492, this of course included also Sardinia and Sicily. As in the rest of Spain, the Jews of Sicily were also given a three-month extension, from the original date of 18 September until 18 December (the original edict of expulsion did not reach Sicily until August, so that different dates were set for the expulsion there than

609

Sicily

for the Jewish communities in the rest of Spain; Roth, Conversos, pp. 224, 323, 310; the great “peti­ tion” which the Jews of Sicily allegedly sent to the rulers is an obvious later forgery). Jewish Culture

The Jews of Sicily used both Greek and Arabic, and this continued at least until the late thirteenth cen­ tury (text of Abraham ABULAFIA cited by Mann I, 204, n. 1). We know little or nothing of cultural de­ velopments among the Jews in early medieval Sicily. It may be mere accident that no significant biblical manuscripts survive from Sicily in this period, nor in spite of their facility with languages were there any translations. Solomon Ibn Farhun (so, not “Parhon,”), born in Calatayud, Spain, but who lived in Sicily in the twelfth century, wrote his dictionary for the Jews there because, he said, they do not know Hebrew. Yet this is obviously an exaggeration, since when Frederick II was a boy living from house to house among the Muslims and Jews in Palermo, he learned Hebrew from those Jews and became a mas­ ter of that language along with Arabic. Yet when seeking to enhance his court with scholars who could translate Arabic and Hebrew works, and with whom he could discuss philosophy and Jewish law, he found it necessary to import them, particularly from Spain and Provence. However, there were at least some talmudic scholars; for instance, yanokh b. Moses and his son Moses, the first two important rabbis in Spain (tenth century), came from Sicily. They were thoroughly versed in talmudic law, and responsa from both are found in collections of geonic re­ sponsa. There was also the influence of Hebrew po­ etry from Spain, for in the twelfth century there were a small number of such poets in Sicily, but nothing of significance was produced, other than the lamenta­ tion of the martyred physician Moses Rimoch (see below). The first commentary on Maimonides’ “Guide” was written by Moses b. Solomon of Salerno (ca. 1240-50?). In the late thirteenth century, Ahituv b. Isaac of Palermo (who translated the treatise on logic of Mai­ monides into Hebrew) corresponded with Ibn A d r e t and fought against the qabbalistic notions of Abra­ ham Abulafia. He wrote Mahberet ha-fene, describing

610

a journey to paradise, with similarities both to Dante and the Muslim mi raj legend (see Orient 24 [1845], No. 45, p. 382; George Sarton, Introduction to the History o f Science [Baltimore, 1927] II, 855; J. Munoz Sendino, ed. and tr., La escala de Mahoma [Madrid, 1957], p. 175, merely repeats Sarton’s note; there is nothing at all about him in this connection in Baron, Gottlieb, Jellinek, Scholem, Vajda, or any other Jewish author; cf., however, the [German] Enyclopedia Judaica I, 735). There were plans to establish a Jewish university in 1466 (which thus would have been the first such university anywhere), and the king approved these plans but it is not known if the university was ever a reality (it is debatable even if the school for the study of Jewish and general subjects, proposed by David Provenzal in Manuta in 1564 was in fact established; on the Sicilian plan, see the document in R. Starabba, Ricerche storiche su Guglielmo Moncada [Palermo, 1878], p. 47 ff.; Isaah Sonne, Expurgation o f Hebrew Books [N.Y., 1943], p. 20 ff. argued that the Mantua school was actually established). Rabbis a n d Community Officials

Joseph Abenasia, physician of Martin I, was the first chief rabbi appointed for all of Sicily (1405). Moses Bonavoglia (or Moses Hefes) of Messina was the leader of the Jewish communities of Messina, Palermo, Sciacca, Polizzi, and others; in fact, he was appointed chief rabbi (Dienchelele = Heb. dayyan kalili, according to Roth; in fact, kelaliy, cf. Loeb, pp. 208-09, also called Rab), in 1438. When Moses died in 1446, Joseph Banartini was appointed to the posi­ tion (C. Roth, “Malta,” p. 203; on Moses Bonavoglia see Giovanni, pp. 110—11; also Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, pp. 517-18). Moses was involved in an argument with Aaron Aburrabi of Catania (the family name is variously Abu’l-Arrabi or Abnarrabi in Aragon), an extremely important scholar and com­ mentator on the Bible (see B i b l e COMMENTARIES, JEWISH), he very probably was born and educated in Aragon. Finally, mention should be made of David Jaco, or David b. maestro Jacob Meir, an astronomer who was an official of Fernando I, king of Sicily, in 1464 (see Moritz Steinschneider, Catalogus librorum hebraeorum in the Bodleian Library [Berlin, 1931], col. 1575, and see his note in the first edition, which

Sicily

I do not have, of Cassel’s translation of Judah ha­ Levi, Kuzari, p. xxvii n. 28 [it is not in the second edition]). For details on the general elected Jewish commu­ nity officials, which were identical in all respects to those in Spain and Provence, see Loeb, p. 207 ff. M edicine

According to legend, the famous medical school of Salerno was founded by four masters: a Latin Chris­ tian, a Greek Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim. There is, of course, no basis in fact in this. In spite of the at­ tempts to connect the renowned Sabbetai Donnolo with the school, there is also no foundation for that theory. Benjamin of Tudela, who saw the school, stated clearly that it was entirely a Christian school. While there is no evidence at all of Jews ever having studied at that school, it is interesting that there were Hebrew translations of various medical works writ­ ten there. After his campaign against Sicily (1282-1283; see above), Pedro III had as his personal physician a Jew, maestro David of Palermo, described as “servant of the royal chamber” and the king’s “faithful” (contrary to popular theory, “servant of the royal chamber” was not a derogatory term when applied to Jews, or any­ one else). The king also confirmed the choice of David, by the Jews of the city, to head their commu­ nity. The notoriously anti-Jewish philosopher Arnau de Villanova attempted to institute religious reform in the reign of Jaime II of Aragon-Catalonia, and in connection with this urged that Jewish doctors not be allowed to treat Christians (an old idea in canon law). He also wrote a letter to Jaime’s younger brother, Frederick II, king of Sicily, and in 1310 Frederick in fact prohibited Jewish doctors from at­ tending to Christians. The prohibition, however, did not last beyond his rule. In fact, Martin I had a Jew­ ish physician, Joseph Abenasia from Catalonia, who was chief rabbi of Sicily, as noted above, and the aforementioned Ahituv b. Isaac of Palermo was also a physician. There were many Jewish women doctors in Spain, and one of these was Virdimura, wife of Pasquale, a physician of Catania (whether he was a Jew or not is uncertain). She was licensed by physicians of the royal court in 1376 to practice medicine throughout

Sicily (these women doctors were not individuals who attended to women or “women’s problems,” but fully licensed physicians and even surgeons). Mention has already been made of Bonjudas Bondeu, physician and rabbi of Cagliari in the early fif­ teenth century. More important was Moses Rimoch (Rimos), perhaps originally from Majorca, who at the age of twenty-four died a martyr’s death in Palermo, falsely accused of having poisoned Chris­ tian patients (his moving farewell poem, written be­ fore his execution, has often been published and discussed; see Schirmann, ha-Shiyrah ha-ivriyt biSfarad u-vi-Provans [Jerusalem, 1954] II, 644 ff.). All of these Jewish physicians must obviously have received their medical training elsewhere, probably in Spain. According to Giovanni (pp. 94-95), Jews were forbidden to practice medicine in the fifteenth century; however, if so, this must have been in the latter part of the century. In fact, an Italian Jew, Gulielmo Portaleone I, was the physician of Fer­ nando I of Naples in 1438 (the Portaleones were a famous Jewish family, most of whom later con­ verted). The island of Malta was also under Sicilian con­ trol, and several Jews of Spanish origin lived there in the fifteenth century, especially physicians (according to C. Roth, p. 196 ff., who unfortunately provided no names). NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History o f the Jews (New York; Philadelphia, 1957; 1971). Giovanni, Giovanni di. Uebraismo della Sicilia (Palermo, 1748). Goitein, Shlomo Dov. A Mediterranean Society (Berkeley; Los Angeles, 1967), Vol. 1. Loeb, Isidore. “Reglement des juifs de Castille en 1432,” 1IE.J. 13 (1886): 206-16. Mann, Jacob. The Jews in Egypt and Palestine Under the Fatimid Caliphs (Oxford, 1920-22; photo rpt. New York, 1970), 2 vols. Roth, Cecil. “The Jews of Malta,” Jewish Historical Society of England. Transactions 12 (1928-31). Roth, Norman. Conversosy Inquisition, and the Expul­ sion o f the Jews from Spain (Madison, 1995).

611

Sicily

Straus, R. Die Juden im Kbnigreich Sizilien hnter Normannen undStaufern (Heidelber, 1910).

Spanish Law, Jews in

H istorical Developm ent o f Spanish Law

Roman law (essentially the Constitutio Antoniniana, 212 C.E.) was gradually replaced in the declining empire by a “vulgarization” of Roman law combined with local custom. The VISIGOTHS established their kingdom by conquest in Spain in the fifth century and brought with them their own legal customs. Their codifications of law, particularly that of Alaric II (the “Breviarurn or Lex Romana Visigothorum, 506) were approved by a combination of bishops and provincial officials, as Visigothic Spain became a vir­ tual theocracy. The later developments in Visigothic law were strongly influenced by Byzantine law and practice. The increasingly harsh treatment of Jews under the Visigoths is dealt with in that article. Seventh-century revisions of the codes, especially the Liber Iudieiorum of King Receswinth, transmitted what was known of Roman law to later medieval Christian Spain. In the period of the early Christian reconquest of Muslim territories in the Asturian re­ gion and Leon in the tenth century they were depen­ dent on this code of Receswith, which became the basis of general law throughout Christian Spain to the eleventh century. As the Christians expanded their conquest of Muslim cities and regions, the kingdom of CASTILE was established. Local law now gradually took on more importance than the cum­ bersome and outdated Visigothic codes. Judges inter­ preted law on a case basis and handed down deci­ sions (fazanas) to apply to analogous cases in the future. The probable influence of similar Muslim legal practice is apparent. Thus, judges exercised a legislative as well as judicial function. Local customs and privileges and statutes granted by lords and kings were increasingly important (such grants of privileges were known as a forum , which led to the Spanish term fuero, which came to mean local laws as well as privileges granted by overlords or kings). This con­ cept and term applied universally in all of the Chris­ tian kingdoms of Spain. The fundamental base of early medieval law remained Germanic (Visigothic) more than Roman, but was mixed with influences of canon law and Frankish law and custom, due espe­ 612

cially to a substantial French immigration in the eleventh century. The earliest territorial laws, as opposed to local town fueros, were in the eleventh century for Leon (by Alfonso V of Leon). In BARCELONA also, Ramon Berenguer I promulgated a legal code for the city in 1068, and this later evolved into the Usatges de Barcelona which was extended to all of Catalonia. The trend toward “centralization,” or promulgation for an entire kingdom, was nevertheless checked by the increase of local fueros with the expanding popu­ lation of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. These local laws were codified as fueros m unicipals, or in Catalonia as costums. The thirteenth century wit­ nessed both a solidification of the kingdoms and an increase in royal authority, along with which came ef­ forts again to promulgate “royal” law for the entire kingdom. Thus, in Castile, there were such “na­ tional” codes as the Libro de fueros de Castiella and the Fuero viejo de Castilla, in Aragon the Codigo de Huesca and the Fueros de Aragon of JAIME I (1213-76), the maritime law (Costums de mar) in Barcelona, the Furs de Valencia of Jaime I, and finally the efforts of ALFONSO X (1252-84) to formulate several versions of universal law for the kingdom of Castile. These were chiefly or exclusively the work of canon lawyers and clergymen (the anti-Jewish bishop, Vidal de Canellas, in Aragon and VALENCIA, and the equally anti-Jewish friar Ramon de Penafort in Castile, later canonized). In spite of all the efforts of Alfonso X, or more correctly of his lawyers, the attempt to promulgate a law which would apply to everyone throughout his kingdom largely failed. Despite noble and highsounding rhetoric (“Law loves and teaches those things which are of God, and is the fount of instruc­ tion and the guide of right and of justice” which ap­ plies equally to all, and “must be clear, so that every man understands it and none be deceived by it”— Fuero real I. vi.1-2; repeated also in the fifteenthcentury Ordenanzas reales I. iv.1-2), these efforts were doomed to failure because of the fiercely guarded independence of the cities and their fueros. The most detailed royal code of law of Alfonso—in­ deed, of all medieval law—the Siete Partidas was not accepted until the fourteenth century, and even then was not completely adopted, nor did it fully replace other legal codes and enactments. In it, the king was

Spanish Law, Jews in

designated as “lord and head” of the kingdom, who grants law (it is significant that the Spanish term for law, derecho, actually means “right”) to everyone in his kingdom. In reality, only the provision that the king appoints judges was in effect. The power of the local judges, who not only “ordered” and interpreted laws but protected the people, has been called the “Alfonsine reform” and was in fact an important foundation of the practical democracy of medieval Castile. An important step in this development was the theory of representation and “public utility” in medieval Spanish law. Exceptional taxation in times of necessity for the common welfare was acknowl­ edged as a prerogative of the king, but only on condi­ tion that he summon representatives from the towns, with plenipotentiary powers (plena potestas), to jointly consent to such actions. This theory operated as well in Aragon. Thus, a parliament (cortes in Castile, corts in Aragon) was established, indeed ap­ parently earlier than the thirteenth century, which not only gave “consent” to royal enactments and tax­ ation (in fact, initiating laws) but jealously guarded the prerogatives of local territories and towns. Repre­ sentatives were chosen from the nobles, the clergy, and the common people, including Jews and Mus­ lims. Medieval Spain was the first real modern de­ mocracy. (There is still no really good general study of medieval Spanish law, although there are of indi­ vidual fueros, etc. The best general surveys are still that of Garcia de Valdeavellano, or the broader one, written within the context of general legal history, of Perez-Prendes, who also wrote by far the best brief study in any language of Jewish law [see Bibliography for both of these].) Equality an d Protection o f Jews

From the earliest period of medieval Christian Spain, Jews were not in any sense “aliens” or living under special grants of privilege as in Christian Europe, nor were they seen as powerless and in need of special protection as in German law. Thus, the fuero of Na­ jera (1076) granted by Sancho III of Navarre for the whole Rioja region specifically stated that the laws applied to all, Christians and Jews (the lack of the usual mention also of Muslims may indicate there were few or no Muslims in the region), and the same is true of the fuero of Miranda de Ebro (northern Castile) of 1099. This was renewed in 1177, when it

was noted that all, Christians, Muslims, and Jews, have the same law. The fuero of Briviesca (Burgos) of Queen Urraca in 1123 included the provision that if Jews come to settle in the town, which they did, they should have the same law as Christians, and in Lerma, another town near Burgos, in 1148 it was stated that all, Jews as well as nobles, should have the same law as inhabitants of the city. The important fuero of Calatayud, confirmed by Alfonso I in 1131, included provisions allowing Christians, Muslims, and Jews to buy from each other and swear oaths to each other. The extremely important, if scarcely stud­ ied, fuero of Teruel, ca. 1176, which became impor­ tant for the entire Extremadura and later for Aragonese law in general, considered Jews as equal citizens, and granted equal rights with respect to commerce to Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The judge of civil cases had to swear an oath to conduct himself faithfully with all, Christian, Jew, and Mus­ lim. The fuero of Viguera and Val de Funes (Aragon) specified, in addition to the usual statement of equal­ ity, that if a Jew has a quarrel, whether with a noble or any other Christian, the local lord of the town must provide complete protection of the law of the land to the Jew. For the Aragonese region of Navarre, of basic importance are the fueros of Estella (1090), influenced by that of Jaca (1063), and San Sebastian. In these, the Jews were to be free of all taxes and ser­ vice to the king and were guaranteed security in all of Navarre. The early Navarrese (kingdom of Navarre) laws of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, with later revisions, also recognized complete equality of Chris­ tians and Jews, not only in things like debts but in cases of civil or criminal complaints against each other. Interesting is a collection of laws of several united small towns in Navarre in the thirteenth cen­ tury which note that all roads belong to the king, and thus when any man is assaulted or robbed on the road the perpetrators will be punished, and the com­ plaints of all shall be heard, whether Christian, Mus­ lim, or Jew. Legal Power o f Jews

Avery important, possibly unique, aspect of law con­ cerning Jews has to do with Spanish recognition of the legal power of Jews. Alfonso VII of Castile, in the fuero of Toledo (1118), authorized the Christian judge to decide all cases between Christians and 613

Spanish Law, Jews in

Muslims or Jews. This ran counter to the general practice which was that all complaints between Christians and Jews be judged before a Jewish court, or at least one Jewish judge (dayyan) and one Chris­ tian judge. An attempt to change this was in the Siete Partidas (VII. xxiv.5), which decreed that all such cases should be before the justices of the king in the place where the Jews lived, and not before their “el­ ders” (judges or rabbis). However, Alfonso X himself did not follow this purely theoretical law, but ap­ pointed special judges, with the consent of the local Jews, to adjudicate all such cases. In a letter to Burgos (1263), the king permitted the Jews to have two witnesses, a Jew and a Christian, in all cases involving Christians. In the general privilege to Barcelona and all Catalonia in 1236, Jaime I also had confirmed the already existing requirement that both a Jewish and Christian witness be required in all cases between Jews and Christians; a privilege which was later ex­ tended to Valencia. Jews also had the right to appear in Christian courts and lodge complaints, but more interestingly, they also had the right to act as lawyers for Chris­ tians, as well as Jews, in court. As is evident from a re­ sponsum of I b n A d r e t , a Jew could be appointed as advocat (lawyer) to act for another Jew, whether be­ fore a Jewish or Christian court (Sheelot u-teshuvot III, No. 141). There are other references in responsa literature. An interesting case in Toledo in 1487 in­ volved a Christian artist who gave power of attorney to a Jew to collect a very substantial sum owing him from the city. Of great interest is the law found in the Leyes de Estilo of Castile, according to which a combination of civil judges and rabbis must judge all cases be­ tween Christians and Jews, unless the king declares that a case be judged “in his house,” that is, by royal judges. In that case, the civil judges and rabbis who first heard the case must be present before the royal court and the rabbis must “instruct the king and his judges” concerning the applicable Jewish law. This requirement of a combination of Christian and Jew­ ish judges is found in early fueros of Castile and Leon, which means that the Leyes de Estilo (fourteenth cen­ tury) merely confirmed already widespread practice. However, it also noted that according to the “Fuero de Ciudad” (unclear to what this refers, possibly the fuero Usagre) a Jew has “neither his voice nor that 614

of another,” so that although a Jew may have cases judged for him in a Christian court, he may not tes­ tify for Jews or for other Christians. However, this was rarely observed. The laws of Aragon are less clear; an early fuero ordered that the local overlord must protect the rights of all, including Muslims and Jews, but denied a “voice” to them (that is, the right to act as witnesses). On the other hand, the Usatges of Barcelona (ca. 1150) required two witnesses, a Chris­ tian and a Jew, in all cases between them (for the laws of Tortosa, see below). The aforementioned bishop of Huesca, Vidal de Canellas also composed a sort of encyclopedia of laws known as Vidal mayor. In it, he ordered that no Jew may act as an advocate (procurador, legal representative) for a Christian before a Christian court (no such prohibition is to be found in any other legal code). In fact, “Jews, Muslims and enemies of the faith” are entirely excluded from a Christian court (as lawyers; clearly not as witnesses). However, the right of Jews and Muslims to appoint their own judges for their own courts is upheld. Only in cases between Jews and Christians may a Christian judge be the court of first instance. ISAAC B. SHESHET wrote that all the kings of Aragon-Catalonia give per­ mission to Jews to judge cases according to their own law, and also have ordered their (Christian) judges to judge according to Jewish law in cases between Jews. Jews also had the right, which they often exercised sometimes in the most trivial of matters, of direct ap­ peal to the king, referred to as salva la f e del senor (this Spanish expression is found also in responsa lit­ erature, and should be noted). Finally, as noted elsewhere here, Jewish communi­ ties also elected representatives to the parliaments, and in the fifteenth century there was, at least in Castile, one general Jewish procurador, or representa­ tive, of all the communities. It is not clear, however, whether this was merely a court official, or whether he actually replaced the individual proeuradores. Thirteenth-Century N ational Codes

As we move toward more general laws, which applied to entire regions and then to whole kingdoms in the thirteenth century, attention should be called to the very important Costums de Tortosa, which has been almost totally ignored not only by Jewish historians but by general scholars of Spanish law. Apparently based on privileges granted by Ramon Berenguer IV

Spanish Law, Jews in

(1131-62), but with later additions from the time of Jaime I, it contains numerous laws concerning Jews. The judge, or administrator (veguer), had to swear to preserve the “rights and justice” of all, Christians, Jews, and Muslims. The only “negative” laws, possi­ bly even later additions, prohibited Jews from having Christian servants or nurses or working publicly on Christian festivals (including Sundays), and clothing restrictions noted elsewhere (see CLOTHING). Never­ theless, protection of Jews in cases of law, particularly in requiring two Jewish witnesses (or one Christian and two or more Jews) in any cases against them, was included. The aforementioned Vidal de Canellas was responsible for drawing up the general Fueros de Aragon (which, unlike the situation in Castile, be­ came the national code of law), and later he also largely wrote the Furs of Valencia. In Majorca in 1231, shortly after his conquest of the island, Jaime I granted certain properties and rights to the Jews there. As part of the guarantee of their protection, he ordered that no royal official pre­ sume to enter the home of a Jew except in cases of crime. The law of what was known in Germany as Hehlerrecht (see GERMAN LAW), the accusation that a Jew was selling stolen property, was to conform to the laws of Barcelona; namely, the Jew would be be­ lieved on an oath. Other laws similar to those which applied to the Jews of Barcelona were also confirmed for Majorca. This was repeated in 1250, including the condition that in any Christian complaint against a Jew there must be both a Jewish and a Christian witness, and as usual the Jews were granted complete autonomy to judge all of their own cases except homicides. In 1383, in negotiating special taxes, the Jews of Majorca demanded from Pedro IV several new privileges concerning their rights to judge cases and impose penalties, including exile or death penalties for informers and a prohibition on seizing property of a deceased Jew accused of a crime. The king granted all the demands. In spite of early attempts (the “Cid” conquered the city of Valencia in 1094), the Muslim kingdom of Valencia was not conquered until relatively late, in 1238 by Jaime I. The law in effect for the Christian population was then a complex combination of Aragonese fueros, Catalan customary law (costums), feudal laws and privileges, and judicial decisions and royal decrees. It was not until 1240 that some order

was created out of this chaos, resulting in the pro­ mulgation of a unified code, the Furs of Valencia (it was not until 1261, apparently, that it actually was ordered to be used for the entire kingdom and trans­ lated from Latin into Catalan). Additions were made over the years, in the confirmation of it in 1283 by Pedro III, and in the fourteenth century when even the Catalan maritime laws, the Costums de mar, were added. The Furs contain various laws regarding Jews, including the form of oaths (see O a t h ), distinguish­ ing dress, the prohibition on slaughtering animals in a Christian slaughterhouse, and so on. Nevertheless, Jaime I, whose relationship with the Jews was gener­ ally very favorable throughout his long reign, granted important privileges to the Jews also of Valencia: 1237, to Jews of the capital city the same rights as those of Zaragoza; 1247; exemption from personal imposts and tolls on Jews and their animals through­ out the kingdom; and a general safe-conduct to all Jews who would settle in Majorca, Barcelona, or Va­ lencia. Pedro III was somewhat less favorable in his dealings with Jews. When delegations from the Jew­ ish communities of Barcelona and Valencia peti­ tioned him not to enforce the law of the Furs that Christian testimony alone (without Jewish witnesses) should be accepted in cases against Jews, he replied that he had already issued an ordinance on this at the request of the nobles of Valencia and that he did not intend to change the law; although, in fact, the Furs did require both a Christian and Jewish witness in cases between Christians and Jews (IV, 77, 78), and it is supposedly not until 1301 that Jaime II changed that law to permit two Christian witnesses. In CASTILE, Alfonso X (1252-82), the son-in-law of Jaime I, also desired to establish a centralized judi­ cial system and code of laws for his kingdoms, in­ cluding Leon and Murcia. Surrounded by highly trained secular lawyers from schools such as that of Bologna in Italy, as well as ecclesiastical canon lawyers including the aforementioned Ramon de Penafort, extremely anti-Jewish in his views, due pri­ marily to his education in Italy. Alfonso himself showed a keen interest in legal theory which in some respects was ahead of his time. The chief legal works composed not by but for him (if he deserved the title el Sabio, “the Wise,” it was because of the numerous and diverse works written during his reign, not that he was the author of any of them) were the Fuero 615

Spanish Law, Jews in

Real, intended apparently as a model code for the cities of Castile (as he had done for the cities of Leon with a revision of the Visigothic codes; which he also extended to the cities of Murcia in 1252). Contrary to the oft-expressed idea that the cities of Castile re­ jected this code, many of the important cities ac­ cepted it and it remained in force until 1272, when it was replaced at the Cortes of Burgos by the Fuero ViejOy allegedly promulgated by Alfonso VI in 1212 and also based on Visigothic laws. The second major code of Alfonsine law, the Espeeulo, is a work also of questionable authenticity. It is even doubtful that it was completed during the reign of Alfonso X at all, though it was probably begun prior to 1282. The Flores de Derecho, composed by Jacobo de las leyes (Giacomo Giunti), Italian in origin and training, is a mere manual of civil complaint procedure and a summary of Roman legal codes. Jews are mentioned in it only once, when they are specifically excluded from eligibility to give testimony in court (so also in the Espeeulo). It is astonishing that early Spanish scholars, such as Rodriguez de Castro, thought that the work was written by Moses §arfati, a converso (converted Jew). Actually, Moses appears only to have made a copy of this work at a much later date (the latter part of the fourteenth century or even later). Nor was Jacobo himself Jewish, of course, con­ trary to some writers’ claims, which may have re­ sulted from confusion about the reference to Moses Sarfati. The Siete Partidas is the most important and best known of the Alfonsine legal works, having also been translated into English (it was a major source of the laws of Louisiana). Written between 1256 and 1265, it went through numerous revisions and additions. The Fuero Realy finally, is of great importance for un­ derstanding the position of Jews in Alfonsine legisla­ tion. In the fuero of Sahagun (1255), the king stated that in all other things not written in that law “all shall be judged—Christians, Jews and Muslims— forever by that other Fuero which we give them writ­ ten in a book and sealed by our hand.” The question, of course, is to which “book” does he refer? It has been suggested that it was the Fuero del Libro, which came to be known as the Espeeulo, but this is obvi­ ously wrong. In the first place, the Espeeulo was writ­ ten long after the Fuero real; second, it has nothing to

616

do with the Fuero del Libroy which in fact is the Fuero Real (F.R.). It is of interest to consider the laws dealing with Jews in the F.R. In theory, a Jew is like a heretic (in­ deed, in CANON LAW, the Decretals of Gregory IX, written also by the same Ramon de Penafort who wrote the Partidas, most of the laws dealing with Jews are in the title on heretics). A Jew is not a legal person, and so is not allowed to bring charges in court against a Christian (F.R. IV. xx. 2). Yet, in fact, no such law was operative in Castile, nor could it have been. In Alfonsos practical legal work, Leyes Nuevasy promulgated shortly after the F.R. as a sup­ plement to it, it is stated that just as a Jew can appeal judgment against him, so may a Christian (the law deals essentially with debts). There is no source in Spanish law for the notion that a Jew was not a legal person. Also according to the F.R., no Christian is al­ lowed to convert to Judaism or Islam, on pain of death. Similarly, the Partidas condemn to death any Christian “so unfortunate as to become a Jew” or so “insane” as to become a Muslim. Additional laws of the F.R. which have no precedent in earlier Spanish law are that no Jew may aid a Christian to convert or preach to a Christian to persuade him to convert, on pain of death. In the laws given by Alfonso to Burgos in 1252, there is a provision that Muslims may not convert to Judaism, nor Jews to Islam, on pain of a fine and “captivity” to the king. Christians are not mentioned. Both the F.R. and the Partidas contain numerous other negative references to Jews. One writer (Car­ penter, see Bibliography) has done a study of only one titulo of the Partidas dealing with Jews, apparently unaware that Jews are mentioned throughout the work; nor are the texts of the codes as “unreliable” as he thought. Thus, there is no complete study of the treatment of Jews in Alfonsine legislation—for that matter, there is no acceptable history of the reign of that king—yet Baer did not hesitate to label the king an “anti-Semite,” no less. Not only is this an anachro­ nistic term, it ignores the fact that, as mentioned, Al­ fonso did not personally write any of these laws (nor the miracle stories of the Cantigas, which Baer had in mind since he did not study the legal codes). The theological nature of the F.R. and the Par­ tidas, particularly dealing with Jews, needs to be kept

Spanish Law, Jews in

in mind. From the other writings of Ramon de Penafort we know of his extreme hostility toward Jews. We see this reflected not only in the prologue to Titulo VII. xxiv, but also in law 2 there: that no Jew should hold public office over Christians, or serve as tax collectors. The entirely “theoretical” na­ ture of this law is obvious, for in no other medieval country did Jews hold high government positions and serve as tax farmers and administrators as in Spain, before, during, and after the reign of Alfonso. This is also true of numerous other laws: Jews may not be invited to eat or drink with Christians, nor Christians with Jews; no Christian may take medi­ cine given by a Jew (he may take it “by the advice of some learned Jew”—not “intelligent person,” as in the English mistranslation) if it is actually made by the hand of a Christian. None of these restrictions was ever enforced in Spain. Others, however, were enforced as actual law, such as the provision (I. xx. 6) that Jews and Muslims must pay tithes from immov­ able property, and also on rent of houses they own, where former Christian owners paid such tithes to the Church. The issue of tithes was always a contro­ versial one. The Decretals include the ruling of Pope Alexander III that Jews must pay such tithes on their property (which surely means on property formerly owned by Christians). Honorius III complained to the bishop of Plasencia and the dean of Toledo in 1217 that Jews were not obeying this law. When in 1219 he again complained about this to the arch­ bishop of Toledo, Rodrigo Jimenez de Rada, the archbishop included in his famous agreement with the Jews an exemption from any such payment of tithes on any property which they had purchased be­ fore the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). The arch­ bishop, as noted elsewhere (B a d g e ), also protected the Jews against any obligation to wear a distinguish­ ing badge. Bishops and archbishops often were friendly to Jews, as opposed to the hostile (local) church councils. Fourteenth-Century Changes

The fourteenth century saw some adverse changes in the status of Jews, particularly in Castile. The troubled early years of the reign of Alfonso XI (1312-1350), still a minor, encouraged certain ene­ mies of the Jews, representatives in the Cortes, to

push for discriminatory measures (Baer again ac­ cused this king of being an “anti-Semite”). One of these was that the testimony of a Christian “of good reputation” be accepted against Jews without the usual requirement of a Jewish witness in all cases, but that the testimony of a Jew not be accepted against Christians in any case; to which the king agreed. This set aside centuries of a very workable equity in civil and criminal law. Worse was yet to come, for at the Cortes of Alcala (1348) the king enacted a law which was to have disastrous consequences for the eco­ nomic situation of Jews (it was confirmed by later rulers through the fifteenth century). Noting that in­ terest is a great “sin” and causes damage throughout the land, he ordered that henceforth no Jew or Mus­ lim be allowed to charge any interest at all. In fact, this law was never enforced, but it was an unprece­ dented attempt to interfere with and control Jewish lending. It is also correct, as Baer noted, that in Spain most Jews did not depend on moneylending for their livelihood. The Ordenamiento of Alcala in the same year was an independent enactment by the king, in which nevertheless it is clear that his tutor Juan Manuel had a hand, along with others. At the conclusion of these laws is a pious expression of the desire that Jews con­ vert, and in order to encourage this they are allowed to “live well in Our domain” and hold or sell prop­ erty in all places. However, certain geographic limits were imposed, or rather limits on the amount of property they could sell within those areas. This also was to serve as a dangerous precedent which ulti­ mately led in the fifteenth century to the imposition of special Jewish quarters. The next ruler, Pedro I, in 1351 confirmed certain of the laws of his predecessor regarding Jewish debts, but as to the law that they could no longer have their own judges and must de­ cide all cases in Christian courts the king noted that this could cause harm to the Jews by Christian deceit and false charges. He did not set aside that law, but modified it that a judge would come to the town where the alleged offense was committed and there swear that he had received no payment or bribe and then judge the case. Thus, an important right of the Jews was curtailed. In the following reign of Enrique II (1369-79), after the civil war which cost Pedro his life, there were efforts to curtail the power of Jewish

617

Spanish Law, Jews in

officials and, indeed, demands that no such officials be appointed. As usual, once agreed to, these de­ mands were simply ignored. Juan I (1379-90) en­ acted various measures in 1387, mostly by ecclesiasti­ cal demand, but important was that which deprived Jewish judges of the right to judge criminal cases, and against Jews converting Muslims or those of “other sects” (Tatars, the Mongols) to their religion. As we have seen, temporary laws were enacted in the fourteenth century to deny Jews the right of hav­ ing both Jewish and Christian witnesses in cases be­ tween them and Christians. It is obvious that these laws had little force, since at the Cortes of Burgos in 1379 Juan I was presented with a demand that the privilege of the Jews according to which “no Christian can testify against a Jew” be revoked, to which he agreed. Of course, there never was any such privilege, only that Christian testimony be corroborated by Jewish witnesses. Enrique III (1390-1406) issued an ordinance in 1405 that the ancient privileges of Jews according to which no Christian could bring charges against Jews without one Jewish witness were “against the Catholic faith” and that henceforth the testimony of Christian witnesses alone would be accepted. Un­ questionably, the influence of clergy and of local ec­ clesiastical councils can be seen behind most of the hostile enactments of the fourteenth century. Fifteenth Century: Castile a n d United Spain

The death of Enrique III in 1406, leaving an infant son as heir, brought to power as regent the notorious Fernando de Antequera, who was encouraged in his anti-Jewish feelings by Vicente Ferrer, a zealous FRANCISCAN preacher. Already in 1408 Fernando is­ sued a decree in the name of the child king (Juan II) noting that the Siete Partidas had proclaimed it a “sacrilege” for Jews to have power over Christians and that “great harm” had supposedly resulted from ignoring this law; therefore, no Jew was henceforth to serve as tax official, nor could a Jew act as fie l or f i ador (guarantor of the trustworthiness and financial condition) of a Christian appointed to such posts. Nevertheless, it is clear that this decree was com­ pletely disregarded, for we find Jewish tax collectors and officials continuing to serve. However, the most discriminatory legislation was to come: the Ordinances of Valladolid of 1412, the

618

direct result of the preaching of Vicente Ferrer who implored the queen mother (now regent, since Fer­ nando had meanwhile been chosen as king of Aragon) to act against the Jews and Muslims. Some of the enactments applied only to the city of Val­ ladolid, while others apparently were for the whole kingdom. These included that they live apart from Christians in every town and city; that they not be al­ lowed to serve as grocers (vegetable), druggists, sur­ geons, or physicians, nor be allowed to sell any food whatever to Christians; that they not be allowed to eat or drink with Christians, nor maintain servants in their houses. Jews were not to serve as officials of any kind, and were not to be allowed to have their own judges even for internal affairs. Jews and Muslims could not use public baths at the same time as Chris­ tians, and Jews could no longer be called by the hon­ orary title don (the penalty was a hundred blows). Jews, only, were forbidden to leave Valladolid, but Jews and Muslims generally were forbidden to leave the kingdom (the Ordenamientos have been fre­ quently published; see, e.g., Leon Tello I, 446-49; see Bibliography; Baer’s interpretation of these ordi­ nances is totally incorrect). The queen died in 1418, and Juan attained his majority the following year. In fact, very few, if any, of the oppressive decrees were actually enforced; for example, in 1420 the young king sent a copy of a letter of certain privileges to his (Jewish) physician and to two important Jewish tax officials, the very existence of whom violated the de­ crees (Leon Tello II, 222, No. 747). In the 1450s there appear some enactments by local town councils, several of which concerned Jews (Toledo, Talavera, etc.); not all were negative, by any means, as those of Talavera which granted certain privileges and a new synagogue and ordered payment to several Jewish doctors on the city payroll. There were some royal enactments touching on Jews by Juan II and Enrique IV (1454-74) contained in the Ordenanzas reales. Enrique, however, ran into diffi­ culty with church officials, clergy, and nobles almost at once, and in 1465 this council, led by the fiercely anti-Jewish Alonso de Oropesa, General of the Order of San Jeronimo, made several demands. These in­ cluded the charge that Jews were not wearing the badge, that they “insult” the images of Christ and Mary in churches, that they mingle with Christian

Spanish Law, Jews in

women, use public offices against Christians over whom they have power, and “collect much usury.” Every other conceivable charge was raised, and old laws concerning separation at public baths, the socalled Hehlerrecht law (see above), demands were made that no new synagogues be built, and finally that Jews in every town be required to live in separate quarters (the juderia). One of the demands revealed the reality of Jewish relations with the aristocracy, complaining that there were many nobles, ladies, and high-ranking clergy who were maintaining “compan­ ionship” with Jews and even Muslims. In fact, the king did not enact any of these outrageous demands, the harshest anti-Jewish laws ever suggested in Spain. The council had demanded that no Jewish physicians attend Christians, yet not only did they continue to do so, often on city payrolls, but the king himself had a Jewish doctor. Jews very much continued to serve in government offices and as tax collectors. The no­ bility continued harmonious relations with Jews, as did many important clergy. Isabel, Enrique’s younger sister, came to the throne upon the death of her brother, and her secret marriage with Fernando II of Aragon united the two kingdoms (actually in 1479 when Fernando’s father, Juan II of Aragon died), but not after many years of civil wars and uprisings. The first important parlia­ ment, the Cortes of Madrigal in 1476, renewed some old anti-Jewish laws. The parliaments, as mentioned, were democratic and they proposed legislation which the monarch either approved (usually) or disap­ proved. Some of these laws were dragged out of al­ leged legislation of Alfonso XI, concerning debts to Jews and that no Jew should permit a “Tartar” (Tatar) or Muslim or “any other person” to convert to Judaism. More than any of the other fifteenthcentury rulers, at least, FERNANDO AND ISABEL issued constant protective measures to Jews and Jewish communities. However, the very fact that the Jews needed such protection was unusual in Spain and shows their rapidly deteriorating position. Perhaps as much because of this as any desire to discriminate, at the Cortes of Toledo in 1480 the king and queen pro­ claimed that henceforth all Jews must live in separate quarters. Once again, it appears that this order was not complied with in many important communities, such as Toledo, Avila, and other cities, although it

was in Leon and in some cities and towns in Castile. Apparently the rulers also rescinded the long-stand­ ing permission o f Jews to serve as lawyers for Chris­ tians. A t least there was a complaint to the city o f Trujillo about a Jewish lawyer on the city payroll in spite o f the prohibition. As late as 1490, however, the king and queen wrote that the Jews are allowed freely to move throughout the kingdom and buy and sell peacefully, as they are “our national subjects” and under royal protection. Nevertheless, this “royal pro­ tection” was not to last long, and with the conquest o f the Muslim kingdom o f Granada (which also greatly impoverished the Christian population o f Spain because o f the high taxes for the war) and the growing problem o f JEWISH CONVERSION TO CHRIS­ TIANITY which led to the establishment o f the INQUI­ SITION, powerful elements hostile to the Jews suc­ ceeded in convincing the monarchs to expel the Jews in 1492. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baer, Yitzhak. A History o f the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1966), 2 vols. Carpenter, Dwayne E. Alfonso X and the Jews: an Edi­ tion o f and Commentary on Siete Partidas 7.24 “De los judios ” (Berkeley, 1986). Garcia de Valdeavellano, Luis. “El desarrollo del derecho en la peninsula iberica,” Cahiers d ’h istoire m ondiale3 (1957): 833-53. Leon Tello, Pilar. Los judios de Toledo (Madrid, 1979), 2 vols. Perez-Prendes y Munoz y Arraco, Jose M. Curso de historia del derecho espanol (Madrid, 1973); see chapters on medieval Spain). ---------. “Apuntes para la bibliografia historica del derecho hebreo” and “Sobre la pervivencia del derecho privado de las comunidades Sefardies,” in Adas del prim er simposio de estudios sefardies. (Madrid, 1970); both articles deal with Jewish law. Powers, James. “Frontier Municipal Baths and Social Interaction in Thirteenth-Century Spain,” The American Historical Review 84 (1979): 649—67. Roth, Norman. “Dar una voz’ a los judfos: representacion en la Espana medieval,” Anuario de his­ toria del derecho espanol (1986): 943-52.

619

Synagogues

Synagogues (see also Music, for music in the synagogue) The synagogue (Heb. beit ha-kenesei), while impor­ tant in the community, was never the center of Jew­ ish life as often claimed; on a personal level that would be the family, certainly, and on a communal level, the house of study. If literally dedicated to prayer, such a building could be used for no other purposes, and thus was in fact far down the list of im­ portant obligations for a Jewish community, less im­ portant than a miqveh (ritual bath for immersion of women), a school for children (beit ha-sefer or Tal­ mud Torah), or a house of study (beit ha-midrash) for older students and men of the community. These things every community was required to provide, and only then, perhaps, a synagogue. In reality, since few communities could afford so many buildings, often one would suffice for all these purposes, in which case it was not legally a “house of prayer” (beit hatefiyllah) but an assembly place or house of study, where these other activities were also included. A Jew may pray anywhere that is relatively clean, even out­ doors or while traveling. There is no obligation to at­ tend services in a synagogue, although rabbinical law did dictate that when possible one should pray with a “quorum” (minyari) of ten or more adult (thirteen or older) males. Certain prayers can be recited only with such a quorum, and the Torah, read twice during the week as well as on the Sabbath or holidays, can be read only with a quorum. In many medieval commu­ nities, and also in modern times, private homes were often used for public prayer services. This is an im­ portant fact to bear in mind, for because of this it is impossible to determine how many “synagogues” there were in any medieval community. There may, in fact, have been no buildings designated as such but could very well have been numerous homes where services were conducted and the Torah read. As usual, only for medieval Spain do we have ade­ quate documentation which enables us to know de­ tails about such things. Legends about Synagogues

Legends abound regarding early synagogues in the Diaspora. Sherira Gaon, or his son Hai Gaony re­ peated a tradition that at the time of the First Exile the Jews brought with them to Nehardea in Babylon 620

stones and dirt from the Temple which they used as the foundation for a synagogue called S haf ve-yatiyv (“He [God] slipped away [from the Temple] and set­ tled [in Babylon]”), a story already related in the Tal­ mud (Iggeret of Sherira, ed. Levin, p. 72; cf. [responsa of the geonim\ Sha'arey teshuvah, Livorno, 1869, No. 71, attributed to Hai; Talmud Megillah 29a, Rosh haShanah 24b, etc.). The apocryphal nature of the story is obvious. Nehardea nevertheless remained the site of the yeshivah in talmudic times and it is possible that a synagogue by that name was built there at some time, but whether it survived in the medieval period is doubtful. In Dammuh in EGYPT, a small village some miles south of FUSTAT, Cairo, was a synagogue which the Jews believed to have been the place where Moses prayed and slept after he went to speak to Pharaoh. According to al-MaqrizI, a fifteenth-century Muslim historian of usually reliable authority, this was con­ sidered the most important (not the “largest”) syna­ gogue in Egypt, and the Jews believed that it had been built some forty years after the destruction of the second Temple (i.e., ca. 110). In the courtyard of the synagogue was a tree which they thought was from the time of Moses; indeed, that he planted it (various other legends associated with the tree are also related by this historian). The seventeenthcentury Jewish chronicler Joseph Sambariy reported that the synagogue was called “the synagogue of our teacher Moses” and that the Muslims also called it kanisat Musa (“synagogue of Moses”). The twelfthcentury Jewish traveler BENJAMIN OF TUDELA, who actually was in Egypt, merely reported that there was a very ancient synagogue “of our master Moses” on the outskirts of Fustat. Dammuh is apparently the site of ancient Tammuh in Memphis, considered to have been the area of the birth of Moses (Golb, p. 5). Golb apparently believed in the antiquity of the syn­ agogue, and stated that it was “undoubtedly” used as a regular synagogue in Roman and Byzantine times. While not impossible, it is highly unlikely that a syn­ agogue from Roman times would have survived to the late Middle Ages; were that true, it would be the only such synagogue to have done so. The entire story of the “antiquity” of this synagogue, and cer­ tainly of its association with Moses, is, of course, a legend. (We shall discuss the rituals associated with this synagogue below.)

