FAVORABLE CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN THE FRANKISH DOMINIONS, AND THE
DECAY OF THE EXILARCHATE IN THE EAST.
The Jews under Louis le Débonnaire--The Empress Judith and
her Veneration for Judaism--Agobard, Bishop of Lyons--
Conversion of Bishop Bodo--Amolo's effort against the Jews--
Charles the Bald--Troubles in Béziers and Toulouse--Decree
against the Jews in Italy--Boso of Burgundy--Basilius--
Leo the Philosopher--Decline of the Exilarchate--The Geonim
acquire Additional Influence--The Prayer Book of Amram--
Mar-Zemach--Literary and Scientific Activity of the Jews--
Decay of Karaism--Dissensions at Pumbeditha.
814-920 C. E.
The Jews of Europe had no knowledge of the split in Judaism in the
East, of the struggle between the Exilarchate and the Gaonate, or of
the rivalry of the heads of the schools. Babylonia, the seat of the
Gaonic schools, was looked upon by them almost in the light of a heaven
upon earth, as a place of eternal peace, and of the knowledge of God.
A decision from Pumbeditha was considered an important event, and
was read with the greatest respect. Such a decision was obeyed more
willingly than a papal bull among the Catholics, because it was given
without the assumption of authority. The western nations, as yet in
their childhood with respect to literature, were under guardianship as
regards religion--the Christians under the papal throne, the Jews under
the Gaonic schools.
It is true, some prominent Jews in France and Italy occupied themselves
with the study of mysticism and the Agada, but they regarded themselves
as dependent upon the Eastern authorities.
The favorable condition of the Jews in the Frankish dominions, under
Charles the Great, continued under his son Louis (814-840), and, under
these advantageous circumstances, an impulse towards intellectual
activity manifested itself. They showed so much zeal in the cause
of Judaism that they even inspired Christians with love for it. The
successor of Charles the Great, the generous but weak Louis, in spite
of his religious inclination, which obtained for him the name of "the
Pious," showed extraordinary favor to the Jews. He took them under his
special protection, shielding them from injustice, both on the part of
the barons and of the clergy. They enjoyed the right of settling in
any part of the kingdom. In spite of numerous decrees to the contrary,
they were not only allowed to employ Christian workmen, but they might
even import slaves. The clergy were forbidden to baptize the slaves of
Jews to enable them to regain their freedom. Out of regard for them the
market day was changed from the Sabbath day to Sunday. The Jews were
freed from the punishment of scourging, and had the jurisdiction over
Jewish offenders in their own hands. They were, moreover, not subject
to the barbarous ordeals of fire and water. They were allowed to carry
on their trades without let or hindrance, but they had to pay a tax to
the treasury, and to render account periodically of their income. Jews
also farmed the taxes, and obtained through this privilege a certain
power over the Christians, although this was distinctly contrary to the
provisions of canonic law.
An officer (Magister Judæorum) was appointed whose duty it was to watch
over the rights of the Jews, and not permit them to be encroached upon.
In the time of Louis this office was filled by a man named Eberard. One
is almost tempted to believe that the remarkable favor shown to the
Jews by the pious emperor was mainly due to commercial motives. The
international commerce which Charlemagne had established, and which the
counselors of Louis wished to develop, was mostly in the hands of Jews,
because they could more easily enter into commercial relations with
their brethren in other lands, as they were not hampered by military
service. But there was a deeper reason for the extraordinary favor
shown to the Jews, not only to the Jewish merchants, but also to the
Jews as such--the bearers of the purified knowledge of God.
The empress Judith, Louis' second consort, was most friendly to
Judaism. This beautiful and clever queen, the admiration of whose
friends was equaled only by the hostility of her foes, had great
respect for the Jewish heroes of antiquity. When the learned abbot
of Fulda, Rhabanus Maurus, wished to win her favor, he could find no
more effectual means than to dedicate to her his work on the books of
Esther and Judith, and to compare her to both these Jewish heroines.
The empress and her friends, and probably also the treasurer Bernhard,
the real ruler of the kingdom, became patrons of the Jews, because of
their descent from the patriarchs and the prophets. "They ought to be
honored on this account," said their friends at court, and their view
was shared by the emperor. Cultured Christians refreshed themselves
with the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Jewish
philosopher Philo, and read their works in preference to those of the
apostles. Educated ladies and courtiers openly confessed that they
esteemed the Jewish lawgiver more highly than they did their own. They
even went so far as to ask the Jews for their blessing. The Jews had
free access to court, and held direct intercourse with the emperor and
those near him. Relatives of the emperor presented Jewish ladies with
costly garments in order to show their appreciation and respect.
As such favor was shown them in higher circles, it was only natural
that the Jews of the Frankish dominions (which also included Germany
and Italy) should enjoy wide toleration, perhaps more than at any
other period of their history. The hateful canonical laws were tacitly
annulled. The Jews were allowed to build synagogues, to speak freely
about the meaning of Judaism in the hearing of Christians, and even
to say that they were "descendants of the patriarchs," "the race of
the just," "the children of the prophets." They could fearlessly give
their candid opinion about Christianity, the miracles of the saints,
the relics, and image worship. Christians visited the synagogues, and
were edified by the Jewish method of conducting divine service, and,
strangely enough, were better pleased with the lectures of the Jewish
preachers (Darshanim) than with those of their own clergy, although
the Darshanim could hardly have been able to reveal the deep tenor of
Judaism. So much, however, is certain: the Jewish preachers delivered
their sermons in the vernacular. Clergymen in high station were not
ashamed to adopt their expositions of Holy Writ from the Jews. The
abbot Rhabanus Maurus of Fulda confessed that he had learnt several
things from the Jews which he made use of in his commentary to the
Bible, dedicated to Louis of Germany, who afterwards became emperor.
