CHAPTER XVII.

PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS, AND THE BURNING OF THE TALMUD.

Pope Gregory IX--Emperor Frederick II and the Jewish

Scholars, Jehuda Ibn-Matka and Jacob Anatoli--The Jewish

Legislation of Frederick of Austria--The Martyrs of Aquitaine

and Gregory IX--Louis IX of France and his Enmity to the

Jews--Attacks on The Talmud--The Apostate Nicholas-Donin

--Disputation at the French Court between Yechiel of Paris

and Nicholas-Donin--Judah of Melun--The Talmud burnt at

Paris--The Church and Jewish Physicians--Moses Ibn-Tibbon

and Shem-Tob Tortosi--Papal Bull acquitting Jews of the

Blood-accusation--The Last French Tossafists--The Jews

of England--The Jewish Parliament--Alfonso the Wise and

the Jews of Spain--Meïr de Malea and his Sons--The Jewish

Astronomers Don Judah Cohen and Don Zag Ibn-Said--The Jews of

Aragon--De Penyaforte and the Apostate Pablo Christiani--

The First Censorship of the Talmud--Nachmani's Disputation

with Pablo--Influence of Nachmani--The Karaites.

1236-1270 C. E.

Whilst these internal divisions continued, the poisonous seed that

had been scattered abroad by the papacy was producing abundance of

evil fruit. Persecutions of the Jews, which had hitherto been merely

local, began to spread like a contagion, and became every year more

violent and general. Innocent III, it is true, did not aim at the

complete annihilation of the Jews, but only at their degradation. He

desired to crush them down to a state lower than that of the rustic

serfs, for which purpose the whole weight of the society of the Middle

Ages, consisting of princes, nobles of high or low rank, the clergy of

every degree, burghers and peasants, was to bear heavily upon them,

to afflict them grievously, and to reduce them to a most pitiable

condition. The humiliation of the Jews afforded great pleasure to the

lower grades of the people, who were rejoiced to behold a class of

human beings, sunk yet lower than themselves, against whom they could

use their clumsy wit and rough fists. This people, which was branded

with a distinguishing badge by the Church and society, was regarded

by the ignorant mob as a race of outcasts, who might be put to death

like filthy dogs, without any feeling of remorse. All sorts of crimes

were attributed to the Jews, and credited. Fierce attacks on the Jews

were repeated from time to time, and in various places, on the plea of

child murder, and with such an air of truth in the charge that even

well-disposed Christians were filled with doubts, and were inclined

to believe the tissue of lies. It happened once that the body of a

Christian was found between Lauda and Bischofsheim (in Baden). Who

were the murderers? Jews, of course. On this altogether groundless

accusation, the Jewish men, women and children of both towns were

attacked by the mob and the clergy, and, without being brought to

trial, were put to death. Then eight learned and pious men were brought

up to answer for the supposed assassination of a Christian (on the 2d

and 3d January, 1235); they were put to the rack, and, probably in

consequence of the confessions wrung from them by the torture, they

were executed. The plundering of Jewish houses was the invariable

accompaniment of such massacres. The Jews in the neighboring districts

thereupon implored Pope Gregory IX to grant them a charter, which might

protect them against the arbitrary action of the murderous mob and

the bigoted judges. In reply, he issued a bull to all Christendom (on

the 3d of May, 1235), which repeated and confirmed the constitution

of Pope Innocent III. So little sense of justice existed that it was

the opinion of many that the Vicar of Christ had allowed himself to be

induced to publish this bull by a bribe of a large sum of money from

the Jews. However, whether this papal decree had emanated from love of

justice, or had been the outcome of bribery, like many previous ones in

favor of the Jews, it remained a dead letter. The spirit of intolerance

and of Jew-hatred which was taught in the schools, and was preached in

the pulpit by the Dominicans, became infused into the very blood of

men, and the noblest natures were not able to escape contamination.

Of what advantage was it to the Jews that they produced comparatively

the largest number of scholars, who first rendered science accessible

to Christians, either by means of translations and expositions of

didactic writings in foreign languages, or through their own activity

and discoveries, especially in medicine? They received no benefit from

providing the marts of trade with wares, and the book market with works

of genius, for the Christians would acknowledge no thanks to them for

their labor, or repaid them by splitting their skulls.

As an eloquent illustration of the attitude of the Middle Ages with

regard to the Jews, the conduct of the greatest and most cultured

German emperor towards them may be instanced. Frederick II, the last of

the Hohenstaufen line of emperors, was the most genial and unprejudiced

monarch of the first half of the thirteenth century. A Sicilian rather

than a German, he had a liking for the sciences, and supported men

of genius with princely liberality. He took an interest in having

writings on philosophy and astronomy translated from the Arabic, and

for this purpose he employed many learned Jews. The emperor carried

on a correspondence with a young Jewish scholar, Jehuda ben Solomon

Cohen Ibn-Matka, of Toledo (born in about 1215, and wrote in 1247).

His learning produced so deep an impression on Emperor Frederick that

he submitted a number of scientific questions to him, and expressed

pleasure at the answers returned to them. The emperor then probably

induced him to come to Italy (Tuscany). Jehuda Ibn-Matka possessed the

right of free entry to the imperial court.

The emperor invited another Jewish sage, Jacob Anatoli (Anatolio), to

leave Provence and take up his residence in Naples. He granted the

scholar an annual stipend, so that he might be at leisure to apply

himself to the translation of Arabic works of a scientific character.

This man, whose full name was Jacob ben Abba-Mari ben Simon, or Samson

(flourished about 1200-1250), was the son-in-law of the prolific

translator but sterile author, Samuel Ibn-Tibbon, who was praised by

the Maimunists, and hated by the strict Talmudists. Anatoli resembled

him as a son resembles his father, and in a manner continued his work

of translation. Like Ibn-Tibbon he did not possess any creative genius,

but was, so to speak, a handicraftsman in philosophy, who translated

Arabic writings on this subject into Hebrew. He had undergone special

training for this work with his father-in-law and his Christian friend,

Michael Scotus. He had so exalted a reverence for Maimuni that he

placed him in the rank of the prophets, and was naturally full of wrath

against those who termed him a heretic. "These malicious bigots," he

remarked, "would have condemned even David and Asaph, had they lived in

these times." By the aid of philosophical catchwords, he interpreted

Holy Writ in the spirit of Maimuni. He also tried to refer miracles,

as far as possible, to natural causes, and was, in short, one of those

men who divested Judaism of much of its mystical character. Following

this method, he delivered public discourses on Sabbaths and festivals,

which he collected into one volume (Malmed), which, in spite of its

mediocrity, became the cherished book of the orthodox Provençal

congregations. Frederick II entrusted him with the task of translating

the writings of Aristotle, with the commentaries of the Arabic

philosopher Averroës (Ibn-Roshd), hitherto unknown to Christians. A

Christian doctor, probably Michael Scotus, the court astrologer of

the emperor, translated these works into Latin, probably under the

supervision of Anatoli.

From all this it might be expected that the emperor Frederick

entertained a favorable feeling towards the Jews, especially as, if

only a portion of the accusations which his contemporaries leveled

against his orthodoxy be true, he was by no means convinced of the

truths of Christianity. Pope Gregory IX, his mortal foe, frankly

reproached him with having said in public that the world had been

deluded by three impostors, Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet, of whom two

had died an honorable death, but the third had ended his days on the

cross. The emperor can, therefore, hardly be supposed to have taken

deep offense at the unbelief of the Jews; yet in spite of all this,

the emperor Frederick was no whit less an enemy of the Jews than his

antipode, the bigoted Saint Louis of France. A bitter enemy to the

papacy, which hindered his undertakings in every possible way, he

nevertheless executed in his realm the canonical decree which excluded

all Jews from public offices, making an exception only in the case

of a certain Jewish clerk of the mint at Messina. In his capital,

Palermo, he shut the Jews up in a Ghetto, an act of intolerance which

far outstripped that of the popes of the time. In Austria, the Jews

were permitted to fill public offices, under the rule of the Princes of

Babenberg. The Archduke Frederick I, the Valiant, recognized the worth

of the Jews as promoters of wealth, entrusted the care of his finances

to Jewish officials, and granted to them titles of honor. Two brothers,

Leblin and Nekelo, were officially styled chamberlains of the Duke of

Austria. Frederick I of Austria (in 1244) granted a royal decree to the

Jews of his domain, which appears to have been inspired by a love of

justice and humanity, and which became an example for other similarly

disposed potentates who desired to protect their Jewish subjects from

injury and violence. This statute, which consisted of thirty clauses,

aimed especially at affording protection to the Jewish inhabitants

of Austria against murder and assault. If a Christian killed a Jew,

he was to suffer the extreme penalty of the law; if he wounded him,

he was to be compelled to pay a heavy fine, or lose his hand. If the

murderer of a Jew could not be convicted by means of direct proof of

the commission of the crime, but strong circumstantial evidence fixed

the deed on him, then the relatives or friends of the Jew could appoint

a champion to meet the accused in a duel. A Christian who made a

murderous attack upon a Jewess was sentenced to the loss of his hand.

Grave charges involving the persons or property of Jews were not to

be determined by the evidence of a Christian, unless a Jewish witness

confirmed the misdemeanor. A Christian who kidnapped a Jewish child

for the purpose of compulsory baptism, was to be punished as a thief.