Synagogues

Benjamin of Tudela, as well as later medieval Jew­ ish travelers, reported matter-of-factly on the exis­ tence of synagogues even from biblical times (when, of course, there were no synagogues), such as the syn­ agogue built by the biblical £Ezra in Rakka (east of Aleppo, on the Euphrates); nevertheless, his report that there were about seven hundred Jews there and that there was more than one synagogue is of interest. Another synagogue of ‘Ezra is reported on Mount Ararat, near the alleged ark of Noah. The island of Jerba (Djerba) off the coast of Tunisia still has a small Jewish community. It is also the site of a medieval synagogue surrounded by leg­ end. The claim was that kohaniym (priests) settled the island after the destruction of the First Temple and that they brought with them one of the doors of the Temple and used it in their synagogue. Allegedly, the community was “cursed” because it refused to send Levites to the Second Temple, and therefore no Levites survived among them. The synagogue was (and is) known as el-Ghriba, either because of the “strange” appearance of the island to the Jewish set­ tlers or because of another fantastic legend. In later centuries the Muslims venerated the synagogue and brought gifts there, and also brought their sick there to be “cured.” Rabbi Israel Moses Flazzan, editor of the collection of geonic responsa Shaarey teshuvah (Livorno, 1869), wrote (f. 30b) that he had visited the cemetery there and saw a grave dating back to ap­ proximately the period of the saborayim (after the close of the talmudic era). The synagogue had later additions to it and has apparently undergone “resto­ ration,” which makes it difficult to determine the ac­ tual date of its construction. Babylon (Iraq)

The famous Dura-Europas synagogue, although not far from the centers of learning in the talmudic and geonic periods, is both too early and unique to draw any possible conclusions about what synagogues may have looked like in medieval “Babylon” (Iraq). Nev­ ertheless, it is undeniable that certain distinctive ar­ chitectural features and ornamentation from this and ancient (from third century on) synagogues in the Land of Israel were copied in later medieval syna­ gogues. How and why these elements should have survived is a mystery.

If we know nothing of what synagogues in Baby­ lon or elsewhere were like in the era of the GEONIM, at least we have some interesting information about customs in the synagogue. Thus, Napronai Gaon (843—71) replied to a question concerning the cus­ tom in some synagogues to recite psalms before the morning service on Sabbaths and holidays. On Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur they also recite biblical passages, “and before the congregation begins to sing” (the service?), students study and discuss Torah for some two hours before the prayers actually begin. The question was whether this is allowed, since the time prescribed for recitation of the “creed” (Shema ) had arrived. He replied that it is a good custom for people to gather and learn before prayers, and this is the custom in Babylon from the time of the First Exile; since learning had diminished due to the sor­ row of the exile, people said to the prophets and sages that they knew very little and had no time for learn­ ing because of work, so the sages decreed that they should learn in the synagogue before prayers ( Teshuvot ha-geoniym [Lyck, 1864], No. 87). The author of this article recalls in his youth the custom of the Yemenite synagogue in Jerusalem of reciting psalms, seated on cushions on the floor and drinking glasses of tea, before the Sabbath services began. From a later period, the twelfth century, the trav­ eler Benjamin of Tudela briefly described the chief synagogue of Baghdad, that of the exilarch, as having pillars of colored marble with gold and silver orna­ mentation and verses of Psalms inscribed in gold on the pillars, and ten marble steps leading up to the ark where Torah scrolls were kept and where also sat the exilarch and other “princes” of the House of David. There were, according to his report, twenty-eight synagogues in the city (not an improbable number, if we consider that he probably included those of the academies and perhaps also in private houses). Palestine an d Egypt

In Muslim lands, including Palestine, there were two different communities of Jews, the “orthodox” or tra­ ditional, known as “Rabbanite” Jews (a somewhat barbaric term, derived from the Arabic; proper En­ glish would suggest Rabbinite), and a heretical sect known as QARAITES. The latter, nevertheless, had vir­ tually total control over PALESTINE, and the gaon, or head of the academy, of Jerusalem, who was a 621

Synagogues

Qaraite, was recognized by the Muslim government as administrative head of the Jews in Palestine and Syria (Sham in Arabic means either or both lands), and to a large extent also in Egypt. Thus, there were at least two synagogues in the major cities of each of these countries, one a Rabbanite and the other a Qaraite one. In Jerusalem, we know of at least one Rabbanite synagogue in the eleventh century, in spite of the Qaraite domination. Contrary to what some writers have opined, the two communities not only did not get along, they actually (literally) fought each other. The Muslims had reinforced the Byzantine prohibition against new synagogues in Palestine after their conquest of the land, yet they permitted the building of a small synagogue (eleventh century?) at the Cave of the Machpelah, alleged burial site of the patriarchs and matriarchs, and not long afterward another was built there. The petition to the Cairo government to sustain such permission is described as customary in a letter edited by Assaf (Sefer zikharon [Memorial volume] for Professors Gulak and Klein, pp. 15-18). When the crusaders took control, they banned Jews from using those syna­ gogues. In addition, from at least the early eleventh century, there were also “Babylonian” synagogues in some communities, where immigrants from Iraq were permitted by the authorities in Jerusalem to maintain their own liturgical traditions (such as the observance of the second day of holidays which was required in the Diaspora), but they were not allowed to have their own judges (see the document pub­ lished and discussed by Goitein in Sefer Hayyiym Schirmann., pp. 76—77). The so-called Ramban synagogue is problematic. Tradition has it that NAHMANIDES (“Ramban) went to Jerusalem in 1267 and established a synagogue there. The source of this is the alleged letter he wrote to his son Nahman (Moses b. Nahman, Kitvey; ed. Charles Chavel [Jerusalem, 1963] I, 367-68), in which it is stated that there were only two Jews living in Jerusalem, but that he found a ruined marble building with a dome which he claimed and made into a synagogue, bringing Torah scrolls for it from Samaria (Shechem [Nablus]). The letter, however, is of dubious authenticity (as is true of other letters at­ tributed to Nahmanides), and there are many prob­ lems. In 1188 $alah al-Dln (“Saladin”) issued a call 622

to Jews to resettle Palestine, and Jerusalem in particu­ lar. Many came from various lands. Yet we are to be­ lieve that by 1267 there were only two Jews living there. Second, even if the synagogue story were true, why would so great a scholar as Nahmanides have brought Torah scrolls from the Samaritan capital, from people considered heretics, when there were carefully corrected and accurate scrolls available from Egypt and other locales? It is, finally, doubtful that Nahmanides ever was in Jerusalem at all. The next mention of the synagogue is from the Italian rabbi and traveler Obadiah Bertinoro in 1488, who made no reference to Nahmanides in his description of the synagogue, nor did he say that it was called the “Ramban synagogue.” The synagogue perhaps dates from the thirteenth century or somewhat later, and was in the hands of the Jews until 1586, when it was seized by the then Ottoman governor. The building was destroyed by the Jordanians in 1948, and noth­ ing remains of it (plans and details in Jacob Pinkerfeld, Batey ha-kenesiyot be-Ere$ Yisrael [Jerusalem, 1946; rpt. 1971], pp. 10-15 and photographs facing p. 16). The Qaraite synagogue also survived, al­ though greatly reduced in size and with additions made to the outer area, until it was also destroyed (see ibid., pp. 15-21, with photographs and plans). In Egypt, in addition to the well-known centers of Alexandria and Fustat (the suburb of Cairo where Jews lived) there were many small Jewish communi­ ties (more than one hundred, according to Golb). Unfortunately, there is no information about syna­ gogues in those communities, and little enough is known about Jews there. However, for Fustat there is more information. In 1012, the fanatical and halfmad caliph al-Hakim ordered the destruction of churches and synagogues in Egypt and Palestine, among them the synagogue at Fustat- In the genizah records are references from at least the eleventh cen­ tury to the “synagogue of the Palestinians,” some­ times qualified as kariisa al-yahud (“Jewish”) because the word kariisa may mean a church or a synagogue. That synagogue was rebuilt in 1025, and is the syna­ gogue which owned the famous genizah (not the al­ leged synagogue converted from a Coptic church; see below). In 1040, extensive repairs or additions were made to the synagogue, the work lasting nearly a month (Goitein, Mediterranean Society\ pp. 18, 95). The synagogue had an orchard, from which fruit was

Synagogues

sold for income (rents on properties were also col­ lected). The destruction of churches and synagogues throughout the Fatimid kingdom included, of course, Palestine (see that article for information), where the synagogues were rebuilt in 1020. The second synagogue mentioned in these early documents was that of the “Babylonians” (Iraqis). Supposedly, in 882 the Coptic (Christian) patriarch, in need of funds for taxes, had sold a church to Jews from Iraq, who converted it into a synagogue (this seems early for the presence of “Babylonia” Jews, but not impossible). That there was also a Qaraite syna­ gogue is known, although not frequently mentioned in the Rabbanite documents. However, from a four­ teenth-century Muslim author there is a report (not “we have three synagogues,” as Gottheil translated, but “the synagogues of the Jews in Cairo [Fustat] are . . .”) mentioning the synagogue of the ‘Iraqi, of the Palestinians, and of the Qaraites (Gottheil in J.Q.R. 18 [1906]: 11). The “Babylonian” synagogue was so called not necessarily because it was inhabited by Jews from Iraq, contrary to the aforementioned legend of the sale of a Coptic church, but rather be­ cause it was in honor of the yeshivah of Hai Gaon in Baghdad, according to a letter to him in the Genizah (Gottheil, ibid., p. 12; all of these sources were over­ looked by Goitein; in the aforementioned article in Sefer Hayyim Schirmann, while also overlooking these sources, Goitein published—pp. 71-74—an inter­ esting document relating to the two synagogues, that of the Palestinians and that of the “Babylonians,” each of which had its own judge). The two Rabbanite synagogues followed slight differences in rites, particularly the order of the read­ ing of the Torah, with the Palestinians following the triennial cycle (completing the reading of the Torah once every three years) and the Babylonian the an­ nual cycle (completing the reading every year). There were no doubt other distinctions as well, about which we have little or no information. The synagogue of Dammuh has been mentioned above. Apparently the Jewish community, small as it probably was, ceased to exist when Fustat was built. Nevertheless, the synagogue was preserved as a sacred “shrine” because of its alleged association with Moses (probably because the Jewish community was no longer in the village, or because of its “sacred” associ­ ation with Moses, it was not destroyed in 1012 along

with other synagogues). According to the later He­ brew accounts, a pilgrimage festival was held there on the seventh of Adar (the traditional date of the death of Moses), on which they fasted, and the next day they celebrated as a holiday. The other pilgrimage was on the holiday of Shavuot (celebrating the re­ ceiving of the Torah by Moses). This is confirmed in part by the Muslim historian (al-Maqrlzl), who wrote that Jews from all over Egypt made a pilgrimage to the synagogue on Shavuot, as a substitute for the pil­ grimage to the Temple (Jews went on such a pilgrim­ age when they were allowed to, but there were peri­ ods when they were forbidden to go near the site of the ruined Temple). Sambariy further gave the inter­ esting information that ‘Ovadyah b. Abraham, the grandson of MAIMONIDES, died in the synagogue in 1275. During the persecution of Jews and Christians in 1301, the synagogue was closed, along with five synagogues in Fustat and Cairo, and they were not reopened until nine years later. Very important is the detailed Arabic report (fif­ teenth century), ordered by the Muslim judge (qadt) when a fire accidentally damaged the synagogues of Fustat (see Gottheil). The commission sent to inves­ tigate and supervise the repairs necessary reported that there were two synagogues close together, that of the “Iraqis,” known as the synagogue of the “Rab­ banites,” and that of the Palestinians. The former synagogue of the Qaraites is not mentioned, since that community had long disappeared. The “Baby­ lonian” (or Iraqi) synagogue was apparently the more elaborate, since two marble pedestals and pillars are mentioned and also a tower. This synagogue (it should be noted that this is the synagogue that con­ tained the Genizah) was so severely damaged as to re­ quire almost complete restoration. The “Palestinian” synagogue, which was also called “of the Rabbanite Jews,” was apparently less severely damaged and was less elaborate, with one granite pillar. The intriguing statement is made that “it used to carry a tower” (whether this means it was destroyed in the fire or that there was a tower in the distant past is unclear). Both synagogues were restored to their previous con­ dition. There were, of course, synagogues in other Egypt­ ian communities, probably more than one in Alexan­ dria. Unfortunately, almost nothing is known about any of these. The same is true for synagogues in other 623

Synagogues

Muslim lands, for example Aleppo in Syria (where the famous “Codex Aleppo” was discovered; see Bi b l e , m a n u s c r i pt s , e d it io n s ), or Qayrawan. Yet apparently there were no synagogues as such (special buildings) in Morocco. In the fourteenth century, the indigenous Jews of Tenes gave their beit midrash to Sefardic immigrants to use as a synagogue, and when that community increased by further immigration it “repaid” the native Jews by forbidding them to wor­ ship in their own synagogue while the Sefardim were conducting their services (see NORTH A f ri c a ). Such conflicts were to multiply a hundredfold after the Ex pu l s i o n from Spain. Christian Europe

As has been repeatedly remarked in various articles and books, virtually no Jewish monuments (syna­ gogues, cemeteries, other buildings) prior to 1500 have survived in Europe (aside from Spain). As Kober (p. 163) noted, “nothing has remained of the twelve or thirteen synagogues known to have existed in ancient Rome” (on medieval ROME, see that arti­ cle). Unfortunately, no medieval synagogues from elsewhere in Italy remain. For ENGLAND, only a house in Bury St. Edmund and a building in Norwich, supposed to have been synagogues, were known. Recently, a discovery in Guildford of a building that may be a synagogue was announced. It is a small building, with evidences of a stone bench that ran around the walls of the room. The building dates to ca. 1180. The upper part of the building was destroyed, down to about four feet from the bottom, and filled in with rubble. This destruc­ tion dates to around 1270, or perhaps 1275 when Eleanor, wife of Henry III, entered a convent and ex­ pelled Jews from all of her towns. The attitude of the Church concerning the syna­ gogue was mixed (see CHURCH AND J e w s ). In spite of the polemics, CANON LAW permitted Jews to maintain their synagogues, but they could not build new ones or enlarge ones they already had. One local ecclesiastical council, that of Oxford in 1222, did decree that Jews should not be allowed to build syna­ gogues in the future (Solomon Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the X lllth Century [Philadelphia, 1933], pp. 314-315). 1

624

France

Jews settled in medieval France at an early period; discounting the legends, there is evidence of Jewish settlement from the fifth century on. However, sub­ stantial Jewish populations only appear in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. There were, of course, synagogues in all of the major French com­ munities, including TROYES, where “R a s h i ” was the rabbi. As much as is known about the great rabbi, nothing whatever is known about the synagogue. According to Blumenkranz (“Synagogues,” p. 37), there are “literary” (documentary) references to a synagogue in France from the end of the sixth cen­ tury. The synagogue at Orleans was destroyed by Christians prior to 585. In Paris there is a record of a synagogue in 582, which Blumenkranz conjectured remained until 1182, when, with the first expulsion of the Jews, it was confiscated (it seems unlikely that this was the same synagogue). The Paris synagogue was transformed into the church of the Madeleine. Aside from this, and some other generalities, Blu­ menkranz was unable to provide any further details about French synagogues. Philip Augustus in 1210 donated some land ad­ joining the synagogue in Melun to the Hospitalers (Knights of St. John), but he requested that no build­ ing be started. The reason for this is that he appar­ ently planned on yet another expulsion of the Jews, in which case that synagogue would also have been confiscated, but finally changed his mind (Jordan, p. 69). The synagogue of Melun is mentioned again in a document from 1311 (R.E.J. 8: 299). The synagogue at Paris was rebuilt (actually, in another location) after the Jews were recalled, outside the walls of the city proper, where remains of it were still found as late as 1909 (Jordan, p. 185, for references to a few other French synagogues transferred to Christians due to expulsions from Anjou and Maine in 1289, see there pp. 186-87). In 1288, the Jews of Paris were fined for loud singing or praying in their syna­ gogue. The tiny village of Peyrusse-le-Roc, not on maps and not even mentioned in Grosss comprehensive Gallia Judaicay nevertheless has the honor of having one of the only remaining medieval synagogues in France. It appears to have been built “not earlier” than the end of the twelfth century. What remains

Synagogue

are the ruined walls of a tower-like structure of rough hewn stone; the hypothesis that it was a synagogue rests mainly on later traditions (Nahon). The synagogue of Sens, a community in which important scholars lived, apparently remained until 1750, when it was destroyed because of the danger of it falling (Krauss, p. 127). Krauss was unable to pro­ vide any other details about medieval synagogues. Since that time, however, an important discovery was made in Rouen, where excavation near the Palace of Justice uncovered a cave, which when further exca­ vated revealed the remains of a building (the walls mostly intact), with three arched entrances in the northern wall, flanked by columns with geometric designs and the figure of a lion (Blumenkranz, “Syn­ agogue de Rouen”). The crude inscription of a He­ brew name, Yehoshua (Joshua), was also discovered. Aside from this, the fact that the building is oriented toward the east is the only argument for its having been a synagogue. However, scratched into the wall in crude Hebrew writing is the phrase ve-ha-bayit hazeh yiyeh *elyon (“this house which is high [ele­ vated]”), a quotation from 1 Kings 9.8. In the con­ text, that speaks about the destruction of the Temple. In fact, evidence of fire was found in the building at Rouen, indicating that it may have been burned. Experts assign the date of the building to the end of the eleventh century. It so happens that there was an attack on the Jews of Rouen during the First Crusade in 1096, with the loss of some lives (see Robert Chazan, European Jew ry and the First Crusade [Berke­ ley, 1987], pp. 54, 63). Neither Blumenkranz nor Chazan associated this destruction of the synagogue with that attack, which is obviously the case. The upper story of the synagogue was razed after the ex­ pulsion of 1306, and only the fact that the former synagogue was filled in and used as part of the foun­ dation of the Palace of Justice preserved it. Not all agree that this was a synagogue (which, in fact, according to old maps was located across the street from this site); Norman Golb has argued that it was instead a yeshivah, but most have continued to maintain the synagogue theory. The argument from the absence of a niche to contain the ark for Torah scrolls is by no means conclusive, since not all me­ dieval synagogues had such a niche. The decorations, on the other hand, and particularly the inscription

noted, more clearly point to a synagogue (see also the somewhat romantic, but generally informative, arti­ cle by Charles Fenyvesi, “A Passage to the Middle Ages,” The National Jewish Monthly [December, 1980], pp. 6-10, 12-13, with very clear photographs of the site but not of the interior). G erm any In GERMANY, the chief early synagogues were those of Speyer, WORMS, and Mainz. The Speyer synagogue was built in 1084. When mobs attacked the Jews there during the First Crusade, the synagogue was burned. In 1195 there was another attack; the rabbi and several Jews were killed, and the synagogue once again was burned. It was again rebuilt and remained in the hands of the Jewish community until the tragic events of 1349 when, as a result of the BLACK DEATH, Jews were massacred throughout Germany, and most of those who remained fled. All that re­ mained of the medieval synagogue was one wall, on the basis of which a conjectural reconstruction of the floor plan and of the attached miqveh (ritual bath) was made by Krautheimer (pp. 145, 147, 149). While that plan indicates a separate room as the “womens synagogue,” in fact there were no such sep­ arate rooms in medieval synagogues, and that must indicate an addition to the synagogue in later cen­ turies. The Worms synagogue is the most famous of all, and the only one that survived until modern times (it was destroyed by the Nazis but has since been recon­ structed on the basis of the extensive photographs and ground plans which existed). There was, of course, a synagogue in the eleventh century (tradi­ tion states that it was built in 1034), but the syna­ gogue that remained was built in the last part of the twelfth century, and the legendary association of it with “Rashi has, of course, no basis. Some parts of the original synagogue survived, such as the columns at the entrance to the “mens synagogue.” Many addi­ tions were made to the synagogue in later centuries, but the essential features of the medieval structure are still apparent in the photographs. The front facade had two exterior arched en­ trances, flanked by arched windows. The glass win­ dows on the second story are later additions (although the Cologne synagogue in the twelfth century had

625

Synagogues

glass windows). The vaulted interior ceiling, typical of German (and probably French) synagogues, was supported by columns with elaborately decorated (floral pattern) pillars with Hebrew inscriptions. The “womens synagogue” (a small added building) and the exterior entrance to the adjoining “men’s syna­ gogue” are, of course, much later additions. The socalled Rashi chapel appears to be older than the main part of the synagogue, and was perhaps from the orig­ inal synagogue, but “Rash? was never in Worms, as far as is known. It is a small chamber, with vaulted ceiling, and a stone seat apparently built into, or carved out of, the wall. The interior furnishings of the synagogue (pews, ark, biymahy or platform for reading the Torah, and the candelabra, etc.) were also from a much later pe­ riod. (See Krauss, pp. 151-76, and Die Synagoge in Worms; there are photographs in Krauss which are not in the latter, and vice versa. The photographs in the booklet are more professional and much sharper, but there is no floor plan provided in either book.) Remains of a double-nave synagogue in Regens­ burg (later Ratisbon) were excavated in 1996. The structure dates from around 1227, and was already known from engravings by Albrecht Altdorfer, a local artist, frequently published (best seen in Krautheimer, facing p. 108; see also Raphael Straus, Regensburg and Augsburg [Philadelphia, 1939], p. 98, sketch of the exterior of the synagogue). Altdorfer inscribed the date, 1519, when the synagogue was razed “by the righteous judgement of God.” In the sketch of the in­ terior may be seen the typical vaulted ceilings with small pointed windows in the upper wall and one longer one in the center of another wall, and a central row of supporting columns with carved capitals. The chapel that was assumed to have been built on the site of the synagogue (see Straus, p. 19) was in fact built on adjacent land. Numerous famous scholars lived in Regensburg from time to time (see details in Straus). Ironically, the excavations for the site of a Holo­ caust memorial in Vienna brought to light the re­ mains of a medieval synagogue. Built in the late thir­ teenth century, the synagogue was destroyed during an attack on the Jews in 1420. The Jews were killed, forcibly baptized, or expelled (two hundred were burned at the stake in 1421). It had apparently a double-nave structure similar to that of Regensburg, 626

with an hexagonal biymah in the center. Layers of ash indicate that the synagogue was burned. Stones from the building were used in the construction of the University of Vienna. The synagogue of Prague (then part of Germany, of course) is of interest. It existed already at the end of the eleventh century, and this was the synagogue known as the “Altschule” (Old Synagogue), because of another that burned in 1142. The famous “Altneuschule,” which the Nazis preserved in order to use as a museum to store objects looted from synagogues and Jewish communities throughout Europe, con­ tains walls (much of the exterior, all of the interior) that date to the end of the fourteenth century. The imposing upper structure is a later addition. Krautheimer provided some details and floor plans for other medieval synagogues; important are Miltenberg (p. 189 ff.), Erfurt (p. 196 ff., with a seven­ teenth-century sketch of the synagogue as it was sup­ posed to have been in the medieval period), Frankfurt (pp. 226-33), and Nuremberg (pp. 250-52). Hungary

There were, of course, synagogues in medieval Hun­ gary, about which little is known. However, the re­ mains of one was discovered in 1957 at Sopron. The Jewish community of Sopron (Odenburg in German, near the Austrian border) was founded at the end of the thirteenth century. It was a small community, ten houses in 1379 (according to Scheiber, “some one hundred people,” but that is larger than most demog­ raphers would accept; between fifty and seventy, per­ haps); in any case, it was very small to have an actual synagogue building, which probably did not exist that early. The first record of it is from 1440, and it seems to have survived through the sixteenth century. The interior of the synagogue as it was discovered remains intact, with high arched ceilings typical of the Ger­ man design, a small entrance door, and three windows in the upper part of the wall. The niche where the ark (for Torah scrolls) would have been was also preserved. Scheiber’s informative article contains photographs and detailed floor plans (reconstruction). Spain

Unfortunately, not one of the numerous synagogues in Muslim Spain has survived. Nor are there any illu­

Synagogues

minations from that period which could give us some idea of what a synagogue was like. However, from Christian Spain several synagogues have survived en­ tirely, as well as numerous remnants of others. The most famous are the two synagogues of Toledo, con­ verted into churches after the expulsion and thus known by the names of “El Transito” and “Santa Marfa la Blanca.” The former, the larger of the two, has been restored and is now the national “Sefardic” museum (an absurd misnomer, since the term Se­ fardim refers only to Jews who left Spain, and after the expulsion to descendants of Jews from Spain). The Santa Maria la Blanca edifice has fortunately not been “restored,” and thus remains approximately as it was in the medieval period. The consensus of schol­ ars has been that it is the “new synagogue” referred to in documentation, and was built or possibly remod­ eled in 1203. The exterior of the building has, in fact, been modified, and the wall around the en­ trance was apparently larger than what remains. It is the interior which is particularly impressive, how­ ever, with four rows of white octagonal columns sup­ porting typical Muslim horseshoe arches (in fact, the horseshoe arch was already used by the Romans) with decorated bases and elaborately carved capitals. The upper walls are decorated with carved interlacing geometric patterns, and the floor is covered with tiles also of geometric design. The influence of Muslim architecture is obvious, as is also the case with the El Transito synagogue, built at a much later date, prob­ ably in 1357 under the patronage of Samuel ha-Levy, the chief treasurer of Pedro I, whose own home (later the house of “El Greco” and now a museum) was just down the street. The exterior of this synagogue is far more imposing, a two-story structure with the main or central part rising to a third story. As with all houses and buildings in Toledo (and usually else­ where in Spain) the roofs of both synagogues are of red clay tiles. The interior of El Transito is truly magnificent, and no words or description can do it justice. The impressive height of the main synagogue hall adds to the grandeur, with light provided by twelve windows cut in the upper part of the walls, and covered with elaborately decorated (geometric pattern) grillwork. The walls are also elaborately carved in foliate and geometric designs, and with carved Hebrew inscrip­ tions. Notable also are the carved bas-relief seals of

the kingdom of Castile-Leon. With all traces of the church additions removed, including altars and crosses which destroyed much of the eastern wall, as well as tombs in the center of the floors, it is possible to imagine the synagogue as it was originally, although in some places heavy restoration has been done. The womens gallery around the upper part of the syna­ gogue, which also has Hebrew inscriptions, has been restored. (Detailed descriptions, photographs, draw­ ings, and discussion of the numerous inscriptions may be seen in Cantera Burgos; many have written about this synagogue). The thirteenth-century Hebrew poet and translator Judah al-Harizi, himself a resident of Toledo, praised the “many” synagogues there. There were at least eleven (one was destroyed in a fire in 1250), and of the other ten only two are known from the thirteenth cen­ tury (the “Santa Maria la Blanca” and the synagogue of the “Malagans” (Almalaqiyn [al-Malaqin, “from Malaga”]), indicating perhaps the origin of the early members of the synagogue. It was built by David b. Solomon Ibn Abu Durham, member of a famous family. Thus, there must have been several other syna­ gogues in the early thirteenth century which disap­ peared. The other ten synagogues for which we have documentation were all from the fourteenth and fif­ teenth centuries (Roth, “New Light,” pp. 194, 197). The next most famous synagogue which has survived completely is that of Cordoba. It is a dis­ appointingly small structure, unimposing on the exterior, but again strongly influenced by MuslimMozarabic detail on the interior. It was built, or more likely remodeled, in 1315 according to a Hebrew in­ scription. The location of the synagogue, very close to the birthplace and early home of MAIMONIDES, and the general aspect of the building suggest that an earlier synagogue was there and was remodeled. No­ table is the elaborate carved arch over the niche in the eastern wall, where the Torah scrolls were kept. Run­ ning around the walls of the synagogue are carved Hebrew inscriptions of biblical verses. Following the Christian reconquest of the city, Fernando III in 1241 granted a privilege to the in­ habitants in which the Jewish quarter is mentioned. It was much larger than what today is described as the barrio judio (no actual Jewish houses remain). In 1250 Innocent IV complained that the Jews there had dared to rebuild a synagogue and add to its orig­ 627

Synagogues

inal height (this letter was the subject of much debate among early scholars, some believing that the syna­ gogue was destroyed, but this is incorrect). It has been assumed that this was the same synagogue which exists today, but this assumption may not be correct. Even though the Jewish population under the Christians was much smaller than it had been in the Muslim period, there must have been more than one synagogue. After the mass conversions of 1391, the Jewish community virtually disappeared, but was renewed in the fifteenth century. Given the very large converso (converted Jews) population in the fifteenth century, there must have been several synagogues prior to the conversion of these Jews. In Segovia there were at least two synagogues in the city itself, and another (sinagoga del campo) out­ side the city in the fifteenth century. The largest of these, called sinagoga mayor; was probably built in the fourteenth century and was influenced by the Santa Maria la Blanca synagogue of Toledo, with the same octagonal pillars and horseshoe arches, although it was smaller. Due to the missionary preaching of the fanatical Vicente Ferrer (see DOMINICANS), most of the Jews of Segovia converted, and in 1410 the “great synagogue” was made into a church. It was almost to­ tally destroyed in a fire in 1899, but fortunately a photograph of the interior prior to the fire, as well as descriptions of the synagogue, enable us to know how it looked (see Cantera Burgos, pp. 141-49). The smaller synagogue remained in the hands of the much depleted Jewish community until the expul­ sion, when it was bought by a Christian and later was turned into a college. There were synagogues in numerous villages, towns, and cities throughout Spain, in almost every community where Jews lived. In Zaragoza, for exam­ ple, there were at least five in the early fifteenth cen­ tury, and recorded mention of synagogues going back to the thirteenth century. There were at least four in Barcelona, where remnants of one survives at the present (unknown to tour guides and even to many scholars). One of the unique characteristics of syna­ gogues in Spain is that several belonged to “brother­ hoods” or guilds of craftsmen, such as the synagogue of the weavers in Calatayud (which had at least six synagogues in the fourteenth century) or the Bicorollim (biqqur holiym, the brotherhood for visitation and care of the sick) in Zaragoza, and in other cities. 628

That synagogue in Zaragoza was also known as the synagogue of the leatherworkers, which perhaps was its former name. One of the synagogues of Carrion, home of two well-known Hebrew poets, was the syn­ agogue of the ironsmiths. There were also several pri­ vate homes that were used as synagogues, even where there were “official” synagogue buildings. The synagogue of Malta (which then belonged to Sicily, part of A r a g 6 n -C a talonia ) in the fifteenth century was referred to by the names “Meschita” (mosque) or “Chynisia” (synagogue, possibly under the influence of Arabic, kanisa\ see above, Palestine and Egypt) (C. Roth, “Jews of Malta,” Jewish Histor­ ical Society of England. Transactions 12 [1928-31]: 202). In Crete (part of the Venetian republic), there were “Romanian” Jews (not the modern country) who spoke Greek and also Spanish Jews. In 1369 there were two synagogues, “Kretiko” and “Soiletiko” (the -iko ending is the Spanish diminutive, although the names are Greek). In 1400, there was also an Ashkenazic synagogue, called “Alemaniko,” built by Abba ha-zaqqen (“the elder”) b. Josiah, founder of the famous Del Mediggo family (Shim’on Marcus in Sinai60 [1967]: 63-76). Much less is known about synagogues in PROVENCE, although of course there were synagogues in all the towns where Jews lived. The synagogue in Montpellier existed before 1270, in which year JAIME I prohibited the Jews there from singing their services on festivals (but not Sabbaths) without permission of the almoner of the city, at the same time prohibiting Christians from disturbing services in the synagogue. A document of 1277 concerns the sale by a Christian of a house ad­ joining the synagogue to several Jews, which indicates that there was a desire by the community to buy the house, either to expand the synagogue or possibly to use as a school. As with most synagogues, there was a miqveh also adjoining it. In Marseille in 1341 there was a population of 1,205 Jews, which according to Blu­ menkranz (“Synagogues en France,” p. 38) would have required at least two synagogues; he also notes that at the end of the eleventh century there was a sufficiently large Jewish population in the city that they occupied two separate quarters of the city. Synagogue Furnishings

There are really no set requirements for what must be in a synagogue. A place for keeping scrolls of the

Synagogues

Torah and a table upon which they are read are all that is necessary. Probably ancient Palestinian syna­ gogues, as well as Dura-Europas and others, had only such essentials. Even in some synagogues in Spain, as is apparent from manuscript illuminations, there were no seats. However, most synagogues were in fact quite elaborate, with a desk or stand at which the leader of prayers stood, an elevated pulpit from which sermons were preached, and at least benches and sometimes more elaborate seating for the congre­ gants. Windows were a necessity, both for light and air, and in addition some form of artificial lighting was used, either candles or oil lamps suspended from the ceiling. By tradition, the biymahy or table upon which the Torah was unrolled and read, was located in the cen­ ter of the synagogue. This was to focus attention upon the Torah, but also so that everyone could more easily hear the reading. It may or may not have been elevated above the seated congregants (Maimonides ruled that it should be so elevated). In many Spanish synagogues, the platform from which the Torah was read, and also sermons preached when and if that was done, was very high and reached by a series of steps. It was, in fact, a kind of pulpit, with decorative metal railings and perhaps some sort of dome or flat roof on top. The term almemar is sometimes used to refer to the elevated reading platform in Franco-German Hebrew sources (or almembra., “Rashi” on Sukkah 51b, SotahAla, ‘A.Z. 16a). Nahum Strutchkoff, The­ saurus o f the Yiddish Language, gives later terms in­ cluding balmemer (pp. 96, 729). Goitein (“Anbol, biymah shel beit ha-keneset,” Ere$ Yisrael 6 [I960]: 162-67) claimed that the term is anbol, derived from Latin or Greek, a completely wrong guess. In fact, the term clearly derives from Ar. minbary the elevated platform or pulpit in the mosque (root n-b-ry to raise or elevate the voice). In Spain, the platform or pulpit in the synagogue was also called minbar; and it is ob­ vious that this term, corrupted into almembra or almemar; reached the Jews of France, who indeed may have copied the idea of the pulpit-reading desk from the Spanish custom, which in turn was an imi­ tation of the practice in mosques. Very important in this respect are the fine details of a synagogue in the “Sister Haggadah” from Barcelona, probably, in the mid-fourteenth century. This depicts the pillars and brick walls (in red) of the

synagogue, with a blue-gray tile roof. Most impor­ tant is the carefully drawn minbary or elevated reader’s platform, and the stonework ark for holding the Torah scrolls. Oil lamps, apparently crystal, are suspended from the ceiling. The reader, robed in a white prayer shawl, reads from a scroll that could be either a Torah or a scroll of the prophets, but is probably the latter since he stands alone on the plat­ form. Another important illumination is from the “Barcelona H a g ga d a h also mid-fourteenth century, which shows the elevation of the Torah in its case and the standing worshipers, men, women, and children together (as in the “Sister Haggadah”). In both illu­ minations, incidentally, only the reader wears a talliyt, or prayer shawl. There were also different traditions regarding the Torah scrolls and how they were kept. In Ashkenazic synagogues, there was (and is) an “ark.” This ranged from a simple chest large enough to hold perhaps two or three scrolls, to a large and elaborately carved ark built into the wall. As may be seen from the few remains of medieval French and German synagogues, there was usually a niche carved into the wall where the ark was placed. The Torah scroll was tied and covered with a cloth mantle, or covering, and when the congregation could afford them, decorated silver covers (called rimoniymy “pomegranates”) were placed on the finials of the rollers. In synagogues in Spain and in Muslim countries, Torah scrolls were usually although not always encased in a container made of wood or precious metals and stood upright. The Torah was then read as it stood in this case, rather than lying flat on the reading desk as in Ashkenazic synagogues. That this was not always done in Span­ ish synagogues, however, is evident from illumina­ tions. Unfortunately, there is no discussion of this, or of other customs and practices related to the syna­ gogue, in the responsa. Another difference was that in most Ashkenazic synagogues, the congregants sat on benches or seats surrounding the biymahy even with their backs to the ark, so that all could see and hear the reading of the Torah. In synagogues in Spain (Aragon-Catalonia; there is insufficient evidence for the practice in Castile), congregants either sat sur­ rounding the minbar or facing the ark (usually kept in the wall that was oriented toward the land of Is­ rael). This also became the practice in later medieval synagogues, particularly in Germany, and gradually 629

Synagogues

the location of the biymah moved to the “front” of the synagogue, close to the ark, and this has remained the common practice in Ashkenazic synagogues today. Ancient Palestinian and Diaspora synagogues usu­ ally had a menorah (candelabrum), often two, beside the ark in memory of the candelabra of the Temple. It appears from manuscript illuminations that some medieval synagogues also followed this custom, but others did not. As was also the custom in some ancient syna­ gogues (influences of which may also be seen in early Christian art), there was often a curtain (parokhet) hanging in front of the ark. These often had decora­ tions or designs on them. Maimonides was asked whether it is permissible to have such curtains or hangings in front of the worshiper, in the direction to which he faces in prayer, and particularly if they have images on them. He replied that it is permitted, but not to intentionally look at the drawings or designs, and concluded by saying that he closed his eyes when facing such designs or painted (decorated) walls ( Teshuvot, ed. J. Blau [Jerusalem, 1960] II, No. 215). Unique, perhaps, to Spanish synagogues was the use of a special carpet that was hung in front of the ark. One that has survived is from a fourteenth-century synagogue and measures approximately three feet by ten feet (Sarre claimed that the original width was at least four times as large, which seems unlikely). In its present state the color has faded to pale pink, but was probably originally red, with blue borders. The cen­ tral design has been described as a tree, but appears rather to be a stylized menorah (seven branches, with blossoms). There are square crowned borders con­ taining what appear to be closed doors in each sec­ tion of the central design, and this may be either a representation of an ark or perhaps symbolic of the closed Temple (Friedrich Sarre, “A FourteenthCentury Synagogue Carpet,” Burlington Magazine 56 [1930]: 89-90; the claim of Celal Arseven, Les arte deeoratifs tures [Istanbul, 1952], p. 275, that this is merely a Turkish carpet may be discounted). Such rugs were obviously an imitation of the Mus­ lim prayer rugs, and this sometimes created a prob­ lem. Asher b. Solomon, nephew of Judah b. Asher of Toledo, asked his uncle about this, noting that Asher b. Yehiel (Judahs father) had prohibited it, and that he and Rabbi Natan had prohibited it in their com­ munity, and the congregation then decided to replace 630

the rug (called mishqal, “balance” in Hebrew, appar­ ently because of a design indicating the four direc­ tions; see Cassels note, f. 61b, at the end of the re­ sponsa) with the form of a rose on the curtain. Judah replied that he had not seen the responsum of his fa­ ther (which is strange, and even though his nephew cited it in full), and so did not know why he had pro­ hibited it (.Zikharon Yehudah [Berlin, 1846], No. 21). Asher’s responsum is, in fact, very interesting. It deals with the use of a small mat, sajjada in Arabic (prayer rug), which has on it the image of mishqaloP, since this was actually a Muslim prayer rug, the question was whether its use as a covering for the ark was pro­ hibited as a thing used for idolatrous purposes, and Asher did prohibit it (there are extensive details which cannot be gone into here). He concluded that it is forbidden to hang it in the synagogue at all, nor may any individual put such a carpet in the syna­ gogue, even to sit on ( Teshuvot ha-Rosh [Constan­ tinople, 1522-23], No. 5.2). One issue which is dealt with in some of the re­ sponsa of Spanish rabbis concerned seats in the syna­ gogue. These were assigned, and usually bought, in order of “honor” relating to how close they were to the ark and the seats where the rabbi(s) and elders sat. However, in some cases the community maintained control and could nullify individual sales or resell the seats if necessary to collect taxes. Some communities imposed a ban on this, without the consent of the owners of the seats. Ownership of a seat could be transferred by inheritance, and this sometimes raised legal issues. Similarly, the custom of building an en­ closure, or partition, around the seats raised prob­ lems. Interesting is the statement of Asher b. Yehiel in this regard that he had seen this custom in all the lands through which he had passed (essentially Ger­ many and northern Spain, as well as Castile). In synagogues in Europe, as we have seen, there was no separate room for women, but often a gallery running around the top of the synagogue, or appar­ ently in one case a basement was used. This was the situation also in the synagogues of Toledo and Cor­ doba, but apparently in many (most?) of the syna­ gogues in Aragon-Catalonia, women were not sepa­ rated from men at all, and this tradition remained among Sefardim in later centuries in many commu­ nities. Nor was the miqveh (ritual bath) always at­ tached to, or underneath, the synagogue. In some

Synagogues

places it was a separate building entirely. Some of these are still extant. NORMAN ROTH BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blumenkranz, Bernhard. “Synagogues en France du haut moyen age,” Archives juives 4, 3 (1978): 37­ 42. " ---------. “La synagogue de Rouen,” Archives juives 3, 3 (1977): 37-44, with photographs, also on the cover. Cantera Burgos, Francisco. Sinagogas espanoles (Madrid, 1955); the chapters on Toledo, Segovia, and Cor­ doba, without the important notes, were reprinted in 1973. Die Synagoge in Worms und ihre berumeten Altertumer in 21 Bildern (Worms, Kuntsverlag Christian Herbst, 1914); this has, obviously, photographs of the original synagogue, not the modern recon­ struction. Goitein, S[hlomo] D[ov]. A Mediterranean Society. The Jewish Communities o f the Arab World as Por­

trayed in the Documents o f the Cairo Geniza (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1967). Gottheil, Richard. “A Document of the Fifteenth Cen­ tury Concerning Two Synagogues of the Jews in Old Cairo,” J.Q.R. (n.s.) 18 (1927-28): 131-52. Golb, Norman. “Aspects of the Historical Background of Jewish Life in Medieval Egypt,” in Alexander Altmann, ed., Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 1-18. Jordan, William Chester. The French Monarchy and the Jews from Philip Augustus to the last Capetians (Philadelphia, 1989). Krauss, Samuel. Qorot batey ha-tefiyllah be-Yisrael (New York, 1946); i.e., Jewish synagogues. Krautheimer, Richard. Mittelalterliche Synagogen (Berlin, 1927); Germany only. Nahon, Gerard. “Note sur la synagogue de Peyrussele-Roc,” R.E.J. 122 (1963): 405-13. Roth, Norman. “New Light on the Jews of Mozara­ bic Toledo,” A.J.S. [Association for Jewish Stud­ ies] Review 11 (1986): 189-220.

