History of the Jews, Vol. 3 (of 6)

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."