The statute of Frederick the Valiant also allowed the Jews to exercise

their own jurisdiction, so that the judges of the land could have no

power over them. The synagogues and cemeteries of the Jews were also

to be respected by Christians, and the latter were liable to heavy

punishment for any outrage upon them. The statute further guaranteed to

all Jews the privilege of free passage and free trading throughout the

country, and the right to loan money on pledges. The rates of interest

were limited, but were permitted to be sufficiently high. The right

of accepting pledges, which had been granted to members of the Jewish

religion, was strictly regulated as an object of vital importance

for both the Jews and the Duke. This decree, moreover, shielded them

against paying extortionate sums to the Christians for the conveyance

of Jewish corpses from place to place. The Archduke Frederick remarked

that he conceded these privileges to the Jews, in order that "they also

might participate in his grace and good wishes." This statute also

proved beneficial to the Jews of other lands, for within twenty years

it was introduced into Hungary, Bohemia, Greater Poland, Meissen, and

Thuringia, and later on into Silesia.

A duke of inferior rank thus set the example of protecting the

Jews against caprice by means of fixed laws. The powerful emperor

Frederick II thereupon censured Frederick the Valiant for his friendly

attitude towards the Jews, and he, who himself had been expelled from

the Church, published an edict that the Jews of Austria should be

rigorously excluded from all public offices lest the race, condemned to

perpetual slavery, oppress the Christians through its office-holding

members. With particular satisfaction he pronounced the sentence that

the Jews, wherever they were located, were the "servi cameræ" of

the emperor. He adhered so strictly to the canonical decrees of the

Lateran Council against them, that he was even more rigorous than the

kings of Spain in executing the law which compelled the Jews in his

hereditary provinces to wear a distinguishing badge, and he crushed

them under a load of taxes. It is true that he permitted those who had

come to Sicily from Africa (whence they had fled before the fanatical

fury of the Almohades), to take up their residence under his sway.

But whilst he remitted taxes from other colonies for ten years, he at

once burdened the Jewish immigrants with heavy imposts, and restricted

them to agricultural pursuits. He, indeed, promised his "servi cameræ"

especial protection, but nevertheless he treated them as a despised

race of human beings. Henceforward the three powers of Christianity,

the princes, the Church, and the people, combined to utterly destroy

the feeblest of nations.

When Pope Gregory IX gave orders for another crusade to be preached,

the warriors of the cross assembled in Aquitania, made an attack upon

the Jewish communities of Anjou, Poitou, in the cities of Bordeaux,

Angoulême, and elsewhere, in order to compel them to accept baptism.

But as the Jews remained steadfast to their faith, the crusaders acted

with unprecedented cruelty towards them, trampling down many of them

beneath the hoofs of their horses. They spared neither children nor

pregnant women, and left the corpses lying unburied, a prey to wild

beasts and birds. They destroyed the sacred books, burnt the houses

of the Jews, and possessed themselves of their property. On this

occasion, more than three thousand persons perished (in the summer

of 1236), whilst more than five hundred accepted Christianity. Once

again did the surviving Jews complain to the pope of this unendurable

cruelty. The pope felt himself obliged to send a letter about the

matter to the prelates of the Church in Bordeaux, Angoulême, and other

bishoprics, and also to King Louis IX of France (September, 1236), in

which he deplored the events that had taken place, and signified that

the Church desired neither the utter annihilation of the Jews, nor

their compulsory baptism. What, however, could occasional letters of

admonition avail against the bitter feeling of abhorrence towards the

Jews that had been stirred up by the Church? The otherwise noble and

well-disposed monarch, Louis IX, was so ruled by his prejudice that

he could not bear to look at a Jew. He encouraged the conversion of

the Jews in every way, and permitted the children of converted fathers

to be torn away from their mothers, who still adhered to Judaism. The

Jews had only one means wherewith to appease the rage that was kindled

against them, and that was--money. In England, by its influence, they

induced King Henry III to proclaim throughout his territories that no

one should offer any injury to a Jew. But this means proved to be a

double-edged sword that turned against the very people it was intended

to benefit. In order to raise large sums of money, the Jews were

compelled to charge extortionate interest, and even to have recourse

to fraud. In this way, they incurred the hatred of the populace, and

subjected themselves to further outrages. The repeated complaints about

their usury prompted Louis IX to fix the rate of interest, and in many

cases to remit a portion of the debts owing to Jews. But when this

same king determined to repress usury, and called together a number of

barons to decide upon the matter, the latter asserted that the peasants

and merchants were unable to dispense with loans from the Jews, and

that the Jews were preferable to the Christian money-lenders, because

the latter oppressed their Christian debtors with still higher rates of

usurious interest.

In the midst of all these troubles, petty inflictions and persecutions,

there was only one spot in which the Jew might feel himself quite

happy, and was able to forget his sufferings. The house of learning,

where young and old gathered together in order to study the Talmud,

was their only haven of peace. Absorbed in their study, the Talmud

enthusiasts became entirely oblivious of the outer world, with its

bitter hate, its malicious laws and its cruel tortures. Here they

were princes, the majesty of thought cast a halo about their brows,

and their delight in spiritual activity transfigured their features.

Their whole happiness consisted in solving some difficult problem

in the Talmud, or in throwing light upon some obscure point, or in

discovering something new which had escaped the notice of their

predecessors. They looked neither for office nor honor in reward

for their profound studies, and received no tangible recompense for

their nocturnal vigils. They desired only to gratify their intense

longing for knowledge, to satisfy their sense of religious duty, at

best, assure themselves of reward in the hereafter. The all-important

occupation for all was study, and the flower of all scholarship was the

Talmud. As soon as a child was able to lisp, he was led on the morning

of Pentecost from his house to the synagogue or "school," with his

eyes veiled, in order that they might not encounter anything profane.

There the Hebrew alphabet, in its usual and also in a reversed order,

and some appropriate verses were read to him. He was rewarded with a

honey cake and an egg, with Scriptural verses inscribed on them. The

day on which the child was first introduced to the Law was celebrated

by his parents and the whole congregation as a festive occasion. If

he proved at all intelligent, he was allowed to begin the Talmud,

after having spent some time over the Bible. To be a student of the

Talmud was esteemed the highest honor. Disgrace was the portion of

the ignoramus (Am ha-Arez). A studious youth passed many years in the

house of learning even till the time of his marriage; and to the end

of his life the earning of his livelihood was held to be of secondary

importance, and the study of the Talmud the aim of his existence. This

absorbing study of the Talmud was certainly one-sided, but there was

something ideal about it. The hand of the enemy had up to this time not

violated this inner sanctuary. The temporal authorities did not concern

themselves about the matter, the clergy had no power over the domestic

affairs of the Jews; here excommunication itself proved ineffectual.

This domestic peace of the Jews was, however, soon to be destroyed;

even from their intellectual asylum they were to be driven forth. The

leader in the movement was a baptized Jew, who incited the temporal

and the spiritual powers against his former co-religionists. A man,

named Donin (or Dunin), a Talmudist from La Rochelle, in the north of

France, conceived doubts of the validity of the Talmud and the oral

law. For this he was excommunicated by the French rabbis. Having no

position either among Jews or among Christians, Donin determined to

accept baptism, and assumed the name of Nicholas. Filled with hatred

against the rabbis and the Talmud, the apostate determined to revenge

himself on both. Probably urged on by the clergy, he became the

instigator of the great autos-da-fé of the Jews and their writings,

and it was he that occasioned the bloody persecution in Poitou. His

appetite for revenge was, however, not yet satiated. Donin or Nicholas

betook himself to Pope Gregory IX, and brought charges against the

Talmud, saying that it distorted the words of Holy Writ, and that in

the Agadic portions there were to be found disgraceful representations

of God; that in spite of this, it was held in higher estimation by

the rabbis than the Bible, and finally that it was filled with abuse

against the founder of the Christian religion and the Virgin. Donin

demonstrated to the pope that it was the Talmud which prevented the

Jews from accepting Christianity, and that without it they would

certainly give up their unbelief. The excess of veneration paid by the

compilers of the Talmud to earlier lawgivers caused cruel suffering.

Without considering the sage remark of Abtalion, "Ye wise men, be

cautious with your words," they, in their desire to immortalize every

utterance, every familiar conversation, every trivial controversy, and

even every joke made by one of the Tanaïm or Amoraïm, had incorporated

these in the Talmud, thinking that the outer world would be none the

wiser. But the sins of the fathers were visited upon the children. On

account of various unguarded statements, the Talmud was dragged before

the judgment-bench to answer these charges, and the whole of the Jewish

world, which had accepted the Talmud as its guide in life, was made

responsible for its contents. This was the first time that it was thus

accused, but in the course of the century the charge was repeated

frequently and in a more bitter spirit. The apostate had made extracts

from the Talmud, and formulated thirty-five articles, upon which he

based his charges. Some of these alleged that the Talmud contained

many gross errors and absurdities, and also rank blasphemies against

God; in others, it was stated that it upheld dishonesty and duplicity

in intercourse with Christians; others again asserted that the Talmud

insulted and blasphemed Jesus, the Virgin, and the Church. Compared

with the spiteful attacks which the Evangelists, the Church Fathers

down to Hieronymus and Augustine, and various ecclesiastical scholars

have made, with the intention of humiliating and injuring the Jews, the

few passages in the Talmud concerning Jesus seem harmless jests; but

the Church was waging successful war against the Synagogue, and was

very sensitive to any disrespectful utterance. In his charges against

the Talmud, Nicholas-Donin had, however, distorted the truth. He had

stated that the Talmudical writings taught that it was a meritorious

action to kill even the best among the Christians; that a Christian

who rested on the Sabbath day or studied the Law was to be punished

with death; that it was lawful to deceive a Christian; that Jews were

permitted to break a promise made on oath; and he had made many other

lying assertions.