In consequence of the favor shown to the Jews at court, some Christians
conceived a liking for Judaism, looked upon Judaism as the true
religion, found it more convincing than Christianity, respected the
Sabbath, and worked on Sunday. In short, the reign of Emperor Louis
the Pious was a golden era for the Jews of his kingdom, such as they
had never enjoyed, and were destined never again to enjoy in Europe.
But as the Jewish race has had enemies at all times, these were not
lacking to the French Jews of this epoch, especially as they were in
favor at court, were beloved by the people, and could openly declare
their religious views. The followers of strict Church discipline saw
in the violation of the canonical laws, in the favor shown to the
Jews and in the liberty which was then being vouchsafed to them, the
ruin of Christendom. Envy and hatred were concealed under the cloak
of orthodoxy. The patrons of the Jews at court, with the empress at
their head, were hated by the clerical party, which strove to rule the
emperor, and which now transferred its anger against the liberal court
party to the Jews.
The exponent of clerical orthodoxy and of hatred against the Jews at
this time, was Agobard, Bishop of Lyons, whom the Church has canonized.
A restless and passionate man, he calumniated the empress Judith,
rebelled against the emperor, and incited the princes to revolt. He
supported the disloyal sons of the emperor, especially Lothaire,
against their father. He was called the Ahithophel who incited Absalom
against his father David. This bishop wished to limit the liberty of
the Jews, and to reduce them to the low position they had held under
the Merovingian kings.
An insignificant occurrence gave him the desired opportunity. The
female slave of a respected Jew of Lyons ran away from her master, and
to regain her freedom she allowed herself to be baptized (about 827).
The Jews, who saw in this act an encroachment on their chartered rights
and on their property, demanded the surrender of the runaway slave.
On Agobard's refusal to grant this, the Jews turned to Eberard, the
Magister Judæorum, who threatened to punish the bishop, if he persisted
in his refusal to restore her to her master.
This was the beginning of a contest between Agobard and the Jews which
lasted for several years. It gave rise to many quarrels, and ended in
the deposition of Agobard. He did not care so much about this slave,
as about the maintenance and assertion of the canonical laws against
the Jews. But he now encountered a serious difficulty. Incited, on the
one hand, by his hatred of the Jews, restrained, on the other, by his
fear of punishment, he did not know how to act. Perplexed, he turned
to the representatives of the Church party at court, whom he knew to
be enemies of the empress and her favorites, the Jews. He urged them
to induce the emperor to restrict the liberty of the Jews. They appear
to have proposed something of the sort to the emperor. The friends of
the Jews at court, in the meantime, sought to frustrate the plans of
the clergy. The emperor summoned the bishops and the representatives
of Judaism to settle the points in dispute. Agobard, however, was so
full of rage at the meeting that, as he himself says, "he roared rather
than spoke." He then had an audience with the emperor. When the bishop
appeared before Louis, the latter looked at him so fiercely that he
could not utter a word, and heard nothing but the order to withdraw.
Ashamed and confused, the bishop returned to his diocese. However, he
soon recovered from his confusion, and plotted anew against the Jews.
Agobard delivered anti-Jewish speeches, and urged his parishioners to
break off all intercourse with the Jews, to do no business with them,
and to decline entering their service. Fortunately, their patrons at
court were active on their behalf, and did their best to frustrate
the designs of the fanatic priest. As soon as they were informed of
his action they obtained letters of protection (_indiculi_) from the
emperor, sealed with his seal, and these they sent to the Jews of Lyons.
A letter was likewise sent to the bishop commanding him, under a severe
penalty, to discontinue his anti-Jewish sermons. Another letter was
sent to the governor of the Lyons district, bidding him render the
Jews all assistance (828). Agobard took no notice of these letters,
and spitefully alleged that the imperial decree was spurious--in
fact, could not possibly be genuine. Thereupon Eberard, the Magister
Judæorum, sent to him, telling him of the emperor's displeasure on
account of his disobedience. But he remained so obstinate, that the
emperor had to send two commissioners, Gerrick and Frederick, men in
high standing at court, armed with full power to bring this stubborn
and seditious bishop to reason. What means they were empowered to
employ against him we do not know, but they must have been severe,
because the few priests who had taken part in Agobard's agitation did
not venture to show themselves. It is significant that the people of
Lyons did not at all side with their bishop against the Jews.
The Jew-hater Agobard did not rest in his efforts against the Jews.
He determined to oppose the court party which favored the Jews, and
to win over the emperor by an appeal to his conscience. Perhaps he
was acquainted with the plans of the conspirators, Wala, Helisachar,
and Hilduin, who desired to incite the sons of the emperor's first
marriage against the empress and the chief chancellor Bernhard, because
these had induced the emperor to effect a new division of the kingdom
in favor of Judith's son. Agobard henceforth divested himself of all
timidity, and became quite resolute, as though he anticipated the
speedy downfall of the party that favored the Jews. He first appealed
to the bishops, and entreated them to reproach the king with his sin,
and persuade him to reduce the Jews to the humble position they had
occupied at the time of the Merovingians. Only one of Agobard's letters
to the prelates is extant, the one to Bishop Nibridius of Narbonne. It
is full of bitterness against the Jews, and is interesting on account
of the fanaticism of the writer, and the confession he makes therein.
