Chapter XVIII: The Age of Solomon Ben Adret and Asheri (1)

Martyrs in Germany--The Jews of Hungary and Poland--The
Council at Buda--The Jews of Spain and Portugal--Solomon
ben Adret, his character and writings--Raymund Martin's
anti-Jewish Works--New antagonism to the Maimunist Philosophy
--David Maimuni--Moses Taku--Meïr of Rothenburg--The
Jews of Italy--Solomon Petit--Rudolph of Habsburg--
Emigration of Jews from the Rhine Provinces--Sufferings of
the English Jews--Expulsion of the Jews from England and
Gascony--Saad-Addaula--Isaac of Accho.

1270-1306 C. E.

If Jewish history were to follow chronicles, memorial books and martyrologies, its pages would be filled with descriptions of bloodshed, it would consist of horrible exhibitions of corpses, and it would stand forth to make accusation against a doctrine which taught princes and nations to become common executioners and hangmen. For, from the thirteenth till the sixteenth century, the persecutions and massacres of the Jews increased with frightful rapidity and in intensity, and only alternated with inhuman decrees issued both by the Church and the state, the aim and purport of all of which were to humiliate the Jews, to brand them with calumny and to drive them to suicide. The prophet's description of the martyrdom of the servant of God, of the Messianic people, was fulfilled, or repeated with terrible literalness: "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment ... for the transgression of my people was he stricken." The nations of Europe emulated one another in exercising their cruelty upon the Jews; and it was always the clergy who, in the name of a religion of love, stirred up this undying hatred. It mattered little to the Jews whether they lived under a strict government or under anarchy, for they suffered under the one no less than under the other.

In Germany they were slain by thousands during the troubles which, after the death of the emperor Frederick II, and till the crowning of Rudolph of Habsburg as emperor, arose from the strife between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. Every year martyrs fell, now in Weissenburg, Magdeburg, Arnstadt, now in Coblenz, Sinzig, Erfurt, and other places. In Sinzig all the members of the congregation were burnt alive on a Sabbath in their synagogue. There were German Christian families who boasted that they had burnt Jews, and in their pride assumed the name of "Jew-roaster" (Judenbreter). The Church took good care that her flock should not, by intimate intercourse with Jews, discover that they were like other human beings, and so be made to feel sympathy for them. In Vienna, during the contest for the imperial throne of Germany, a large assembly of churchmen met (12th May, 1267) under the leadership of the papal legate Gudeo. Most of the German prelates took part in it, and gave much attention to the question of the Jews. They solemnly confirmed every canonical law that Innocent III and his successors had passed for the branding of the Jews. Jews were not allowed to have any Christian servants, were not admissible to any office of trust, were not to associate with Christians in ale-houses and baths, and Christians were not permitted to accept any invitation of the Jews, nor to enter into discussion with them. As if the German people desired to show that it could surpass all nations in scorn of the Jews, the members of the council at Vienna did not rest content with the command that the German Jews should wear a mark on their dress, but they compelled them to assume a disfiguring head-dress, a pointed, horned hat or cap (pileum cornutum), which provoked the mockery of the gamins. Bloody persecutions were the natural outcome of such distinguishing marks.

In France the clergy did not find it necessary to urge upon their princes, by threats, the degradation of the Jews. The saintly Louis, on his own account, busied himself with this matter. A year before his adventurous journey to Tunis, where he met his death, he emphasized, at the instigation of his much-beloved Pablo Christiani, the Jewish Dominican, the canonical edict which ordained the wearing of the badges. He ordered that this badge should be made of red felt or saffron-yellow cloth in the form of a wheel, and should be worn on the upper garment both on the breast and the back, "so that those who were thus marked might be recognized from all sides." Every Jew found without this badge was to be punished, for the first offense, with the loss of his garment, and for the second, with a fine of ten livres of silver to be paid into the treasury (March, 1269). The Jews of northern France, accustomed to ill-usage, and, as it were, dulled by it, easily yielded; but not so the Jews of Provence, who, being educated and in friendly intercourse with cultured Christians, would not submit to this ignominy. Hitherto they had contrived to escape from wearing the badge, and thought that they would be able to do so on this occasion also. The congregations of the south of France thereupon sent deputies to take counsel for the general welfare; and they in turn selected two distinguished men, Mordecai ben Joseph, of Avignon, and Solomon, of Tarascon, who were to go to court, and try to effect the abrogation of this law. The Jewish delegates met with success, and they returned home with the joyful news that the edict which commanded the wearing of the badge had been rescinded. But Philip III, the successor of Louis, and equally bigoted and narrow-minded, re-introduced the law a year after his accession to the throne (1271). The Dominicans took great care to see that it was not transgressed. Several distinguished Jews, such as Mordecai, of Avignon, and others, who would not submit to this disgrace, were imprisoned. This wearing of a badge by the Jews remained in force in France till the time of their expulsion from the country.