The guilt of the Talmud, which implied that of the Jews, seemed

unmistakable to Pope Gregory, for whom the apostate had drawn up

these grounds of accusation, and to whom he had communicated them

both by word of mouth and in writing. He immediately dispatched to

the heads of the Church in France, England, Castile, Aragon, and

Portugal, transcripts of the list of charges tabulated by Nicholas,

and commanded them to confiscate all copies of the Talmud--on the

morning of the first Saturday in Lent, when the Jews assembled in their

synagogues--and to hand them over to the Dominicans and Franciscans.

He also wrote to the monarchs of those countries, and called upon them

to support the Church with their temporal power. The pope further

admonished the provincials of the two orders of monks, who had

inquisitorial power over books and doctrines, to submit the contents

of the Talmudical writings to an examination; and if their judgment

corroborated the charges of Nicholas-Donin, they were to burn the

volumes of the Talmud (9 June, 1239).

Thus a new weapon for the destruction of Judaism was brought into

play, and had this papal decree been rigidly executed, the spiritual

life of the Jews, which was intimately bound up with the Talmud, would

have been endangered in its most vital part. The pope gave Nicholas

a special letter to be delivered to William, Bishop of Paris, which

charged him with the vigorous persecution of the Talmud in France,

the chief seat of Talmudical erudition, and the original home of the

Tossafists.

However, when the pope's edict was to be executed, it appeared that

the pretended Vicar of God upon earth did not really possess, even

in the zenith of his power, the great influence he was supposed to

have. Only in such places where personal interests and passions were

concerned did the princes thoroughly carry into effect the violent

policy of the pope; otherwise, unless the rulers were particularly

bigoted, but little heed was paid to papal decrees even in the Middle

Ages. The command of Gregory to confiscate the Talmud was entirely

disregarded in Spain and in England, at least there is no record of

any hostile measures in these countries. Only in France, where the

priest-ridden and weak-minded Louis IX, having attained his majority,

had nominally assumed the reins of government, was the Talmud really

confiscated. The Jews were compelled under penalty of death to

surrender their copies (March, 1240). The Talmud was then put on trial.

Four distinguished rabbis of northern France were commanded by the

king to hold a public disputation with Nicholas, either to refute the

imputations leveled against the Talmud, or to make confession that it

contained abuse against Christianity and blasphemies against God. Each

of these rabbis was to be examined separately, and to give replies to

the accuser.

The four rabbis who were summoned to act as advocates on behalf of the

Talmud were Yechiel (Vivo) of Paris, Moses of Coucy, who had returned

from his embassy to Spain, Jehuda ben David of Melun, and Samuel ben

Solomon of Chateau-Thierry. Yechiel, who was more eloquent than his

associates, and, besides, had more frequently entered into theological

discussions with antagonists who belonged to the Church, was first

called, unaccompanied by his friends. He was not asked to controvert

the accusations made against them, but to confess that these were

founded on truth. The disputation was held in Latin at the royal court

(on the 5th of Tamuz--25th June, 1240), in the presence of the bishops

of Paris and Senlis, of many Dominicans, and of the wise queen-mother

Blanche, who for all practical purposes was at the head of affairs.

At first Yechiel refused to answer. He based his objection upon the

constitution of the popes, which had assured independence to the

Jews in their domestic concerns. He remarked that the Talmud was the

very essence of their life, in behalf of which numbers of Jews were

prepared to die. The queen, however, allayed his fears by assuring him

that their lives were in no danger; she would protect them, and he

was only required to answer the questions asked of him. When Nicholas

demanded that Rabbi Yechiel should take an oath to answer to the best

of his knowledge and ability, as otherwise he might attempt to pervert

the truth by subtleties and evasions, the rabbi refused to do so. He

said that never, in the course of his life, had he taken an oath, and

that he would not invoke the name of God in vain. Thereupon the queen

released him from the necessity of taking an oath. The discussion

which now took place turned upon the two points, whether there were

in the Talmud immoral sentiments and offensive passages against the

Deity, and whether it contained insulting remarks concerning Jesus.

Yechiel disproved the charge of blasphemy and immorality. With regard

to the second of the accusations, he asserted that there could be no

doubt that many odious facts were related in the Talmud concerning a

Jesus, the son of Pantheras; these, however, had no reference to Jesus

of Nazareth, but to one of a similar name who had lived long before

him. He himself believed that this declaration was true, and affirmed

it with the solemnity of an oath. Tradition and Talmudical chronology

had misled him into believing that the Jesus whose name occurred in

the Talmud was not identical with the founder of Christianity. Yechiel

also contended, among other things, that the Father of the Church,

Hieronymus, and other Church Fathers, who were acquainted with the

Talmud, had never asserted that it contained sentiments hostile to the

Christian faith, and that Nicholas was the first one to raise these

false imputations, inspired as he was with feelings of malice and

revenge against his former co-religionists, who had expelled him from

their community on account of his heresy.

The examination of Yechiel of Paris lasted two days, during which the

Jewish congregations fasted, and offered up prayers to God to avert

misfortune from their heads. On the third day, the second rabbi, Judah

of Melun, was examined, without having been previously allowed to

confer with Yechiel, who was kept in custody. In the main, he agreed

with the statements of Yechiel, that the defamatory passages in the

Talmud concerning Jesus did not refer to the man who was held in such

great honor by the Christians, and that the Talmud was indispensable

to the religious life of the Jews. The two remaining rabbis were

not required to undergo an examination. As the result of this three

days' discussion (25th-27th June, 1240), the commission, which had

been appointed to make an inquiry into the Talmud, condemned it to

be burnt, on the ground that Yechiel and Judah of Melun had been

compelled to admit the truth of several of the charges. The sentence of

condemnation, however, remained unexecuted. It appears that Archbishop

Walter (Guatier) Cornutus, of Sens, a prelate influential with the

king, had interceded on behalf of the Jews, and had succeeded in having

many of the confiscated volumes restored to their owners. From a

Christian source of information, which was intended to calumniate the

Jews, but which only points conclusively to the corruptibility of the

Church dignitaries of the time, it is gleaned that this prelate was won

over to the side of the Jews by a bribe. The French Jews were filled

with great joy at the unexpected issue of this event which was of such

vital importance to them, and celebrated the day on which the copies of

the Talmud were restored to them as a day of rejoicing. But they had

begun to exult too early.

The prelate who had raised his voice in favor of the Jews died

suddenly; the fanatical monks saw in this a heaven-sent punishment

for his befriending the Jews, or persuaded the weak-minded and docile

monarch that it was so. Thereupon he commanded that the volumes of

the Talmud and similar writings should be sought for, and taken away

from their possessors by force. Four-and-twenty cartloads of them

were brought together in one spot in Paris, and committed to the

flames (Friday, Tamuz--June, 1242). Two young men, one a Provençal and

the other a German, named respectively Abraham Bedaresi and Meïr, of

Rothenburg, wrote each an elegy upon this event. The French Jews or the

French students of the Talmud, who imagined that they could as little

exist without the Talmud as without their souls, did not remain passive

in quiet endurance of their grief. They turned to Pope Innocent IV,

the successor of Gregory IX, and begged that they might be permitted

to retain their Talmudical writings, without which they could not

fulfil their religious obligations. Their petition was acceded to. The

new pope promulgated a decree that they were not to be deprived of

those writings which contained nothing antagonistic to Christianity

(1243), and under this description the Talmud could be included, as

the Christian clergy were unable to discriminate between one work and

another. The fanatics, however, among whom was the papal legate, Odo,

of Chateauroux, continued to agitate against this edict, till they

induced the pope to give his sanction to the sentence of condemnation

that had been passed upon the Talmud.

The grief of the French Jews on account of these events was

heartrending. They felt as if their very hearts had been torn from

them. The pious men among them kept the anniversary of the burning

of the Talmud as a fast. One good effect, however, sprang from these

wholesale methods of destruction. The opponents of the Maimunists

were, to a certain extent, disarmed, and the fierce passions of the

parties engaged in internal conflict were stilled for the moment. Jonah

Gerundi was the sole survivor of the chief antagonists of the Maimunist

teaching. But a short time before he had given the writings of Maimuni

to the Dominicans and the Franciscans in Paris to be thrown into the

flames. As soon as Jonah became aware of the bitter hostility of the

monkish orders of the Inquisition to the Talmud, which was so highly

revered by him, he very deeply regretted that he had employed them as

the instruments of his hate against Maimuni, and beheld in the burning

of the Talmud a divine punishment for his having allowed the writings

of Maimuni to be consumed by fire. He was so overwhelmed by the sense

of his injustice that he publicly, in the synagogue, confessed his

sincere repentance, and announced his intention of making a pilgrimage

to the grave of Maimuni, there, veiled in mourning, to prostrate

himself and, in the presence of ten persons, to implore the pardon of

this great and pious man. For this purpose he set out on a journey,

left Paris, and stopped at Montpellier, where he also made public

confession of his remorse for his procedure against Maimuni. This act

reconciled the two parties. The opponents cast aside all feelings

of rancor, and treated each other as brethren. In his discourses,

he repeatedly mentioned the name of Maimuni with the respect due to

that of a holy man. This conversion possessed so much the greater

importance, as Jonah was a rabbinical authority, and the author of

several Talmudical works, which were held in high estimation.