Amongst other things he complains that the Christians, despite their
efforts, could not succeed in winning over to Christianity a single
Jewish soul, whilst the Christians, joining Jews at their meals,
partook also of their spiritual food. Although Agobard's bitter
hatred of the Jews is chiefly to be considered a manifestation of
his own feelings, it cannot be denied that it was in entire harmony
with the teachings of the Church. He justly appeals to the sayings of
the apostles and to the canonic laws. The inviolable decrees of the
councils, too, were on his side. Agobard, with his gloomy hatred, was
strictly orthodox, whilst Emperor Louis with his mildness was inclined
to heresy. But Agobard did not venture to spread this opinion openly.
He rather suggested it in his statement that he could not believe it to
be possible that the emperor had betrayed the Church to the Jews. His
complaint was echoed in the hearts of the princes of the Church.
A number of bishops assembled at Lyons for the purpose of discussing
the best method of humbling the Jews, and disturbing their hitherto
peaceful existence. They also considered how the emperor might best
be influenced to adopt their resolutions. It was resolved at the
meeting that a letter should be handed to the emperor, setting forth
the wickedness and the danger of favoring the Jews, and specifying
the privileges which ought to be withdrawn (829). The letter of
the synod, as we have it now, is signed by three bishops, and is
entitled, "Concerning the Superstitions of the Jews." Agobard wrote
the preface, in which he explains his position in the quarrel. In it,
after accusing the Jews, he blamed their friends as being the cause of
all the evil. The Jews, he said, had become bold through the support
of the commissioners, who had given out that the Jews were not so bad
after all, but were very dear to the emperor. From the standpoint of
faith and of the canonic laws the argument of Agobard and the other
bishops was irrefutable, and had Emperor Louis the Pious set store by
this logic, he would have had to extirpate the Jews, root and branch.
Fortunately, however, he took no notice of it. This happened either
because he knew Agobard's character, or because the letter containing
the accusations against the Jews never reached him. Agobard's fear that
the letter would be intercepted by the friends of the Jews at court
may have proved well founded. The Jew-hating bishop of Lyons, however,
had his revenge. In the following year (830), he took part in the
conspiracy against the empress Judith, by joining the sons, who nearly
succeeded in dethroning their father. Agobard was thereupon deprived of
his office, and had to seek safety in Italy, but Louis soon restored
him to his office, after which Agobard left the Jews unmolested.
Till the end of his life Louis remained well disposed toward the
Jews. This is the more surprising as he felt very much hurt when one
of his favorites became a convert to Judaism, which might easily
have embittered him against them. The conversion of Bishop Bodo, who
had hitherto occupied a high position, created a great sensation in
its time. The chronicles speak of this event as they would of some
extraordinary natural phenomenon. The event, indeed, was accompanied
by peculiar circumstances, and was a great shock to pious Christians.
Bodo, or Puoto, descended from an old Alemannic race, a man as
well informed in temporal as in spiritual affairs, had become an
ecclesiastic, and occupied the rank of a deacon. The emperor favored
him, and in order to have him constantly near him, made him his
spiritual adviser. Entertaining strict Catholic opinions, Bodo desired
to go to Rome in order to receive the blessing of the Pope, and to make
a pilgrimage to the graves of the apostles and the martyrs. He was
given leave of absence, but in Rome, the stronghold of Christianity,
Bodo conceived a strong liking for Judaism. Perhaps the favor shown to
the Jews and Judaism at Louis' court had suggested to him a comparison
of the two faiths, and his investigation may have led him to recognize
the merits of Judaism. Besides, the immoral life of the clergy in
the Christian capital, which had given rise to the satire about Pope
Joan, who had defiled the chair of Peter, filled him with disgust, and
attracted him to the purer religion of Judaism.
He himself wrote later, that he, in company with other divines, had
used the churches for grossly immoral purposes. Christian orthodoxy,
without inquiring into the true reason for Bodo's change of faith,
had a ready answer, viz., that Satan, the enemy of mankind and of the
Church, had led him to it. Bodo, without stopping at the court or in
France, journeyed from Rome to Spain, and there formally became a Jew,
giving up for the new faith his fatherland, his position, and his
friends. He was circumcised in Saragossa, assumed the name of Eleazar,
and let his beard grow (August, 938). He married a Jewess in Saragossa,
and appears to have entered the military service of an Arab prince.
He now conceived such hatred against his former co-religionists, that
he persuaded the Mahometan conqueror not to tolerate Christians in
his dominions, but to compel them to adopt either Islam or Judaism.
Thereupon the Spanish Christians are said to have appealed to the
emperor of the Frankish empire and to the bishops to use their utmost
endeavors to get this dangerous apostate into their power. The emperor
Louis was deeply moved by Bodo's conversion. He did not, however, allow
the Jews to suffer on account of his grief, but continued to protect
them against injustice. Of this we have a clear proof in his action in
reference to a lawsuit which came under his notice some months after
Bodo's conversion. It is probable that with Louis the Pious originated
the theory, current throughout the later period of the Middle Ages,
and doubtless inspired by benevolent desires, that the emperor is
the natural patron of the Jews, and that they, being his wards, are
inviolable.
