THE INNER LIFE OF POLISH JEWRY AT ITS ZENITH
1. KAHAL AUTONOMY AND THE JEWISH DIETS
The peculiar position occupied by the Jews in Poland made their social
autonomy both necessary and possible. Constituting an historical
nationality, with an inner life of its own, the Jews were segregated by
the Government as a separate estate, an independent social body. Though
forming an integral part of the urban population, the Jews were not
officially included in any one of the general urban estates, whose
affairs were administered by the magistracy or the trade-unions. Nor
were they subjected to the jurisdiction of Christian law courts as far
as their internal affairs were concerned. They formed an entirely
independent class of citizens, and as such were in need of independent
agencies of self-government and jurisdiction. The Jewish community
constituted not only a national and cultural, but also a civil, entity.
It formed a Jewish city within a Christian city, with its separate forms
of life, its own religious, administrative, judicial, and charitable
institutions. The Government of a country with sharply divided estates
could not but legalize the autonomy of the Jewish Kahal, after having
legalized the Magdeburg Law of the Christian urban estates, in which the
Germans constituted the predominating element. As for the kings, in
their capacity as the official "guardians" of the Jews, they were
especially concerned in having the Kahals properly organized, since the
regular payment of the Jewish taxes was thereby assured. Moreover, the
Government found it more to its convenience to deal with a well-defined
body of representatives than with the unorganized masses.
As early as the period of royal "paternalism," during the reign of
Sigismund I., the king endeavored to extend his fatherly protection to
the Jewish system of communal self-government. The appointment of
Michael Yosefovich as the "senior" of the Lithuanian Jews, with a rabbi
as expert adviser[65], was designed to safeguard the interests of the
exchequer by concentrating the power in the hands of a federation of
Kahals in Lithuania. On more than one occasion Sigismund I. confirmed
the "spiritual judges," or rabbis (_judices spirituales_, _doctores
legis_), elected by the Jews in different parts of Poland, in their
office. In 1518 he ratified, at the request of the Jews of Posen, their
election of two leading rabbis, Moses and Mendel, to the posts of
provincial judges for all the communities of Great Poland, bestowing
upon the newly-elected officials the right of instructing and judging
their coreligionists in accordance with the Jewish law. In Cracow, where
the Jews were divided into two separate communities--one of native
Polish Jews and another of immigrants from Bohemia,--the King empowered
each of them to elect its own rabbi. The choice fell upon Rabbi Asher
for the former, and upon Rabbi Peretz for the latter, community, and
when a dispute arose between the two communities as to the ownership of
the old synagogue, the King again intervened, and decided the case in
favor of the native community (1519). In 1531 Mendel Frank, the rabbi of
Brest, complained to the King that the Jews did not always respect his
decisions, and brought their cases before the royal starostas.
Accordingly Sigismund I. thought it necessary to warn the Jews to submit
to the jurisdiction of their own "doctors," or rabbis, who dispensed
justice according to the "Jewish law," and were given the right of
imposing the "oath" (_herem_, excommunication) and all kinds of other
penalties upon insubordinates. In the following year the King appointed
as "senior," or chief rabbi, of Cracow the well-known scholar Moses
Fishel--who, it may be added parenthetically, had taken the degree of
Doctor of Medicine in Padua--to succeed Rabbi Asher, referred to
previously. Pursuing the same policy of centralization, the King, a few
years later, in 1541, confirmed in their office as chief rabbis
(_seniores_) of the whole province of Little Poland two men "learned in
the Jewish law," the same Rabbi Moses Fishel of Cracow, and the famous
progenitor of Polish Talmudism, Rabbi Shalom Shakhna of Lublin.
In the same measure, however, in which the communal organization of the
Jews gained in strength, and the functions of the rabbis and Kahal
elders became more clearly defined, the Government gradually receded
from its attitude of paternal interference. The _magna charta_ of Jewish
autonomy may be said to be represented by the charter of Sigismund
Augustus, issued on August 13, 1551, which embodies the fundamental
principles of self-government for the Jewish communities of Great
Poland.
According to this charter, the Jews are entitled to elect, by general
agreement,[66] their own rabbis and "lawful judges" to take charge of
their spiritual and social affairs. The rabbis and judges, elected in
this manner, are authorized to expound all questions of the religious
ritual, to perform marriages and grant divorces, to execute the transfer
of property and other acts of a civil character, and to settle disputes
between Jews in accordance with the "Mosaic law" (_iuxta ritum et morem
legis illorum Mosaicae_) and the supplementary Jewish legislation. In
conjunction with the Kahal elders they are empowered to subject
offenders against the law to excommunication and other punishments, such
as the Jewish customs may prescribe. In case the person punished in this
manner does not recant within a month, the matter is to be brought to
the knowledge of the king, who may sentence the incorrigible malefactor
to death and confiscate his property. The local officers of the king are
enjoined to lend their assistance in carrying out the orders of the
rabbis and elders.
This enactment, coupled with a number of similar charters, which were
subsequently promulgated for various provinces of Poland, conferred upon
the elective representatives of the Jewish communities extensive
autonomy in economic and administrative as well as judicial affairs, at
the same time insuring its practical realization by placing at its
disposal the power of the royal administration.
The firm consolidation of the _régime_ of the self-governing community,
the _Kahal_, dates from that period. In this appellation two concepts
were merged: the "community," the aggregate of the local Jews, on the
one hand, and, on the other, the "communal administration," representing
the totality of all the Jewish institutions of a given locality,
including the rabbinate. The activity of the Kahals assumed particularly
large proportions beginning with the latter half of the sixteenth
century.
All cities and towns with a Jewish population had their separate Kahal
boards. Their size corresponded roughly to that of the given community.
In large centers the membership of the Kahal board amounted to forty;
in smaller towns it was limited to ten. The members of the Kahal were
elected annually during the intermediate days of Passover. As a rule the
election proceeded according to a double-graded system. Several electors
(_borerim_), their number varying from nine to five, were appointed by
lot from among the members of all synagogues, and these electors, after
taking a solemn oath, chose the Kahal elders. The elders were divided
into groups. Two of these, the _rashim_ and _tubim_ (the "heads" and
"optimates"), stood at the head of the administration, and were in
charge of the general affairs of the community. They were followed by
the _dayyanim_, or judges, and the _gabbaim_, or directors, who managed
the synagogues as well as the educational and charitable institutions.
The _rashim_ and _tubim_ formed the nucleus of the Kahal, seven of them
making a quorum; in the smaller communities they were practically
identical with the Kahal board.
The sphere of the Kahal's activity was very large. Within the area
allotted to it the Kahal collected and turned over to the exchequer the
state taxes, arranged the assessment of imposts, both of a general and a
special character, took charge of the synagogues, the Talmudic
academies, the cemeteries, and other communal institutions. The Kahal
executed title-deeds on real estate, regulated the instruction of the
young, organized the affairs appertaining to charity and to commerce and
handicrafts, and with the help of the _dayyanim_ and the rabbi settled
disputes between the members of the community. As for the rabbi, while
exercising unrestricted authority in religious affairs, he was in all
else dependent on the Kahal board, which invited him to his post for a
definite term. Only great authorities, far-famed on account of their
Talmudic erudition, were able to assert their influence in all
departments of communal life.
The Kahal of each city extended its authority to the adjacent
settlements and villages which did not possess autonomous organizations
of their own. Moreover, the Kahals of the large centers kept under their
jurisdiction the minor Kahals, or _prikahalki_,[67] as they were
officially called, of the towns and townlets of their district, as far
as the apportionment of taxes and the judicial authority were concerned.