From this time forward the whole history of the Jews alternated between

restrictive laws and bloody persecutions, which were repeated from year

to year, now at one place, now at another, but principally in Germany,

where the intolerant Church had transformed the naturally mild-tempered

people into tigers. When the Mongols and Tartars, the savage warriors

of Jenghis-Khan, made their inroads into Europe, ravaged Russia and

Poland, and penetrated to the borders of Germany, the Jews were

accused of having secretly aided this enemy of Christianity. Instead

of directing their charges against Emperor Frederick II and the pope,

who, engaged in an obstinate feud, looked on quietly whilst the savage

conquerors were advancing, the rage of the deluded populace, based

upon groundless imputations of guilt, was directed against the Jews of

Germany. There were, indeed, Jewish soldiers among the Mongols, from

the independent tribes of Khorasan, or, as the legends call them, the

remnant of the Ten Tribes who were shut in by the Caspian mountains.

Had the German Jews any knowledge of their kinsmen among the Mongol

hordes? Had they any secret understanding with them? The story was

circulated in Germany that the Jews had offered to supply the Mongols

with poisoned provisions. Under this pretext they had attempted to

provide them with weapons of all kinds enclosed in casks. A vigilant

guard at the borders, having his suspicions aroused, insisted on having

the casks opened, whereupon the plot was revealed. This tale was

received with general credulity, and was the cause of much suffering to

the German Jews.

As if the representatives of the Church had not yet done sufficient

harm to the Jews, they determined to deprive them of their only

remaining position of influence in Christian society. The practice of

medicine was in the hands of Jews principally; indeed, nearly every

prince and noble had his private Jewish physician, who possessed more

or less influence over the mind of the one whose body was entrusted

to his skill. The clergy, who were seldom gentle as doves, but often

full of cunning, could not suffer this influence of the Jews over the

powerful rulers of the land. The Church council at Béziers was the

first to pay special attention to the question of Jews' practising the

medicinal art. Under the presidency of the Archbishop of Narbonne,

this council, which also inflicted all kinds of hardships upon the

Albigensian heretics, renewed many ancient restrictions. They enacted

that Jews should not be allowed to possess Christian servants or

nurses, and that they should not be eligible to offices of trust. They

were not to leave their homes during Passion Week; they were to pay

to the Church an annual sum of six dinars for each family. Upon their

breasts they were bidden to wear a distinctive badge, that of a wheel,

and they were forbidden to sell meat in public. To these laws there was

added a canonical decree that Christians should not seek the services

of Jewish physicians, under penalty of excommunication (May, 1246).

These restrictive enactments were repeated by a council held in the

south of France, in which district the Jews had conferred distinction

upon the healing art. Three generations of the Tibbon family had acted

as instructors to Christian physicians, and now the third member of the

family, Moses (who flourished 1250-1285 in Montpellier), the translator

of philosophical and medical writings, was commanded to discontinue

practising among Christian patients. Another writer on medicine, and a

practical physician, Shem-Tob ben Isaac of Tortosa (born 1206, composed

his works about 1261-1264), delivered public discourses on the healing

art to Christian audiences in Marseilles, and made them acquainted

with the results of the Arabic schools. This physician presents an

instructive instance of the Jewish zeal for knowledge. In his youth he

was taught exclusively in the Talmud; later he forsook this study, and

became a merchant, making journeys across the sea, and going as far as

the last remaining seat of the former Christian kingdom of Jerusalem,

Jean d'Acre (Accho). Here one of his co-religionists, who was engaged

in the study of mathematics, upbraided him for having considered

science subordinate to the earning of a livelihood. Owing to this

rebuke, although over thirty years of age, Shem-Tob Tortosi changed

his plan of life, hastened from Accho to Barcelona, and made study

his primary pursuit, and the earning of his livelihood a subsidiary

one. He studied medicine, and became so proficient that he was able to

translate the writings of the best Arabic physicians, and to deliver

lectures upon the healing art. These and many other Jewish physicians

were now, in pursuance of the edict of the council at Béziers, to be

driven forth from the temple to which they alone, it may almost be

said, in all Christendom possessed the key.

However, although the Church held the souls of the faithful captive and

in a state of mystification, yet their bodies remained rebelliously

opposed to her and her decisions. This canonical law could not,

therefore, long retain its force. In sickness even the most bigoted

Christian called in the aid of the clever Jewish physician. When

Alfonso, Duke of Poitou and Toulouse, the brother of the fanatical

king, Louis IX, under whose patronage the anti-Jewish councils at

Béziers and Alby had taken place, was afflicted with some disease of

the eye, he was perforce obliged to invoke the assistance of Abraham

of Aragon, a skilful Jewish oculist. The lord of Lünel was driven to

use great efforts, and to seek the good offices of his Jewish agent, in

order to induce the wealthy and independent Jewish physician to attend

to the French prince. In Montpellier, the seat of a famous college of

medicine, Jewish physicians continued for a long time to be permitted

to take the examinations, to practise, and even to give instruction.

The frequent massacres of the Jews, which for ten years had been taking

place in Germany and France, especially on the charge of the murder

of Christian children, induced the German and French congregations to

apply for protection to Pope Innocent IV, and to explain to him that

the charge that they employed the blood and hearts of human beings

was a lying invention, concocted solely for the purpose of seeking

an occasion for murder and robbery. At this time, Innocent lived in

partial exile at Lyons, whither he had been forced to retire owing

to his dispute with Emperor Frederick II. He yielded to the entreaty

of the Jews, either because he deemed it necessary, in view of his

strained relations with nearly all the temporal powers, to appear

just, or because the Jews had liberally supplied him with the means

of which he was so covetous, to enable him to overcome his bitter

opponents. His greed for money was the subject of a biting satire,

describing how the goddess Pecunia rules the world, the Church never

closing its doors against her, and the pope willingly receiving her in

his arms. Innocent IV dispatched a bull from Lyons (July 5, 1247) to

the Church dignitaries of France and Germany, in which, for the first

time, the repeated baseless and fiendish imputations against the Jews

were officially contradicted. "Certain of the clergy, and princes,

nobles and great lords of your dioceses have falsely devised certain

godless plans against the Jews, unjustly depriving them by force of

their property, and appropriating it themselves; they falsely charge

them with dividing up among themselves on the Passover the heart of a

murdered boy. Christians believe that the Law of the Jews prescribes

this to them, whilst in their Law the very reverse is ordained. In

fact, in their malice, they ascribe every murder, wherever it chance

to occur, to Jews. And on the ground of these and other fabrications,

they are filled with rage against them, rob them of their possessions

without any formal accusation, without confession, and without legal

trial and conviction. Contrary to the privileges graciously granted to

them from the Apostolic chair, and opposed to God and His justice, they

oppress the Jews by starvation, imprisonment, and by other tortures

and sufferings; they afflict them with all kinds of punishments, and

sometimes even condemn them to death, so that the Jews, although

living under Christian princes, are in a worse plight than were their

ancestors in Egypt under the Pharaohs. They are driven to leave in

despair the land in which their fathers have dwelt since the memory

of man. Since it is our pleasure that they shall not be distressed,

we ordain that ye behave towards them in a friendly and kind manner.

Whenever any unjust attacks upon them come under your notice, redress

their injuries, and do not suffer them to be visited in the future

by similar tribulations." One would imagine that so decisive a

condemnation of the blood-accusation would once for all have disposed

of these false charges. But the papacy had so impregnated men's hearts

with the feeling of hatred against the Jews, that a mild expression of

opinion from one or the other of the popes passed idly away as a breath

of wind.

The so-called St. Louis was literally more papal than the pope himself.

His weak mind lent its ready aid to all the fanatical measures taken

against the Jews. When the wild idea occurred to him of entering

upon a new crusade, he confiscated the property of certain Jews in

order to obtain money for the campaign. Whilst waging war in Egypt in

furtherance of the crusade, he was taken prisoner (April-May, 1250).

He was jeered at by the Mahometans, because he, the most Christian

king, suffered the enemies of Christianity to remain in his kingdom.

He thereupon, on his release, promulgated an edict for the banishment

of all Jews, with the exception of handicraftsmen, from his hereditary

lands. However, his prudent mother, the queen Blanche, probably

paid little heed to this reckless command. On her death, however,

and the subsequent return of Louis to France (December, 1254), the

king seriously set about expelling the Jews. Their landed property,

synagogues and cemeteries, were forfeited to the crown. What Philip

Augustus had done from apparently political motives, Louis, the saint

of the Church, did from fanaticism. But on this, as on the former

occasion, the period of exile was not long. As before, the edict

affected only those Jews who dwelt in the king's own territories; and

even then those who lived by the labor of their hands were excepted. A

few years later, permission was granted to the exiles to return, and

their synagogues and cemeteries were restored to them.