631

C\ Taylor & Francis ~Taylor & Francis Group

http://tayl ora ndfra ncis.co m

T Talmud, Condemnation of The Talmud is second only to the Bible in Jewish culture, and in some respects even more venerated than the Bible, since the “written Torah” is depen­ dent upon the “oral Torah” for correct interpretation and understanding. With the deterioration of knowl­ edge of Hebrew in the medieval period (see HEBREW GRAMMAR; LANGUAGES), outside of Spain, the ability to read and understand books of the Bible other than the Torah also deteriorated. Jews came to rely increas­ ingly on the talmudic interpretation of the Prophets and other biblical passages, to the extent they are mentioned at all, in lieu of reading the actual text. Study of the Talmud was incumbent to some extent on every male, for the observance of laws of daily life, personal and communal, depended upon it. More than this, study of the Talmud was considered a com­ mandment in itself, equal in weight to all the other commandments. In the eyes of Christians, however, suspicion at­ tached to the Talmud from the time that they first began to hear of it. There was even a misconception that it was an actual person. More serious was the growing conviction among Christian polemicists that the Talmud contains “blasphemies” against Christian beliefs; perhaps the first Christian writer to raise this charge was Peter the Venerable (Migne, Patrologia latina CLXXXIX, 602, 627). In fact, there are some allusions to such beliefs and possible refer­ ences to Jesus (although it must be remembered that was a relatively common name in Palestine in the first century), but some of these are in the “Palestin­ ian,” or “Jerusalem,” Talmud rather than in the

“Babylonian,” which was the result of discussions that took place in the territory under Persian rule. That very fact meant that Christianity and its doc­ trines were of little interest to Jews who rarely if ever came into contact with them. There were already some efforts to investigate, or even suppress, the Talmud in the Byzantine (see BYZANTIUM) Empire (although the term deuterosis in Justinian’s code does not, of course, mean “Mish­ nah”), and in the legislation of the VISIGOTHS in early medieval Spain, which in general prohibited Jews from owning or reading any books that contradict the Christian faith. It was not, however, until some apostate Jews began to raise false charges against the Talmud that it came to the attention of Church fig­ ures in medieval Europe. Peter the Venerable (ca. 1092-1156), abbot of Cluny, attacked the Talmud, particularly the stories and homiletic interpretations in it, undoubtedly on the basis of reports he heard of it from Jewish converts (Merchaviah, especially p. 132 ff.; if we agree with him that, contrary to several writers, it is improbable that Peter could have known the Talmud, yet the question of how he had such de­ tailed information about these stories remains unan­ swered). The growing concern with heresy in Christian Eu­ rope in the thirteenth century, including the cam­ paigns against the Cathars and ALBIGENSIANS in Provence and elsewhere, and the unfortunate “Mai­ monidean controversy,” which led to the burning of his works considered “heretical” at Montpellier in 1232, at the hands of Church authorities but by re­ quest of Jewish fanatics (see DOMINICANS AND Fr a n 633

Talmud, Condemnation of CISCANS),

resulted in a growing concern with Jewish

“heresy.” Paris Trial o f 1240

In June of 1239, Pope Gregory IX wrote to the arch­ bishops and kings of France, England, Aragon-Cat­ alonia, Navarre, Castile, and Portugal ordering them to seize all books of Jews on the first Saturday of Lent (3 March 1240) while they are in their synagogues. In his letter, the pope complained that the Jews, not content with the “Old Law” of Moses, which they suppress (or diminish; Grayzels translation is faulty here), and “affirm another Law, called ‘Talmud,’ i.e., Teaching.” He further stated that this is the chief cause that Jews hold obstinately to their “perfidy” (Grayzel, Church and Jews, pp. 240-43; reprinted in Chazan, Church, pp. 220-24). There was no re­ sponse to this demand in Castile (or Portugal, as far as is known); for Aragon-Catalonia see DOMINICANS AND FRANCISCANS, but in France the result was that Jewish books were seized, and Jewish rabbis were ordered to “defend” it in a trial. The trial began on June 25 in Paris, presided over by the queen mother Blanche (and certainly encouraged by her son Louis IX, the notoriously anti-Jewish king who later was made a “saint”), and judged by important Church dignitaries (see Grayzel, p. 31; details on all of them in Merchaviah). The Jewish defenders, held sepa­ rately from each other in prison, were four French rabbis, the most important of whom were Rabbi Yehiel of Paris and Moses of Coucy (author of Sefer mi$vot ha-gadol). The trial has been called a “disputa­ tion,” although many scholars have disagreed with that designation. There exist both a Hebrew and two Latin accounts of what took place (see on the latter Baron, p. 278). The Hebrew text, Vikhuah, has been frequently published. It was probably actually writ­ ten by Joseph Official (ha-meqqane) long after the ac­ tual trial. Some (see especially Urbach, pp. 371-72) have realized that the Hebrew text is hardly an accu­ rate version of what transpired, but rather a polemi­ cal embellishment. The same is true of the so-called text of NAHMANIDES of the Barcelona Disputation, which so far no one has realized. There is an extensive literature on the Paris affair (Rosenthal; most of Mer­ chaviah s book; Urbach, pp. 371-76; Chazan, “Con­ demnation.” References to earlier literature will be found in each of these. Millas discussed and edited 634

excerpts of a thirteenth-century manuscript from the cathedral of Gerona which contains not only the re­ cord of the debate but also selections from “offen­ sive” passages of the Talmud and other writings that were considered objectionable at the trial). It is uncertain who the chief instigator was in the attack on the Talmud in Paris; the majority of scholars have agreed that it was Nicholas Donin, a Jewish apostate, but other sources name other con­ verts (Rosenthal, “Talmud on Trial,” p. 69 and notes; however, one of the converts who he suggests, with no evidence, may have “collaborated” with Nicholas was not “Wilhelm of Burgos,” as if a Spanish Jew took a German name upon conversion, but rather Guillaume de Bourges, a Frenchman; Merchaviah, p. 239, expressed reservations about any such collabora­ tors). Nicholas apparently converted to Christianity already some fifteen years before the trial of Paris, and yet demonstrated a high degree of knowledge of the Talmud. His opponent Rabbi Yehiel never dis­ puted his citations of talmudic texts, but only his interpretations (e.g., Nicholas insisted that all refer­ ences to “Gentile” in the Talmud refer to Christians, and that “idolatry” is Christianity; the rabbis of France and Germany had gone to great lengths to argue that Christianity is not idolatry). In addition to the actual debate over the interpre­ tation of certain stories and texts in the Talmud, other issues were debated (the trial lasted for a con­ siderable time; see summary of the points discussed in Baron, p. 278 n. 31). According to the text of a letter by one Jacob b. Elijah of Venice, probably in the fifteenth century, concerning an apostate named Paul (who, for reasons which cannot be detailed here, is probably not to be identified with the converted friar Paul Christiani and his missionary campaign in Catalonia and France; see DOMINICANS; DISPUTA­ TIONS), Nicholas Donin (apparently) is mentioned as having raised the question of the BLOOD LIBEL. Some writers (Merchaviah, Rosenthal) have doubted this testimony, but it seems entirely possible, according to the perceptive analysis of Joseph Shatzmiller (“Did Nicholas Donin promulgate the blood libel?” [Heb.], Mehqariym be-toldot \am Yisrael ve-ere$ Yisrael mugashiym le-Azriel Shohet [Haifa, 1978] IV, 175-82). According to the same letter, Nicholas himself even­ tually appears to have become disenchanted with Christianity also, and wrote a criticism of the Fran­

Talmud, Condemnation of

ciscans, for which he was condemned by Nicholas III in 1287 (see Appendix A in Grayzel, pp. 339-40, which gives additional texts and information about Donin; see in great detail Merchaviah, p. 237 ff., and on the text of Donins allegations, p. 249 ff., and Rosenthal, p. 145 ff.; English translations of the letter and of Yehiels “confession” in Chazan, pp. 225-28). The ultimate verdict of the condemnation of the Talmud was announced in May of 1248, but the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Already on 6 June 1242, cartloads of manuscripts of the Talmud were consigned to the flames; fourteen cartloads ac­ cording to one source, twenty-four according to an­ other. These figures may, of course, be exaggerated, and there is some indication that in fact many talmu­ dic manuscripts were saved, but there is no doubt about the devastating effect of this tragedy for the Jews of France. Innocent IV became pope in 1244 and almost im­ mediately wrote a letter to Louis IX complaining about Jewish “perfidy” and blindness, and that they despise the Law of Moses and the prophets, follow­ ing instead some traditions of their sages. “In tradi­ tions of this sort, which in Hebrew are called Tal­ mud—and it is a big book, exceeding the text of the Bible in size—in which are blasphemies against God and his Christ and manifestly intricate fables and abusive errors about the Blessed Virgin, and unheard of stupidity, [in which] their children are reared and nurtured.” He further observed that the Jews feared that if the “truth” of the Bible were under­ stood, that it referred to Christ, their children would become Christians; thus, they did not study the Bible. He refers to the condemnation of the Talmud at Paris, mentioning that other books along with their glosses were also burned (this ominous statement appears to mean that not only talmudic commentaries but other legal writings, perhaps, were consigned to the flames). He ordered the king to continue the inves­ tigation against these “blasphemies” and to burn all such books and their commentaries throughout the kingdom (Grayzel, pp. 250-53). Nevertheless, the pope, who became increasingly concerned with abuses against Jews (in France be­ cause of RITUAL MURDER charges; in Navarre over M on e yle ndi ng ), had a change of heart. In 1247 he wrote again to Louis IX (Grayzel, pp. 275-81), in­

forming him that Jewish “masters” (rabbis) of the kingdom had complained to the pope that without the Talmud they cannot properly interpret the com­ mandments of the Bible and keep their other laws (i.e., talmudic laws). The pope concluded that, “bound as We are by the divine command to tolerate them in their Law” and not desiring to deprive them of their books needed for observance of that law, he had or­ dered Odo, the apostolic legate in France, to once again carefully inspect these books and “tolerate” those “such as he will find may be tolerated.” This important letter, which has gone unremarked by vir­ tually all who have written about the condemnation of the Talmud (except Chazan, “Condemnation,” and Churchy State and Jew.\ pp. 235-36, Grayzels translation of the letter), uses the term “tolerate,” and so also in his earlier letter to the archbishop of Vi­ enne (Grayzel, p. 263) for the first time in connec­ tion with Jews. We also learn from this letter that by no means were all of the copies of the Talmud burned in the fire at Paris. Odo, in his report to the pope (1248), also noted that he had investigated copies of the Talmud and that he had been instructed to return to the rabbis those books which were not injurious to the Chris­ tian faith. Nevertheless, so that no one (i.e., the pope) might be “fooled by the shrewdness and falsehoods of the Jews,” Odo reminded the pope of the decree of Gregory IX in response to the charges by Nicholas Donin. Therefore, he concluded, it would be a dis­ grace if these books which had been burned “in the presence of all the scholars, and of the clergy, and of the populace of Paris” were now to be returned (i.e., other manuscripts which had not been burned) to these rabbis. Even if these books contain “some good things,” they should be condemned, just as should heretics who do not err in everything but only in some things. Without, apparently, waiting for the pope’s answer, Odo assembled an “apostolic court” in Paris, consisting of no fewer than forty-four clerics, including the renowned Albertus Magnus, and again condemned the Talmud as blasphemous and “unwor­ thy of tolerance.” He stated that he was aware of other books not shown to him by the rabbis, and that he would do whatever necessary to get these books (text and translation of the letter of Odo and his court order in Grayzel, pp. 276-79). Nevertheless, if this order was supposedly for the entire kingdom, it 635

Talmud, Condemnation of

obviously failed, for in 1250 the seneschal of Agen was ordered to confiscate all copies of the Talmud and glosses and turn them over to the Dominican fri­ ars (Grayzel, pp. 341-43). Aside from the Hebrew version of the trial, possi­ bly written later, there are few contemporary Jewish statements or reactions to the calamity Zedekiah b. Abraham of Italy (thirteenth century) mentioned hearing a report of the burning of the Talmud and that French Jews had decreed a perpetual fast to be observed in commemoration of it (Shibboley ha-leqef ed. S. Buber, Vilna, 1896, p. 252). Most modern writers (Urbach, Merchaviah, Chazan) attribute a lamentation (piyyut) by M ei r b . Ba r u k h of Rothen­ burg, “Shealiy serufah ve-esh” to the burning of the Talmud in Paris. However, it has been suggested that his poem refers to the burning of scrolls of the Torah in a German city (Siebenbrunn, apparently) in 1254 (so in Hayyim Brody and Meir Wiener, eds. Mivhar ha-shiyrah ha-'ivriyt [rpt. Jerusalem, 1963], p. 269; cf. A. M. Haberman, ed. Sefer gezeirot Ashkenaz ve$arfat [Jerusalem, 1946], p. 180, but Haberman nev­ ertheless also attributed the lamentation, pp. 193-95, to the Paris burning of the Talmud; it is translated in Chazan, p. 229). Alexander IV in 1257 ordered the confiscation of the Talmud in France, once again (not in Grayzel; see I. Loeb, “Bulles inedits de papes,” R.E.J. 1 [1880]: 117, see also pp. 293-97 there). No such order was issued for any other country, however. In 1319 man­ uscripts of the Talmud were burned at Toulouse by order of the Inquisitor Bernard Gui (mentioned by Kalonymos b. Kalonymos of Provence at the end of his Even bofaan, written in 1322). In the second half of the fourteenth century there were once again accu­ sations against the Talmud and other legal works at Paris. The renowned Yohanan b. Mattityahu, chief rabbi of France in 1385, wrote a brief responsum from prison, where he was incarcerated as had been Rabbi Yehiel over a century earlier because of these charges against the Talmud, “the decisions [pisqey] of Maimon” (surely the Mishneh Torah is meant, not re­ sponsa), the work of Moses of Coucy (so, apparently, instead of qa$ar), and the legal work of Isaac al-Fasi. He says that he wrote from prison to the authors (or owners, ba'aliym) of some works to copy them for him and send them to him (Simha Assaf, ed. Meqorot ve-mehqariym [Jerusalem, 1946], p. 251; this has es­ 636

caped the notice of all who have written on the con­ demnation of the Talmud). Provence, Spain , Southern Italy

In spite of the fact that there was no immediate re­ sponse to Gregory DCs order for the condemnation of the Talmud in other countries, attacks soon fol­ lowed. In 1255 the church council of Beziers (Provence) ordered that the Talmud and other books containing “blasphemies” should be burned. Jews who refused to turn over such books were to be ex­ pelled (Grayzel, pp. 336-37). It is doubtful, however, that these orders were carried out. Once again, an apostate Jew, by the name of Manuforte, was responsible for the condemnation of the Talmud in the kingdom of southern Italy in the reign of Charles I. In 1270 he persuaded the king to issue an edict for the confiscation of the Talmud and other Jewish books, and Manuforte, accompanied by the heads either of the Dominican or Franciscan or­ ders, was authorized to enter Jewish homes and seize the books (Starr, p. 304). In the reign of Alfonso X (1252-84) in Castile, several model legal codes were composed, largely the work of canon lawyers such as Ramon de Penafort and others, notoriously anti-Jewish. One of these codes, Fuero realt prohibited Jews from reading or keeping any books either against the Jewish or Chris­ tian law (or religion). Violators of this law were to be burned publicly at the door of the synagogue (IV.ii.i). Jews were, however, allowed to keep all the books of their law “as given by Moses and the other prophets.” The Talmud, of course, not being part of the Bible, would have been excluded (Hillgarth, The Spanish Kingdom I, 165, was quite wrong in citing this law as extending the same “protection” to Jews as Christians; he did not see the original text, however, but merely cited it secondhand from another au­ thor). There is no evidence that this law was ever en­ forced, however. In fact, as noted previously, the papal bulls demanding investigation of the Talmud were simply ignored in Spain in the reign of Alfonso’s father, Fernando IV, and no action against Jewish books was ever taken by Alfonso. In Aragon-Catalonia, however, Alfonso’s fatherin-law, Jaime I, acting on the advice of Ramon de Penafort (a Catalan Dominican) and the apostate polemicist Paul Christiani, in 1263 ordered the Jews

Translation by Jews

of the kingdom to remove all “blasphemies” from their books on penalty of a large fine. The following year, in clarification of this, he allowed the Jews a month in which to defend their books (see DOMINI­ CANS AND FRANCISCANS on this). They were success­ ful in this, and Jaime rescinded his order. In 1267, Clement IV again demanded that Jaime order that all Jewish books, particularly the Talmud, be investi­ gated by the archbishop of Tarragona. Not only did the king, angered by having been duped by false ac­ cusations against Jewish books (especially the Tal­ mud), ignore the papal demand, in 1268 he issued a general privilege to all Jews of the kingdom in which he assured them “in perpetuity” that they need never again fear having to respond to charges by anyone against their books (the actual text of this extremely important document has been ignored by scholars; only a brief reference to it appears in a nineteenthcentury register of documents concerning Jews). Subsequent popes, perhaps disheartened by hav­ ing their decrees concerning Jews simply ignored both in Castile and in Aragon-Catalonia, generally excluded those kingdoms when issuing new de­ mands. All of Spain transferred its allegiance to the Avignonese popes in the great schism, and one of those, a Catalan, was Benedict XIII, the most notori­ ously anti-Jewish pope in the Middle Ages. Among other things, in 1415 he issued a bull condemning the Talmud, specifically giving the INQUISITION power to “diligently inquire” periodically whether the Jews have copies of the Talmud. In 1419 a Jewish delegation went to the “Roman pope,” Martin V, to beg him to revoke Benedict s bull, which he did. The Jews also requested of Alfonso V the nullification of certain harmful laws enacted in the reign of Fer­ nando I, at the instigation of Benedict, among which was the confiscation of the Talmud. The king estab­ lished a special council composed of masters of theol­ ogy and one converso to examine copies of the Tal­ mud for “heresy,” and once such errors were removed to return the books to the Jews. Throughout the fif­ teenth century popes generally followed a more “hu­ mane” policy toward the Jews, and nothing more is heard against the Talmud. Further attacks, censor­ ship, and again burnings of the Talmud would take place under the far less “humane” and tolerant popes of the Renaissance. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baron, Salo W. A Social and Religious History o f the Jews (Philadelphia, New York, 1965), Vol. 9. Chazan, Robert. Church, State and Jew in the Middle Ages. (New York, 1980). ---------. “The Condemnation of the Talmud Recon­ sidered (1239-1248),” American Academy for Jewish Research. Proceedings 55 (1988): 11-30. Grayzel, Solomon. The Church and the Jews in the Xlllth Century (Philadelphia, 1933). Merchaviah, Chen [Hen]. ha-Talmud be-reiy ha-no$rut [The Talmud in the eyes of Christianity] (Jerusalem, 1970). Millas Vallicrosa, J. M. “Extractos de Talmud y alusiones polemicas en un manuscrito de la biblioteca catedral de Gerona,” Sefarad20 (1960): 17-49. Rosenthal, Judah. “The Talmud on Trial. The Dispu­ tation of Paris in the Year 1240,” J.Q.R. 47 (1956): 58-76, 145-69. Starr, Joshua. “The Mass Conversion of Jews in Southern Italy,” Speculum 21 (1946): 203-11. Urbach, Ephraim E. Ba'aley ha-tosafot (Jerusalem, 1968).

Translation by Jews

If there is mention of Jews at all in general medieval or world histories, it is usually only as slave traders and moneylenders, and perhaps as “transmitters of Arabic culture” to the Christians. While such igno­ rance (or worse) is, of course, deplorable, neverthe­ less it is true that an important role in Jewish contri­ bution to civilization was the translation of Arabic and other texts, primarily into Hebrew but also Spanish and even Latin. This was even more impor­ tant for Jewish culture itself. Jewish translation began at least in the Hellenistic period, with the translation of the Bible into Greek, the so-called Septuagint (surrounded by legend, sup­ posedly translated simultaneously by seventy differ­ ent sages all working separately and coming up with identical translations). However, it was the establishment of the Muslim Empire in the sixth and seventh centuries which brought a cultural explosion the like of which had not been seen in all of previous history. Ironically, it was not the newly converted Muslims of the former 637

Translation by Jews

Persian Empire or Asia Minor who initiated this, but the despised Christians, scholars who translated the classic works of Greek philosophers and some scien­ tific and medical texts into their own language, Syr­ iac, which is similar to Arabic and has a common al­ phabet. This enabled Arabic translations to be made of these works, which launched a thirst for knowl­ edge and led to the discovery of scientific, medical, and literary texts from Egypt, ancient Babylon, Per­ sia, and India. By the end of the ninth and beginning of the tenth centuries, there was available in the Muslim world an enormous body of writings, trans­ lations, and original works in all these areas. Even ad­ mitting some exaggeration, the great libraries (Bagh­ dad, Alexandria, Cordoba) were larger than any in the world until the twentieth century. The tragic de­ struction of all those libraries (by the Mongols and Christians) also meant the loss of knowledge that may never be recovered. Jews were not involved to any significant degree in this translation of works into Arabic, with some ex­ ceptions. M a sa r j a w a y h , a Jewish doctor in Bara (ca. 701-720), was an important translator, who among other things translated the Pandekten of the Archidiakonos Ahron from Syriac into Arabic. Aside from this and a few other examples, however, the Jewish scientists, mathematicians, and physicians of the Muslim world were busy writing their own books: Masha’allah and Sahl b. Bishr (see SCIENCE) at least thirty books each. One of the most famous transla­ tors, the Sabean Thabit ibn Qurrah (836-901), had a Jewish disciple, Judah b. Joseph, called Ibn Abu’lThina, who later lived in Egypt. However, as Arabic became the spoken and w rit­ ten language o f the Jews throughout the Muslim world, the inability to understand the Hebrew Bible again was a serious problem. The first known transla­ tion o f the Bible into Arabic was begun by Sa‘ad yah Ga o n (he may have translated all o f the Bible, but his translations o f some books have not survived. For further details on medieval Jewish translations o f the Bible, see Bible tr a n s la tio n s , Jewish).

The incomparable Moritz Steinschneider wrote a massive volume (see Bibliography) detailing medieval Jewish translation activity which remains the defini­ tive study of the subject, although some few new de­ tails can be added (a serious shortcoming of that work is that he neglected translations of the Bible, Talmud, 638

and talmudic works, responsa of the geonim, etc.). In the confines of this article, it is obviously impossible even to list all the names of these translators, much less to discuss every work translated. Only highlights will be given, and some new information. As the cen­ ter of Jewish cultural life switched from “Babylon” (Iraq) and the period of the geonim to Spain (from the tenth century), the overwhelming majority of the translations were done in that country, including PROVENCE during the period when it was part of the kingdom of A r a g 6 n -C a ta lo n ia . Muslim Spain

There was little or no need for translation from Arabic into Hebrew in Muslim Spain (not only alAndalus, but also several regions in northern Spain which remained Muslim at least throughout the eleventh century). According to Abraham Ibn Daud, a twelfth-century chronicler and philosopher, the fa­ mous scholar Joseph Ibn Abitur (mid-tenth century) translated the Talmud into Arabic for the caliph alyakam (Sefer ha-qabbalah, ed. and tr. G. Cohen [Philadelphia, 1967], p. 49, text; p. 66, tr.). There is, however, no other mention of such a translation, and it remains highly unlikely, although Arabic commen­ taries on the entire Talmud by Hanokh b. Moses (d. ca. 940) and Isaac Ibn Ghiyath (correct spelling; ca. 1038-89) are known to have been written but have not survived (or only partly). Isaacs Judeo-Arabic (i.e., Arabic in Hebrew letters) translation of and commentary on Ecclesiastes has been edited by Joseph Kafih (Hamesh m egiyllot. . . [ Jerusalem, 1962]), er­ roneously identified there as that of Sa adyah. The most important translation done in al-Andalus, or in all of the Muslim world for that matter, was un­ doubtedly the translation from Greek into Arabic of the famous pharmaceutical work of Dioscorides. That translation was done by Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, working with a Byzantine monk, in the tenth cen­ tury in Cordoba. This discovery of the long-lost work enabled great advances in pharmacy and MEDI­ CINE in the Middle Ages. The discovery of the grammar of the HEBREW LANGUAGE was made in al-Andalus by a series of scholars working in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, who wrote their treatises and even dictio­ naries in Judeo-Arabic. Curiously, these works were translated into Hebrew, not only by Provencal trans­

Translation by Jews

lators but also even by Moses Ibn Chicatilla (correct spelling) of Cordoba, presumably for a rabbi in Provence. A b r a h a m Ib n ‘Ez r a , biblical commentator, phi­ losopher, scientist, grammarian, poet, and novelist, was a product of Muslim Spain (Tudela in Navarre, at the time a Muslim city), but traveled in many countries. He wrote mosx of his works, in Hebrew, for the use of students in Italy, France, and even En­ gland. Curiously, he also translated some Arabic sci­ entific treatises, including one by Masha’allah ibn Athari, a ninth-century Jewish astronomer who he thought was Muslim. The other works he translated include Ahmad ibn al-Muthanna (commentary on the astronomical tables of al-Khwarizmi), which he translated in London in 1160, and an important grammatical work by Judah Hayyuj. “Schools" o f Translation

Several scholars have talked about “schools” of trans­ lation in medieval Toledo. The first such school is said to be that of Ramon, the archbishop of Toledo (1126-51). It was not really a “school” at all, even in the metaphorical sense of a group of translators with a program or particular purpose; instead, there were some individual scholars from all over Europe who came to Toledo for relatively brief periods and worked together with Mozarabic Christians (Chris­ tians who grew up in a Muslim environment and who knew Arabic), and perhaps some Jews. Foremost among these translators was a Spaniard, Domingo Gundisalvus, and Juan Ibn Daud (“Avendauth”), a converted Jew. As Sarton has noted, the majority of the actual translation from Arabic was done by Ibn Daud, whereas Gundisalvus was more of a philoso­ pher; however, it is likely that Ibn Daud translated from Arabic into Romance and Gundisalvus then translated into Latin. Other important European scholars in Toledo included Gerhard of Cremona, Hermann “the Dalmatian,” Robert of Chester (who produced the second “translation” of the Qur’an, the first having been done by Peter the Venerable, also in Spain; both translations are barbarous and polemi­ cal). Plato of Tivoli worked with Abraham b. Hayya (or Hiyya) of Barcelona, d. ca. 1135. Together, they made translations of three important Arabic astro­ nomical treatises (published). One of these has been attributed to Yahya ibn Abl Mansur, but Sarton (I, ii,

178) said that this was not plausible and suggested instead that the author was an Egyptian Jew con­ verted to Islam. How incorrect it is to refer to a “Toledo school” of translators may be seen in the fact that Robert of Chester was in Pamplona, another (Hugh of Santalla) worked in Tarazona, and Plato of Tivoli was in Barcelona (see briefly Sarton II, i, 114-15, 125-27; and in more detail Jose M. Millas Vallicrosa, Neuvos estudios sobre historia de la ciencia espanola [Barcelona, 1960], pp. 105-15). Following in a long tradition, Jose Gil, La eseuela de traduetores de Toledo y los eolaboradores judios (Toledo, 1985), pp. 26-29, claimed that the archbishop “certainly” fulfilled the role of “Mycenas” of a “school of translators” in Toledo-for which there is not a shred of evidence. Other peculiar theories in­ clude that of M. Alonso that there were two “Avendauths,” one a Jewish (not converted) philosopher and the other a Christian astronomer (!) who is to be identified with Juan, the archbishop of Toledo after Raimundo, and thus continuing as head of the “school” of translators (“Notas sobre los traduetores toledanos Domingo Gundisalvo y Juan Hispano,” alAndalus 8 [1943]: 168, 174, 176-77). Adding to the confusion, C. S. F. Burnett, “A Group of Arabic-Latin Translators Working in Northern Spain in the Mid12th Century,” Journal o f the Royal Asiatic Society (1977-78), p. 62, refers to three separate translators: “John” (Juan) of Seville, real enough but whom he wrongly identified as the translator of Qus^a b. Luqa instead of Ibn Daud, “Avendauth,” and “another John” who collaborated with “Gundissalinus” (Gundisalvus). There are numerous other errors in the article, but of value is his discussion of the Latin translation of the Jewish (not “Arab”) astronomer Sahl Ibn Bishr. Neither Toledo nor Seville, of course, is in “northern Spain.” Gil correctly criticized Sanchez Albornoz for at­ tempting to deny the value of Jews as translators, say­ ing that there were more Christian than Jewish trans­ lators, but Gil was overly enthusiastic in protesting, “Certainly, but what was the work of these Chris­ tians? Where are their translations? If one compares the effort realized by the Jews with that of the Chris­ tians, that of the latter was minimal. Furthermore, the Christians were collaborators with the Jews and not the opposite” (op. cit., p. 57 n. 3). While there is no denying that Christian translators often collabo­ rated with Jews, it was the resultant Latin transla­ 639

Translation by Jews

tions which made Arabic (and Greek through Ara­ bic) knowledge available to the West, which would not have been possible had it been left strictly to Jew­ ish translators who did not know Latin. The number of Christian translators, and of their translations, far exceeds that of the Jews except in translations made from Arabic into Hebrew (see below, particularly Provence). The importance of the Jewish translators, also in Hebrew, for Christian culture of medieval Eu­ rope is not to be minimized, however. Through the work of Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham bar tlayya, and the Provencal translators, much of Greek and Muslim philosophy and science ultimately reached Christian Europe. More fruitful than talking about “schools” of translators (there were even plans by current Jewish leaders in Spain to “rebuild the school” of Jewish translators, as if there were actually a building!) is the classification suggested by Thery (see Bibliography), p. 40, who wrote of a “first generation” of translators which worked essentially on Muslim philosophy (Ibn Daud, Gundisalvo, Gunsalvus of Burgos), while the “second generation” turned to the works of Aristotle himself and his disciples Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius (e.g., Gerard of Cremona, but he also translated al-Kindl, al-Farabl, and Isaac Israeli). Another Jewish translator, “Solomon of Burgos,” worked with Johannes Gunsalvus (Juan Gonzalez) of Burgos in the translation of Ibn Slna s metaphysics, ca. 1270-80 (Thery, pp. 65-68). The identity of this Solomon remains a mystery. For the thirteenth century, Munoz rightly empha­ sized the significance of constant contact between the three chief centers of Jewish translation: Toledo, Provence, and SICILY (La escala de Mahoma, ed. Jose Munoz Sendino [Madrid, 1949], p. 166; there is much information in this book). Most important were Michael Scott in Toledo and Sicily (who worked closely with Jews), Samuel Ibn Tibbon in Provence, and Jacob Anatoli (Provence, Sicily). We must also add Moses Ibn Tibbon and Jacob b. Makhir Ibn Tib­ bon to the list. Sicily under Frederick II was similar to Toledo in the interest at court in philosophy and science, in which Jews played a major role. Juan Ibn D a u d — Convert, or Jewish Translator?

It would require a book to untangle all the confusion concerning Juan Ibn Daud, who he was and what he 640

translated and wrote himself. Suffice it to say that there is no doubt about his identity, and in spite of his other errors in the earlier article, Alonso has done the best job of identifying the works that he translated (“Traducciones del Arabe el Latin por Juan Hispano (Ibn Dawud),” al-Andalus 17 [1952]: 129-51). He was a prolific translator (nine or ten works). Alonso (pp. 134-35 of his article) was confused about the translation of the important work of Qusta b. Luqa, De differentia; Thorndike, whom he cites, did not say that Adelard of Bath had translated this work before Ibn Daud or that he had translated it at all, only that he may have known of the work. Most important for our purposes, Ibn Daud and Gundisalvo made the Latin translation of the Fons vitae, the philosophical magnum opus of I b n GABIROL which influenced later Scholastics (who assumed the author was Christian). This translation preserved that work until nineteenth century scholars rediscovered who the real author was. Not only did Ibn Daud collaborate with Gundis­ alvo, even in translations attributed solely to the lat­ ter, he also made independent translations, some of which predate the work of Gundisalvo. One of the things that casts serious doubt on the “conversion” of Ibn Daud is that in the Prologus discipuli et capitual Avicenna (ed. A. Birkenmajer in Revue neoscholastique de philosophie 36 [1934]: 308-20), he is clearly called a Jew (“Aveneuch [.sic] Israhelite,” p. 314), and so also in at least one manu­ script of his translation of Ibn Slnas “Logic,” and Albertus Magnus referred to him also as “Avendar Israelites]” (see Alonso, pp. 144, 145); so also in his translation of Ibn Slna, Sujficienta physicorum. Even more significant, in the prologue to his translation of Ibn Slna’s De anime, dedicated to Archbishop Raimundo, Ibn Daud called himself “Johannes Avendehut israelita philosophus. Albertus Magnus re­ ferred to him also as “David Iudeaus>” and Salio of Padua, who was in Toledo in 1218, made a transla­ tion of an astrological work “in barrio ludeorum ’ (in the Jewish quarter; note the Spanish term barrio) with the aid of David, “a good man and Jewish phi­ losopher” (manuscript cited by Marie T. d’Alverny, “Avicennisme en Italie,” Oriente e occidente nel medieoevo: filosofia e scienze [Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Convegno internazionale 13, Atti] (Rome, 1971), p. 122 n. 18). It is therefore probable that Ibn Daud s Jewish name was David. It is also of interest

Translation by Jews

that Abraham b. Hayya and Plato of Tivoli dedicated their translation of a work of Ibn al-§affar, an impor­ tant Spanish Muslim astronomer, to Ibn Daud; something that Abraham was unlikely to have done were Ibn Daud an apostate Jew. In her overly enthusiastic, and generally incorrect, introduction to a Cathar treatise, Thouzellier claimed to find influences both of the Liber de causis (a Latin compendium based on Proclus) and of Ibn Gabirol (only in one respect, in fact, is there a possible influ­ ence of Ibn Gabirol, that everything that exists pro­ ceeds of necessity from God eternally, see p. 65). Fi­ nally realizing (p. 50) that too close a scrutiny of Ibn Gabirol fails to convince about this influence, she then suggests that the Jews must at least bear the re­ sponsibility (along with the “Arabs”) for “expansion of ancient thought” and its transmission to the Latin world (p. 51), which goes together with the un­ proven theory that Cathar and other heresies were due in any measure to the influence of philosophical notions (Livre de deux prineipes, ed. and tr. Christine Thouzellier [Paris, 1973]). It happens that Ibn Daud, in fact, may have been the author (or translator) of Liber de causis (see the excellent introduction by Dennis J. Brand to his English translation, The Book o f Causes [Niagara University Press, 1981] with all the pertinent literature). Scientific Translation in Castile

Alfonso X (1252—84) was known as “the Wise” (el Sabio) because of the astonishing number of works produced at his court or during his reign: biblical translations (by Jews), legal codes, chronicles, poems, and stories relating to the Virgin Mary, and transla­ tions of and original works on science, mostly astron­ omy. Though he did not write any of these works himself, he did sponsor them, and wrote prologues and inserted comments in some of these works. The scientific translations are of interest to us, for together with the original scientific works composed by Jews for Alfonso (see SCIENCE), these represent the first such books in the Spanish (Castilian) language. They were also the most important single body of scientific work in the vernacular in the early Middle Ages. The nature of this work has been discussed already in depth and need not be elaborated upon here (Roth, and Romano, who dealt more with original

works by Jewish authors than translations; L. P. Har­ vey, “The Alfonsine School of Translators,” Journal o f the Royal Asiatic Society [1977-78]: 109-17 is worthless, an expression of indignation at the “lack of appreciation” of Islam in one of the Alfonsine chronicles). Suffice it to say that the overwhelming majority of the treatises in the collection called (cor­ rectly) Libro del saber de astrologia (“astrology” being equivalent to astronomy in medieval texts) were translated or written by Jews. In my article, I identi­ fied these Jewish translators and authors (Romano also made a commendable contribution toward this), but there needs to be a correction: on p. 64, I dis­ cussed the problematic “don Xosse,” suggesting he be identified with Ziza Ibn Susan; however, in a paper delivered in 1994, Anthony Cardenas conclusively demonstrated that the name in the manuscript must be read as “Mosse.” The problem of identification re­ mains, as no Mosse alfaqui is known from any other source (see also Romano, pp. 692-93). In addition to this substantial number of books translated, there were several other works not part of that collection, beginning with the Lapidario (lap­ idary) by an author identified only as “Abolays.” This was translated for Alfonso before he became king, and according to the prologue the work was owned by a Jew who kept it hidden and was translated by Alfonso’s physician Judah Mosca (probably Judah b. Moses ha-Kohen Mosca). Prior to this, the same physician translated the Azafeha (§afihd) of the fa­ mous “Azarquiel” (al-Zarqalluh), an important as­ tronomer (this same work was later translated into Hebrew by Jacob b. Makhir Ibn Tibbon). It is also possible that Judah translated Ptolemy’s Almagest, and certain that he translated the Libro conplido en los iudizios de las estrellas of Ibn al-Rijal (all of these, ex­ cept the Almagest, have been published). There were several other scientific treatises translated by Jews at the court of Alfonso (see details in Roth). The aforementioned Escala de Mahoma was translated by Abraham “A lfa q u im one of Alfonso’s physicians whom I identified as Abraham Ibn Waqar, from the well-known Arabic work al-MVraj (the modern translation by Munoz is based on French and Latin versions of Abraham’s lost translation). This work in­ fluenced Dante. Abraham also made a translation of the Azafeha, still unedited, which Millas judged to be superior to the later Hebrew translation of Jacob Ibn 641

Translation by Jews

Tibbon or the Latin one by Guillelmus Anglicus, and that it is “absolutely in harmony with the Arabic source” (Estudios sobre la historia de la cieneia es­ panola [Barcelona, 1949], p. 105). Calila y D im na—Journey o f a Masterpiece

One of the most important masterpieces of Arabic, and then Spanish, literature is the Kallla wa-Dimna. The Spanish translation of this work was made by order of the then infante (prince) Alfonso, probably in 1251. It is the first literary work written in Spanish. According to a medieval source, the transmission of the work was from Indian to Persian to Arabic and then Hebrew, from which the Spanish translation was made at Toledo. A modern scholar who has made a careful examination of an important manuscript of the translation concluded that the Hebrew transla­ tion transmitted not only the content but a certain degree of the Arabic style, and while that manuscript (Palacio Real) is closer to the Arabic than the Escorial manuscript, it also contains numerous biblical in­ fluences (Alvaro Galmes de Fuentes, “Influencias sintacticas y estilisticas del arabe en la prosa medieval castellana,” Boletin de la academia espanola 35 [1955]: 213-75, especially pp. 216-34). The anonymous Spanish translation, obviously by a Jew, was made shortly after the Hebrew translation of Jacob b. Elazar of Toledo (ed. Derenbourg, J. Deux versions hebraiques du livre Kalilah et Dimnah [Paris, 1881], pp. 311-83; see Steinschneider, pp. 872-83. A Latin translation was later made by John of Capua, an apostate Jew). According to the colophon of Esc. Ms. Ill 9, the work was translated from Arabic into Latin e rromangado, that is, “Spanished,” translated into Spanish. There is, however, no trace of a Latin version prior to that of John of Capua. In fact, as demonstrated by Galmes, there are two versions of the Spanish translation, the standard manuscripts closer to the Hebrew transla­ tion and the Palacio Real manuscript which, while closer to the Arabic, was obviously influenced by the Hebrew. It is possible that the work was orally trans­ lated from Arabic into Latin and then into Spanish, but this would mean that the Jewish translator under­ stood Latin, which is highly unlikely. There was supposedly also a fourteenth-century Latin translation, by a “Rabbi Johel” (Joel), of which only one manuscript survives, and this was the origin

642

of almost all the translations of the work into other languages, but in fact that was a mistaken identifi­ cation for the aforementioned John of Capua (see the introduction to “Calila e Dymna” in Pascual de Gayangos, ed., Escritores a prosa anteriores al siglo XV [Biblioteca de autores espanoles t. 51; numerous editions], p. 2; and Sarton II, ii, 856 was doubly confused about this, claiming that John of Capua made his translation from “Rabbi Joels Hebrew version”!). Gonzalo Menendez Pidal claimed that in general the translations done by Jews required a second translation from Spanish into Latin because the Jews used a “very peculiar and archaic dialect which was barbarous to Castilian ears” (“Como trabajaron las escuelas alfonsies,” Nueva revista de filologia hispdnica 5 [1951]: 363-80, p. 367). Aside from showing the anti-Jewish sentiment of the author, this theory has nothing to commend it. It is contra­ dicted by the numerous Spanish translations, biblical, philosophical, literary, and scientific, done by Jews (in­ deed, it has been argued that Jews played a large role in the creation of the Spanish language, which thus could hardly have been “barbarous” to anyone’s ears). Only in the case where there was a collaboration with Christian translators to translate works into Latin for use in other European countries did the Jewish partner first trans­ late into Spanish, from which the Latin translation was usually made (in rare instances, the Christian translator knew Arabic and made the translations directly). Hebrew Translation in Provence an d Northern Spain

In northern Spain, including Provence (part of the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia), few Jews knew Ara­ bic. There was a desire to study certain works, partic­ ularly scientific treatises (see “Science,” the section on Provence, for such translations), but also the first major philosophical works by Jewish authors, such as “The Duties of the Heart” by Bahya Ibn Paqudah (see PHILOSOPHY) and the “Guide of the Perplexed” by MAIMONIDES. The Ibn Tibbon family originated from Granada, and this explains the expert knowl­ edge of Arabic that enabled Judah Ibn Tibbon to un­ dertake a series of translations of important works. Judah b. Saul Ibn Tibbon (d. before 1190) lived in Malaga, Seville, and Lunel. He began his translation of the “philosophical” (actually, ethical) treatise of Bahya in 1161, at the request of the scholar Meshul-