This gave rise to the "Kahal boroughs," or _gheliloth_ (singular,
_galil_). Often disputes arose between the Kahal boroughs as to the
boundaries of their districts, the contested minor communities
submitting now to this, now to the other, "belligerent." On the whole,
however, the moderate centralization of self-government benefited the
Jewish population, since it introduced order and discipline into the
Kahal hierarchy, and enabled it to defend the civil and national
interests of Judaism more effectively.
The capstone of this Kahal organization were the so-called _Waads_,[68]
the conferences or assemblies of rabbis and Kahal leaders. These
conferences received their original impetus from the rabbis and judges.
The rabbinical law courts, officially endowed with extensive powers,
were guided in their decisions by the legislation embodied in the Bible
and the Talmud, which made full provision for all questions of
religious, civil, and domestic life as well as for all possible
infractions of the law. Yet it was but natural that even in this
extensive system of law disputed points should arise for which the
competency of a single rabbi did not suffice. Moreover there were cases
in which the litigants appealed from the decision of one rabbinical
court to another, more authoritative, court. Finally lawsuits would
occasionally arise between groups of the population, between one
community and another, or between a private person and a Kahal board.
For such emergencies conferences of rabbis and elders would be called
from time to time as the highest court of appeal.
Beginning with the middle of the sixteenth century these conferences
met at the time of the great fairs, when large numbers of people
congregated from various places, and litigants arrived in connection
with their business affairs. The chief meeting-place was the Lublin
fair, owing to the fact that Lublin was the residence of the father of
Polish rabbinism, the above-mentioned Rabbi Shalom Shakhna, who was
officially recognized as the "senior rabbi" of Little Poland. As far
back as in the reign of Sigismund I. the "Jewish doctors," or rabbis,
met there for the purpose of settling civil disputes "according to their
law." In the latter part of the sixteenth century these conferences of
rabbis and communal leaders, assembling in connection with the Lublin
fairs, became more frequent, and led in a short time to the organization
of regular, periodic conventions, which were attended by representatives
from the principal Jewish communities of the whole of Poland.
The activity of these conferences, or conventions, passed, by gradual
expansion, from the judicial sphere into that of administration and
legislation. At these conventions laws were adopted determining the
order of Kahal elections, fixing the competency of the rabbis and
judges, granting permits for publishing books, and so forth.
Occasionally these assemblies of Jewish notables endorsed by their
authority the enactments of the Polish Government. Thus, in 1580, the
representatives of the Polish-Jewish communities, who assembled in
Lublin, gave their solemn sanction to the well-known Polish law barring
the Jews of the Crown, of Poland proper, from farming state taxes and
other public revenues, in view of the fact that "certain people,
thirsting for gain and wealth, to be obtained from extensive leases,
might thereby expose the community to great danger."
Towards the end of the sixteenth century the fair conferences received a
firmer organization. They were attended by the rabbis and Kahal
representatives of the following provinces: Great Poland (the leading
community being that of Posen), Little Poland (Cracow and Lublin), Red
Russia (Lemberg), Volhynia (Ostrog and Kremenetz), and Lithuania (Brest
and Grodno). Originally the name of the assembly varied with the number
of provinces represented in it, and it was designated as the Council of
the Three, or the Four, or the Five, Lands. Subsequently, when Lithuania
withdrew from the Polish Kahal organization, establishing a federation
of its own, and the four provinces of the Crown[69] began to send their
delegates regularly to these conferences, the name of the assembly was
ultimately fixed as "the Council of the Four Lands" (_Waad Arba
Aratzoth_).
The "Council" was made up of several leading rabbis of Poland,[70] and
of one delegate for each of the principal Kahals selected from among
their elders--the number of the conferees altogether amounting to about
thirty. They met periodically, once or twice a year, in Lublin and
Yaroslav (Galicia) alternately. As a rule, the Council assembled in
Lublin in early spring, between Purim and Passover, and in Yaroslav at
the end of the summer, before the high holidays.
The representatives of the Four Lands--says a well-known
annalist of the first half of the seventeenth
century[71]--reminded one of the Sanhedrin, which in ancient
days assembled in the Chamber of Hewn Stones (_lishkath
ha-gazith_) of the temple. They dispensed justice to all the
Jews of the Polish realm, issued preventive measures and
obligatory enactments (_takkanoth_), and imposed penalties as
they saw fit. All the difficult cases were brought before their
court. To facilitate matters the delegates of the Four Lands
appointed [a special commission of] so-called "provincial
judges" (_dayyane medinoth_) to settle disputes concerning
property, while they themselves [in plenary session] examined
criminal cases, matters appertaining to _hazaka_ (priority of
possession) and other difficult points of law.
The Council of the Four Lands was the guardian of Jewish civil interests
in Poland. It sent its _shtadlans_[72] to the residential city of
Warsaw[73] and other meeting-places of the Polish Diets for the purpose
of securing from the king and his dignitaries the ratification of the
ancient Jewish privileges, which had been violated by the local
authorities, or of forestalling contemplated restrictive laws and
increased fiscal burdens for the Jewish population.
But the main energy of the Waad was directed towards the regulation of
the inner life of the Jews. The statute of 1607, framed, at the instance
of the Waad, by Joshua Falk Cohen, Rabbi of Lublin, is typical of this
solicitude. The following rules are prescribed for the purpose of
fostering piety and commercial integrity among the Jewish people: to pay
special attention to the observance of the dietary laws, to refrain from
adopting the Christian form of dress; not to drink wine with Christians
in the pot-houses, in order not to be classed among the disreputable
members of the community; to watch over the chastity of Jewish women,
particularly in the villages where the Jewish arendars[74] with their
families were isolated in the midst of the Christian population. In the
same statute rules are also laid down tending to restrain the activities
of Jewish usurers and to regulate money credit in general.
In 1623 the Kahals of Lithuania withdrew from the federation of the Four
Lands, and established a provincial organization of their own, which was
centralized in the convention of delegates from the three principal
Kahals of Brest, Grodno, and Pinsk. Subsequently, in 1652 and 1691, the
Kahals of Vilna and Slutzk were added. The Lithuanian assembly was
generally designated as the "Council of the Principal Communities of the
Province of Lithuania" (_Waad Kehilloth Rashioth di-Medinath Lita_). The
organic statute, framed by the first Council, comprises many aspects of
the social and spiritual life of the Jews. It lays down rules concerning
the mutual relationship of the communities, the methods of apportioning
the taxes among them, the relations with the outside world (such as the
Polish Diets, the local authorities, the landed nobility, and the urban
estates), the elections of the Kahals, and the question of popular
education. The Lithuanian Waad met every three years in various cities
of Lithuania, but in cases of emergency extraordinary conventions were
called. During the first years of its existence the Lithuanian Council
was evidently subordinate to that of Poland, but at a later date this
dependence ceased.
In this way both the Crown, or Poland proper, and Lithuania had their
communal federations with central administrative agencies. As was
pointed out previously, the Polish federation was composed of four
provinces. The individual Kahals, which were the component parts of each
of these four provinces, held their own provincial assemblies, which
stood in the same relation to the Waad as the "Dietines," or provincial
Diets, of Poland, to the national Diet of the whole country.[75] Thus
the communities of Great Poland had their own Great-Polish "Dietine,"
those of Volhynia their own Volhynian "Dietine," and so forth. The
provincial Kahal conventions met for the purpose of allotting the taxes
to the individual communities of a given province, in proportion to the
size of its population, or of electing delegates to the federated
Council. These Jewish Dietines acted as the intermediate agencies of
self-government, standing half-way between the individual Kahals on the
one hand and the general Waads of the Crown and of Lithuania on the
other.