It is a noteworthy fact that the spiritual activity of the French Jews,

the ingenious exposition of the Talmud by the Tossafists, in no degree

ceased on account of these miseries, but continued undisturbed for

some time longer. The Talmud was burnt; the teaching of it was again

prohibited by Louis, and still, in this very time, the pious itinerant

preacher, Moses of Coucy, composed his great work on the Law. In this

he combined, in a clear, synoptical manner, the elements of the Talmud

with the religious ordinances of the Bible, proceeding on the basis

of the Code of Maimuni. Another famous Talmudist, Samuel ben Solomon

Sir Morel, of Falaise, prepared a new collection of Tossafoth, just

at the time when the Talmud was proscribed (1252-1259); he possessed

no copy of the Talmud to work from, because the Dominican spies had

deprived him of it, and he was compelled to rely upon his memory.

Moreover, Yechiel of Paris had three hundred students of the Talmud in

his academy, to whom he delivered discourses, probably from memory. But

this activity could not long continue; there were too many obstacles

to be encountered. The French congregations had become impoverished by

the frequent demands for money and the confiscation of their property.

Whilst formerly France had sent money for the support of the Jews in

Asia, Yechiel was now compelled to send a messenger to Palestine and

the neighboring lands to procure supplies for the maintenance of his

academy. Yechiel felt himself obliged to leave his native land and

to emigrate to Palestine (to Jean d'Acre). He was one of the last

representatives of the French Tossafist school, which had developed so

much ingenuity and critical acumen, but was now gradually declining

and approaching its fall. The Church was succeeding in altogether

destroying the Talmudical spirit which had its chief home in France.

The last followers of the school of Tossafists in France were only

compilers, who endeavored to bring the results of the labors of past

scholars into proper form and order. Prompted by the conviction that

the study of the Talmud was declining, and that even the rabbis were

at a loss for correct decisions, Isaac ben Joseph, of Corbeil, the

disciple and son-in-law of Yechiel of Paris, wrote a concise manual of

such religious duties as were of practical importance to the Jews in

their dispersion (Semak). He strove to render his book as popular and

pleasing as possible, for he could not at that time depend upon its

being easily understood by the bulk of the people in any other form,

and he sent a letter to the congregations of France and Germany asking

them to make copies of his work, and to spread the knowledge of it.

The Tossafist method of study perished before the fanaticism of the

mendicant friars and the bigotry of King Louis IX.

In England, throughout the long reign of King Henry III (1216-1272),

the condition of the Jews grew worse and worse. Henry, indeed, was

not a tyrant like his father, John Lackland, and was at first kindly

disposed towards the Jews. During his minority, whilst the regent held

the reins of office, the Jews were treated with great indulgence.

Commands were given to the sheriffs to protect them against the

violence of the mob; and distinct and impressive orders were given

to the clergy not to assume any power over the Jews. Henry, or the

regent, permitted foreign Jews to land and settle in any part of

England without paying any special tax for the privilege; and he

forbade the native Jews, not, indeed, from any particularly tender

feeling towards them, to quit the country. Henry, as his father had

done, appointed a chief rabbi over all the Jewish congregations

(presbyter Judæorum). The first man to hold this office was Joceus

(José?); Aaron of York succeeded him, and the last to hold the post

was Elias, of London. This appointment was for life. The English chief

rabbi possessed very great authority over the members of his community.

He was at the same time royal overseer (justitiarus) of the revenues of

the crown which were obtained from the Jews. He, together with certain

Jewish and Christian colleagues, had to keep a register of the property

of the English Jews in the Rolls (rotuli); to see also to the payment

of the Jew-tax into the treasury, called the Exchequer of the Jews; and

also to deliver up to the royal exchequer the property of men who had

died without heirs, this property escheating to the crown. If the chief

rabbi did not wish to occupy himself with financial matters, he could

appoint a substitute with full powers. Finally, he was invested with

the authority to excommunicate members of his community who refused

to obey his decrees, or who would not contribute towards the burdens

of the congregation. Henry III at first energetically restrained

the intolerance of the Church. On one occasion, when the Archbishop

of Canterbury, in order to prevent intercourse between Christians

and Jews, issued a decree prohibiting all Christians, on pain of

ecclesiastical censure, from selling any kinds of food to Jews, the

king countermanded the interdict. Whilst the French Jews were being

robbed and massacred by the crowds of crusaders, Henry exerted himself

to prevent the spreading of this spirit of fanaticism over his domains.

But this considerate treatment of the Jews did not last long. Henry III

was of a reckless, thoughtless nature, and very extravagant. He lent

a ready ear to all that his friends advised. He was especially guided

by the legates and financial agents of the pope, who had been sent to

loot this rich land, and who, like a long-enduring epidemic, caused

much injury to England, and stirred up revolts and civil war. On the

one hand, he was in great need of a very large sum of money, and on the

other, the influence of the Church was continually growing stronger. In

order to replenish his almost empty coffers, Henry levied a poll-tax

upon the Jews, even upon newly-born infants. A portion of every debt

contracted between Jews and Christians was to be paid into the royal

treasury. The bonds for debts owing to Jews were therefore registered

and examined with suspicious care, lest an attempt be made to defraud

his majesty. The bonds had to be attested by several witnesses, and a

copy of them deposited in the city archives. The ordinary Jew-taxes,

however, did not long satisfy the king, who was involved in debt, and

very lavish in his expenditure. Enormous sums were extracted from the

congregations, now under one pretext, now under another. The clergy

furnished the opportunities. Sometimes the Jews were accused of making

away with their baptized brethren, and of circumcising Christian

boys. Upon such charges, individuals or even whole congregations were

cast into prison, and released only on payment of a heavy ransom. All

this, however, presents no novel features. Something entirely new and

original was done when the king summoned a Jewish Parliament. He issued

writs to all the English communities, commanding the larger ones to

return six representatives from among their distinguished men, and the

smaller ones two, who were to assemble before the king, in Worcester,

on the Sunday before Lent. The Jewish Parliament in Worcester numbered

over one hundred members. The king in his message stated that they were

to take counsel together for their own and his majesty's welfare. But

it is scarcely possible that the Jews allowed themselves to be lulled

by the deceptive promise that liberties would be conceded to them.

Henry assembled his ordinary Parliament only when he was in urgent

need of supplies. Accordingly, he informed his Jewish Parliament that

it was to collect large sums of money for him, and the Jews dared not

make any objections. Finally, the Parliament elected trustworthy men to

assess the money for each congregation, and to see to its payment. If

the apportioned sums of money were not forthcoming, the collectors were

made answerable, on penalty of imprisonment of themselves, their wives,

and their families. When at length, Henry had extorted enough from the

Jews, and a feeling of shame prevented him from demanding any more

money from them, he pledged them, on certain conditions, to his brother

Richard, who had even less consideration for them.

The Church now began her canonical extortions and cruelties. The clergy

prevailed on the king, who was their puppet, to prohibit the Jews

from erecting any new house of prayer; they were not to utter their

prayers aloud in their synagogues, and especially they were to wear the

conspicuous Jew-badge on their garments. Many other enactments to a

similar effect were passed. The life of the Jews became so intolerable

by reason of this double tyranny of Church and State, that their chief

rabbi Elias, together with a few colleagues, twice declared to the

king, in the name of the congregations, that they could not pay the

taxes that were continually being demanded from them, and they must

ask leave to quit the country. However sorry they might be to depart

from their native land and to forsake their homes, they preferred it to

the miserable condition in which they now were. But it was of no avail.

The Jews were obliged to remain in England against their will; they

were forced to surrender their last farthing, and to resort to usury in

order to replenish their coffers. An account, which is still extant,

gives some idea of the exactions made by Henry III. The Jews were

required to collect within seven years the sum of £422,000 sterling.

One Jew, Aaron of York, was compelled to pay to the king, in seven

years, the sum of 30,000 marks of silver, besides 200 marks of gold

to the queen. As the chief rabbi Elias was not sufficiently severe in

raising money for the king, Henry deposed him, and granted the Jews the

privilege, on payment of a certain sum, of electing their own spiritual

leaders.

Meanwhile, in England also, the usual charge of child-murder was made

against the Jews. The Dominicans, with their poisonous eloquence,

zealously called for their punishment. Several of them were thrown into

prison; but they were freed by the Franciscans. Matthew Paris, the

malicious chronicler of the period, remarks, concerning the affair,

"Dame Rumor has it that the Minorites' friendship for the Jews was

bought by a bribe." This statement does not, indeed, go to prove

the guilt of the Jews in the charge of child-murder, but that the

Franciscans had for once permitted themselves to be bought for a just

cause. The constant agitation of the fanatical Dominicans against the

Jews had filled the people with deep hatred against this race. At the

time when the Commons were admitted by law as the Third Estate, and

rose against the despotic rule of the monarch, they made an attack

upon the Jews in London, pillaged their treasures, and murdered 1500

of them (Easter week, 1264). The surviving Jews fled for safety to

the Tower, where the king granted them his protection; their houses,

however, fell into the hands of the plundering barons. The Jews became

so impoverished by these assaults that they were not able to pay the

ordinary taxes, and Henry was obliged to remit payment for the space

of three years, in order to avoid reducing them to a state of total

destitution (1268). Besides, the king and the Parliament forbade their

buying fee estates, or, in general, real property from Christian owners

(1270).