Translation by Jews

lam b. Jacob of Lunel (d. 1170), one of the authors of the Tosafot (additional commentaries on the Tal­ mud); however, he was asked only to translate the first section (“Gate”) of the work into Hebrew. The remaining nine sections of the work were translated for the same scholar by Joseph Qimhi (ca. 1105-ca. 1170), also of Lunel but born probably in alAndalus; only a portion of that translation survives. Ibn Tibbon returned to the work, however, and com­ pleted the translation for the renowned Provencal scholar Abraham b. David of Posquieres (however, Ibn Tibbon agreed only reluctantly to do this, since Qimhi had already done the complete translation). Already the problem which characterized all of his, and his sons, translations appears here, a difficult style and language, contrasted with the simplicity and better Hebrew of Qimhi s translation (although he was somewhat verbose). On the other hand, Ibn Tibbon endeavored to be very precise in his transla­ tion of philosophical terms, which would be even more apparent in his translation of Maimonides. In his introduction, Ibn Tibbon criticized earlier He­ brew translations from Arabic, not one of which did not lose the beauty of the original and change the meaning. It is difficult to know what translations he had in mind, however, since only a few of grammati­ cal works or of responsa and the like had been done. Perhaps there were some translations which are lost, of which we have no record (in fact, he refers to translations of the Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud; p. 60). His introduction to the translation of the first chapter gives detailed observations on how transla­ tion should be done and what conditions the transla­ tor should meet (pp. 58-60). Judah Ibn Tibbon was one of the most important, although not prolific, translators. He translated the Tiyqqun miyddot ha-nefesh and Mivhar ha-peniyniym of Solomon Ibn Gabirol, and the Kuzariy of Judah HA-LEVY, which was later corrected by his son Samuel (according to a colophon found only in an Italian manuscript from 1468). He also translated Sa‘a dyah Ga o js I s Emmunot ve-de‘ot, and two grammatical trea­ tises by Jonah Ibn Janah. An astonishing error was made by two learned scholars Eric Werner and Isaiah Sonne; in discussing a translation, ascribed to Abra­ ham b. Hayya, of the section dealing with M USIC in Saadyahs work, they wrote that because his version

“agrees almost entirely with that of Ibn Tibbon,” it seemed improper to treat it as a separate text (H. U. C.A. 17 [1942-43]: 533); yet Abraham b. Hayya lived long before Judah Ibn Tibbon, so that if anything it should rather be said that Ibn Tibbon’s translation agreed with his. (If it could be proved conclusively that the translation was, in fact, that of Abraham, this would be of tremendous importance.) In his letter to Asher b. Meshullam of Lunel (the son of the scholar for whom he translated Bahya; English translation in Ibn Gabirols Improvement o f the Moral Qualities, Appendix A), he stated that if he should find “the words of the ancient poets” (!) similar to that work, or the works of S a m u e l I b n NAGHRILLAH he would translate them. This is pecu­ liar, since he himself had lived in Granada, where Samuels work was certainly known, and yet he did not realize that Samuel wrote in Hebrew, not Arabic, nor are there any “ancient poets” (Jewish) who wrote in Arabic. In his “ethical will” to his son, he in fact constantly cited the proverbial work of Ibn Naghrlllah; apparently he had not seen that work earlier. In that will (ed. Israel Abrahams, Hebrew Ethical Wills I, 51-92), he expressed his disappointment with his son Samuel and hoped that eventually he would apply himself to his studies in a proper man­ ner. That hope was to be fulfilled, for Samuel (ca. 1160-ca. 1232) far outshone his father as an impor­ tant translator. He is particularly famous as the main translator of the works of Maimonides: the “Guide” (Moreh nevukhiym), and also his commentary on Avot, the important introduction to the commentary on chapter 10 of Sanhedrin, the Letter to the Jews of Yemen, and the letter to his pupil Joseph b. Judah Ibn Shimon (not IBN A k n i n as often erroneously claimed). He exchanged letters with Maimonides concerning his translation of the “Guide,” including some questions he had about the meaning of certain things. He was very concerned with precision in his translation, and created a number of new words or new meanings for words for that purpose. Therefore, he wrote a separate explanation of philosophical ter­ minology as he understood it. The problem with his translation, particularly of the “Guide,” is that it is often verbose and obscures rather than clarifies the meaning. He also translated three treatises by Ibn Rushd (“Averroes”) on conjunction with the Active

643

Translation by Jews

Intellect, one of “Alexander romances” (from JudeoArabic), and Aristotles Meteorology (based on the Arabic translation of Ibn al-Bipriq). Samuels son Moses was even more prolific, as an independent writer (with many works still unpub­ lished) and also a translator. His translations include Maimonides’ “Book of Commandments,” one of the several translations of Maimonides’ “Treatise on Logic,” his famous “Regimen of Health” (the best edition of the translation is Die Sielenhygiene des Maimonides, ed. Judeo-Arabic, and Ibn Tibbon’s Heb. tr., with Germ, tr., H. Kroner [Stuttgart, 1914]), his “Treatise on Poisons,” and his “Commen­ tary on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates.” In addition, he also translated Joseph Ibn §addiq’s philosophical work i^Olam qapan), several other philosophical works of Ibn Rushd, al-Farabl, Themistius, and alBatalyasI, Kitdb al-hada ’iq (ed. David Kaufmann, Die Spuren al-Bafaljusis [sic] [Budapest, 1880; photo rpt. Farnborough, Eng., 1972]), al-Bitrujl’s Kitdb al-haya (ed. and tr. Bernard Goldstein, On the Principles o f Astronomy [New Haven, 1971], vol. 2. Samuel Ibn Motot, ca. 1370 in Guadalajara, translated the other chapters published there). Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s sonin-law Jacob Anatoli (born in Marseille, latter part of twelfth century), was called to Naples by Frederick II in 1232 to make translations of important Arabic works. Among those he is known to have translated was Ibn Kathlr al-Farghanl (ninth-century astron­ omer), Kitdb al-fti$ul, a summary of Ptolemy’s Al­ magest (a Latin translation based on his Hebrew translation was published), and Ibn Rushd’s middle commentary on the Isagoge. Jacob b. Makhir Ibn Tibbon (ca. 1236-1307; known to the Christian world as Don Profiat Ju­ daeus), Samuel’s grandson, was born in Marseille and lived also in Montpellier, Cordoba, and Seville. He was an astronomer and mathematician, and author of the perpetual almanac used by Dante. He trans­ lated some of Ibn Rushd’s works (in the sixteenth century, Latin translations by Abraham de Balmes and Jacob Mantinus from his Hebrew translations were published). Most significantly, he translated Abu All ibn Haytham, Qaula f i hay a al- \alam (on the form of the universe), a very important translation of an apparently otherwise unknown work by the great­ est Muslim physicist and scholar of optics (ca. 965-1039), known to the Christians as “Alhazen” 644

(see Steinschneider in Bollettino di bibliographia e di storia della scienze matematiche e fisiche 14 [1881]: 721-36; 16 [1883], 505-13). Also of great impor­ tance is his translation of Menelaos, Sphaericonum libri III (probably translated from the Arabic version of Abu Nasr Mansur; see O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity [N.Y., 1969], p. 225; although a fourteenth-fifteenth century ms. [Madrid, B.N. 5474] ascribes the Arabic translation from which Ibn Tibbon worked as that of the Syrian Christian Hunayn Ibn Ishaq. The Madrid ms. is apparently com­ plete, and should be edited.) Even more important was his translation of “Arzachel” (“Azarchal,” etc.) i.e., al-Zarqalluh (Abu Isljaq Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Yahya); see Tractat de I’assafea de Azarquiel, ed. J. M. Millas Vallicrosa (Madrid-Barcelona, 1933). Jacob and John of Brescia made a Latin translation of this work. Of his numerous mathematical translations (Euclid, etc.), only the section on trigonometry from the as­ tronomical work of Ibn Aflah of Seville (a great as­ tronomer, with whose students Maimonides studied) was published (in a Latin translation in 1534). Un­ fortunately, many, indeed most, of his translations re­ main unpublished. Judah b. Solomon al-Harizi (ca. 1170-before 1235), born in Granada or Toledo, lived in Marseille for a period before returning to his native land. In 1216 he went back to Provence, then to Jerusalem, Damascus, and Bara before returning to Spain around 1230. He is most famous for his rhymed prose work Tahkemoniy (see LITERATURE, HEBREW— SPAIN) and poetry, but he was also an important translator. Of particular importance are his transla­ tion (and adaptation) of yunayn Ibn Ishaq’s collec­ tion of proverbs (the Arabic original of which is lost), Musrey ha-fiylosofiym (published), and another trans­ lation of Maimonides’ “Guide,” which in fact is a better translation in many respects than that of Ibn Tibbon. It was unjustly criticized, however, and Ibn Tibbon’s translation became accepted; in spite of which, his translation was the basis of medieval Latin translations and the Spanish one of the Jewish con­ vert Pedro of Toledo (now published). He also trans­ lated all of Maimonides’ commentary on the Mish­ nah Order Zera'iym for the famous Rabbi Jonathan ha-Kohen of Lunel. Among his other translations are a literal translation (not adaptation) of the famous rhymed-prose novella of the Muslim author al-Hariri

Translation by Jews

and possibly the forged “Treatise on Resurrection” at­ tributed to Maimonides. Shem Tov b. Isaac of Tortosa, b. 1196, who stud­ ied in Barcelona and also lived in Montpellier and Marseille, was a physician who translated the Kitdb al-Ta$rif of Abu’l-Qasim Khalaf “al-Zahrawl” (Ibn Sarabl; Latin “Abulcasis”; “Serapion” the younger), an important work on surgical implements, pro­ ceeded by a description of the four elements, the sea­ sons and diseases associated with these (published). A superior Hebrew translation of the medical work was done by Meshullam b. Jonah. Shem Tov (who, inci­ dentally, is not to be confused with Shem Tov b. Isaac Ibn Shaprut) also translated a medical work of al-RazI, Ibn Rushd’s middle commentary to Aristo­ tle s De anima, and the “Aphorisms” of Hippocrates (all unpublished), important because it includes the commentary of Palladios otherwise known only in quotations (see Sarton II, ii, 846; Steinschneider, pp. 741-48). Samuel b. Judah of Marseille (born 1294; lived in Salon, Tarascon, Aix, Murcia, etc.) was one of the most important medieval translators. He was appar­ ently a man of some means, and thus was able to de­ vote himself to the study of science and philosophy. His translation activity began around 1320, when he translated Ibn Rushd’s commentary on the Organon of Aristotle (there is a partial Lat. tr. by Abraham de Balmes which was published), and, more important, Averroes’s (Ibn Rushd) epitome of Plato’s Republic, a major accomplishment of which there is a modern edition with a very faulty translation by Erwin Rosenthal (Cambridge, 1969) and a corrected trans­ lation by Ralph Lerner (Ithaca, N.Y., 1974). The following year he completed his revision of his trans­ lation of Ibn Rushd’s commentary on Aristotle’s “Ethics.” This and his translation of the commentary on the Republic were completed while he and several other Jews were in prison in Beaucaire, as he wrote in his epilogue to both works (see texts and translations in Berman; cf. also Renan [Neubauer], pp. 209 [555] ff.). None of those who have written about Samuel made any attempt to explain this imprisonment, nor is Beaucaire or the fortress of Rodorta (where the Jews were actually imprisoned) mentioned by Gross, Gallia Judaica; however, it is clear that this had to do with the “Lepers’ Plot” in 1321, when it was alleged that Jews, acting together with lepers, had poisoned

the wells. Many Jews were robbed and killed as a re­ sult of riots that ensued. The government also im­ posed an enormous fine on the French Jews, and it is probably because of this that Samuel and his com­ rades were in prison. Extremely important also is his translation of the treatise on the movement of the fixed stars by “Azarquiel” (al-Zarqalluh), edited and translated by J. M. Millas Vallicrosa, Estudios sobre Azarquiel (MadridGranada, 1943-50). He also translated some other works, the most important of which is the epitome of Ptolemy’s Almagest (actually a critique of that work) by the famous Andalusian astronomer Ibn Aflah. Re­ alizing the importance of the work, he and his brother searched for the manuscript and finally found a copy in Trinquetaille, near Arles, where for two days they copied the manuscript, shut up in the house of the owner and living only on bread and water. Samuel’s epilogues are of great interest on the nature of translation, his desire to collaborate with Christian scholars, and other matters. Kalonymos (so; the name is Greek) b. Kalonymos b. Meir (also known as maestro K al), was born in 1287 in Arles; he lived also in Avignon, Rome, and Catalonia. He wrote several works himself, but also did some translation of Arabic works, the most im­ portant of which was Ibn Rushd, Tahafut al-tahdfut (“Destruction of the destruction,” a rebuttal of alGhazall’s attack on philosophy)—see below on trans­ lations from Latin, and his Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s “Physics” and “Metaphysics,” and his Middle Commentary on De generatione et corrup­ tio n (all of which have been published). A contem­ porary, Kalonymos b. David b. Todros, made a He­ brew translation of Ibn Rushd’s Tahafut al-tahdfut, which disgracefully is still unedited, although a Latin translation of it was published in 1527 (see Zedler, pp. 25-26 for details). In Barcelona, in the early thirteenth century, was Abraham b. Samuel Ibn Hasdai (d. 1240), best known for his Ben ha-melekh ve-ha-naziyr, based on the Arabic “Barlaam and Josaphat” stories but hardly a translation, rather a complete reworking of the sto­ ries with the addition of Jewish elements and ethical morals. He did a Hebrew translation of Mizdn al\amal of al-Ghazall, but replaced all references to the Quran with biblical references (Mozriey $edeq [Leipzig, Paris, 1839; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1975). 645

Translation by Jews

More important was his translation of the pseudoAristotelian Sefer ha-tapualp (Book of the apple), of which the Arabic original is lost. A Latin translation from his Hebrew translation was made under the di­ rection of Manfred, king of Sicily (d. 1266) and pub­ lished in 1706. The Hebrew translation has been frequently published. He also translated Isaac b. Solomon Israelis “Book of elements” (Sefer hayesodot) and Maimonides’ Iggeret ha-shemad (Letter of persecution), extant in a Munich manuscript (not the translation of that work which has been pub­ lished), and apparently also a translation of his “Book of commandments” (lost). Zerahyah b. Isaac b. Shealtiel Hen (Gracian) lived in Barcelona and also in Rome (1277—91). He is often confused with Zerahyah b. Isaac ha-Levy (Gerundi), who lived a century earlier and in Lunel. Zerahyah Hen was a philosopher and physician, who also translated some important works, including Aristotle’s “Physics,” “Metaphysics,” De eoelo et mundo. De anima, the commentary of Themistius on De eoelo et mundo (very important, ed. with Lat. tr. S. Landauer (Berlin, 1901 [Commentaria inAristotem Graeea, Themistius. . ., vol. 5, part 4]), alFarabl’s treatise on the soul (Risalafi mahiya al-nafs), and the “Medical aphorisms” of Maimonides (pub­ lished). He also made a Hebrew translation of the aforementioned Liber de causis (see above, Juan Ibn Daud). His other medical translations (unpublished) include three treatises of Galen and the spurious trea­ tise on sexual intercourse attributed to Maimonides. Shem Tov Ibn Falquerah (ca. 1225-ca. 1295, Tudela?) was a philosopher who included his transla­ tions of large sections of Arabic philosophical works in one of his own books, Reshiyt hokhmah (The be­ ginning of wisdom). These are portions of al-Farabl’s Ihsa al-ulum (Emanation of sciences) and his trea­ tises on the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle (all of which are translated in Muhsin Mahdi’s translation of Alfarabis Philosophy o f Plato and Aristotle [Ithaca, New York, 1969]). He did not belong to any “family” of translators, as Zedler thought (p. 25), apparently under the mistaken impression that every translator with the first name Shem Tov was related. Other occasional translators include two physicians, Solomon Ibn Ayyub (thirteenth century, Granada, Beziers), who translated the first part of Maimonides’ “Book of Commandments” (published) and a gram­

646

matical treatise of Ibn Ibn Janah, and Hayyim Ibn Baqa of Huesca (ca. 1298), who together with Jacob Ibn Abbas translated Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah Order “Nashiym,” and Joseph Ibn al-Fawwal of Huesca, who translated the commentary on Order “M oed’ and the last part of “Zera‘iym.” Translations from Latin

Hebrew translations from Latin are, of course, ex­ tremely rare, since few medieval Jews knew Latin (until the fifteenth century, at least). One such was, apparently, David b. Abraham Caslari, who translated a work by Galen from the earlier Latin translation of Gerard of Cremona (David, 1280-1357, lived in Montpellier, where he was a physician); Sarton II, ii, 857 confused him with an earlier David Caslari who corresponded with the poet Abraham Bedersi. A cer­ tain Solomon b. Moses of Melgueil (latter thirteenth century?) also made translations of some minor trea­ tises from Latin translations (see Sarton II, ii, 858; Steinschneider, pp. 253, 283, 334, 822). The afore­ mentioned Kalonymos b. Kalonymos b. Meir trans­ lated Ibn Rushd’s Tahafut al-tahdfut from Arabic into Latin at the request of Robert of Anjou (1328); there is an excellent modern edition of it by Zedler (see Bibliography), with a good introduction on Jewish translators of Ibn Rushd in general. With respect to medical translations from Latin, there were actually quite a few, which can be explained by the fact that Provencal Jewish physicians studied in Christian medical schools. Examples include Leon Joseph of Carcassonne (1392-1402), see Steinschnei­ der, pp. 794-97; and Abraham (Bonet) b. Meshullam Avigdor, who studied at the University of Montpellier, 1367-79, and made translations from several Latin medical works as well as other translations (ibid., pp. 782-83 and index for his other Hebrew translations); Judah b. Solomon Natan (fourteenth century, Arles?) translated excerpts of several Latin medical works (ibid., pp. 738-39, 798). It is astonishing that some of these, and other translators, translated works by such notoriously anti-Jewish writers as Arnau de Villanova. A unique instance of the translation of a medical trea­ tise from French was Benjamin b. Isaac of Carcassonne (ca. 1360), who translated a treatise on the plague by Jean de Bourgogne (published with an English transla­ tion, 1917). There were altogether at least fifty transla­

Translation by Jews

tors of medical works in Spain and Provence, includ­ ing (mostly) translations from Arabic. There is much interesting information about these, which cannot be detailed here. A particularly curious case of translation from Latin, not of medical works, is ‘Eli (or Ali) b. Joseph Habillo of Monzon (Catalonia), ca. 1470, who trans­ lated the aforementioned Liber de causis (attributed to Juan Ibn Daud), which he thought to be by alFarabl, saying that if so “he is of great value and it is worthwhile to rely on him, and the early and late Christian scholars relied upon him and therefore I have translated it into our holy language” (Stein­ schneider, p. 266, n. 1124). More interesting are his translations of Christian theological treatises: Ock­ ham’s Summa . . . logices and Quaestiones philosophicae, and even the notoriously anti-Jewish Duns Sco­ rns (Steinschneider, p. 477), two treatises by Thomas A QU INAS (see that article); Johannes Versor, several works (Steinschneider, pp. 488-89); and Vincent Beauvais, “De universalibus” (from his Speculum), whom he identified as a “learned Christian” of the D o m i n i c a n Order (ibid. 489). Court Translators o f Arabic

The kings of Spain ruled over a population com­ posed of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Through at least the fourteenth century, most of the Muslims and many Jews spoke Arabic as their native language (the Jews, but not always the Muslims, also spoke the vernacular Romance of each kingdom). In addition, the rulers were in constant contact with Muslim kingdoms, whether Granada, which remained Mus­ lim until conquered by FERNANDO AND ISABEL, or NORTH A f r i c a . It was thus essential that they have expert translators of Arabic and Arabic secretaries, who invariably were Jews. Already JAIME I of AragonCatalonia had in this dual capacity Astrug Bonsenyor (d. before 1280) and his son Jahuda, author of a Catalan proverbial work. Others who served the king following the conquest of Majorca were Bahya and Solomon Alcostantim. Pedro III had as his Arabic translators Samuel Abemenasse (briefly, 1282), Samuel b. Abraham Abinnaxim (1280, chief secre­ tary of Arabic for Valencia), and a certain Maalutx (1276). Alfonso III utilized the services of Bondavid, another son of Astrug Bonsenyor. Jaime II had

Jahuda Bonsenyor (d. 1331) as his chief translator and interpreter, but also used the services of Abra­ ham Ibn Nahmias and Jucef Alfavel of Fraga (1318), who almost certainly is identical with Joseph alFawwal who translated part of Maimonides’ com­ mentary on the Mishnah (and whose introductory letter is extremely interesting on the history of that translation and the request to have Maimonides’ Arabic commentaries translated into Hebrew). In Castile there was less use of Jewish translators or interpreters, perhaps because there were still many Christians who were expert in Arabic. Alfonso VI had Abraham Ibn al-Fakhkhar as his ambassador to the Muslim rulers of al-Andalus and as his inter­ preter. Sancho IV utilized the services of Abraham Abena^ar (1294). In Murcia, David Abeacox was the official Arabic translator for the city council and chief judge. His main duties were to translate Arabic letters received from the king of Granada and to write Arabic letters to him. In 1403, he complained that he had nevertheless not received a salary for eighteen years, and was finally paid a rather paltry sum (Juan Abelian Perez, “Notas sobre cuatro judios murcianos,” Miscellanea de estudios drabes y hebraicos 30 [1981]: 99-107). Translators in Other Countries

A certain Jacob, a Jew in Venice, in 1281 assisted the Christian physician Paraviius (or Paravicinus) Patavinus in translating from Hebrew into Latin the med­ ical encyclopedia of the Spanish Muslim physician Ibn Zuhr (Steinschneider, p. 749). Natan b. Eliezer ha-Meatiy (born in Florence, lived in Rome ca. 1279-83) translated the “Aphorisms” of Hippocrates with Galen’s commentary (see Steinschneider, p. 659), Maimonides’ “Aphorisms,” a treatise on eye diseases by Ammar Ibn All (made for the physician Isaac b. Mordecai, “Maestro Gajo,” physician to two popes; see M E D IC IN E ) and some other Arabic med­ ical treatises, the most important among them being the Qdnun (Canon), the great medical work of Ibn Slna (another translation was begun by the afore­ mentioned Zerahyah Hen [Gracian] at Rome at about the same time, but was not completed). Natan’s translation of the “Canon” was revised (Books I and IV retranslated) by Joseph Ibn Vivas (not “Vives”) al-Lorqi of Spain (d. before 1372), a

647

Translation by Jews

scientist and father of the notorious apostate Joshua al-Lorqi (Jeronimo de Santa Fe; see CONVERSION BY J e w s ). Joseph also translated Maimonides5treatise on logic (published text). Samuel b. Jacob of Capua (end of thirteenth century?) translated a medical treatise of Masawayh al-Maridlnl (see Sarton II, ii, 854 on that author; all his remarks are taken directly from Steinschneider, pp. 717-21, without acknowl­ edgment). Ahitub b. Isaac of Palermo also translated Maimonides5treatise on logic. Very curious is “Haginus filius Deulacres55or Dieulacresse (Hayyim Gedalyah), the “chief rabbi55 of En­ gland in 1281, who may be the “Hagin55who trans­ lated Ibn ‘Ezras astrological work Reshiyt hokhmah (The beginning of wisdom, published) into French in 1273 and perhaps also the Image du monde of Walter of Metz (neither of these is a positive identification; see Sarton II, ii, 857). Medieval Jewish translators were far from being mere “transmitters of Arabic culture55 to Christian Europe. There is, in fact, not all that much evidence that Christian Europe made much use of the knowl­ edge received from Arabic or Jewish sources until the Renaissance. There were certainly many more Hebrew translations from Christian sources than there were from Hebrew into Latin. Far more impor­ tantly, Jewish translation stimulated the flourishing philosophical, scientific, and medical knowledge of Provence and northern Spain, and later also for Castile when Arabic had been largely forgotten by the Jews. Equally important, many of the Hebrew translations of Arabic works (and in some cases, Themistius for example, of Greek through Arabic) have given us the only surviving texts of these trea­ tises. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alfonso X, attributed. Libros del saber de astronomia (attributed to Alfonso X of Castile) ed. M. Rico y Sinobas (Madrid, 1863-67). Berman, Lawrence V. “Greek [sic[ into Hebrew: Samuel ben Judah of Marseilles, Fourteenth-Cen­ tury Philosopher and Translator,55 in Alexander Altmann, ed., Jewish M edieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 289-313.

648

Renan, Ernest [actually A. Neubauer]. Les ecrivains juifs frangais [i.e., Provencal] de XIV siecle (Paris, 1893; photo rpt. Westmead, England, 1969). Romano, David. “Le opere scientifiche di Alfonso X e Tintervento degli ebrei,55 Oriente e occidente nel medioeve: filosfia e scienze (Rome, Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Convegno internazione, 1971), pp. 677-711. Roth, Norman. “Jewish Collaborators in Alfonsos Scientific Work,55in Robert I. Burns, ed., Emperor o f Culture. Alfonso X the Learned o f Castile and His Thirteenth-Century Renaissance (Philadelphia, 1990), pp. 59-71,223-230. Sarton, George. Introduction to the History o f Science (Baltimore, 1931-46), Vols. 2-3 especially; in­ dices at end of each vol. Steinschneider, Moritz. Die hebraeischen Ubersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dometscher (Berlin, 1893, 2 vols.; photo rpt. Graz, 1956 in one). Thery, Gilbert. Tolede (Oran, 1944), important on translators, particularly p. 30 ff., p. 136 ff. Zedler, Beatrice H., ed. Averroes Destructio Destrucionum Philosophiae Algazelis in the Latin Version o f Calo Calonymos (Milwaukee, 1961); Latin transla­ tion by Kalonymos b. Kalonymos b. Meir, with introduction.

Troyes

Troyes, a city in northwestern France, was in the tenth century the capital of the county of Cham­ pagne. It was an important transport, economic, and commercial center, and was especially known as a center for the production of wool. Already by the end of the tenth century the Jewish community of Troyes was known as important. Its members made their living from MONEYLENDING, AGRICULTURE (especially vineyards and the making of wine, rearing of sheep and production of wool, and markets), and the dyeing of cloth. Among the Jews were also those who were involved in various businesses with Gentiles from the region or outside of it. As with the majority of the important commu­ nities similar to Troyes, the heads of the community generally were members of a few ancient and estab­ lished families, from whom came both rabbinic sages

Troyes

and leaders of the community, and to whom the other families willingly submitted. From this period there is testimony as to the inves­ tigation of Jewish law between the heads of the com­ munity of Troyes and Rabbenu Gershom (GERSHOM B. JUDAH), “M eor ha-geulah.” However, it should be noted that the size of the community, as with a large portion of other Jewish communities at this time, was small. In one of the rabbinic questions sent from Troyes at the beginning of the eleventh century, men­ tion is made of the difficulty of raising assessments for the redemption of captives [Jews who had been taken captive, usually by Muslim pirates but often by Chris­ tians while the Jews were journeying on land], so that individual families living in villages around Troyes had to participate in these payments, in spite of the fact that the majority of the money was paid by the fami­ lies of the captives themselves. The heads of the com­ munity also testified that their community was small. A significant surge in the development of the commu­ nity began with the arrival of large numbers of immi­ grants in the county of Champagne, and especially Troyes, in the mid-twelfth century and throughout the thirteenth century. The essential fame of the community is due to the activities of one of its members, Rabbi Solomon b. Isaac, called “RASH? (1040-05), the great talmudic and biblical commentator and among the greatest Jewish scholars of all time. When he was twenty years old he went to learn in the most famous yeshivot (tal­ mudic academies) of Germany, and upon his return after many years be became part of the local beit diyn (Jewish court) and he began to teach students who came to his yeshivah from all parts of Europe, even from Bohemia and other faraway lands. One should not forget the destruction of the Torah centers of Mayence (Mainz) and Worms in the events of the First Crusade (1096; see CRUSADES), which to a cer­ tain extent aided the established position of his school, which became the largest and most important center in western Europe. Included in his yeshivah were several of the great leaders of the next genera­ tion, such as his sons-in-law and his grandson Samuel b. Meir (fL ca. 1080-1160). In Troyes “Rash? com­ piled his great commentaries on the Talmud and Bible, which he had begun in his studies in Germany, and even though he did not write a book of law his

legal judgments became renowned throughout the Jewish world. His sons-in-law, grandsons, and students contin­ ued his method in study of the Bible and Talmud and leadership of French Jewry. For some years Samuel b. Meir and his younger brother Jacob (“Rabbenu Tam” [ca. 1100-71]) remained in the town of Ramerupt near Troyes, where their father Rabbi Meir lived. Af­ terward they returned to Troyes and continued their activities there. Possibly “Rabbenu Tarn’ returned to Troyes after he was injured by a mob during the Sec­ ond Crusade (1146) in Ramerupt, when he was miraculously saved from death. Under the leadership of “Rabbenu Tam there were convened in Troyes in the mid-thirteenth cen­ tury, at the time of the immigration, several assem­ blies of rabbis and leaders of the communities, at which were decreed important enactments concern­ ing marriage, relations with informers and violators of Jewish law and their punishment, and so forth. Rabbi Joseph b. Judah and his son Menahem “Shatz” of Troyes, educated in the school of students of the students of “Rashi? produced several generations later the “Seder Troyes? which is an important source for liturgical customs and prayers. Relations with Gentiles were generally normal, in spite of which the community suffered more than once at the hands of the rulers and others of the re­ gion, and during the First Crusade they may have suffered seriously. “Rash? mentioned in his piyyu­ tiym (liturgical poems) the oppressions of the Gen­ tiles and the endurance of the Jews [although there are no sources about attacks on the Jews there during the crusade]. Toward the end of the thirteenth cen­ tury, the persecutions and EXPULSIONS of Jews began. In a BLOOD LIBEL case in 1288, thirteen members of the community were burned, and there are liturgi­ cal poems commemorating them. Nevertheless, the community continued to exist until the expulsions of the Jews from France at the end of the fourteenth century. In the nineteenth century the community was re­ newed, and today it counts some hundreds of fami­ lies. With the passing of generations all sign of the Jewish past in the city has been obliterated. A few years ago a Rashi Center was established in the city, devoted to research in the history of French Jews and

649

Troyes

the investigation of the Jewish past of the city of Troyes. MOSHE CATANE [TRANSLATED BY NORMAN ROTH]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chazan, Robert. M edieval Jewry in Northern France (Baltimore, 1973).

650

Darmesteter, A. “L’autodafe de Troyes (24 avril 1288),” Revue des etudes ju iv e s ! (1881): 199-247. Gross, Henri. Gallia Judaica (Paris, 1897; photo rpt. Amsterdam, 1969). Grossman, Abraham. Hakhmey Ashkenaza ha-rishonim (Heb.; Jerusalem, 1981). Rabinowitz, L. The Social Life o f the Jews o f Northern France (London, 1938). Urbach, Ephraim. Baaley Tosefot (Jerusalem, 1980).

V An O bscure Past Jews appear to have settled in the Valencian territo­ ries [southeastern section of Spain] from ancient times, although precise dates are unknown. Tradi­ tions invented in the fifteenth century, intended to demonstrate the existence of Jewish settlement in an­ cient times in order to avoid the sentence of EXPUL­ SION, allude to a Jewish presence in Murviedro, cur­ rent Sagunto. The first Jews in the region probably settled in Sagunto and Elche, two of the most “romanized” urban centers. The oldest ruin demonstrat­ ing a possible Jewish presence in Elche is a building in La Alcudia excavated in 1905. Authors who have studied this oscillated in their opinion of its attribu­ tion either as a Christian basilica or a synagogue. The most recent opinion of E. Llobregat is that it was a basilica, remodeled in the seventh century, although this does not exclude the possibility of a Jewish pres­ ence in Elche, perhaps as merchants. In nearby Orihuela there was perhaps another Jewish community in the Visigothic period (see VISIGOTHS) as evidenced by a stone from the late Roman or Visigothic period (second half of the sixth or beginning of the seventh centuries), with an engraving of a menorah sur­ rounded by various symbols.

Valencia

Jews are known there from this time, including Isaac b. Moses Ibn Sakray (or Sakriy), rabbi until 1070 [see Ibn Daud, Sefer ha-qabbalah, tr. Gerson Cohen (Philadelphia, 1967), pp. 82-83]. Isaac b. Reuben (b. 1043) went from Barcelona to Denia, where he was a rabbi and one of the first translators of Arabic works into Hebrew, and a notable talmudic scholar. The famous poet and philosopher SOLOMON Ib n G a b i r o l died in Valencia (1053 or 1058). As is also known from the Cairo GENIZAH, some Jews from Denia engaged in commerce with Egypt. In the period of the “Cid,” who conquered Valen­ cia from the Muslims (1094), there were Jews who formed part of the administration of the city under the Christians. In the twelfth century, the presence of the A l m o r a v i d s and ALMOHADS in the Peninsula, with their religious intolerance, forced the emigra­ tion of Jews from the area, and Jewish families from Valencia and Jativa took refuge in Catalonia. In 1238, following the conquest by Jaime I, there were some 160 Jewish families in the city of Valencia, or approximately 7 percent of the population [it has been estimated that by the end of the thirteenth cen­ tury there were at least ten thousand Jews in the kingdom, so that one in six of every non-Muslim in­ habitants was a Jew—ed.].

M uslim Valencia a n d C hristian C onquest There are no actual records of Jews in Valencia until the eleventh century, when after the fall of the central caliphate in Cordoba, Muslim Spain was divided into separate city-states (taifas). One of these was Denia, which included the Balearic Islands. Certain

T hirteenth C entury: The “G olden Age” o f Valencian Jew s Following the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212, the Muslim dominance of Spain ended, and they were reduced to the kingdom of Granada. J a im e I conquered the area that had been known as al-Sharq 651

Valencia

al-Andalus (1233-45) and created the kingdom of Valencia. In the city of Valencia was a Jewish quarter which had been granted to the Jews by the monarchy in 1244. In addition to the Jews who remained from the Muslim period, others were attracted to the city by the privileges and rights granted by Jaime I. Jews received houses and lands in the city and the sur­ rounding area. The majority of these Jews came from Catalonia and Aragon, but also from North Africa and Marseille. The royal favor shown the Jews con­ tinued under the successors of Jaime I. Jaime I decreed an extensive legal system in order to regulate the Jewish community, to which between 1239 and 1244 he conceded the same rights as those enjoyed by the communities of Zaragoza and Barcelona. In legal cases, Jews were allowed to swear by the law of the Torah; in cases between Jews and Christians witnesses of both groups were allowed; and so forth. There were numerous and extensive privileges granted to the Jews, which extended also to towns such as Morelia or Jativa, in order to attract Jewish settlers. In the latter years of his reign, Jews were found in Morelia, San Mateo, Castellon de las Plana, Villarreal, Jativa, Segorbe, Denia, and numer­ ous other towns in addition to the capital city. The long reign of Jaime I was the “golden age” of the Jews in the kingdom of Aragon. Jews sometimes served as interpreters for documents or treaties dur­ ing the conquest or later wars, for example, Bahiel Alconstantini in the siege of Jativa (1240-41) or As­ truch Bonsenyor in Elche and Murcia (1264); but it was in public administration that they stood out the most, as bailes (administrators) or tax farmers. Many Valencian towns, especially those with a large Mudeja r (converted Muslim) population, had Jewish ad­ ministrators: Mosse Ravaya (Valencia, 1279), Aaron Abinafia (Valencia, 1276, also Ademuz, Alpuente, Liria and Segorbe), Samuel Abenvives (Alfandec, 1280-82), Salomo Vidal (Villarreal, 1276-83). [Cer­ tainly the most important Jewish official was Rabbi Bahya b. Moses Alconstantini, who lived in Aragon but owned property in Valencia. He was Arabic sec­ retary of Jaime I and arranged the surrender of Ma­ jorca, Jativa, and Murcia. He was also involved in the Maimonidean controversy and wrote a letter to the Jewish communities of Aragon in support of M a i m o n i d e s —ed.}

652

Fourteenth Century: From Crisis to Prosperity

The reign of Pedro III (1276-1285) had important consequences for the Jewish communities of the king­ dom. At the beginning of his reign he continued the protection of the Jews, but the offensive of the union of nobles forced the king to sign a privilege which contained, among other things, a prohibition against Jews holding public office and slaughtering meat in Christian butcheries and a requirement that they wear the round cape as a distinguishing sign of clothing [see CLOTHING; B a d g e ]. The Jews ceased their direct collaboration with the royal authority and virtually became nothing more than a source of revenue. The Crown imposed frequent extraordinary imposts upon the Jews, which led to the impoverishment of many communities. [Jews continued to serve as royal offi­ cials and local administrators, tax collectors, and so forth. Samuel Abinnaxim was the chief secretary and translator for Arabic for Pedro. Among important Jewish administrators in Valencia were Vives Aben­ vives, named by the king in 1280 as “custodian” of all “royal works” in Valencia, and Moses Alcostantim, an extremely important official who was imprisoned for a few years because he had not given the king all the taxes he collected. Jucef Ravaya was the personal banker of the king for years, and his treasurer in Sicily. When he died there in 1283, the king granted his widow extensive property in Malilla in Valencia, where Abenvives also owned property—ed.] Jaime II (1291-1327) established the policy, which for a century was followed with the Jews of the Kingdom of Aragon, of protecting their existence and ratifying their rights so long as these were not opposed to the principles of the Church and the Christian state. The king intervened seldom in the internal affairs of the Jews, their legal decisions, or apportionment of taxes, but he also was a king pledged to spread the Christian faith among the Jews, and accordingly they were obliged to listen to sermons of the friars in their synagogues and were obliged to wear a colored badge on their clothing. During the first third of the fourteenth century the Valencian Jewish communities were engaged in a process of consolidation, visible in things such as the closure of the Jewish quarter of Sagunto (1321) and construction of a new cemetery (1328), also in Castellon de la Plana (1321) or Burriana (1328),

Valencia

while the Jews of Orihuela petitioned for an exten­ sion of payment of taxes in order to increase the size of their community. However, already in the 1330s there began to appear symptoms of crisis, which broke forth in 1348 with the BLACK DEATH, which resulted in a significant decrease in the demographics of the Jewish communities. During the War of the Union, which coincided with this crisis, the Jewish community of Sagunto was sacked in 1348 by unionist troops of Valencia, while the Jews of Valen­ cia were accused also of propagating the plague. There was also an attack on the Jewish community of the city of Valencia in 1350. Slowly the Jews of Valencia began an economic and cultural recovery, with certain outstanding individuals such as Jafuda Alatzar, who assisted Pedro IV econom­ ically in his war with Castile. This king stimulated the flourishing of the Jewish communities for economic reasons, particularly because of that war, as a conse­ quence of which there was also a depopulation of the Jewish communities along the border with Murcia [then a province of Castile], such as Orihuela, Elche, and Alicante. Peace and subsequent privileges granted by Pedro IV allowed the recovery of these communi­ ties, although with a more modest character. The community of Valencia experienced in the 1360s and 1370s a significant increase, including the enlargement of the limits of the Jewish quarter, pro­ voking the discontent of the Christians and a petition to the Cortes (parliament) in 1369-1370 and 1371 that the Jews be compelled to return to their tradi­ tional area. Nevertheless, in 1389 the Jews were granted the right of extension and began work on a new quarter, a project cut short by the attacks in 1391. The Jews were looked upon by some Christians with repugnance as a caste of sinners, as a result of which a series of false legends were created, so that some considered them to be robbers, lepers, rich, perverts, desecrators of hosts [see HOST DESECRA­ TION], and so forth. In the summer of 1391, antiJewish sentiment was latent in Valencia. From Seville, the attack against Jewish quarters spread rapidly, with the uprising exploding in Valencia on the ninth of July. In the robbery of the Jewish quar­ ter, which the authorities were not able to stop, people of all social conditions took part, artisans and friars and some of the upper classes. The authorities

detained about a dozen of the nobles and between seventy and eighty common people involved in the attacks, but a year late the city received a pardon in exchange for the payment of a sum of money. For the Jews, the consequences were grave: robbery of prop­ erty, murders, and forced conversion. In Valencia 230 Jews and ten to twelve Christians died. There was massive conversion in all the Jewish communi­ ties, some of which disappeared entirely. In the century from 1391 to 1492 there were im­ portant transformations in Valencian Jewry. There was a notable decrease in population due to conver­ sion or emigration, particularly to North Africa. This resulted in a geographic redistribution of the Jewish communities in the central zone of the kingdom, be­ tween Castellon de la Plana and Jativa, with the epi­ center in Murviedro (Sagunto). The policy of Juan I of Aragon was to favor the reconstruction of the Jew­ ish communities, and gradually many of the commu­ nities were reactivated. This situation continued under Martin I, who established strong barriers be­ tween the Jews and the converts. The ascendancy to the throne of Fernando I, and the preaching of Vi­ cente Ferrer [see DOMINICANS] and the bulls of Bene­ dict XIII against the Jews brought about an increase in anti-Jewish attitude and an increase of conver­ sions. Under Alfonso V, from 1419 the previous re­ strictions were suppressed and the Jewish commu­ nities of Valencia began to achieve a period of tranquility. [The marriage of Fernando of Aragon and Isabel of Castile united all of Spain, including Valencia, into one kingdom.] By 1492, however, the only Jewish communities remaining were those of Sagunto, Castellon, and Ja­ tiva. On March 31 FERNANDO AND ISABEL decreed the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Jewish Society

The Jews formed their own society, even though they were part of the majority Christian society that had the power and dictated the norms of coexistence to which the Jews had to submit. The majority of the Jews lived in cities or important locales, but they did not form a part of the community in which they lived. Religion acted as a key factor of differentiation and an element of conflict with the Christians, so that the situation had gone from passive coexistence

653

Valencia

to tension and violence by the end of the medieval period. The social structure of the Valencian Jewish com­ munities consisted of a small group of wealthy individ­ uals and a majority of small bourgeoisies, craftsmen, and artisans. The upper classes formed an oligarchy, enriched by commerce and finance, which monopo­ lized the administrative functions of the community. At times they were accused by others in the commu­ nity of not living in accord with Jewish law. The synagogue was the place of assembly and of prayer, the center of the community where the most important decisions were made. In the city of Valen­ cia for a long period of time there was only one syna­ gogue, the sinagoga mayor, which was transformed after the assault in 1391 into the church of San Cristobal. In 1378, the bishop of Valencia authorized a new synagogue in the house of Aaron Rubio. An­ other similar permission was granted by Pedro IV in 1379, and yet another by the bishop in 1385 for the construction of a new synagogue, but it is unknown whether it was actually built. The synagogue of Sa­ gunto was transformed into a church after the expul­ sion, and that of Burriana was subjected to at­ tempted despoiling in 1465 and in i486. The Jewish communities developed means for provision for the needy, through cofradias (guilds, or brotherhoods, similar to the Christian guilds), also called havurot in Hebrew. There were such groups also to provide for education and other needs. In 1402, Queen Maria granted the Jewish community of Sagunto permission to establish a cofradia to bury the dead, another to aid the sick, another to accom­ pany the dead to the cemetery [netzamitS) , and an­ other to assist the education of poor children. Relations with Christians

Relations between Jews and Christians in Valencia, while touching every aspect of Jewish life, were al­ ways guided by one principle: the superiority of the Christian over the Jew. The relations between Chris­ tians and Jews as marked by several variables: equal­ ity—legal, social, economic, and cultural—alternat­ ing with the religions superiority of the Christians over the Jews; but there was also a legal inferiority of the Jew, in that he was not supposed to hold public office, nor serve as a physician to Christians, and Jews and Christians were supposed to live apart in 654

their own quarters. In practice, none of these things was observed; even the separate quarters were not found universally. Jews and Christians maintained the most diversified contacts in daily life, in com­ merce, and in some curious cases such as the associa­ tion between friar Juan of Castellon, Ramon Canet of Lucena, and Abraham Vives, rabbi of Castellon, to search for treasure. There were certainly cases of per­ sonal friendship between Christians and Jews, but tensions between the two groups increased especially during Holy Week, exacerbated by the sermons of the friars. The authorities imposed a tax on the Jews in return for their protection, which in Jativa and Buriana amounted to 150 sueldos a year. Jews traditionally lived in their own neighbor­ hoods, carrying on their social and religious life. At the end of the thirteenth century the anti-Jewish atti­ tude of the church attempted by all means to main­ tain separation between Jews and Christians. In the city of Valencia, from the time of the conquest the Jews had their own neighborhood, at first necessary for their security. In daily life of the Jews, food occupied a distinct place by peculiarities of law that distinguished them from Christians and Muslims, and meat was the most obvious of these differences. Special taxes were imposed on meat as well as on wine, and these were important revenues for the Jewish community. In Burriana, in 1427, a pact was made between the Jews and the justices according to which there was an obli­ gation to provide for the slaughter of meat for the Jews, even though there were problems in the appli­ cation of this agreement. In the most important communities, the Jews had their own slaughterers and butcher shops. There certainly was a degree of anti-Jewish senti­ ment among Christians, so that it is not possible to speak simply of harmonious “coexistence” when the Jews were obligated to live in separate quarters, to wear special signs to distinguish themselves, or some­ times were stoned during “Holy Week” [in 1283 Pedro III ordered local officials to prevent this]. On the other hand, in legal matters the Jews were pro­ tected, particularly in cases between Jews and Chris­ tians, and had their right of representation in court. With the passing of time the ecclesiastical laws about distinguishing clothing (the round cape, worn also by Jews in Barcelona) were relaxed or not observed,

Visigoths and Jews

and in 1396, after the recent attacks, Jews dressed in a manner indistinguishable from Christians, as a re­ sult of which Juan I ordered that they should wear a large tunic of dark color with a red badge on the shoulder. This law was nevertheless revoked in 1394 out of fear of possible violence against the Jews. Culture

At present, there is little information about the cul­ tural life of the Jews of Valencia. [Rabbi Na^an of Toledo went to Valencia to serve as rabbi in 1338, and in 1348 the famous philosopher and translator Moses Narboni was in Valencia for a brief period. The most important rabbi was the renowned ISAAC B. S h e s h e t , who in 1385 left Zaragoza to become in effect the chief rabbi of Valencia. Following the at­ tacks in 1391 he went to North Africa. Moses Ibn Abbas, a rabbi and poet, lived in Valencia in the 1390s. Amram Marwas Efrati Ibn Marwas, a rabbi in the 1390s, also went to North Africa, but later re­ turned and served as a rabbi in Granada. There were also a number of important Jewish doctors and scien­ tists (see SCIENCE) in Valencia—ed.]. JOSE HINOJOSA MONTALVO [TRANSLATED AND ABRIDGED BY NORMAN ROTH]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(added by the editor) Burns, Robert I. Muslimsy Christians, and Jews in the Crusader Kingdom o f Valencia (Cambridge, 1984). Hinojosa Montalvo, Jose. “Actividades comerciales de los judios en Valencia (1391-1492),” Saitabi 29 (1979): 21-42. Jimenez Jimenez, Maria. “La politica judaizante de Alfonso V a la luz de las concesiones otorgados en 1419 a la aljama de Murviedro,” Actasy comunicaciones del TV Congreso de historia de la Corona de Aragon (Majorca, 1955) I (1959), pp. 251-62. Magdalena Nom de Deu, J. R. “Delitos y calonies’ de los judios valencianos en la segund mitad del siglo XIV,” Anuario de filologia 2 (1976): 181­ 225. ---------. “Estructura socio-economica de las aljamas castellonenses a finales del siglo XV,” Sefarad 32 (1972): 341-70. --------- . La aljama hebrea de Castellon de la Plana en la baja edad media (Castellon de la Plana, 1978).