The Church pursued the sons of Jacob with its implacable hate to the very border-line between Europe and Asia. The people of Hungary and Poland, who had not yet laid aside their primitive state of barbarity and their warlike ferocity, were in greater need of the services of the Jews than the nations and states of Central and Western Europe. The Jews, with their commercial habits and their practical skill, had perceived the abundance of produce in the districts lying on the Lower Danube, the Vistula, and on both sides of the Carpathian mountains, had utilized, and thus first conferred value on, this source of wealth. Despite the zeal with which the papacy strove to deprive Jews of public offices, despite its efforts to restrain them from obtaining leases for working the salt mines and from farming the coinage and the taxes in Hungary, it could not expel them from positions in which they were indispensable in preventing the wealth of the country from running to waste. The Hungarian king, Bela IV, the successor of Andrew II, driven by stern necessity, the ravages of the Mongols having impoverished the country, invited Jewish agents. For the benefit of the Jews under his dominion, Bela introduced the law of Frederick the Valiant, of Austria, which protected them from the violence of the mob and the clergy, conceded to them their own jurisdiction, and allowed them the control over their domestic affairs. The papacy, however, turned its attention to the Carpathian districts, partly for the purpose of kindling a new crusade against the Mongols, and partly in order to bring back to the Roman see, by means of trickery and force, the schismatic adherents of the Greek Church. Its spiritual armies, the Dominicans and Franciscans, were despatched thither, and they instilled into the hitherto tolerant Magyars their own spirit of fanatical intolerance. A large church assembly, consisting of prelates from Hungary and the south of Poland, met at Buda (September, 1279). This convocation was under the presidency of Philip, who was the papal legate for Hungary, Poland, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Lodomeria, and Galicia, and decreed a proscription of the Jews of these countries, which the Church executed with logical severity. Jews and other inhabitants of the country not belonging to the Roman Catholic Church were to be debarred from the right of farming the taxes, or from holding any public post. Bishops and other ecclesiastics of higher or lower degree who had entrusted the farming of the revenues of their sees to the hands of Jews were to be suspended from their holy offices. Laymen, of whatsoever rank, were to be placed under a ban of excommunication till they dismissed the Jewish contractors and employés, and had given security that henceforward they would not accept or retain such men, "because it is very dangerous to permit Jews to dwell together with Christian families, and to have intimacy with them at courts and in private houses." The synod at Buda also enacted that the Jews of both sexes dwelling in Hungarian territory (which included Hungary and the provinces of southern Poland) should wear the figure of a wheel made of red cloth on the upper garment on the left side of the breast, and that they should never be seen without this badge. For the time, the exclusion of the Jews of Hungary and Poland from Christian society had little practical effect, for the Mahometans and the schismatic Greek Catholics shared their proscription. These latter were also withheld from public offices. The Mahometans, too, were ordered to wear a badge of a yellow color. The Magyars and Poles had not yet been made so intolerant by church influence as to adopt the refined, cruel practices of both the secular and the regular clergy, who would have denied fire and water to men not wearing a red or yellow sign. The first crop of this poisonous fruit was gathered about half a century later. The last king of the family of Arpad, Ladislaus IV, ratified and confirmed the statutes of the synod in Hungary.

A similar state of affairs was to be met with in the extreme west of Europe, in the Pyrenean peninsula. As Mahometans here also dwelt in proximity to Christians and Jews, the Church was not able easily to carry out its purpose, prompted by intolerance, of crushing the Jews. To this it must be added, that the higher culture of the Jews and their participation in all internal and foreign affairs, were circumstances in their favor here, and they forced respect from their enemies. Although Alfonso the Wise, king of Castile, had promulgated a law precluding Jews from filling state offices, yet he himself continued to appoint Jews to important posts. Amongst others, he promoted Don Zag (Isaac) de Malea, the son of Don Meïr, to be the royal treasurer. He was severely rebuked for doing so by Pope Nicholas III (1279), but still he did not remove the Jews from their offices. On one occasion, indeed, he became very angry with Don Zag, and caused his displeasure to be felt by the Jews generally in an ebullition of rage; this, however, was not out of respect for the Church, but emanated from discordant family relations. Don Zag had large sums of money belonging to the state under his custody, which the king had destined for the carrying on of a campaign. The Infante Don Sancho, who cherished hostile intentions against his father, compelled the Jewish treasurer to surrender the public money to him. King Alfonso was extremely enraged at this action, and, in order to teach his son a lesson, he had Don Zag arrested, put in chains, and thus fettered conducted through the city where the Infante was staying at the time. Don Sancho in vain exerted himself to procure the freedom of the Jewish Almoxarif, who was suffering for no guilt of his own; but Alfonso at once ordered his execution (1280). His displeasure was also visited upon all the Jews of Castile, who were forced to expiate their kinsman's act, which assuredly cannot be termed an oversight. The "wise" King Alfonso issued an injunction that all the Jews be imprisoned on a certain Sabbath, and exacted heavy fines from them, 12,000 maravedis every day for a stated period. The congregations were thus made to replenish the empty treasury. However, in a short time the king had to suffer severely for the violent injustice he had done to Don Zag. His son, who was embittered against him on this account, and took the ill-treatment and execution of Don Zag as a personal affront, openly rebelled against Alfonso, and drew to his side the greater portion of the nobility, the people, and the clergy. The unhappy king, who had indulged in extravagant ideals at his accession, and had hoped, as the emperor of Germany, to found a world monarchy, felt himself so deserted in his old age that in despair he appealed to a Mahometan prince to come to his help, seeing that he was "unable to find any protection or defender in his own land."