This firmly-knit organization of communal self-government could not but
foster among the Jews of Poland a spirit of discipline and obedience to
the law. It had an educational effect on the Jewish populace, which was
left by the Government to itself, and had no share in the common life of
the country. It provided the stateless nation with a substitute for
national and political self-expression, keeping public spirit and civic
virtue alive in it, and upholding and unfolding its genuine culture.
2. THE INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG
One of the mainstays of this genuine culture was the autonomous school.
The instruction of the rising generation was the object of constant
solicitude on the part of the Kahals and the rabbis as well as the
conventions and Councils. Elementary and secondary education was
centered in the _heders_, while higher education was fostered in the
_yeshibahs_. Attendance at the heder was compulsory for all children of
school age, approximately from six to thirteen. The subjects of
instruction at these schools were the Bible in the original, accompanied
by a translation into the Judeo-German vernacular,[76] and the easier
treatises of the Talmud with commentaries. In some heders the study of
Hebrew grammar and the four fundamental operations of arithmetic were
also admitted into the curriculum. The establishment of these heders was
left to private initiative, every _melammed_, or Jewish elementary
teacher, being allowed to open a heder for boys and to receive
compensation for his labors from their parents. Only the heders for poor
children or for orphans, the so-called _Talmud Torahs_, were maintained
by the community from public funds. Yet the supervision of the Kahal
extended not only to the public, but also to the private, elementary
schools. The Kahal prescribed the curriculum of the heders, arranged
examinations for the scholars, fixed the remuneration of the teachers,
determined the hours of instruction (which were generally from eight to
twelve a day), and took charge of the whole school work, in some places
even appointing a sort of school board (_Hevrah Talmud Torah_) from
among its own members.
The higher Talmudic school or college, the yeshibah, was entirely under
the care of the Kahal and the rabbis. This school, which provided a
complete religious and juridical education based on the Talmud and the
rabbinical codes of law, received the sanction of the Polish Government.
King Sigismund Augustus granted the Jewish community of Lublin
permission to open a yeshibah, or "gymnazium" (_gymnazium ad
instituendos homines illorum religionis_), with a synagogue attached to
it, bestowing upon its president, a learned rabbi, not only the title of
"rector," but also extensive powers over the affairs of the community
(1567). Four years later the same King granted an even larger license to
"the learned Solomon of Lemberg, whom the Jewish community of Lemberg
and the whole land of Russia[77] have chosen for their 'senior doctor'
(_ab-beth-din_, or _rosh-yeshibah_)," conferring upon him the right to
open schools in various cities, "to train the students in the sciences,"
to keep them under his control, and to inure them to a strict
discipline.
In the course of time Talmudic yeshibahs sprang up in all the cities of
Poland and Lithuania. The functions of rector, or rosh-yeshibah, were
performed either by the local rabbi or by a man especially selected for
this post on account of his learning. It seems that the combination of
the two offices of rabbi and college president in one person was limited
to those communities in which the duties of the spiritual guide of the
community were not complex, and admitted of the simultaneous discharge
of pedagogic functions. In the large centers, however, where the public
responsibilities were regularly divided, the rosh-yeshibah was an
independent dignitary, who was clothed with considerable authority.
Similar to the contemporary rectors of Jesuit colleges, the
rosh-yeshibah was absolute master within the school walls; he exercised
unrestricted control over his pupils, subjecting them to a
well-established discipline and dispensing justice among them.
The contemporary chronicler quoted above, Rabbi Nathan Hannover, of
Zaslav, in Volhynia, portrays in vivid colors the Jewish school life of
Poland and Lithuania in the first half of the seventeenth century.
In no country--quoth Rabbi Nathan[78]--was the study of the
Torah so widespread among the Jews as in the Kingdom of Poland.
Every Jewish community maintained a yeshibah, paying its
president a large salary, so as to enable him to conduct the
institution without worry and to devote himself entirely to the
pursuit of learning.... Moreover, every Jewish community
supported college students (_bahurs_), giving them a certain
amount of money per week, so that they might study under the
direction of the president. Every one of these bahurs was made
to instruct at least two boys, for the purpose of deepening his
own studies and gaining some experience in Talmudic discussions.
The [poor] boys obtained their food either from the charity fund
or from the public kitchen. A community of fifty Jewish families
would support no less than thirty of these young men and boys,
one family supplying board for one college student and his two
pupils, the former sitting at the family table like one of the
sons.... There was scarcely a house in the whole Kingdom of
Poland where the Torah was not studied, and where either the
head of the family or his son or his son-in-law, or the yeshibah
student boarding with him, was not an expert in Jewish learning;
frequently all of these could be found under one roof. For this
reason every community contained a large number of scholars, a
community of fifty families having as many as twenty learned
men, who were styled _morenu_[79] or _haber_.[80] They were all
excelled by the rosh-yeshibah, all the scholars submitting to
his authority and studying under him at the yeshibah.
The program of study in Poland was as follows: The scholastic
term during which the young men and the boys were obliged to
study under the rosh-yeshibah lasted from the beginning of the
month of Iyyar until the middle of Ab [approximately from April
until July] in the summer and from the first of the month of
Heshvan until the fifteenth of Shebat [October-June] in the
winter. Outside of these terms the young men and the boys were
free to choose their own place of study. From the beginning of
the summer term until Shabuoth and from the beginning of the
winter term until Hanukkah all the students of the yeshibah
studied with great intensity the Gemara [the Babylonian Talmud]
and the commentaries of Rashi[81] and the Tosafists.[82]
The scholars and young students of the community as well as all
interested in the study of the Law assembled daily at the
yeshibah, where the president alone occupied a chair, while the
scholars and college students stood around him. Before the
appearance of the rosh-yeshibah they would discuss questions of
Jewish law, and when he arrived every one laid his difficulties
before him, and received an explanation. Thereupon silence was
restored, and the rosh-yeshibah delivered his lecture,
presenting the new results of his study. At the conclusion of
the lecture he arranged a scientific argumentation (_hilluk_),
proceeding in the following way: Various contradictions in the
Talmud and the commentaries were pointed out, and solutions
were proposed. These solutions were, in turn, shown to be
contradictory, and other solutions were offered, this process
being continued until the subject of discussion was completely
elucidated. These exercises continued in summer at least until
midday. From the middle of the two scholastic terms until their
conclusion the rosh-yeshibah paid less attention to these
argumentations, and read instead the religious codes, studying
with the mature scholars the _Turim_[83] with commentaries, and
with the [younger] students the compendium of Alfasi[84]....
Several weeks before the close of the term the rosh-yeshibah
would honor the members of his college, both the scholars and
the students, by inviting them to conduct the scientific
disputations on his behalf, though he himself would participate
in the discussion in order to exercise the mental faculties of
all those attending the yeshibah.
Attached to the president of the yeshibah was an inspector, who
had the duty of visiting the elementary schools, or heders,
daily, and seeing to it that all boys, whether poor or rich,
applied themselves to study and did not loiter in the streets.