Piles Ros, Leopoldo. “Judios extranjeros en la Valen­ cia del siglo XV,” S efaradl (1947): 354-60. ---------. “La juderia de Sagunto,” Sefarad 17 (1957): 352-73, with photos. ---------. La juderia de Valencia (estudio historico) (Barcelona, 1991).

Visigoths and Jews In the fifth century C.E. the Visigothic tribes mi­ grated from their original Germanic homes, spread­ ing as far as the Iberian Peninsula and into North Africa and conquering Byzantine territory to the walls of Constantinople. Originally adherents of Arianism, a nonorthodox Christian sect, the Visigoths in Spain followed the conversion of their king Recared in joining the orthodox (“Catholic”) faith (587). The Visigothic kingdom of Spain was now a theocratic state, gov­ erned by church-state councils held at the capital city of Toledo. The kings presided over these councils, but in fact merely gave their approval to the decrees enacted by the bishops. In addition, however, the kings promulgated their own laws, which later were compiled into the official legal code known as the Lex Visigothorum. There was a significant, if still small, Jewish mi­ nority living in Visigothic Spain, probable descen­ dants of those Jew who had lived in the peninsula perhaps since early Roman times, and certainly since the fourth century C.E. These Jews were scattered in communities from as far north as Zaragoza to the ex­ treme southern coastal cities. They were increasingly the subject of hostile and restrictive legislation on the part of the kings and councils. This hostility was not, as popularly imagined, due to the conversion to orthodox Christianity, but rather was a combination of social factors—includ­ ing the cooperative relations between the Jewish and Christian population and the supposed “dangerous” influence of Jews upon Christians—and the influ­ ence of harsh anti-Jewish legislation in the Byzantine Empire. Christian polemic played also a major role, and it is no surprise that the very bishops who were the heads of the Toledo Councils which enacted the anti-Jewish decrees were authors of such polemical works; men like Isidore of Seville, Ildefonso of Toledo, Braulio of 655

Visigoths and Jews

Zaragoza, and Julian of Toledo (himself either a Jewish convert or descendant of such). King Sisebut in 613 finally ordered the compul­ sory baptism of all Jews (in spite of the decree of Pope Gregory I that prohibited such forced conver­ sion). In spite of this act, however, not all Jews con­ verted, as succeeding anti-Jewish legislation makes clear. In 633 the Fourth Toledo Council decreed that although baptism of Jews should not be by force, those already baptized must remain Christians. At the same time, it was noted that converted Jews con­ tinued to circumcise their sons and slaves, and their children were therefore to be taken from them to be raised as “good Christians,” and their slaves freed. But as late as 656 a complaint was made that clergy was selling Christian slaves to Jews, which not only violated an old law that Jews were not to have slaves but once again shows there were still unconverted Jews in the kingdom. Finally in 693 the council under Egica renewed all previous laws against Jews, noting that these have not helped and Jews continue in their “obstinancy.”

656

Therefore, Jews must either convert to the “true faith” or face severe punishment. The following year, amidst rumors of supposed Jewish “rebellion” against Christians throughout the world (for which there is not any evidence), it was decreed that all their prop­ erty be seized and that they be forced into perpetual slavery. Once again, it is clear that the final efforts at forced conversion had failed. The Jews at last were saved from this fate by the Muslim invasion of Spain in 711, at which time the majority of the Visigothic Christians simply fled the land and the Muslims became rulers of virtually the entire peninsula. Though legends of Jews invit­ ing the Muslims to invade and of Jewish “betrayal” of Christian Toledo are entirely false, nevertheless they certainly welcomed this unexpected salvation. NORMAN ROTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Roth, Norman. Jews, Visigoths &Muslims in Medieval Spain. Cooperation & Conflict (Leiden, 1995).

w Women (see also LANGUAGES;

MARRIAGE)

Although the main expectations for a Jewish woman of the Middle Ages were domestic, the evidence shows that women were also active in transacting business, often supporting their husbands and families, and that certain women fulfilled religious roles such as teaching other women and leading them in prayer. Most of the primary documents relevant to medieval Jewish women were written by men. These sources include the rabbinic responsa literature and codes of law; doc­ uments such as marriage contracts and bills of divorce; historical chronicles by Jewish and non-Jewish au­ thors; personal writings such as letters and ethical wills; economic records, including records of MONEYLENDING transactions; and religious and literary works. Virtually no documents that reflect the spiritual lives and personal aspirations of Jewish women of the Mid­ dle Ages directly are extant, and recovering medieval Jewish womens feelings about the expectations im­ posed upon them and the limitations for their sex in­ herent in rabbinic social policy is all but impossible. Moreover, medieval Jewish literature, both religious and secular, tends to represent women negatively, as untrustworthy, lightheaded sources of sexual tempta­ tion, and even as dangerous and demonic, despite the overwhelming evidence of womens vital and valued contributions in every aspect of medieval Jewish social and economic life. The Muslim World

The Cairo G e n i z a h documents are a major source of information about women in the large urban Jewish communities of the Muslim world from the ninth to

twelfth century. MARRIAGE contracts, for example, which often enumerated all of the dresses, orna­ ments, and furniture brought into marriage by the bride, provide information about high standards of living and material culture. Special clauses written into these contracts contained various social safe­ guards effecting alterations in Jewish laws and prac­ tices which were unfavorable to women, providing protection against many of the known difficulties of married life. Such provisions might include a guar­ antee that, in case of separation, a divorce document freeing the wife would be produced by her husband without delay or that the husband would not marry another wife, beat his wife, separate her against her will from her parents, or travel anywhere without her consent. Quite frequently, the contract also stip­ ulated that the husband would write a conditional bill of divorce before setting out on a journey so that his wife would be free to remarry should he fail to return. Jewish social life was strongly influenced by Is­ lamic norms. Thus, polygyny was not uncommon, and although Jewish women of prosperous families were not literally isolated in womens quarters as were Muslim women of comparable social status, adher­ ence to rabbinic norms and Muslim practice dictated that a womans place was in the home. Certainly this was the view of MAIMONIDES (1135—1204), who advised that women’s outside visits to family and friends should not exceed one or two a month. Nev­ ertheless, genizah documents detailing arbitrations of marital disputes indicate that wives usually insisted on freedom of movement. 657

Women

The course of a young womans life was deter­ mined by the marriage her parents arranged for her when she was thirteen or fourteen, sometimes to a considerably older man. A preference for marriages within the extended family preserved economic re­ sources and offered security and familiarity to a young bride. Marrying outside the family, however, was an opportunity for merchant families to widen their contacts and influence. Economic motives were not the only reason for marriage; a girl from a schol­ arly family might be sought after in the hope that she would bear sons inclined to Torah study. Although the husband promised to support his wife in their marriage contract, it was not unusual for married women to earn money on their own, most often through needlework, especially embroidery. Usually a wife was permitted to keep her earnings for her own private use, although clauses in some mar­ riage agreements stipulated that she provide her own clothing out of her earnings. According to geniza doc­ uments, control of this additional income was often a source of marital friction. In fact, few women were not involved in some aspect of economic life: impov­ erished women would have to sell wares or produce in the marketplace; wealthy women often controlled property, handled their own financial affairs, and rep­ resented themselves in court. The Cairo G e n i z a h also makes reference to women who served as syna­ gogue or miqveh (ritual bath) caretakers, offices usu­ ally bestowed as a form of communal charity. Matrimony was the primary focus of woman’s life, and personal letters preserved in the genizah reveal that marriages often grew into warm and meaningful bonds. Still, divorce was by no means uncommon in this milieu. Not only did Islamic social custom ac­ cept divorce, but arranged marriages, geographic mo­ bility, and what Goitein refers to as the “greater at­ tentiveness to a wife’s sufferings to be expected in a cosmopolitan bourgeois society” (Goitein 3:263) all contributed to marital discord. Some women emerged unscathed, particularly if they had favored the divorce and been supported by prosperous fami­ lies, and remarriage was very common. Less fortu­ nate divorcees were left in want and joined society’s other outcast females, destitute widows and the de­ serted, who were dependent on public support. A series of responsa by MAIMONIDES tells of one deserted wife who was able to make herself indepen­ 658

dent by running a school, assisted by her elder son. When her husband reappeared he insisted that she give up teaching and devote herself to his care, other­ wise he demanded permission to take a second wife. Maimonides suggests a divorce so that the woman may control her own life, but he rules that if she stays with her husband, he has the right to forbid her to teach. • This incident reveals that some Jewish women had at least elementary education. Indeed, the genizah contains a letter about hiring a private instructor to teach orphan girls to pray “so that they should not grow up like wild animals and not even know ‘Hear Israel’’’(Goitein 2: 184). In line with tradi­ tional rabbinic norms, and the practice of the sur­ rounding Muslim environment, more than this was probably quite rare, although girls from prosperous and learned families may have received extensive pri­ vate instruction. Petahia b. Jacob, a twelfth-century Jewish traveler from Regensburg, reports the possibly apocryphal story that the only child of Samuel ben All, a community leader in Baghdad, was a daughter expert in the scriptures and Talmud. She was said to have instructed young men in Scripture through a window so that her students would not see her. Still, the Genizah contains no piece of writing beyond per­ sonal letters that may be confidently attributed to a woman. Yet, despite Jewish women’s general lack of learn­ ing, genizah documents reveal that women were pious in their observance of the home-based laws in­ cumbent upon them, and many were regular in syna­ gogue attendance, where they prayed in a women’s gallery, to which they ascended from a separate syna­ gogue entrance. Women also donated Torah scrolls for the service, oil and books for study, and left lega­ cies for the upkeep of the synagogue, and it is not far­ fetched to interpret these actions, found in Christian Europe, as well, as female strategies for imprinting their presence on a realm in which their meaningful communal participation was otherwise impossible. Christian Europe

The number of Jews in Christian Europe was far smaller than in the Muslim world, and although Eu­ ropean Jews were also urban, they lived in tiny com­ munities in cities a great deal smaller than those of the East. Despite the legal disabilities they suffered,

Women

these Jews tended to be prosperous, enjoying a stan­ dard of living comparable to the Christian lower no­ bility and upper bourgeoisie. Significant Jewish ac­ culturation to Christian society is evident in women’s names; Alemandina, Belassez, Blanche, Brunetta, Chera, Columbina, Duzelina, Fleur de Lys, Floretta, Glorietta, and the like, are far more common than biblical appellations. (Jewish women in the Muslim realm similarly tended to have picturesque names of Arabic derivation). Jewish women were active participants in the fam­ ily economy, and their status was higher than that en­ joyed by most of their sisters in the Islamic milieu; this is indicated, in part, by the large dowries they brought into marriage, which constituted a signifi­ cant part of their parents’ property. Since the capital with which a young couple started life had its origin mainly in the bride’s portion, parents demanded strong guarantees in the marriage contract that the bride would be treated with respect, that her mar­ riage would have some permanence, and that she would have financial security. Thus, the high level of dowries not only reflected well on a family’s social status but also assured a wife a prominent position in her own household. This social reality is reflected in the ruling, credited to Rabbi GERSHOM BEN JUDAH ( c . 960-1028), that polygyny was forbidden for Ashkenazic Jewry, and more significant, in oppo­ sition to established rabbinic law and practice, that no woman could be divorced against her will. Familiarity with money led many women to take the initiative in business matters, and often they sup­ plied a part or even the whole of the family income, sometimes allowing their husbands to devote them­ selves to study. Women engaged in all kinds of com­ mercial operations and occupations, with MONEYLENDING especially preferred, and widows, who often controlled considerable financial resources, would frequently continue their business activities, some­ times in partnership with another woman. Such undertakings, which could be extremely complex, re­ quired literacy and training in mathematics and bookkeeping skills. An example of a highly successful Jewish business­ woman in medieval England was Licoricia of Win­ chester, who had direct business dealings with the king. She was twice imprisoned on charges that were later dismissed, and made large contributions

toward the buildings of Westminster Abbey. Her five sons, who described themselves as “sons of Licoricia,” also became moneylenders, continuing their mother’s business after her murder in 1277. Some women were probably artisans, having learned the skills of their fathers or husbands, and there are also some references in Christian sources to indepen­ dent Jewish women who practiced MEDICINE. Jewish women who worked as midwives and wetnurses, often for non-Jews, are well documented in Spain, and the existence of several medieval obstetrical trea­ tises in Hebrew, apparently intended for female mid­ wives, indicate that at least some women involved in medical practice were literate in that language. The level of religious education among western European Jewry included literacy in Hebrew for all men, and for a small elite, considerably more. Occa­ sionally these higher standards also applied to women, particularly those from notable families that were distinguished for their learning. In the early twelfth century, Rachel, one of the daughters of Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac (“RA SH ? [1040-1105]), is said to have recorded a responsum from her father’s dictation, an undertaking requiring knowledge of rabbinic Hebrew. Among women who are described as women’s prayer leaders are Dolce of Worms, Richenza of Nuremberg, and Urania of Worms, whose headstone epitaph commemorates her as a cantor’s daughter who “with sweet tunefulness” led the women’s singing. Indeed, WORMS, which had a separate room for women attached to the synagogue, may have had special traditions associated with women and worship. A Latin letter in the Archive of the Crown of Aragon, dating from 1325, refers to a certain (Jeti of Zaragoza as a rabissa, who is said to have served as a salaried synagogue leader of Jewish women for twenty years. Whether this title means that (Jeti was a women’s prayer leader or simply an attendant for the women’s section of the synagogue and the miqveh, is impossible to determine (Nirenberg, pp. 179-82). For most girls education meant literacy in the ver­ nacular, mastery of the mathematics essential for the conduct of business, and the acquisition of domestic skills. These included not only the rudiments of cooking, needlework, and household management, but also the halakhic rules applicable to home and marriage. Minimal religious training was considered 659

Women

essential so that a woman would know how to ob­ serve the Sabbath and the other commandments rele­ vant to her life. In his ethical will, Elazar b. Samuel of Mainz, a fourteenth-century Jew of whom noth­ ing else is known, urges all his children to attend syn­ agogue regularly and to engage daily in study or char­ itable activities; he requests his daughters to obey the laws applying to women: “modesty, sanctity, and rev­ erence should mark their married lives,” and to “re­ spect their husbands and be invariably amiable to them.” Daughters, as well as sons, are admonished to live in communities among other Jews so that their children may learn the ways of Judaism, and he in­ sists that “they must not let the young, of either sex, go without instruction in the Torah.” The actual mores of Jewish life must have strayed rather far from talmudic ideals in El’azar’s time, for he urges his chil­ dren to avoid “mixed bathing and mixed dancing and all frivolous conversation.” He further desires that his daughters should stay at home devoting themselves to useful occupations such as cooking, spinning, and sewing, since idleness leads to sin (Abrahams, pp. 207-18). El’azar’s obvious concern for his daughters’ education, for their mode of life, and his knowledge of the pitfalls they might encounter is vibrant testi­ mony to a Jewish society in which women played many active roles. The esteem granted a beloved wife, and a descrip­ tion of her activities, is found in the lament of R. El’azar ben Judah of Worms (1165-1230), a member of the learned elite and an important spiritual leader, for his exemplary wife, Dolce, and their two daugh­ ters, who were killed by intruders in 1197. Dolce, who supported her family and her husband’s students through her business ventures, was also involved in religious activities, attending synagogue regularly, sewing together forty Torah scrolls, making wicks for the synagogue candles, and instructing other women and leading their prayers. Because most ordinary Jewish women were cut off from knowledge of Hebrew, which would have en­ abled them to read the traditional liturgy and holy books, and were not considered obligated to partici­ pate in communal synagogue services that followed a set order of prayer, many women recited prayers at home in the vernacular, a practice sanctioned by the rabbinic leadership. Although many of these prayers, some of which were written by women, closely fol­ 660

lowed the synagogue liturgy, others were intended for events particular to women’s lives such as baking of Sabbath loaves or immersion in the ritual bath. With the invention of printing at the end of the Middle Ages, this women’s vernacular literature of supplica­ tory prayers (tehiynnot), together with simplified “women’s Bibles” and ethical writings, began to be widely available. Many of these volumes also had great appeal for less educated male members of the Jewish community. Many Jewish women, although unconcerned with enlarging their religious knowledge or obligations be­ yond the household sphere, were genuinely pious. The early-thirteenth-century Sefer IJasidim preserves several passages praising women’s piety and their philanthropy. Similarly, women appear to have been less likely than men to choose the always available option of conversion to Christianity. A number of re­ sponsa deal with the question of the divorce of a Jew­ ish wife from a converted husband. The rabbinic au­ thorities did everything possible to free a Jewish wife from such a marriage and guarantee the return of her property so that a remarriage might occur. Women were steadfast in their devotion to their people dur­ ing times of crisis, as well. Crusade chronicles docu­ ment the courage of Jewish women who preferred death for themselves and their children to apostasy. An intriguing and ultimately tragic instance of a woman’s loyalty to her people is that of Polcelina, the Jewish mistress of Count Theobald of Blois, who, in 1171, perished together with thirty other Jews as the result of a RITUAL MURDER accusation, apparently fueled by jealousy and intrigue against Polcelina in Theobald’s court. Perhaps because of fear of sexual contacts between Christians and Jews, church legislation decreed that Jewish women must wear a distinguishing BADGE at a younger age than was required for Jewish men, and often insisted that women wear humiliating attire, such as one red slipper and one black, even when Jewish men did not have to. Images o f Women in M edieval Jewish Literature

Many of the negative attitudes associated with women in rabbinic tradition are intensified in the Middle Ages. Thus, customary law concerning the niyddah, the menstruating woman, becomes more exclusionary. While the Mishnah and the Talmuds

Women

view the menstruant as impure and capable of trans­ mitting impurity to persons and objects, she is not perceived as a source of general danger who must be isolated from synagogue attendance or other com­ munal activities. However, according to the highly influential Baraita de Niyddah, probably written in the land of Israel in the sixth or seventh century, the menstruant must be distanced, not only from her husband, but from everyone; she is forbidden to enter a synagogue, to come into contact with sacred books, to pray, or to recite God’s name. These prohi­ bitions became very widespread, as custom, during the medieval period, particularly in the Ashkenazi sphere. Similarly, traditions about Lilith, a major figure in Jewish demonology with roots in ancient Near East­ ern folklore, are first synthesized in the Middle Ages in the “Alphabet o f Ben Sira” a midrashic work of the geonic period. In this text, rabbinic traditions about the “first Eve,” who refused to submit to Adams mas­ tery, merge with legends about Lilith, a demon who kills infants and endangers women in childbirth. The Alphabet o f Ben Sira established the image of Lilith in later Jewish FOLKLORE and mystical speculation as the exemplar of both the rebellious wife and the de­ monic enemy of submissive and obedient women. Overwhelmingly negative attitudes toward women prevail in Jewish secular literature from both the Muslim and Christian milieux. While some writers portray women as virtuous and essential to make hap­ piness, more often women are represented as treach­ erous creatures who cause men to suffer. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a number of Hebrew books appeared in Spain, Italy, PROVENCE, and Ashkenaz debating the virtues and vices of women, while sto­ ries told in works such as the Tales o f Sendebar, a ninth-century Arabic text which was later translated into Hebrew; The Book o f Comfort (Hiybbur Yafeh me-ha-Yeshuah), written originally in Arabic in eleventh-century North Africa; Sefer Ma’asim, an un­ published Hebrew work from twelfth-century France or Germany; and “ The Book o f Delight” (Sefer haSha'shuiyrn) and “ The Book o f Tahkemoni,” both twelfth-century Spanish Hebrew works, generally represent women in unpleasant ways. While some of these works contain depictions of wives who are wise, modest, and loyal, even sacrific­ ing their lives to save their husbands from death,

women are usually represented as fearful, cruel, lazy, greedy, lightheaded, and untrustworthy, and some­ times as repugnant and loathsome. In many of these texts, men are warned against women’s seductiveness, treachery, and cunning. Minhat Yehudah, written in Spain in 1208, for example, offers the following proverbs: “It is better to be among thorns than to be among women”; “It is better to cook on a stove than to be between two breasts”; and “Meet an enraged bear, meet a pack of wolves in the forest, but do not meet privately with a woman” (Dishon, 1994: 45). Jewish authors who depicted women in negative ways were strongly influenced by misogynistic tradi­ tions in the Muslim and Christian cultures in which they lived, although they also built on ambiguous images in biblical and rabbinic sources. Often an au­ thor would rewrite a story from an Arabic or Ro­ mance exemplar, interspersing biblical and rabbinic citations at appropriate points to give the impression that the narrative was wholly rooted in Jewish sources. Though some writers may have genuinely dreaded women, others made use of these popular negative images simply to entertain their readers. In some in­ stances, authors may have intended irony or satire in their portrayals of women, but however these works were meant, the unpleasant images of women were central, and these stories and sayings succeeded in creating an overwhelmingly negative stereotype of women in medieval Hebrew writing that remained an enduring feature of subsequent Jewish literature. The Hasiydei Ashkenaz, the German-Jewish pietists of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (see H A­ SIDISM— GERMANY), also express a profound ambiva­ lence toward women. Although Sefer Hasiydiym, compiled by Rabbi Judah the Pious and his circle in the early thirteenth-century Rhineland, places great importance on happy marital relations, its authors also see potential sexual irregularities at every turn. Moreover, in their mystical yearning to transcend the physical pleasures of the material world, the Hasiydei Ashkenaz go beyond rabbinic norms in their displace­ ment of women in favor of devotion to the divine. Women are represented both positively and nega­ tively in Sefer Hasiydiym. Generally, women who are part of the pietistic circle are depicted favorably. Pietists are advised to marry women who share their values, even at the cost of parental disapproval; some pious women are portrayed as more energetic in giv­ 661

Women

ing charitable contributions than their husbands. Dolce of Worms, discussed above, is an example of an outstanding woman from this circle. However, some women are associated with sorcery and witch­ craft, and even the most pious women, simply by virtue of their sex, are seen to have the potential, however unwitting, to tempt a man to sin or sinful thoughts. For this reason Sefer Hasiydiym recom­ mends that men limit their conversation with women, including their own wives. Yet maintaining too great a distance from one s wife may also lead to sin, and for the pietist, happy marital relations in themselves become an essential fence against the pos­ sibility of sexual temptation elsewhere. Significant portions of Sefer Hasiydiym focus on male sexual violations with women who may be Jew­ ish or Gentile, single or married, of age or minors. Great attention is given to how atonement may be undertaken by male transgressors, and how repen­ tance might be achieved. How females might do penance for their sexual indiscretions, however, is not considered. The result is that women are portrayed as objects of desire, or causes of sin, but not as sinners themselves in need of redemption. This apparent blindness to the possibility that women are also moral and spiritual beings may simply be indicative of medieval Jewish thinking about women; it might also stem from Judaisms understanding that a womans primary duty is to enable her husband to fulfill his religious obligations. Were she herself to be involved in penances and repentance the entire life of her fam­ ily would be disrupted. Another issue raised by the presentation of women as sexual objects in Sefer Hasiydiym and re­ lated literature is that of social veracity. While some scholars have maintained that the book does not re­ veal a social reality but simply its authors’ fantasies, it can also be argued that Sefer Hasiydiyms overwhelm­ ing concern with illicit liaisons reflects the constant male-female propinquity and occasional promiscuity characteristic of the crowded urban environment of medieval Germany. It seems certain that the pietistic circles that produced Sefer Hasiydiym believed that the potential for sexual impropriety was a part of everyday life in the Jewish communities of their time, and their response was to set up as many barriers as possible to mens contacts with women, even with women of their own families. Similar references to 662

sexual irregularities in medieval Jewish communities, including extramarital affairs, and liaisons between Jews and Gentiles, are found in other contemporane­ ous sources such as responsa (Agus, 279—285). Thus, while Sefer Hasiydiym as a religious document coun­ sels men to concentrate their true spiritual fervor on love of God rather than on love of their wives, as a source for social history it strongly supports other ev­ idence that Jewish social life in medieval Germany sometimes strayed from rabbinic ideals. Finally, Sefer Hasiydiym exemplifies the culmination in medieval Judaism of a variety of negative trends toward women, including their demonization, their objecti­ fication, and a profound downplaying of their spiri­ tual status in communal and private life which were to remain features of Jewish thinking about women well into the modern era. JUDITH K. BASKIN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrahams, Israel. Hebrew Ethical Wills (Philadelphia, 1926), pp. 207-18. Agus, Irving. Rabbi Meir o f Rothenburg: His Life and Works as Sources fo r the Religious, Legal, and Social History o f the Jews o f Germany in the Thirteenth Century (New York, 1970). Baskin, Judith R. “Jewish Women in the Middle Ages,” in Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, ed. Judith R. Baskin (Detroit, 1991). ---------. “From Separation to Displacement: Percep­ tions of Women in Sefer Hasidim,” Association fo r Jewish Studies Review 19:1 (1994), 1-10. Dishon, Judith. “Images of Women in Medieval He­ brew Literature,” in Women o f the Word: Jewish Women and Jewish Writing, ed. Judith R. Baskin (Detroit, 1994), pp. 35-49. Falk, Zev. “The status of women in the communities of Germany and France in the Middle Ages” (Heb.), Sinai48 (1960—61): 361—67. Goitein, S. D. A Mediterranean Society, 5 vols. (Los Angeles, 1967-1988). Grossberg, Susan, and Rivka Haut, eds. Daughters o f the King: Women and the Synagogue (Philadelphia, 1992), selected articles. Nirenberg, David. “A Female Rabbi in Fourteenth Century Zaragoza?” Sefarad 51 (1991), 179-182.

Worms

Roth, Norman. “ ‘Wiles of Women Motif in Medieval Hebrew Literature of Spain,” Hebrew Annual Re­ view 2 (1978): 145-65. Taitz, Emily. “Womens Voices, Womens Prayers: Women in European Synagogues in the Middle Ages,” in Susan Grossman and Rivka Haut, eds. Daughters o f the King: Women and the Synagogue (Philadelphia, 1992), 59-71.

Worms

The M edieval City

The original settlement that became the city of Worms first appeared during the Roman Empire. Called Borbetomagus, it lay at the intersection of two roads, one leading from what is now Verdun through Metz and on to Saarbriicken, the other running north-south along the Rhine. By the seventh century, Worms had grown in population and importance, with a bishopric seat and a ducal throne, and in the eighth century the city became a Carolingian palati­ nate, which made it a royal territory of Charle­ magne’s Holy Roman Empire. From the eighth cen­ tury on, the city hosted a number of imperial diets and synods, the deliberative and legislative gatherings of imperial nobility. As the city grew in importance, it became increasingly independent. The Holy Roman emperors Otto II (973-983) and Otto III (983-1002) granted the bishops of the city the imperial privilege of immunity, which gave them relative autonomy in ruling the territory. By 1002 Bishop Burchard had driven the counts from the city and so gained supreme judicial authority and unrestricted domin­ ion over the region. Early Jewish Life in Worms

Jews have lived in Worms for nearly one thousand years, the longest uninterrupted stretch of time of any city in Germany. With what was called its “sacred earth,” Worms also has the oldest and longest-used Jewish cemetery. Located at the southwest corner of the city wall, the Jewish cemetery has the oldest still legible gravestones, which date back to 1076. Among the cities on the Rhine, Mainz has the earliest record of Jewish settlement, beginning in the first decades of the tenth century. The earliest traces of Jewish cul­ ture in Worms are found among the interests of its medieval scholars in the second half of the tenth cen­

tury. A petition for legal advice made in Worms to scholars in PALESTINE was submitted in the year 960. There is a copy of this petition that was made in the twelfth century. In Mainz a legal inquiry from 980 records a reference to Judah ben Meir ha-Kohen (Leontin). Rabbenu GERSHOM B. J u d a h of Mainz (960-1028) left evidence in a legal document of credit houses operated by Jews from Mainz and Worms that were doing business in the Cologne mar­ ketplace. According to its founding inscription, the first synagogue in Worms was built in 1034 at the be­ hest of a well-to-do Jewish couple. By the middle of the eleventh century, scholars from the Jewish congregation of Worms had earned distinguished reputations. Meir b. Isaac, the leader of prayer in the synagogue, was an authority in the rules of prayer and became well known as the synagogue poet. During this time Rabbi Isaac b. Elazar ha-Levy was the leader of the congregation and director of the Talmud school (yeshiva). He was also engaged in bib­ lical exegesis and became the synagogue poet—some­ thing that differentiated the yeshiva school of Worms from all others. Solomon b. Isaac, also known as “R ashf the famous Bible and Talmud commentator, [may have] studied there. From his residence in TROYES (France), “Rashi maintained a vigorous cor­ respondence with the scholars of Worms. In 1070 Kalonymos b. Sabbatai, a famous scholar, relocated to Worms from Rome to succeed Isaac as director of the yeshiva. Solomon b. Samson took over duties from Isaac as director of the congregation. He was known as a scholar as well as a composer of songs for the synagogue. Evidence suggests he is the same “Jewish bishop” to whom Emperor Heinrich IV granted the privilege known as the episeopus Judeosum in 1090. He died in the attacks against the Jews in 1096. The Jewish segment of the population in Worms became, by sheer force of numbers, a political factor in the city after the citizens expelled the bishop in 1073. The Jews of Worms stood by Emperor Henry IV, whom princes were threatening, and came to his aid when he was in desperate straits. The Jews of Worms must have actively supported the emperor, since they were included in the declaration to the cit­ izens of Worms made by Henry IV in January 1074 in appreciation of their loyalty: ludei et eoeteri Wormatienses. The Jews were also included in the contin­ 663

Worms

uation of this decree made by Henry V (1106-1125) in 1112. The Jews of Worms played a leading role among the long-distance tradesmen of Worms and supported the king with financial contributions. These decades were also a period of transition for the Jews, from simple trading to money changing and credit lending. After his “triumph” over domestic and foreign en­ emies in 1090, Emperor Henry IV conferred special privileges on the Jews of Speyer and prompted the head of the congregation in Worms to seek similar privileges. These included the freedom to trade and the protection of life, limb, and property, as well as the free exercise of religion. Jews also won the right to hold positions as public servants and were granted equal protection under GERMAN LAW. In contrast to the Jews of Speyer, the Jews of Worms were placed under the direct protection of the emperor (which actually worked against them during the Jewish pogrom of 1096). In addition, Henry permitted the Jews of Worms to work as money changers outside the areas where non-Jewish minters conducted busi­ ness. He also decreed that in legal disputes a court could convict a Jew only when testimony came from a mixture of Christian and Jewish witnesses. The First Crusade an d Worms

The First Crusade of 1096 (see CRUSADES) nearly halted the prosperity and growth of Jewish society in Worms. The threat by crusaders prompted Rabbi Kalonymos b. Meshullam of Mainz, the ranking au­ thority among the Jews of Germany, to seek and re­ ceive a decree from the emperor commanding all church and secular princes to protect the Jews. How­ ever, after deadly events took place in Speyer on 3 May 1096, the Jews of Worms grew increasingly concerned. The Hebrew chronicle “Anonymous of Mainz” de­ scribes Jewish worries that the Christian citizens of Worms would deceive the Jews with promises of help and that citizens and noncitizens storming through the surrounding areas would encourage the crusaders to massacre the Jews. In earlier incidents, Jews had been able to rely on the help of some citizens, espe­ cially those that belonged to the lower classes. But these citizens now allied themselves with the crusaders. With his usual indifference, the bishop, who would in­ tervene only for Jews who were baptized, did nothing. He excused his apathy by referring to a dispute with 664

the king related to a conflict over investiture between various factions in the region. Some members of the Jewish population stayed in houses of trusted citizens; others sought refuge in the palace of the bishop. On May 18 the perpetrators killed all those who remained in the Jewish sector of the city, sparing only those adults who were willing to be baptized and children who could be raised as Christians. Many Jews only feigned their willingness to be baptized so they could save their children and bury their dead according to the laws of custom. On May 25 the Jews in the bishops palace were also killed. Although the Nuremberg Memorbuch, or book of records, lists the number of men and women killed in the second pogrom as 25, the number of victims from the first attack on May 18 includes 144 men and 100 women listed by name, 52 sons and daugh­ ters listed with no names, and 56 more children. At the very least 377 people were killed. The second list of the dead is incomplete and mentions no chil­ dren. Since 39 entries on the first list do not record the number of sons, daughters, and children, the number of children killed was probably even higher, though some children did survive. Among the 800 victims counted in the chronicles were approximately 150 families. Considering the number of survivors and victims, the community of Jews numbered 900, which in a city with a total population of 5,000 is surprisingly high. According to the “Anonymous of Mainz” and the Memorbuch, two fathers killed their six children dur­ ing the slaughter before they themselves were killed; this is referred to as the honor of God (qiyddush haShem). Thus, a new element of faith in relation to death arose here, one that imitated the sacrifice of Isaac (called ‘aqqeidah) and killed children to prevent them from growing up with a foreign belief. This kind of M a r t y r d o m was extolled in the Hebrew chronicles and piyyutiym but often incorrectly gener­ alized. In Mainz and Cologne, where a majority of the Jewish community fell victim to the persecutions, this practice was repeated. However, according to the lists of the dead, few Jews actually committed such acts. The Jews provided another option that actually enabled the survival of the Jewish community. When Heinrich IV returned from Italy in the following years, Rabbi Moses b. Yequtiel moved him to pro­

Worms

nounce an edict that permitted the return to Judaism of all those Jews who had been baptized by force. After the destruction of the Jewish community in Mainz, Moses succeeded Kalonymos as “ambassador” of the Jews. Despite church protests that appealed to CANON LAW, the surviving Jews who had been forcibly baptized and the children who had been spared in the massacre returned to Judaism and formed the foundation of newly emerging Jewish communities in Mainz and Cologne. The Return o f the Jewish Community

Little record remains of the further development of the Jewish community in Worms up to the second Great Schism of the church and the persecution of the Jews for the BLACK DEATH. Next to the main SYNAGOGUE were built a synagogue for women, a miqveh, a community center, a hospital, and a dance hall. In 1174 a new synagogue was built on the site of the old one in the style customary to the eastern seg­ ment of the community. It withstood many attacks, and after it was fully destroyed in 1938, it was rebuilt in a faithful restoration of the original. In 1184 the miqveh was built on the grounds of the synagogue, and in 1213 the synagogue was enlarged to include a women’s synagogue. No other Jewish quarter gives the impression of a Jewish community as complex in all its aspects as the congregation of Worms. In the mid-thirteenth century the community expanded the cemetery by buying and tearing down a number of houses owned by the Andreas Cloister. It was here that Jews from the entire region around Worms in­ terred their dead. Interesting documents reveal a culture in transi­ tion. In 1128, Judah b. David ha-Levy from Cologne visited his brother in Worms shortly after his conver­ sion, when he became called Hermann of Scheda. In his biography he describes how in the synagogue he learned to interpret the Torah with the help of the Mishnah text and how he participated in discussions of it. During these discussions, he recalls, he con­ trasted the “sacred proclamations of the law and the prophets” with the “blind arrogance” of the Jews and defended the Christian faith. Those present smeared him as a half Christian. He, however, said he was using the arguments of Christians to prepare the Jews against them.