The condition of the Jews under Don Sancho, who ascended the throne when his father died grief-stricken, was tolerable, but was dependent upon caprice. This king was the first to regulate the payment of the Jew-tax (Juderia) by the congregations of New Castile, Leon, Murcia, and the newly-acquired provinces in Andalusia (la Frontera). Hitherto, every Jew had paid a capitation-tax of three maravedis (thirty dineros, about thirty-seven cents), in memory of the thirty pieces of silver guiltily paid for the death of Jesus. Don Sancho assembled deputies of the congregations at Huete, and named the total amount which every district was required to pay into the royal coffers, leaving it to the deputies to apportion this sum among the congregations and families (Sept., 1290). The commission for the newly-acquired territory in Andalusia was composed of four men. If these men found themselves unable to come to an agreement, they were to call to their aid the committee of the congregation (Aljama) of Toledo, and especially the aged David Abudarham, probably a highly respected personage. The Jews of the kingdom of Castile, whose population numbered nearly 850,000 souls, contributed 2,780,000 maravedis, part of which was the poll-tax and part the service-tax. In these provinces there were over eighty Jewish congregations, the most famous being in the capital Toledo, which, together with the adjacent smaller cities, numbered 72,000 Jews. There were also very large communities in Burgos (nearly 29,000), Carrion (24,000), Cuenca, Valladolid, and Avila. Over 3000 Jews dwelt in Madrid, which at this time had not yet attained any degree of importance. The king granted certain Jews who were his especial favorites immunity from taxation. This was the cause of much dissension, seeing that the freedom enjoyed by these usually wealthy persons fell as a heavy burden upon the body of the community, and on those less endowed with worldly goods.

At this period the Jews in the new kingdom of Portugal were very favorably placed, both under King Alfonso III (1248-1279) and King Diniz (1279-1325). Not only were they exempt from the canonical decrees which compelled the wearing of a distinctive sign and the payment of tithes to the Church, but prominent persons among them were appointed to fill very important positions. King Diniz had a Jewish minister of finance, named Judah, the chief rabbi of Portugal (Arraby Moor), who was so wealthy that he was able to advance large sums of money for the purchase of a city. Jews and Mahometans were commissioned to mete out punishment to the rebellious clergy, who, at the constant instigation of the papacy, strove to alter the national laws in accordance with canonical decisions, thus kindling fierce strife between the monarchy and the Church. In order to be at peace with the quarrelsome Church, King Diniz at length yielded, and introduced the canonical laws into his country, but made no serious attempt to carry them into effect.

Thus the Jews in the Pyrenean peninsula, in spite of the growing encroachments of the Church, in spite of its wicked desire to humiliate them, and the fanatical preaching and disputations of the mendicant friars, maintained a position superior to that held by Jews in the remaining countries of Europe. Here the pulse of spiritual life was strongest, here the character of Judaism was moulded, here questions of vital importance sprang up, were discussed, debated with passionate energy, and finally decided. Here the doctrines of Judaism were made the subject of warm debate, and the results of the scholarship and erudition of the Spanish Jews only gradually passed into the possession of the inhabitants of other countries and continents. Spain was once again, as in the ante-Maimunic epoch, elevated to the dignity of representing Judaism for the space of two centuries, and this was effected by a rabbi of remarkable genius. This rabbi was Solomon ben Abraham Ben Adret, of Barcelona (abbreviated into Rashba, born about 1245, died 1310). He was a man of penetrating and clear understanding, full of moral earnestness, of pure and unwavering belief, of mild temperament, combined with an energetic character, which prompted him to pursue with perseverance anything that he had discovered to be right. The Talmud, with its labyrinthine tracks and its hidden corners, with all the explanations and supplements of the Spanish and the French Tossafist schools, presented no more difficulty to Ben Adret than a child's primer, and he handled this enormous mass of material with such ease that he aroused the astonishment of his contemporaries. His probity at the same time guarded him from that subtle sophistry which had even then begun to be adopted in the treatment of the Talmud. Ben Adret, in Talmudical discussions, went straight to the core of a question, and did not stoop to employ stratagems or subterfuge. A Spaniard by birth, he did not altogether lack a knowledge of general science, nor disdain to pay some regard to philosophy, as long as it kept within its own province, acknowledged the doctrines of religion, and did not intrude with the desire of becoming a ruling power. He felt the necessity of interpreting those Agadic stories which gave offense by their simple literalness, and to explain them in a rational manner. While on the one side, then, he did no more than display a spirit of tolerance towards philosophy, he, on the other, had profound respect for the Kabbala, perhaps because his master Nachmani had paid such great homage to it. He confessed that he had not dived very deep into the subject, and maintained that his contemporaries who occupied themselves with the study were likewise not very profoundly initiated, and that their pretended secret traditions were idle boasts. He desired that the Kabbala be taught only in secret (esoterically), and be not expounded in public. Ben Adret's greatest power, however, lay in his acquaintance with the Talmud, because this represented to him, as it had to his teachers, the alpha and omega of all wisdom. In this he lived with his whole soul. Every Talmudical expression appeared to him to be an unfathomable well of the profoundest knowledge, and he believed that a mind completely absorbed in the study was necessary in order to reach its depths.