On Thursdays the pupils had to present themselves before the
trustee (_gabbai_) of the Talmud Torah, who examined them in
what they had covered during the week. The boy who knew nothing
or who did not answer adequately was by order of the trustee
turned over to the inspector, who subjected him, in the
presence of his fellow-pupils, to severe physical punishment
and other painful degradations, that he might firmly resolve to
improve in his studies during the following week. On Fridays
the heder pupils presented themselves in a body before the
rosh-yeshibah himself, to undergo a similar examination. This
had a strong deterrent effect upon the boys, and they devoted
themselves energetically to their studies.... The scholars,
seeing this [the honors showered upon the rosh-yeshibah],
coveted the same distinction, that of becoming a rosh-yeshibah
in some community. They studied assiduously in consequence.
Prompted originally by self-interest, they gradually came to
devote themselves to the Torah from pure, unselfish motives.
By way of contrast to this panegyric upon Polish-Jewish school life, it
is only fair that we should quote another contemporary, who severely
criticizes the methods of instruction then in vogue at the yeshibahs.
The whole instruction at the yeshibah--writes the well-known
preacher Solomon Ephraim of Lenchitza (d. 1619)[85]--reduces
itself to mental equilibristics and empty argumentations called
hilluk. It is dreadful to contemplate that some venerable rabbi,
presiding over a yeshibah, in his anxiety to discover and
communicate to others some new interpretation, should offer a
perverted explanation of the Talmud, though he himself and every
one else be fully aware that the true meaning is different. Can
it be God's will that we sharpen our minds by fallacies and
sophistries, spending our time in vain and teaching the
listeners to do likewise? And all this for the mere ambition of
passing for a great scholar!... I myself have more than once
argued with the Talmudic celebrities of our time, showing the
need for abolishing the method of pilpul and hilluk, without
being able to convince them. This attitude can only be explained
by the eagerness of these scholars for honors and rosh-yeshibah
posts. These empty quibbles have a particularly pernicious
effect on our bahurs, for the reason that the bahur who does not
shine in the discussion is looked down upon as incapable, and is
practically forced to lay aside his studies, though he might
prove to be one of the best, if Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, and the
Codes were studied in a regular fashion. I myself have known
capable young men who, not having distinguished themselves in
pilpul, forfeited the respect of their fellow-students, and
stopped studying altogether after their marriage.
Secular studies were not included in the curriculum of the yeshibahs.
The religious codes composed during that period allow the study of "the
other sciences" only "on occasion," and only to those who have
completely mastered Talmudic and rabbinic literature. Needless to say,
no yeshibah student could lay claim to such mastery until the completion
of the college course. Moreover, the secular sciences had to be excluded
from the yeshibah, for the external reason that the latter was generally
located in a sacred place, near the synagogue, where the mere presence
of a secular book was regarded as a profanation. Yet it occasionally
happened that young men strayed away from the path of the Talmud, and
secretly indulged in the study of secular sciences and of Aristotelian
philosophy. This fact is attested by the great rabbinical authority of
the sixteenth century, Rabbi Solomon Luria. "I myself"--he writes
indignantly--"have seen the prayer of Aristotle copied in the
prayer-books of the bahurs." This somewhat veiled expression indicates,
in all likelihood, that among the books of the yeshibah students
"contraband" was occasionally discovered, in the shape of manuscripts of
philosophic content. Unfortunately we hear nothing more definite as to
the way in which the Jewish youth of that period became infatuated with
anathematized philosophy. We have reason to assume, however, that such
deviations from the rigorous discipline of rabbinical scholarship were
few and far between.
The yeshibahs, providing as they did an academic training, were the
nurseries of that intellectual aristocracy which subsequently became so
powerful a factor in the life of Polish-Lithuanian Jewry. This
numerically considerable class of scholars looked down upon the
uneducated multitude. Yet the level of literacy even among the latter
was comparatively high. All boys, without exception, attended the heder,
where they studied the Hebrew language and the Bible, while many devoted
themselves to the Talmud. A different attitude is observable towards
female education. Girls remained outside the school, their instruction
not being considered obligatory according to the Jewish law. No heders
for girls are mentioned in any of the documents of the time. Nor did a
single woman attain to literary fame among the Jews of Poland and
Lithuania. The girls were taught at home to read the prayers, but they
were seldom instructed in the Hebrew language, so that the majority of
women had but a very imperfect notion of the meaning of the prayers in
the original. In consequence, the women began at that time to use the
translations of the prayers in the Jewish vernacular, the so-called
_Jüdisch-Deutsch_.
3. THE HIGH-WATER MARK OF RABBINIC LEARNING
The high intellectual level of the Polish Jews was the result of their
relative economic prosperity. As for the character of their mental
productivity, it was the direct outcome of their social autonomy. The
vast system of Kahal self-government enhanced not only the authority of
the rabbi, but also that of the learned Talmudist and of every layman
familiar with Jewish law. The rabbi discharged, within the limits of his
community, the functions of spiritual guide, head of the yeshibah, and
inspector of elementary schools, as well as those of legislator and
judge. An acquaintance with the vast and complicated Talmudic law was to
a certain extent necessary even for the layman who occupied the office
of an elder (_parnas_, or _rosh-ha-Kahal_), or was in some way
connected with the scheme of Jewish self-government. For the enactments
of the Talmud regulated the inner life of the Polish Jews in the same
way as they had done formerly in Babylonia, in the time of the
autonomous Exilarchs and Gaons. But it must be remembered that, since
the times of the Gaons, Jewish law had been considerably amplified,
Rabbinic Judaism having been superimposed upon Talmudic Judaism. This
mass of religious lore, which had been accumulating for centuries, now
monopolized the minds of all educated Jews in the empire of Poland,
which thus became a second Babylonia. It reigned supreme in the
synagogues, the yeshibahs, and the elementary schools. It gave tone to
social and domestic life. It spoke through the mouth of the judge, the
administrator, and the communal leader. Lastly it determined the content
of Jewish literary productivity. Polish-Jewish literature was almost
exclusively consecrated to rabbinic law.
The beginnings of Talmudic learning in Poland can be traced back to the
first half of the sixteenth century. It had been carried thither from
neighboring Bohemia, primarily from the school of the originator of the
pilpul method, Jacob Pollack.[86] A pupil of the latter, Rabbi Shalom
Shakhna (ab. 1500-1558), is regarded as one of the pioneers of Polish
Talmudism. All we know about his fortunes is that he lived and died in
Lublin, that in 1541 he was confirmed by a decree of King Sigismund I.
in the office of chief rabbi of Little Poland, and that he stood at the
head of the yeshibah which sent forth the rabbinical celebrities of the
following generation.[87] It is quite probable that the rabbinical
conferences of Lublin, which afterwards led to the formation of the
"Council of the Four Lands," owe their inception to the initiative of
Rabbi Shakhna. After his death his son Israel succeeded to the post of
chief rabbi in Lublin. But it was a pupil of Shakhna, Moses Isserles,
known in literature by the abbreviated name of ReMO (1520-1572),[88] who
became famous throughout the entire Jewish world.
Moses Isserles, the son of a well-to-do Kahal elder in Cracow, became
prominent in the rabbinical world early in life. He occupied the post of
a member of the Jewish communal court in his native city, and stood at
the head of the yeshibah. This combination of scholarly and practical
activities prompted him to delve deep in the existing rabbinical codes,
and he found, as a result of his investigation, that they were not
exhaustive, and were in need of amplification.
Isserles was not even satisfied with the thoroughgoing elaboration of
Jewish law which had been undertaken by his Palestinian contemporary
Joseph Caro. When, in the middle of the sixteenth century, Caro's
comprehensive commentary on the Code _Turim_,[89] entitled _Beth-Yoseph_
("House of Joseph"), appeared, Isserles composed a commentary on the
same code under the name _Darkhe Moshe_ ("Ways of Moses"), in which he
considerably enlarged the legal material collected there, drawing from
sources which Caro had left out of consideration.