Superficially compared with their brethren in England, France and

Germany, the Jews in Spain at this time appeared to be living in

paradise. In Castile, Alfonso X (1252-1284), who was called the Wise,

even by his contemporaries, was king. He had a veritable and strong

affection for science, and encouraged its pursuit. He emulated the

fame of his Mahometan predecessors, Abderrahman III and Alhakem.

His father, Ferdinand the Holy--a title always synonymous with the

Intolerant--was not particularly gracious towards the Jews, but the

son, who in no respect was in accord with him, appeared desirous of

pursuing another course of action. In the war against Seville, which

he conducted whilst still heir-apparent, there were many Jewish

soldiers in his army. When this city was captured, and the district

was being partitioned among the warriors, the Infante Alfonso looked

well to the interests of his Jewish allies. He allotted to them certain

lands, where they might form a village exclusively Jewish (Aldea de

los Judios). He transferred three mosques, which they turned into

synagogues, to the Jews of Seville. The latter had probably helped him

in the capture of the city, as they had been very wretched under the

rule of the Almohades, having been compelled to live as Mahometans. A

large portion of the town, which was separated from the rest of the

city by a wall, belonged to them (under the name of Parternilla de

los Judios). Out of gratitude towards the victor, the congregation of

Seville presented him with a valuable, artistically wrought key, with

a Hebrew and Spanish inscription, which ran as follows:--"The King of

kings opens, the king of the land will enter." When Alfonso ascended

the throne, he entrusted many important official positions to the Jews.

Don Meïr de Malea, who was a cultured man, and a student of the Talmud,

was treasurer to this monarch, and bore the title of Almoxarif. He

appears to have performed his functions in this office in so excellent

a manner that his son, Don Zag (Isaac), succeeded him in the position.

It became the custom in Castile for a long space of time to select Jews

as Chancellors of the Exchequer, not only because they were better

informed on financial matters than the Spanish hidalgos, but because

they managed in a more trustworthy and skilful manner. Many other Jews

were admitted to the court of Alfonso. He employed a Jewish physician,

Don Judah ben Moses Cohen, who at the same time was his astronomer

and astrologer. The king, who was himself engaged in the study of

astrology and alchemy to a great extent, had astronomical works, and a

book upon the qualities of certain stones, translated by learned Jews,

from Arabic into Castilian. At this period, as in earlier times, there

were very few Christian scholars acquainted with Arabic, although they

were surrounded by Arabs, and the Jews here, as in most places, had to

furnish the means of communication. Churchmen who had not forgotten

their Latin then translated the Castilian version made by the Jews into

the language of the Church. The king was accustomed to call the reader

of prayers in the synagogue of Toledo "his sage." This man was Don Zag

(Isaac) Ibn-Said (Sid), one of the most distinguished astronomers

of his age. Alfonso commissioned this precentor, Don Zag, to draw up

astronomical tables, which work renders the name of this sovereign more

famous than his warlike deeds and his political wisdom. Up to the time

of the recent discoveries in astronomy, those engaged in this study

made use of the "Tables of Alfonso," which more appropriately should be

termed the tables of Zag or of Said. There was a third Jewish scientist

at the court of Alfonso, Samuel Halevi, whose name is associated with

an ingenious water-clock, which he invented, and fashioned at the order

of the king. The representatives of the Church were naturally very much

incensed that the Jews held these important positions at court, and

the Pope Nicholas III thereupon, with characteristic selfishness and

presumption, reproached the king with a long list of sins, and pointed

out that many evils arose because Jews were preferred to Christians.

However, although Alfonso admitted many cultured and able Jews to

court, and employed their talents, yet the condition of the Jews of

Castile under his rule was by no means so favorable as one might at

first sight expect. Alfonso was not altogether free from the prejudices

of his time. The spirit of hatred of the Jews, which had been stirred

up by Innocent III, had taken its hold upon him, as upon Emperor

Frederick II, whose place he had been elected to fill by a certain

faction. Alfonso deserved the honorable title of "the Wise" only in a

limited sense, seeing that he acted very unwisely in political matters,

and in his relations with the Church was by no means so enlightened

as Frederick II. As a favor to the clergy, or because he was a bigot,

he placed many restrictions upon the Jews, and reduced them to a

degraded condition. It is not quite certain whether the Visigothic

collection of laws (called Forum Judicum, fuero juzgo) was translated

into Castilian by Alfonso or by his father. From this collection the

Spaniards acquired their ineradicable hatred against the Jews. Whether

Alfonso is responsible for this or not, it is nevertheless well known

that he aimed at reducing the Jews to a miserable state by a series of

enactments of his own.

He compiled for all the peoples of his kingdom a bulky code of laws,

divided into seven groups, and written in Castilian (1257-1266). In

this work there are many references to the Jews, in fact a whole

section of the code treats solely of them. It is there stated:

"Although the Jews deny Christ, they are suffered in all Christian

countries, so that they may remind everybody that they belong to that

race which crucified Jesus. Since they are merely tolerated, they

must keep themselves quiet and unobtrusive, must not openly preach

the doctrines of Judaism, nor attempt to make any converts to their

religion." The law of Alfonso attached the penalty of death to the

conversion of a Christian to Judaism. It asserts that in ancient times

the Jews were held in respect, and called the people of God, but by

their wickedness against Jesus, they had forfeited this distinction,

and no Jew was ever to obtain any dignity or fill any public office in

Spain. Alfonso included in his code of laws every possible restriction

which fanaticism and hatred had ever devised against the Jews. They

were prohibited from building new synagogues, from having Christian

servants, and from intermarriage with Christians. Jews and Jewesses

were to wear a peculiar mark upon their head-dress, and any person who

was seen without this mark was condemned to pay a fine of ten pieces

of gold, or if he was poor, to receive ten stripes with the scourge.

Jews and Christians were not to take their meals together, nor bathe

in company. Alfonso also incorporated the ordinance that Jews should

not appear in the public streets on Good Friday. The wise Alfonso

gave credence to the lying story that the Jews every year, on Good

Friday, crucified a Christian child, and therefore framed a law that

whoever was found guilty of this crime, or whoever crucified a wax

figure on this day, should be put to death. In vain had Pope Innocent

IV declared the falsehood of this accusation, and proved the innocence

of the Jews. When a pope was heard to speak in a favorable manner of

the Jews, his infallibility was discredited, even by a cultured monarch

who held intercourse with Jews. It is hard to believe that the king who

kept a private Jewish physician promulgated a law to the effect that

no Christian should take any medicine prepared by a Jew. It must be

considered a great concession to the Jews, that Alfonso decreed that

their synagogues were not to be profaned or dishonored, that they were

not to be coerced to undergo baptism, were not to be summoned before a

court of justice on their festivals, and were simply to take the oath

upon the Torah, without any further degrading ceremony, such as was

sometimes added in Germany.

The laws of Alfonso with regard to the Jews had no practical importance

for the time being; his code obtained the force of law only at a much

later date. Alfonso himself transgressed the very laws concerning the

Jews which he had laid down, when he permitted Jews to hold offices

of trust. Nevertheless, his collection of laws exercised a most

prejudicial effect upon the Jews of Spain. It set up the canonical

standard as that of the state, and contributed towards transforming

their paradise into a veritable hell. The laws of Alfonso are in force

at the present day in Spanish America, whilst his astronomical tables

have been forgotten.

The Jews in the kingdom of Aragon suffered even worse treatment than

those of Castile. Here, two influences were at work, making their

condition a most humiliating one. The king Jayme (Jacob I), who

reigned for a long time, had possessions in the south of France, and

often came into contact with the bigoted St. Louis and his councilors.

From them he acquired the theory of the proper treatment of Jews. He

also looked upon them, with all their possessions, as the chattels of

the sovereign, his "servi cameræ," serfs. No Jew was allowed to place

himself under the protection of a nobleman. There was an advantage in

this: it withdrew the Jews from the jurisdiction of the clergy. A law

was made by Jayme which expressly stated that the Jews were not to

be treated either as prisoners or as slaves. They were nevertheless

exposed to the arbitrary action of the reigning sovereign, which was

not limited by any law or custom. The second pernicious influence

emanated from the Church and its blind zealots. The general of the

Dominicans was Raymond de Penyaforte, the collector of the papal

decretals, the precursor of Torquemada, whose whole soul was absorbed

by the task of elevating the power of the papacy and of the infallible

Church above that of the state. This gloomy and evil-minded monk was

the confessor of King Jayme. The king of Aragon had loved much, and

sinned greatly, and was thus in constant need of his father-confessor,

and dependent on him; and though he did not always obey his will,

in his treatment of Jews and Mahometans, he did his bidding gladly.

The main purpose of Penyaforte's exertions was to convert Jews and

Mahometans. In the higher schools, conducted by the Dominicans,

Penyaforte had also Hebrew and Arabic taught, so that the preaching

friars might use their knowledge of those languages in effecting

conversions.