Such was the nature of the man to whom was allotted the task of bearing aloft the standard of Judaism in these greatly disturbed times, and of combating the extravagant stories that arose on two sides--from the philosophers and from the Kabbalists. For forty years the authority of the Rabbi of Barcelona was paramount in the religious affairs of the Jews, not alone in Spain, but also in other parts of Europe, as well as in Asia and Africa. Questions for his decision were sent to him from France, Germany, Bohemia, Italy, and even from St. Jean d'Acre (Accho) in Palestine and from northern Africa. Students from Germany sat at his feet to hear him expound the Talmud. This is the more noteworthy, as the German rabbis were proud of the learning of their own country, and would not admit the superiority of the academies of any country over their own. When David, the grandson of Maimuni, was in great need, he turned to Ben Adret to obtain assistance. David Maimuni (born 1233, died 1300), who, like his father and his grandfather, was the prince (Nagid) over all the congregations in Egypt, had been calumniated by some evil-minded enemies before the Sultan Kilavun, and accused of some crime. He put his detractors under a ban of excommunication, but it appears without effect. At all events, David hoped to be placed on a safer footing, if he succeeded in appeasing the Sultan by gifts of money. He applied to Ben Adret, and laid the story of his sufferings before him; his request met with a ready response. Ben Adret sent an envoy with a letter to the Spanish congregations to collect funds, and all the communities joyfully contributed large sums of money to aid the grandson of the highly revered Maimuni. Whenever any event of importance took place within Jewish circles, Ben Adret was appealed to for advice or assistance.

The unique distinction enjoyed by the Rabbi of Barcelona can certainly not be attributed entirely to his comprehensive knowledge, for at that time there lived many learned rabbis, and even in Spain there was one equal to him. His fellow-student and countryman, Aaron Halevi (born about 1235, died after 1300), was equally well grounded in the Talmud, also composed works on the subject, and was not his inferior even in secular knowledge.

Ben Adret, nevertheless, exercised supreme authority over all the congregations, both far and near. This superiority was conceded to him on account of his energetic, ever ready defense of Judaism against attacks from within and without.

The clouds, pregnant with destruction, which burst upon the Jews of the Pyrenean peninsula two centuries later, began to collect in the time of Ben Adret. The means which the fanatical General of the Dominicans, Raymond de Penyaforte, had devised for the conversion of the Jews, were beginning to be used. The attempts made in Spain during the period of the Visigoths, on the one hand, to work upon the feelings of the princes and legislators by means of anti-Jewish writings, and, on the other, to prevail upon the Jews to desert their faith, were renewed on a larger scale. There now came forth from the institution which had been established by Raymond de Penyaforte for the purpose of instructing the Dominican monks in the literature of the Jews and Arabs to be used as a means of conversion, a monk, who was the first man in Europe to sharpen weapons of learning for the contest against the Jews. Raymund Martin wrote two books full of malevolent hostility against Judaism, whose very titles announce that the prison cell and the sword were to be employed against its adherents. They are called "Bridle for the Jews," and "Dagger of Faith" (Capistrum Judæorum, and Pugio Fidei). Martin possessed a thorough knowledge of Biblical and rabbinical literature, and was the first Christian who was better acquainted with Hebrew than the Church Father Jerome. He read with ease the Agadic works, the writings of Rashi, Ibn-Ezra, Maimuni and Kimchi, and used them to show that, not alone in the Bible, but also in the rabbinical writings, Jesus was recognized as the Messiah and the Son of God. As might be expected, Raymund Martin laid especial stress upon the argument that the Jewish laws, although a revelation from God, were not intended to have force for ever, and they would lose their validity, particularly at the time of the Messiah. To demonstrate this point, he adduced apparent proofs from the Agadic literature of the Talmud. He also urged that the Talmudists had tampered with the text of the Bible.

Although Raymund Martin's "Dagger of Faith" was neither sharp nor pointed, and although the book is so devoid of spirit that no person could be seduced by it, yet it made a great impression because of the amount of learning displayed therein. By means of the subjoined Latin translation of the Hebrew texts, Christians for the first time were able to peer into the recesses of the Jewish world of thought, which had hitherto been an impenetrable secret to them. Dominicans, eager for the fray, were provided with weapons from this well-stocked arsenal, and aimed blows with them which, to the superficial observer, appeared to strike the air only, but which were regarded by Solomon ben Adret as fraught with danger. He very frequently had interviews with Christian theologians, and, it appears, with Raymund Martin himself. He heard from them various statements, and all sorts of arguments to prove the divine character of Christianity, and was afraid that the weak-minded and the immature might be induced thereby to abandon the Jewish belief. In order to counteract this, he wrote a small pamphlet, in which he briefly refuted all those arguments which were employed at the time by Christians against Judaism. In this refutation and justification, Ben Adret manifested a remarkable spirit of moderation and calmness: no bitter or passionate utterance escaped him.