When, a few years later, the latter published his own code, under the
name of _Shulhan Arukh_ ("The Dressed Table"), Isserles called attention
to the fact that its author, being a Sephardic Jew, had failed in many
cases to utilize the investigations of the rabbinic authorities among
the Ashkenazim, and had left out of consideration the local religious
customs, or _minhagim_, which were current among various groups of
German-Polish Jewry. These omissions were carefully noted and supplied
by Isserles. He supplemented the text of the _Shulhan Arukh_ by a large
number of new laws, which he had framed on the basis of the
above-mentioned popular customs or of the religious and legal practice
of the Ashkenazic rabbis. Caro's code having been named by the author
"The Dressed Table," Isserles gave his supplements thereto the title
"Table-cloth" (_Mappa_).[90] In this supplemented form the _Shulhan
Arukh_ was introduced, as a code of Jewish rabbinic law, into the
religious and everyday life of the Polish Jews. The first edition of
this combined code of Caro and Isserles appeared in Cracow in 1578,
followed by numerous reprints, which testify to the extraordinary
popularity of the work.
The _Shulhan Arukh_ became the substructure for the further development
of Polish rabbinism. Only very few scholars of consequence had the
courage to challenge the authority of this generally acknowledged code
of laws. One of these courageous men was the contemporary and
correspondent of Isserles, Solomon Luria, known by the abbreviated name
of ReSHaL[91] (ab. 1510-1573). Solomon Luria was a native of Posen,
whither his grandfather had immigrated from Germany. Endowed with a
subtle, analytic mind, Luria was a determined opponent of the new school
dialectics (pilpul), taking for his model the old casuistic method of
the Tosafists,[92] which consisted in a detailed criticism and an
ingenious analysis of the Talmudic texts. In this spirit he began to
compose his remarkable commentary on the Talmud (_Yam shel Shelomo_,
"Sea of Solomon"[93]), but succeeded in interpreting only a few
tractates.
In all his investigations Luria manifested boldness of thought and
independence of judgment, without sparing the authorities whenever he
believed them to be in the wrong. Of the _Shulhan Arukh_ and its author
Luria spoke slightingly, claiming that Joseph Caro had used his sources
without the necessary discrimination, and had decided many moot points
of law arbitrarily. In consequence of this independence of judgment,
Solomon Luria had many enemies in the scholarly world, but he had, on
the other hand, many enthusiastic admirers and devoted disciples. In the
middle of the sixteenth century he occupied the post of rabbi in the
city of Ostrog, in Volhynia. By his Talmudic lectures, which attracted
students from the whole region, he made this city the intellectual
center of Volhynian and Lithuanian Jewry. The last years of his life he
spent in Lublin, where to this day there exists a synagogue which bears
his name.
Luria and Isserles were looked upon as the pillars of Polish rabbinism.
Questions of Jewish ritual and law were submitted to them for decision,
not only from various parts of their own country but also from Western
Europe, from Italy, Germany, and Bohemia. Their replies to these
inquiries, or "Responsa" (_Shaaloth u-Teshuboth_), have been gathered in
special collections. These two rabbis also carried on a scientific
correspondence with each other. As a result of their divergent character
and trend of mind, heated discussions frequently took place between
them. Thus Luria, in spite of all his sobriety of intellect, gravitated
towards the Cabala, while Isserles, with all his rabbinic conservatism,
devoted part of his leisure to philosophy. The two scholars rebuked each
other for their respective "weaknesses." Luria maintained that the
wisdom of the "uncircumcised Aristotle" could be of no benefit, while
Isserles tried to prove that many views of the Cabala were not in accord
with the ideas of the Talmud, and that mysticism was more dangerous to
faith than a moderate philosophy.
Isserles was right. The philosophy with which he occupied himself could
scarcely be destructive of Orthodoxy. This is shown by his large work
_Torath ha-`Olah_ ("The Law of the Burnt-Offering," 1570),[94] which
represents a weird mixture of religious and philosophic discussions on
themes borrowed from Maimonides' "Guide of the Perplexed," interspersed
with speculations about the various classes of angels or the
architecture of the Jerusalem temple, its vessels and order of
sacrifices. The author professes to detect in all the details of the
temple service a profound symbolism. Notwithstanding the strange plan of
the book there are many chapters in it that show the intimate
familiarity of Isserles with the philosophic literature of the
Sephardim, a remarkable record for an Ashkenazic rabbi of the sixteenth
century.
The intimate connection between rabbinic learning and Jewish life stood
out in bold relief from the moment the "Council of the Four Lands" began
to discharge its regular functions. The Council had frequent occasion to
decide, for practical purposes, complicated questions appertaining to
domestic, civil, and criminal law, or relating to legal procedure and
religious practice, and the rabbis who participated in these conferences
as legal experts were forced to accomplish a large amount of concrete,
tangible work for themselves and their colleagues. Questions of law and
ritual were everywhere assiduously investigated and elaborated, with
that subtle analysis peculiar to the Jewish mind, which pursues every
idea to its remotest consequences and its most trifling details.
The subject as well as the method of investigation depended, as a rule,
on the social position of the investigator. The rabbis of higher rank,
who took an active part in the Kahal administration, and participated in
the meetings of the Councils, either of the Crown or of Lithuania, paid
particular attention to the practical application of Talmudic law. One
of the oldest scholars of this category during the period under
discussion was Mordecai Jaffe (died 1612), a native of Bohemia, who
occupied the post of rabbi successively in Grodno, Lublin, Kremenetz,
Prague, and Posen. Towards the end of the sixteenth century he presided
a number of times over the conferences of the "Council of the Four
Lands." Though a pupil of Moses Isserles, Jaffe did not consider the
_Shulhan Arukh_ as supplemented by his teacher the last word in
codification. He objected to the fact that its juridical conclusions
were formulated dogmatically, without sufficient motivation.
For this reason he undertook the composition of a new and more elaborate
code of laws, arranged in the accepted order of the four books of the
_Turim_,[95] which is known as _Lebushim_, or "Raiments."[96] The method
of Mordecai Jaffe differs from that of Joseph Caro and Isserles in the
wealth of the scientific discussions which accompany every legal clause.
At first Jaffe's code created a split in the rabbinical world, and
threatened to weaken the authority of the _Shulhan Arukh_. In the end,
however, the latter prevailed, and was acknowledged as the only
authoritative guide for the religious and juridical practice of Judaism.
Apart from his code, Mordecai Jaffe wrote, under the same general title
_Lebushim_, five more volumes, containing Bible commentaries, synagogue
sermons, and annotations to Maimonides' "Guide," as well as Cabalistic
speculations.
Jaffe's successor as leading rabbi and president of the "Council of the
Four Lands" was, in all likelihood, Joshua Falk Cohen (died 1616), Rabbi
of Lublin and subsequently rector of the Talmudic yeshibah in Lemberg.
He attained to fame through his commentary to the _Hoshen Mishpat_, the
part of Caro's code dealing with civil law,[97] which he called _Sepher
Meïrath `Enaïm_, "A Book of the Enlightenment of the Eyes"[98]
(abbreviated to SeM`A). He also framed, at the instance of the Waad, a
large part of the above-mentioned regulations of 1607,[99] which were
issued for the purpose of establishing piety and good morals more firmly
among the Jews of Poland.