The organization of the congregation became more clearly defined during this time. Originally, the congregation chose the man to lead it, and the em­ peror confirmed his appointment; later, the bishop chose him from among members of the Jewish coun­ cil to serve as the Jewish bishop. The first recorded Jewish council took place in 1312 and was attended by twelve participants. However, evidence suggests that the first may have actually taken place in 1096. “Anonymous of Mainz” speaks in his chronicle of the “heads of the congregation” (roshey ha-qahal); this reference is identical to one made in a document from Worms (1255) that describes an institution made up of “experienced and superior Jews” (probiores et meliores Judei). This institution of twelve leaders has a memorial stone in the Jewish cemetery as well as an entry on the list of those killed in the persecution of Jews that clearly associates it with the pogrom of 1349. The members of the council were elected for life and were required to take an oath upon entering service. When a member of the coun­ cil died, the committee elected a new member, who required the confirmation of the bishop. The Jewish council mediated legal disputes between Jews, set the tax on community members, and ministered to the needs of the congregation. Once again Worms and Mainz soon gained renown for their scholarly achievements. A synod of rabbis took place in the twelfth-century city of Troyes and agreed that the scholarly distinction of the con­ gregations from Worms, Mainz, and Speyer should permit them to take over the leadership of all Ger­ man Jews. When the first persecution and forced ex­ pulsion of Jews occurred in FRANCE under the rule of P h i l i p II (1180-1223), it initiated the decline of the French Jewish community. In response, Jewish con­ gregations from cities on the Rhine united in an al­ liance called Shu"m (an acronym formed from 5peyer, Wbrms, and Malm). A convention of rabbis from these cities met at irregular intervals, and their decrees were generally recognized as taqqanot hashum, though they were technically nonbinding. Synods of this kind took place in 1196, sometime be­ fore 1220, then again in 1220 (in Mainz), and in 1223 (in Speyer). Among the scholars of this period, one man rose above the rest, El’azar b. Judah (Roqeah> 1165— 1238). He was born and raised in Mainz, but lived 665

Worms

Interior view, built 1034. Synagogue, Worms, Germany. Credit: Foto Marburg/Art Resource, NY

and worked after 1190 in Worms. In 1196 crusaders beat his daughter and severely wounded him and his son. He was one of those multifaceted scholars, an important rabbi and composer of songs for the syna­ gogue, a commentator of the liturgical prayer, and he became especially distinguished in his studies of mys­ ticism. His discipline shows influences of Christian asceticism. His masterwork is the Roqeah that com­ bines ethics with halakhah. He directed his own school in Worms. It is worth noting that this renowned thinker, known as the “greatest of his generation” (gadol ha-dor) and recognized as the highest author­ ity among German Jews by M e i r B. BARUKH of Rothenburg (ca. 1215-1293) came from a family of rabbis. He continued to maintain his connection to Worms and took over the position held by his father as head of the Jewish court in the city. He was finally buried in Worms in 1307, after his corpse was per­ mitted to be properly disposed fourteen years after his death. In the twelfth century the trade activities of Jews from Worms were restricted to MONEYLENDING. Among those indebted to Jews were citizens of Worms, Frankfurt, Mainz, Oberursel, and Stras­ bourg. These debtors included nobles, such as counts from Nassau, Leiningen, and Sponheim. Though Henry V mentions the Jews in the continuation of tax privileges for Worms instituted by Henry IV, Friedrich (Frederick) Barbarossa (1152-1190) does not name them in the continuation of 1184. How­ ever, in renewing the right to change money that he

666

granted to the MINTERS of Worms in 1165, Barbarossa conferred on Jews their former right as well. In 1157 he renewed the privilege granted the Jews of Worms by Henry IV, though he did not specify Jews; he included all remaining, non-Christian faiths. It was FREDERICK II (1212-1250) who explicitly extended this privilege to all Jews in the kingdom (see also GERMAN LAW). Bishop Eberhard of Worms then had a copy of the im­ perial privileges made for the Jews of the city. In principle, the emperor never let the standing of the Jews slip from his control even when his under­ standing of their situation came from the bishop or from the city No later than the beginning of the thir­ teenth century were Jews in trials against Christians made to appear before the court of the bishop. And no later than 1233 did the city council take over the functions of the Jewish legal tribunals. Upon ascend­ ing the throne, Emperor Frederick II granted Bishop Lupoid of Worms the right to collect all taxes that the empire had the right to demand from citizens and Jews. Jews were explicitly included in the agree­ ments of 1283 and 1293 made between the bishops and the citizenry of Worms upon the election of bishops to office. Representatives of the city council also attended the agreement of 1312 among bishop, church chapter, and the Jewish community that initi­ ated the institutions of Jewish bishop and Jewish council. Nominally, the Jews of Worms possessed the rights of citizens, though without active obligations. Nevertheless, they were required to serve in trench building, on night watches, and in the protection and defense of the city. Indeed, during the siege of Emperor Otto IV, Jews participated in the defense of Worms. Since the fighting at the time also fell on the Sabbath, Rabbi El’azar b. Judah appealed to the Tal­ mud and permitted Jews in the conflict to carry weapons and cross over the city limits during the siege. In 1254 the Jews of Worms paid a sum of money to excuse themselves from their duties to de­ fend the city. In 1241 the city of Worms must have taken notice of the economic power of the congregation because the tax record shows Jews had to pay 130 silver marks, the highest recorded tax in the empire aside from that paid by the Jews of Strasbourg. In 1255 the bishop created a tax on the Jews that he committed

Worms

to the church. In 1254, with other free cities of the empire, Worms founded the Rhineland alliance, the protections of which directly extended to the areas of Jewish settlement and travel. It limited the loan tax for Jews to 43.5 percent per week and 33.3 percent per year. During the interregnum period (1254-1273) King William of Holland preserved the rights and freedoms of Christians and Jews in Worms. King Richard of Cornwall did the same in 1258, though the Jews paid 200 marks to the bishop and the city to guarantee their protection. Richard later attempted to make the Jews of Worms subordinate to the bishop of Speyer. However, they managed to over­ turn the bishops claim on them by making addi­ tional payments to the citizens of Worms. In fact, in 1268 the Jews paid the total tax that citizens owed to both kingdom and city, a sum of more than 300 pounds. In 1269 they were required to pay King Richard an additional 200 pounds. Under the first Habsburg emperor, Rudolf (1273— 1291), there emerged a new definition of knight­ hood that made the situation for Jews tenser. It may explain why in 1286 a number of Jews from Worms joined the movement of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg to emigrate from the city. In 1294 the Jews within the principality of St. Martin were forbidden from purchasing more land. The Jews of Worms, however, were spared the widespread campaigns of Jewish persecution in 1298 and again from 1336 to 1338. After the thirteenth century, under emperors Henry VII (1308-1313) and Louis the Bavarian (Louis IV) (1314-1347), a kind of nominal slavery was imposed on Jews by repeatedly requiring the repayment of tax debts, which frequently required the seizure of property. Both rulers demanded that neighboring lords and cities hand over varying sums from the Jewish tax. To the benefit of the city of Worms, the emperor did not collect the Jewish tax and so left most politi­ cal control of the Jews in the hands of the city. How­ ever, the emperors did not abandon interest in the situation of the Jews of Worms. In 1335 and 1346 Louis the Bavarian siphoned the profits of the Jews from Worms and Speyer to Count Rupert. And in 1338 he demanded that Worms pay more than 20,000 florins for the planned invasion of France by imposing a special tax. In 1348 Emperor Charles IV

extended German law to include the Jews of Worms. However, during the hysteria caused by the plague (see BLACK DEATH), these guaranteed rights indirectly contributed to the greater destruction of the Jews. The “Black D eath” M assacre Few details are known of the Jewish massacre of 1 May 1349. In the neighboring city of Speyer, Jews had already fallen victim to spontaneous pogroms on January 10 and 24, with some escaping death by ac­ cepting baptism or fleeing at the right time. The slaughter took place on the first Sunday of fasting Invocabit. This would mean that the population from the surrounding region had come to the city and that the first day of fasting may have contributed to the pogrom’s sudden eruption and continuation. Accord­ ing to the lists of the dead, a number of those killed died in a fire, and Matthias von Neuenburg reported that the Jews in Worms and Speyer killed themselves in a burning house. The catalog of the dead from the Nuremberg Memorbuch lists 147 men, 158 women, 33 adult sons and daughters not yet married, and at least 63 children (infants and youth). The remainder was an unknown number of house servants from eighty-one homes, which is to say at least 81 addi­ tional people. Eighty-one households belonging to well-to-do Jewish families indicate an actual number of approximately 150 families. Unlike the lists of the dead recorded during the First Crusade, these lists do not require us to extrapolate a greater number of children than the 63 named, who came from only 42 families: the mob spared no children to raise as Christians. There is also no mention of Jews killing their own children. A number of Jews managed to es­ cape the slaughter and take refuge in the surrounding mountains; some also found protection with Count Rupert and the knight Engelhard von Hirschhorn. To the total of 482 dead one must add the 600 vic­ tims from 150 families documented on the list; the actual total must have been between 800 and 900 people. This is a staggering percentage of the city’s total population, which numbered six thousand to seven thousand in 1500. The Jewish massacre in Mainz on August 23 followed the massacre in Worms and also seemed to erupt spontaneously; in Mainz, however, Jews took up arms and killed a number of Christians. There were also survivors in Mainz.

667

Worms

On March 29, Emperor Charles IV declared that the city was not responsible for the killing of the Jews of Worms. He refused reparations for the harm done and did not take the belongings of the Jews. He left property, houses, and farmsteads to the citizenry and forbade anyone from going to court to make claims on the property left after the massacre. The Jew s o f Worms R ebuild In 1353 Speyer and Worms bought from Count Ru­ pert his legal rights over the Jews in the cities. On 9 May the city council of Worms decided, in agree­ ment with guilds and the bishops minting unions, again to permit Jews to live in the city on a limited basis. The synagogue, miqveh, and cemetery were re­ turned but not the land or houses. These remained in the city’s possession and were already under lease. In 1355 Emperor Charles IV renewed the conferral of legal protection on the Jews, which was reconfirmed in 1394 by Emperor Wenceslas. The Jews restored the synagogue in a Gothic style shortly after their return to the city. From then on the Jewish population of Worms was concentrated primarily within the Jewish quarter, and in the sec­ ond half of the fifteenth century (1481 at the latest) it was enclosed as a ghetto. By 1500 the Jewish popu­ lation had reached 250. The Jews lived in forty-two houses along Judengasse (Jewish Lane) and Hinter Judengasse (Behind Jewish Lane). A bathhouse (Judenbad) and a school for students were added to the community house. Every year the new congregation commemorated the destruction of the earlier ones with a day of fasting: on Adar 19 for the destruction of 1349, and on Iyar 23 and Sivan 1 for the destruc­ tion of 1096. Beginning at the end of the fourteenth century the school of Worms again enjoyed a formidable scholarly reputation. In many cases, rabbis from Worms were consulted on questions of Jewish law. In 1381 and 1427 the rabbis of Worms gathered for synods in Mainz to discuss such issues. The school of Worms had the scholarly confidence not to accept the disputed decisions made in 1454 at the synod in Bingen. Despite the Jews’ right to protection, the competi­ tion among emperor, bishop, and city began to deter­ mine the fate of the Jews as never before, though this did not always work to their disadvantage. In 1378 668

Charles IV s declaration protecting the lands of the upper Rhine region explicitly included “trades­ men . . . whether Christian or Jew.” In 1385 the city prevented Emperor Wenceslas from collecting his first Jewish tax. In 1292 the bishops treasurer held the right to escort Jewish marches for weddings, burials, and executions. The agreement provided guards to screen Jews from mob violence on the long road to the cemetery. Suspecting that Jews were in danger during a time of unrest in 1391, Emperor Wenceslas required the city to protect its Jewish pop­ ulation. When in 1431 farmers who were in debt to Jews rose up and demanded their removal, the city managed to strike a balance with tax relief for the Jews and a lengthening of the repayment schedule for the farmers. In 1410 Bishop Johann von Fleckenstein and King Rupert intervened for the Jews when the city accused them of killing a child and threatened to confiscate property as retribution. The case was never proved in court. During a trial for RITUAL MURDER in 1470 in the city of Erdinger, Worms decided not to pursue the statement coerced from a Jewish suspect that he sold a Christian child to a Jew in Worms for a ritual murder. In 1476 a dispute arose over the return of an eight-year-old Jewish child. The child was taken by Christian citizens and allegedly baptized by the priest of St. Ruprecht parish, the parish in the Jewish quarter. The Jews took back the child by force, and because the baptism of children against the will of their parents was forbidden, the council struck down the complaint of the parish priest. Though the city was willing to protect its Jewish population against unjust acts, in 1483 the court of the bishop convicted a Jew of abusing the name of Christ. During the renewed presence of Jews in Worms, the city restricted the rights of Jews to reside in the city (Judensess) to a four-year period according to new time-restricted agreements (Gedinge). The city had still considered Jews “our Jewish citizens,” but after the new conditions for Jewish residence, or Ju dengedinge, of 1464, the Jewish population was con­ sidered merely the remaining settlers whose right to residence could be nullified on short notice. Despite fundamental legal protections, the pressure on the Jewish population continued to increase, especially through an ever-rising tax burden. In 1470 the rou­ tine tax owed to the city rose 1,475 florins in one

Worms

year. Occasionally the city would impose special taxes. It demanded the enormous sum of 20,000 florins in 1377 to finance the war that Worms, Speyer, and Mainz fought against Count Emich of Leiningen. Between 1391 and 1428 the emperor required from every Jew of Worms the regular payment of a “golden penny” tax, which had been introduced by Louis the Bavarian. In addition to requiring this pay­ ment, the emperor often demanded various taxes and tariffs at irregular intervals, such as a coronation tax, a war-chest tax, and a tax to supply war-casualty bene­ fits. In contrast to his first attempt to collect taxes from the Jews of Worms, Emperor Wenceslas s second attempt was—despite protest—successful. In 1422 the emperor accused the Jews of tax fraud and confis­ cated a number of homes they had abandoned. The city participated in the imperial actions against the Jews and denied Jewish burials in the cemetery. The bishop, however, ultimately intervened for the Jews. At the turn of the sixteenth century (1482-1519), the dispute among emperor, bishop, and city con­ cerning the rights of Jews reached its highest level, with the city attaining wide-ranging independence. However, the emperor strongly rejected the claim that the city could freely decide all matters concern­ ing its Jewish population. After his coronation and the corresponding presentation of gifts from the city, Emperor Maximilian granted the Jews of Worms their rights and freedoms. Unusual proof of political protection came in 1495 when Prince Philip von der Pfalz and Queen Maria Blanca visited the synagogue in Worms, where they heard the famous Jewish choir. The restriction on residency status gave rise to an attempt to repeal the limitation, as most cities had al­ ready done by this time. Expulsions of Jews occurred repeatedly in Speyer in 1404-1405 and 1435 and

from 1468 to 1472. Expulsions also occurred in Mainz in 1438, 1462, and 1470. In 1488 Emperor Frederick III (1440-1493) prevented this from hap­ pening in Worms, first with unsuccessful demands and then with the ultimate threat of rescinding all privileges. FRIEDRICH LOTTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

[added by editor] Berliner, A. “Sefer hazkarat neshamot qehiyllat Vvormiysa, ” Kovetz al-yad3 (1887): 1-62. Bocher, O. “Das Mainzer Judenbad, vergleich mit dem Speyerer Judenbad, die Ornamentik der Mikwe im Ramne der Wormser Bauschule,” in Der WormsgaUy Zeitsehrift des Kilturinstituts und des Altertumsvereins Worms 18 (1960): 46-51. Epstein, A. “Jiidische Altertiimer in Worms,” M.G.W.J. 40 (1896): 509-15, 554-59. ---------. “Der Wormser Judenrat,” M.G.W.J. 46 (1902): 157-63. Finkelstein, Louis. Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages (NY., 1924; rpt. 1964). Grunwald, M. “Le cimetiere de Worms,” R.E.J. 104 (1938): 71-122. Kober, A. “Jewish Monuments of the Middle Ages in Germany: One Hundred and Ten Tombstone In­ scriptions from Speyer, Koln, Niirenberg and Worms,” P.A.A.J.R. 14 (1944): 149-220; 15 (1945): 1-91. Rosenthal, F. “Einiges liber Takonaus Schum,” M.G.W.J. 46 (1902): 239-61. Rothschild, Leopold. Die Judengemeinden zu Mainz, Speyer und Worms von 1349—1438 (Marburg, 1904). Salfeld, Siegmund, ed. Das Martyrologium des Niirnberger Memorbuches (Berlin, 1898).

C\ Taylor & Francis ~Taylor & Francis Group

http://tayl ora ndfra ncis.co m

Glossary Ashkenaz

(Ashkenazi, pi. Ashkenazim; adj. Ashkenazic) Germany (Heb. word for); a Jew from Germany or of German origin, or (adj.) pertaining to the customs or culture of such Jews

Avot

“Fathers;” tractate of the Mishnah consisting of ethical teachings, often translated in English as “Sayings of the Fathers”

bet din

(beit diyri) Jewish court of law, usually consisting of three judges

dayyan

Jewish judge, in medieval communities, particularly in Muslim lands,an official appointed by rabbis

Diaspora

the exile, or dispersion, areas where Jews live outside the Land of Israel (Greek translation of the Heb. galui)

Exilarch

Rosh galut, lay leader of the Jewish community in “Babylon” (Iraq)

Haggadah

(Heb.) “telling,” a book read at the Passover seder (meal) which relates the story of the exodus from Egypt, and other rabbinic traditions

halakhah

(adj. anglicized: halakhic) “law,” rabbinic (talmudic or post-talmudic) law

havdallah

(Heb.) “separation,” ceremony of blessings recited over candle, wine and spices to mark end of Sabbath

infante

(Sp.) son of a king, heir to the throne

menorah

(Heb.) candelabrum; may refer to the original in the Temple, or one used in synagogues; also the candelabrum lit during the celebration of Hanukah

midrash

(Heb.) explication; generally, homiletic interpretation of biblical events or stories, may refer to a specific book of such homilies (written in medieval period)

Mishnah

(Heb.) basic law, interpretation of biblical law by the sages; written in simple Hebrew, divided into Orders and tractates

nasi

(Heb.), leader of Jewish community (an official title in Muslim lands, more an honorific in Euro­ pean Jewish communities)

Pirqei Avot

see Avot

piyyup

(Heb., from Greek), “liturgical” or religious poem

Qu Wan

(Ar.) sacred book of Islam, the teachings revealed to Muhammad

responsum

(pi. responsa) (Heb. teshuvah) written reply to legal, or other, question addressed to a rabbi or great scholar Sanhedrin (the court) the “high court” of scholars in Palestine when the Temple was in existence; formulated the laws which were the basis of the Talmud, as well as judging cases

seder

(Heb.) “order,” usually refers to the eating of the Passover meal and reading of Haggadah

Sefardi

(pi. Sefardim; adj. Sefardic) (Heb.), a Jew who lived in and then left Spain (Sefaradin Heb.), or (adj.) pertaining to the customs or culture of such Jews

tallit

(Heb.) “prayer shawl,” rectangular woven wool cloth worn at morning prayers so that the com­ mandment of fringes on a four-cornered garment may be fulfilled 671

Glossary

Talmud

(Heb.) “study,” refers to the combination of Mishnah (q.v.) and gemara (“completion”) which constitutes rabbinic law; written in several volumes, referred to by the title of each tractate

tefillin

(Heb.) phyllacteries, leather boxes containing certain scriptural texts, worn by adult males at weekday morning prayer

Tosafot

(Aramaic), “additions,” additional commentary written by grandsons and students of “Rashi” to elucidate his commentaries or to provide additional explanation of the Talmud

yeshivah

(pi. yeshivot) (Heb.) schools for the advanced study of the Talmud

672

Index A Aaron ben Asher, 89, 90-91, 92 Aaron ben Elijah, 126 Aaron b. Joseph, 98-99, 126, 318, 340,474 Aaron ben Meir, 490, 581 Aaron b. Yeshuac, 99 Aaronfil diaboli, 54 Aaron ha-Kohan, on Christian-Jewish relations, 153 Aaron ha-Levy, 82 Aaron of Alexandria, 433 Aaron of Lincoln, 241, 459 Aaron of York, 243, 459 Ab Kariba, Himyarite king, 385 Abba Mari b. Moses of Lunel, 59, 337—338 Abd al-Mu’min ibn ’All, 21 Abd al-Rahman III, Jewish ambassador of, 24, 36, 1 8 1,3 1 9 Abeacox, David, 647 Abelard, Peter, 1 - 2 anti-Jewish dialog of, 1-2, 12 -13, 155, 213 biographical information, 1 Abemenasse, Samuel, 647 Abena^ar, Abraham, 647 Abenasia, Joseph, 610, 611 Abenbaruel, Ysaque, 8 Abenfagen, Jahuda, as ambassador, 25 Abenmenasse, Samuel, 25 Abenvives, Samuel, 652 Abenvives, Vives, 652 Aberdeen Codex, 95 Abinafia, Aaron, 652 Abinnaxim, Samuel, 647 Abizardiel synagogue, 18 Abnar, Crescas, 438 Abner of Burgos, 413 anti-Christian polemics of, 527, 531 Aboab, Abraham, 2, 8 Aboab, Isaac I biographical information, 2, 144 writings of, 2—3, 529 Aboab, Isaac II biographical information, 3 writings of, 3 Aboab, Jacob, 95 Abrabanell, Joseph, biographical information,

6

Abraham b. Alexander, 177 Abraham b. ‘Ata, 479 Abraham b. Azriel, 310 Abraham b. David, 307, 420, 474, 544 Abraham b. David of Posquieres, 476, 643 Abraham bar Hayya (Hiyya) astrology, use of, 595, 596 biographical infomation, 3 -5 chronicle of, 159 on messiah, 447, 450 scientific/mathematical works, 137, 325, 587 translations of, 641 writings of, 3—5 Abraham b. Isaac, 306

Abraham b. Natan, 10, 93, 95, 144 Abraham b. Solomon, 160 Abraham Bethel da San Minato, 76-77 Abraham of Torrutiel, 161, 544 Abramo de Urbe, 577 Abravalla, Isaque, 8 Abravanel family, 6—9 and expulsion from Spain, 9, 248, 249, 253 moneylending of, 7—9 as tax officials, 6-7, 8, 403

See also individualfamily members

Abravanel, Henrique Fernandes, 7 Abravanel, Isaac, 3 bible commentaries of, 104, 447 biographical information, 7-9 on Thomas Aquinas, 30 Abravanel, Joseph, biographical information, 7 -8 Abravanel, Judah, biographical information, 6 -9 Abravanel, Samuel Bible manuscript of, 95 biographical information, 6-7 Abravanel, Ya (Jabob), biographical information, 7-8 Abravanel Pentateuch, 95 Abu Aron, 125, 135 Abu ‘Isa of Isfahan, 449 Abu Mansur, 441 Abu Na§r, 71 Abu Sa’ld Levi b. Yafet ha-Levy, 318 Abu Tahir b. Shibr, Abu Ghalib b., mintmaster, 451 Abu’All b. Fadlan, 71 Abu’l Mansr, 465 Abulafia, Abraham biographical information, 543 qabbalah of, 125-126, 339, 543 Abulafia family, 1 0 -1 1 and Alfonso X, 10—11, 19 See also individual family members Abulafia, Joseph, biographical information,

10

Abulafia, Meir biographical information, 10-11 and Maimonides controversy, 423, 547 on Masorah, 89 Abulafia, Moses, 10, 470—471 Abulafia, Samuel, 26 biographical information, 10 Abulafia, Todros b. Judah, 10, 19 on Christian-Jewish relations, 153 poetry of, 11, 513—514 Abulafia, Todros b. Meir, 93 on charity, 149 Abun ben Joseph the Great, 294 Aburrabi, Aaron, 610 Abzardiel, Moses, 140 academies, geonic, 2 8 1—286 Adab al-faldsifa (Ibn Isaq), 470 Adalbero II, bishop of Metz, 170 Adam qadmon (supernal man) , 547

Adam de Stratton, 459 Addereth Eliahu, 126 adelantaodos (community officials), 32 Adler, Elkan Nathan, 279-280 Adonay (name of God), 108 Adret, Cresques, 94 Adrianople, Byzantine era, 127 Afendopopolo, Kaleb, 126 aggadah (legend) genre, 255 Aggadat ha-nefiylliym, 255 Aghmat, Jewish community of, 36, 181, 478 Agobard, bishop of Lyons, 169-170, 183, 18 4,29 3 Agramunt, Jewish community of, 34 agriculture and Jews, 1 1 - 1 4 biblical era, 11—12 Christian-Jewish cooperation, 151 in France, 12 in Germany, 12 -13 Jewish tenant farmers, 13 in Poland and Lithuania, 13 in Sicily, 14 in Spain, 12, 13, 139 vineyards of Jews, 12—14 Afra of Shablja, 284 Aharon b. Samuel, 310 Aljima as b. Palpet, 435 chronicle of, 158 Aljituv b. Isaac, 610 Aix, Jewish community of, 534, 535, 536, 539 akam (wise), 553 Akiba ben Joseph, 429 Alatzar, Jafuda, 653 ATazar b. Hilal b. Fahd, 286 Alba, duke of, 108 Alba Bible, 547 Albalag, Isaac, 507, 509 Albert I, king of Germany, 299 Albert II, duke of Austria, Black Death, protection of Jews, 115 Albertus Magnus, 635, 640 Albigensian heresies and Jews, 1 4 —1 6 Jewish implications in, 15—16 Jewish impostors, 199 nature of heresy, 14—15 Albo, Joseph, 447, 509 anti-Christian polemic of, 216, 217, 532 Albrecht II, king of Austria, status of Jews under, 61 Albrecht V, king of Austria, condemnation of Jews, 61 Alcarsi, Jacob, 593 Alcastiel, Joseph, 545 alchemy, 596-597 Alconstantini, Abraham, 493 Alconstantini, Bahiel, 652 Alconstantini, Moses, 652 aldafina, 261 AlefBeit de-Ben Sira, 254 Alemaniko synagogue, 628 Aleppo, 180 synagogue of, 624

673

Index Aleppo Codex, 88, 92, 624 Alexander II, pope, protection of Jews, 165, 166 Alexander III, pope, 131, 171 Alexander IV, pope, 70, 573, 636 Alexander of Aphrodisias, 640 Alexander of Hales, 163, 423 Alexandria, 1 6 - 1 8 commerce by Jews, 16 -18, 182, 185 Jewish congregations of, 17—18 Rabbanite congregations, 17 -18 after Spanish expulsion, 18 synagogues of, 18 Alfabeita de-Ben Sira, 254, 256 Alfonsine Tables, 20, 589 Alfonso de la Cavalleria, 35 Alfonso de la Torre, 423 Alfonso de Santangel, 217 Alfonso I, king of Castile-Leon legal codes of, 613 on moneylending, 461 Alfonso III, king of Aragon-Catalonia Bible translations for, 109 Jewish ambassador of, 24—25 positive treatment of Jews, 32 Alfonso IV, king of Aragon-Catalonia, positive treatment of Jews, 33 Alfonso V, king of Aragon-Catalonia, positive treatment of Jews, 34, 83 Alfonso V, king of Castile-Leon, on viniculture by Jews, 13, 401 Alfonso V, king of Portugal, and Abravanel family, 8, 55 Alfonso VI, king of Castile-Leon, 139 Jewish ambassador of, 24 legal codes of, 401—402 Alfonso VII, king of Castile-Leon, 139, 466 Alfonso VIII, king of Castile-Leon, positive treatment of Jews, 13, 24, 140 Alfonso X, king of Castile-Leon, 1 9 - 2 0 and Abulafia family, 10 -11, 19 Alfonsine Tables, 20, 589 Bible translation for, 106-107, 392 condemnation of Jews, 19—20 on converts to Judaism/Islam, 202 Jewish officials of, 19, 24 legal codes of, 20, 13 0 -13 1, 140, 612, 615—617, 636 on moneylending, 461 as patron of scientific activity, 20, 140, 589 translations/translators of, 641-642 Alfonso XI, king of Castile-Leon, 69, 14 0 -1 4 1 ,4 0 2 ,4 6 6 legal codes of, 617 on moneylending, 462 Algiers, Jewish community of, 479 Alguadix, Meir, 437, 442 Alljadib, Isaac, poetry of, 514 Al ha-kol (Sheneur), 444 Alhambra, 40, 366 Ali b. Harun, 71 Ali b. Jospeh I^abillo, translation of Thomas Aquinas, 30 Ali b. Sulayman, 318 Ali b. Yusuf, Almoravid ruler, 22 Alicante, Jewish community of, 653 Almagest (Ptolemy), 588, 593, 641 Almanack (Ibn Tibbon), 590 Almanach (Zacut), 593—594

674

Almohads, 2 1 - 2 2 , 237, 372, 419 and commerce of Jews, 182 conversion by Jews to Islam, 21—22, 19 0 -1 9 1 ,4 1 9 and decline of Jewish poetry, 513 Almoliy, Solomon, 284 Almoravids, 2 2 - 2 3 Berbers, conquest of, 22, 36, 478 Christian defeat of, 24 market regulations of, 23 Almosnino, Moses, 30 almoxarife (administrative tax official), 6, 19 almoxarife mayor (chief financial administrator), 6, 19 Alonso de Cartagena, 194 Alonso del Espina, 226, 244 Alonso de Oropesa, 143, 618 Alphabet of Ben Sira, 311, 406, 661 Alrabi, Vidal, 410 Altdorfer, Albrecht, 626 Altneuschule, 626 Altschule (Old Synagogue), 626 Alvarez, Rodrigo, bishop of Leon, 16 ambassadors, Jews as, 2 3 - 2 4 Jewish physicians as, 437 noted Jewish ambassadors, 24—25 of Spain, 32 Ambrogio, Giovanni, 468 Ambrosian Bible, illumination of, 42 Amiel, Menahem b., 445 Amposta, Jewish community of, 34 Amram bar Sheshna, 79-80 Amulo, bishop of Lyons, 170, 445 Anacletus II, pope, 87, 335, 607 Anan b. David, 98, 551, 552 Ananite sect, 551 ‘Anaq (Ibn Gabirol), 320, 361, 512 Anatoli, Jacob, 273, 544, 640 Anatoli, Joseph, 18 Anav, Abraham, 434 Anav, Benjamin, 434 Anav, Zedikiah, 576 Anaximander of Miletos, 136 Andalo di Negro, 590 Andalucia, 2 5 - 2 7 Berbers of, 477 expulsion from, 26, 27, 248 Jewish persecution (1391), 26 Muslim conquest of, 25 Reconquest of, 25, 106 Seville, Jewish community, 26—27 See also Spain, Muslim Spain Andravida, Jewish community of, 126 Andrea da Firenze, 54 Andreas, archbishop of Bari, conversion to Judaism, 199 Andrew of Perugia, 224 Anglican Church and Jews, 243 Anno II, archbishop of Cologne, 177 Anonymous o f Mainz, 664, 665 Antichrist, 156 antimessiah, 445-446 Antonio de Padua, 225 anusiym (compelled), 192, 196 apocalyptic works, 405 Apocrypha, 157 Apt, Jewish community of, 534 Aqayyara, Simon, 479 Aqilas, 105

‘aqqeidah (imitation of sacrifice of Isaac), 664 Aquinas, Thomas, 2 7 - 3 0 , 219 artistic depictions of, 54 Jewish medieval scholarship on, 29-30 Jewish translation of works, 29-30 Maimonides influence on works, 27-29, 423 on moneylending and Jews, 458 Arabic language, 3 8 9 - 3 9 1 Bible translations into, 106, 583 chronicles in, 159 court translators of Arabic, 647 Judeo-Arabic, 389—390 poetry, 374-375, 511, 514-515, 5 18-519 superiority/perfection of, 390, 394, 511, 514 translations by Jews, 638 use by Jews, 106, 322—324, 373—374 and written Hebrew works, 390-391 ''arabiyya (perfection of Arabic language), 390, 3 9 4 ,5 1 1 ,5 1 4 Aragon-Catalonia, 3 1 —3 5 badge, wearing of, 69—70 Bible manuscripts of, 94 expulsion from, 35, 248-249 Fernando and Isabel, 34-35, 2 5 1 host desecration accusations, 33, 333 Inquisition, 34—35 Jaime I, 3 7 5 - 3 7 7 Jewish communities of, 31 Jewish hospitals of, 439 Jewish oaths, 485-486 Jewish persecution (1391), 33 Jewish physicians of, 35, 437-438 Jewish scholars of, 33, 35 Arama, Meir, 144 Aramaic Bible translations into, 97-98, 105 Hebrew-Aramaic, 390 Jewish poetry in, 519-520 use by Jews, 322-323, 373, 390, 395 Arbacah furiym (Four rows), 58 illumination of, 49 Arbues, Pedro, inquisitor, 35 archbishops, relations with Jews, 169-170 Aristotle, 591, 592 Arjona, Jewish community of, 141 Arles, Jewish community of, 65, 533, 534, 535, 536, 539 Armilus, Roman ruler, 445 Armleder massacres, 113, 114, 300-301 arms and Jews, 3 5 - 3 7 castles granted to Jews, 31, 36—37 in England, 36 in Germany, 35-36 Jews as soldiers, 36-37 in North Africa, 36 in Spain, 36-37 Arnald “el Maestro”, bishop of Leon, 16 Arnau de Gurb, 220 Arnau de Villanova, 438, 440, 611, 646 Arniah, Joseph, 13 Aron ha-‘e (Isaac Aboab I), 3 Arragel, Moses, 108, 225 Ars Nova (Philippe de Vitri), 471 art, Jewish, 3 7 - 5 2 Bible illumination, 38—44 Bible on, 37 carpet pages, 39-40, 41

Index Christian influences, 38-39 Haggadah illumination, 44-46 human form, prohibition, 37-38 micrography, 37, 38, 42, 47 Muslim influences, 38 prayer books, 46 -47 religious and secular works illumination, 48-49 ritual items, decoration of, 50-51 Star of David (Magen David), 49-50 Talmud on, 37 art, Jews in, 5 2 - 5 6 in miracle tales, 54 negative Jewish symbols in, 55-56 negative portrayals, 52-54 portraits of Jews, 55 realistic portrayals, 52-53, 56, 175 artisans Jewish, 81, 139, 182-183 synagogues of, 628

Arugat ha-hokhmah ve-pardes ha-meziymah (Ibn ’Ezra), 353

Arukh (Ibn Farljun), 57, 321 Arukh (Natan b. Yeljiel), 317, 391, 562, 579

Asaf, as first physician, 433 Ashburnham Pentateuch, 39 Asher b. Yehiel, 5 7 - 5 9 on Arabic language, 391 Bible commentaries of, 104 biographical information, 57, 59, 144, 177 on charity, 148 on salary of rabbis, 556 works of, 57-59 Ashkenazi Judaism of Cologne, 177 and dina de-malkhuta dina, 211 and head covering, 17 3-17 4 ordination of rabbis, 62 origin of, 125 pronunciation, Hebrew language, 326-327 synagogues of, 628, 629-630 See also Hasidism in Germany Assisi, Jewish bankers of, 78 Assize of Arms (1181), 36 Astorga, Jewish community of, 402, 403 astrology, 592, 594-596 and Abraham bar Hayya (Hiyya), 4 Jewish astrologers, 594-597 Jewish law on, 594-596 Jewish use and belief of, 594-596 judicial astrology, 4, 432, 596 Masha allah, works of, 432, 585, 594 Astronomical Tables o f Pedro, 593 astronomy astronomical tables, 587, 588, 589, 590, 5 9 1,59 3 Ibn ‘Ezra, works of, 352-353 Jewish scholars of, 585—586, 589—594 in Muslim Spain, 586-587 Petrus Alfonsi, works of, 496-497 Zacut, 593—594 Astrug de Bonsenyor, 377 attire of Jews. See clothing and Jews Augustine, 30, 168 Jews as witness doctrine, 163, 247 Austria, 6 0 - 6 2 Black Death, protection of Jews, 115 commerce and Jews, 60-61 expulsion from, 61

host desecration accusations, 61 Jewish cultural/spiritual life, 6 1-6 2 Jewish hospitals in, 439 Jewish scholars of, 61-62 Jewish settlements, 60-61 minters of coins, Jews as, 60, 452 rabbis of, 62 ritual murder accusations, 61, 569 taxation of Jews, 61 Auxonne, Jewish community of, 122 Avallon, Jewish community of, 122 Avengallel, Abraham, as ambassador, 24—25 Avengallel, Samuel, as ambassador, 24-25 Averroes (Ibn Rushd), 29-30, 507, 508 Avigdor, Abraham, 538 Avigdor b. Elijah ha-Kohen, 61 Avignon, 6 3 - 6 5 exile of popes to, 575-577 Jewish communities of, 63-64, 534, 539 Jewish physicians of, 64 protection of Jews, 65 taxation of Jews, 64 Avila, Jewish community of, 139 Avinardut, Jucef, 593 Avodat ha-qodesh (Ibn Adret), 340 Azafeha (Azarquiel), 641, 644 ‘Azriel b. Joseph, 410 ‘Azriel of Gerona, 339, 544 B Babylonia academies of, 234 Arabic language and Jews, 97, 389-391 Bible manuscripts of, 91 geonim of, 281-283 Hebrew language, written works, 328 Qaraites, 98, 490 rabbinic law in, 371-372 Radhanite trade routes from, 181, 5 5 8 -5 6 1

Shiism, 374 synagogues of, 620, 621, 623 Babylonian community of Fustat, 276 of Palestine, 490-491 synagogues of, 622, 623

Badey Aharon ve-migdalHananel (Shem Tov),

44 badge, 6 7 —7 0 Church decrees on, 67—68, 146, 166, 17 5-17 6 in England, 67 in France, 67-68, 146, 274, 537 in Germany, 68, 296 in Poland, 68, 523 in Sicily, 609 and social status, 7 in Spain, 68-70 and women, 660 Baghdad Benjamin ofTudela account, 84-85 commerce and Jews, 560 Jewish banking in, 71—72 Bahir, 311, 547 Baljya b. Asher, 103, 255, 336, 447 bailes (administrators of towns), 32, 376 bailiffs, Jews as, 80 Balbo, Shabbtai Kohen, 127

Baleric Islands, Jewish community of, 651 Balkh, 180 Balkhhi, I^iwi al-, 582 ban on settlement. See Herem Ha-yiyshuv (ban on settlement) Banartini, Joseph, 610 banking and Jews, 7 0 - 7 9 categories of bankers, 70 -71, 73 dry exchange, 79 in Italy, 7 2 - 7 9 in Muslim lands, 7 1-7 2 privileged banks, operation of, 75-79 in Spain, 72 baptism forced on Jews, 14 and Black Death, 11 3 -1 14 , 169 in Byzantium, 125 and Crusades, 192 Decretals on, 132 Decretumon, 12 9-13 0 popes position on, 168-169 Thomas Aquinas on, 29 Bar Kokhba, 444 bar-mi$vah (son of the commandment), 154 baraita, 310 Baraita de-malekhet ha-mishkan, 585 Baraita de-mazalot, 585 Baraita de-Niyddah, 661 Baraita de-Shemuel, 585 Barbastro, Jewish community of, 31 Barcelona, 7 9 - 8 2 badge, wearing of, 70 Bible manuscripts of, 89 community politics, 80 defeat of Muslims, 31 and Ibn Adret, 3 3 5 - 3 4 1 Jewish community of, 31, 32-33, 35 Jewish economic activities, 81 Jewish scholarship, 81-82, 335-336 massacre of Jews (1391), 82, 368 synagogue of, 628 Barcelona Haggadah, illumination of, 44, 45, 46, 629 Barghawata tribe, 22, 36, 477, 478 Baruch, Johana, 466 Barzillay, Judah b., 4, 35, 81, 159, 164, 340, 3 9 0 -3 9 1,4 4 6 , 450 anti-Christian polemic of, 528 as mintmaster, 452 Basatin cemetery, genizah of, 279, 280-281 Basel, Council of, 17 1-172, 303 Ba§ra, 180 Bavaria, host desecration accusations, 299, 333 bayIons (consuls), 64 Beatus of Liebana, 165, 168 Beaucaire, Jewish community of, 539 Beaune, Jewish community of, 122 Beauvis, Vincent, 647 Bede the Venerable, 168 Bedeq ha-bayit (Aaron b. Joseph), 340 Bedersi, Abraham, 11, 410, 516, 646 Bedersi, Yeda’yah, 338, 409, 516 beitdiyn (Jewish court), 10, 18, 276, 277, 280 artistic depiction of, 48 rabbi as judge, 555 beit midrash (yeshivah), 442, 620 Belgium Bible illumination by Jews, 43

675

Index Belgium (cont.) Bible manuscripts of, 91 host desecration accusations, 333 Bellpuig, Jewish community of, 34 bells, Jews bells, 173 Bellshom, Vidal Ephraim, 593 Ben adamah (Son of the Earth) (Judah haLevy), 382 Ben Ezra synagogue, genizah chamber, 279-280 Ben ha-melekh ve-ha-naziyr (Prince and the ascetic) (Ibn Hasdai), 410, 645 Ben Mishley (Ibn Naghrillah), 366 Ben Qohelet (Ibn Naghrillah), 366 Ben Siratp>280, 311, 322, 406 Ben Tehiylliym (Ibn Naghrillah), 366 Benavente, Jewish community of, 402 Benedict of Mele, 577 Benedict XIII, antipope, 8 2 -8 4 condemnation of Jews, 33-34, 69, 83-84, 142, 19 4 -19 5 ,2 1 6 , 637 Benjamin b. Isaac of Carcassone, 646—647 Benjamin of Scola, 574 Benjamin ofTiberias, 124 Benjamin of Tudela, 8 4 -8 6 biographical information, 84-85 on Byzantium, 126 editions of works, 85 on Fustat, 277 on gaon of Baghdad, 285 on Jewish seals, 598 manuscripts, surviving, 85 on Palestine, 493 path of travels, 18, 84-85 on Roman Jews, 571 on Sicily, 607, 611 on synagogues, 620, 621 translations of works, 85-86 Benvenist de Porta, 80 mintmaster, 45 1-45 2 Benvenist, Isaac, 69 Benvenist, Sheshet, 80 Benveniste, Elisha b. Abraham, 94 Benveniste, Vidal as mintmaster, 452 poetry of, 410, 514 Berakhot, 284 Berakhyah b. Natronai, 407—408, 411 Berav, Jabob, 3 Berbers arms/weapons of, 36 Jewish origin of, 477—478 Jewish queen of, 386, 477 Jewish tribes, end of, 22, 36 Muslim conquest of, 477-478 in Sicily, 606 Bernard of Clairvaux, protection of Jews, 1, 86 -87, 163, 192, 207, 295 Bernard de Gordon, 440 Bernardin of Sienna, 225-226 Bernhardin of Feltre, 303, 569 Berthold of Regensburg, 223 Bertinoro, Obadiah, 622 Besalu, Jewish community of, 32 Besan9on, Jewish community of, 123 Bethel, Sabbath, 78 Beziers, Councils of, 441 Bible in Aramaic language, 97-98 in Greek language, 97, 105, 637

676

homiletic exegesis, 98 Jewish education in, 229-232 origin of Jewish poetry, 510 -5 11 sections of, 87 Bible commentaries by Jews, 9 7 -10 5 fourfold classification (Pardes), 104 ofFrance, 100-101 of Germany, 101 in Hebrew language, 99 -100 homiletic exegesis, 98 of Ibn ‘Ezra, 102-103, 104, 105, 349-351 of Ishblll, 369-370 of Maimonides, 103 on messiah, 446-447 of Mordecai b. Hillel, 4 6 2-46 3 of Nahmanides, 103, 473-474 of North Africa, 102 philosophical commentaries, 103-104 qabbalistic commentaries, 103 and Qaraites, 98-99 of Qimhi family, 103 of Rabbanite Jews, 99 of Rashi (Solomon b. Isaac), 91, 10 0-10 1, 105, 562-564 of Spain, 103-104 Bible of the Duke of Alba, 108 Bible manuscripts, 8 7 -9 7 Aleppo Codex, 88, 92 codices, production of, 87-88 earliest manuscripts, 89-91 illumination of, 38 — 44 from Italy, 96, 97 letters, formation of, 89 Maimonides on, 88-89, 92, 95-96 masoretic traditions, 88-89 oldest, complete (Leningrad Bible), 91 from Portugal, 96-97 printed editions/Jewish presses, 96—97 Rabbinical Bibles, with commentaries, 96-97 rabbinical information on customs, 95-96 scrolls, construction of, 87-88, 95-96 from Spain, 92—95, 96 Bible moralisee, Jewish depictions in, 53, 54, 55 Bible translations, Jewish, 10 5 -10 9 into Arabic, 106, 390, 583 into Aramaic, 105 into Catalan, 109 into European vernacular, 106—107 into French, 109 into Greek, 105 into Persian language, 106 into Portuguese, 109 into Spanish, 107-109 from Latin, 108-109 Biblica hebraica (Kittle-Kahle), 91 biblical era agriculture and Jews, 11-1 2 Aramaic language, 395 conversion to Judaism, 196 Hebrew language, 322 North Africa settlements, 477 Palestine and Jews, 489 Semitic language, 395 Biel, Gabriel, 168 binyaniym (verbal constructs), 321 Birds' Head Haggadah, 42, 46 Bishop Bedell Bible, illumination of, 43

bishops, relations with Jews, 16 9-17 0 Biur le-feirush ha-Ramban (Explanation of the commentary o f Nahmanides) (Ibn Shuayb), 544 Bivagch, Abraham, 509 biymah (table), 629 Black Death, transmission of, 110 Black Death and Jews, 1 1 0 - 1 1 8 Church position during, 111, 169 in Egypt, 238 and forced baptism, 11 3 -1 14 , 169 France, Jewish massacre, 110- 111, 122, 534 Germany, Jewish massacre, 11 2 -1 18 , 178, 301, 667-668 Jewish defensive actions, 116 Nuremberg, Jewish massacre, 1 1 5 -1 16 persecutions, types of, 1 1 6 -1 1 7 in Poland and Lithuania, 524 political factors, 117—118 Pope Clement IVon, 65, 111, 169 protection in Austria, 115 protection in Avignon, 65 in Spain, 111 Switzerland, Jewish massacre, 112 Blanche, countess of Champagne, 14 6-14 7 Blanche, queen of Castile, 457 Blanquerna (Lull), 4 17 -4 18 blood libel, 1 1 9 -1 2 3 Austria, 61 France, 147 Germany, 119-120, 271-272, 297, 299 origin of myth, 119, 121 papal bulls issued, 120-121 Poland, 120 Switzerland, 121 Bodo, conversion to Judaism, 198-199, 294 Bohemia Black Death and Jews, 111, 115 expulsion from, 250 Boleslav, duke of Poland, 184, 523—524 Bologna, Jewish community of, 578 Bonafed, Solomon, poetry of, 514 Bonavoglia, Moses, 610 Bondavin de Draguignan, 537 Bondeu, Bongidis, 438, 609, 611 Bonfils, Immanuel b. Jacob, 591 Bonfils, Joseph b. Eliezer, 103, 138 Bonhome, Alfonso, 222 Boniface VIII, pope, 573 Boniface IX, pope, 441, 577, 579 Bonn, Jewish community of, 179 Bonsenyor, Astruch, 412, 647, 652 Bonsenyor, Judah, 376, 412 Book o f Delights (Ibn Zabara), 81, 437 Book o f Zerubavel, 405 Borbetomagus, 663 Botarel, Moses, 432, 546, 549 Bougie, Jewish community of, 479 Bracon, Jewish community of, 122 Braganza, duke of, and Abravanel family, 8 Braulio of Zaragoza, 656 Brescia, Jewish press at, 97 Breslau, Jewish community of, 523 Breviarium Alarici, 286 Brisk, Jewish community of, 522, 524 Burgos Bible manuscripts of, 93—94 Jewish community of, 37, 139, 142, 144