His polemical writings against a Mahometan writer are much more severe. This author, with scathing criticism, attacked the three revealed religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and directed his arrows very cleverly against their weak points. But Ben Adret's defense is feeble: it proves the correctness of the Bible from the Bible itself, and combats his critical opponent with Talmudical weapons. He thus continually reasons in a circle, and by no means did he achieve a glorious victory. Ben Adret's activity was productive of better results within the ranks of Judaism than beyond them. His time was one of great agitation, in which science and religion were diverging more steadily and noticeably than before: piety daily widened the gulf between it and thought; and thought continually separated itself more and more from the sphere of religion. The Kabbala, growing ever bolder, interfered in the fierce battle of opinions and religious beliefs, and cast its dark shadows over the dimly illuminated basis of Judaism. The old questions, whether Maimuni was to be termed a heretic or not, whether his philosophical writings were to be shunned or indeed consigned to the flames, or whether they were to be considered a satisfactory exposition of Jewish principles,--these questions now burst into new life, and again caused divisions. In Spain and in southern France, the strife had been extinguished by the solemn repentance of the former anti-Maimunist, Jonah I. Since his time, the rabbis of these congregations held Maimuni in great reverence, and considering his ideas as indisputably conducive to the strengthening of religion, they made use of them with more or less skill and lucidity of thought. Even the most orthodox Talmudists in Spain and Provence quoted sayings of Maimuni in their expositions of religious questions. But the battle for and against Maimuni was waged on another scene of action. In the German and Italian communities, it inflamed the minds of men anew, penetrated as far as Palestine, and, as it were, enfolded all Judaism in its embrace. The German Jews, who hitherto had not shown any liking for science, and who had limited their thoughts to the narrow circle of the Talmud, were unacquainted with the work of the active spirits of Montpellier, Saragossa, and Toledo. They did not suspect that Maimuni, in addition to his code of religious laws, which they accepted, had left writings of a more questionable nature. They were now rudely awakened from their happy religious slumber, and their minds agitated with speculations upon the consequences involved in the Maimunist philosophy of religion.

The man who rekindled this bitter strife was a learned Talmudist, named Moses ben Chasdaï Taku (Tachau?), who flourished from about 1250 to 1290. An eccentric, orthodox literalist, he considered all philosophical and rational views concerning Judaism equal to a disavowal of the truths of the Torah and the Talmud. Taku was quite logical in his opposition. He denounced as heretics not only Maimuni and Ibn-Ezra, but also the Gaon Saadiah, because the latter, in his writings on philosophy, had been the pioneer in this path. The new study had thus originated with him; before his time it had been unheard of in Jewish circles. Led by an unerring instinct, Taku justly affirmed that these men had paved the way for the Karaites. He maintained that it was the bounden duty of every pious Jew, who believed in the written and oral Law, to keep himself aloof from their folly. Moses Taku, with his curious notions, certainly did not occupy an isolated position among the German rabbis. Other men, who had been nurtured in the same school, undoubtedly were in entire agreement with him: but they did not all possess the courage or versatility to take part in a contest against the well-armed representatives of the philosophical school. The most distinguished among them was Meïr ben Baruch of Rothenburg on the Tauber (born 1220, died 1293), on whom the last rays of the dying school of the Tossafists continued to linger. He probably was the first official chief rabbi in the German kingdom, having perhaps received this title from Emperor Rudolph, the first of the house of Habsburg. Although he is sometimes reckoned among the Tossafists, yet his Talmudical writings reveal comprehensive erudition rather than originality or acuteness. He can in no way be compared with Ben Adret; however, he was an authority in Germany and northern France. His piety was of an exaggerated kind. It had been agreed by the French rabbis that in winter rooms might be warmed on the Sabbath by Christians. Meïr of Rothenburg would not allow the Sabbath to be desecrated in this indirect way. He therefore tightly fastened up the doors of the stoves in his house, because the servant-maid had several times made a fire unbidden. In general, the German Jews were more scrupulous than those of other countries; they, for instance, still observed the fast of the Day of Atonement for two consecutive days.

What position the German rabbis took in reference to the denunciation of philosophy and of Maimuni, revived by Moses Taku, is not authentically known, but may be inferred from an event which was the cause of much scandal elsewhere.

A French or Rhenish Kabbalist, who had emigrated to Jean d'Acre (Accho), was stirred up by even more intense zeal than Moses Taku. This man, whose name was Solomon Petit, made it the aim of his life to kindle again the pyre for the wholesale burning of the writings of Maimuni, and to plant the standard of the Kabbala upon the grave of philosophy. At Accho he gathered a circle of pupils around him, whom he initiated into the knowledge of the secret art, and to whom he related marvelous stories in order to cast disrepute upon philosophy. Accho was at this time a very nest of Kabbalists and mystics, of whom the greater number were pupils of Nachmani. Although the days of this town, the last stronghold of the much reduced Christian kingdom of Jerusalem, were numbered, these dabblers in the mystic art conducted themselves as if they were destined to remain there for ever. Solomon Petit thought that he could command sufficient support to venture upon carrying into execution his plan of publishing once more a sentence of condemnation upon Maimunist writings, of forbidding under penalties all scientific study, and excommunicating men engaged in independent research. His fanaticism was especially directed against Maimuni's "Guide" (Moré); in his opinion it deserved to be proscribed, like other heretical works. He enlisted many followers in Palestine to aid him in this attack on heresy. Who would not obey, when the voice of the Holy Land had caused itself to be heard? Who would attempt to justify what it had condemned? But the zealot Solomon Petit met with unexpected opposition.

At the head of the Eastern congregations at this time, there stood an energetic man, Yishaï ben Chiskiya, who had obtained the title of Prince and Exilarch (Resh-Galuta) from the temporal authorities. Those communities of Palestine which were under the rule of the Mahometans and of the Egyptian Sultan Kilavun, naturally belonged to his diocese, and he also claimed obedience from the community at Accho, although it was in the hands of the crusaders. The Exilarch Yishaï held Maimuni in the highest respect, and was on friendly terms with his grandson, David, the Nagid of Egypt. As soon as he received information concerning the doings of Solomon Petit, the mystic of Accho, he dispatched a sharp letter to him, and threatened to excommunicate him if he persisted in his attacks on Maimuni and his writings. Several rabbis, whom Yishaï had called in, to add the weight of their authority to his, expressed themselves to the same effect. But Solomon Petit was not a man to permit himself to be overpowered by obstacles. He undertook a journey to Europe, visited the large congregations, and described the danger of the Maimunistic writings to the rabbis and other distinguished persons. He overawed them by his knowledge of the Kabbala, succeeded in persuading many to join him, and announce, in documents bearing their signatures, that the philosophical writings of Maimuni contained heresies, that they deserved to be put aside or even burnt, and that no Jew ought to read them. Nowhere did Solomon Petit meet with such hearty support as with the German rabbis. They showed their approval of his action in letters, even some of those who had recently been in agreement with the Exilarch Yishaï.