With the death of the emperor Louis, the golden age of the Jews in
the Frankish dominions came to an end, and their good fortunes were
not renewed for a considerable time. Southern Europe, disturbed by
anarchy, and ruled by a fanatic clergy, did not offer a favorable field
for the development of Judaism. It is true that Charles the Bald, the
son of Louis by Judith, who caused so much confusion in the Frankish
dominions, that the subsequent division of the kingdom into France,
Germany, Lorraine, and Italy ensued, was not hostile to the Jews
(843). He appears, indeed, to have inherited from his mother a certain
preference for Judaism. He had a Jewish physician, Zedekiah, to whom
he was much attached, but whose skill in medicine was regarded, by the
ignorant and superstitious people, as magic and the work of the devil,
and also a Jewish favorite, whose political services won from his royal
master the praise, "My faithful Judah."
Under Charles the Bald, as under his predecessor, the Jews enjoyed
equal rights with the Christians. They were allowed to carry on their
business unhindered, and also to possess landed property. Some of
them controlled the tolls. But they had implacable enemies among the
higher clergy. They had angered the dignitaries of the Church too much
by their humiliation of Agobard, and the clergy, though they spoke
constantly of love and kindness, would not allow the Jews to enjoy
their advantages.
The bitterest enemy of the Jews was Agobard's disciple and successor,
Bishop Amolo of Lyons. He had imbibed hatred of the Jews from his
master; and he was not alone in this, for Hinkmar, the bishop of
Rheims, a favorite of Emperor Charles, the archbishop of Sens, the
archbishop of Bourges, and others of the clergy shared his anti-Jewish
sentiments. At a council held by these prelates at Meaux (not far from
Paris) in 845, for the purpose of exalting the spiritual power at the
expense of the royal authority, and of repressing the riotous living
of many clergymen, it was resolved to re-enact the old canonical laws
and anti-Jewish restrictions, and to have them confirmed by Charles.
The members of the council did not mark the limit of the revival of
old restrictions, but on the list, similar to Agobard's, containing
the spiteful ordinances from which the king was to select those to
be enforced anew, were included some that dated from the time of the
first Christian emperor Constantine. It also mentioned the decree of
Emperor Theodosius II, according to which no Jew was allowed to occupy
any office or position of honor. The decrees of the various councils
and the edict of the Merovingian king Childebert, were also cited, by
which the Jews were not permitted to occupy the positions of judges
and farmers of taxes, nor show themselves on the streets during Easter
week, and were required to pay the utmost respect to the clergy. They
even cited synodal decrees which had been passed outside of France,
and therefore had never been invested with the force of law, and also
the inhuman Visigothic synod decrees, which had been directed more
especially against baptized Jews who still clung to Judaism. The
members of the council also mentioned the Visigothic synodal decrees,
which prescribed that the children of converted Jews should be torn
from their parents and placed amongst Christians. In conclusion, they
laid stress upon the point that Jewish and Christian slave dealers
should be compelled to sell heathen slaves within Christian territory,
so that they might be converted to Christianity.
The prelates thought that they could cajole Charles into yielding
to their wishes by representing to him that the Northmen's invasion
was divine chastisement for his sinfulness. But Charles was not so
humbled by state troubles as to allow laws to be dictated to him
by a fanatic and ambitious clergy. Although his favorite, Hinkmar,
took part in the council, he had the meeting dissolved. Later on,
however, he summoned the members again for a new session, under his
own supervision, at Paris (14 Feb., 846). The improvement of Church
affairs was to be considered. They had to omit three quarters of the
eighty decrees of the council of Meaux, amongst them the proposed
anti-Jewish regulations. Thus neither under the Carlovingians nor under
later rulers, was the degradation of the Jews in France decreed by law.
Charles imposed upon the Jewish merchants a tax of eleven per cent. on
the value of all merchandise sold, whilst the Christians had to pay
only ten per cent.
Amolo and his colleagues could not forget the defeat they had suffered
at the council of Meaux, where their plan to humble the Jews had
been frustrated. Agobard's successor sent a letter to the spiritual
authorities, reminding them that they ought to use their influence
with the princes to deprive the Jews of all their privileges. Amolo's
letter, full of virulence and calumny against the Jewish race, is
a worthy appendix to Agobard's letter to Emperor Louis on the same
subject. Much therein is borrowed from the latter. Towards the end of
his letter, Amolo expresses his deep regret that the Jews in France
were enjoying the rights of free speech, and that many Christians
were well disposed toward them. The Jews were even allowed to have
Christian servants to work in their houses and fields. He complains,
too, that many Christians openly declare that the sermons of the
Jewish preachers please them better than those of the Christian clergy,
making it seem the fault of the Jews that the Christian clergy could
not attract audiences. He also reproached the Jews with the fact that
a noble Church official had gone over to Judaism, and now thoroughly
hated Christianity. Amolo invited all the bishops of the country to do
their utmost to re-introduce the old canonic restrictions against the
Jews. He enumerated a number of anti-Jewish princes and councils that
had insisted on the legal humiliation of the Jews, just as Agobard and
the members of the council of Meaux had done before. Amolo, above all,
reminded them of the pious Visigothic king, Sisebut, who had forced the
Jews to adopt Christianity. "We dare not," ends his malignant letter,
"either by our suavity, flattery, or defense, encourage the complacency
of the Jews, who are accursed, and yet blind to their own damnation."
At the time, Amolo's virulent letter had as little effect as Agobard's
letter and the decree of the council of Meaux. But gradually the poison
spread from the clergy to the people and the princes. The division of
France into small independent states, which refused allegiance to the
king, was another unfavorable circumstance. Its effect was to leave
the Jews at the mercy of the fanatical clergy and the tyranny of petty
princes.