A more scholastic and less practical tendency is noticeable in the
labors of Joshua Falk's contemporary, Meïr of Lublin (1554-1616), known
by the abbreviated name of MaHaRaM.[100] He was active as rabbi in
Cracow, Lemberg, and Lublin, delivered Talmudic discourses before large
audiences, wrote ingenious, casuistic commentaries to the most important
treatises of the Talmud (entitled _Meïr `Ene Hahamim_, "Enlightening the
Eyes of the Wise"), and was busy replying to the numerous inquiries
addressed to him by scholars from all parts (_Shaaloth u-Teshuboth
Maharam_). Laying particular stress on subtle analysis, Rabbi Meïr of
Lublin looked down upon the codifiers and systematic writers of the
class to which Isserles and Jaffe belonged. The trifling minuteness of
his investigations may be illustrated by the fact that he considered it
necessary to write a special "opinion" about the question whether a
woman is guilty of conjugal infidelity, if she is convicted of having
had relations with the devil, the latter having visited her first in the
shape of her husband and afterwards in the disguise of a Polish
nobleman.
In the domain of dialectics Rabbi Meïr found a successful rival in the
person of Samuel Edels, known by the abbreviated name of MaHaRSHO[101]
(died 1631), who occupied the post of rabbi in Posen, Lublin, and
Ostrog. In his comprehensive expositions to all the sections of the
Talmudic Halakha (_Hiddushe Halakhoth_, "Novel Expositions of the
Halakha"), he endeavored principally to exercise the thinking faculties
and the memory of his students by an ingenious comparison of texts and
by other scholastic intricacies. The dialectic commentary of Edels
became one of the most important handbooks for the study of the Talmud
in the heders and yeshibahs, and is frequently used there in our own
days. His commentary on the Talmudic Haggada is strewn over with
Cabalistic and religio-philosophic ideas of the conservative Jewish
thinkers of the Middle Ages.
In the middle of the seventeenth century the authority of the _Shulhan
Arukh_, as edited by Isserles, had been so firmly established in Poland
that this code was studied and expounded with even greater zeal than the
Talmud. Joel Sirkis (died 1640) delivered lectures on Jewish Law on the
basis of the _Turim_ and the _Shulhan Arukh_. He wrote a commentary to
the former under the name of _Beth Hadash_ ("New House," abbreviated to
BaH), and published a large number of opinions on questions of religious
law. He held the Cabala in esteem, while condemning philosophy
violently. His younger contemporaries devoted themselves exclusively to
the exposition of the _Shulhan Arukh_, particularly to the section
called _Yore De`a_,[102] dealing with the Jewish ritual, such as the
religious customs of the home, the dietary laws, etc. Two elaborate
commentaries to the _Yore De`a_ appeared in 1646, the one composed by
David Halevi, rabbi in Lemberg and Ostrog, under the title _Ture
Zahab_,[103] and the other written by the famous Vilna scholar Sabbatai
Kohen, under the name _Sifthe Kohen_ ("Lips of the Priest").[104] These
two commentaries, known by their abbreviated titles of TaZ and ShaK,
have since that time been published together with the text of the
_Shulhan Arukh_.
This literary productivity was largely stimulated by the rapid growth
of Jewish typography in Poland. The first Jewish book printed in that
country is the Pentateuch (Cracow, 1530). In the second half of the
sixteenth century two large printing-presses, those of Cracow and
Lublin, were active in publishing a vast number of old and new books
from the domain of Talmudic, Rabbinic, and popular-didactic literature.
In 1566 King Sigismund Augustus granted Benedict Levita, of Cracow, the
monopoly of importing into Poland Jewish books from abroad. Again, in
1578, Stephen Batory bestowed on a certain Kalman the right of printing
Jewish books in Lublin, owing to the difficulty of importing them from
abroad. One of the causes of this intensified typographic activity in
Poland was the papal censorship of the Talmud, which was established in
Italy in 1564. From that time the printing-offices of Cracow and Lublin
competed successfully with the technically perfected printing-presses of
Venice and Prague, and the Polish book-market, as a result, was more and
more dominated by local editions.
4. SECULAR SCIENCES, PHILOSOPHY, CABALA, AND APOLOGETICS
The Talmudic and Rabbinic science of law, absorbing as it did the best
mental energies of Polish Jewry, left but little room for the other
branches of literary endeavor. Among the daring "swimmers in the
Talmudic ocean," contending for mastery in erudition and dialectic
skill, there were but few with deeper spiritual longings who evinced an
interest in questions of philosophy and natural science. The only
exceptions were the physicians, who, on account of their profession,
received a secular education at the universities of that period.
Originally the Jewish physicians of Poland were natives either of Spain,
whence they had been expelled in 1492, or of Italy, being in the latter
case graduates of the Catholic University of Padua. Several of these
foreign medical men became the body-physicians of Polish kings, such as
Isaac Hispanus under John Albrecht and Alexander; Solomon Ashkenazi (who
subsequently was physician and diplomat at the court of the Turkish
Sultan Selim II.) under King Sigismund Augustus; Solomon Calahora under
Stephen Batory, and others. But as early as the first part of the
sixteenth century these foreigners were rivaled by native Jewish
physicians, who traveled from Poland to Padua for the special purpose of
receiving a medical training. Such was, for example, the case in 1530
with Moses Fishel, of Cracow, who was at once rabbi and physician. These
trips to Italy became very frequent in the second part of the sixteenth
century, and the number of Polish Jewish students in Padua was on the
increase down to the eighteenth century. It is characteristic that the
Christian Poles studying in Padua refused to enter their Jewish
compatriots upon their "national register," in order, as is stated in
their statutes, "not to mar the memory of so many celebrated men by the
name of an infidel" (1654). In the university registers the Jewish
students appeared as _Hebraei Poloni_.
As for religious philosophy, which was then on the wane in Western
Europe, it formed in Poland merely the object of amateurish exercises on
the part of several representatives of Rabbinic learning. Moses Isserles
and Mordecai Jaffe commented, as was pointed out above, on the "Guide"
of Maimonides in a superficial manner, fighting shy of its inconvenient
rationalistic deductions. The favorite book of the theologians of that
period was _Ikkarim_ ("Principles"), the system of dogmatic Judaism
formulated by the conservative Sephardic thinker Joseph Albo.
Commentaries to this book were written by Jacob Koppelman, of
Brest-Kuyavsk[105] (_Ohel Ya`kob_, "Tent of Jacob,"[106] Cracow, 1599),
and Gedaliah Lifshitz, of Lublin (_Etz Shathul_, "Planted Tree,"[107]
1618). The former, a lover of mathematics, loaded his commentary with
geometrical and astronomical arguments, being of the opinion that it was
possible in this way to prove scientifically the existence of God and
the correlation of all phenomena. The latter was more inclined towards
metaphysics and morals. How far this commentator was from grasping the
true meaning of the original may be seen from his annotations to the
introductory theses of the book. Commenting on the passage in which Albo
states that "the happiness of man depends on the perfection of his
thought and conduct," Lifshitz makes the following observation: "By
human happiness is understood the _life beyond the grave_, for the goal
of man in this world consists only in the attainment of eternal bliss
after death."
In this way the Polish rabbis fashioned philosophy after their own
pattern, and thereby rendered it "harmless." Free research was
impossible, and perhaps not unattended by danger in an environment where
tradition reigned supreme. The Chief Rabbi of Cracow, the
above-mentioned Joel Sirkis, expressed the view that philosophy was the
mother of all heresies, and that it was the "harlot" of which the wise
king had said, "None that go unto her return again" (Proverbs ii. 19).