Index Burgundy, 1 2 1 - 1 2 3 Jewish communities of, 121, 122 Jewish moneylending, 122 status of Jews, 122 Burkart of Miinsingen, 112 Burriana, Jewish community of, 652, 654 Bury St. Edmund, synagogue of, 624 butter, dietary laws, 257 Byzantium, 1 2 3 - 1 2 7 coins of, 451 commerce and Jews, 126-127, 180, 182, 18 3,55 9-56 0 conversion by Jews to Christianity, 123-125, 192 conversion to Judaism, 197-198 disputations, Jewish-Christian, 212 and Greek language, 123, 393 Hebrew language, written works, 328 history of, 123 Jewish scholarship of, 125—127 legal/theological attack of Jews, 124-125 Muslim conquest, 123, 127, 371 origin of Jews in, 123 Palestine, conquest by Muslims, 489 and piracy, 17 poetry of period, 125 qabbalists of, 12 5-12 6 Qaraites in, 17, 126, 552 scientific/mathematical works, 594 Sefardim, time of settlement, 467 C (Jadique de Ucles, Jacob, 412 Caesarius of Heisterbach, 155 (Jag (Isaac), 589 Cagliari, Jewish community of, 609, 611 Cairo Genizah, 16, 2 7 9 - 2 8 0 Bible manuscripts of, 89-90 on charity, 148 on commerce and Jews, 180, 560-561 on dhimma (protection) system, 370-371 discovery of, 279—280 on geonim, 282 Hebrew poetry of, 516—517 on international trade routes, 516 on Jewish education, 233 on Jews in Egypt, 236-237 Judah ha-Levy materials, 382, 383 on Qaraites, 551—552 sermons of, 601 on women, 657, 658 Cairo, Old. See Fustat Calabria, Jewish community of, 607 Calatayud, Jewish community of, 31, 35 Calilay Dimna, translation from Arabic, 642 £vz//(Jewish quarter), 80 Cambridge Castilian Bible, 93-94 Cambridge Pentateuch and Hagiography, 50 Cambridge Yiddish Codex, 109 camera obscura, 592 Canaanite language, 394 Candia, 180 Canet, Ramon, 654 Canon law and Jews, 1 2 9 - 1 3 4 Decretals, 13 0-13 3 Decretum, 12 9-13 0 Extravagantes, 133 impact of, 133—134

on Jewish converts to Christianity, 193 usury as sin, 453, 454, 455-456 Canpanton, Isaac, 3 Canpanton, Judah, 549 Cantigas de Santa Maria, 19-20, 155, 225 Jewish depictions in, 54, 174, 175 Jewish melodies of, 467 cantors, women, 232, 659 Capistrano, John, condemnation of Jews, 68, 226, 250, 303, 333, 524, 609 Capistrum iudaeorum (Martf), 222 capital punishment, 13 4 -13 5 mandate by Jewish court, 134-135 Capitula de Judaeis, 458 Capua, 180 Caracosa, Samuel, 593 caravans, 16, 18 1,4 7 8 international trade routes, 558-561 Carbonell, Poncio, 225 Carcassonne, Jewish community of, 539 Carlos de Viana, 34 Carlos II, king of Navarre, 466 Carnival of Rome, Jewish participation, 572 Caro, Isaac, 104 Caro, Joseph, 3, 58, 96, 453 carpet page, 39-40, 41, 93 Carrion, synagogue of, 628 carta depoblacion (privilege of settlement), 31 cartography and geography, 13 6 -13 8 Greek contributions, 136 Jewish cartographers, 13 6-13 7 and Jewish travelers, 137-138 Majorcan Jews, 136—137 Muslim maps, 136 and travelers, 137-138 Casimir III, king of Poland, 524 Casimir Jagiello, king of Poland, 524 Caslari, Abraham, 437 Caslari, David, 538, 646 Caspi, Joseph, 104 Castellon de Ampurias Bible, illumination of, 50 Castellon de las Plana, Jewish community of, 652, 653 Castile, 13 8 -1 4 4 Alfonso X, 19 -2 0 badge, wearing of, 69 Fernando and Isabel, 143, 2 5 1-2 5 3 Jewish communities of, 139-140 Jewish culture, 14 3-14 4 Jewish massacre (1391), 142 Jewish oaths, 485—486 Jewish physicians of, 143, 437 Jewish status and rulers of, 138-143 Leon, control of, 402 rabbis of, 144 castles, granted to Jews, 31, 36-37, 139-140, 402 Castro de los judios, 402 Catalan Atlas, 136, 137 Catalan Bibles, 94, 109 Catalonia. See Aragon-Catalonia Catania, Jewish community of, 610, 611 Catatayud, synagogue of, 628 Cathars, 331 Cave of the Machpelah, 622 Cecchi, Domenico, 77 Celestina (Fernando de la Rojas), 413 Celia, Jewish community of, 34

cemetery grounds, Jewish Avignon, 63 Barcelona, 80 Basatin cemetery, genizah of, 279, 280-281 Cologne, 177 Frankfurt, 268 Palestine, 474, 495 Rome, 571 Toledo, 141 Worms, 443, 663, 665, 668 Cervera, Jewish community of, 34 Cervera Bible, illumination of, 41 (Jeti of Zaragoza, 659 Ceuta, Jewish community of, 478 Ceuta disputation, 216 Chacon, Samuel, 96—97 Chalcedonians, 331 Chalon, Jewish community of, 121 Chalons-sur-Marne, Jewish community of, 144 chamber serfdom and Jews, 271, 272, 287, 288, 296 Champagne, 1 4 4 —1 4 7 commerce and Jews, 14 6-14 7 decline of Jewish community, 147 fairs of, 146, 184 Jewish communal structure, 144-145 Jewish communities of, 144 Jewish scholarship of, 145—146 moneylending and Jews, 457 Champlitte, Jewish community of, 123 charity, 1 4 7 - 1 4 9 applications for funds, 14 8-14 9 guilds for needy, 654 interest earned on funds, 148 Jewish scholars on, 147—149 Charlemagne Aragon-Catalonia, conquest of, 31 Jewish ambassador of, 23-24 Charles IV, king of France, 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 biographical information, 14 9-15 0 condemnation of Jews, 150, 246 and Shepherd’s Uprising, 605 Charles IV, king of Luxembourg Black Death, treatment of Jews, 112—113, 116, 1 1 7 -1 1 8 ,3 0 1 and Frankfurt Jews, 266-267 Charles V, king of France, 247, 397 Charles VI, king of France, 247, 397 Charles the Bald, king of Franconia, 286-287 Chatelaine, Isaac, 147 Chatillon-sur-Seine, Jewish community of, 122 Chaussin, Jewish community of, 122 Chelm, Jewish community of, 522 Cherubino, Fra, 77 chief rabbis, 558 children, child marriage, 426 China, commerce and Jews, 559 cholent, 260-261 Chretin de Troyes, 155 Christian-Jewish relations, 1 5 0 - 1 5 7 anti-Semitism, bases for, 150, 15 4-15 7 canon law on, 130, 154 Christian influence on Jewish laws, 154 Christian-Jewish commonalities/ cooperation, 15 1-15 3 class differences and anti-Semitism, 157

677

Index Christian-Jewish relations (cont.) in folklore/literature, 15 4-15 6 and food use, 152, 257, 263-264 Hebrew language learning by Christians, 328 " and holidays/Sabbaths, 152, 153 and Holy Week, 156 Jewish ambassadors of Christians, 23-25 Jewish gifts to Christians, 152-153 and Jewish marriage, 426—427, 428 mystique of Jews in, 151, 154 and organized religion. See Church and Jews Rashi on, 563—564 and sexuality, 427 superiority-inferiority variables, 654 and women, 153 Christiani, Paul, 81, 220, 221, 634 disputation of, 215, 476-477, 494 chronicles, Jewish, 1 5 7 -1 6 1 family histories, 158 first chronicle, 158 historical chronicles, 159-160 Jewish travelers, 137-138 on religious teachings/sects, 15 8-15 9 of Zacut, importance of, 161 Chronicles ofYerafpmiel, 406 Chrysostom, John, 164, 168 Church, scope of institution, 162 Church and Jews, 1 6 2 -17 2 Albigensian heresies and Jews, 14—16 archbishop/bishop relations with Jews, 16 9-17 0 Augustine on Jews, 163, 164 on badge, 67—68, 146, 166, 175 baptism, forced, 14, 113—114, 168—169 Benedict XII anti-Jewish actions, 8 2 -8 4 Bernard of Clairvaux, protection of Jews, 86 -87, 163 and Black Death, 111, 169 and blood libel charges, 120-121 canon law and Jews, 129—134 and Christian community. See ChristianJewish relations conversion of Jews, 1 9 0 -19 6 and corruption within Church, 167 Crusades, 2 0 5 -2 0 8 Decretals, 13 0-13 3 Decretum, 12 9-13 0 disputations, Jewish-Christian, 2 1 2 -2 1 7 and Dominicans, 2 1 8 -2 2 3 ecumenical councils, Jews as topic, 17 0-17 2 excommunication of Jews, 245 food-related restrictions, 263-264 and Franciscans, 22 3 -2 2 6 Holy Land/Palestine, 489, 49 1-49 3 host desecration accusations, 33 2 -3 3 3 and Inquisition, 167 on Jewish attire, 175 on Jewish perfidy, 167-168 on Jewish physicians, 441 Jews and death of Christ, 168 Jews as heretics, 33 0 -3 3 1 Jews in religious art, 52-56 Jews as witnesses doctrine, 163-164 messiah, teachings of, 444-445 on moneylending, 133, 453, 454, 455—457 and oath, Jewish, 483—486

678

papal condemnation of Jews, 164, 165, 169 papal protection of Jews, 164, 165-167, 169 Sicut-Judaeis, 111, 118, 133, 165, 167 synagogue, animosity toward, 164—165, 624 Talmud, condemnation of, 6 3 3-63 7 Thomas Aquinas, writings of, 2 7 -3 0 True Israel concept, 164 usury as sin, 455-457 Church of the Sepulcher, 491 Chynisia synagogue, 628 circumcision, of converted Jews, 196-197 Ciudad Roderigo, Jewish community of, 402 Clement IV, pope on Black Death and Jews, 65, 111, 169 on Jewish conversion to Christianity, 133, 331 Talmud, condemnation of, 637 Clement V, pope, 131, 133, 500 Clement XIV, pope, 569 clothing and Jews, 1 7 2 -17 6 badge, wearing of, 67-70, 175-176 commercial aspects. See garment industry decrees related to, 61, 133, 175-176 in Germany, 174 holiday garments, 174—175 Jewish hat, 173-174 in Muslim lands, 23, 173 in Spain, 173, 175 Code of Theodosius, 126 Codex Hilleliy, 92-93 cofradias (guilds), 654 Cohen, Izag, 439 coins Muslim, importance of, 451 See also minting of coins Cola ofRienzo, 576-577 collecta (tax district), 80 collyrium, 16 Cologne, 17 6 -17 9 Black Death and Jews, 178 commerce and Jews, 176, 179 during Crusades, 177-178 expulsion from, 179, 303 fairs of, 176, 184 Jewish communal structure, 176—177 Jewish community seal, 599 moneylending and Jews, 460 rabbis of, 177, 179 commenda (business partnership), 185, 186, 188 ‘ commerce and Jews, 18 0 -18 9 and Almohads, 182 and Almoravids, 23 in Austria, 60-61 banking, 7 0 -7 9 in Byzantium, 127, 180, 182, 183 caravans and import/export, 16, 181 and commenda (partnership), 185, 186, 188 Decretals on, 132 duties/customs payments, 184 in England, 183, 184, 241 and fairs, 146, 184, 188 in France, 146-147, 184-185, 187, 536-537 garment industry, 127—128, 187

in Germany, 183-184 historical development of, 18 0-18 1 and hostility towards Jews, 184, 185, 187, 189 in India, 181 in Italy, 185, 573-574 and Jewish law, 184-185, 187-189 maritime trade, 185—186 minting of coins, 45 1-45 2 moneylending, 189, 45 3 -4 6 2 Muslim-Jewish commercial activity, 1 8 0 -18 4 ,1 8 6 ,3 7 1 in North Africa, 16-18, 181, 182, 183, 185-186, 237, 480-481 in Palestine, 490 in Persian Empire, 180 and piracy, 17, 186 in Poland and Lithuania, 523 prohibitions of Jews from commerce, 181, 182, 186 Radhanites, 181, 55 8 -5 6 1 representative of the merchants, 16 -17 routes of Jewish merchants, 558-561 in Sicily, 18 0-18 1, 185, 607-608 slave trade and Jews, 183 in Spain (Christian), 81, 18 5-18 7 in Spain (Muslim), 18 1-18 3 women and commerce, 13, 81, 181, 182, 183-184, 658, 659 communal laws, Jewish, 400 comparative linguistics, and Hebrew grammarians, 318 -3 19 Comtino, Mordecain, 594 Conat, Abraham, 380

Concordat. See Decretum

concubines, 202, 306-307, 426 Constance, Council of, 34, 166, 171, 302, 303 Constantine, Jewish community of, 479 Constantine VII, king of Constantinople, 24 Constantinople. See Byzantium Constitution of Melfi, 271, 272 contador mayor (chief tax judge), 7 Conte du graal (Chretin de Troyes), 155 contraception method, 427 contracts, marriage, 425, 657-658 conversion by Jews to Christianity, 19 2 -19 6 and Abravanel family, 7 in Byzantium, 123-125, 192 and Christian heresies, 15 -16 conversos as prominent figures, 195-196 and Crusades, 192, 206 Decretals on, 13 1-132, 193 Decretumon, 129-130, 193 and Dominicans, 194, 218-223 in England, 192-193, 243 flight of Jews to North Africa, 18, 20, 1 9 0 -1 9 1 ,1 9 5 ,4 1 9 -4 2 0 forced Baptism, 113 -114 , 168-169, 192 forced sermons, 194-195, 220- 221, 223 in France, 192 in Germany, 193-194 important Jewish converts, 19 3-19 6 and Inquisition, 27, 34-35, 193, 19 5-19 6 literature of conversos, 413—414 Maimonides on, 21, 430 in Spain, 26, 194-196, 248, 249, 656 and Visigoths, 125, 130, 194, 656 conversion by Jews to Islam, 19 0 -19 2 and Almohads, 21- 22, 19 0-19 1, 419

Index Berber tribes, 477-478 important Jewish converts, 191 in Mongol Empire, 191 in North Africa, 19 0-19 1 in Persian Empire, 191 polemics against Judaism, 191 in Spain, Muslim, 190-191 conversion to Judaism, 1 9 6 —2 0 3 biblical era, 196 in Byzantium, 197-198 in England, 20 1-20 2 family of proselytes, 201 in France, 200, 201 in Germany, 199, 200, 201 historical accounts of, 198-202 and Inquisition, 331 and intermarriage, 427—428 in Italy, 196 and Jewish law, 19 6-19 7 judaizing movement, 124, 197, 199, 330 Maimonides on, 200 opposing forces, 197 Petrus Alfonsi, 4 9 6 - 4 9 7 in Poland and Lithuania, 199 proselytizing by Jews, oppositions to, 197, 198 by slaves of Jews, 197-198 in Spain, 199, 202-203 conversos. See conversion by Jews to Christianity convivencia (harmony), 108-109 Copenhagen Moreh nevukhiym, illumination of, 48 Coplas de Yogef, 521 Cordoba Jewish community of, 25—26, 27, 141, 142 synagogue of, 627-628 Cortes of Madrigal, 619 Cortes ofToledo, 619 Cosenza, 180 Costums de mar, 615 Costums de Tortosa, 614—615 Council of One Hundred, 80 Council of Rome, Fifth, 165 court rabbis, 557-558 court translators, 647 Cracow, Jewish community of, 524 Creques, Azday, 32 Crescas, Astruc, 336 anti-Christian polemics of, 30 Crescas, Hasdai as adviser to king, 33 philosophical works of, 82, 507, 510 on Thomas Aquinas, 30 Crescas de Viviers, 593 Cresiphon, 560 Cresques, Abraham, mapmaking of, 13 6 -13 7 Cresques, Judah, mapmaking of, 13 6-13 7 Crete Jewish community of, 126, 127 synagogues of, 628 criminal law, Jewish, 400 Crispin, Gilbert, 2 0 3 - 2 0 4 , 212 biographical information, 203 disputations of, 203—204, 212 Crusades, 2 0 5 - 2 0 7 beginning of, 491

conversion by Jews to Christianity, 192, 206 Emicho’s massacre of Jews, 2 4 0 First, 35, 60, 126, 157, 177, 192, 206-207, 240, 295 in Germany, 177-178, 205-207, 240, 295-296 Jewish financing issue, 77 massacre of Jews (1096), 206, 240, 664 in Palestine, 491-493 protection of Jews, 207 Second, 86, 163, 177-178, 192, 207, 295-296 Third, 207 Cur Deus Homo (Why God became man) (Anselm), 204 Cyprus, commerce and Jews, 185 D Dagobert I of Gaul, 246 Dajjll (antimessiah), 446 Damascus Covenant, 551-552 Damascus Keter, illumination of, 40, 93 Dammuh, synagogue of, 620, 623 dancing Jewish law on, 467 and weddings, 467-468 DanI, 465 Daniel b. Elazar, 285-286 Daniele d’Isaia, 79 Daniyal b. ATazar b. Hibat Allah, 285-286 Daniyal b. Shamu’ll b. Abi’l-Rabl, 286 Dante, influence on Hebrew literature, 411, 576, 579 Dar‘I, Moses, 517 Darkhey ha-Talmud(Saadyah), 583 Darmstadt Haggadah, illumination of, 43, 46, 53-54 Daroca, Jewish community of, 31 Dauphine, Jewish community of, 122 David, king descendants of, 386-387, 475 mosque of, 491 tomb of, 493 David b. Jacob, mintmaster, 451 David b. Jacob Meir, 610 David b. Judah, on Star of David, 50 David b. Maimon, 277-278 David b. Samuel, 160 David b. Zakkai, 581 David Bonjorn de Barrio, 591 David ha-Kohen, mintmaster, 452 David ha-Levy b. Isaac, 277 David of Oxford, 243 David of Palermo, 611 David Todros of Narbonne, 427 dayyan (judge) of Alexandria, 17-18 gaon as, 282 Maimonides father as, 21, 419 rabbi as, 555 De adventu Messiae (Lull), 417 DeAnima (Ibn Slna), 640 De animaefacultatibus (Thomas Aquinas), 30 De animalibus (Aristotle), 591, 592 De confutatione hebraicae sectate (Gratia Dei), 223 De differentia (Qusta b. Luqa), 639, 640

De elementis et oribus coelestibus (Masha’llah), 432

Dejudicio universali (Capistrano), 226 De numeris harmonicis (Gersonides), 471 De regimine Judaeorum (Thomas Aquinas), 28 De scientia motus orbis (Masha’llah), 432 De sphaera mota (Masha’llah), 432 De unitate intellectus contra Averoistas

(Thomas Aquinas), 29 -30 Dead Sea Scrolls, and Qaraites, 551—552 debtors, Jewish law related to, 400 Decadas de Asia, Decado /(Joao de Barros), 137 Decretals, 13 0-13 3 and Ramon de Penafort, 130-133, 219 rulings of, 13 1-13 3 , 19 3 ,6 1 7 Decretum, 12 9-13 0 rulings of, 129-130, 193, 455-456 on usury, 455-456 Deeds o f Alexander (Pseudo-Kallisthenes), 125 Del Mediggo family, 628 Dela, count of Gerona, 31 Democritos, 119 Denia, Jewish community of, 651, 652 De‘ot ha-filosofiym (Ibn Falquera), 506 deuterosin (sermons), 389 Deutz, Jewish community of, 179 deveiqut (communion), 545 dhimma (protection) system, 190, 235, 236, 370-371, 374 Dhu Nuwas, Joseph, Himyarite king, 385 Dialog with Trypho (Justin Martyr), 212 Dialoghi d’amore (Dialogues on Love) (Abravanel), 7 Dialogi contra Iudaeos (Dialogues against the Jews) (Alfonsi), 496 “Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian, A” (Abelard), 1-2, 12 -13 Dialogus contra Judeos (Bartholomew), 212

Dialogus inter Christianum et Iudeum defide Catholica, 212 Dichosy sentencias (Bonsenyor), 376

dictionaries, Hebrew, 3 17-318, 323, 582 dietary laws. See food use by Jews Dietrich, archbishop of Cologne, 179 Digne, Jewish community of, 534, 535, 536 Dihya, Berber queen, 477 Dijon, Jewish community of, 122 Din, Rashid al-, 191 dina de-malkhuta dina (law of the land is the law), 2 0 9 - 2 1 1 , 399-400 impact of, 211 Jewish scholars on, 209-210, 399 Safardic versus Ashkenazic communities,

211

Dio Cassius, 119 Diosorides, encyclopedia of, 24, 586, 638 Disciplina clericalis (Scholar’s guide) (Alfonsi), 4 12,49 7, 586 Disputatio Iudei et Christiani (Disputation between a Christian and a Jew) (Crispin), 203-204

Disputation Abutalib sarraceni et Samuelis iudaei (Bonhome), 222

disputations, Jewish-Christian, 2 1 2 —2 1 7 in England, 2 1 2 -2 1 3 in France, 213 -2 15 , 331, 476-477 of Gilbert Crispin, 203-204, 212 Jewish-Christians cautions on, 213

679

Index disputations, Jewish-Christian (cont.) of Majorca, 2 15 -2 16 on moneylending, 214 in Prague, 217 in Spain, 2 15-216, 417 Tortosa Disputation (1413), 34, 83, 2 1 6 -2 1 7 Dits d’Ysop (Marie de France) , 408 Divan. See Ben Tehiylliym (Ibn Naghrlllah) divine pleroma, 312—313 divorce and dowry, 425-426 Jewish law related to, 399, 427 marriage contract, 425, 657 women after divorce, 658, 660 Divrey ha-yamiym shel Mosheh rabbeinu, 255 Divrey ha-yomiym, 563 Diyvan (Judah ha-Levy), 384 Djerba Jewish community of, 478, 479, 608, 621 synagogue of, 621 Dolce of Worms, 659, 660, 662 Dominicans, 2 1 8 - 2 2 3 and blood libel accusations, 121 compulsory sermons by, 220—221 and conversion of Jews to Christianity, 19 4 ,2 18 -2 2 3 founding of, 218 in France, 2 1 8 -2 1 9 in Germany, 223, 303 “Gods watchdogs” imagery of, 54, 218 and Inquisition, 218 -2 19 , 568 in Italy, 220, 223 Jewish scholars on, 219 and Muslims, 220 polemicists, 29, 221-223 Ramon de Penafort, 20, 29, 13 0 -13 1, 219 Ramon Marti, 22 1-22 2 and ritual murder accusations, 568, 569—570 in Spain, 218-22 3 Thomas Aquinas, 2 7 - 3 0 Vicente Ferrer, 222-223 Domus Conversorum, 192, 243 Donin, Nicholas, 121, 194, 376 condemnation of Talmud, 634-635 disputation of, 214 Donnolo, Shabbatai, 125, 360, 543, 585, 611 medical writings of, 434 double letters (BGDKFT), 317 dowry, 425, 426-427, 659 Dra’a, Jewish community of, 478 Draguignan, Jewish community of, 534, 535 Dra’l, Moses, 449, 478, 517 Dresden mahzor, illumination of, 47 Drohiczyn, Jewish community of, 524 dry exchange, 79 Dsantis, Joseph, 306 Dublin Ibn Gaon, 94 Duenas, Jewish community of, 139 Duke of Sussex Pentateuch, illumination of, 42-43, 49 Dulceti, Angelino, 136 Dunash b. Labrat, 99 Dunash b. Tamim, 99 Duns Scotus, John, 169, 193, 225, 504 Dura-Europas synagogue, 621, 629 Duran, Profiat, 321, 325 anti-Christian polemic of, 531 Duties o f the Heart (Ibn Paqudah), 104

680

dyes/dyed clothing, Jewish production of, 12 6 ,18 2 ,6 0 8 E Ebreo, Guglielmo, 55 Ebreo, Leone, 7 ecumenical councils Jews as issue, 17 0-17 2 on usury, 456-457 Edom, 446—447 education, Jewish, 2 2 9 - 2 3 5 biblical study and Talmud, 229-232, 234 in Europe, 229-233 in France, 234 medical education, 440-441 in Muslim lands, 233-234 secular subjects, 233-234 significance to Jews, 229 in Spain, 234 ofwomen/girls, 232—233, 658—660 Edward I, king of England on badge, 67 on moneylending, 459 Efraim b. Yafet, 435 Eggeret Shabbat (Letter of the Sabbath) (Ibn ‘Ezra), 349 Egica, Visigoth king, 181, 656 Egron (Saadyah), 317, 323 Egron (Solomon b. Natan), 317 Egypt, 2 3 5 - 2 3 8 Alexandria, 1 6 - 1 8 arms and Jews, 36 Bible manuscripts from, 91 Black Death and Jews, 238 Cairo Genizah, 279-281 commerce and Jews, 16, 181, 182, 237 decline of Jews in, 237-238 dhimma system, 235 Fatimid rule, 235-236, 275-276 Fustat, 2 7 5 - 2 7 8 Jewish attire, 173 Jewish banking in, 71 Jewish physicians of, 435—436 Jewish poetry of, 517 Maimonides flight to, 21, 237, 238, 277, 419-420, 435 Mamluk rule, 18, 237-238, 277-278 muqaddam, 236-237 synagogues of, 235, 620, 622-623 Eike of Repgow, 289-290 Eiximenis, Francesc, 224, 225 El Frago, Jewish community of, 31 El Greco house, 141, 627

El libro de losfundamentos de las tablas astronomicas (Ibn ‘Ezra), 352

El Transito, 141 El Transito synagogue, 627 Star of David on, 50 Elazar b. Judah of Worms, 543, 660, 665-666 ethical work of, 309, 314—316, 666 position as scholar, 666 El’azar b. Samuel of Mainz, 660 Elazar b. Yaaqov, 286 Elazar he-Kalir, 445, 448 Elche, Jewish community of, 651, 652, 653 Eldad ha-Daniy (the Danite), 2 3 8 —2 3 9 , 404, 478

Ellianan b. Shemaryah, 479 Elhanan ben Yaqar, 311 Eli b. Joseph Habillo of Monzon, 647 Ell b. Zakhariyya, 286 Elia b. Sabato Beer, 579 Eli’ezer ben Hyrkanos, 405 Eli’ezer b. Joel ha-Levi, 177 Eli’ezer b. Natan (Ra’avan), 57 Eli’ezer b. Simson, 177 Eli’ezer of Beaugency, 101 Elijah, prophet, 445 Elijah di Sabbato, as physician, 434, 441 Elnatan ben Moses Kalkis, 12 5-12 6 Emicho, count of Leiningen, and massacre of Jews, 2 4 0 , 300 Emmunot ve-de(o t (Saadyah), 643 Emunah ha-ramah (Exalted faith) (Ibn Daud), 505 Emunah ve-ha-bifahon, 474 Emunot ve-de'ot (Book of beliefs and opinions) (Sa’adyah), 582

EncyclopediaJudaica, 7

encyclopedias, scientific, 592-593 engagement, premarital, 424-425 England, 2 4 0 - 2 4 4 Anglican Church and Jews, 243 arms and Jews, 36 badge, wearing of, 67 commerce and Jews, 183, 184, 241 conversion of Jews to Christianity, 192-193, 243 conversion to Judaism, 20 1-20 2 disputations, Jewish-Christian, 2 12 -2 13 Exchequer of Jews, 241, 242 expulsion from, 67, 243—244 Hebrew grammatical works, 321 Jewish communities of, 241 Jewish expulsion, 110 massacre by Richard I, the Lion-Hearted, 24 1-24 2 moneylending by Jews, 241, 243, 458-459, 659 protection of Jews, 241 ritual murder accusations, 566-567 scholarly works of Jews, 2 44 seals, Jewish, 598 Sefardim, time of settlement, 467 synagogues of, 624 taxation of Jews, 241, 242, 243, 244 translations by Jews, 648 Enrique II, king of Castile, 142, 617 -6 18 Enrique II, king of Seville, 6 Enrique III, king of Castile, 142, 618 Enrique III, king of Seville, 7, 26 Enriquez, Juana, 34 Ephraim bar Jacob, 178 Ephraim b. Shemariah, 17, 276 Ephraim of Tyre, 326 episcopus Judeosum, 663 Epistola ad Peripateticos (Letter to the Philosophers of France) (Alfonsi), 497

Epistola de rebus eclipsian et de conjunctionibus planetarum... (Masha’llah), 432 Erekh ha hilluf{Bonfils), 591

Ere§ Yisrael (Land of Israel), 489 Escordial Library, 107 Eshkol ha-Kofer (Cluster of henna) (Hadassi), 126 Especulo de las leyes, 486, 616

Index Estoriy ha-Farhiy, 58, 138, 397, 494-495 ethical behavior, and Hasidism, 314 -3 16 ethical laws, Christians compared to Jews, 28 ethical treatise, Ibn Gabirol, 359-360 Etymologies (Isidore of Seville), 168 Eudes, count of Troyes, 144 Eugenius II, pope, 207 Eugenius IV, pope, protection of Jews, 167 eunuchs, of merchants, 559 Eusebios of Caesaria, 124 Even bohan (Ibn Shaprut), 216 Even bohan (Kalonymos), 591, 636 Eviatar, gaon of Palestine, 492-493 Exchequer of Jews, England, 241, 242 excommunication o f Jews, 2 4 5 , 303 Explanation symboli apostolorum (Marti), 222 expulsion from Austria, decree of Vienna, 61 expulsion from England, 67, 243—244 expulsion from France, 32, 110, 2 4 5 - 2 4 8 , 275 and Augustinian doctrine, 247 great expulsion, 122, 246, 247 historical view, 246—247 impact of, 247 from Languedoc, 246, 396-397 from Narbonne, 477 and Philip Augustus, 567 and Philip the Fair, 122, 246, 499-501 and Philip II, 246, 498 and Philip IV, 396-397 expulsion from Germany, 2 4 9 - 2 5 0 , 266, 294, 297-298 Cologne, 179, 303 from Mainz, 303 expulsion from Italy, 250 expulsion from Sicily, 249, 250, 60 9-610 expulsion from Spain, 2 4 8 - 2 4 9 and Abravanel family, 9, 249, 252, 253 to Alexandria, 18 from Andalucia, 26, 27, 248 from Aragon-Catalonia, 35 and Fernando and Isabel, 27, 35, 248-249, 252-253, 619 from Granada, 248-249 and Inquisition, 248—249 from Provence, 539 Extravagantes, 133 Eyck, Jan van, 56 Ezobi, Joseph, 349 Ezra, synagogue of Rakka, 621 Ezra of Gerona, 103, 545 Ezra the Scribe, 93 ‘Ezrat nashiym (Isaac of Castile), 409 F fables in Hebrew literature, 407-408, 411 of Petrus Alfonsi, 497 Fac of Seville, 6 fairs, Jewish commercial activity, 146, 176, 184, 188 Famos, Samuel, 369 al-faquims (secretaries and advisers), 80 Farabi, al-, 471 Farlji Bible, 91, 94 Faro, Jewish press of, 96—97 Farrisol, Abraham, 138 FasI, David b. Abraham al-, 490 dictionary of, 317, 318, 319

FasI, Isaac al-, 22, 57, 182, 466, 468, 478 FasI, Joseph, 3, 8 Fa$ih lughn aV-ibrani (Correctness of the Hebrew language) (Saadyah), 323 fate, astrological determinism, 594-596 Fatimid rule, Egypt, 235-236, 275-276 Alexandria during, 18 Palestine during, 491 piracy by Fatimids, 17 Fawwal, Munajjim al-, 436 Fayol, Gaspar Vicente, 223 Fernando of Aragon. See Fernando and Isabel Fernando de la Antaquera of Castile, 33, 142, 19 4 .6 18 Fernando de la Rojas, 413 Fernando de Pulgar, 196 Fernando and Isabel, 2 5 1 - 2 5 3 and Abravanel family, 8-9, 252 on badge, 69 condemnation of Jews, 34-35, 251-252, 4 0 3 .6 19 conversos as prominent officials, 195 and expulsion, 27, 35, 143, 248-249, 252-253, 609-610, 619 and Inquisition, 34-35, 195, 252, 609 legal codes of, 619 marriage of, 251 personality traits of, 251 Fernando I, king of Aragon-Catalonia, Jewish status under, 34, 83 Fernando III, king of Castile-Leon, 19 Hebrew-inscribed tomb of, 26 land grants to Jews, 13, 37 Ferrante, king of Naples, 609 Ferrara, Jewish community of, 578 Ferrer, Vicente, condemnation of Jews, 33, 69, 83, 142-143, 195, 219, 222-223, 618 Fez Jewish community of, 478-479 Maimonides family in, 20, 182, 19 0-19 1, 479 Fibonacci, Leonardo, 4, 351, 594 Finzi family, 72 Finzi, Mordecai, 594 First Cambridge Castilian Bible, 93—94 First Gaster Bible, 91 First Ibn Gaon, 94 First Kennicott Bible illumination of, 41, 50 manuscript of, 94-95 First Leningrad Bible illumination of, 40 manuscript of, 91 Flamel, Nicolas, 596 Florentiae, Petrus Accolti, 223 Flores de derecho, 202 folklore, 253— 256 aggadah (legend), 255 categories of works, 253 Christian-Jewish relations in, 154—156 collections of tales, 254 languages used, 254 life-cycle oriented stories, 255 on magic/demonology, 255-256 proverbs, 255 qabbalistic literature, 255 retelling of popular tales, 255 talmudic literature, 254

fonda, 261 Eons vitae (Fountain of life) (Ibn Gabirol),

15, 357-359, 504, 640 food use by Jews, 2 5 6 —2 6 4 agriculture by Jews, 1 2 - 1 4 Christian restrictions on Jewish food, 263-264 on food touched/prepared by Christians,

12, 152, 257

in France, 259 in Germany, 260-261 health and diet, 259 kasher, meaning of, 256 Maimonides on, 258, 259 market-prepared foods, types of, 258 meat and diary mixing prohibition, 257, 260, 262 in Muslim communities, 257-259 pareve, meaning of, 256 Rashi on, 259-260 Sabbath and holidays, 260-261 slaughter, rules of, 256-257 and social class, 263 in Spain, 26 1-26 4 Foralitiumfidei (Alonso del Espina), 226 Forcalquier, Jewish community of, 534 forgeries of works Maimonides, 422, 435 qabbalistic, 545-547 Former Prophets manuscript, 96, 97 fourfold classification (Pardes), of Bible commentaries by Jews, 104 France agriculture and Jews, 12 Avignon, Jews of, 6 3 —6 5 badge, wearing of, 67-68, 146, 274, 537 Bible commentaries by Jews of, 10 0-10 1 Bible illumination by Jews, 40 Black Death, Jewish massacre, 110—111,

122

blood libel accusations, 147 Burgundy, 1 2 1 - 1 2 3 Champagne, 1 4 4 - 1 4 7 Charles IV, 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 commerce and Jews, 146-147, 184-185, 187 conversion of Jews to Christianity, 192 conversion to Judaism, 200, 201 disputations, Jewish-Christian, 213 -2 15 , 3 3 1,4 7 6 -4 7 7 Dominicans in, 2 18 -2 19 education of Jews in, 234 expulsion from. See expulsion from France food and diet of Jews, 259 Franciscans in, 225 Jewish oaths, 486 Languedoc, 3 9 5 - 3 9 7 laws related to Jews, 2 7 3 - 2 7 5 , 375 Louis IX, 4 1 4 - 4 1 5 Louis X, 4 1 5 - 4 1 6 moneylending by Jews, 122, 146,274, 457-458, 536 music of Jews, 468 Narbonne, 4 7 5 - 4 7 7 Philip II, 4 9 7 - 4 9 8 Philip IV the Fair, 4 9 8 - 5 0 1 Philip V, 5 0 1 - 5 0 2 Provence, 5 3 3 - 5 3 7 ritual murder accusations, 246, 567—568

681

Index France (cont.) science and mathematics scholarship, 590-592 seals, Jewish, 598 “Shepherds’ Uprising,” 6 0 3-60 6 synagogues of, 396, 397, 624—625 Talmud, condemnation of, 634-636 taxation of Jews, 145, 534-535 Troyes, 6 4 8 -6 5 0 vineyards/wine-making of Jews, 12 -13 Franche-Comte, Jewish community of, 122, 123 Francis of Assisi, 223—224 Franciscans, 2 2 3 -2 2 6 in France, 225 in Italy, 223—226 Jewry law text of, 290 origin of, 223-224 in Poland, 226 polemicists, 225-226 Ramon Lull, 224, 4 1 6 -4 1 8 and ritual murder accusations, 568, 569 in Spain, 224-225 Francisco de la Torre, 467 Franco, Samuel, 404 Frankfurt, 264—269 Jewish community organization, 265, 268-269 Jewish ghetto, 265, 268, 269 massacre of 1241, 265-266, 297 massacre of 1349, 267, 301 protections and privileges for Jews, 267-269 taxation of Jews, 264—267 Frederick, archbishop of Mainz, 170 and forced conversion, 294 on Jewry law, 287 Frederick II Hohenstaufen, 270-273, 607-608 on badge, 68, 271 biographical information, 270 on blood libel, 120 Hebrew language, use of, 270, 328 intellectual achievements of, 272-273 Jewish protection under, 265, 271-273, 296, 607-608 on Jews as chamber serfs, 271, 272, 287, 288, 296, 607 Muslim relations, 270, 272 on ritual murder, 27 1-27 2 Frederick III, emperor, 178, 669 French language Bible translations into, 109 use by Jews, 393 Fridericianum, 60-61 Friedrick I, emperor, Jewish status under, 60, 6 1 ,6 3 Fromista, Jewish community of, 404 Fuero del Libro, 616 Fuerojuzgo, 20 Fuero real, 20, 6 1 6 -6 1 7 Fuero viejo, 461

fueros

development of, 612—616 Jewish oaths, 485-486 See also Spanish law and Jews

Fueros de Aragon, 20, 375

Fulcondi, Guy, archbishop of Narbonne, 170, 214

682

Furs de Valencia, 612, 615 Fustat, 2 7 5-27 8 Babylonian community, 276 Jerusalem community, 275, 276 persecution of Jews, 275—276 Qaraites of, 276-277 synagogue of, 275, 276, 279-280, 622-623 G

gabba’im (giver of charity),

148 Gabes, Jewish community of, 479 Gabriel de Vallsecha, 137 Gaio de Urbe, 579 Galilee, Jewish community of, 124 Gallego, Fernando, 55

gaon

of Jerusalem, 490 responsibilities of, 282-283 Saadyah, 5 8 1-5 8 3 use of term, 281, 581 garment industry Jewish prominence in, 126 sewing/tailoring and Jews, 153-154, 187 silk trade, 16, 126, 180-182, 187, 559, 607-608 Gaster Bible, 91 gates of wisdom, 3 1 1-3 1 2 Gaudius the mintmaster, 452 Gedalyah, Hayyim, 648 gemstones, Jewish trade in, 182—183 General estoria (world history), 107 Genizah, 2 7 9 -2 8 1 of Basatin cemetery, 279, 280-281 on converts to Judaism, 199-200 on Jews in Alexandria, 16, 18 See also Cairo Genizah genizah (hiding place), 279 Gentiles, categories of, 29 geometry, 585, 589, 590, 592, 593 geonim, 2 8 1-2 8 6 , 372 of Alexandria, 17 -18 of Babylonia, 281-283 classical period, 281 of Fustat, 276-277 geonic literature, 284-285 influential geonim, 283-286 music and singing, 464 of Palestine, 283-284 Qaraites, 5 5 1-5 5 2 of Qayraqwan, 479

See also gaon

Gerard de Solo, 440 Gerhard of Cremona, translations of, 639, 646 German language use by Jews, 39 3 -3 9 4 Yiddish, 393-394 Germany, 29 3 -3 0 4 agriculture and Jews, 12 -13 arms and Jews, 35-36 badge, wearing of, 68, 296 Bible commentaries by Jews of, 101 Bible illumination by Jews, 42—43 Bible manuscripts of, 96 Black Death, Jewish massacre, 112 -118 , 178, 3 0 1,6 6 7 -6 6 8

blood libel accusations, 119-120, 271-272, 297, 299 canon law and Jews, 129 capital punishment and Jews, 135 clothing of Jews, 174 Cologne, 17 6 -17 9 commerce and Jews, 183—184 conversion of Jews to Christianity, 19 3-19 4 conversion to Judaism, 199, 200, 201 Crusades, 177-178, 206-207, 240, 295-296 Dominicans in, 223, 303 Emicho and Jewish massacres, 240, 300 expulsion from. See expulsion from Germany foods used by Jews, 260-261 Frankfurt, 26 4 -2 6 9 Frederick II, Jewish status under, 271-273, 296 Haggadah from, 46 Hasidism in. See Hasidism in Germany Hehlerrecht law, 6 1 5 ,6 1 9 host desecration accusations, 299, 300, 332-333 interregnum, 297-298 Jewish communities, development of, 293-295 Jewish community, early, 293 Jewish hospitals in, 439 Jewish oaths, 486 laws related to Jews. See Jewry laws minters of coins, Jews as, 452 moneylending by Jews, 268, 459-460 murder of Jews. See massacre of Jews music of Jews, 467-468 prayer books of, 47 protection of Jews, legal aspects, 287-289 rabbis of, 294, 297, 298-299, 302-305 ritual murder accusations, 265-266, 296, 297, 298, 568-569, 668 seals, Jewish, 598, 599-600 synagogues of, 177, 265, 625-626 taxation of Jews, 296, 299, 302, 666-669 Worms, 66 3-66 9 Gerona, Jewish community of, 31, 32, 83, 156 Gershom b. Judah, 30 4-30 5 biographical information, 57, 294, 304 on Christian-Jewish relations, 152 on polygyny, 427, 659 and taqqanot (ordinances), 177, 305 Gershom b. Solomon, 592 Gershom of Mainz, 145 Gersonides. See Levi b. Gerson (Gersonides) Gerundi, Bellshom Ephraim, 593 Gerundi, Johah b. Abraham, 3 0 5 -3 0 7 adviser to king, 32 biographical information, 144, 305, 305-307, 555 on Maimonidean controversy, 337-338, 474 and Nahmanides, 474 students of, 306-307, 335, 340 teachers of, 306, 538 works of, 307 Gerundi, Nissim b. Reuben, 33, 82, 148, 222 Gezo ofTortona, 332 Ghent Altarpiece, 56