How malicious was the spirit animating the French clergy, can be
judged from the fact that the successive bishops of Béziers were in
the habit of preaching vehement sermons from Palm Sunday until Easter
Monday, exhorting the Christians to avenge themselves on the Jews of
the town, because they had crucified Jesus. The fanatical mob thus
incited armed themselves with stones to attack the Jews. The mischief
was repeated year after year for centuries. The Jews of Béziers often
defended themselves, and on these occasions much damage was inflicted
on both sides. The Jews of Toulouse, too, for a long time had to suffer
numerous indignities. The counts of this town had the privilege of
publicly giving the president of the Jewish community a box on the ears
on Good Friday. This was no doubt meant as vengeance upon the Jews for
Jesus' death; no doubt too in fulfilment of the precept, "Thou shalt
love thine enemies." There is a story which tells of a chaplain called
Hugh, who begged that he might be allowed to perform the office, and
he dealt the victim so violent a blow, that he fell lifeless to the
ground. Those who wished to find a justification for this barbarity
alleged that the Jews on one occasion either had betrayed, or had
intended to betray the town of Toulouse to the Mahometans. Later, the
box on the ears was commuted to an annual money payment by the Jews.
The great grandson of Louis the Pious, Louis II, son of Lothaire, was
so influenced by the clergy, that as soon as he had the government of
Italy in his own hands (855), he decreed that all the Italian Jews
should quit the land where their ancestors had lived long before the
arrival of the Germans and Longobards. No Jew should dare show himself
after the 1st of October of that year. Any Jew that appeared in the
street might be seized, and peremptorily handed over for punishment.
Fortunately for the Jews this decree could not be carried out; for
Italy was then divided into small districts, whose rulers, for the
most part, refused obedience to the emperor of Italy. Mahometans made
frequent irruptions into the land, and were often called in to help the
Christian princes against each other, or against the king. This anarchy
was the safeguard of the Jews, and the decree remained in abeyance.
Under Charles' successors, when the power of the king decreased
greatly, and the bigotry of the princes increased, things came to such
a pass that Charles the Simple granted all the lands and vineyards of
the Jews in the Duchy of Narbonne to the Church, in order to show his
great zeal for his religion (899-914). The French princes gradually
accustomed themselves to think that the protection which the emperors
Charles the Great and his son Louis had afforded the Jews, involved
the inference that the wards and their property belonged absolutely to
the guardian. This thought, at least, underlies the act by which the
usurper Boso, king of Burgundy and Provence, who was greatly influenced
by the clergy, presented the Jews as a gift to the Church, _i. e._,
he considered them in every respect as his bondmen. This arbitrary
treatment of the Jews came to an end only with the rule of the Capets.
Like their brethren in Western Europe, the Jews in the East, in the
Byzantine dominion, had to suffer sad persecution. Despite forced
baptism, and the oppression of the Emperor Leo the Isaurian, the Jews
again spread over the whole Byzantine Empire, more especially over
Asia Minor and Greece. Many Greek Jews occupied themselves with the
cultivation of mulberry trees and with silk spinning. The Greek Jews
in other respects were subject to all the restrictions imposed by the
former rulers, and like the heathen and heretics, were not permitted to
hold office. They were, however, granted religious freedom. Basilius,
who ascended the throne in about 850, was comparatively a just and mild
ruler. Yet he was resolved to bring the Jews over to Christianity. He
therefore arranged that religious discussions should take place between
Jewish and Christian clergymen, and decreed that the Jews should either
prove by irrefutable arguments that their religion was the true one, or
confess that "Jesus was the culmination of the Law and the Prophets."
Basilius, foreseeing that these discussions would probably lead to
no results, promised appointments of honor to those who should prove
themselves open to conversion. It is not known what punishment was
inflicted on those unwilling to be converted, but they doubtless had to
suffer severe persecution. Many Jews accepted or pretended to accept
Christianity. Scarcely was Basilius dead (886), when they threw off
the mask as they had done in Spain, France, and in other countries
where they had been oppressed, and returned to the religion to which in
reality they had never for a moment been unfaithful. But they had made
a mistake. Basilius' son and successor, Leo the Philosopher--a title
cheaply purchased in those times--excelled his father in intolerance.
He decreed that those who had re-adopted the Jewish customs should
be treated as apostates, that is, punished with death (about 900).
Nevertheless, after the death of this emperor, the Jews returned to
live in the Byzantine Empire, as they had done after the death of Leo
the Isaurian.
In the lands of the Caliphate, especially in Babylonia (Irak), at that
time the center of Jewish life, the Jews gradually lost the favorable
position which they had hitherto enjoyed, although the intolerance
of the Mahometan rulers was mild compared with that of the Christian
princes. In the East, too, they were the prey of caprice, for the
Caliphs resigned their power in favor of the vizirs, and thus deprived
themselves of all power. The Caliphs after Al-Mamun became more and
more the tools of ambitious and greedy ministers and generals, and the
Oriental Jews frequently had to buy the favor of these ephemeral lords
at a high price. The Caliph Al-Mutavakkil, Al-Mamun's third successor,
renewed the laws of Omar against the Jews, Christians, and Magi, and
compelled them to wear a characteristic dress, a yellow scarf over
their dress, and a thick cord instead of a girdle. He, moreover,
changed the synagogues and churches into mosques, and forbade the
Mahometans to teach Jews and Christians, or to admit them to offices
(849-856). A tenth part of their property had to be given to the
Caliph; they were forbidden to ride upon horses, and were allowed to
make use only of asses and mules (853-854). The Exilarchs had lost a
part of their power, when Al-Mamun decreed that they should no longer
be officially recognized and supported, and they lost still more
through the fanaticism of Al-Mutavakkil. By and by they ceased to
be officials of the state, invested with certain powers, and had to
content themselves with the position which the Jewish communities gave
them out of respect for old and dear memories.