He who becomes infatuated with philosophy and neglects the secret wisdom
of the Cabala is liable, in Sirkis' opinion, to excommunication, and has
no place among the faithful. The well-known mathematician and
philosopher Joseph Solomon Delmedigo (called in abbreviated form "YaSHaR
of Candia"[108]) who spent nearly four years in Poland and Lithuania
(1620-1624), arraigns the Polish Jews for their opposition to the
secular sciences:
Behold--he says in Biblical phraseology[109]--darkness covereth
the earth, and the ignorant are numerous. For the breadth of thy
land is full of yeshibahs and houses of Talmud study.... [The
Jews of Poland] are opposed to the sciences,... saying, The Lord
hath no delight in the sharpened arrows of the grammarians,
poets, and logicians, nor in the measurements of the
mathematicians and the calculations of the astronomers.
The Cabala, which might be designated as an Orthodox counter-philosophy,
made constant progress in Poland. The founder of the Polish Cabala was
Mattathiah Delacruta, a native of Italy, who lived in Cracow. In 1594 he
published in that city the system of Theoretic Cabala, entitled "Gates
of Light" (_Sha`are Ora_), by a Sephardic writer of the fourteenth
century, Joseph Gicatilla, accompanying it by an elaborate commentary of
his own. Delacruta was, as far as the subject of the "hidden science"
was concerned, the teacher of the versatile Rabbi Mordecai Jaffe, who,
in turn, wrote a supercommentary to the mystical Bible commentary by the
Italian Menahem Recanati.
Beginning with the seventeenth century, the old Theoretic Cabala is
gradually superseded in Poland by the Practical Cabala,[110] taught by
the new school of ARI[111] and Vital.[112] The Cabalist Isaiah Horowitz,
author of the famous work on ascetic morals called SHeLoH,[113] had been
trained in the yeshibahs of Cracow and Lemberg, and for several years
(1600-1606) occupied the post of rabbi in Volhynia. His son, Sheftel
Horowitz, who was rabbi in Posen (1641-1658), published the mystical
work of his father, adding from his own pen a moralist treatise under
the title _Vave ha-`Amudim_.[114] Nathan Spira, preacher and rector of
the Talmudic academy in Cracow (1585-1633), made a specialty of the
Practical Cabala. His more ingenious than thoughtful book, "Discovering
Deep Things"[115] (_Megalle `Amukoth_, Cracow, 1637), contains an
exposition in two hundred and fifty-two different ways of Moses' plea
before God for permission to enter the Promised Land (Deuteronomy iii.
23). It consists of an endless chain of Cabalistic word-combinations and
obscure symbolic allusions, yielding some inconceivable deductions, such
as that Moses prayed to God concerning the appearance of the two
Messiahs of the house of Joseph and David, or that Moses endeavored to
eliminate the power of evil and to expiate in advance all the sins that
would ever be committed by the Jewish people. Nathan Spira applied to
the Cabala the method of the Rabbinical pilpul, and created a new
variety of dialectic mysticism, which was just as far removed from sound
theology as the scholastic speculations of the pilpulists were from
scientific thinking.
More wholesome and more closely related to life was the trend of the
Jewish apologetic literature which sprang up in Poland in the last
quarter of the sixteenth century. The religious unrest which had been
engendered by the Reformation gave rise to several rationalistic sects
with radical, anti-ecclesiastic tendencies. Nearest of all to the tenets
of Judaism was the sect of the Anti-Trinitarians (called Unitarians,
Arians, or Socinians[116]), who denied the dogma of the Trinity and the
divine nature of Jesus, but recognized the religious and moral teachings
of the Gospels. Among the Anti-Trinitarian leaders were the theologian
Simon Budny, of Vilna, and Martin Chekhovich, of Lublin. Stung by the
fact that the Catholic clergy applied to them the contemptuous
appellation of "Judaizers," or semi-Jews, the sectarians were anxious to
demonstrate to the world that their doctrine had nothing in common with
Judaism. For this purpose they carried on oral disputes with the rabbis,
and tried to expose the "Jewish falsehoods" in their works.
Martin Chekhovich was particularly zealous in holding theological
disputations, both in Lublin and in other cities, "with genuine as well
as pseudo-Jews." The results of these disputations are embodied in
several chapters of his books entitled "Christian Dialogues" (1575) and
"Catechism" (1580). One of his Jewish opponents, Jacob (Nahman) of
Belzhytz,[117] found it necessary to answer him in public in a little
book written in the Polish language (_Odpis na dyalogi Czechowicza_,
"Retort to the Dialogues of Chekhovich," 1581). Jacob of Belzhytz
defends the simple dogmas of Judaism, and accuses his antagonists of
desiring to arouse hostility to the Jewish people. The following
observation of Jacob is interesting as showing the methods of
disputation then in vogue:
It often happens that a Christian puts a question to me from
Holy Writ, to which I reply also from Holy Writ, and I try to
argue it properly. But suddenly he will pick out another passage
[from the Bible], saying: "How do you understand this?" and thus
he does not finish the first question, on which it would be
necessary to dwell longer. This is exactly what happens when the
hunter's dogs are hounding the rabbit which flees from the road
into a by-path, and, while the dogs are trying to catch it,
slips away into the bushes. For this reason the Jew too has to
interrupt the Christian in the midst of his speech, lest the
latter escape like the rabbit as soon as he has finished
speaking.
Chekhovich replied to Jacob's pamphlet in print in the same year. While
defending his "Dialogues," he criticized the errors of the Talmud, and
made sport of several Jewish customs, such as the use of _tefillin_,
_mezuza_, and _tzitzith_.
A serious retort to the Christian theologians came from Isaac Troki, a
cultured Karaite,[118] who died in 1594. He argued with Catholics,
Lutherans, and Arians in Poland, not as a dilettante, but as a profound
student of the Gospels and of Christian theology. About 1593 he wrote
his remarkable apologetic treatise under the title _Hizzuk Emuna_
("Fortification of the Faith"). In the first part of his book, the
author defends Judaism against the attacks of the Christian theologians,
while in the second he takes the offensive and criticizes the teachings
of the Church. He detects a whole series of contradictions in the texts
of the Synoptic Gospels, pointing out the radical deviations of the New
Testament from the Old and the departure of the later dogmatism of the
Church from the New Testament itself. With calmness and assurance he
proves the logical and historical impossibility of the interpretations
of the well-known Biblical prophecies which serve as the substructure of
the Christian dogma.
For a long time no one was bold enough to print this "dreadful
treatise," and it was circulated in manuscript both in the Hebrew
original and in a Spanish and German version. The Hebrew original,
accompanied by a Latin translation, was printed for the first time from
a defective copy by the German scholar Wagenseil, Professor of Law in
Bavaria. Wagenseil published the treatise _Hizzuk Emuna_ in his
collection of anti-Christian writings, to which he gave the
awe-inspiring title "The Fiery Arrows of Satan" (_Tela Ignea Satanae_,
1681), and which were published for missionary purposes, "in order that
the Christians may refute this book, which may otherwise fortify the
Jews in their errors." The pious German professor could not foresee that
his edition would he subsequently employed by men of the type of
Voltaire and the French encyclopedists of the eighteenth century as a
weapon to attack the doctrine of the Church. Voltaire commented on the
book of Isaac Troki in these words: "Not even the most decided opponents
of religion have brought forward any arguments which could not be found
in the 'Fortification of the Faith' by Rabbi Isaac." In modern times the
_Hizzuk Emuna_ has been reprinted from more accurate copies, and has
been translated into several European languages.[119]
FOOTNOTES:
[65] See pp. 72 and 73.