Index ghettos, Jewish Barcelona, 80 Castile, 141 Cologne, 17 6-17 7 England, 241 Fez, 479 Frankfurt, 265, 268, 269 Jerusalem, 491—492 Languedoc, 397 Leon, 403 Poland, 524 Provence, France, 535, 536 Rome, 571 Seville, 27 Sicily, 608-609 Tortosa, 31 Valencia, 652, 653, 654 Worms, 665, 668 el-Ghriba, synagogue at Djerba, 621 gilgul nishamot (transmigration of souls), 549 ~ Giudezmo, 392 Glandeves, Jewish community of, 534 Gnesen, Jewish community of, 522 Golden Bull of 1236, 272 Golden Bull of 1356, 291-292, 302 Golden Haggadah, illumination of, 44, 50 golden penny tax, 266, 302, 669 Goliath, Berber descendants of, 477 Gonsalves, Nuno, 55 Gonzalez de Mendoza, Pedro, archbishop of Toledo, Abravanel family, 8 Gonzalez, Juan, 640 Gonzalo de la Cavalleria, 83 Good Friday. See Holy Week grammar. See Hebrew grammar Granada Alhambra, 40 expulsion from, 27, 249 and Ibn Naghrillah, 3 6 3-36 6 Jewish ambassadors to, 24—25 Jewish defense of Muslim kingdom, 36 Jewish physicians of, 437 Jewish poets of, 512, 514 Granadilla, Jewish community of, 402 Gratia Dei, Johannes Baptistae, 223 Gratian, Decretum of, 129-130, 169, 455 Gray, Jewish community of, 122, 123 Greece cartography and mapmaking, 136 philosophy, Jewish interest in, 503-504 Greek language, 39 2 -3 9 3 Bible translations into, 97, 105, 164, 637 and Byzantium, 123, 393 use by Jews, 322, 392-393 Gregory I, pope, 12 9-13 0 on Jewish perfidy, 167—168 protection of Jews, 164, 165 Gregory IV, pope, 169 Gregory VII, pope, condemnation of Jews, 165 Gregory IX, pope, 68, 296 Decretals, 20, 130-133, 193, 455 on moneylending, 456—457, 458 and Paris trial of 1240, 634—636 Gregory X, pope, 120—121, 213 Gregos (Byzantine Jews), 127 Grodna, Jewish community of, 522, 524 Grosseteste, Robert, bishop of Lincoln, 170

Guadalajara Bible manuscripts of, 93, 96 Jewish scholarship of, 144 Guglielmo of Pesaro, 468 Gui, Bernard, as Inquisitor, 16, 331, 636 Guide o f the Perplexed (Maimonides), 422-423 illumination of, 48 subjects of, 422-423 translation by Scot, 273 written for student, 341-344, 422 Guido of Ferrara, 399 Guildford, synagogue of, 624 guilds, to aid poor, 654 Guillaume de Bourges, 634 Guillermo de Cabanellas, bishop of Gerona, 375 Guiscard, Robert, 607 Gundisalvo, Domingo, 504 translations of, 639, 640 Gunsalvas of Burgos, translations of, 640 Gunther of Schwarzburg, 112, 115 Guzman, Luis, 108-109

H Hadassi, Yehudah, 126 Hadrian I, pope, 169 HagahotMaimoniyot {Meir ha-Kohen), 463

Haggadah Birds’Head Haggadah, 42, 44

illumination of, 42, 44-46, 629 recitation on holidays, 261 Hagiographa, 50, 96 hagiographical literature, 407 Hai Gaon, 317, 390, 541, 620 on music, 464 poetry of, 5 16-517 seal of, 598 Hai b. Sherira, 284 Al-Hakim, Fapnid caliph, 275—276, 622, 638

halakhah

basis of, 400 and capital punishment, 134—135 on charity, 148 of Qaraites, 551-552 Halakhot (FasI), 57, 82 Halakhot gedolot (Qayyara), 284, 479 Halakhotpesuqot, 284 Halawa, Moses, 89 Halicz, Jewish community of, 522 Halle, Jewish community of, 294 Hamilton Siddur, illumination of, 46 -47 Hamon, Isaac, 437 Hamon, Joseph, 437 Haninah b. Dosa, 581 Hanokh b. Moses, 390, 610 translations of, 638 Harizi, Judah al-, 470 poetry of, 409, 4 1 1 ,5 1 3 translations of, 644 Harun b. Amram, 71 harzon (agent), 188 hasagat gevul (commercial infringement), 187 Hasan, Abraham, 89, 93 Hasidism in Germany, 3 0 9 -3 1 7 development of, 309-310 divine pleroma concept, 312 -3 13 ethical behavior, 314 -3 16

hermeneutical concepts, 3 1 1-3 1 2 influential schools/treatise of, 310—311 Kalonymos family, 309-310 literature of, 255 on marital sexuality, 427 prayer, meaning of, 3 1 3 -3 14 compared to qabbalah, 311, 312, 314, 543 Unique Cherub circle, 3 10 -3 11, 313 women, status of, 661—662 Haskallah, Hebrew enlightenment era, 325 Hassan b. Mar Hassan, 586 havdallah (separation) ceremony, 44, 152, 325 ritual items of, 51 haver (judge of Jewish court), 17, 18, 276 Hayy ben Maqiys (Ibn ‘Ezra), 317, 353 Hayyim b. Abraham, 410 Hayyim b. David, 336 Hayyim b. Moses, 61, 62 Hayyim b. Samuel, 544 Hayyug, Judah, 99 Hayyuj, Judah, 319 Hazan b. Mashiah, 98 Hazon Daniel (Vision of Daniel), 125 Hazzan, Israel Moses, 621 Hebrew grammar, 3 1 7 -3 2 2 and comparative linguistics, 3 18 -3 19 dictionaries, 3 17-318, 323 disputes related to, 319-32 0 grammatical works (13th century), 321 Ibn ‘Ezra, writings of, 320-321, 351 and poetry, 320, 323 Qaraites lexicography, 318, 552 Qimhi family, writings of, 321 Hebrew language, 32 2 -3 2 9 Arabic influences, 323-324, 373 Bible commentaries written in, 99 -100 folklore in, 254 learning of by Christians, 328 Maimonides on, 325—326 rabbinic Hebrew, 323, 326 Rashi script, 565 Sefardic versus Ashkenazic pronounciation, 326-327 spelling differences, 327 spoken Hebrew, 323—324 in written works, 324—325, 327—328 Hebrew letters formation/precision for Torah, 89 micography, 37, 38, 42, 47 rabbinic script, 325 Rashi script, 325, 565 Hebrew Miscellany, illumination of, 42 Hebron, and Crusades, 491 Hecataeos, 136 Hefes b. Yasliah, 102, 360, 479 Hegyon ha-nefesh (Contemplation of the soul) (Abraham bar Hayya), 447 Hehlerrecht law, 619 Heikhalot mystics, 405, 446 Heikhalot rabbatai, 405 Heikhalot zutarti, 405 Heinrich der Teichner, 155 Helbo, Menahem b., 101 Hellenism, 374 Heloise, and Peter Abelard, 1 Hen, Zerahay, 440, 647 henna, 608 Henry I, king of England, 241 Henry II, king of England, 241

683

Index Henry III, king of England on badge, 67, 243 investigation of Jews, 459 Henry IV, emperor, 663-664 Henry VI, emperor, 270, 288 heqdeshlheqdeshim (charitable donations), 148 Heraclius, emperor, 124, 169 Herem Ha-yiyshuv (ban on settlement), 3 2 9 -3 3 0 on agriculture and Jews, 12 in Champagne, 144-145 heretics, Christians as, 330 Albigensian heresies, 14—16 See also Inquisition heretics, Jews as, 3 3 0 -3 3 1 and Inquisition, 27, 331 and Maimonidean controversy, 633 Saadyahs response to, 581-582 Hermann of Cologne, 193 Hermann the Dalmation, translations of, 639 Hermann of Scheda, 665 Herod, 196 Hezekiah, 445 Hibbur ha-meshih ve-ha-tishboret (Abraham bar Hayya), 4 al-Hidaya ilafaraid, al-qulu-b (Direction to the duties of the heart) (Ibn Paqudah), 504 ^ Hfjar, Jewish press at, 96 Hilkhata gibrata (Ibn Naghrillah,), 365 Hillel ben Eliakim, 126 Hillel b. Samuel, 509 on Thomas Aquinas, 29-30 Hillel the Babylonian, 123 Hillel of Verona, 306 Hilleliy Codex, 92—93 Himyar, kings of, 385 Hippocrates, on food and diet, 262 Hippolytus, 445 Hispanic Society Bible, illumination of, 42 Historiae memorabiles (Rudolf of Schlesstadt), 223 historical narratives, 407 historiography. See chronicles Hiybbur Yafeh me-ha-Yeshuah (Book of Comfort), 661 Hiybburyafeh miy-ha-yeshu (ah (Moral tales) (Nissim b. Jacob), 158, 254, 405-406, 479 Hiyddot, Isofityo, 406 Hiylo, Isaac, 494 hiynukn (education), 229 Hochmeister (Grand Master), 302 holidays Christian-Jewish relations, 152, 153 foods used by Jews, 260-261 Jewish attire, 17 4-17 5 Jewish cultivation of foods, 13 music on, 464 prayer books, illumination of, 38, 46—47 Holy Land, Palestine as, 498 Holy Week Christian hostility toward Jews, 111, 133, 15 6,65 4 Christian imposed restrictions on Jews, 13 2 -13 3 ,1 5 6 and Christian-Jewish activities, 156 Decretals on, 132-133 passion plays, effects of, 269

684

homicide law, 271, 287, 290, 294 homiletic exegesis, development of, 98 homosexual theme, poetry, 515, 517 Honorius I, pope, 169 Honorius III, pope, 68, 69, 175 Honorius IV, pope, 575 hospitals, Jewish, 439 host desecration, 33 2-33 3 Austria, 61 Bavaria, 299, 333 Christian beliefs about, 332 Germany, 299, 300, 332-333 Poland and Lithuania, 333, 524 Spain, 33, 333 Hovot ha-levavot (Bahya b. Asher), 255 Huesca, Jewish community of, 31, 35 Hugh of Santalla, 639 human image, prohibition in art, 37-38 Humanism, 196 humorous poetry, 515 Hungary expulsion from, 250 minters of coins, Jews as, 452 moneylending by Jews, 462 synagogues of, 626 huppah (marriage canopy), 424, 428 Huqiym ve-mishpatiym (Laws and judgments) (Ibn Aknin), 345 Hushiel b. Elljanan, 479

I Ibn Abbas, Moses, 655 Ibn Abbas, Samaual, 191, 450 Ibn Abl Manssur, Yahya, translations of, 639 Ibn Abl Sarwl, Meir b. Joseph, 306 Ibn Abitur, R. Joseph, 100 on capital punishment, 135 translations of, 638 Ibn Abu Durham, David b. Solomon, 627 Ibn Adret, Solomon b. Abraham, 10, 33 5 -3 4 1 adviser to king, 32, 336-337 on astrology, 595 on Bible manuscripts, 89, 96 biographical information, 82, 335-336 on capital punishment, 135 on charity, 148 on commerce/business, 187 community leadership, 336-337 on converts to Judaism, 202 on food and diet, 262—263, 340 and Maimonidean controversy, 337-339, 423, 474, 548 on masoretic tradition, 89 on moneylending, 453 as qabbalist issue, 5, 339, 543—544 students of, 336, 369 teachers of, 335—336, 474 works of, 339—341 Ibn Aflah, Jabir Ibn, 419, 588 Ibn Aknin, Joseph b. Judah, 3 4 1-3 4 7 on allegory, 346—347 Bible commentaries of, 103—104 biographical information, 191, 344-345 on conversion of Jews, 22 dictionary of, 317

as Maimonides student issue, 21, 161, 341-344, 422, 436 on music, 469 poetry of, 347 writings of, 345-346 Ibn al-Ammanl, Aaron b. Zion b. Joshua, 18 Ibn al-Baliah, Isaac b. Barukh, 586 Ibn al-Dabiy, Meir b. Isaac, 138 Ibn al-Fakhkhar, Abraham, 647 Ibn al-Fakhkhar, Yusuf, 24 Ibn al-Faraj, Abu’ 1-Faraj Harun, 318, 490 Ibn al-Fawwal of Huesca, Joseph, 646 Ibn al-Imam, Abu’l-Hasan Ali, 419 Ibn al-Jazzar, Ahmad, 434 Ibn al-Muallim, Abu Ayyub, 436, 518 Ibn al-Muallim, Solomon, 518 Ibn al-Qazzaz, Menasheh, 561 Ibn al-Rijal, 641 Ibn al-Tabban, Levi, 320 Ibn al-Zafan, Efraim, 435 Ibn Ali, Sanad, 585 Ibn Amiel, Joseph, 336 Ibn Ariyeh, 449 Ibn Asad, Yeshuah b. Yehudah Abu’l Faraj Furqan, 106 Ibn Ayyub, Solomon b. Jospeh, 438, 646 Ibn Bajja, 588 Ibn Baqa, Hayyim, 646 Ibn Baron, Abu Ibra, 320 Ibn Baron, Isaac, 519 Ibn Biklarish, Yunus, 436 Ibn Bilam, Judah, 100, 320 Ibn Bishr, Sahl, 585 Ibn Bulat, Abraham, 3 Ibn Cabron, Isaac, 319, 511 Ibn Cabron, Yequtiel b. Isftaq Ibn Hassan, 356, 512 Ibn Caspi, Joseph, 507 Ibn Chicatilla, Isaac, 319, 320 Ibn Chicatilla, Joseph, 548 Ibn Chicatilla, Moses, 99 -100 , 319, 324, 447 translations of, 639 Ibn Crespa, Jacob, 202 Ibn Crispin ha-Kobran, Moses, 590 Ibn Danan, Saadyah chronicle of, 160 poetry of, 519 Ibn Daud, Abraham, 135, 358 chronicle of, 159, 160, 281, 407 on messiah, 446 philosophical works of, 505, 510 Ibn Daud, Juan conversion issue, 640 translations of, 357, 504, 639, 640-641 Ibn Dugi, 449—450 Ibn ‘Ezra, Abraham, 5, 3 4 8 -3 5 4 on Almoravids, 23 anti-Christian polemics of, 526 on astrology, 595 astronomical/mathematical works, 351-353, 587, 588 Bible commentaries of, 99, 102—103, 104, 105, 349-351 on Bible manuscripts, 91 biographical information, 348-349, 587 editions of works, 350—351 on food and diet, 258—259 Hebrew grammatical writings, 320-321, 328,351

Index on Ibn Gabirol, 361 on Judah ha-Levy, 383 medical work of, 259, 436 on messiah, 445, 446-448 on moneylending, 453 on music, 465 philosophical work, 353, 505 poetry of, 353, 513 students of, 349 translations of, 639 Ibn ‘Ezra, Isaac, poetry of, 513 Ibn ‘Ezra, Moses, 35 4-35 5 biographical information, 354-355 on music, 465 poetry of, 324-325, 355, 512-513, 516 Ibn ‘Ezra, Yafet b. ‘Ali, 99 Ibn Fakhkh, Abu Ishaq al-, 519 Ibn Falquera, Shem Tov philosophical works of, 506, 510 translations of, 646 Ibn Faqlh al-, 558, 559 Ibn Farhun, Solomon, grammatical works of, 317, 321, 324, 610 Ibn Ferrusiel, Joseph, 403-404 Ibn Ferru§iel, Solomon, 24 Ibn Firnas, Abu‘l-Qasim Abbas, 465 Ibn Gabirol, Solomon, 3 5 5-36 2 Bible commentaries of, 100 biographical information, 355-356 Christian scholars influenced by, 358—359, 504 critics of, 356 ethical treatise, 359-360 grammatical work of, 320 illuminated works of, 47 legends related to, 357 lost works of, 362 names of, 357 philosophical classification of, 358 philosophical works of, 255, 357-359, 504, 509 poetry of, 361-362, 448, 5 11-5 12 , 516, 520-521 proverbs, collection of, 360—361 sources of influence, 359, 360 Ibn Gaon, Joseph, 41 Ibn Gaon, Joshua, 41 Ibn Gaon, Shem Tov, 94, 336, 474 Ibn Ghivath, Isaac, 100 translations of, 638 Ibn Habib, Barukh, 18 Ibn Habib, Hayyim b. Moses, 340-341 Ibn Habib, Jacob, 144 Ibn Habib, Moses, 41 Ibn Hallava, Bahya b. Asher, 544 Ibn Hasdai, Abraham, 81, 273, 40 9-410 Ibn Hasdai, Abraham b. Samuel, translations of, 645-646 Ibn Hasdai, Abu Fadd Hasdai b. Yusef, 465, 586 Ibn Hasdai, Judah, 81 Ibn Hayyim, Joseph, 41, 94 Ibn Hayyuj, Judah, 319 Ibn Hazm, 365 Ibn Ishaq, 470 Ibn Ismael, Abraham b. Moses b., 336 Ibn Israel, Isaac b. Joseph, chronicle of, 160 Ibn Jama‘, Samuel b. Jacob, 317 Ibn Jaml‘, 435

Ibn Janah, Abu’l-Walld, 319, 365, 436, 586 Ibn Janah, Jonah, 317 Bible commentaries of, 88-89, 99 Ibn Khaldun, 36, 594 as diplomat, 24 Ibn Khalftin, Isaac, poetry of, 511 Ibn Khurdadhbeh, on routes of Jewish merchants, 558-561 Ibn Labrat, Dunash, 478 Bible commentaries of, 100 linguistic study of, 318, 320, 323 poetry of, 511, 516 Ibn Latif, Isaac, 587 Ibn Marwan, 36 Ibn Marwas, Amram Marwas, 655 Ibn Megash family, as scholars, 554 Ibn Megash, Joseph, 10, 21, 135, 419 on court rabbis, 558 Ibn Merwas Bible, Star of David in, 50 Ibn Mosca, Judah b. Solomon ha-Kohen,

10-11

Ibn Moskoni, Judah, 127 Ibn Motot, Samuel, 103 Ibn Musa, Samuel, 94 Ibn Nafl‘ (Ziryab), 465 Ibn Naghrillah, Elyasaf, 364 Ibn Naghrillah, Samuel, 36, 100, 159, 3 6 3-36 6 biographical information, 363-364 and Ibn Gabirol, 356 linguistic contributions of, 320, 328, 365 as military chief, 364 poetry of, 366, 511, 515, 518, 519 Ibn Naghrillah, Yusuf, 364 Ibn Nahmias, Abraham as ambassador, 25 translations of, 30, 647 Ibn Naljmias, Joseph, 10, 104, 590, 596 Ibn Paqudah, Bah ya, philosophical works of, 104, 504-505, 509-510 Ibn Polia, R. Shem Tov ben Yaakov, 126 Ibn Qamaniel, Abul-Hasan, 436 Ibn Qastar, Ishaq, 436 Ibn Quraysh, Judah, 99, 318, 478 Ibn Qurrah, Thabit, 585, 638 Ibn Rahman b. Musa Abu Khayr, Salama b. Marbarak, 435 Ibn Raqqasa, Khalifa, 479 Ibn Rushd (Averroes), 29-30, 507, 508 Ibn Sab’ln, 272 Ibn $addiq, Joseph, philosophical works of, 5 0 5 ,5 10 Ibn $adoq, Isaac, 19 Ibn $adoq, Solomon, 19 Ibn Sahl, Ibrahim conversion to Islam, 191 poetry of, 519 Ibn Sahulah, Isaac, 49, 410 Ibn Sahulah, Meir, 103, 336 Ibn $a’id al-Andalus, 465 Ibn $aqbel, Solomon, 409 Ibn Sason, Samuel, 410 Ibn Shabbetai, Judah, 409, 411 Ibn Shaddad, 449 Ibn Shahin, Jacob, 102, 365, 479 Ibn Shahin, Nissim, 254, 479 Ibn Shallb, as ambassador, 24 Ibn Shaprut, Hasdai, 18 1,3 19 , 386 as ambassador, 24, 31, 36

medical writings of, 434 seal of, 598 translations of, 638 Ibn Shaprut, Shem Tov, 83, 216, 438, 470 Ibn Shem Tov, Isaac b., philosophical works of, 508-509 Ibn Shem Tov, Joseph, 437 philosophical works of, 508, 510 Ibn Sheshet, Yehudi, 319 Ibn Shim‘on, Joseph biographical information, 344 as Maimonides student, 2 1 ,10 3 , 161, 341-344, 410, 422, 436 Ibn Shim‘un, Ishaq, 465 Ibn Shor Negah, Isaac, the mintmaster, 452 Ibn Shuavb, Toel, 104 Ibn Shuavb, Joshua, 6, 103, 336, 544 Ibn Sid, Isaac, 20, 589 Ibn Simawayh, 585 Ibn Slna (Avicenna), 440, 470 translations of works, 640 Ibn Susan, Isaac b. Joseph, 11 Ibn Susan, Joseph b. Solomon, 93 Ibn Susan, Judah ha-Kohen, 21 Ibn Susan, Meir, 19, 24 Ibn Susan, Moses, 18 Ibn Susan, Ziza, 641 Ibn Tamlm, Dunash, 318, 319, 479, 585 Ibn Tashufln, Yusuf, Almoravid leader, 22 Ibn Tibbon family, of Languedoc, 396 Ibn Tibbon, Jacob b. Makhir, 109, 585, 590 translations of, 640, 644 Ibn Tibbon, Judah, 318, 439,470, 504, 538 translations of, 642-643 Ibn Tibbon, Moses, 104 translations of, 640, 644 Ibn Tibbon, Samuel, 338, 509 translations of, 643—644 Ibn Tuart, Abraham, 336 Ibn Tuart, Solomon, 336 IbnTubi-, Moses, 519 Ibn Tumart, Almohad leader, 21 Ibn Verga, Solomon, 14, 255, 407 Ibn Vivas al-Lorqu, Joseph b. Joshua, 590 Ibn Vivas, Joseph, 647-648 Ibn Waqar, Abraham, 436, 641 Ibn Waqar, Joseph, 439-440, 590 Ibn Waqar, Moses, 509 Ibn Waqar, Samuel, 140 mintmaster, 452 Ibn Waqar, Yu^af, 437 Ibn Yahya, David, 97, 558 Ibn Yahya, Gedalyah, 8 Ibn Yahya, Joseph b. Solomon, 336 Ibn Ya‘ish, Solomon b. Abraham, 470 Ibn Yaqub, Ibrahim, 138 Ibn Yashush, Isaac, 100, 102 Ibn Yiju, Abraham b. Perahyah, 607 Ibn Zabara, Joseph, 81 on food and diet, 262 literature of, 409 medical works of, 437 Ibn Zabara, Moses, 94-95, 437, 521 Ibn Zara, Judah, 137 Ibn Zarzar, Ibrahalm as ambassador, 24, 437 as physician, 437 Ibn Zuhr, Abu’I-Ala, 436 IdrisI, al-, 136

685

Index

Ifltam al-yahiid(Ibn Abbas), 450 Iggeret (Epistle) (Sherira of Pumbedita), 158, 282, 324

Iggeret baakey hayyim (Letters of animals) (Kalonymos), 411

Iggeret ha-shemad (Letter of persecution) (Maimonides), 646

Iggeret ha-teshuvah (Gerundi), 307 Ihsa al-ulum (Farabi), 471, 646

Ikriti, Shemaria, 127 Ildefonsus ofToledo, 52, 168, 655 illuminated manuscripts Bible manuscripts, 38-44 Haggadah, 44 -46 religious/secular works, 48-49, 53-54 Image du monde (Walter of Metz), 648 Immanuel b. Solomon of Rome, as Hebrew Dante, 411, 469, 576, 579 India commerce and Jews, 181 and Hebrew literature, 410 indigo, 608 Innocent III, pope, 14, 67, 133, 156, 169 condemnation of Jews, 164, 165, 168, 245, 288 and Frederick II, 270 on host desecration, 332 on moneylending, 456 Innocent IV, pope, 25-26, 69, 120, 175, 224 on Jewish servitude, 163 protection of Jews, 166, 291, 457, 568, 635 Talmud, condemnation of, 635 Innocent VIII, pope, 442 Inquisition and Christian converts to Judaism, 167, 331 and Dominicans, 218—219 and expulsion from Spain, 248-249 and Fernando and Isabel, 34-35, 195, 252, 609 goals of, 27, 34, 193, 248, 331, 636 Inquisitors, 16, 35, 195, 524 and Jewish converts to Christianity, 27, 34-35, 193, 19 5-19 6 intermarriage, 427-428 Decretals on, 131 Decretum on, 130 international trade, Radhanites, 181, 5 5 8 -5 6 1 interregnum, Germany, 297-298 Iraq. See Babylonia Isaac of Acre, 161 Isaac b. Abraham of Dampierre, 306 Isaac b. Abraham of Narbonne, 335 Isaac b. Asher, 568 Isaac b. El‘iezer ha-Levy, 144, 663 Isaac b. Jacob de Lattes, chronicle of, 160 Isaac b. Judah, 94, 562 Isaac b. Judah de Lattes, 438 Isaac b. Lev, 450 Isaac b. Mordecai, 441 Isaac b. Moses, 37, 61, 67 on charity, 149 on Jewish hat, 174 linguistic work, 327 Isaac b. Natan, 24 Isaac b. Reuven, 81 Isaac b. Samuel of Acre, 545

686

Isaac b. Sheshet, 36 6-36 8 as adviser to king, 33 biographical information, 82, 367, 480 on capital punishment, 135 on commerce/business, 18 5-18 6 on qabbalah, 549-550 as rabbi, 367-368 works of, 367, 368 Isaac b. Todros, 474 Isaac the Blind, 396, 547 Isaac of Castile, 409 Isaac of Corbeil, 185 Isaac da Pisa, 72 Isaac of Dampierre, 306 on charity, 149 Isaac de Leon, 3, 8, 144, 404, 558 Isaac di Manuele da Rimini, 72 Isaac ha-Gorniy, poetry of, 514 Isaac ha-Kohen of Castile, 406 Isaac ha-Levi, 179, 562 Isaac Israeli ofToledo, 10 Isaac the Jew, 23—24 Isaac Judah b. Judah Lobel, 599 Isaac of Messina, mintmaster, 452 Isaac of Vienna, 310 Isabel, queen of Castile. See Fernando and Isabel Isaia da Urbino, 78 Isaiah b. Abba Mari, 557 Ishblll, Yom Tv, 36 9-37 0 biographical information, 369 works of, 369-370 Isidore of Seville, 28, 167, 168, 194 anti-Christian polemic of, 530, 655 Islam and Jews, 3 7 0-37 4 Almohads, 21- 22, 237, 372, 419 Almoravids, 22—23 and Arabic language, 323-324, 373-374, 389-391 ^ and Babylonian Empire, 371-372 in Byzantium, 123, 127 conversion of Jews to. See conversion of Jews to Islam decline of relations, 374 dhimma (protection) system, 190, 235, 236, 370-371, 374 influences on Jewish culture and scholarship. See Muslim contributions and Muslim community. See MuslimJewish relations in Muslim Spain, 372 in North Africa, 372, 4 7 7 -4 8 1 Palestine and Muslims, 489-491 Qaraites, 372, 552 Israel Arabic language, use by Jews, 391 Sanhedrin, 400 See also Jerusalem; Palestine and Jews Israel of Krems, 62 Israel of Rothenburg, 302 Israeli, Isaac, 102, 479 Israeli, Isaac b. Joseph, 58-59, 589 Israeli, Isaac b. Solomon philosophical works of, 503, 509 as physician, 434 Israil b. Salih, 71 Isra III, Yusuf b. Ishaq al-, 518 Isserlin, Israel, 62, 303 on Jewish hat, 174

Italian language, use by Jews, 394 Italy banking and Jews, 7 2 -7 9 Bible illumination by Jews, 43-44 Bible manuscripts from, 96, 97 Byzantine era, 125 chronicles by Jews, 158, 159 commerce and Jews, 185 conversion to Judaism, 196 Dominican Order in, 220, 223 expulsion from, 250 Franciscan Order in, 223-226 Hebrew language, written works, 327 Hebrew literature of, 407, 411 Jewish communities of, 74 Jewish migration to, 74-75 Jewish physicians of, 434, 438 Jewish poetry of, 517 moneylending by Jews, 454, 460, 573-575 music of Jews, 468-469 Roman Jews, 5 7 0-58 0 Sefardim, time of settlement, 467 Talmud, condemnation of, 636 taxation of Jews, 578 translations by Jews, 647-648 Yosiyppon as place of origin, 379—380 Itinerarium Beniamini Tudelensis (Montano, trans.), 85 ‘Iftur (Isaac b. Abba), 393 ‘Iyyun circle, 311

J Jaca, Jewish community of, 31, 156 Jaco, David, 610 Jacob b. Amram, 479 Jacob b. Asher, 3, 49, 144, 447 Jacob b. Elazar, 92, 321, 410 Jacob b. Elijah of Venice, 634 Jacob b. Meir Tam, 101, 145—146 on Christian-Jewish relations, 15 1-152, 185,484 Jacob b. Mordecai, 493 chronicle of, 157-158 Jacob b. Natan, 61 Jacob b. Nissim, 158 Jacob b. Reuben, anti-Christian polemics of, 526-527 Jacob b. Salomon $arfatiy, 65 Jacob b. Yaqar, 562 Jacob ha-Levy, 62, 302 Jacob Kahana b. Mordecai, 493 Jacob of London, seal of, 598 Jacob of Paris, 138 Jacob Staff, 592 Jadd, Jewish community of, 479 Jahiz, al-, 409 Jaime I, king of Aragon-Catalonia, 72, 219, 224, 3 7 5 -3 7 7 Church influences on, 375 Jewish officials of, 376, 412 on moneylending, 461 prohibitions and Jews, 375—376, 377 protection and rights of Jews, 376—377, 652 Jaime II, king of Aragon-Catalonia, 6, 32 Jewish ambassador of, 24, 25 positive treatment of Jews, 32, 652 Jan van Boendale, 155 ,

Index Jatvia, Jewish community of, 651, 652, 653, 654 Jechiel the mintmaster, 452 Jechiel Nissim of Pisa, 73-74 Jeremiah, prophet, 310, 311 Jerez, Jewish community of, 26, 27 Jeronimo de Santa Fe, 34, 83, 84, 194, 195, 216, 53 1,64 8 Jerusalem gaon as leader, 490 illuminated manuscript of, 492 Jewish quarter of, 49 1-49 2 religious significance of, 489 Saladin capture of, 277, 296 synagogues of, 622 Temple. Temple of Jerusalem See also Palestine Jerusalem community of Fustat, 276 of Palestine, 490-491 Jerusalem Square, Avignon, 63 Jesus Christ Jews and death of, 129, 151, 156, 168 Maimonides on, 528 and Palestine, 489 Toldot Yeshu on, 532-533 Jewish hat, 173—174 artistic depictions, 42-43, 52-53, 55, 174 origin of, 173 on seals, 599 Jewish quarter. See ghettos, Jewish Jewry law, 286-29 3, 615 issues absent from, 292-293 issues dealt with, 287, 292 law books on, 289-291, 289-292 new rulers and legal status, 291-292 protection and privileges for Jews, 287-289 Jews bells, 173 Joan I, queen of Anjou, 111 Joao de Barros, 137 Joao II, king of Portugal, and Abravanel family, 8 Jochanan of Cambrai, 302 Joel b. Simon, 43 Joel of Regensburg, on converts to Judaism, 201 Johann von Fleckstein, 668 Johannes of Gorze, 24 John, bishop of Speyer, 170 John Alexander, czar of Bulgaria, 386 John of Capua, 642 John XXII, pope, 63, 64, 83, 133, 299 Jonah de Piera, 336 Jonah des Maestre, 216 Jonathan b. Jacob, 11 Jonathan ha-Kohen, 494 Jonathan ha-Kohen of Lunel, 595 Jose Maria de Garganta, 29 Joseph, Khazar king, 386 Joseph b. Gershom, 18 Joseph b. Gurion. See Yosiyppon Joseph b. Judah b. Isaac Zarch, 321, 342 Joseph b. Matityahu. See Josephus Joseph b. Natan, anti-Christian polemics of, 528 Joseph b. §addiq of Arevalo, chronicle of, 160, 161 Joseph b. Shalom Ashkenazi, 544, 549 Joseph b. Tanljum, 517

Joseph ben Uzziel, 310 Joseph b.’Aziz, mintmaster, 452 Joseph ha-Kohen, 65 Joseph ha-Kohen b. Solomon, 17, 18 Joseph ha-$arfatiy, 41 Joseph ha Sofer, 42 Joseph of Moudeville, 102, 350 Joseph of Rosheim, seal of, 600 Josephus biographical information, 377 Yosiyppon, 125, 158, 3 7 7-38 0 Joshua b. Alan, 586 Joshua b. Elijah, 43, 91 Jourdain de l’lsle, 149 Juan of Castellon, 654 Juan de Founte Sauco, 226 Juan del Encina, 467 Juan Gil de Zamora, 225 Juan Manuel, king of Granada, 25 Juan Sanchez de Sevilla, 6—7 Juan of Seville, 639 Juan I, king of Aragon-Catalonia on Jewish clothing, 17 5-17 6 positive treatment of Jews, 33 Juan I, king of Castile-Leon, 142, 202, 403 legal codes of, 618 Juan II, king of Aragon-Catalonia, 83 positive treatment of Jews, 34 Juan II, king of Castile-Leon, 142-143 jubba (robe), 173 Judah b. Abraham, 145, 176 Judah b. Asher, 2, 6, 142, 144, 336, 439, 557 Judah b. David, 61 Judah b. Joseph, 585, 638 Judah b. Meir, 294 Judah b. Moses ha-Kohen, 589 Judah b. Moses ha-Kohen Mosca, 436 Judah b. Moses Romano, on Thomas Aquinas, 30 Judah b. Natan, 145 Judah b. Samuel on disputations, 213 on illustration/art, 38 See also Judah the Pious Judah b. Samuel Natan, translations of, 646 Judah b. Saul, 18 Judah b. Solomon ha-Kohen, 585, 593 Judah b. Solomon Natan, 440 Judah b. Yeljiel, on capital punishment, 135 Judah de Cavalleria, 376 Judah ha-Levy, 3 8 0-38 4 biographical information, 380-381 contemporary appreciation of, 383-384 Kuzariy, 382—383 on messiah, 164, 447-449 on music, 470 poetry of, 381-382, 512-513, 517 Judah the Jew, mintmaster, 451 Judah the Pious, 147, 309-316, 406, 661 judaizing, 124, 197, 199, 330, 478 Juden (Jew), 60 Juden-meister (community rabbis), 62 Judenbad (bathhouse), 668 Judenbiichel (Jewish place of execution), 177 Judengasse (Jewish Lane), 668 Judengedinge (Jewish residence), 668 Judenpforte (Jews’ gate), 177 Judenregal (royal rights towards Jews), 61, 112 ,2 9 1

Judensau (Jewish swine), 54, 269 Judeo-Arabic. See Arabic language

Judeo-Maltese language, use by Jews, 395, 521 Judeo-Persian language Bible translations into, 106 use by Jews, 394-395 JudexJudaeorum (mediator), 61 judicial astrology, 4, 432, 596 judicial oaths. See oaths, Jewish Julian ofToledo, 656 Justin Martyr, 212, 529 Justinian, emperor, 124 K

Kaftor u-ferah (Knop and flower) (Estoriy haFarhiy), 138, 495

Kaftor ve-perab (Yeruham b. Meshullam), 58 Kahina, Berber queen, 36, 477 Kalla wa-Dimma, 254, 410, 411

Kalonymos b. Kalonymos, 514 literary works of, 392, 410, 411 scientific translation of, 591, 592, 645 Kalonymos b. Meshullam, 664 Kalonymos b. Sabbatai, 663, 664 Kalonymos b. Todros, seal of, 598 Kalonymos, David b. Todros, 427 translations of, 645 Kalonymos family and Hasidism, 30 9-310 Kalonymos the Great, 476 leadership of Narbonne, 475-476, 535 Kalonymos, Samuel b., 309, 310 Kapsali, Moses, 127 migration to Germany, 294, 309 Kara, Simon, 98 kasher (proper and fit), 256 kashrut, 13, 256 Kaufmann Haggadah, illumination of, 46 Kaufmann Mishneh Torah, illumination of, 48 kavod (divine revelation), 3 12 -3 13 kelaliym (topics), 58 Keliymat ha-goyim (Shame of the Gentiles) (Duran), 531 Kennicott Bible illumination of, 41, 50 manuscript of, 94-95 Kerkenna, Jewish community of, 478 Ketav tamiym (Moses b. Hasdai), 62 Keter malkhut (Ibn Gabirol) (Crown of Kingship), 361, 504 illumination of, 47 Keter Torah, 89 ketubah (marriage contract), 38, 424, 425, 4 2 8,429 Ketuviym, 91 KevodElohiym (Honor of God) (Shem Tov), 508 Khalifa, Abraham, 95 Khazar commerce and Jews, 560 kings of, 385-386 Khomatiano, Mordachai, 126 Kiev, Jewish community of, 522 King’s Bible, 94 kings and queens, Jewish, 3 8 5 -3 8 7 Berber queen, 386, 477 David, descendants of, 386—387

687

Index kings and queens, Jewish (cont.) first medieval queen, 386 of Himyar kingdom, 385 of Khazar kingdom, 385-386 of Sabaites, 385 Solomon, descendants of, 385 Kisch, Guido, 272 Kitdb al-buldan (Book of the countries) (Ibn Faqlh), 558, 559 Kitdb alfa$lfi’-milal wa’l ahwd (Book of distinction) (Ibn Hazm), 365 Kitdb al hawi, 317 Kitdb al-kdmil(Jacob b. Elazar), 321 Kitdb al-luma \320 Kitdb al-masalik wa’l-mamdlik (Book of routes and kingdoms)(Khurradadhbih), 558 Kitdb al-muhadara waxl-mudkahara (Moses Ibn ‘Ezra), 355, 380, 512 Kitdb al-mu$awwitat (Book of vowels) (Moses b. Asher), 317 Kitdb al-tanqih (Ibn Janah), 320 Kitdb al-tdrikh, 159 Kitdb al-Ta$if(lbn Sarabl), 645 Kitdb al-usul(Ibn Janah), 320 Kitdb islah al-‘akhlaq (Ibn Gabirol), 359 Kitdbjam tal-alfaz (FasI), 317 kittel (holiday garment), 174 Kitvey ha-Ramban (Nahmanides), 475 Klausner, Abraham, 62 Knights of St. John, 624 kohaniym (priests), 621 Kretiko synagogue, 628 Kuzariy (Judah ha-Levy), 382-384, 4 4 7 -4 4 8, 470, 643

L La Coruna Bible, illumination of, 41

Lachrymabilemjudaeorum Alemaniae bull, 120, 291

Ladino, 392, 521

Lamana, Jose M., 467 Land of Israel {Ere$ Yisrael), 489 land ownership Decretals on, 131 Maimonides on, 12 Land Peace, 288, 289 languages of the Jews, 38 9-39 5 Arabic, 106, 389-391 Aramaic, 97-98, 390, 395 French, 393 German, 393-394 Greek, 392-393 Hebrew language, 3 2 2 -3 2 9 Italian, 394 Judeo-Maltese, 395, 521 Judeo-Persian, 394-395 Slavic languages, 394 Spanish, 39 1-39 2 Yiddish, 393-394 Languedoc, 3 9 5 -3 9 7 expulsion from, 246, 396—397 heresies of, 14 Jewish ghetto, 397 Jewish officials of, 14 and Maimonides controversy, 396 scholars of, 396 taxation of Jews, 397 Lapidario, 20, 49, 641

688

Lateran Council I, 171 Lateran Council III, 171 Lateran Council IV, 61, 330 on badge, 67-68, 146, 166, 175, 271 Latin Bible translations into Spanish from, 108-109 Hebrew translations from, 646-647 Latter Prophets manuscript, 96 Lattes, Bonet, 579 law, Jewish, 39 7 -4 0 1 on astrology, 594-596 basis of law, 398 capital punishment, 134-135 on commerce and Jews, 184-185, 187-189 compared to common law, 398 communal legislation, 400 on conversion to Judaism, 19 6-19 7 criminal law, 400 on dancing, 467 and debtors, 400 dietary laws. See food use by Jews dina de-malkhuta dina, 2 0 9 -2 1 1, 399—400 on garment construction, 126 on Hebrew letter formation, 89 Ibn Adrets works on, 339—340 on images and art, 37 and Jewish autonomy, 397-398 literature related to, 400-401 Maimonides works on, 420-421 on martyrdom, 430 matrimonial law, 398-399, 424 on menorah, 154 on moneylending, 453 on music, 463—464 rabbi as lawyer/judge, 554-555 Rashi’s talmudic commentaries, 561-562 sanctions for offenders, 397-398, 400 survival, reasons for, 398 Talmud, learning of, 230-232, 234 on wine consumption, 12, 15 1-15 2 Yehiel s works on, 57-58 Legend of Malchus, 154 Legend of St. John, 154 legends about synagogues, 620-621 Hebrew literary, 404-405 negative, about Jews, 154-156 Leipzig mahzor, illumination of, 47 Leiria, Jewish press at, 97 Leningrad Bible illumination of, 40 manuscript of, 91 Leo III, pope, 125 Leo VII, pope, 170, 294 Leo of York, 243 Leon, 4 0 1-4 0 4 Albigensian heresies and Jews, 15 -16 Castile control of, 402 Christian-Jewish relations, 401-402 Jewish communities, 402—403 Jewish scholars of, 404 persecution of Jews, 402-403 rulers of, 40 1-40 2 and Visigoths, 401 Leon, Council of, 401 Leon Joseph of Carcassonne, 646 Leon of Modena, rabbi, 43, 94 Leopold V, king of Austria, 60

Leopold VI, king of Austria, 60 Leqah Tov, 98 Lerida, Jewish community of, 31, 34, 35 Lesprairies d’or (al-Mas’udi) , 136 “Letter to the Jews of Yemen” (Maimonides), 422, 449, 4 5 0 -4 5 1,5 2 8 ,5 9 5 “Letter of Persecution” (Maimonides), 419 Levi b. Abraham b. Hayyim, 592-593 Levi b. Person (Gersonides), 64-65 Bible commentaries of, 96, 97, 103 musical theory, 471 philosophical works of, 506-507, 510 scientific/mathematical works of, 591—592 Levi b. Isaac Caro (Master of St. Mark), 44-45, 48 Levi of Narbonne, 14 levirate marriage, 58 Levites, 470 Lex Visigothorum, 655 Leyes de Estilo, 614 Libbiy be-mizrah (My heart’s in the East) (Judah ha-Levy), 382 Liber Abaci (Fibonacci), 351 Liber embadorum (Plato of Tivoli, translator), 4 Liber Iudiciorum, 612 Liberpredicationis contra judaeos (Lull), 417, 418 Libre delsfets del reyJaime, 45

Libro conplido en los iudizios de las estrellas (Ibn al-Rijal), 641

Libro de buen amor (Book of good love) (Ruiz), 466-467

Libro de dichos de sabios efdosophos {