A young man of this order, named Pablo Christiani, a baptized Jew,

who was like Nicholas-Donin in disposition, was the first missionary

preacher for the conversion of the Jews. He journeyed about in the

south of France and in other places, invited the Jews to enter into

discussion with him, and sought to demonstrate to them that the

Messianic character and the divinity of Jesus were confirmed in the

Bible and the Talmud. As his mission was crowned with little or no

success, De Penyaforte resolved on arranging a public disputation on

the relative merits of Judaism and Christianity at the royal court,

between Pablo Christiani and Moses Nachmani, the most famous rabbi in

Spain. If the rabbi was converted, Penyaforte hoped to effect without

any difficulty the wholesale acknowledgment by the Jewish communities

of the truths of the Christian faith. Nachmani received a letter of

invitation from King Jayme to come to Barcelona and enter upon a solemn

discussion (1263).

Nachmani made his appearance, and, contrary to his desire, was

obliged to declare himself willing to take part in the disputation.

However, he did it with dignity, and represented the religion of his

fathers before a Christian king in as honorable a manner as Philo of

Alexandria had done twelve hundred years before, in the presence of a

heathen emperor. At the outset Nachmani told Jayme and his confessor

Penyaforte that he was ready to take part in this contest only on the

condition that complete freedom of speech be granted him, so that he

might meet his opponent on a footing of equality. The king consented

to this stipulation. When Penyaforte thereupon remarked that he must

not avail himself of this liberty of speech to revile and blaspheme

Christianity, he replied, with dignity, that he knew the rules of

common courtesy. The discussion between Nachmani and Pablo Christiani,

if compared with that between Yechiel and Nicholas-Donin, clearly

reveals the superiority of the Spanish Jews over their brethren of

northern France. The rabbi of Paris and the Dominican Donin fought

like two fierce pugilists, assailing each other with heavy blows of

the fist, accompanied by words of abuse; the rabbi of Gerona and the

Dominican Pablo, on the other hand, met like two cultured noblemen, who

dealt blows with an air of politeness, and with due observance of the

etiquette of refined society.

This disputation at Barcelona lasted for four days (beginning on

the 20th July). It took place in the palace of the king, and in the

presence of the whole court and of many distinguished ecclesiastics,

knights and citizens. Many Jews were probably among the audience.

Nachmani at the very beginning clearly defined the points to be

discussed. The points of difference between Judaism and Christianity

were so numerous, he remarked, that it was advisable to pay attention

only to the most essential among them. The topics of discussion which

he suggested were, first, whether the Messiah had appeared or not;

next, whether the Messiah, according to the prophecies of the Bible,

was to be considered as God, or as a man born of human parents; and

finally, whether the Jews or the Christians were in possession of the

true faith. The king and all those interested in the matter expressed

their approval of this proposed plan. It is peculiar that whilst

Nicholas-Donin accused the Talmud on the ground that it contained

scurrilous attacks upon Jesus and the Christians, Pablo Christiani

based his argument on the opposite contention, that the Talmud

recognized Jesus as the Messiah. This statement it was, of course,

easy for Nachmani to refute. Pablo's chief proof rested upon Agadic

passages, but Nachmani had at the beginning of the discussion carefully

guarded against this method of attack, by emphatically asserting that

he did not believe in these and other Agadic stories. The Dominican

now declared that an interpretation such as he suggested was heresy,

as though he knew better than the rabbi what was orthodox in Judaism

and what infidelity. His Jewish antagonist, however, would not allow

himself to be disconcerted by such remarks, and said in justification

of his position that it behoved a Jew to believe in the truth of the

Bible and in the exposition of the Talmud in all points of religious

practice; but, on the other hand, he was perfectly at liberty to reject

or accept the Agadic interpretations, which were to be regarded only

as sermons (sermones), as they were conformable or opposed to his

views. Nachmani made another bold remark. He said "that he had more

regard for the Christian monarch than for the Messiah." This statement

he justified by saying that it was more meritorious for himself and

for all Jews to keep the precepts of their religion whilst under a

Christian ruler, in exile, and suffering humiliation and abuse, than to

observe them when dwelling in prosperity and freedom under a powerful

Jewish king. The Messiah was to be regarded as nothing more than a

king of flesh and blood. Nachmani did not neglect to bring forward

an important objection to the Messianic character of Jesus, which

had been employed by ancient polemical writers. All the prophets had

foretold, that at the time of the Messiah a more elevated standard of

morality would prevail among mankind, and especially that all war and

bloodshed would cease. But since the appearance of Jesus, the world had

really become filled with violence and injustice. The Christians were

considered to be the most warlike among the nations, that is to say,

the people that shed most blood. Then turning to the king, Nachmani

said, "It behoves thee, and thy knights, O king, to put an end to all

thy war-making, as the beginning of the Messianic era demands."

When Nachmani had been debating for three days, with candor combined

with dignity, about the doctrines of Christianity, the Jews of

Barcelona entreated him to break off the disputation, as they feared

the persecution of the Dominicans. Many knights and clergymen also

warned him against being carried too far by his frankness. The

Christian inhabitants of Barcelona interested themselves in behalf

of the Jews, and desired to avoid all provocation. Nachmani told the

king of the feeling that prevailed, but he wished the disputation

to continue. The intellectual tournament was therefore resumed.

Nachmani finally proved victorious, as Pablo could not cope with his

well-directed arguments. At the end of the discussion, the king said

to Nachmani in a private audience, that he had never heard so unjust a

matter defended so skilfully. The Dominicans, however, sought to spread

the report that Pablo Christiani had contrived to outwit his opponent

so cleverly that the latter, overwhelmed with shame, had secretly fled.

So far from running away, Nachmani remained in Barcelona for another

week, as a rumor had got abroad that his majesty and the Dominicans

intended to visit the synagogue on the following Saturday. They did

really appear in the synagogue, and Penyaforte resumed the disputation

there. He illustrated the doctrine of the Trinity by wine, which

possesses the qualities of color, taste and smell, and is yet a unity.

It was an easy task for Nachmani to offer a complete reply to these

and similar analogies, and he at last drove the confessor of the king

to make the dangerous acknowledgment that the idea of the Trinity was

so profound a mystery that even the angels were unable to comprehend

it. Thereupon Nachmani remarked, "If this is really the case, then no

reproach ought to be made to men, if they cannot surpass the angels

in wisdom." Before his departure, Nachmani was again admitted to an

audience with the king, and dismissed with a friendly farewell. The

king gave him three hundred maravedis as a mark of respect.

The consequences of this disputation at Barcelona were by no means

harmless. De Penyaforte was resolved upon compassing the conversion

of the Jews, and permitted nothing to turn him from his fixed

determination. He obtained from King Jayme a letter of protection

which would enable his protégé Pablo Christiani to go on long

missionary journeys, and thus the Jews were exposed to the caprice of

the Jewish Dominican friar. What had failed of success in Barcelona,

with an antagonist like Nachmani, might perhaps be successful in

other places with less skilful opponents. Strict commands were issued

to the congregations in Aragon, and in the adjoining districts of

southern France, to enter into discussion with Pablo Christiani at his

invitation. The Jews were to listen to him quietly, either in their

synagogues or wherever they chanced to be, to answer his questions

meekly, and to hand over to him all such books as he required for his

demonstrations. They were also to defray the expenses of his mission.

The despair of the Jews at such demands may well be imagined. Whether

victorious or defeated, they were subjected to torments and extortion.

As in spite of the protection granted to him by the king, Pablo

Christiani did not meet with a hearty welcome among his former

co-religionists, he followed in the footsteps of Nicholas-Donin, and

denounced the Talmud, asserting that it contained passages of hostile

import directed against Jesus and Mary. He went to Pope Clement

IV, and repeated to him the charges against the Talmud. The pope,

at his request, issued a bull (1264) to the Bishop of Tarragona,

commanding him to confiscate copies of the Talmud, and to submit them

to the examination of the Dominicans and Franciscans; if found to be

blasphemous, they were to be burnt. Pablo Christiani, the apostate, in

person brought this bull to Spain. Thereupon King Jayme ordered (1264)

that the Talmud be examined, and the passages containing abuse and

slander be struck out. The duty of acting as censors was entrusted to

the Bishop of Barcelona, De Penyaforte, and to three other Dominicans,

together with Pablo Christiani. This commission marked the passages in

the Talmud which were to be obliterated, and thus for the first time

censorship was exercised by the Dominicans against the Talmud in Spain.

The censorship was on the whole less destructive in Aragon than in

France, where the whole Talmud was condemned to the flames. The reason

of this comparative mildness was explained by the fact that Raymond

Martin, a member of the Dominican order and of the board of censors,

and the writer of two anti-Jewish works, was convinced that several

passages in the Talmud bore witness to the truth of Christianity, and

were certainly traditions derived from Moses, and that therefore the

Talmud should not be utterly destroyed.

The hurtful effects of the disputation of Nachmani have not yet been

enumerated. They even affected the man himself, who was the accredited

representative of Spanish Judaism in the post-Maimunic age. Nachmani

found himself obliged to publish, for his co-religionists, a true and

accurate report of the proceedings at Barcelona, in order to oppose

the missionary machinations of Pablo Christiani, and to rebuke the

unjustifiable vainglory of the Dominicans over the victory, which they

declared that they had gained at the disputation held at the court.