As the Exilarchate declined, the respect increased for the school of
Pumbeditha, because it was near the capital of the Bagdad Caliphate,
whose Jewish community of influential men came under its jurisdiction.
Pumbeditha now rose from the subordinate position into which it had
been forced. It put itself on an equal footing with the sister academy
of Sora, and its presidents likewise assumed the title of Gaon. It
next made itself independent of the Exilarchate. Formerly the head
of the school and the faculty of Pumbeditha had to go once a year to
pay homage to the Exilarch, but now, if the Exilarch wished to hold
a public assembly, he had to repair to Pumbeditha. This was probably
brought about by the chief of the school, Paltoi ben Abayi (842-858),
who heads the list of important Geonim, and who was noted for his free
use of the Cherem (Excommunication). Dissensions about the succession
to the Gaonate were not wanting during this period, although the
Exilarchs could not make their influence felt.
A Gaon of Sora, Natronaï II, son of Hillaï (859-869), kept up a
prolific correspondence with foreign communities in the Arabic
language. His predecessors had employed a mixture of Hebrew and Chaldee
as the medium of their communications. Natronaï II also corresponded
with the Jewish-Spanish community at Lucena, whose members doubtless
understood Arabic better than Hebrew. He opposed the Karaites as
bitterly as the Geonim had done at the time of the rise of this sect,
"because they despised the words of the sages of the Talmud, and set
up for themselves an arbitrary Talmud of their own." His pupil and
successor, Mar-Amram ben Sheshna (869-881), was the compiler of the
liturgical order of prayers in use amongst European Jews. At the
request of a Spanish community, preferred by their religious leader,
Isaac ben Simeon, he collected everything that the Talmud and the
custom of the schools had ratified concerning prayer and divine service
(Siddur Rab Amram). The form which the prayers had assumed in the
course of time was by him declared to have the force of fixed law.
Every one that deviated from it was considered a heretic, and excluded
from the community of Israel. The poetical compositions for the
festivals were not yet in general use at this time, and Mar-Amram left
the selection to the taste of the individual.
During Mar-Amram's Gaonate, there were two successive heads of the
schools in Pumbeditha, Rabba ben Ami (869-872), of whom nothing is
known, and Mar-Zemach I. ben Paltoi (872-890), who heads the list of
literary Geonim. Hitherto, the leaders of the school had occupied
themselves with the exposition of the Talmud, with the regulation of
the internal affairs of the communities, and with answering questions
which were submitted to them. The one or the other of them, it is true,
made a collection of Agadic sayings, but for literary activity, they
either had no leisure, or opportunity, or inclination. But when the
zeal for the study of the Talmud increased in the different communities
in Egypt, Africa, Spain and France, and students of the Talmud spent
their time in studying obscure and difficult passages, they often
had to appeal to the schools for the solution of their difficulties.
Their questions soon concerned only theoretical points, and the Geonim
found it necessary to write treatises on certain portions of the
Talmud, instead of simple and short answers. These books were used
by students as Talmudical handbooks. The Gaon Zemach ben Paltoi, of
Pumbeditha, arranged an alphabetical index of difficult words in the
Talmud, under the title of "Aruch." In it he shows acquaintance with
the Persian language. This dictionary forms the first contribution
to the constantly growing department of Talmudical lexicography. The
second literary Gaon was Nachshon ben Zadok of Sora (881-889), Zemach's
contemporary. He, too, wrote a book giving explanations of difficult
words in the Talmud. Nachshon made himself famous through his discovery
of a key to the Jewish calendar. He found that the order of the years
and festivals repeat themselves after a cycle of two hundred and
forty-seven years, and that the forms of the years can be arranged in
fourteen tables. This key bears his name; it is known as the cycle of
Rabbi Nachshon.
The third author of this time was Rabbi Simon of Cairo, or Misr, in
Egypt, who, although not an official of the Babylonian school, was in
a position to compose a code embracing all religious and ceremonial
laws (about 900). This work, directed against the Karaites, bears
the title "The Great Halachas" (Halachoth gedoloth), and forms a
supplement to Jehudaï's work of a similar nature. The history of the
post-exilic period till the destruction of the Temple was also written
at this time; its author is unknown. It is written in Arabic, and
is based partly upon Josephus, partly upon the Apocrypha, and partly
upon tradition. It is called "The History of the Maccabees" or "Joseph
ben Gorion." In later times an Italian translated it into Hebrew, and
in its expanded form it bears the title Josippon (Pseudo-Josephus),
and this work served to awaken in the Jews, who were ignorant of the
original sources of Jewish history, interest in their glorious past.
The literary activity of the official heads of Judaism in the two
schools confined itself to Talmudical subjects. They had no idea of
scientific research, would have condemned it, in fact, as a leaning to
Karaite doctrine. Outside of the Gaonate, in Egypt and Kairuan, there
was a scientific movement among the Rabbanites, weak at first, but
increasing in strength every year. The Rabbanite thinkers must have
felt that so long as Talmudic Judaism maintained a hostile position
towards science, it could not hold its own against the Karaites.