Being assured of the assistance of the German and of some of the French rabbis, Solomon Petit started on his return journey through Italy, and sought to obtain partisans in that country also; but there he met with the least response, for just as Maimuni was finding fresh antagonists in Germany, so his admirers were increasing in Italy. The Italian communities, which hitherto had rivaled the Germans in ignorance of every kind, were just awakening from their torpidity, and their recently opened eyes turned to the light which emanated from Maimuni. Their political condition was not unfavorable; in fact, within the precincts of St. Peter, they were at that time in more propitious circumstances than any of the Jews of central Europe. The canonical laws against the Jews were nowhere more disregarded than in Italy. The small states and municipalities, into which the country was split up at this time, were too jealous of their liberty to permit the clergy to exert any influence over their domestic concerns. The city of Ferrara passed a statute in favor of the Jews, granting many liberties to them, and containing a clause stating, that a magistrate (podestà) could be empowered neither by the pope nor by any one else to deprive them of these privileges. Not only had the king of Sicily, Charles of Anjou, a Jewish physician, Farraj Ibn-Solomon, who, under the name of Farragut, was held in high repute as a scholar in Christian circles, but even the pope himself transgressed the canonical decree which forbade any one's taking medical assistance from a Jew. One of the four popes who reigned during the short period of thirteen years (1279 to 1291) entrusted his holy person to the care of a Jewish physician, Isaac ben Mordecai, who bore the title of Maestro Gajo.

The prosperity enjoyed by Italy in consequence of the wide extension of its flourishing commerce, and the fondness for art and poetry which sprang up at this time, during the youth of the poet Dante, affected also the Italian Jews, and aroused them from their hitherto dormant condition.

The philosophical writings of Maimuni made their influence in favor of the higher culture felt upon the minds of the Italian Jews. About this time, they began to occupy themselves earnestly with the "Guide," and intellectual men delivered discourses upon this profound work. The origin of this revival may be traced back to Anatoli, but Hillel of Verona must be considered the founder and promulgator of the scientific method among the Italian Jews. Maimuni had no warmer admirer than this true-hearted and energetic man, who, though somewhat limited in range of ideas, was exceedingly lovable. Hillel ben Samuel of Verona (born about 1220, died about 1295), a zealous Talmud disciple of Jonah Gerundi, in no way partook of the intolerant and heresy-hunting spirit which characterized his teacher. He had been a witness of the latter's genuine atonement for calling in the aid of the Dominicans in his fanatical onslaught on the writings of Maimuni, and since that time Hillel almost worshiped Maimuni. He avoided Talmudic one-sidedness, and turned his mind also to general studies. He made himself so thoroughly acquainted with the Latin language--a rare accomplishment among the Jews of his day--that he was able to compose in Latin with great ease; he translated a work upon surgery from this language into Hebrew. Indeed, Hillel's Hebrew style was influenced by the peculiarities of Latin syntax. He wrote beautiful, clear, terse Hebrew prose, entirely free from the verbose phraseology and ornate flourishes of the style then in vogue. At first he practised the profession of medicine in Rome, afterwards in Capua and Ferrara, and in his old age in Forli.

With all his intellectual powers Hillel became absorbed in Maimuni's writings on the philosophy of religion, notwithstanding which he remained true to his religious belief, clinging to it with great tenacity. The miracles in the Bible and the Talmud were not regarded by him as fanciful allegories, but on the contrary retained their character as real events. About this time there lived in Italy two logical thinkers, one a native born Italian, Sabbataï ben Solomon, of Rome--in his time a very distinguished personage--and the other, a Spaniard, who had emigrated to Rome, Serachya ben Isaac, a member of the renowned family of Ben Shaltiel-Chen (Gracian?), whose home was in Barcelona. The latter, famous as a physician and an adept in the Aristotelian philosophy, was a passionate opponent of the belief in miracles. The desire of the Italian Jews for knowledge is well illustrated by an anecdote wittily told by an Italian Jewish poet. A Jewish scholar from Toledo arrived at Perugia with eighty books upon science--a considerable library in those days--and, in order to continue his journey more comfortably, he tied them up, sealed them, and left them in Perugia. He had scarcely left the place, when those eager seekers after knowledge, unable to repress their curiosity, broke open the parcel, and possessed themselves of the mental treasures that it contained. The young poet, Immanuel Romi, who perhaps was concerned in this affair, drank in with all the vigor of his ardent mind, the spirit which Hillel of Verona and Serachya-Chen had distilled for the Italian Jews from the writings of Maimuni.