He made no secret of the matter, but gave a copy of his pamphlet to

the Bishop of Gerona, and as the latter raised no objection, copies of

the account of this disputation were dispatched to various countries

where Jews dwelt (about 1264). As might have been expected, Nachmani by

this proceeding drew down upon himself the still fiercer hatred of the

Dominicans. Pablo Christiani, who obtained a report of the disputation,

and who understood Hebrew, selected from it passages that contained

gross blasphemies against the Christian religion, and notified De

Penyaforte, his superior, the fanatical general of the Dominicans, of

them. The latter then, in conjunction with a brother friar, instituted

a capital charge, and lodged a formal complaint with the king against

the author and his work. Don Jayme was obliged to assent to the charge;

but he did not entrust the trial to a court composed of Dominicans,

but called together an extraordinary commission, and invited Nachmani

(or as he was called by the Christians, Bonastruc de Porta) to

defend himself, and ordered that the proceedings be conducted in his

presence. Nachmani was in a very unpleasant position, but his staunch

truthfulness did not fail him. He admitted that he had stated many

things against Christianity in his pamphlet, but he had written nothing

which he had not used in his disputation in the presence of the king;

and he had asked from the king and the general of the Dominicans for

liberty of speech to utter these things, and had obtained permission.

He ought not to be made answerable and condemned for expressions in his

written account which had remained unrebuked in his oral defense.

The king and the commission acknowledged the justice of his

vindication; nevertheless, in order to avoid provoking the order of the

Dominicans or De Penyaforte, Nachmani was sentenced to exile from his

native land for two years, and his pamphlet was condemned to be burnt.

The Inquisition had not yet attained an all-powerful position. The

Dominicans were, however, by no means satisfied with this comparatively

mild sentence, as they had expected a much more severe punishment.

It appears that they intended to summon Nachmani before their own

tribunal, where they would undoubtedly have condemned him to death.

King Jayme offered energetic opposition to this project. He gave to

Nachmani a sort of charter, which stated that he could be accused

in this matter only in the presence of the king (April, 1265). The

Dominicans were naturally very much enraged at the mildness of the

king, and at the apparent encroachment on their judicial prerogative

to decide upon questions of life and death. They appealed to Pope

Clement IV, complaining that the king had permitted the author of a

pamphlet which grossly insulted Christianity to go unpunished. The

pope, who at that time was harboring other grudges against the king of

Aragon, addressed a very severe epistle to him. He upbraided him for a

number of sins, ordering him to deprive Jews of public offices, and to

inflict heavy punishment on that arch-villain who, after taking part

in a religious discussion, had published a pamphlet as a trophy of his

heresy (1266). It cannot be fully ascertained whether the king obeyed

the pope regarding Nachmani or not, or what his sentence was. At any

rate, it appears that one punishment was meted out to him, namely,

that he was to be banished from the country. At the age of seventy,

Nachmani left his fatherland, his two sons, his school and his friends,

and went into exile. He made his way to the Holy Land, being filled

with the same intense longing as his spiritual kinsman, Jehuda Halevi.

He went a step further than the latter, maintaining that it is the

religious duty of every Jew to dwell in Judæa. Thus fate had done him

a kindness, assisting him in the performance of a command, and helping

him to fulfil his ardent desire. He set out on his journey by ship, and

landed at Jean d'Acre (1267), which at that time was still in the hands

of the Christians. Thence he made haste to start for Jerusalem (9th

Ellul--12th August).

Nachmani's feelings were deeply stirred on beholding the condition

of the Holy Land and the Sacred City. He suffered even keener

disappointment than Jehuda Halevi. The Mongols or Tartars, under the

Sultan Hulagu, had committed fearful ravages in the land a few years

previously (1260). This savage monarch, after conquering the eastern

Caliphate, had turned his attention to the Sultanate of Egypt, captured

the fortresses on the Euphrates, Damascus, Aleppo, and Baalbek, and

forced his way into Palestine. Jerusalem was transformed into a heap

of ruins; all its inhabitants had forsaken it (1260). The Jews had

connected these extraordinary events with their hopes for the Messiah.

The "hateful, deformed men of the East," who had subdued both the

oppressors of Israel, the followers of Jesus and of Mahomet, might

perhaps bring near unto Israel the hour of redemption. An enthusiast

circulated a new revelation said to have been given through Simon bar

Yochaï, the medium so frequently appealed to by mysticism, and it

declared that the devastations of the Mongols were the sufferings which

must precede the coming of the Messiah.

Nachmani entered Palestine a few years after the Mongols had been

expelled from the country by the Sultan of Egypt. He beheld many ruins,

and apostrophized them in eloquent words, saying, "The more holy the

place, the greater its desolation; Jerusalem is more desolate than

the rest of Judæa, and Judæa in turn more desolate than Galilee." The

Jews of the Holy City had either been slain or scattered; the scrolls

of the Law had been rescued by some who fled to Shechem. Two thousand

Mahometans and three hundred Christians had again settled in Jerusalem,

but only one or two Jewish families were discovered there by Nachmani,

and, as before, they enjoyed the privilege of farming the dye-works.

The Jewish pilgrims, who had come to Jerusalem from Syria, erected a

synagogue at Nachmani's suggestion. Upon Mount Olivet, opposite the

ruins of the Temple, Nachmani breathed forth his deep distress over

the desolation of the Holy City; but it was not the song of Zion that

arose from his excited mind. Nachmani did not possess that divine gift

of grace, the poetical genius of Jehuda Halevi, the fancy that is able

to re-people deserts, re-establish destroyed kingdoms, chasten sorrow,

and ease the heart from pain. He uttered his lament in the verses of

other poets.

This exile from Spain did not rest content with erecting synagogues

and organizing congregations in the land which for a long time had

been his spiritual home, but he also founded in it a home for the

study of Jewish science, which had died out there since the conquest

of Jerusalem by the crusaders. He gathered a circle of pupils around

him, and people came in crowds even from the district of the Euphrates

to hear him. Even Karaites are said to have sat at his feet, as for

instance Aaron ben Joseph the Elder, who became famous in later

times. Although he was no friend of free scientific thought, and

thoroughly adhered to Talmudic Judaism, yet Nachmani, as a son of

Spain, had obtained sufficient general culture to fertilize the desert

of the Oriental Jews. Even his theory of the Kabbala, which he first

transplanted into Palestine, where it afterwards spread far and wide,

had at least the merit of presenting new points of view, of which

his co-religionists, either on account of their ignorance or their

partiality for the Talmud, had no idea. He strove at least to explain

the irrational in a rational manner, and thus combated stupidity and

indifference. He was particularly successful in arousing an interest in

the exposition of Holy Writ, of which the Oriental Jews were entirely

ignorant. With this end in view, Nachmani composed his Commentary

to the Bible, and especially his chief work, the Exposition of the

Pentateuch. In this work he brought into play his peculiar genius,

his warm and tender disposition, his power of clear thinking, and

his mystical dreams. Like numberless men before and after him, he

discovered his own philosophy in this Book of books, and interpreted

it from his point of view. He did not make much of the Kabbala in his

Commentaries; merely touched upon it lightly. But precisely by his

careless allusions, he magnified its importance. Narrow, enthusiastic

minds searched eagerly for the hidden meaning of these suggestions, and

took more notice of Nachmani's Kabbalistic hints, than of the clear

ideas to be found in his work.

Nachmani's method of exegesis did not altogether escape the reproach

of his contemporaries, chiefly because in his Commentary he made

attacks upon Maimuni, and spoke still more violently against Ibn-Ezra.

A devotee of philosophy and two enthusiastic students of it wrote

a refutation of his works, prefacing it by a satire, in which the

mysticism of Nachmani was especially made ridiculous. Pious men, on the

other hand, held him in high honor as a particularly orthodox rabbi,

and just as his Talmudical works were diligently read and used, so his

Commentary became a favorite study of the mystics.

During his three years' stay in Palestine, Nachmani kept up a

correspondence with his native land, whereby Judæa and Spain were

brought into closer connection. He sent copies of his works to his sons

and friends, and gave them descriptions of the condition of their ever

unhappy ancestral country. He thus once again awoke an ardent longing

for the Holy Land, and induced several persons of an enthusiastic turn

of mind to emigrate thither. Nachmani died after having passed the age

of seventy (about 1270), and his remains were interred in Chaifa, next

to the grave of Yechiel of Paris, his companion in misfortune, who had

gone into exile before him.

Nachmani exercised more effect upon his contemporaries and the

succeeding age by his personality than by his writings. His numerous

pupils, among whom the most renowned was Solomon ben Adret, made the

teaching of Nachmani predominant among the Spanish Jews. Inspirited

and unwavering attachment to Judaism, a deep regard for the Talmud and

complete resignation to its decrees, a dilettante knowledge of the

science of the time and of philosophy, the recognition of the Kabbala

as extremely ancient tradition, to which was given respect, but not

research, these are the distinctly characteristic traits of the Spanish

rabbis, and of the representatives of Judaism in the succeeding age.

Henceforth Spanish rabbis seldom occupied themselves with philosophy or

with any other branch of learning, or even with the exposition of the

Bible. Their minds were devoted only to the Talmud, whilst the sciences

were cultivated only by non-rabbinical scholars. The simple method of

Biblical interpretation taught by Ibn-Ezra and Kimchi was completely

neglected.