Biblical exegesis and Hebrew philology formed the special studies of
the Karaites, and in connection with these was developed a kind of
philosophy, though only as an auxiliary science. It was in this branch
that, towards the end of the ninth century, several Rabbanites emulated
them. Famous amongst these was Isaac ben Suleiman Israeli (845-940).
He was a physician, philosopher, and Hebrew philologist. He was an
Egyptian, and was called to Kairuan about the year 904 as physician
to the last Aghlabite prince, Ziadeth-Allah. When the founder of the
Fatimide dynasty, Ubaid-Allah, the Messianic Imam (Al-Mahdi, who is
said to have been the son of a Jewess), conquered the Aghlabite prince,
and founded a great kingdom in Africa (909-933), Isaac Israeli entered
his service, and enjoyed his full favor. Israeli had a great reputation
as a physician, and had many pupils. At the request of the Caliph
Ubaid-Allah, he wrote eight medical works, the best of which is said
to be that on fever. His medical writings were translated into Hebrew,
Latin, and part of them into Spanish, and were zealously studied by
physicians. A Christian physician, the founder of the Salerno school
of medicine, made use of his researches, and even republished some
of his works without giving credit to Israeli for them. He was thus
an important contributor to the development of medical science, but
as a philosopher he did not do much. His work on "Definitions and
Descriptions" shows scarcely the rudiments of philosophical knowledge.
His lectures must have made a greater impression than his writings.
He instructed two disciples, a Mahometan, Abu-Jafar Ibn-Aljezzar,
who is recognized as an authority in medicine; and a Jew, Dunash ben
Tamim, who continued the work of his master. Isaac Israeli lived to be
more than one hundred years old, and survived his patron the Caliph
Ubaid-Allah, whose death was hastened by his disregard of the advice of
his Jewish physician. When Isaac Israeli died, about 940, his example
had made a place in the Rabbanite studies for the scientific method
that shaped the activity of succeeding generations.
Whilst the Rabbanites were making the first attempt to follow a
scientific method, the Karaites were disporting on the broad beaten
path of Mutazilist philosophy. Although young in years, Karaism showed
signs of advanced old age. All its strength was given to Biblical
exposition, combined with philology, but even here it made no progress.
In the central community of the Karaites, in Jerusalem, it assumed
an ascetic character. Sixty Karaites agreed to leave their homes,
their property and their families, live together, abstain from wine
and meat, go poorly clad, and spend their time in fasting and prayer.
They adopted this mode of living, as they said, with the object of
promoting Israel's redemption. They called themselves the mourners
of Zion and Jerusalem (Abele Zion), and every one of them added to
his signature the term "The Mourner." It was through them that the
religious life of the Karaites took on an ascetic tinge. They not only
observed the Levitical laws of purity in the strictest manner, but
they shunned intercourse with non-Jews. They would not buy bread from
them, nor eat anything they had touched. The more rigorous the Karaites
became, the more they looked upon the Rabbanites as reprobates and
sinners, whose houses it was a sin to visit. The Karaites gradually
spread from Babylonia and Judæa to Egypt on the one side and to
Syria on the other, and northwards as far as the Crimea. There were
large Karaite communities in Alexandria and Cairo, and also in the
Crimea, on the Bosporus (Kertch), Sulchat and Kaffa (Theodosia). The
zeal of individuals contributed much to spread Karaism. By means of
disputations, sermons, and letters, they endeavored to secure followers
amongst the Rabbanites. Like every other essentially weak sect the
Karaites relied upon propaganda, as though numbers could atone for
lack of real strength. There was amongst them a certain proselytizer,
a cunning man, Eldad by name, who related wonderful adventures, and
made a great stir in his day. Eldad's romantic travels throw a lurid
light upon the Jewish history of the time. He belongs to that class
of deceivers who have a pious end in view, know how to profit by
the credulity of the masses, and can easily catch men in a web of
falsehood. The Geonim themselves were almost deceived into believing
his pretended traditions, which he affirmed had been received direct
from Moses.
Meanwhile, the institution to which the memories of the former
political independence of Judaism were attached was rapidly
approaching dissolution. The Exilarchate fell into disregard through
the rivalry of the school of Pumbeditha, and also lost the revenue
which was its mainstay. Even though questions from abroad continued to
be directed to the Geonim of Sora, the sister academy was considered
even in Babylonia to be the chief authority, and to have most
influence. This influence was increased still more through the choice
as Gaon of Pumbeditha of Haï ben David (890-897), who had hitherto held
the post of rabbi and judge in the capital of the Caliphate. It was
just at this time, at the end of the 9th century, that the Jews again
enjoyed a high position in the Caliphate, under the Caliph Al-Mutadhid
(892-902). His vizir and regent Ubaid-Allah Ibn-Suleiman appointed Jews
and Christians alike to state offices.
The community of Bagdad gained most through the favor shown to the Jews
by the vizir. As Haï had occupied his post in the capital for a long
time, and had made himself popular in the community, he was elected
Gaon of Pumbeditha by the influential members. Their object was to make
the school of Pumbeditha of greater importance, and the academy at
Sora declined more and more. Haï's successors, who, like himself, had
commenced their career with the rabbinate of Bagdad, worked in the same
spirit, and were assisted by the powerful members of the community in
the effort to make Pumbeditha the center of the Babylonian community
and of Judaism generally, and to put an end to the Exilarchate as
well as to the school of Sora. One of them was Mar Kohen-Zedek II. b.