It is quite obvious that in the presence of this revival of culture among the congregations of Italy, the Kabbalist Solomon Petit could not possibly meet with support in his effort to enlist adherents for his denunciation of Maimuni. The fanatic was clever enough not to drop a word of his intentions there. When he arrived at Jean d'Acre (Accho) with the letters against Maimuni written by the German rabbis, he set to work to encourage his confederates, who had been intimidated by the threats of the prince-rabbi of Damascus, to arouse fresh strife, and to induce them to pronounce sentence of excommunication against Maimuni's philosophical writings. The Kabbalists of this community readily assented to his plan, condemned the "Guide" of Maimuni to be burnt, and threatened with excommunication all who might henceforth study it. The Kabbala despite its youth felt itself so powerful, that it imagined itself able to extirpate the firmly-rooted spirit of inquiry from the midst of Judaism. It appears that the tomb of Maimuni at Tiberias was desecrated by these Kabbalists. Instead of the laudatory inscription written on the stone, they substituted, "Moses Maimuni, the excommunicated heretic." However, the community at Accho did not, as a whole, agree with this disgraceful charge of heresy: there were in it warm admirers of Maimuni, and strenuous opponents of his condemnation by self-constituted authorities. Thus there broke out fierce strife in the very heart of the community, which actually led to blows. The news of this contention rapidly spread through the countries in communication with Palestine, and called forth universal indignation. Hillel of Verona, who had been a witness of the destructive consequences of the contest about Maimuni in France, displayed great energy to prevent a repetition. He sent letters to David Maimuni and the congregations in Egypt and Babylonia (Irak), and proposed the following plan for extinguishing once for all the destructive flame of dissension kindled by the writings of Maimuni, which so often blazed up afresh. He suggested that the most distinguished rabbis of the Jews in the East should assemble at a synod at Alexandria, and summon the German rabbis who had supported Solomon Petit to justify their conduct. If they could prove that the philosophical writings of Maimuni contained actual heresies and notions opposed to the Bible and the Talmud, which Hillel himself believed impossible, then it was only just that Maimuni's writings should be condemned, and removed from the hands of the public. If, however, the German rabbis were unable to defend and justify their accusations of heresy, then they should be compelled, under penalty of excommunication, to submit to the universal verdict of the excellence of the "Guide" of Maimuni, and to abstain in future from stirring up discord and division by their opposition to Maimuni's philosophy. The rabbis of Babylonia, who had possessed authority from time immemorial, were to pronounce judgment.

This energetic action in Europe, and the strenuous exertions of Hillel, were not really necessary in order to disturb the work of the mystics in Accho. Solomon Petit and his Kabbalistic faction were isolated in the East. As soon as David Maimuni received information of the condemnation passed upon his grandfather, he journeyed to Accho, where he met with support from the section of the community opposed to fanaticism. He addressed letters to all congregations, calling upon them to take up the defense of the honor of his grandfather against the Jewish Dominicans, the heresy-hunting and narrow-minded Kabbalists. Everywhere he met with approval. The Prince of the Captivity at Mosul, named David ben Daniel, who traced his origin back to King David, and who was the head of the communities on this side of the Tigris, declared that he would place Petit under the severest ban of excommunication till he ceased his attempts to create a disturbance (Iyar, 1289). Eleven rabbis of his college signed this threat against the heresy-hunter of Accho. The Exilarch of Damascus, Yishaï ben Chiskiya, who had already issued a warning against these attacks on Maimuni, again took energetic action in the matter. Together with his college of twelve associates, he pronounced a ban of excommunication (Tammuz--June, 1289), not merely against Solomon Petit and his partisans, but also against any person who dared speak in terms of contempt and disrespect of Maimuni, or who accused his writings of heresy. All persons who possessed any books hostile to Maimuni were commanded to yield them up to David Maimuni or his sons, as quickly as possible, so that no improper use might be made of them. If any persons who at the time dwelt in Accho, or who would immigrate thither at some later time, refused to obey the decisions of the Prince of the Captivity and his colleagues, it was incumbent upon every Jew to employ all possible means to render these men incapable of doing any harm, and even to call in the aid of the secular authorities.

The important congregation of Safet also gave assent to the edict in favor of Maimuni. The rabbi of the town, Moses ben Jehuda Cohen, together with his colleagues, and a portion of the community of Accho, repeated at the grave of Maimuni in Tiberias the formula of excommunication against all who continued their obstinate enmity against him, against those who refused to surrender writings accusing him of heterodoxy, and especially against all who disobeyed the decisions of the Prince of the Captivity, "seeing that they who incite discord in the communities deny the Torah, which preaches peace, and they mock at God, who is peace itself." All the congregations and rabbis in Palestine took up the cause of Maimuni. The members of the community of Bagdad, who at this time basked in the sunshine of the favor of a prominent Jewish statesman, and at whose head as the chief of the academy was Samuel Cohen ben Daniel, also expressed themselves to the same effect (Tishri--September, 1289). The Kabbalists of Accho were condemned by public opinion, and the Exilarch of Damascus took care to acquaint the European communities with what had occurred. The testimonials in favor of Maimuni were forwarded to Barcelona, probably to Solomon ben Adret. The philosopher and poet, Shem-Tob Falaquera, a prolific writer, took advantage of the favorable opportunity to publish a vindication of the "Guide" of Maimuni, saying that in his opinion only very few, perhaps only one person--who was able to read this work on the philosophy of religion in the original--could render it sufficient justice. But in Spain, Maimuni required no advocates; for it was seldom that any one ventured to speak in derogatory terms of his opinions. Though pious Spaniards might here and there have found something to cavil at, they, nevertheless, paid great honor to Maimuni's name.