[66] [_Unanimi voto et consensu_ are the exact words of the document.
See Bersohn, _Dyplomatariusz_ (Collection of ancient Polish enactments
relating to Jews), p. 51.]
[67] [Literally, By-Kahals.]
[68] [a = short German _a_. In Hebrew ועד.]
[69] [Great Poland, Little Poland, Red Russia, and Volhynia. Volhynia at
first formed part of the Lithuanian Duchy, but was ceded to the Crown,
in 1569, by the Union of Lublin.]
[70] In the middle of the seventeenth century their number was six.
[71] Nathan Hannover, in his _Yeven Metzula_ [see p. 157, n. 1], ed.
Venice, 1653, p. 12.
[72] [A Hebrew term designating public-spirited Jews who defend the
interests of their coreligionists before the Government. In Polish
official documents they are referred to as "General Syndics." In Poland
the _shtadlans_ were regular officials maintained by the Jewish
community. Comp. the article by L. Lewin, _Der Schtadlan im Posener
Ghetto_, in _Festschrift_ published in honor of Dr. Wolf Feilchenfeld
(1907), pp. 31 _et seq._]
[73] Towards the end of the sixteenth century Warsaw, instead of Cracow,
became the residence of the Polish kings. The Jews had no right of
domicile in Warsaw, and were permitted only to visit it temporarily.
[See p. 85.]
[74] [See p. 93, n. 1.]
[75] [See p. 76, n. 1.]
[76] [The so-called _Jüdisch-Deutsch_, which was by the Jews brought
from Germany to Poland and Lithuania. It was only in the latter part of
the seventeenth century that the dialect of Polish-Lithuanian Jewry
began to depart from the _Jüdisch-Deutsch_ as spoken by the German Jews,
thus laying the foundation for modern _Yiddish_. See Dubnow's article
"On the Spoken Dialect and the Popular Literature of the Polish and
Lithuanian Jews in the Sixteenth and the First Half of the Seventeenth
Century," in the periodical _Yevreyskaya Starina_, i. (1909), pp. 1 _et
seq._]
[77] [_I. e._ Red Russia, or Galicia.]
[78] _Yeven Metzula_ [see p. 157, n. 1], towards the end.
[79] [Literally, "our teacher," a title bestowed since the Middle Ages
on every ordained rabbi.]
[80] [Literally, "companion," "colleague," a title conferred upon men
who, without being ordained, have attained a high degree of
scholarship.]
[81] [Abbreviation for Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac (d. 1105), a famous
French rabbi, whose commentaries on the Bible and the Talmud are marked
by wonderful lucidity.]
[82] [A school of Talmudic authorities, mostly of French origin, who, in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, wrote _Tosafoth_ (literally,
"Additions"), critical and exegetical annotations, distinguished for
their ingenuity.]
[83] [Hebrew for "Rows," with reference to the four rows of precious
stones in the garment of the high priest (Ex. xxviii., 17)--title of a
code of laws composed by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (died at Toledo ab.
1340). It is divided into four parts, dealing respectively with ritual,
dietary, domestic, and civil laws. The _Turim_ was the forerunner of the
_Shulhan Arukh_, for which it served as a model.]
[84] [Isaac ben Jacob al-Fasi (_i. e._ from Fez in North Africa) (died
1103), author of a famous Talmudic compendium.]
[85] עמודי שש, ed. Lemberg, 1865, pp. 18b, 61b.
[86] It has been conjectured that the same scholar occupied, some time
between 1503 and 1520, the post of rector in Poland itself, being at the
head of the yeshibah in Cracow.
[87] [Two of his Responsa were published in Cracow, ab. 1540. See
Zedner, Catalogue British Museum, p. 695. A new edition appeared in
Husiatyn, in 1904, together with _Hiddushe Aaron Halevi_.]
[88] רמ״א [initials of _R_abbi _M_oses _I_(א=o)sserles].
[89] [See p. 118, n. 1.]
[90] Popularly, however, Isserles' supplements are called _Haggahoth_
("Annotations").
[91] רש״ל [initials of _R_abbi _SH_elomo _L_uria].
[92] [See p. 117, n. 4.]
[93] [Allusion to I Kings vii. 23-26.]
[94] [Allusion to Lev. vi. 2.]
[95] [See p. 118, n. 1.]
[96] [The titles of the various parts of his work are all composed of
the word _Lebush_ ("Raiment") and some additional epithet, borrowed,
with reference to the author's name, from the description of Mordecai's
garments, in Esther viii. 15.]
[97] [The _Shulhan Arukh_, following the arrangement of the _Turim_ (see
above, p. 118, n. 1), is divided into four parts, the fourth of which,
dealing with civil law, is called _Hoshen Mishpat_, "Breastplate of
Judgment," with reference to Ex. xxviii. 15.]
[98] [Allusion to Ps. xix. 9.]
[99] See pp. 111 and 112.
[100] מהר״ם [initials of _M_orenu (see p. 117, n. 1) _H_a-rab (the
rabbi) _R_abbi _M_eïr.]
[101] מהרש״א [initials of _M_orenu _H_a-rab _R_abbi _SH_emuel
_E_(א=o)dels. Comp. the preceding note].
[102] [Literally, "Teaching Knowledge" (from Isaiah xxviii. 9), the
title of the second part of the _Shulhan Arukh_. See above, p. 128, n.
1.]
[103] ["Rows of Gold," allusion to the _Turim_ (see above, p. 118, n.
1), with a clever play on the similarly sounding words in Cant. i.
11.--Subsequently David Halevi extended his commentary to the other
parts of the _Shulhan Arukh_.]
[104] [Allusion to Mal. ii. 7.--Later Sabbatai extended his commentary
to the civil section of the _Shulhan Arukh_, called _Hoshen Mishpat_
(see p. 128, n. 1).]
[105] [See p. 75, n. 2.]
[106] [Allusion to Gen. xxv. 27.]
[107] [Allusion to Ps. i. 3.]
[108] ישר מקנדיא [initials of _Y_osef _SH_elomo _R_ofe (physician)].
[109] [In his book _Ma`yan Gannim_ ("Fountain of Gardens," allusion to
Cant. iv. 15), Introduction.]
[110] [_Kabbalah ma`asith_, a phase of the Cabala which endeavors to
influence the course of nature by Cabalistic _practices_, in other
words, by performing miracles.]
[111] [Initials of _A_shkenazi _R_abbi _I_saac [Luria]; he died at Safed
in Palestine in 1572.]
[112] [Hayyim Vital, also of Safed, died 1620.]
[113] [Abbreviation of _SH_ne _L_uhoth _H_a-brith, "The Two Tables of
the Covenant" (Deut. ix. 15).]
[114] ["Hooks of the Pillars," allusion to Ex. xxvii. 11.]
[115] [Allusion to Job xii. 22.]
[116] [See above, p. 91, n. 1. There were, however, considerable
differences of opinion among the various factions.]
[117] [A town in the province of Lublin. Jacob became subsequently court
physician of Sigismund III.; see Kraushar, _Historyja Zydów w Polsce_,
ii. 268, n. 1. On his name, see Geiger's _Nachgelassene Schriften_, iii.
213.]
[118] Some deny that he was a Karaite.
[119] [An English translation by Moses Mocatta appeared in London in
1851 under the title "Faith Strengthened."]