Joseph (held office 917-936). He was passionate and energetic, and
was one of those who are, indeed, free from personal selfishness, but
seek an increase of power for the community, regardless of every other
consideration. As soon as he entered upon his office, Kohen-Zedek
demanded that the school of Pumbeditha should have the greater share
of the revenue which was contributed by the various communities.
He based his demand upon the fact, that the pupils of the college
at Pumbeditha were more numerous than those at Sora, and therefore
deserved greater consideration. So many quarrels arose between the two
schools in consequence of this demand that several important people
found it necessary to interfere. A compromise was made, and it was
agreed that in future the money should be equally divided, whereby the
academy at Sora lost the last trace of its superiority. Kohen-Zedek
then endeavored to deprive the Exilarchate of its little remnant of
power. The Exilarch at the time was Ukba, a man of Arabic culture,
who wrote poems in Arabic. Kohen-Zedek demanded that the appointment
of judges in the communities of Khorasan should be vested in, and the
revenues derived from the same, should be devoted to, the school of
Pumbeditha. Ukba would not give up any portion of his dignity, and
appealed to the Caliph. But Kohen-Zedek had friends at Bagdad, who
had influence at court, and these succeeded in inducing the Caliph
Al-Muktadir (908-932), or rather the vizir Ibn Furat, since the Caliph
spent his time in riotous living, to deprive Mar-Ukba of his post, and
banish him from Bagdad. The Exilarch went to Karmisin (Kermanshah,
east of Bagdad), and Kohen-Zedek rejoiced that the Exilarchate was now
destroyed. The weak president of Sora, Jacob ben Natronaï, permitted
all these usurpations without interfering.
Meanwhile matters took a favorable turn for the banished Exilarch, by
which he was able to frustrate the plans of Kohen-Zedek. Just at this
time there came to Kermanshah the young and pleasure-seeking Caliph.
The banished Exilarch Ukba frequently met him, and greeted and praised
him in well-measured Arabic verses. His verses pleased Al-Muktadir's
secretary so well that he had them copied, and called to the attention
of the Caliph the many changes rung by the Jewish poet upon the one
simple theme, allegiance.
Poetry was prized so much amongst the Arabs, that no conqueror, however
uncouth, was insensible to it. Al-Muktadir sent for the poetical
Exilarch, was pleased with him, and finally asked him what favor he
could confer upon him. Ukba wished for nothing more eagerly than
to be restored to his office. This the Caliph granted him. He now
returned, after a year's absence, to Bagdad, to the astonishment of
his opponent, and re-assumed his high position (918). Poetry had saved
him. Kohen-Zedek and his party, however, did not allow him to enjoy
his triumph long. Through bribery and intrigue they again effected
his deposition, and he was banished. In order that he might not again
be restored to favor, he was exiled beyond the limits of the Eastern
Caliphate to the recently founded kingdom of the Fatimides--to Kairuan
in Africa. Here, where the physician and philosopher, Isaac Israeli,
was greatly respected, he was received with open arms, and held in high
esteem. The community of Kairuan treated him as the Exilarch, set up
a raised place for him in the synagogue, and caused him to forget the
troubles he had suffered in the land of his fathers (919).
Kohen-Zedek had opposed the Exilarchate rather than Ukba personally; he
now took care that no successor should be appointed to the Exilarchate,
which he desired to extinguish. His contemporary Gaon in Sora, Jacob
ben Natronaï, was either too weak or too much hampered to interfere.
So the office of Exilarch was left vacant for a year or two. However,
hated as the Exilarchate was by the representatives of the Pumbeditha
college, the people were warmly attached to the house of David, about
which traditions and memories clustered. They clamored for the
restoration of the office. Thereupon the Gaon of Sora took courage,
and refused any longer to be a weak tool in the hands of Kohen-Zedek.
The people vehemently demanded that David ben Zaccaï, a relative of
Ukba, be made Exilarch, and the whole college of the school of Sora
paid homage to him in Kasr, where he lived (921). Kohen-Zedek and
the college of Pumbeditha refused to recognize him. David ben Zaccaï
was as resolute and ambitious as his opponent, and determined to
assert his authority. By virtue of his power, he deposed Kohen-Zedek,
and named his successor. Once more complications arose, this time
dividing the school of Pumbeditha against itself. This bickering
deeply pained the better class of the people; however, the disputes
between the Exilarchate and the Gaonate, affecting the whole of the
Jewish-Babylonian community, lasted nearly two years.
Nissi Naharvani, a blind man, who was respected by everybody for
his piety, and who felt regret at this state of affairs, undertook
to effect a reconciliation. Late one night he groped about till he
found his way to the room of Kohen-Zedek, who was astonished at the
sudden appearance of the venerable blind man at such an hour, and
was persuaded by him to come to terms. Nissi then also induced the
Exilarch to yield. David and Kohen-Zedek met, with their respective
followers, in Sarsar (half-a-day's journey south of Bagdad), made
peace, and Kohen-Zedek accompanied the Exilarch as far as Bagdad
(Spring, 921). David in turn recognized Kohen-Zedek as the legitimate
Gaon of Pumbeditha. Kohen-Zedek, who had not succeeded in his plan to
extinguish the Exilarchate, lived to see the school of Sora, which had
been humbled by him, rise again from its low position, and have fresh
splendor shed upon it by a stranger from a foreign land, so that for
several years it cast the school of Pumbeditha into the shade.