The German rabbis, by whom Solomon Petit had been supported, had no leisure to note the issue of the strife concerning Maimuni. They were too much occupied with their own affairs. During the reign of Emperor Rudolph of Habsburg, such severe troubles befell the German communities that they determined on emigrating _en masse_. Rudolph, who from a poor knight had become the ruler over the German empire, did not, indeed, threaten their lives, but had designs upon their money. His coffers were empty, and he was in need of means to enable him to subdue the proud nobles, and to lay the foundation of the power of the house of Habsburg. Jews indeed advanced large sums of money to the poor duke, to whom the crown of an empire had unexpectedly fallen, one of his creditors being Amshel Oppenheimer. But these voluntary advances did not satisfy him, and did not prevent him from extorting larger sums from them. Every favor which he conceded them, and every protection which he extended to them, was preceded by the payment of a considerable present in money. As Rudolph always kept his own advantage in view, a mark of favor displayed towards the Jews was regularly followed by some restriction, so that he might always have them under his control.

He confirmed the privileges of the old congregation at Ratisbon, which it had possessed from ancient days, acknowledging among other things, that it might exercise its own jurisdiction in civil affairs, and that none of its members could be convicted of any crime without the corroborative evidence of a Jewish witness. At the instigation of the bishop, however, he promulgated a decree that the Jews of Ratisbon should remain at home during Eastertide, not show themselves on roads and streets to the "ignominy of the Christian faith," and were to fasten their doors and windows. For the congregations in Austria, Emperor Rudolph confirmed the statute in favor of the Jews passed by Archduke Frederick the Valiant, which afforded protection against persecution and murder. On the other hand, a year later, he issued a special decree to the citizens of Vienna, which solemnly declared the ineligibility of the Jews for public offices. Pope Innocent IV had exonerated them from the charge of child-murder at Passover. Pope Gregory X (1271-1278), at the request of the Jews, had issued a bull, which ordained that they were not to be made by brute force to undergo baptism, and that no injury was to be inflicted upon their persons or their property. Emperor Rudolph ratified these bulls, adding that "it is not true that the Jews feed upon the heart of a slain child on the days of the Passover festival." In order that they might be able to live under his protection, assured of the imperial grace, he confirmed and repeated all the edicts which had been issued by the popes in their favor, especially the one which declared that Jews could be condemned only on the valid evidence of Jews and Christians. He also afforded them many other means of protection, and inflicted punishment upon some murderers of innocent Jews in Lorch. But as the Germans had of old been accustomed to anarchy, there arose, during his reign, a large number of blood-accusations, and massacres of Jews, which the emperor partly left unpunished, partly encouraged.

About Easter time a dead Christian child was discovered at Mayence, and now again arose the lying rumor that the Jews of Mayence had murdered it. In vain did Archbishop Werner, of Mayence, the Lord Chancellor of the kingdom, exert himself with great energy to appease the excited mob, to institute a regular trial against the accused, and to discover the guilty persons. The Christians, whom the sight of the corpse filled with intense fury, attacked their Jewish neighbors on the second day of Easter (or the last day but one of Passover, 19th April, 1283), slew ten persons, and pillaged the Jewish houses. The persecution would have been much more bloody, had not Archbishop Werner energetically intervened for the defense of "his" Jews. Emperor Rudolph is reported to have commanded an inquiry to be made into the matter later on, and to have confirmed the judgment passed upon the Jews, and acquitted the citizens of Mayence from all blame. The possessions of which they had been plundered he is said to have confiscated, not, however, for the benefit of his own treasury, but to be distributed among the poor; for he would not make use of any property acquired by usury, nor would he permit the Church to use it. In other respects, Emperor Rudolph was by no means conscientious. On the day of the attack in Mayence, twenty-six Jews were put to death in Bacharach. Two years later (11th October, 1285) heartrending sufferings befell the congregation of Munich. At this place also the false charge was circulated that the Jews had purchased a Christian child from an old woman, and had killed it. Without waiting for any judicial investigation of these charges, the infuriated populace fell upon the Jews, and put to death all who fell into their hands. The remaining Jews had fled for refuge to the synagogue. Thereupon the adherents of the religion of love procured some inflammable material, placed it around the building, and set fire to the house of prayer. One hundred and eighty persons, old and young, were thus burnt to death. Not long after this, more than forty Jews of Oberwesel, near Bacharach, and others in Boppard, were innocently murdered (1286). The charge against them was that they had secretly drawn out the blood of a pious man, called by the people "the good Werner." The credulous asserted that light had issued from his corpse, on which account this so-called saint became the object of pilgrimages. Emperor Rudolph, however, some time later stripped the man of sanctity, and absolved the Jews from the guilt of his death.

There can be no doubt that it was owing to the annually repeated persecutions, the insecurity of their existence and their wretched state, that the Jews of several congregations resolved to shake the dust of Germany from their feet, and, together with their wives and children, to wander forth and seek a new home. Many families from the cities of Mayence, Worms, Speyer, Oppenheim, and others, in the Wetterau, left their rich possessions in order to go across the sea. At the head of these emigrants was the most famous rabbi of Germany, Meïr of Rothenburg, who was revered as a saint. He also wandered forth, together with his whole family, to make his way to Syria (spring, 1286). A rumor was current that in this land the Messiah had made his appearance, and would redeem unhappy Israel from its troubles.